Upabrmhana and Rgveda Interpretation

Author(s): T G Manikar
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 56

The Hymn of Agostya and Lopämndra (1. 179)
47
the Rgveda and the Epic. The hymn will have to be reconstructed in the light of this information from the Mahabharata.
Accordingly our reconstructed hymn would stand as under, especially in the matter of speakers, According to me, the first two verses are spoken by Agastya. The first verse is an invitation while the second one gives perhaps the background of his new mood. The third verse is spoken by Lopamudrā which is both an exhortation to collect wealth and an assurance that he will not in any way lose his purity and penance for both are protected by gods. The next two verses, the fourth and the fifth, are spoken by Agastya again. The last verse is conclusion and one can take here the poet rounding off his narration describing the successful life of Agastya who effected a harmonious combination of the two different modes of life and for whom the blessings of the gods came true in offering him the fulfilment of his prayers. In this construction I find it difficult to find any place for the disciple of Agastya. The hymn is a dialogue between the husband and the wise. The overbearing of the conversation is as a matter of fact unwarranted, unnecessary and unexpected. The ascription of the verse to a character suppossed to have committed a sin on the basis of the words, yat sīmügamascakrmu (5) must have been later and in all proba. bility carried out under ritualistic inspiration. If the hymn is taken as it is, it reveals no such intrusion by any third character.
I might refer to an element which I consider as significant. The Bșhaddevatā (IV. 57-60) gives a very brief summary of the hymn under discussion. This text also introduces the Brahmacārin but in doing so it creates a clumsy situation. The Brahmacārin has not overheard the conver. sation of the couple-which indeed could be very bad manners and therefore a sin, 'enah'; but he knew all this talk and their intention through his penance, 'viditva tapasz sarvam tayoḥ bhuvam riramsatoh, śrutvainaḥ krtavūnasmi' (IV. 59). Why and how his holy powers, penance, should have worked in this direction and in that case why should he have regarded biniself a sinner is difficult to follow. But from my point of view of greater importance is the introduction which the Brhaddevatā gives for this dialogue. It observes :
tau snutăm îşih bhāryām lopamudram yasasvinim! upajalpitum ärebhe rahaksamyogakumyayā // (IV. 57)
So it is Agastya who had the desire in him and who began the conversation. Though there is a difference in the detail supplied by the Brhaddevatā and the Mahābhārata yet it could be said that there is essential agreement between the two accounts. The Bșhaddevatā is seen to observe 'stau snatam' while the Mahābhārata observes 'ta pasa d yotitām snatam dadarśa bhagavan rșih. But the two accounts in saying that it was Agastya who upajal pitum arebhe rahaḥsamyogakāmyaya' as the Bșhaddevatā