+द्वितीयजन्मनि भृगुः

  • वैवस्वतमन्वन्तरे प्रजापतिर् ब्रह्मसूनुर् अग्नौ जातो वरुणस्य ब्रह्मयज्ञे। वरुणेन तत्पत्न्या चर्षण्या च वर्धितः।
  • पत्नी पुलोमा।
  • “bhRigu created rakSha-s to attack rudra’s party on behalf of dakSha; shukra stole kubera’s wealth and fought a battle with rudra; bhR^igu’s wife paulomI hid the asura-s from the deva-s and was beheaded by viShNu.”
  • यस्याश्रमो ऽभूत् सरस्वती-दृशद्वती-नद्योस् सङ्गमे।
  • असौ ब्रह्मविष्णुमहेश्वरान् अपि धर्षयाञ्चकार। तस्यैव पादस्य चिह्नं विष्णोरुरसि श्रीवत्स इति।
  • कृतवीर्यस्य हैहयस्य राज्ञो गुरुर् भृगुः। तद्दानात् समृद्धा भार्गवाः। कार्तवीर्या ईर्षया ऽपहृतवन्तस् तद्धनम्, तयोर् वैरं जातम्।
  • वीतहव्यं राजानं चकार ब्राह्मणम्।
  • महान्तं तत्त्वविचारं चकार।

ऋग्वेदे पात्रम्

मानसतरङ्गिणीकारो ऽत्र

From the accounts of vedic tradition the bhR^igu-s were the foremost of the R^iShi-s. It appears that they were the founders of the fire ritual which is at the heart of the vedic religion. They are not authors of many mantra-s of the R^ig veda, though their surrogate clan, the shaunahotra-s, have a maNDala to themselves (RV2). Nevertheless, bhR^igu or the bhR^igu-s are mentioned 27 times by name in the RV. A single ancient member of the main-line bhR^igu clan ushanA kAvya, the grandson bhR^igu, through his son kavi bhArgava, is mentioned by that name in 15 times in the RV. Another much latter main-line bhR^igu, jamadagni, is mentioned as contemporary by two of the great RV R^iShis, vishvAmitra (who was an ally jamadgni) and vasiShTha. He is mentioned 9 times in the RV. Other bhR^igus are fleetingly mentioned by name, like apnavAna (at least 2 times) and aurva, and, like ushanA kAvya are clearly historical figures even for most of the RV composers.

अग्नेर् आनयनम्

This is in line with the reputation of the Bhrgus in the Rigveda, who were hailed as the perfect priests along with Angirasas and Atharvans. … they were highly revered by the other seers, especially with respect to bringing Agni to mankind from a cave either by themselves or with the help of Matarishvan.

In addition, they were also credited with the knowledge of the two births of Agni, especially the birth in water which is preserved in the Itihasa and Purana through the story of Aurva and the Vadavagni.

It also appears that they were the ones to formalize the form of worship using Agni, which the learned acharya says is the predecessor of the Vedic rite. This same thought is echoed by K R Poddar in his “Sacrifice in the Rigveda” which identifies Bhrgus as the clan of people who gifted Agni to mankind. One of the epithets of Agni is ‘Bhrgavana’ . इति गौतमाख्यः

मानवधर्मशास्त्र-सम्पदकाः

  • etad vo ‘yaṃ bhṛguḥ śāstraṃ śrāvayiṣyaty aśesataḥ | etad dhi matto ‘dhijage sarvam eṣo ‘khilaṃ muniḥ || tatas tathā sa tenokto maharṣimanunā bhṛguḥ | tān abravīd ṛṣīn sarvān prītātmā śrūyatām iti ||

“The references in the atharva veda and the older cycles of the bhArgava myth in the mahabhArata, suggest that the core of these events concerned a historical struggle between the bhR^igus and the haihaya rulers of mAhiShmati. However, the later pauraNic redactions of the myth, and late reinsertion in the mahAbhArata seem to have given it the color of a general struggle between the kShatriyas and brahmins+rest of castes. I believe that this generalization was actually inspired again by a similar constellation of much later historical events that inspired the manu smR^iti’s reaction to the shudra threat. These events were most probably the oppressive rule of the nanda-s, colored to certain degree by the atrocities of the foreign rulers (described as shudras by the manu smR^iti) around the same time. The victory of the brAhmaNa ruler puShyamitra shu~Nga, probably inspired a mythological reworking, in which his clan’s glorious victories were compared to the historical struggle of parashurAma, and that tale romanticized to its extant mythological form. It is not a matter of coincidence that the politically pre-eminant brahmin clan, the bhArgavas were involved, both in the generalization of their family epic (the parashurAma epic) and the redaction of the manu smR^iti into its extant form.” [MT]