१२४

सर्वाष् टीकाः ...{Loading}...
सायण-भाष्यम्

‘ इमं नो अग्ने ’ इति नवर्चं द्वादशं सूक्तम् । द्वितीयाद्याभिस्तिसृभिरग्निर्ऋषिर्भूत्वा स्वात्मानं देवतारूपिणमस्तौत्। अतस्तासां स एवर्षिदेवता च । शिष्टाभिरग्निवरुणसोमा अस्तुवन् । अतस्तासां षण्णां त ऋषयः । आद्याग्न्नेयी । नवमीन्द्रदेवत्या। शिष्टासु चतसृषु लिङ्गोक्तदेवता । सप्तमी जगती शिष्टास्त्रिष्टुभः । तथा चानुक्रान्तम्—’ इमं नो नवैन्द्र्युत्तमा निहवोऽग्निवरुणसोमानामाद्याग्नेयी तिस्रश्चाग्नेरात्मस्तवः शिष्टा यथानिपातं सप्तमी जगती’ इति । गतो विनियोगः ॥

Jamison Brereton

124 (950)
Various Gods
Agni (2–4), Agni, Varuṇa, and Soma (1, 5–9)
9 verses: triṣṭubh, except jagatī 7
SWJ
This dialogue hymn may be one of the most discussed poems in the R̥gveda, and the number, variety, and contradictory nature of its interpretations are truly astound ing—far too many and too diverse to be summed up here. (For a brief characteriza tion of many of these treatments see W. E. Hale [1986: 86–92], and for a recent and intriguing interpretation see Proferes [2007: 121–27].)
The hymn begins with an address to Agni by Indra (vs. 1); Agni answers in verse 2 and, in many interpretations, continues to speak in verses 3 and 4—though I fol low the opinion that Varuṇa and Soma are the speakers of those two verses. Indra returns as speaker in verses 5 and 6, addressed to Varuṇa and Soma respectively. The last four verses (7–10) appear to be the words of the poet.
In his speech Indra is attempting to coax the other gods addressed to join him in his new sacrifice, leaving behind their old ways and their old kin group. The gods need little persuasion. After Indra promises to make him the oblation-bearer in verse 1, Agni agrees with alacrity to go “as a god, from the non-god” and “from my own fellowship to an alien lineage” (vs. 2). In verse 3 Varuṇa (if he is the speaker; otherwise Agni again) echoes this proposed journey, in the expression “I go from the non-sacrificial to the sacrificial portion,” while in verse 4 Soma (again, if he is the speaker) “chooses Indra” and “leaves the father,” ending the verse with the ring ing declaration: “the kingship has made a revolution.”
Thus the subject of the hymn seems to be nothing less than a radical politi cal and religious reconfiguration, with shifting alliances leading to a fundamental

realignment of the major divinities and to a new sacrificial order and a new rule. What has intensified the scholarly debate about this hymn is the assumed identity of the losing side. In verse 3 we find “Father Asura” (or “the lordly father”), pre sumably the same father that Soma leaves after choosing Indra in verse 4. In verse 5 Indra asserts that the Asuras (or “lords”) have lost their māyā or “magic powers,” while the first divinity to leave, Agni, begins verse 2 with the emphatic ádevād deváḥ “from a non-god (I) a god…” It has thus been difficult not to consider this hymn in the context of the vexing question about the Asura–Deva rivalry so prominent in Vedic prose, mirrored in the Avestan Ahura–Daēuua split, but complicated by the R̥gveda, which shows almost no signs of such a rivalry or even of a defined group of Asuras distinct from the Devas. Despite these R̥gvedic lacunae it was still tempting to see in this hymn a depiction of the overthrow of the Asuras by the Devas and a number of scholars have done so, although there are important counterindica tions—not least the passage just cited where Agni asserts his identity as a god even as he is leaving his own kin-group, supposedly the Asuras.
I will not pursue this particular question further, for want of space (and a disinclination to engage in a debate unlikely ever to be satisfactorily resolved). I will, however, point out a striking feature of the hymn that seems not to have been sufficiently noted. Whoever the two opposing parties in this revolution were, the power shift from one to the other was remarkably peaceful, especially for the R̥gveda, where most conflicts have violence as their defining characteristic. This peacefulness is emphasized throughout the hymn. Agni refers to the non-god he left as “being kindly disposed” (śivá), apologetically describing himself as “unkind” (áśiva) in leaving (vs. 2c). Varuṇa seems to counter this in verse 3c by proclaiming to Father Asura that Agni was indeed kind (śéva) (in my interpreta tion: this pāda has been variously interpreted). In verse 7 Varuṇa is said to have released the waters “without an excess of power,” and the waters thus released “make peace with each other.” In verse 8 Indra “dwells peacefully” amid his sub
jects. The only violence in the hymn is prospective: the smashing of Vr̥tra fore seen by Indra in verse 6, once Soma has allied himself with Indra. The hymn is all about negotiation and a sort of sacrificial horse-trading: see Indra’s offers of important roles to Agni (1c), Varuṇa (5d), and Soma (6d). Indra even begs Varuṇa to “love” him (5b). The principal figures “choose” their side and their ruler (Soma in 4b and even the female rivers in 8b) and make their own moves, as emphasized by the repeated verbs of motion (“come!” 1a; “going . . .I go, . . .I leave, . . .I go” 2; “I go” 3d; “I leave . . .they bestir themselves. . .(I) coming here” 4; “come!” 5d; “come forth!” 6c). The peaceful and voluntary nature of the change in alliances—
the lack of retaliation by the deserted side, the lack of interest in pursuing their advantage and crushing their opponents by the winning side—distinguishes this episode not only from almost every other such situation in the R̥gveda but also from the perpetual conflict and reflexive hostility between Asuras and Devas in middle Vedic literature—an indication, perhaps, that that rivalry is not the con
text in which to interpret this hymn. Although, given the apparent failure of so many R̥gvedic interpreters to iden tify the deserted party successfully, it is foolhardy to suggest my own candidate, I will make an unemphatic essay in that direction. Note first that the figure most clearly left behind by the deserting gods is a “father”—qualified once as Father Asura/lordly father (3c), once just as father (4b). Note also the first half of verse 6, where Indra points to the sun and its previous preeminence on the scale of value, but suggests that it is now eclipsed or rivaled by the light of the broad midspace. Let us also remember the heads of the pantheons in Greek and Roman mythology, Zeus Patēr and Iuppiter respectively, and the curious fact that the cognate figure in ancient India, formulaically transparent Dyaus Pitar “Father
Sky/Heaven,” has no comparable prominence in Vedic mythology though he is reasonably well attested in the texts. On putting these clues together, it seems possible that the old sky-centered religion focused on the inherited paternal divinity Dyaus quietly gave way to one located in realms closer to men, where divinities concerned themselves with issues important to mankind, such as the release of the waters (vss. 7–8), and actively sought the praise and sacrificial offerings of men (vs. 9 and, by implication, throughout the hymn). Dyaus Pitar remained a revered figure but played little role in the sacrificial system. There was thus no violent rupture in the social or religious fabric, just a peaceful fad ing into well-but-perfunctorily-honored irrelevance for Dyaus, displaced by ritual-centered gods like Agni and Soma and those deeply involved with men’s affairs, ethically (Varuṇa) or martially (Indra).
JPB
In the introduction above, SWJ expresses well-considered doubt about the possibil ity of ever resolving the interpretive difficulties of this hymn. In trying once again to understand the narrative and situation behind it, I know I risk adding yet another not quite convincing interpretation to an already large stack of not quite convinc ing interpretations. But this hymn is difficult to avoid, because it is central to one of the more intriguing questions of Vedic religious history: When and how does the story of the conflict of Devas and Asuras develop? There is little possible evidence and still less likely evidence in the R̥gveda for this narrative staple of the later Vedic and classical traditions. We have pointed out several passages that might reflect it, but even these are not certain (see, for example, X.53.4 and 157.4). However, as my colleague pointed out above, a number of scholars have cited X.124 not only as evidence for the definition of the Asuras as a group of deities distinct from and in opposition to Devas but also as evidence—the only evidence—for an elaborate nar rative in which former Asuras shift to the side of the Devas (see, for example, Brown 1919: 100, Kuiper 1975, Oberlies 1998: 391).
In Brereton (forthcoming b), I have proposed a different approach to the hymn. I try to show that this hymn asserts a human claim of succession after the death of a previous ruler. The hymn is indeed a dialogue, but I identify the speakers differently

from their assignment below. Verse 1, I believe, is not in the voice of Indra, but in that of the sacrificer, in whose rite the hymn was recited. The first three pādas are a fairly standard invitation to Agni to come to the sacrifice. It is only in the last pāda that the verse takes an unexpected turn: “For a long time,” it states, Agni has “lain in long darkness.” That is to say, the ritual fire has been extinguished. The later Veda prescribes that the ritual fire be extinguished at the death of a sacrificer, and therefore at least one possibility is that this summons to Agni is a summons to return after such a death. Verse 2 is Agni’s response: he has departed from one who was a mortal, a “non-god,” but he now returns to his new life as the sacrificial fire of a living sacrificer. In verse 3 the new sacrificer welcomes Agni, who previously was the guest of the old sacrificer, to the “many domains of truth,” the places where the new sacrificer has now installed the sacrificial fires. The sacrificer then proclaims a kindness for his “lordly father,” the deceased sacrificer, thus identifying the old sacrificer as both his own father and a “lord,” a ruler. The kindness he offers is the continuation of his father’s ritual performance, which will guarantee his father’s life in the realm of the ancestors, and in this way he converts Agni’s “unkindness” in deserting his father to an act of kindness. In verse 4 Agni once again speaks. For many years he acted “within it”—if antár asmin refers to the sacrifice obliquely mentioned in verse 3—or “within him,” within the sphere or authority of the old sacrificer. But now Agni chooses “Indra.” As in IV.42, the coronation hymn of King Trasadasyu, “Indra” here is the new king. “The kingship has made a revolution,” Agni declares, for there is a new king, and Agni promises to do what he can to help in the institution of that king’s rule. To this the new sacrificer and king replies, now addressing Varuṇa, who has been made present by Agni. He says that rival lords lack the ability to rule, and therefore Varuṇa should come and govern with him and in support of him.
In my view the dialogue ends with verse 5. In verse 6 the sacrificer and new king makes a final declaration, in which he explicitly identifies himself with Indra, here by assuming Indra’s most characteristic deed, the destruction of Vr̥tra. The final three verses are in the voice of the priestly narrator. In verse 7 he identifies the new king with Varuṇa by attributing to him the deeds of Varuṇa, and in verse 8 the new king once again becomes Indra. Finally in verse 9 the sage poets “discern” Indra. And where do they discern him? In the king, who acts in accordance with the praise that follows him!
Thus, the hymn parallels IV.42, in which Trasadasyu acts as both Varuṇa and Indra in peace and in war. Unlike Trasadasyu, however, the claimant here seems to have had opposition, which would have made the ritual affirmation of his rule all the more essential. In this interpretation, ásura “lord” or “lordly” dissolves as a designa
tion for a group of gods. In its two occurrences, in the singular in verse 3 and in the plural in verse 5, ásura refers to human lords, not to gods or antigods or old gods. And not only does it refer to humans, but also to quite different humans: in verse 3 to the predecessor of the sacrificer and in verse 5 to the sacrificer’s enemies or rivals.

01 इमं नो - त्रिष्टुप्

विश्वास-प्रस्तुतिः ...{Loading}...

इमं᳓ नो अग्न उ᳓प यज्ञ᳓म् ए᳓हि
प᳓ञ्चयामं त्रिवृ᳓तं सप्त᳓तन्तुम्
अ᳓सो हव्यवा᳓ळ् उत᳓ नः पुरोगा᳓
ज्यो᳓ग् एव᳓ दीर्घं᳓ त᳓म आ᳓शयिष्ठाः

02 अदेवाद्देवः प्रचता - त्रिष्टुप्

विश्वास-प्रस्तुतिः ...{Loading}...

अ᳓देवाद् देवः᳓ प्रच᳓ता गु᳓हा य᳓न्
प्रप᳓श्यमानो अमृतत्व᳓म् एमि
शिवं᳓ य᳓त् स᳓न्तम् अ᳓शिवो ज᳓हामि
सुवा᳓त् सख्या᳓द् अ᳓रणीं ना᳓भिम् एमि

03 पश्यन्नन्यस्या अतिथिम् - त्रिष्टुप्

विश्वास-प्रस्तुतिः ...{Loading}...

प᳓श्यन्न् अन्य᳓स्या अ᳓तिथिं वया᳓या
ऋत᳓स्य धा᳓म वि᳓ मिमे पुरू᳓णि
शं᳓सामि पित्रे᳓ अ᳓सुराय शे᳓वम्
अयज्ञिया᳓द् यज्ञि᳓यम् भाग᳓म् एमि

04 बह्वीः समा - त्रिष्टुप्

विश्वास-प्रस्तुतिः ...{Loading}...

बह्वीः᳓ स᳓मा अकरम् अन्त᳓र् अस्मिन्न्
इ᳓न्द्रं वृणानः᳓ पित᳓रं जहामि
अग्निः᳓ सो᳓मो व᳓रुणस् ते᳓ च्यवन्ते
पर्या᳓वर्द् राष्ट्रं᳓ त᳓द् अवामि आय᳓न्

05 निर्माया उ - त्रिष्टुप्

विश्वास-प्रस्तुतिः ...{Loading}...

नि᳓र्माया उ त्ये᳓ अ᳓सुरा अभूवन्
तुवं᳓ च मा वरुण काम᳓यासे
ऋते᳓न राजन्न् अ᳓नृतं विविञ्च᳓न्
म᳓म राष्ट्र᳓स्य अ᳓धिपत्यम् ए᳓हि

06 इदं स्वरिदमिदास - त्रिष्टुप्

विश्वास-प्रस्तुतिः ...{Loading}...

इदं᳓ सु᳓वर् इद᳓म् इ᳓द् आस वाम᳓म्
अय᳓म् प्रकाश᳓ उरु᳓ अन्त᳓रिक्षम्
ह᳓नाव वृत्रं᳓ निरे᳓हि सोम
हवि᳓ष् ट्वा स᳓न्तं हवि᳓षा यजाम

07 कविः कवित्वा - जगती

विश्वास-प्रस्तुतिः ...{Loading}...

कविः᳓ कवित्वा᳓ दिवि᳓ रूप᳓म् आ᳓सजद्
अ᳓प्रभूती व᳓रुणो नि᳓र् अपः᳓ सृजत्
क्षे᳓मं कृण्वाना᳓ ज᳓नयो न᳓ सि᳓न्धवस्
ता᳓ अस्य व᳓र्णं शु᳓चयो भरिभ्रति

08 ता अस्य - त्रिष्टुप्

विश्वास-प्रस्तुतिः ...{Loading}...

ता᳓ अस्य ज्ये᳓ष्ठम् इन्द्रियं᳓ सचन्ते
ता᳓ ईम् आ᳓ क्षेति स्वध᳓या म᳓दन्तीः
ता᳓ ईं वि᳓शो न᳓ रा᳓जानं वृणाना᳓
बीभत्सु᳓वो अ᳓प वृत्रा᳓द् अतिष्ठन्

09 बीभत्सूनां सयुजम् - त्रिष्टुप्

विश्वास-प्रस्तुतिः ...{Loading}...

बीभत्सू᳓नां सयु᳓जं हंस᳓म् आहुर्
अपां᳓ दिव्या᳓नां सखिये᳓ च᳓रन्तम्
अनुष्टु᳓भम् अ᳓नु चर्चूर्य᳓माणम्
इ᳓न्द्रं नि᳓ चिक्युः कव᳓यो मनीषा᳓