१३२

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

’ ईजानम् ’ इति सप्तर्चं चतुर्थं सूक्तं नृमेधपुत्रस्य शकपूतस्यार्षं मित्रावरुणदेवताकम् । आद्या तु लिङ्गोक्तद्युभूम्यश्विदेवताका न्यङ्कुसारिणी द्वितीयद्वादशकत्र्यष्टकवती । द्वितीयाषष्ठ्यौ प्रस्तारपङ्क्ती द्विद्वादशकद्व्यष्टकवती । सप्तमी महासतोबृहती त्र्यष्टकद्विद्वादशकवती । शिष्टास्तिस्रो विराड्रूपा एकादशिनस्त्रयोऽष्टकश्चेति लक्षणलक्षिताः । तथा चानुक्रान्तम् -’ ईजानं शकपूतो नार्मेधो मैत्रावरुणं न्यङ्कुसारिण्याद्या लिङ्गोक्तदेवतान्त्या महासतोबृहत्युपाद्योपान्त्ये प्रस्तारपङ्क्ती शेषा विराड्रूपाः ’ हति । गतो विनियोगः ।।

Jamison Brereton

132 (958)
Mitra and Varuṇa
Śākapūta Nārmedha
7 verses: nyaṅkusāriṇī 1, prastārapaṅkti 2, 6, virāḍrūpā 3–5, mahāsatobr̥hatī 7

This metrically messy hymn is, one must say, a mess in every other way as well. Given the serious disturbances in the meter, it is quite possible that many of the problems in the hymn result from faulty transmission, but we must translate what we have, not what we wish we had. At this point it is impossible to produce a satisfying account of the purport of the whole hymn and of its many puzzles of detail, but it is also not possible to supply even a tentative translation without having a prior hypothesis about the underlying aim of the composition. Geldner suggests that a specific political story lies behind it, full of sin, murder, and regal intrigue, but his sketch of this scenario is not convincing.

Our own hypothesis is less dramatic, though perhaps equally unconvincing. We believe that it reflects the ritual innovation happening during this late R̥gvedic period that split the earlier role(s) of sacrificing priest-poet into what in classical śrauta ritual are the “Sacrificer” (Yajamāna, lit. “the one sacrificing for himself”), who actually has little active participation in the sacrifice but provides the material support for it, and the working priests who are the actual physical and ver bal performers of sacrifice. The new “Sacrificer” in part takes over the old role of “patron” (sūrí), but maintains a more organic connection to the sacrifice. In this hymn this new type of Sacrificer is celebrated, as is his largesse to us, the working priests. Divine models for this split role with complementary duties are provided in the hymn—primarily by Mitra and Varuṇa, the ostensible dedicands, but also by Heaven and Earth (vss. 1 and 6, with Heaven also paired with Varuṇa in vs. 4) and the Aśvins (vs. 1).

Perhaps the best support for our views is the first verse, which contains three fronted repetitions of the perfect middle participle ījāná “having performed sacrifice for himself,” the perfect-stem equivalent of the present middle participle yájamāna “sacrificing for himself” that is substantivized to become the title Sacrificer. This figure is the object of the ministrations of both Heaven and Earth (ab) and the Aśvins (cd). The first half of verse 2 contrastively introduces “us,” the priests who are sacrificing (in the active voice, yajāmasi) at the prompting, presumably, of the Sacrificer, who appears in the second half of the verse, in the guise of another middle participle, krāṇá “performing (ritual) for himself.” Mitra and Varuṇa bestow their favors on both parties and assure their joint victory over demonic forces. Verse 3 is particularly challenging and has received numerous clashing interpre tations, but we believe that it continues the theme of complementary roles and in fact introduces the motif of the Sacrificer’s gifts to the priests. In our view “we,” in our priestly role, are seeking to attract Mitra and Varuṇa to the sacrifice (pāda a), while the Sacrificer is represented as the giver in pāda c, with pāda d express ing the hope or expectation that no one can disrupt his gifts to us. Complicating the interpretation is the rare and rather charged word réknas “legacy.” However, réknas is several times used of what we gain from the gods at the sacrifice (e.g., I.31.5, 121.5, VI.20.7); in keeping with its etymology (from the root ric “leave”), it can be viewed as what was “left behind” by the gods at the sacrifice, and both the priests and the Sacrificer should receive it, as they both seem to in pādas b and c respectively.

Serious impediments to our (or anyone else’s) interpretation arise in the following verses, especially the second half of verse 4 through the first half of verse 5. The first half of verse 5, in a twist on the classic “the one …the other” (anyá … anyá) construction typically used to depict the complementary functions of two indi viduals, posits the shared or successive kingship of Heaven and Varuṇa. In pāda 4c Varuṇa, addressed in the 2nd person, or Varuṇa or someone else, presented in the 3rd person (the verb is ambiguous), “takes pleasure in the chariot.” The chariot could be the chariot of the sacrifice, found also in verse 7b, or the war chariot. The latter seems more likely in the context of the next pāda and the first hemistich of verse 5 and gains resonance from other features of the god Varuṇa. Pāda 5d states that “It is not by such a transgression that (a man) is (called) ‘oath-breaker’” (following the reading āntakadhrúk of Eichner-Kühn [1982], who connected it to the seṭ root am “pledge, swear,” rather than the previously standard interpre tation antaka). What transgression? If it is what is found in the previous pāda, taking pleasure in the chariot, it might be a very oblique reference to Varuṇa’s standard functions. It is well known that Varuṇa and Indra often share kingship (see the famous dialogue hymn IV.42), with Indra functioning as king in times of war, Varuṇa in times of peace. If Varuṇa is taking pleasure in the war chariot, his behavior is uncharacteristic and could indeed be considered transgressive, but, the poet tells us, it would not be sufficiently serious to constitute a breach of his nor mal duties, would not be an oath-breaking infraction. His unaccustomed behavior points to the theme of the hymn, by implication: each member of a pair has his own sphere and venturing out of that sphere may invite suspicion or even blame. (Alternatively, if the subject of pāda c is an unidentified third person, the pleasure that person/god takes in the war-chariot would not brand him as one who has violated his oath to Varuṇa.)

What would be a sufficient transgression is laid out in 5ab and attributed to an individual derogatorily named “Shit-purified” (Śakapūta)—namely, treacherously continuing to attack fallen warriors after a peace-treaty has been concluded. Even if our speculations about the meaning of 4cd–5ab are correct (and there are alternative interpretations; for example that 4ab refers to the passing of power from Father Sky [Dyaus Pitar] to gods such as Varuṇa and Indra possibly depicted in X.124), it is difficult to understand why this bitter little anecdote was inserted into the hymn at this point and just as quickly dropped. Note, by the way, that the Anukramaṇī attributes this hymn to Śakapūta, but it is almost certainly the case that this name was simply plucked from the hymn itself. The Anukramaṇī’s patronymic Nārmedha has a better chance of conforming to fact, as the name Nr̥medha is found in the final verse, where poets typically name themselves, and a Nr̥medha Āngirasa is the supposed poet of several other hymns (VIII.89–90, 98–99; IX.27, 29; VIII.90 shows some parallels to our hymn).

The rest of verse 5 and all of verse 6 appear to concern the present sacrifice, where the pair Mitra and Varuṇa are to be found, as well as Heaven and Earth (in a simile)—in addition to Agni and Aditi, for good measure. Again, there are a number of difficulties in the details. The first half of the final verse (7) also takes place at the sacrifice, and it seems to reaffirm the split roles of Sacrificer and priest that we claim provide the subject for the hymn. The “two ruling over property” in pāda a are, of course, Mitra and Varuṇa, but they also represent the Sacrificer-patron figure, while the unnamed subject of pāda b is the actual priestly officiant who will direct the chariot of the sacrifice.

We would be perfectly happy if the hymn had ended with 7b, for the last hemis tich presents yet another unsolvable challenge. As noted above, the poet (if that’s who it is) Nr̥medha names himself in this half-verse, also under the punning desig nation Sumedha. But the nature of the exploit he boasts of—the rescue of a certain set of females (or feminine-gender items)—must remain opaque, because the word characterizing the rescued is an impossible hapax, a plural present participle to an apparent denominative verb meaning “seek/behave as/perform kaṇūka,” a word with no etymology or apparent relatives. Following Sāyaṇa, most modern translators render it as “lamenting,” but this was clearly a desperate, though contextually plausible, guess on the part of Sāyaṇa, and it seems better to leave the poet’s punning wordplay or contemporary reference untranslated.

01 ईजानमिद्दयुर्गूर्तावसुरीजानं भूमिरभि - न्यङ्कुसारिणी

विश्वास-प्रस्तुतिः ...{Loading}...

ईजान᳓म् इ᳓द् दियउ᳓र् गूर्ता᳓वसुर्
ईजान᳓म् भू᳓मिर् अभि᳓ प्रभूष᳓णि
ईजानं᳓ देवा᳓व् अश्वि᳓नाव्
अभि᳓ सुम्नइ᳓र् अवर्धताम्

02 ता वाम् - प्रस्तारपङ्क्तिः

विश्वास-प्रस्तुतिः ...{Loading}...

ता᳓ वाम् मित्रावरुणा धारय᳓त्क्षिती
सुषुम्ना᳓ इषितत्व᳓ता यजामसि
युवोः᳓ क्राणा᳓य सखियइ᳓र्
अभि᳓ षियाम रक्ष᳓सः

03 अधा चिन्नु - विराड्रूपा

विश्वास-प्रस्तुतिः ...{Loading}...

अ᳓धा चिन् नु᳓ य᳓द् दि᳓धिषामहे वाम्
अभि᳓ प्रियं᳓ रे᳓कणः प᳓त्यमानाः
दद्वाँ᳓ वा य᳓त् पु᳓ष्यति रे᳓क्णः
स᳓म् ऊ आरन् न᳓किर् अस्य मघा᳓नि

04 असावन्यो असुर - विराड्रूपा

विश्वास-प्रस्तुतिः ...{Loading}...

असा᳓व् अन्यो᳓ असुर सूयत द्यउ᳓स्
तुवं᳓ वि᳓श्वेषां वरुणासि रा᳓जा
मूर्धा᳓ र᳓थस्य चाकन्
नइ᳓ता᳓वता ए᳓नसा अन्तकध्रु᳓क्

05 अस्मिन्त्स्वेथ्तच्छकपूत एनो - विराड्रूपा

विश्वास-प्रस्तुतिः ...{Loading}...

अस्मि᳓न् सु᳓ एत᳓च् छ᳓कपूत ए᳓नो
हिते᳓ मित्रे᳓ नि᳓गतान् हन्ति वीरा᳓न्
अवो᳓र् वा य᳓द् धा᳓त् तनू᳓षु
अ᳓वः प्रिया᳓सु यज्ञि᳓यासु अ᳓र्वा

06 युवोर्हि मातादितिर्विचेतसा - प्रस्तारपङ्क्तिः

विश्वास-प्रस्तुतिः ...{Loading}...

युवो᳓र् हि᳓ माता᳓ अ᳓दितिर् विचेतसा
दियउ᳓र् न᳓ भू᳓मिः प᳓यसा पुपूत᳓नि
अ᳓व प्रिया᳓ दिदिष्टन
सू᳓रो निनिक्त रश्मि᳓भिः

07 युवं ह्यप्नराजावसीदतम् - महासतो बृहती

विश्वास-प्रस्तुतिः ...{Loading}...

युवं᳓ हि᳓ · अप्नरा᳓जाव् अ᳓सीदतं
ति᳓ष्ठद् र᳓थं न᳓ धूर्ष᳓दं वनर्ष᳓दम्
ता᳓ नः कणूकय᳓न्तीर्
नृमे᳓धस् तत्रे अं᳓हसः
सुमे᳓धस् तत्रे अं᳓हसः