Do the Aitareya and Brihadaranyaka Upanishads correctly interpret two hymns of Vamadeva?

Question

Let me preface this by saying that I don't intend to question the wisdom of the divine Upanishads; I'm just trying to resolve my confusion.

As you can see in the Anukramani I provided in my answer here, the sage who heard most of the hymns in the Fourth Mandala of the Rig Veda was the sage Vamadeva, son of the sage Gotama (hence Gautama). Two of the hymns of this Mandala deal mainly with Garuda's theft of the Soma/Amrita (nectar of immortality) from Devaloka. But the beginning of these hymns are considered by the Upanishads to be of profound significance. Here is how Hymn 26 of the Fourth Mandala begins:

1. I was aforetime Manu, I was Sūrya: I am the sage Kakṣīvān, holy singer. Kutsa the son of Ārjuni I master. I am the sapient Uśanā behold me.
2. I have bestowed the earth upon the Ārya, and rain upon the man who brings oblation. I guided forth the loudly-roaring waters, and the Gods moved according to my pleasure.
3. In the wild joy of Soma I demolished Śambara's forts, ninety-and-nine, together; And, utterly, the hundredth habitation, when helping Divodāsa Atithigva.

The second and third verses describe the deeds of Indra, such as killing the demon Shambara, so it seems natural to assume that Indra is the speaker in this triplet. Yet here is what the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says:

Verily in the beginning this was Brahman, that Brahman knew (its) Self only, saying, 'I am Brahman.' From it all this sprang. Thus, whatever Deva was awakened (so as to know Brahman), he indeed became that (Brahman); and the same with Rishis and men. The Rishi Vâmadeva saw and understood it, singing, 'I was Manu (moon), I was the sun.' Therefore now also he who thus knows that he is Brahman, becomes all this, and even the Devas cannot prevent it, for he himself is their Self.

So according to the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Vamadeva is speaking about himself, and he is making a profound statement of self-realization.

Similarly, here is how hymn 27 of the Fourth Mandala begins:

1. I, As I lay within the womb, considered all generations of these Gods in order. A hundred iron fortresses confined me but forth I flew with rapid speed a Falcon. 2. Not at his own free pleasure did he bear me: he conquered with his strength and manly courage. Straightway the Bold One left the fiends behind him and passed the winds as he grew yet more mighty.

Again, it seems like the speaker in these verses is Chandra, who is the god of the divine drink Soma which is protected by the fortifications of Devaloka but is then stolen by Garuda. But here is how the Aitareya Upanishad interprets it:

And this has been declared by a Rishi (Rv. IV, 27, 1): 'While dwelling in the womb, I discovered all the births of these Devas. A hundred iron strongholds kept me, but I escaped quickly down like a falcon.' Vâmadeva, lying in the womb, has thus declared this.** And having this knowledge he stepped forth, after this dissolution of the body, and having obtained all his desires in that heavenly world, became immortal, yea, he became immortal.

So the Aitareya Upanishads is claiming that the speaker is once again Vamadeva, and that he is speaking of his experiences of self-realization from within the womb. And the Rig Veda Anukramani agrees that the person being referred to is Vamadeva in both cases; see the Anukramani for hymns IV.26 and IV.27 in my answer here.

But my question is, have there been any arguments made for why the speaker must be Vamadeva? Indra and Chandra seem more natural choices given the context and meaning. Why would Vamadeva arbitrarily start talking about his philosophical realizations before relating a story of Garuda?

The authors of the newly-released Oxford English translation of the Rig Veda also believe that the Anukramani misinterpreted these verses. See this excerpt and this excerpt, where they call the first three verses of Hymn 26 an Atmastuti (self-praise) of Indra and the first two verses of Hymn 27 an Atmastuti of Chandra. And it isn't only Western Indologists who have this view; the first three verses of Hymn 26 are discussed in this excerpt from the Brihaddevata, a work by the ancient sage Shaunaka:

I (aham: iv.26) is self-praise in a triplet, for there is praise (in it) as if of him (Indra).

So Shaunaka also seems to think that this triplet is an Atmastuti of Indra. In any case, has anyone made any arguments to refute the claim that the speakers are Indra and Chandra? Do any commentators present arguments about this issue?

Let me reiterate that it's not my intention to question the wisdom of the Upanishads. I am a Sri Vaishnava, and Sri Vaishnavism is part of the Vedanta school, which holds the Upanishads as a divine authority. And the sages of the Aitareya and Brihadaranyaka Upanishads are the ancient sages Aitareya and Yajnavalkya. So I'm not accusing them of misinterpreting the Rig Veda. I am just trying to understand the logic behind their interpretation.

Answer 1

First, these 2 Upanishads were not composed by Yajnavalka and Aitareya. The Upanishads are the revealed word of God. They were revealed by God to certain sages who then recorded them. There may be stories in the Vedas (and Upanishads) that do not have to be taken literally, it is what they are meant to teach us that is important. The Vedas are the only scriptures in the world that were not composed by humans.

Both Swami Gambhirananda's translation with Shankaracarya's commentary and Swami Nikhilananda's translation and commentary both show the reference to Vamadeva. The following should be noted:

1) The Aitareya verse is clearly not Indra. The reason it says 'while lying in the womb, I came to know' means that he has come to know this as a result of meditation in many previous births. The verse is meant to show what has come to Vamadeva - an individual jiva - through Self-Knowledge, because the Knowledge alluded to can only have come through previous births. Indra, although a deva, is only a deva for the current cycle and will be subject to rebirth at the end of the cycle. Indra does not have Self-Knowledge. Devas cannot attain to Knowledge of Brahman in their birth as a deva. Only human birth can.

2) It should also be noted that the chapter ends with Vamadeva and the first verse of the next chapter starts out with again a reference to Vamadeva.

3) The reference to Vamadeva in the Brihadaranyaka is again, a reference to what an individual jiva can attain to. So it makes perfect sense that it would have a human name and not a deva name as an example of one who has realized the Self.

Finally, I am very wary of any supposed interpretations or commentaries by Western Sanskrit scholars. They learn their Sanskrit from other Westerners and are Christian or Atheists in their own philosophies and have their own agendas in their translations. Most see Vedanta as a polytheistic religion and see the religious texts as mythology to be interpreted as such.

Answer 2

On Rig Veda 4.26.1 (quoted in Brhadaranyaka 1.4.10):

अहं मनुरभवं सूर्यश्चाहं कक्षीवाँ ऋषिरस्मि विप्रः ...

This is Sāyaṇācārya's commentary on the RV mantra:

अत्र ’अहं मनुः’ इत्याद्याभिस्तिसृभिरात्मानमिन्द्ररूपेण वामदेवः स्तुतवान् । गर्भे वसन् वामदेवः उत्पन्नतत्त्वज्ञानः सन् सार्वात्म्यं स्वानुभवं मन्वादिरूपेण प्रदर्शयन्नाह । ... परमार्थदृष्ट्या कृत्स्नमप्यहमेवास्मीत्यर्थः ।

Here, by the triad beginning "I was Manu", Vāmadeva praises himself in the form of Indra. Being in the womb, having realized the supreme knowledge experiencing everything as his Self, he says that he was Manu etc... The implication is that he is saying that he is everything (i.e. as Brahman).

In other words, as the Upanishad quoting this mantra shows the context, Vāmadeva has realized that he is Brahman. Because of that, he is metaphysically speaking as Indra (who is also Brahman).

On Rig Veda 4.27.1 (quoted in Aitareya 2.5):

गर्भे नु सन्नन्वेषामवेदमहं देवानां जनिमानि विश्वा ...

This is Sāyaṇācārya's commentary on the mantra:

गर्भे एव विद्यमानः अहं वामदेवः एषां देवानां सर्वाणि जन्मानि अवेदम् । परमात्मनः सकाशात् सर्वे देवा जाता इत्यवेदिषमित्यर्थः । इतः पूर्वं बहूनि अभेद्यानि शरीराणि मामपालयन् । यथाहं शरीरात् व्यतिरिक्तमात्मानं न जानीयां तथा मामरक्षन्नित्यर्थः । अधुना श्येनवत्स्थितः वेगेन शरीरान्निरगमम् । अनावरणमात्मानं जानन्निर्गतोऽस्मीत्यर्थः ।

When I, Vāmadeva, was in the womb, I knew of all the births of the deities, i.e. I knew that they are all forms of the Paramātman. Earlier, I was held down by many impenetrabe bodies, such that I could not recognize the Ātman as separate from the body. Now, like a swift hawk I have escaped the body, i.e. I have realized the unrestricted Ātman.

So clearly, this mantra is also expressing in poetic symbolism the self-realization of Vāmadeva.

There are many such examples in Vedas where a self-realized rishi speaks in the first-person as a deity. For example, Rig Veda 3.26.7 is Vishvamitra's self-realization, which he expresses as "I am Agni, omniscient by birth, etc".

---

I am extremely puzzled by the elaborate text in the question.

The verbosity by busy quoting and cross-referencing and linking and such just result in irrelevant points.

These two metaphors are very simple and straightforward to understand, if there are no prior assumptions clouding the understanding.

The question contains prior assumptions - incorrect statements that are written as if they were fact. There is a lot of projection of post-Vedic ideas on the Vedic mantras:

1. "Two of the hymns of this Mandala deal mainly with Garuda's theft of the Soma/Amrita (nectar of immortality) from Devaloka" -- This is incorrect projection of Puranic Garuda on Vedic mantra. No commentator has mentioned "Garuda" or "theft of Amrita from Devaloka". The symbolism of the hawk is very different in the mantras.

2. "I was Manu (moon)" -- Manu does not mean "moon". LOL. The link to the English translation has this, and it is completely incorrect. So much for over-reliance on English translations rather than authentic, native, traditional commentators.

3. "Again, it seems like the speaker in these verses is Chandra," -- Another assumption without proper sources. But also, what purpose does this speculation serve?

4. "The authors of the newly-released Oxford English translation of the Rig Veda also believe that the Anukramani misinterpreted these verses" -- It is disturbing, to say the least, that western academics, who are not steeped in Vedic tradition and who have been proved repeatedly to misinterpret mantras based on their own theories, are trusted to pass judgement on a traditional Vedic text that has been passed down for thousands of years through teacher-student lineage whose life-long mission was to immerse themselves in sincere study and understanding of the ancient knowledge from the time of the rishis.

A simple short question would convey the message (such as "what do these mantras mean according to tradition?").

Answer 3

Well i after analysing i think.

Its my assumption when a rishi or krishna talks a diety or god they do be high in atmagyan like itself only atma is talking as i am the source of all thing and i am the brahman and i am the sun i am brahma and all.