Dear Sri Sangom,
Here are my observations on reading your posts on Rk suktam 1-3.
Will a deeper study reveal that the peculiarities of the gods are not peculiar at all?
Dear Shri Vikrama,
First of all, thank you for the very pertinent observations.
We have just commenced with the first book and these 3 sūktas along with the next, are the prayers inviting the different deities to the agniṣṭoma. Though it looks as if all gods are described with more or less similar honorifics/adjectives, my own reading (only superficial, I will claim, not any deep study) has so far been that in the ṛgveda as a whole, these characters (deities) come out and play distinct roles. Perhaps as we progress, it may be possible to obtain some glimpses of the different roles the various deities play.
It will be observed that in ordinary (mortal) life also we are forced to use more or less the same class/group of adjectives and praises in respect of dignitaries, VIPs, politicians, religious heads, scholars and so on. Except the particular incident or cause which is/was at the back of the occasion for the specific address/speech, you will find all people of one category will share more or less the same qualifiers. That being the limitation of language, I feel that the vedic deities had also to be addressed generally with the help of a certain limited set of characteristics.
Some of these, like
"protectors of ṛtam, wonder workers, protectors of auspicious acts, accepters of havis, possessors of horses, doer of good to others, having many achievements, destroyers of enemies, occupying the seat of darbhā grass; love for soma, being many-splendoured, being influenced by our intellect and devotion, bestowers of rewards, bestowers of timely rainfall, free from decay, omniscient, unharming, bestowers of riches" etc., are, in my opinion, the yearnings of the vedic bards about what they (the rishis or bards) themselves intensely desired their deities to possess, and that these got expression in the above words - perhaps we tend to think these as "real" qualities which had been actually perceived in these deities, as a proven fact, because we take the vedas as inerrant divine truths revealed through supernatural sources. Though the comparison may not be very appropriate, the emotion behind these praises looks to me the same as one finds in love songs in which the lover attributes very many sublime and noble qualities to the loved one, and nothing specific like "O My dear abc, son/daughter of xyz, etc." Yes, in
devotional songs this is the rule like "vasudevaṉ makaṉe, gopiyar koñcum ramaṇā, caṅkaraṉ tantiṭum kantaveḷe, etc."
Four gods are praised in this suktam, composed by the same author. Whether he composed all the 12 riks at one go or they were composed at different contexts and placed in one sukta by the compiler is not known. In either case, placing together all the four gods together in close proximity while worshipping seems to me that the author and/or the compiler did not find any difference between the gods mentioned therein.
We cannot be sure about whether these ṛks were composed in the very same order as we find them now in the saṃhitā. Scholars hold the view that books (maṇḍalas) 1, 8, 9 and 10 are not "family books" but collections of compilations of various priests/ṛṣis, and also that books 1 and 10 are the latest books, chronologically speaking. Therefore, it is quite probable that these verses might have been compiled on different occasions but incorporated into the saṃhitā so that the verses designated for one specific part of the sacrificial ritual (by practice of the later priesthood) are found together in one place. The answer I have given to the previous remark should explain why the rishi finds very similar characteristics for all the deities. But the very fact that these gods are addressed by different names, makes me think that at least this particular ṛṣi (madhuchandāḥ vaiśvāmitraḥ) thought of them as different entities.
From the above, can we take it that, for the Vedas, all the gods are one and the same, though spoken of differently? Does it buttress the rk 1-164-46 statement, ekamsat vipra bahudha vadanti?
I have discussed ṛk 1-164-46 in an old post in this thread. As stated therein this ṛk may mean that the vedic bard recognised "garutmān" (āditya) or, as sāyaṇa opines, agni, in later interpretations; but it does not look to me as though the "brahman" or ādiśankara's "nirguṇaparabrahmam" was envisaged by the ṛgvedic ṛṣis.
