āditya ṛṣabho vṛṣa yasya putro rohiṇī-kṛtaḥ । tamevamāhuḥ puruṣaḥ yasya nārī garbhe putrikā ।
“They call him a man whose son is born with a girl, like the Aditya, the best of men, whose son, Rohini, was born.”
Structure
ādityaḥ ṛṣabhaḥ vṛṣaḥ yasya putraḥ rohiṇī-kṛtaḥ tamevamāhuḥ puruṣaḥ yasya nārī garbhe putrikā
ādityaḥ (the sun god) ṛṣabhaḥ (the best) vṛṣaḥ (or a bull) yasya (of whom) putraḥ (son) rohiṇī-kṛtaḥ (was born as Rohini) tameva (him) māhuḥ (they call) puruṣaḥ (a man) yasya (whose) nārī (wife) garbhe (in the womb) putrikā (a daughter)
Word-by-Word Grammar
| Word | IAST | Type | Grammar | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ādityaḥ | ādityaḥ | noun | nominative · singular · masculine | Aditya, the Sun |
| ṛṣabhaḥ | ṛṣabhaḥ | noun | nominative · singular · masculine | ox, best |
| vṛṣaḥ | vṛṣaḥ | noun | nominative · singular · masculine | bull |
| yasya | yasya | pronoun | genitive · singular · masculine | of whom |
| putraḥ | putraḥ | noun | nominative · singular · masculine | son |
| rohiṇī-kṛtaḥ | rohiṇī-kṛtaḥ | compound | bahuvrīhi · "rohiṇīm anena kṛtaḥ" | made by Rohini |
| tameva | tameva | pronoun | accusative · singular · masculine | him alone |
| māhuḥ | māhuḥ | verb | √vac · past · third | they say |
| puruṣaḥ | puruṣaḥ | noun | nominative · singular · masculine | man |
| yasya | yasya | pronoun | genitive · singular · masculine | of whom |
| nārī | nārī | noun | nominative · singular · feminine | woman |
| garbhe | garbhe | noun | locative · singular · masculine | in the womb |
| putrikā | putrikā | noun | nominative · singular · feminine | daughter |
Scholarly Commentary
Advaita Vedānta (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya): In his commentary on the Brahmasūtras, Śaṅkara discusses the concept of the Absolute (Brahman) and its relationship to the individual self (Ātman). This verse from the Ṛgveda, which mentions the birth of a son along with a girl, can be seen as a metaphor for the non-dual nature of reality. Just as the Aditya (sun) is not separate from its rays, the individual self is not separate from the ultimate reality. Śaṅkara would argue that the differentiation between male and female, or any other duality, is a product of ignorance (Avidyā) and not reflective of the ultimate truth. This verse, by highlighting the coexistence of opposites, points towards the non-dual nature of reality, where all distinctions, including those of gender, are transcended. Śaṅkara's interpretation of this verse would be that it hints at the identity of Brahman and Ātman, where the individual self is not different from the ultimate reality. This understanding leads to liberation (Mokṣa) from the cycle of birth and death.
Vaiṣṇava tradition (Rāmānujācārya / Madhvācārya): The Vaiṣṇava tradition, particularly through the lens of Rāmānujācārya, views this verse as an example of the complex relationship between the jīva (individual soul) and Īśvara (the Lord). Rāmānujācārya's Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta emphasizes the real distinction between the jīva and Īśvara, yet also their inseparable relationship. This verse can be seen as symbolic of the divine plan, where the birth of a son (symbolizing spiritual knowledge or liberation) is accompanied by a girl (symbolizing the material world or Māyā). The Aditya, representing the supreme deity, oversees this cosmic dance. For Rāmānujācārya, this verse underscores the role of the divine in guiding the jīva towards liberation, emphasizing the importance of bhakti (devotion) in achieving this goal. The relationship between the jīva and Īśvara is one of dependence, with the jīva seeking liberation through devotion to Īśvara. Madhvācārya's Dvaita Vedānta would similarly see this verse as highlighting the distinction between the jīva and Īśvara, but with a greater emphasis on their real difference.
Neo-Vedānta (Swami Vivekānanda / S. Rādhākrishnan): Swami Vivekānanda and S. Rādhākrishnan, representatives of Neo-Vedānta, interpret this verse in a more universal and practical sense. They see the coexistence of a boy and a girl at birth as a symbol of the harmony and balance that should exist between opposites in life. Vivekānanda, known for his emphasis on the universal principles of Vedānta, would likely view this verse as a call to transcend the petty distinctions that divide humanity. In his lectures and writings, he often highlighted the importance of recognizing the divine in every being, transcending gender, caste, or creed. Rādhākrishnan, with his philosophical background, would probably interpret this verse as a representation of the dynamic interplay between the individual and the universal, where the birth of a child (boy or girl) represents the potential for growth and realization of one's true nature. Both would connect this verse to contemporary life by emphasizing the importance of balance, harmony, and the recognition of the innate worth of every individual, regardless of gender or background.