In the pathbreaking work of Shrikanth Talegiri the relative chronology of the rig vedic mandalas have been generated using the data provided in them. My attempt in this blog is to use the data to correct the position of the mandala 2 with respect to other mandalas.
Talegiri Witzel correspondence
Before Talegiri's third book released the famous correspondence between talegiri and Harvard professorMichael witzel took place. Talegiri attributes the correspondence/argument as his inspiration for the path breaking this book. It is unfortunate that Talegiri stopped getting any feed back from the academia after his third book.
Before Talegiri's third book released the famous correspondence between talegiri and Harvard professorMichael witzel took place. Talegiri attributes the correspondence/argument as his inspiration for the path breaking this book. It is unfortunate that Talegiri stopped getting any feed back from the academia after his third book.
My attempt in this blog is to provide such a feed back to Talegiri specifically regarding the relative chronology of the mandala (book) 2.
Mandala 2 was also the argument between Witzel and Talegiri. Witzel argued that book 2 is the oldest mandala while talegiri proposed mandala (book) 6. Talegiri places book 2 after book 6,3,7 and 4.
In the blog I use the data similar to talegiri to to place book 2 after book 6 but before book 3,7 and 4.
Data supporting book 2 relative chronology
Talegiri's path breaking analysis of name and name types proved the Mittani and Zoroastrian culture was late rig vedic and not indo iranian in origin.
The following arguments uses the same analysis to place book 2 after book 6.
Lineage of kings
Only book 2 besides book 6 strictly refers to Bharatha kings before sudas. The Bharatha kings mentioned in book 2 is Divodasa. Book 6 talks of his decendant Srinjaya and interestingly also mentions Grtsamada's father Vitahavya.
Complete absense of Vitahavya and Grtsamada is any books besides 6 and 2 shows the close relationship between book 6 and 2. The story of Vitahavya and Grtsamada is mentioned in Mahabharatha. Another important charachter in Vitahavya's story is Divodasa. Book 6 mentions king Divodasa as contemporary ( 6.16.9 6.16.38 6.47.23) . Which places Grtsamada's (decendant of Vitahavya) book 2 as clear succession.
Lineage of sages
Interestingly Talegiri uses lineage of sages to refute Witzel's argument for placing book 2 before book 6. But he fails to see the Lineage of sages as close bond between both the books.
The Bharadwaja sages Suhotra and Sunahotra are not only descendants but not mentioned in any other family books. This shows the close affinity between book 6 and 2.
Interestingly only book 2 and book 6 mention no other rishi lineage besides Angiras/Bharadwaj and Bhrghu. Angiras and Bhrugu, as per Talegiri, date back to pre rig vedic Indo iranian era. This lines up with the evidence in book 2 and book 6.
Zoroastrian Tritha and Sapta sindhu
The story of Vitahavya mentions that, he took shelter under sage Bhrghu and that is were Grtsamada grew. In light of the story it makes sense if Grtsamada book 2 imbibed Bhrgu cultural terms. The bhrugu culture as per Talegiri is the pre cursor to zoroastrian culture. Bhrugu/pre zoroastrian civilization lived in the sapta sindu region in the west and trita is a zoroastrian personality.
The presence of Sapta sindhu and Trita might have subconsciously led Talegiri to put book 2 after 3,7 and 4 erroneously. But in light of the evidence of lineage and historical context from Mahabharatha the book 2 must be placed after 6.
Before going to the points about Book 2, my name is spelt Shrikant Talageri and not Srikanth Talegiri.
ReplyDeleteAbout Book 2, I have pointed out that Book 2 is a historically almost irrelevant book in the Rigveda: it does not refer to any other rishi lineages (as KR points out) but nor does any other rishi in any other book refer to Gritsamada. Nor does it refer to any river other than the Sarasvati. The only point about its chronology is that it is an Old Book, older than the New Books (5,1,8-10), and it is later than books 3 and 7 (which is what KR is sidputing). It may be older than, synchronous with, or later than Book 4, but the only point is that Book 2 and Book 4 are both Middle Books, one (Book 4) restricted to the west and the other (Book 2) restricted to the east.
About KR's points:
1. "Only Book 2 besides Book 6 strictly refers to Bharatha kings before Sudas. The Bharatha king mentioned in Book 2 is Dividasa".
Wrong: Divodasa is mentioned in Books 4 and 7 also besides books 6 and 2. His father (not "descendant") Srnjaya is mentioned in book 4, and Srnjaya's father Devavata in books 3,4 and 7, besides book 6. Neither Srnjaya nor Devavata is mentioned in Book 2.
(contd)
ReplyDelete2. "Talegiri...fails to see the lineage of sages as close bond between both the books. The Bharadvaja sages Suhotra and Sunahotra are not only descendants but not mentioned in any other family books. This shows the close affinity between book 6 and 2".
Many errors: An ancestor-descendant relationship between a rishi in book 6 and book 2 does not show that book 2 is older than books 3 and 7. There are rishis even in book 10 who are descendants of Bharadwaja: does this make book 10 older than books 3 and 7?
Book 4 has hymns composed by Purumilhs Sauhotra and Ajamilha Sauhotra, descendants of Suhotra of book 6 (like Gritsamada who is a descendant of Shunahotra). Is book 4 also older than books 3 and 7?
3 "Complete absense of Vitahavya and Grtsamada is any books besides 6 and 2 shows the close relationship between book 6 and 2. The story of Vitahavya and Grtsamada is mentioned in Mahabharatha. Another important charachter in Vitahavya's story is Divodasa. Book 6 mentions king Divodasa as contemporary ( 6.16.9 6.16.38 6.47.23) . Which places Grtsamada's (decendant of Vitahavya) book 2 as clear succession."
Wrong: Complete absence of Gritsamada in the other family books, if it shows anything, shows that Gritsamada is a later personality.
Vitahavya is not mentioned in book 2 at all, and his being the father of Gritsamada on the basis of Puranic stories cannot constitute any kind of evidence. Gritsamada is only referred to in the Rigveda as a descendant of Shunahotra of book 6. The word Vitahavya (in its literal meaning of an offering to the Gods) is found in book 7, but nowhere in any form in book 2.
(contd)
ReplyDeleteThe Books 6,3,7 and 4 clearly constitute 4 books in a chronological line:
Book 6 pertains to the period of Divodasa, Books 3 and 7 to the period of his descendant Sudas, and Book 4 to the period of Sudas' descendants Sahadeva and Somaka.
Book 6 is restricted to the east, Books 3 and 7 show the progressive movement across the Punjab from east to west, and Book 4 first reaches the Indus and west of the Indus.
All these four books show a continuous period of conflicts between the Puru Bharatas (Vedic Indo-Aryans)and the Anus (proto-Iranians). Book 2 shows either a period of truce after these long centuries of conflict, or a more peaceful area of religious development in the east at a period when the conflict zone (Book 4) has moved westward.
Of course, it could still be argued that Book 2 is restricted to the east like Book 6 and is connected to Book 6, so it must be older than books 3 and 7. But this has no support in the data: the common Rigvedic-Avestan words Trita, Turviti, Gotama and Krshanu (of which the first two are found in Book 2) are found in the New Books but not in Books 6,3 and 7. The geographic phrase sapta+sindhu is found in Books 4 and 2 and in the New Books but not in Books 6,3 and 7. These are more important clues than mere relationship between two rishis, which can exist even between book 6 and book 10, or between book 6 and the Atharvaveda.