From: kishore patnaik
Message: 60701
Date: 2008-10-09
The great antiquity of Dyaus is guaranteed by the general IE evidence.
It is practically the only IE theonym attested almost everywhere. The
derivatives *diw-jó- 'heavenly, divine' and *deiw-ó-s 'skyling,
divinity' are likewise old.
There is no dispute about the first sentence. Dyaus gives rise to many names of the Supreme Gods in many cultures, perhaps, Zeus is also one of such
derivations.
But it is second sentence we have to think about - old is a relative term - old(er) than what? Certainly, it is older than Zeus but there is no proof to show that it is older than Varuna.
I'm puzzled. How does that support OIT?
Piotr
this is a very good question.
Varuna is purely Indic god, being conspicuous by his abence in Iranian tradition. Of course, Bruce Lincoln in his book "Priests, Warriors and Cattle "(, Los Angeles, 1981), which I have referred earlier in the thread tries to equate Varuna wtih Ahur Mazda but that does not really gel. It is more like equating Yehovah with Parabrahman because both are supreme gods and share some attributes.
In other words, Varuna was absent at AIT time. but he is certainly pre RV, with very few hymns invoking him beiing left in RV . That is to say, he must have come into picture between AIT and RV, especially as an autochthonus (asuriic) element absorbed by Aryans. If he is an autochthonous element, he must have taken a long time to get absorbed and some more time again to lose his prominence to Indra.
Does the AIT timeline support this much of growth and decline of Varuna as a pure Indic God? it certainly does not - especially when one would want to place RV after Mitanni inscriptions,.which talk about Varuna.
Thus, there is only one possibility - there is no AIT.
i am not sure if I am clear but I hope to get more clear if the discussion progresses.
Kishore patnaik