--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>
> > 2) The Rig Veda refers to the Saraswati river as flowing to the
sea which is something they could not have known about if they
migrated in around 1200 BC (or even 1900 BC). 3) The texts also refer
to astronomical and other events dated much earlier.
>
> These questions have been addressed by critics (including Witzel)
to my satisfaction, if apparently not to yours.
>
VA: Apparently you are ignorant of the vast literature on
astronomical data in Vedic texts and on Saraswati. As for Witzel, he
is aware of the literature, but chooses to use it selectively, set up
straw men and ignore inconvenient evidence.
Take Saraswati for example. The ONLY significant arguments he
presents for denying the primacy of Sarasvati river in RV are:
1. Of the 50 odd occurrences of Sarasvati, many deal with some 'night
sky river,' or with some river in Arachosia (=Helmand), or a deity,
or a woman!! Such arguments can be dismissed by any sane person who
has read the literature referred to by Talageri at the following URL -
http://www.bharatvani.org/general_inbox/talageri/ejvs/part3.html
See section III.2 in the URL above, and refer to the following URL
for complete references -
http://www.bharatvani.org/general_inbox/talageri/ejvs/bibliography.htm
l
This particular mode of argumentation, as adopted by Witzel, is
called 'Negationism'.
2. He alludes to some references in RV II.33 and says that it refers
to the confluence of Satluj with Beas. Next, he says that since
Satluj was
the 'main source' of water to Sarasvati, the latter must have already
been a dessiccated river by the time this early hymn of RV was
composed. This argument is flawed in many respects -
a. Witzel refers to a solitary paper that mentions Satlaj as the
probably main source of Sarasvati waters. In reality, there is a host
of literature dealing with other sources of Sarasvati waters :- Ur-
Yamuna, artesian springs, distributaries of a braided Satlaj and so
on. Even after Satlaj left the Sarasvati, the latter still possibly
received water from several other sources, before tectonic movements
gradually closed the Shiwalik opennings, transferring all streams to
Yamuna. In addition, the word 'samarane' in the verse, that is
interpreted to mean 'confluence' by Witzel and Geldner etc., merely
means flowing together. Anyone with an iota of knowledge about the
history of Eastern and Central Punjab would know that the Satlaj has
flowed alternately to Beas and Hakra 5 times in the last 2500 years.
Even when the Satlaj flowed to Hakra, its channel ran parallel to
Beas at very close distances. In fact, the two rivers were just about
5 miles apart where they meet currently, flowed parallel and then
diverged.
The phrase 'samana yoni' (or something similar)in the verse of that
hymn too refers to the 'ocean' in general (and not necessarily 'bed
of the combined rivers') because the word 'yoni' is used very often
for the ocean in the context of rivers in the RV.
b. Witzel then points out that Satlaj is referred to as the
motherliest of rivers in this hymn, and so such reference to
Sarasvati elsehwere does not mean anything. Surely he does not want
to deny that Satlaj is as exalted in the RV as Sarasvati is!
3. Witzel also suggests that the verse stating that the Sarasvati
flows from heavens to the oceans is a hyperbole. He seems to be in a
state of denial. Heaven is commonly used in the Indian tradition to
denote the Himadri range and beyond. EVEN TODAY we say that the Ganga
emerges from the Heaven. The use of the word 'Heaven' merely denotes
that the source of Sarasvati lay in higher outer Himalayas, and not
in the Shivaliks, a fact that is made probable by Geological data as
well. As for 'Samudra', the hyperbole would be meaningless if it were
to denote just a lake in the interior of Bahawalpur.
Such arguments deny completely even living traditions extant to this
day - In rural Sindh, the Eastern Nara is STILL called Sarasvati by
locals, and its drainage area is called Narayana/Nal Sarovar even
today. In the Hindu tradition, the Narayana Sarovar is said to exist
where the Sarasvati meets the Sea.
4. More important, when Hindu texts are arranged chronologically,
they clearly pre-suppose or imply a gradual desiccation of the river
from a perenniel mighty stream flowing all the way to the sea, to a
river which ended in the desert at Vinashana. Further, the spot
Vinashana is seen to move gradually eastwards - an indication of
continuing desiccation of the river.
The distance of Vinashana to Plaksha Prasravana, the impurity of
waters at the latter spot etc, are all that have credible
explanations.
Texts also allude to the braiding of the channel of Satlaj, discuss
the geography of Drishadvati (whereupon it is identified with
Chautang now). The problem for Witzel's school of thought is that
even in latest Vedic texts like the Latyayana Srautasutra, the
Sarasvati is still a perenniel river, and it flows BEYOND its
confluence with Drishadvati (which had become a seasonal stream by
then), all the way to Vinashana.
Thus, even the LATE Vedic texts need to be dated pre-Buddha by
several centuries, which could only result in pushing the RV much
beyond the current 1200 BC.
5. No archaeologist in West or in India (with the exception of his
friend Richard Meadow, and some Indian historians like Irfan Habib of
Aligarh Muslim University) deny the Sarasvati paradigm. Amongst
Indian archaeologists, there are some with first hand knowledge of
Vedic literature. The identification of Ghaggar and Chautang with
Sarasvati/Drishdvati in literature has been continuing for more than
a century now, and my own collection of such articles is around 50.
Witzel's views therefore can only be called revisionist.
The sum total of the data militates against such Aryan fantasies
which tend to dismiss the Sarasvati evidence in the whole discussion.
The right place to learn about the Sarasvati is not the writings of a
linguist who has written a 'Position Paper' on the controversy and is
therefore doggedly stuck to publicly professed dogmas.
As for astronomical references, there are a dozen papers by Narahari
Achar which show the independence of Hindu astronomy from Babylonian
astronomy on scientific grounds, and show the inherent flaws in David
Pingree's theories - which are held in so much esteen by Indologists
for obvious reasons. Indian astronmers and Sanskritists have written
lengthy reviews of David Pingree's publications, faulting his
knowledge of astronomy as well as of Sanskrit.
Of course, the Indologists will ignore these.
Need I say more?
Vishal