Vedic Past of Pre-Islamic Arabia

[Lambretta]

Wasn't the earliest form of Siva worshiped in Indus valley civilization

Tats wat I rem. reading in my history text bk at school......He was then known as Pashupati.....?

[ramraghav]

This is a very very brief summary of the vast plethora of material available on this subject. I am only providing references for those claims that can not be easily verified by a google search. If you want any reference in particular, please do ask me.

It certainly seems that Siva was known and worshipped during the Harappa-Mohenjodaro phase of the Indus-Saraswati civilization. This is supported by archealogical evidence (as we all read in the textbooks). However, the possibility has now been raised that Siva was known well before this phase and probably even before the earliest known phases (at Mehrgarh and Nausharo) of the I-S civi. These early stratiagraphical layers go well into 9500 yrs before present i.e. roughly 7500 BCE.

That Siva was worshipped before the H-M phase of the I-S (for which clinching archealogical evidence is available), has been inferred mainly from literary evidence. Ofcourse this is open to (and hotly is being the subject of) debate.

The literary evidence centers on the fact that Siva is featured prominently in the Rig Veda, implying that acknowledgement of Siva is atleast as old as the Rig Veda. The question then becomes: how old is the Rig Veda?

It is difficult to acertain exactly how old it is, but internal Rig Vedic evidence suggests that atleast a part of it was composed much before the H-M phase of the I-S. This evidence centers on the geography of the lands desribed in the Rig, which does not correspond to the H-M region (this served as the strongest support for the now thouroughly discredited AIT). It turns out that this geography (particularly relating to the river Saraswati) relates closely to the earlier sites in the I-S civ (such as Mehrgarh and Nausharo) but not the newer ones (like Harappa, Mohenjodaro and Dholavira).

This geographical evidence also tallies with literary evidence in the Puranas and the Upanishads. Of late attempts have been made (by Subash Kak and others) to date the Mahabharata. If we were to accept their conclusions regarding this, and accept 3137 BCE as the date of the war, and accept the theory that Vyasa was the author of the Mahabharata and the arranger of the Vedas, it follows that the Vedas (atleast partly) predate the Mahabharata. This supposition also makes sense in the light of ¿¡«ø §Å¾ ¦¿È¢ as mentioned in the Purananooru poem (its in the Tamil Lit thread, in case u r interested).

However, there are references in the Rig Veda which can not be satisfactorily explained by placing it in the Mehrgarh phase (particularly regarding the horse and the ocean). Then, there are also the curious (but persistent) references to Manu, the Seven Sages and the great flood. These can be explained by according a place of origin for the Vedas different from the I-S region.

As I stated earlier, the Bhagavata Purana claims that Manu was a Dravidian who, accompanied by the 7 sages, sailed from the south to the northern mountains. These 7 sages were supposed to have held the knowledge of the Vedas, and were expected to transmit the same to future generations of humans nurtured in the northern areas (10.130.6-7). Manu's actual name was supposedly Satyavrata (which, translated roughly means 'Keeper of Truth' or 'Keeper of Justice' if I am not wrong. The phrase 'Manu, keeper of justice'........does it ring any bells?). It is interesting to note that the Mahabharata talks of this Manu as having practiced intense penance for 10000 yrs! (Mahabharata 3.186) The Mahabharata (or the Satpatha Brahmana (1.217), where the Manu stories are told), does not verify the claim that Manu was a Dravidian king. On the other hand, it does not make any claim to the contrary either.

We can now claim, with significant riders, that
1. The Vedas (atleast in part) predate the Mahabharata war. The Mahabharata war occured in 3137 BCE.
2. The Rig Veda (atleast in part) can be placed in the Mehrgarh phase of the I-S civilization.
3. The Rig Veda (atleast in part) was carried and transmitted by the 7 sages from southern to northern lands (i.e. the earlier sites of the I-S civ). This implies that this part of the Rig Veda (or whatever it was known as at that time) must have been older than the earliest settlements in the I-S.

As I started off saying, this is a very simplified (and rather simplistic) summary of an intellectual debate of enormous scope and consequence. And yes, this whole analysis does not directly address the question of exactly how old the Rig Veda is, for it has led to this further question: how old is the civilization in south India?

Ram

[Idiappam]

A few questions for Mr Ramraghav.

The literary evidence centers on the fact that Siva is featured prominently in the Rig Veda, implying that acknowledgement of Siva is atleast as old as the Rig Veda. The question then becomes: how old is the Rig Veda?

How do you say that "Siva is featured prominently in the Rig Veda" when He did not exist at all in the Rig?

It is difficult to acertain exactly how old it is, but internal Rig Vedic evidence suggests that atleast a part of it was composed much before the H-M phase of the I-S. This evidence centers on the geography of the lands desribed in the Rig, which does not correspond to the H-M region (this served as the strongest support for the now thouroughly discredited AIT). It turns out that this geography (particularly relating to the river Saraswati) relates closely to the earlier sites in the I-S civ (such as Mehrgarh and Nausharo) but not the newer ones (like Harappa, Mohenjodaro and Dholavira).

How was the geography extracted from a book mainly containing 'chants'. Any ideas on which lines of the Rig matched the geography of the 'earlier' Mehrgarh etc?

Of late attempts have been made (by Subash Kak and others) to date the Mahabharata. If we were to accept their conclusions regarding this, and accept 3137 BCE as the date of the war, and accept the theory that Vyasa was the author of the Mahabharata and the arranger of the Vedas, it follows that the Vedas (atleast partly) predate the Mahabharata.

What has the date of the war incident got to with the date it was narrated and written down? - That you can safely rely on the date of the incident and ignore the date of its writing and pin-point the date of another writing the Rig-Veda?

This supposition also makes sense in the light of ¿¡«ø §Å¾ ¦¿È¢ as mentioned in the Purananooru poem (its in the Tamil Lit thread, in case u r interested).

Some songs of the puranaanooru were written after the Vedic period... even during the Bakti period.. Tamils new what existed around them - like the vedas.

We can now claim, with significant riders, that
1. The Vedas (atleast in part) predate the Mahabharata war. The Mahabharata war occured in 3137 BCE.

No! The war occured in 3137 perhaps... But when was that story narrated by 'Vyasa'?

2. The Rig Veda (atleast in part) can be placed in the Mehrgarh phase of the I-S civilization.

Any lines, as 'internal evidences', from the Rig?

3. The Rig Veda (atleast in part) was carried and transmitted by the 7 sages from southern to northern lands (i.e. the earlier sites of the I-S civ). This implies that this part of the Rig Veda (or whatever it was known as at that time) must have been older than the earliest settlements in the I-S.

I don't see the relationship there! 7 sages comming down and the I-S settlement and the Date of the Rig!

And yes, this whole analysis does not directly address the question of exactly how old the Rig Veda is,

Agreed! It does not, at all address the date of the Rig!

for it has led to this further question: how old is the civilization in south India?

Anyway never mind... But how does this question arise?[/tscii]

[bis_mala]

//This evidence centers on the geography of the lands described in the Rig, which does not correspond to the H-M region (this served as the strongest support for the now thoroughly discredited AIT).//

described or referred/mentioned?
Surprising that descriptions in Tamil Lit about Kumari Kandam are rejected by some of our hubbers as "legendary" but descriptions in another book Rig Veda (which was orally recited for a long time without being written down making it amenable to interference by ideologists of those times ) are not "legendary".

/

/This evidence centers on the geography of the lands//

Does this evidence include any other outside that centre? In other words, what other peripheral matters are there strengthening the evidence, besides the geography?

//thoroughly discredited AIT?//

It is disputed not thoroughly discredited. Just for comparison, any archeological evidence found for the Mahabharata War? Muslim invasions? Alexander's invasion?
No evidence does not mean that the incident did not take place. There are so many cases reported each day with no one being arrested or prosecuted because the police cannot find evidence to prosecute. Out of 100 cases prosecuted, more than 70 % are acquittals. All these do not mean that the underlying incidents did not take place. Insufficient evidence does not mean discredited.

prominently featured

RIG VEDA is anti-Siva worship.

The pre-Islamic mode of worship in Arabia may have certain identical features with that of ancient India. but it can hardly be described as Vedic. To say so, one has to prove that all the gods being worshipped or worshipped in the past in India are entirely Vedic. Historians aver to the contrary.

[mahadevan]

Since you guys claimed to be buying what science says the following link is a real research done in India. Draw your own conclusions
http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/hpg/cesmg/peopling.html

[bis_mala]

History as projected by Hindutva ideologues, which is being introduced to children through textbooks and is being thrust upon research institutes, precludes an open discussion of evidence and interpretation. Nor does it bear any trace of the new methods of historical analyses now being used in centres of historical research. Such history is dismissed by the Hindutva ideologues as Western, imperialist, Marxist, or whatever, but they are themselves unaware of what these labels mean or the nature of these readings. There is no recognition of the technical training required of historians and archaeologists or of the foundations of social science essential to historical explanation.

Romilla Thapar (Yr 2000)

The Hindutva ideologues and pro-vedics are similar.

There have been idol worship in not only in Arabia but also in Rome, Greece and Egypt. There was idol worship in Israel too in pre-Moses days. It is doubted that there was such worship during Sangam period except "nadukal". It is too sweepig to say that all these forms of idol worhip were Vedic. How many such idols are mentioned and described in the vedas??

[ramraghav]

A few questions for Mr Ramraghav.

The literary evidence centers on the fact that Siva is featured prominently in the Rig Veda, implying that acknowledgement of Siva is atleast as old as the Rig Veda. The question then becomes: how old is the Rig Veda?

How do you say that "Siva is featured prominently in the Rig Veda" when He did not exist at all in the Rig?

Your question has led me on an interesting tangent, hope its ok if I take some time to reply to this one!

It is difficult to acertain exactly how old it is, but internal Rig Vedic evidence suggests that atleast a part of it was composed much before the H-M phase of the I-S. This evidence centers on the geography of the lands desribed in the Rig, which does not correspond to the H-M region (this served as the strongest support for the now thouroughly discredited AIT). It turns out that this geography (particularly relating to the river Saraswati) relates closely to the earlier sites in the I-S civ (such as Mehrgarh and Nausharo) but not the newer ones (like Harappa, Mohenjodaro and Dholavira).

How was the geography extracted from a book mainly containing 'chants'. Any ideas on which lines of the Rig matched the geography of the 'earlier' Mehrgarh etc?

A few references to the Saraswati river can be found in Rig Veda 2.41.16; 6.61.1-13; 1.3.12. Reference to the Saraswati as having flowed upto the ocean is in 7.95.1-2.
You must be aware that satellite imaging has shown that there existed a major river once flowing through the area (SM Ramasamy, Remote Sensing in Geomorphology and B Ghose, Lost Courses of the Saraswati River in the Great Indian Desert, New Evidence from Landsat Imagery). Along the course of this river a number of 'pre-Harappan' settlements have been found i.e. prior to mid-third millenium BCE (approx 2500 BCE). The Saraswati (or whatever name is to be assigned to this discovered river) started drying out by the end of the third mill. BCE (i.e. close to 3000 BCE) and had ceased to flow by the early second mill. You may want to refer to the above quoted works of Ramasamy and Ghose.

Of late attempts have been made (by Subash Kak and others) to date the Mahabharata. If we were to accept their conclusions regarding this, and accept 3137 BCE as the date of the war, and accept the theory that Vyasa was the author of the Mahabharata and the arranger of the Vedas, it follows that the Vedas (atleast partly) predate the Mahabharata.

What has the date of the war incident got to with the date it was narrated and written down? - That you can safely rely on the date of the incident and ignore the date of its writing and pin-point the date of another writing the Rig-Veda?

You are correct. It is difficult to conclusively establish that the Mahabharata was written as a narration of contemporaneous events. This is particularly so since the Mahabharata is essentially a religious text. However, irrespective of this, as I said, if we were to assume
1. Vyasa was the author of the Mahabharata
2. Vyasa was the arranger of the Vedas
it then follows that, for certain, the Vedas predate the Mahabharata (the text, not necessarily the war). As for the exact date of the Mahabharata war (3137 BCE), I only quoted that out of the analysis by Subhash Kak www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/MahabharataII.pdf. If the analysis is wrong, the date probably will not stand scrutiny.

This supposition also makes sense in the light of ¿¡«ø §Å¾ ¦¿È¢ as mentioned in the Purananooru poem (its in the Tamil Lit thread, in case u r interested).

Some songs of the puranaanooru were written after the Vedic period... even during the Bakti period.. Tamils new what existed around them - like the vedas.

You are indeed right. However, if you recollect our discussion on the Puranooru poem, you will remember that this poem was written as a narration of contemporaneous events, meaning that
1. The war happened during the lifetime of the poet and the king
2. The poet (and most likely the public too) was aware of the existence of the 4 Vedas.
Now, this would imply that the Vedas (in part, as always) predate the war, wouldnt it?

We can now claim, with significant riders, that
1. The Vedas (atleast in part) predate the Mahabharata war. The Mahabharata war occured in 3137 BCE.

No! The war occured in 3137 perhaps... But when was that story narrated by 'Vyasa'?

Answered above

2. The Rig Veda (atleast in part) can be placed in the Mehrgarh phase of the I-S civilization.

Any lines, as 'internal evidences', from the Rig?

The geographical evidence I was talking about.

3. The Rig Veda (atleast in part) was carried and transmitted by the 7 sages from southern to northern lands (i.e. the earlier sites of the I-S civ). This implies that this part of the Rig Veda (or whatever it was known as at that time) must have been older than the earliest settlements in the I-S.

I don't see the relationship there! 7 sages comming down and the I-S settlement and the Date of the Rig!

And yes, this whole analysis does not directly address the question of exactly how old the Rig Veda is,

Agreed! It does not, at all address the date of the Rig!

for it has led to this further question: how old is the civilization in south India?

Anyway never mind... But how does this question arise?

[/tscii]

Sorry, my fault. I should have elaborated on this yesterday itself, but allow me to do so atleast now.

This short analysis shall address the following:
1. Where does Manu stand wrt the Vedas i.e. what is his role in it?
2. Who were the seven sages and what was their role?

Manu was held in high esteem by the authors of the Vedas. This can be seen by references such as RV 1.36.10, 1.36.19, 1.45.1, 1.112.16, 1.112.18, 1.114.2, 1.128.1, 1.128.2. Now, what Manu did to earn this respect is not very clear from the RV, for though the RV refers to Manu as 'Father Manu', 'Manu's progeny', 'Hero Manu' etc, it does not provide an explicit account what he actually achieved to earn these titles. This explanation is provided rather elaborately in the Bhagavata Purana (8.24), the Sathpatha Brahmana (2.187) and the Mahabharata (3.186). Here, Manu is claimed to have been warned about an impending flood by a fish, who instructs him to stay prepared for travel with the 7 sages, and finally guides them through the flood to the northern mountains where they make landfall. While RV shows great respect for Manu, and holds him as a father-figure and the progenitor of their peoples, the BP and SB go further and state that Manu was responsible for the propagation of their species. As for where exactly Manu's ship made landfall, the Arthava Veda offers some clue in 19.39.8 when it says that the ship descended at the summit of the Himalayas where immortality lies. This claim of making landfall at the Himalayas is reiterated in the Mahabharata 3.186

As for the 7 sages, they too were held in very high esteem and were considered to be forerunners of later sages. They were also supposed to have brought with them ancient knowledge and propagated the same to the current inhabitants of the lands. You may want to see RV 4.42.8, 10.82.2, 10.109.4, 10.130.6-7. And, they were supposed to have negotiated the flood alongwith Manu, and have made landfall in the northern mountains.

To summarize:
1. Manu was held in high esteem and considered to the 'Father' of these people.
2. The 7 sages were also held in high esteem and were considered to have brought with them ancient knowledge (probably an earlier form of the Vedas or whatever they were called).
3. The people of the I-S were descendants of migrants to that place.
4. This migration happened during the period of a great flood.
5. Since the Himalayas (where they made landfall) was considered as being to the north, the place of origin of the journey must have been further south.
6. The people of this place in the south already possesed a high civilization (for the simple enough reason that they had some literary knowledge), and a few of them migrated north.
7. Manu was supposed to have been a Dravidian king before the migration (BP 8.24.13).
8. The date of this migration, as estimated from studies by Ramasamy and Ghose on the the flow of the Saraswati, and by Graham Hancock on the occurrance of the flood, correlates well with the earliest habitational layers at Mehrgarh (around 10000-9000 yrs ago).

This evidence centers on the geography of the lands described in the Rig, which does not correspond to the H-M region (this served as the strongest support for the now thoroughly discredited AIT).

described or referred/mentioned?
Surprising that descriptions in Tamil Lit about Kumari Kandam are rejected by some of our hubbers as "legendary" but descriptions in another book Rig Veda (which was orally recited for a long time without being written down making it amenable to interference by ideologists of those times ) are not "legendary".

Yes, 'referred' would have been a better word.

This evidence centers on the geography of the lands

Does this evidence include any other outside that centre? In other words, what other peripheral matters are there strengthening the evidence, besides the geography?

Religious-Literary, which I would not bank upon simply because they are subject to faith-based interpretations. There are also references to celestial events, but I am not aware of the details.

thoroughly discredited AIT?

It is disputed not thoroughly discredited. Just for comparison, any archeological evidence found for the Mahabharata War? Muslim invasions? Alexander's invasion?
No evidence does not mean that the incident did not take place. There are so many cases reported each day with no one being arrested or prosecuted because the police cannot find evidence to prosecute. Out of 100 cases prosecuted, more than 70 % are acquittals. All these do not mean that the underlying incidents did not take place. Insufficient evidence does not mean discredited.

There is growing overwhelming evidence suggesting that the AIT was seriously flawed. You may want to read Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate by Koenraad Elst, The Myth of Aryan Invasion of India by David Frawley, In Search of the Cradle of Civilization by Feurstein, Kak and Frawley, and Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization by Graham Hancock. Even so, you are right, and 'thouroughly discredited' is probably an inappropriately strong phrase to have been used.

Rig Veda is anti-Shiva worship

Why do you say that?

Ram

[Uppuma]

Friends,

I was in a hurry, and Bible Old Testament- first five books called Torah was now dated to 400-250BCE, with few ORAL Traditions dated to 8th Cen. BCE, now confusing this with Rig of 2000BCE is meaningless.
Quiet a lot of OT main stories taken from Avestha, i.e from Vedic source.
MANY OF Jesus birth stories have similarities with Lord.KRISHNA; and Germans in early 19th Cen, tried to date Krisna Legends to being taken from Gospels; but when evidences of earlier Krishna came in Germans abandoned it, but local missionaries and Thani-Tamil movement leaders talk of them Denigrating Indian Values.
Uppuma.

[bis_mala]

Ramraghav wrote:

bis_mala wrote:
Rig Veda is anti-Shiva worship

Why do you say that?

http://www.rudrakshanepal.com/history.php says that Siva worship is 125,000 years old!! (= from time immemorial)
He is a god of the vedic age. (He existed then). (Note: not of the vedas but of the vedic age)

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/...istoryid=ab75:
The gods of the Aryans: from 1500 BC : And Shiva (under the name of Rudra) had a small and sinister part, prowling in the mountains, shooting humans and animals with his arrows, and both causing and curing diseases.

Now Rudra and Siva were identified as one deity subsequently when Saivism really spread to North India.

It is clear that Siva worship progressed and he reached his highest level in North India probably by Mahabharata age.

According to Gilbert Slater, Rig Veda condemned Linga worship which is an integral part of the Saivam. He says that Siva and Vishnu pre-existed Rig Veda.
Rig Veda assigned to him a lower status as said above (shooting...causing disease). Even later when he rose in power, he was relegated to a position performing destruction (because he is non-Aryan God).

See also "pazan-thamizk koLkaiyE saivasamayam" & "thamizar matham" by Maraimalai Adigal and the references given by him in his books need to be refuted if a contrary view is to be taken.

I am going through other ref. materials in the library too but I would not be able to give you more references for the time being.

[Uppuma]

Friends,

Siva - the very name doesnot appear any of the texts of Sangam lit, or Tholkappiyam.

Manimekhalai has Saivavathi and the man uses more Vedic taughts and Tholkappiyam and Sangam refers Vedas at many places.

Paripadal has even the name of one of the Vedas.

Muruga's One face is for Vedas as per Thirumurugatrupadai.

uppuma