Monday, 20 February 2012

Atharva veda older than Rigveda ??

It is normally thought that Rigveda was the first ever Veda to be composed and then the other Vedas were composed. But looking at the composers, looks like some parts of the Atharvaveda are older than Rigveda.
One major branch of Atharvaveda is said to be composed by Atharva rishi. He is son of Angirasa rishi and also called Atharvangirasa. Purans say that Atharva existed in the Swayambhuva manvantara.
As also, Atharvaveda is sadi to be the joint compostion of Bhrigu and Angirasa. And one composer was present earlier than Vaivasvat Manu and other composers of Rigveda. Hence Atharvaveda can be older than Rigveda.
Also if we study the topics these two vedas deal, we see that Atharvaveda is a very crude Veda which deals more with sacrifice, magical healing and black magic whereas Rigveda seems a bit more mature dealing with praises of gods and a part of history ( War of ten kings,etc) . So by this sense, Atharvaveda can be of an earlier era when less maturity about physical and meta-physical world existed. But we see that Bhrigus were then cornered and their relative verses in the Rigveda are quite less while that of Angirases are quite high. Some attribute that Bhrigus crossed sides and became the purohits of Asuras in Central Asia and later on again came into the Vedic fold. This also explains why Bhrigus have more hymns on Soma in Rigveda than any other family as Soma plant is found more in Central Asia.
i am quoting Shrikant Talageri who feels this way

Wednesday, 15 February 2012


Now returning back to the genealogies.
I request the reader to keep the excel file open while reading this or else it would cause inconvenience.
In those genealogies, the placing of dushyanta, the Paurava king at No.33 and Sudas of north Panchal synasty at No. 55 is perhaps the most important thing. The reason being, both of these kings knew that a rishi vishwamitra existed. Vishwamitra's daughter shakuntala was the wife of dushyanta and vishwamitra had helped sudas in the war of 10 kings which is mentioned in Rigveda ( RV ) ( 7.18).
now the problem is that, the original ( Eponymous, abbreviated as Epon) vishwamitra rishis known as vishwamitra Gathin or son of gadhi who is king in the Kanyakubja line. But where to place the original rishi?
Another fact to note is that this (epon)vishwamitra was present during the reign of trishanku of the Ikshvaku dynasty. So surely (Epon) Vishvamitra should be at No. 32 in the Kanyakubja line along with Trishanku of the Ikshvaku line.
The main problem is that whether we should place Dushyant as a contemporary of this (Epon) vishvamitra or whether it should be Sudas who is at least 20 generations down from dushyant.
Many people consider it that Sudas should be contemporary with Vishvamitra (Epon) because the rigved and Katyayana's Sarvanukramani mention that the Vishwamitra Gathin was present during his reign. But the problem with this is that the sarvanukramani directly ascribes verses to Vishwamitra Gathin even if the verses are composed by his descendants. eg- RV ( 3.53.12) which says Vishvamitra crossed the Sindhu river for sudas.The composer here actually calls himself a Vishwamitra's descendant but this verse is ascribed to Vishwamitra gathin himself.

Another problem. Suppose I agree that Vishwamitra Gathin was present during Sudas's regime and some other Vishvamitra was the father-in-law of Dushyanta who was some 20 generations before Sudas. The question arises, how can an unknown Vishvamitra exist some 20 generations before the actual Vishvamitra gathina who stated the Vishvamitra family line???

So we have to consider that Vishvamitra Gathina was present during Dushyant's reign and his remote descendant was present during Sudas' time who got wrongly ascribed as Vishvamitra Gathin himself. 

Credibility of Purans

It has become a fashion these days to abuse and taunt on the Purans and other texts for their myths. The reason, political and others, however are doing injustice to the strict historical parts of the Purans and Itihasa.
The most sad part is that history has got badly entagled in politics. Today, calling the purans as myths earns you a tag of 'progressive' . 
One of my friend asked me, "out of the total countries in the world, which countries study the vedas and purans? " 
PURANS AND VEDAS ARE OUR SCRIPTURES. WHY THE HELL SHOULD OTHER COUNTRIES STUDY THEM? even if those countries don't, it is our duty to study those scriptures. Reason? BECAUSE they are OUR scriptures. THIS REASON IS ENOUGH. 
The problem is that whatever is related to hindusim is always considered as wrong and myth.
1. When Vasudev was carring baby Krishna the river Yamunna parted. This is considered myth and when Mosses parted the ocean is real. 
2. In Ramayan, Vanars were able to talk. This is a myth and in Bible when a turtle talked it was real.
3. Kumbhkarna was big. It is myth and in Bible Goliath was ten feet tall is real.
4. Krishna performed miracles. This is myth and Jesus performing miracles are real.
5. Bhim and Arjun were powerful warriors. This is myth, no one can be so strong. Samson and David being very stong to destroy stone pillars is real.
6. Prahalad getting out alive from snakes is myth. Another person in Bible getting out alive from lions cave is real.
7. Arjun and Yudhisteer going to heaven alive is myth. Mohammed going to heaven on a flying horse is real. Wow.
8. Valmiki, a simple robber getting great knowledge is myth. Mohammed an uneducated person getting knowledge is real.
See all the religions have similar things except only Hinduism is named mythology.

Taking about the credibility of the purans, i would like to quote Koernaad Elst
"To the neglect of the legitimate history books, the ItihAsa-PuraNa literature, i.e. the Epics and the Puranas is like ignoring the historical Bible books (Exodus, Joshua, Chronicles, Kings) to draw ancient Israelite history exclusively from the Psalms, or like ignoring the historians Livius, Tacitus and Suetonius to do Roman history on the basis of the poet Virgil.  What would be dismissed as “utterly ridiculous” in Western history is standard practice in Indian history.

No serious historian would ignore the Exodus narrative simply because it also contains unhistorical episodes like the Parting of the Sea and the voice from the Burning Bush..So, if Biblical history can be accepted as more than fantasy, the same credit should be given to the historiographical parts of the Epics and Puranas."

Purans and Vedas are OUR scriptures, they contain info about OUR ancestors, OUR kings,OUR rishis,OUR kingdoms. They are written on OUR land, by OUR ancestors in OUR own Sanskrit language. So it is OUR duty to see to it that at least we try to analyze the historical part of these scriptures.
These days are dark and shadowed. Our own religion and scriptures are undergoing a turbulent phase. But as Mundok Upanishad states it, Satyameva Jayate, Truth will always triumph. One day surely will come when our true history will reveal itself.

Hello guys...I am Ashutosh Kulkarni. I have made an attempt to establish a chronology of the ancient indian kings. The names of the kings have been perfected from various Purans, Rigveda,Mahabharata, Valmiki Ramayana,etc. Certain synchronicity is established between certain kings and rishis which has been used to fix their position. In all this process, the names of the Solar dynasty of Ayodhya are near perfect and hence are used as a reference. 
In the ancient times, the names of the kings, their kingdoms,their legends were carefully stored, taught and passed orally through generations. This information first found place in literature through the Purans and Itihasa. Although the puranic source is quite corrupted but it is the best we have. The problem arises when the Purans miss the names of certain kings in the middle. This is a very common occurring in the Purans. Hence in the list, certain question marks '?' have been put to signify blank gaps where kings might have existed. In my next post, I will describe all the synchronisms about certain kings and rishis due to which their position gets fixed.