How People Casually Arrive at Conclusions on Rigvedic History on the Basis of Epic-Puranic References

 

 

How People Casually Arrive at Conclusions on Rigvedic History on the Basis of Epic-Puranic References

Shrikant G. Talageri

 

I do not know whether this article is really necessary, but I could not resist the chance to give an example of how casual writers arrive at conclusions on Rigvedic history on the basis of Epic-Puranic References, since I am constantly facing queries, comments or arguments of this kind:

So, according to Rupa Bhati, I am wrong in claiming that the Ikṣvākus of the east were originally outside the Rigvedic cultural horizon, since here is evidence (that I missed) from the Yoga Vasiṣṭha proving that the Vasiṣṭhas of the Rigveda were the "Gurus of the Ikṣvāku race"!

Yes, if these Epic-Puranic enthusiasts are to be believed, I have, throughout the course of my Rigvedic studies, constantly been "missing" out on such vital pieces of evidence from the Epics and Puranas!

Here is another piece of vital evidence that I missed out, on the antiquity of the southern kingdoms of the Andhras, Cholas, Cheras (Keralas) and Pandyas, among many others, from no less a text than the Valmiki Ramayana:

When Sugrīva, the king of the Vanaras, sends his Vanara emissaries all over India to search for Sita, he specifically tells them to "examine the districts of Andhras, Paundras, the Cholas, Pandyas and Keralas" (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, 4.41.12). A little later, he again addresses them: "O Monkeys, you will see the golden gates set with pearls of the city of the Pandyas" (Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha Kanda, 4.41.19). Translations by Hari Prasad Shastri. Vanga and Kalinga are also named in verse 11.

Rupa Bhati dates the Ramayana to 12209 BCE. But the beginnings of the long-lived Chola. Pandya and Chera kingdoms are dated to the 4th century BCE. If we want to avoid missing out on this important clue from the Valmiki Ramayana, we must either date both the Ramayana events (specifically the date on which Sugrīva sent out his Vanara emissaries to search for Sita) and the three Southern kingdoms to 12209 BCE or to the 4th century BCE!! I do not know which of the two will be acceptable to Rupa Bhati, but certainly Tamil enthusiasts will prefer the earlier date and western historians the latter one. But all these unwanted and totally unnecessary problems arise only when scholars insist on treating the very much later (i.e. 3rd century BCE or post-3rd century BCE) version of the Epics and Puranas, as we have them today, as treasuries of very ancient (Rigvedic-era, at the very least) historical and geographical data, and raise silly objections or produce untenable conclusions about Rigvedic history based on something or the other contained in these texts which were given their final form in the 3rd century BCE or post-3rd century BCE.

A thousand years from now, the script of the 1961 Hindi film Sampoorna Ramayana could be found by some researcher, and the scene in that film, showing Rama seeing Sita's image in a Sitaphal (custard apple) and Sita seeing Ram's image in a Ramphal (soursop), will be interpreted by some casual writer of that future age as an important clue that historical analysts of the Ramayana have missed out on. Since both the custard apple and the soursop were introduced into India from Latin America by the Portuguese in or after the 17th century CE, this brilliant writer will have unearthed a clue which could help date both the Portuguese arrival in India (with Latin American fruits) as well as the Ramayana events to either 12209 BCE or to some date post-17th century CE!

This is not a light matter. The process of trying to write Rigvedic or Rigvedic-era history and geography on the basis of Epic-Puranic data, even when it completely contradicts the evidence of the Rigveda (and sometimes even the combined evidence of the Rigveda and the Epic-Puranic texts!!) is a process which is going on all the time, and a very popular process with countless enthusiasts and fans.