Artificial Intelligence Misinformation on “Tṛtsus”

 

Artificial Intelligence Misinformation on “Tṛtsus”

 Shrikant G. Talageri

 

The word Tṛtsu is found in the Rigveda in nine verses in three hymns, all in Book 7, and all referring specifically to a group of people in the context of one specific historical incident, the dāśarājña battle or “battle of ten kings”:

VII. 18.7.13,15,19;  33.5,6;  83.4,6,8.

 

And here is what the google AI overview of the word tritsu tells us (type tritsu in google search for this result):

"Tritsu" refers to a sub-group of the Puru, an ancient Indo-Aryan people mentioned in the Rigveda, who, under King Sudas, defeated a confederation of ten kings at the Battle of the Ten Kings. 

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Vedic Context:

The Tritsus are mentioned in the Rigveda (Mandala 7, hymns 18, 33, and 83) as a distinct group within the larger Puru people. 

Battle of the Ten Kings:

The Tritsus, led by King Sudas, are known for their victory against a coalition of ten kings, including those led by the Bharatas, in the Battle of the Ten Kings. 

Location:

The battle took place near the Parusni river (modern Ravi), in the Punjab region. 

Significance:

The Tritsus' victory is a significant event in the early history of the Indo-Aryan people, marking a shift towards centralized monarchies and the emergence of the Kuru kingdom. 

Other Names:

The Tritsus are also referred to as the Trtsu. 

Vedic Period:

The Tritsus lived in the Vedic period, a time of great importance in the development of Indian culture and religion. 

Tritsu and Bharata:

The Tritsus were distinct from the Bharatas, another important Vedic tribe. 

Purohita:

Some scholars believe that Vasistha was the purohita (priest) of the Tritsus. 

Sudas:

Sudas, the leader of the Tritsus, was a descendant of Pijavana and Divodasa.

 

In general, one would assume that google AI overviews would give the standard western academic view. But in this case, it is impossible to guess exactly what and whose data all the above nonsense is based on:

1. Let us merely note, to begin with, the most utterly inane of these sentences: “The Tritsus are also referred to as the Trtsu”!

2. Next, and only slightly less inane: “Some scholars believe that Vasistha was the purohita (priest) of the Tritsus”. Seeing that this AI overview refers to “The Tritsus” as being “led by King Sudas”, the word “some scholars” makes no sense whatsoever, since it is not just “some scholars” who “believe that Vasistha was the purohita (priest) of the Tritsus”: all the analysts (without exception) of these hymns and this battle are absolutely unanimous on the point that “Vasistha was the purohita (priest)” of Sudās, however much they may differ from each other on every single other point about the battle.

3. Next: “The Tritsus' victory is a significant event in the early history of the Indo-Aryan people, marking a shift towards centralized monarchies and the emergence of the Kuru kingdom”. This is rather a long shot. The Kuru kingdom appears only at the very end of the Rigvedic period, so much so that the word Kuru itself is totally absent in the Rigveda, and only appears a few times in the later Samhitas, while Sudās was a person belonging to the very earliest period of the Rigveda (the Early Books of the Old Rigveda). It is a very long step from Sudās to the Kurus, and there is certainly no cause and effect between the battle and the much later Kuru kingdom. In fact, it is not even clear that the later Kurus belonged to the same branch of Pūrus as the dynasty and sub-tribe of Sudās.

4. But the main and most problematic part of this AI overview is: “The Tritsus, led by King Sudas, are known for their victory against a coalition of ten kings, including those led by the Bharatas, in the Battle of the Ten Kings […] The Tritsus were distinct from the Bharatas, another important Vedic tribe”. Note that the AI overview is clear that “Sudas, the leader of the Tritsus, was a descendant of Pijavana and Divodasa”. This clearly means that, as per this AI overview, Divodāsa also was a “Tritsu […] distinct from the Bharatas”.

It must be noted that this word Tritsu is not found anywhere else in the whole of Book7, anywhere else in the whole of the Rigveda, anywhere else in the whole of Vedic literature, and anywhere else in any other ancient Sanskrit text (Puranic or Epic). It is found nowhere else outside these seven verses.

Divodāsa and Sudās, however, are mentioned many times in other Vedic, Puranic and Epic references. Needless to say, since the word Tritsu is found nowhere else outside these seven verses, not a single one of these references refers to either Sudās or Divodāsa as a Tritsu.

The two are mentioned many times in the Rigveda itself outside these three hymns:

Divodāsa:

I. 112.14;  116.18;  119.4;  130.7,10.

II. 19.6.

IV. 30.20.

VI. 16.5,9;  26.5;  31.4;  43.1;  47.22,23;  61.1.

VII. 18.25.

IX. 61.2.

Sudās:

I. 47.6;  63.7;  112.19.

III. 53.9,11.

VII. 19.3,6;  20.2;  25.3;  32.10;  53.3;  60.8,9;  64.3.

 

Divodāsa is not called a Tṛtsu anywhere even once. And nor is Sudās himself even associated with the word anywhere else outside these three battle hymns (naturally, since the word is not found anywhere outside the three battle hymns).

However, Sudās is directly called a Bharata in both the important hymns in Book 3 which glorify his activities, as well as in the very battle hymn in Book 7:

III. 33.11,12;  53.12,24.

VII. 33.6.

Note also that this verse (VII. 33.6) directly declares that Vasiṣṭha is the priest of the Bharatas and that he leads them to victory (while the AI overview clearly tells us that Vasiṣṭha is with the “Tritsus” and against the Bharatas!!).

Likewise, Divodāsa is directly called a Bharata in two hymns:

VI.6.4-5;  16.9.

 

And no analyst of the Rigveda is under any doubts about either Divodāsa or Sudās being anything but a Bharata. Note how many times Jamison, for example, directly identifies the two as Bharatas:

Divodāsa: JAMISON-BRERETON 2014:1215.

Sudās: JAMISON-BRERETON 2014:54, 513, 536, 537, 538, 880, 902, 961, 986.

 

Then exactly from which authoritative source, whether from among AIT writers or OIT writers, does this AI overview draw the categorical conclusion that Divodāsa and Sudās are “Tritsus” and that Sudās and the Vasiṣṭhas fought against the Bharatas in the dāśarājña battle or “battle of ten kings”?

Is this some kind of high-level and high-tech Artificial Intelligence app which can be referred to for any kind of information? Or is it a joke, or a street-level gossip-machine, being fed, monitored and controlled by kindergarten kids and internet chattering classes, with no reference at all to, and having no connection at all with, any kind of serious primary data, research and information?

 

But, then, what exactly is meant by the word Tṛtsu, as it occurs in these three hymns?

It cannot be an alternative name for the Bharatas (ignoring for the moment the fact that this kindergarten-level AI overview actually describes the Bharatas as the enemies of the Tritsus!), although almost all analysts of the battle hymns have to recognize that in these hymns at least (but nowhere else) there is some identity between Sudās and the Bharatas with the word Tṛtsu. What is that identity? According to Macdonnell and Keith:

“the Bharatas are really represented as victors with Sudās. Ludwig, accordingly, identifies the Tṛtsus and the Bharatas. Oldenberg, after accepting this view at first, later expressed the opinion that the Tṛtsus were the priests of the Bharata people, and therefore identical with the Vasiṣṭhas. This view is supported by the fact that in one passage the Tṛtsus are clearly described as wearing their hair in the peculiar manner affected by the Vasiṣṭhas, and in that passage would thus seem to represent the Vasiṣṭhas. But Geldner has suggested with great probability that Tṛtsu, who is once mentioned in the singular, means the Tṛtsu king−that is, Sudās” (MACDONELL-KEITH 1912a:321-322).

Clearly, since the word Tṛtsu is not used anywhere in any text, outside these three Rigvedic battle hymns, to refer to either Sudās, or the Bharatas, or the Vasiṣṭhas; and yet, since the above scholarly arguments clearly show that in these three battle hymns it does indeed refer to any or all of them, but only in the context of this battle; the logical conclusion is that Tṛtsu was a peculiar and unique word coined by the Vasiṣṭhas only in the specific context of this battle to refer to the combined alliance of the Bharatas and the Vasiṣṭhas under Sudās. Note that the Viśvāmitras, when it is they who were the earlier partners of Sudās and the Bharatas in their initial (and not too successful) expansionist activities, do not use this word at all in the very important hymns III.33 and 53.

Unfortunately, serious Vedic research has become a frivolous enterprise. We have even a genuine scientist like Jijith Nadumuri Ravi (in his book “Rivers of the Rigveda”) resorting to fictional and arbitrary inventions to create all kinds of fairy-tale scenarios: the one most relevant to this article being his invention of two rival Bharata tribes in the Rigveda, both equally the “People of the Book” and the victories of both (apparently against each other!) being glorified (even though they are enemies in those battles) often within different verses within the same hymn! One of the two is a fictitious group called the “Tṛtsu Bharatas”, their rivals being an even more fictitious group called the “Saṁvaraṇa Bharatas”. This leads from the creation of one fictitious entity and event to another, until nothing makes any sense.

 

Incidentally, even keeping aside the fact that there must be massive misinformation being loaded into these Artificial Intelligence apps by powerful vested interests in the academic and media spheres which refuse to have objective research and discussions on subjects under their stranglehold; there must also be many fringe theories which probably draw upon, or feed − or both – these so called “Intelligence” apps with all kinds of garbage. Then naturally, we get what is called “garbage in, garbage out” in the answers given by these apps.

If these so-called Artificial Intelligence apps are so ridiculously and totally out-of-touch with anything and everything factual about the information they give in response to inquiries, even in such simple and basic matters, isn’t it ridiculous to expect them to give authentic information on much more intricate and complicated issues? Will mankind ultimately end up completely mortgaging its sanity to these digital behemoths? That will definitely be the intellectual version of a nuclear holocaust.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

JAMISON-BRERETON 2014: The Rigveda―The Earliest Religious Poetry of India. Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2014.

MACDONELL-KEITH 1912a: Vedic Index of Names and Subjects. Vol 1. Macdonell A.A. and Keith A.B. John Murray, London, 1912.

MACDONELL-KEITH 1912b: Vedic Index of Names and Subjects. Vol 2. Macdonell A.A. and Keith A.B. John Murray, London, 1912.