My Final Word on the Subject of Purukutsa-Trasadasyu

My Final Word on the Subject of Purukutsa-Trasadasyu

 Shrikant G. Talageri

 

Plenty of crap has been discussed till now on the question of whether Purukutsa and Trasadasyu are early kings belonging to the period of the Old Rigveda or late kings belonging to the period of the New Rigveda.

I give below my final words on the subject. Already much of my time has been wasted on this. I will not repeat these points again after this. This is the absolutely final time:

 

1. The first thing that any analyst of the Rigveda (and especially from the historical point of view) should know and understand, right from the kindergarten level, is that if a person is named in a hymn, it does not automatically mean that the person lived at the time of composition of that hymn. The ONLY exceptional references which can be taken as completely contemporaneous to the time of composition of the hymn itself, are the references to the donor king and the donee composers in dānastutis (hymns in praise of gifts given by the patron donor to the composer).

In this case:

There are only two hymns which refer directly to Trasadasyu (specifically as the son of Purukutsa) in dānastutis: V.34 and VIII.19.

Three other hymns (one of which also refers to Trasadasyu’s son Tryaruṇa) seem to indirectly suggest that Trasadasyu is the patron of the composer and is present on the scene: VIII.27, 36, 37.

Whether anyone likes it or not, these are the only hymns in the Rigveda which show them as belonging to the time of composition of the hymn, and as being contemporaneous to the Kaṇva and Atri composers (and the Vaiśvāmitra composer Saṁvaraṇa Prājāpatya).

So no-one (who does not have an illogical and agenda-driven outlook) can deny that Purukutsa and Trasadasyu belonged to the period of composition of the hymns V.34 and VIII.19, 27, 36, 37, and that they cannot have been living in earlier periods.

If the reader has not been able to grasp, understand and accept this most fundamental point, I would suggest that he/she stops reading at this point and move off.

 

2. All five of the above hymns are found only in the New Books V and VIII, and all these five hymns are full of New Words (and in three of them, new meters):

V.27: 1. trivṛṣan, anasvat, cetiṣṭha.  3. naviṣṭha.  4. aśvamedha.  5. aśvamedha.  6. aśvamedha. [5 verses, 7 words].

V.33: 2. prārya, dhiyasāna.  3. ayukta.  5. jagamyāt, yātá.  6. enī, vasavāna, mārutāśva, prārya.  7. piprīhi.  9. anūka, dádāna.  10. saṁvaraṇa. [7 verses, 13 words +C].

VIII.19: 2. vibhūta, īḷiṣva, yantura, sobharī.  6. dyumnintama.  7. svagni.  8. mitriya.  9. kṣayadvīra.  11. viṣa (servant).  12. upari, yahu, makṣūtama.  13. ajiraśocis.  15. atriṇam.  16. indratvota, gātuvid.  20. sāsaha.  24. gandha.  26. pāpatva.  28. tavāham.  31. vastu.  32. sahasramuṣka, āganma, sobharī, trāsadasyava.  35. carṣaṇīsah, mitrāryama.  [17 verses, 27 words +M].

VIII.36: 1. apsujit, sehāna.  2. apsujit, sehāna.  3. apsujit, sehāna.  4. apsujit, sehāna.  5. apsujit, sehāna.  6. apsujit, sehāna.  7. nṛsāhya, śyāvāśva. [7 verses, 14 words +C +M].

VIII.37: 2. sehāna.  5. prayuj.  7. nṛsāhya, śyāvāśva. [3 verses, 4 words +C +M].

 

Further, in continuation of what I had written in my previous article (just before this one):

a) The eponymous Viśvāmitra was a contemporary of Sudās.

b) Trasadasyu is a contemporary and a gift-giving patron of the following composers: an unknown Atri composer (V.27), Saṁvaraṇa Prājāpatya (V.33), Sobhari Kāṇva (VIII.19), Śyāvāśva Ātreya (VIII.36, 37).

c) The Atris are composers belonging to the (far post-Sudās) last Family Book and first New Book : i.e. book 5. (later to Books 6, 3, 7, 4, 2)

d) Saṁvaraṇa Prājāpatya is a descendant of Prajāpati Vaiśvāmitra, himself a descendant of the eponymous Viśvāmitra.

e) The Sobharis are descendants of Sobhari Kāṇva, who is a descendant of Kaṇva Ghaura, who was a disciple or descendant of Ghora Āṅgiras, himself a junior co-composer in a late hymn in Book 3 with a Vaiśvamitra, a descendant of the eponymous Viśvāmitra.

Inescapable Conclusion: If Trasadasyu is the contemporaneous patron of such far descendants of the eponymous Viśvāmitra (a contemporary of Sudās), and of late Atri and Kaṇva composers so far down the line, how can Trasadasyu be older and earlier than Sudās?   

 

3. For a fuller, complete, and more detailed understanding of the Internal Chronology of the Rigveda, please go through my following blog article, which is basically chapter 4 of my third book “The Rigveda and the Avesta – The Final Evidence” (2008).

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/01/chapter-4-internal-chronology-of-rigveda.html 

In this I deal with the hymns in the 10 books of the Rigveda:

Old Rigveda: 6, 3, 7, 4, 2.

New Rigveda: 5, 1, 8, 9, 10.

While the hymns in the five New Books of the Rigveda also belong to different chronological strata, the difference is relatively immaterial from the specific point of view of analysis of the history of the Rigveda.

This is because, while Book 10 is undoubtedly the last and latest book of the Rigveda (so much later than the other nine books, that sometimes all the other nine can be, in some respects, classified together against Book 10), and Book 5 at the earlier end of the group shares many characteristics with the Old Rigveda (being a Family Book like the five  older books, and still being centered in the east rather than over the entire horizon of the Rigveda), and Book 8 in the middle having two parts, a later part (eleven Vālakhilya hymns) and an earlier part (the other ninety-two hymns, the common feature uniting these five books of the New Rigveda (from the earlier five books of the Old Rigveda) is a chronological gulf between the composition periods of the two groups, characterized by many new developments in vocabulary, technology, etc.

It is this chronological gulf which is crucial in any historical analysis of the Rigveda, and in this respect, the differences between Book 5, the two parts of Book 8, and Book 10 (and of course, Books 1 and 9 as well) do not make much material difference in the analysis (at least yet, and in the AIT-OIT historical context). The hymns in all five New Books fall in one category: all the hymns are “New Hymns”.

On the other hand, understanding the distinctions between the different categories of hymns in the five Old Books is crucial for our historical analysis (particularly in the AIT-OIT historical context): The hymns in all five Old Books do not fall in one undifferentiated category as “Old Hymns”. There are important distinctions which are crucial in any historical analysis.

To understand the full extent of this chronological gulf, please go carefully though the relevant article:

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2022/08/final-version-of-chronological-gulf.html 

The earlier article cited above (Chapter 4 of my 2008 book) explains everything in detail:

a) The division into 10 books (Old Rigveda + New Rigveda), and the progressive differences from the earliest of them (Book 6) to the last one (Book 10).

b) The correct identification (by Oldenberg and other western Indologists) of the hymns of the Old Rigveda which fall into a regular pattern of arrangement (what we call here the proper Old Rigveda), as opposed to those hymns which do not: (what we call here the Redacted Hymns, which contain New Words not found in the proper Old Rigveda).

c) After understanding the correct identification (by Oldenberg and other western Indologists) of the division of the hymns of the Old Rigveda into two categories (the proper Old Rigveda and the Redacted Hymns), we find another category of six hymns, not classified by Oldenberg as what we call Redacted hymns, but which nevertheless were New Hymns inserted into the Old Book 3 in the period of the New Rigveda. We owe this information to the Aitareya Brahmana (affiliated to the Rigveda).

The characteristic of these six hymns is that they are not really Old Hymns, but they were inserted into the Old Rigveda. As they were added later, they contain New Words. So, for all practical purposes, they have to be counted among the Redacted Hymns.

So now, the Old Rigveda consists of three groups:

Old Hymns (of the proper Old Rigveda), which are Old Hymns, arranged in the correct order, and not having New Words.

Redacted Hymns (classified by Oldenberg), which are Old Hymns, not arranged in the correct order, and having New Words.

Redacted Hymns (listed in the Aitareya Brahmana). which are New Hymns, inserted into the Old Books in the correct order, and having New Words.

d) An additional factor (see the above article) is “The only historically significant personalities whose names were interpolated into older hymns are Purukutsa and Trasadasyu (see TALAGERI 2000:66-72)”.

 

Yes, sorry to say, for those whose agenda makes them unwilling to accept this part, this is the situation that I saw in the Rigveda right from my very first book on the Rigveda (in the year 2000), long before I classified the Rigveda formally into the Old Rigveda and the New Rigveda, and undertook the massive task of listing out the New Words in the Rigveda (in my above article on the chronological gulf). And all the studies, analyses and applications of new data from the year 2000 to the present day have only confirmed this beyond the slightest shadow of doubt.

Attempts to promote an AIOIT case where everyone originated in the Sarasvati area have led not only to the invention and fabrication of totally fictitious new tribes, new battles, new migrations, new connections between different Puranic kings and tribes and sages, etc. etc., but also to deliberate, illogical and agenda-driven attempts to sabotage the Internal Chronology of the Rigveda (which is so crucial to the OIT) by making:

a) late kings of the New Rigveda (like Purukutsa and Trasadasyu) older than the early kings of the Old Rigveda (like Sudās),

b) late composer families of the New Rigveda (like the Atris and Kaṇvas) older than  early composer families of the Old Rigveda (like the Vasiṣṭhas and Viśvāmitras).

c) descendant composers (like Saṁvaraṇa Prājāpatya Vaiśvāmitra) older than their ancestors (i.e. Viśvāmitra).

Now the big question (which some people seem to think is a conundrum) is: if Purukutsa and Trasadasyu are so definitely living in the period of the New Rigveda, − and this fact cannot be denied − how is it they are mentioned in four hymns in the Old hymns of the Old Rigveda?

The only logical answer can be that they are interpolations, and that they are very special interpolations since there is no other case in the entire Rigveda where historical or geographical interpolations are found. Is there anything to indicate that they are interpolations?

The answer, already given by me countless times in the last 25 years is that the special priestly families of the Bharata Pūrus of the Rigveda (the Aṅgiras and Vasiṣṭha composers) in the period of the New Rigveda were so overwhelmed with gratitude at the special and life-saving help given by these kings to the Bharata Pūrus that they expressed this gratitude by inserting lavish (and almost sycophantic) praise on them and inserting this praise into their own ancestral compositions in the Old Rigveda. There is no other explanation. And to emphasize this praise, it was expressed in terms unparalleled elsewhere in the Rigveda.

Four hymns (all four by Aṅgiras and Vasiṣṭha composers) in the Old Rigveda contain these insertions:

VI.20.10; IV.38.1; IV.42.8-9 (all Aṅgiras) and VII.19.6  (Vasiṣṭha).

The extraordinary nature of these interpolations is that they contain extraordinary characteristics found nowhere else in the Rigveda:

IV.42.8-9 twice refers to Trasadasyu as an ardhadeva or "demi-god", an extraordinarily adulatory phrase found nowhere else in the entire corpus of the Vedic texts. And It glorifies his birth in a manner reminiscent of the glorification of the birth of later divine heroes not only in India but all over the world, but without parallel in the Rigveda: the Seven Great Sages (sapta ṛṣi, otherwise found only in Book 10!) gather together, Purukutsa's wife gives oblations to Indra and Varuṇa, and the two Gods are pleased to reward her with the birth of Trasadasyu "the demi-god, the slayer of the foe-men".

IV.38 and IV.42 are the only hymns in the entire Rigveda where Varuṇa is directly associated with any human person: Trasadasyu. Other Gods like Indra, Agni and the Aśvins are described countless times as granting special favors and aid to countless devotees, but there is no other reference in the whole of the Rigveda where Varuṇa is involved in this manner.

 

Further, the suspicious nature of these references has not escaped the notice of the Indologists:

1. In the case of IV.42.8-9, although the hymn is not a Redacted Hymn, Griffith tells us that "Grassmann banishes stanzas 8, 9 and 10 to the appendix as late additions to the hymn".

2. VI.20.10 is the only verse in the Old Books, singled out by Prof. Hopkins (HOPKINS 1896a:72-73), in the "Final Note" to his path-breaking article "Prāgāthinī - I", as a verse which seems to have "interesting marks of lateness", in spite of the hymn not being a Redacted Hymn.

3. Verse IV.38.1 is definitely totally out of place in the hymn. Hymns 38-40 are hymns in praise of Dadhikrās, the deified war-horse, and this one verse, out of the 21 verses in the three hymns, is the only verse which stands out from the other 20 verses in deifying Trasadasyu (who is not mentioned at all in the other verses) rather than Dadhikrās.

4. About VII.19, the hymn itself may have been composed long after the period of Sudās, since  Griffith points out that the contemporaneous king referred to in verse 8 is "probably a descendant of Sudās, who must have lived long before the composition of this hymn, as the favor bestowed on him is referred to as old in stanza 6".

    

After this, I will not bother to waste any time on this rubbish, no matter what the provocations. People can use their viveka-buddhi to see what is right and what is wrong. And whatever they conclude, it will be their privilege to do so. I cannot go on repeating things forever to “convince” anyone.

[As an amusing aside; Jijith protests that I “argue that a Late Rgvedic king got interpolated into Early Rgveda, without any objection from hundreds of composers who lived in Late Rgveda and contributed to Rgveda. Such an act will be severely opposed. It can never happen in the Rigvedic Composition History! It is as absurd as interpolating Rahul Gandhi into the Mahabharata as a Kurukshetra War hero!” It is funny to visualize the period of composition of the Rigveda as a period where people put up petitions and held morchas holding up placards protesting against things they disapproved of!]