Ishwa helper Reged: 03/03/02 Posts: 553

Re: New Book : RIG VEDA AND THE HISTORY OF INDIA [Re: ajay] #17672 - 06/20/02 05:24 PM Edit Reply Quote

I agree with David Frawley, that the RigVeda is mainly a Panchala-Bharata document, or better: a remodification in the end of the Panchala period and beginning of the Kuru period of older and recent material. In the Kuru period the Panchalas merged with the Kurus. But I disagree on the point of Purus and Ikshvakus. Pargiter rightly observed that Purukutsa and Trasadasyu are not the Ikshvakus (who were far earlier kings), but are actually Puru kings, to which also belonged the Trkshi kings. Putting the Ikshvaku dynasty parallel with the Bharata-Purus is violating the Puranic lists too much and leading towards too many discrepancies: There's a Rshi Shandilya who was in Bhuvamanyu Bharata's and Dilipa II Khatvanga's court, which gives a synchronicity. A few generations later we have Shrutarvan Arksha (mentioned in the RgVeda), who was a contemporary of a Krshna. It was this Krshna who was married to Jambavatii, the daughter of the minister of Sugriiva. This gives Rama in this period, who was many generations later then Purukutsa and Trasadasyu Aikshvakava. And the Purukutsa and Trasadasyu of the (Trkshi-?)Bharatas had yet to come, because they lived during Divodasa of the Panchala-Bharatas, a king who came many generations after Mudgala, when Panchala just came into existence. (Purukutsa of the Bharatas had a father Girikshita, and grandfather Durgaha, two names that don't fit in the Ikshvaku dynasty) There's according to Pargiter also a confirmation of Rama being in that period, and thus making it impossible for his forefather Purukutsa to have lived in the Bharata period: Mudgala's brother was Srnjaya, both Bharatas. The daughter of the last was married to Bhajamana Yadava, the son of Bhima Satvata, a contemporary of Rama. Bhima recovered the area of Mathura, which was conquered by Shatrughna of the Yadavas and ruled by Shatrughna's son, who then lost it. The two Ikshvaku kings, and Mandhata lived in the time of their conflict with the Druhyus far earlier, who pushed their cousins the Druhyus from UP to the Panjab. [The conflicts with the Haihayas had yet to come. They were in constant war with especially the Kashi kings Divodasa and Pratardana and their Kshatravrddha family. It seems strange that the RgVeda mentions Divodasa and Pratardana, but nowhere the Haihayas. But the answer is very simple: The Divodasa and Pratardana of the RigVeda is mentioning the far later Bharata kings who fought with Shambara, possibly an Anava king. Even Sagara the Ikshvaku and ancestor of Rama, was far before the Bharatas. He had crushed finally the power of the Haihayas, never to emerge again. Another indication that Vedic Purukutsa was not a Ikshvaku, is that Vamadeva Gautama was in the court of the Ikshvaku kings Parikshita P�ripatra and his sons Shala and Dala, but also consecrated king Durmukha Panchala, the Bharata (Aitareya Brahmana VIII, 23). His wife was Sushobhana. (Parikshita, Shala, Dala and Vamadeva in MBh, Vanaparva 192) This Parikshit was many generations after Rama, and thus also making it impossible for Purukutsa the Ikshvaku to being contemporary with the Panchala-Bharatas. One family that was very close with the Ikshvaku kings of Ayodhya, were the Vasishthas. A section of them, known as the Trtsus, then came to the Bharata court of Sudas, to help him win the Batte of the Ten Kings. But they then disappeared from the Panchala-Bharata scene due to hostilities to the Hastinapura Bharatas, and helped Samvarana, the father of Kuru to reconquer his lost kingdom. Since then the main power was with the Kauravas. (The only people who can claim to be Trtsus are the Vasishthas, no Bharata king was called as such) Shrikant Talageri was right that the oldest kings are in northeastern UP, before the period of Bharata kings mentioned in the RigVeda. The East was already a remote and holy area, when the Bharatas ruled in the Sarasvata area. The RigVeda speaks of the time of the "purvebhir Rshibhir", meaning not only the Rshis of the East, but also of older days! It is very strange that hardly any Ikshvakus are mentioned in the RigVeda, though their Puranic list is pretty much complete. (Puranas belonged to more eastern traditions, as the RgVeda to a more western) Edited by Ishwa (06/20/02 05:43 PM)