History : Re-writing or Writing
I HAVE always been intrigued by issues concerning History. History, or rather historians, are today split into western, leftist, nationalist, subaltern etc. and such divisions among historians rid history of its truths. Chandragupta's was the golden period of Indian history or Akbar's? Aryans came from outside or not? etc. etc. I can write (& shall definitely write on these issues). Presently, I want to mention a basic question on Ancient Indian History : Is Rig Veda the earliest historical text?
ALL our historians have been telling us so, because English historians wrote it. We must realise that all the history we are made to read has been written by British historians who deliberately avoided the original references to our history, including oral history.
ACCORDING to historians, Vedic texts refer to only those places (including rivers and mountains) about which they knew. The fact is that they mentioned only those that were relevant with respect to those texts and omitted which they did not think relevant. That is and must be true for all historic texts.
BACK to Rig Veda 10/90/9 mentions Samaveda as well as Yajurveda. In Aittreya Brahmana 25/7/3, who knew Yajurveda, has been mentioned as Adhervew. In Rigveda 10/107/6 word Yajanya has been used for expert in Yajurveda. Rigveda 3/53/11 mentions Ashwamedhayagna of Yaijvan Sudasa while the procedure of conducting Ashwamedhayajna is given in Yajurveda. Similarly, Rigveda 9/111/2 and 2/43/2 refer to the song of Yajurveda. In Rigveda 10/90/9 reference is made to the origin of Rigveda, Samaveda and Yajurveda. Rigveda 10/85/11 and 10/130/2 also refer to Samaveda.
THERE are many more references of other Vedas in Rigveda. The mute question is "If Rig Veda is the earliest, how it carries references of other Vedas?
TO conclude, we must write our history, not just re-write it.
ALL our historians have been telling us so, because English historians wrote it. We must realise that all the history we are made to read has been written by British historians who deliberately avoided the original references to our history, including oral history.
ACCORDING to historians, Vedic texts refer to only those places (including rivers and mountains) about which they knew. The fact is that they mentioned only those that were relevant with respect to those texts and omitted which they did not think relevant. That is and must be true for all historic texts.
BACK to Rig Veda 10/90/9 mentions Samaveda as well as Yajurveda. In Aittreya Brahmana 25/7/3, who knew Yajurveda, has been mentioned as Adhervew. In Rigveda 10/107/6 word Yajanya has been used for expert in Yajurveda. Rigveda 3/53/11 mentions Ashwamedhayagna of Yaijvan Sudasa while the procedure of conducting Ashwamedhayajna is given in Yajurveda. Similarly, Rigveda 9/111/2 and 2/43/2 refer to the song of Yajurveda. In Rigveda 10/90/9 reference is made to the origin of Rigveda, Samaveda and Yajurveda. Rigveda 10/85/11 and 10/130/2 also refer to Samaveda.
THERE are many more references of other Vedas in Rigveda. The mute question is "If Rig Veda is the earliest, how it carries references of other Vedas?
TO conclude, we must write our history, not just re-write it.
That really an eye opener on RigVeda. Historians has to revisit vedic texts in thier own terms for future generations like an Ethnographer through analyzing older texts instead of empirical evidence.
ReplyDeleteThanks Mr. Surrey. I an in the process of confirm more historical wrongs & shall be writing more., soon.
Delete