Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 122

Thread: Rigvedic River Sarswati In India or Iran

  1. #41
    If we read [wiki]Vana Parva, Mahabharata/Book III Chapter 81[/wiki]

    We find mention of Saptasaraswata (सप्त सारस्वत) (3.81.97), where the celebrated Rishi, Mankanaka (मङ्कणक), had obtained ascetic success.

    This indicates there were seven Saraswatis ? But where?
    Laxman Burdak

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lrburdak For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (April 23rd, 2013), rajpaldular (May 27th, 2013)

  3. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by lrburdak View Post
    If we read [wiki]Vana Parva, Mahabharata/Book III Chapter 81[/wiki]

    We find mention of Saptasaraswata (सप्त सारस्वत) (3.81.97), where the celebrated Rishi, Mankanaka (मङ्कणक), had obtained ascetic success.

    This indicates there were seven Saraswatis ? But where?
    There is another Saraswati (tributary of Brahmani in Orissa);

    Brahmani River

    Brahmani is the second largest river in Orissa. The river originates as two rivers, Shankha and Koel, from Chota Nagpur Plateau in Jharkhand and later joins Saraswati at Vedvyas to form Brahmani. Vedvyas is a sacred place, located nine kilometers from Rourkela. The river has a total length of 799 km of which 541 km has traverses Orissa. It has a total catchment area of over 39,033 sq km in the state. Brahmani flows through the Eastern Ghats in the Sundargarh, Keonjhar, Dhenkanal, Cuttack and Jajpur districts before joining with the Mahanadi to form a combined mouth and merging with the Bay of Bengal.

    source:http://travel.sulekha.com/orissa_rivers.htm

    RK^2
    There are many paths leading to God, politics is certainly not one of them...

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rkumar For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (April 23rd, 2013), rajpaldular (May 27th, 2013)

  5. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by lrburdak View Post
    If we read Vana Parva, Mahabharata/Book III Chapter 81

    We find mention of Saptasaraswata (सप्त सारस्वत) (3.81.97), where the celebrated Rishi, Mankanaka (मङ्कणक), had obtained ascetic success.

    This indicates there were seven Saraswatis ? But where?
    According to Mbt, the seven Seven Sarasvatis cover the universe and the Sarasvati made its appearance whithersoever she was summoned.

    At Pushkara she appeared under the name of Suprabha,

    at Naimisa as Kancanakasi,

    at Gaya as Visala,

    in northern Kosala as Manorama,

    at Kuruksehtra as Oghavati,

    at Gangadwara as Surenu and

    on the Himavat,Vimloda.

    All these seven forms then came and mingled together in the Sapatasarasvata tirtha.

    [For details, kindly see, Cr.ed. Salya, 37.3-28; Also Vamana Purana, Saromahatmya, 16.17-38 and 36.54.]
    Last edited by DrRajpalSingh; April 23rd, 2013 at 08:04 PM.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    puneetlakra (May 25th, 2013), rajpaldular (May 27th, 2013)

  7. #44
    The Salya Parva further says that the Surenu-Sarasvati is said to have appeared in Kurukshetra as a result of Kuru's penance while the Oghavati-Saraswati, happened to come to that locality because of the severe austerities performed by sage Vasistha. ---- [ see for details, Satavalekar ed. 38, pp. 258 ff., verses 27 ff. cited in Haryana Studies in History and Culture, 1968].

    This shows that the Mahabharata has several Sarasvati named reivers, and in a bid to assign at least one Sarasvati to Kurukshetra, the later authors/editors seem to have appended their own views to the original epic 'Jaya' or 'Bharata' on the issue.

    Here Surenu Sarasvati and Oghavait Saraswati are said to have been brought to Kurukshetra region on the bidding of two different persons viz. Kuru and Vasistha.

    Which of the two claimants succeeded in doing this seems to be a difficult task to identify.

    It would be good if someone throws light on this vexing issue as how the miracle happened that Surenu and Oghavati had to follow the directions of the two persons, Kuru and Vasistha to appear at the place of their choice which was common i.e. Kurukshetra. Or does this description in Mbt. pertain to some poetic or mystic allusion to some real or imaginary occurence.

    Thanks.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (May 27th, 2013)

  9. #45
    Kindly see on Jatland - [wiki]Sarasvati River[/wiki]. We have uploaded a Map of Rigvedic geography showing locations of two Saraswati Rivers.
    Last edited by lrburdak; April 25th, 2013 at 09:15 AM.
    Laxman Burdak

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lrburdak For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (April 25th, 2013), rajpaldular (May 27th, 2013)

  11. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by lrburdak View Post
    Kindly see on Jatland - Sarasvati River. We have uploaded a Map of Rigvedic geography showing locations of two Saraswati Rivers.
    Thanks Burdakji,

    The map on the Jatland wiki page - Sarasvati River makes the picture clearer as regards presence of at least two Sarasvati rivers, one in India so named after Vipasa and Sutudri join together to form Rigvedic Sarasvati which ultimately joins Indus; and the other in Iran region.

    It also clearly shows Gomati in Afghanistan.

    Hope that search for identification of later day Sarasvati rivers would bring to light many more Sarasvati rivers in future.

    Regards
    Last edited by DrRajpalSingh; April 25th, 2013 at 10:21 AM.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (May 27th, 2013)

  13. #47
    Perhaps, the article throwing light on changes in climate and deterioration of the Indus valley Civilisation sites, would help in tracing the causes responsible for disappearance and dislocation of some rivers in those days.

    To read the article, Log in please:

    研究プロジェクト indus civilisation why lost.htm

    Thanks
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (May 27th, 2013)

  15. #48
    Kindly also share the following description of the Iranian Hetumant or Haravathi [i.e.Saraswati]:

    "Yast 19.67

    67. It runs unto him, it flows and swells unto him, bringing good pastures and fine horses, bringing plenty, full of glory; with beauty and weal; powerful and friendly, rich of pastures, prolific and golden. It runs unto him, it flows and swells unto him, bright and glorious, making the white .... grow, smiting away all plagues.''

    http://www.jatland.com/forums/showth...ussions/page41 post 802

    Thanks.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (May 27th, 2013)

  17. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    Kindly also share the following description of the Iranian Hetumant or Haravathi [i.e.Saraswati]:

    "Yast 19.67

    67. It runs unto him, it flows and swells unto him, bringing good pastures and fine horses, bringing plenty, full of glory; with beauty and weal; powerful and friendly, rich of pastures, prolific and golden. It runs unto him, it flows and swells unto him, bright and glorious, making the white .... grow, smiting away all plagues.''

    http://www.jatland.com/forums/showth...ussions/page41 post 802

    Thanks.
    Actually Yasht 19.67 seems to be describing Haetumant river with its name clearly mentioned in 19.66. How did you derive Haravathi from Haetumant.

    Secondly, now since you seem to be eager to quote primary source and have access to it, do you know the date of its composition. Where do chronology of Yashts fit in within the Avestan body of religious literature.
    - Naveen Rao

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to nrao For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (May 27th, 2013)

  19. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by nrao View Post
    Actually Yasht 19.67 seems to be describing Haetumant river with its name clearly mentioned in 19.66. How did you derive Haravathi from Haetumant.

    Secondly, now since you seem to be eager to quote primary source and have access to it, do you know the date of its composition. Where do chronology of Yashts fit in within the Avestan body of religious literature.
    Kindly read again. The accessed source with cite has been quoted.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (May 27th, 2013)

  21. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by nrao
    Actually Yasht 19.67 seems to be describing Haetumant river with its name clearly mentioned in 19.66. How did you derive Haravathi from Haetumant.

    Secondly, now since you seem to be eager to quote primary source and have access to it, do you know the date of its composition. Where do chronology of Yashts fit in within the Avestan body of religious literature.
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    Kindly read again. The accessed source with cite has been quoted.
    I did read it again. In post 308 I am the one who provided the link to Yasht citing 10.67, which was later corrected as 19.67 in place of 10.67. So just now I read the link that I provided at 19.67 and read it few times. River name is mentioned in 19.66, clearly as Haetumant and its description of a fast flowing is provided in 19.67.

    There is a mention of Haraiti Bareza but that refers to mountain. I could be all wrong as I have only briefly read the online version. If you have better reference than provide reference to Haravathi river and not land or mountain.

    More importantly, is the second question above - the timeframe that Yashts are dated to.
    - Naveen Rao

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to nrao For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (May 27th, 2013)

  23. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by nrao View Post
    I did read it again. In post 308 I am the one who provided the link to Yasht citing 10.67, which was later corrected as 19.67 in place of 10.67. So just now I read the link that I provided at 19.67 and read it few times. River name is mentioned in 19.66, clearly as Haetumant and its description of a fast flowing is provided in 19.67.

    There is a mention of Haraiti Bareza but that refers to mountain. I could be all wrong as I have only briefly read the online version. If you have better reference than provide reference to Haravathi river and not land or mountain.

    More importantly, is the second question above - the timeframe that Yashts are dated to.
    Friend,


    MOUNTAIN only OR Movement of water in RIVER ?

    Is there no such river in which water is moving as mentioned in Yast 19.67 as cited by one of our valued colleagues in the post under reference ? Kindly re-read both, compare and contrast the both findings and draw your own conclusion thereafter. Kindly spare some time to devote to research instead of asking questions. If you have some knowledge about the timeline of the growth of old Persian language and Yast and Gathas, instead of sharing it, you want others to answer your questions. Why it is so, you know better?

    My dear friend, it would be better if you leave habit of spoon feeding reasearch methodology [getting replies on problems only from others], and, the sooner it is done, the better.

    If you want to be good researcher read relevant discussion on the issue of the timeline of Yahts from literature on the growth of Persian language and Iranian history sources, which are available in different libraries across India, Iran and other countries.

    After reading and analysing, kindly share your acquired knowledge with others, if you please.
    Last edited by DrRajpalSingh; May 26th, 2013 at 01:22 PM.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (May 27th, 2013)

  25. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    Friend,


    MOUNTAIN only OR Movement of water in RIVER ?

    Is there no such river in which water is moving as mentioned in Yast 19.67 as cited by one of our valued colleagues in the post under reference ? Kindly re-read both, compare and contrast the both findings and draw your own conclusion thereafter. Kindly spare some time to devote to research instead of asking questions. If you have some knowledge about the timeline of the growth of old Persian language and Yast and Gathas, instead of sharing it, you want others to answer your questions. Why it is so, you know better?

    My dear friend, it would be better if you leave habit of spoon feeding reasearch methodology [getting replies on problems only from others], and, the sooner it is done, the better.

    If you want to be good researcher read relevant discussion on the issue of the timeline of Yahts from literature on the growth of Persian language and Iranian history sources, which are available in different libraries across India, Iran and other countries.

    After reading and analysing, kindly share your acquired knowledge with others, if you please.
    I think you should relax and stop being paranoid. Nobody is feeding me anything.
    Since I do not find reference to Haraivaiti river, it is safe to say that it does not exist in Yasht.

    Second question is still open, what is the timeline of Yashts?
    - Naveen Rao

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to nrao For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (May 27th, 2013)

  27. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by nrao View Post
    Yasht 10.67 mein toh yeh likha hai:

    67. 'We sacrifice unto Mithra, the lord of wide pastures, .... sleepless, and ever awake;
    'Who drives along on his high-wheeled chariot, made of a heavenly substance, from the Karshvare [keshwar] of Arezahi to the Karshvare of Xwaniratha, the bright one; accompanied by the wheel of sovereignty, the Glory made by Mazda, and the Victory made by Ahura;

    isme toh koi bhi nadi ka naam nahin hai, yahan tak ki paani tak ka varnan nahin hai aur naa hi koi Hetumant ya phir Haraxvathi jaise sthan ka.
    http://www.avesta.org/ka/yt10sbe.htm

    It also appears that both Hetumant or Haraxvathi are names of land and should not be confused with river.

    Thanks , At last you agreed on Hetumant being a River also.


    What I wrote earlier in Post 765 is that there is an uncanny similarity in discription of Heutamant and sarswati of vedic literature.


    Kochhar argued why ghaggar /Hakara can not be taken as Vedic Sarswati .let me put that to know the answers.



    • A confluence with Satluj and Yamuna would have made the Hakra section of the river affluent. We would not expect any major change in the Ghaggar from it's origin in the Sivaliks to this confluence point. It would still remain a rainwater stream in hills whose height seldom exceeds 1300 m. The Rigvedic description of Sarasvati as a mighty and swift river dissecting ridges of the hills, does not fit the description of the present-day Ghaggar. It would not have been applicable with the past as well.
    • The biggest argument against the identification of the Old Ghaggar with the naditama Sarasvati comes from the position of the Satluj. If the Old Ghaggar is to be regarded as a mighty river, it must have been able to receive the waters of the Satluj. The Satluj is mentioned in the Rigveda and there is no suggestion whatsoever that it was in any way connected with the Sarasvati. As a matter of fact, the Rigveda (Rv 3.33) explicitly associates the Satluj with the Beas and refers to their confluence. Other Reasons are :
    • The rivers in the Sivaliks, which we may call the "Ghaggarettes," are all identical. There is no reason to single out any one of them as being the naditama.
    • It is strange that a river system containing such majestic rivers as the Satluj and the Yamuna should be known by the name of a puny rainwater stream such as the Ghaggar. In Vedic literature, Yamuna is clearly subservient to Sarasvati. This is contrary to the arrangement in the Old Ghaggar system, where the Yamuna is dominant along with the Satluj.


    • The secondary Vedic tradition associates not only the Yamuna but also the Ganga with Sarasvati. By no stretch of imagination can the present-day Ganga be associated with the Ghaggar, let alone in a subsidiary capacity.
    • While Sarasvati is equated with the Ghaggar, the Chautang is equated with the Drishadvati on grounds of plausibility. As already noted, a rishi in Latyayana Srauta-sutra (10.19.8,9) could travel to the source of the Drishadvati and reach the Yamuna with ease. This is not possible in the Ghaggar set-up, because the source of the Yamuna is not within walking distance of the Chautang. The Yamuna originates in the middle Himalayas, from the Yamunotri glacier on the Bandar-punch ('monkey's tail) peak in Garhwal; a short distance from the source of the Bhagirathi which unites with Alakananda to give rise to the Ganga (Mathur 1991).
    • It is commonly assumed that even when the Yamuna and the Satluj flowed into the Ghaggar, rivers like the Chautang would have remained intact. This assumption does not appear to be valid. At present the Sarsuti and the Chautang both flow in channels deserted by the Old Yamuna. This means that when the Yamuna itself was flowing in these channels, these rivers probably did not exist.
    • In the region of the Rigvedic Sarasvati, there are other companion rivers which independently flow to the sea. This condition is not fulfilled in the Ghaggar region. Rivers to its east join the Ganga, those to the west the Indus.
    • The ancient Kuruksetra appears to have been a vast area which comprises not only the Sarasvati, Drishadvati and Apaya but many lakes and hills and probably other rivers also. The hilly part of the Ghaggar system is very small and devoid of lakes.
    • Later texts say that Vinasana where the Sarasvati disappears into the sands was the western boundary of Aryavarta. In contrast, the Rigveda states that the Sarasvati reaches the sea. It would thus seem that while the Rigvedic people were familiar with the whole course of Sarasvati up to the sea, their successors confined themselves only to the Vinasana. This is curious because one normally expects territory to expand with time rather than to shrink.
    • It is known that the Sarasvati hymns in the Rigveda are older than the Indus hymns. If this Sarasvati were identical with Ghaggar, then archaeological sites on Ghaggar should be older that those in Sind. The opposite is observed: western settlements are invariably older than eastern ones.
    Last edited by narenderkharb; May 27th, 2013 at 07:42 AM.

  28. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to narenderkharb For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (May 27th, 2013), rajpaldular (May 27th, 2013)

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by nrao View Post
    Actually Yasht 19.67 seems to be describing Haetumant river with its name clearly mentioned in 19.66. How did you derive Haravathi from Haetumant.
    .............................................
    Here, You have found Haetumant river but in another post you say that:

    Quote Originally Posted by nrao View Post
    ........Since I do not find reference to Haraivaitiriver, it is safe to say that it does not exist in Yasht.-------


    What a strange logic!
    You do not find reference to a certain thing in Yast and you take by it that they did not/do not exist at all !!

    However, we must remember that names of the places and rivers all over the world continue to change from time to time. That is why there is no unanimity on the identification of several rivers. There are more than one rivers/places of the same name here and there. Therefore one cannot reject some evidence solely on the base of absence of the same in one source of one's choice. Kindly see, what other researchers say on the issue :

    According to the findings of various researchers over the years, Haetumant/Haraqaiti/Hairavaiti are the Persian names of the same river which correspond to the Vedic Sarasvati. Its modern name Helmand is also suggested by some.

    Hillebrandt [Vedische Mythologie, 1, 99 et seq:3. 372-378] has identified Vedic Sarasvati as Arghandab in Archosia and said that the scene of action of the Sixth Mandala of the Rigveda was enacted in Iranian lands. Brunnhofer first supported this view and later decided for the Oxus for this action.

    The controversy continues for a prolonged time [ in spite of over two centuries of researches] on the question of identification of Vedic Sarasvati.

    That is the reason, that this new thread was started for discussion on the issue.

    Difference of opinion on the issue are unavoidable, so participants must scrutinize not outrightly reject the opinions/views of others. Even if someone does not find a contemporary reference today, he may find it by going deeper in the study and find it later; and then, he can improve upon his earlier taken view.

    This is the way research is conducted.




    Last edited by DrRajpalSingh; May 27th, 2013 at 09:53 AM.
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (May 27th, 2013)

  31. #56
    Yes, In reply to your charge, pesh-e-khidmaat hai:

    Quote Originally Posted by nrao View Post
    I think you should relax and stop being paranoid............


    SODH KARANE MEIN KHUSHION KE LACHCHHE HAIN !

    KUCHCHH NADAN HAMEIN PAGAL SAMAJHATE HAIN!!

    LEKIN WOH ITANA JAAN LEN HUM PAGAL HI ACHCHHE HAIN!!!
    History is best when created, better when re-constructed and worst when invented.

  32. The Following User Says Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (May 27th, 2013)

  33. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    According to the findings of various researchers over the years, Haetumant/Haraqaiti/Hairavaiti are the Persian names of the same river which correspond to the Vedic Sarasvati. Its modern name Helmand is also suggested by some.

    Hillebrandt [Vedische Mythologie, 1, 99 et seq:3. 372-378] has identified Vedic Sarasvati as Arghandab in Archosia and said that the scene of action of the Sixth Mandala of the Rigveda was enacted in Iranian lands. Brunnhofer first supported this view and later decided for the Oxus for this action.

    The controversy continues for a prolonged time [ in spite of over two centuries of researches] on the question of identification of Vedic Sarasvati.

    That is the reason, that this new thread was started for discussion on the issue.

    Nice post Rajpal ji

    I have an openion that is somewhat a synthesis of views of Hillebrandt and Brunnhofer ....
    Vedic play unfolds with the action on Oxsus and later slowly sifts towards helmund river area.

    And along with this stories shift from uttra kuru to Kuru lands and lastly vedic people entering indian lands .

    There are supporting evidences that hints this shift and Identification for earlier inhabitance in central asian lands in both Vedic and Avestan literature......

    Zarathustra is mentioned as playing on the banks of Sarasvati river in childhood and an inhabitant of Bakhadi, also king Vistaspa a king of Bakhtris from Oxsus area clearly plays as a friend and protector of Zarathustra....Rigveda clearly mentions Vasistha killig Zarathustra ....but same killer of Zarathustra is reported a central asian (Turanian) in Avestan literature.So story suggests that vedics were in Turan when Zarathustra was murdered by deva supporters in their conflict.

    Through out Avesta vendidad a conflict is reported between Turanian (central Asian) and Iranians no where is any mention of fight with Indian people.
    Last edited by narenderkharb; May 27th, 2013 at 10:58 AM.

  34. The Following User Says Thank You to narenderkharb For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (May 27th, 2013)

  35. #58
    I see that you are going by Kochaar. That can easily be dealt with also since we know your source and his book is not difficult.
    Is there any other source that you would like to quote.

    What is the date of Yashts, btw. Does Kochaar seem to know that too or he is not able to differentiate different books within Avestan literature when he wrote his book. His chapter titled 'RigVedic rivers' there is just mention of only Avestan rivers and he does not seem to know Yashts and various books. I think, there is no mention of Yasht in his book.

    On a similar note it is difficult to take any date seriously if we read that '... this was written in Vedic literature'. This will have very little meaning for assigning dates as the Vedic literature spans centuries or even millenia. Even though Avestan literature is not as large as Vedic but still has its various books with time lags between each.

    Kindly look up the date of Yashts and share.

    Quote Originally Posted by narenderkharb View Post
    Thanks , At last you agreed on Hetumant being a River also.


    What I wrote earlier in Post 765 is that there is an uncanny similarity in discription of Heutamant and sarswati of vedic literature.


    Kochhar argued why ghaggar /Hakara can not be taken as Vedic Sarswati .let me put that to know the answers.



    • A confluence with Satluj and Yamuna would have made the Hakra section of the river affluent. We would not expect any major change in the Ghaggar from it's origin in the Sivaliks to this confluence point. It would still remain a rainwater stream in hills whose height seldom exceeds 1300 m. The Rigvedic description of Sarasvati as a mighty and swift river dissecting ridges of the hills, does not fit the description of the present-day Ghaggar. It would not have been applicable with the past as well.
    • The biggest argument against the identification of the Old Ghaggar with the naditama Sarasvati comes from the position of the Satluj. If the Old Ghaggar is to be regarded as a mighty river, it must have been able to receive the waters of the Satluj. The Satluj is mentioned in the Rigveda and there is no suggestion whatsoever that it was in any way connected with the Sarasvati. As a matter of fact, the Rigveda (Rv 3.33) explicitly associates the Satluj with the Beas and refers to their confluence. Other Reasons are :
    • The rivers in the Sivaliks, which we may call the "Ghaggarettes," are all identical. There is no reason to single out any one of them as being the naditama.
    • It is strange that a river system containing such majestic rivers as the Satluj and the Yamuna should be known by the name of a puny rainwater stream such as the Ghaggar. In Vedic literature, Yamuna is clearly subservient to Sarasvati. This is contrary to the arrangement in the Old Ghaggar system, where the Yamuna is dominant along with the Satluj.


    • The secondary Vedic tradition associates not only the Yamuna but also the Ganga with Sarasvati. By no stretch of imagination can the present-day Ganga be associated with the Ghaggar, let alone in a subsidiary capacity.
    • While Sarasvati is equated with the Ghaggar, the Chautang is equated with the Drishadvati on grounds of plausibility. As already noted, a rishi in Latyayana Srauta-sutra (10.19.8,9) could travel to the source of the Drishadvati and reach the Yamuna with ease. This is not possible in the Ghaggar set-up, because the source of the Yamuna is not within walking distance of the Chautang. The Yamuna originates in the middle Himalayas, from the Yamunotri glacier on the Bandar-punch ('monkey's tail) peak in Garhwal; a short distance from the source of the Bhagirathi which unites with Alakananda to give rise to the Ganga (Mathur 1991).
    • It is commonly assumed that even when the Yamuna and the Satluj flowed into the Ghaggar, rivers like the Chautang would have remained intact. This assumption does not appear to be valid. At present the Sarsuti and the Chautang both flow in channels deserted by the Old Yamuna. This means that when the Yamuna itself was flowing in these channels, these rivers probably did not exist.
    • In the region of the Rigvedic Sarasvati, there are other companion rivers which independently flow to the sea. This condition is not fulfilled in the Ghaggar region. Rivers to its east join the Ganga, those to the west the Indus.
    • The ancient Kuruksetra appears to have been a vast area which comprises not only the Sarasvati, Drishadvati and Apaya but many lakes and hills and probably other rivers also. The hilly part of the Ghaggar system is very small and devoid of lakes.
    • Later texts say that Vinasana where the Sarasvati disappears into the sands was the western boundary of Aryavarta. In contrast, the Rigveda states that the Sarasvati reaches the sea. It would thus seem that while the Rigvedic people were familiar with the whole course of Sarasvati up to the sea, their successors confined themselves only to the Vinasana. This is curious because one normally expects territory to expand with time rather than to shrink.
    • It is known that the Sarasvati hymns in the Rigveda are older than the Indus hymns. If this Sarasvati were identical with Ghaggar, then archaeological sites on Ghaggar should be older that those in Sind. The opposite is observed: western settlements are invariably older than eastern ones.
    Last edited by nrao; May 27th, 2013 at 02:28 PM.
    - Naveen Rao

  36. The Following User Says Thank You to nrao For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (May 27th, 2013)

  37. #59
    Ok lets use your not so strange logic. Kindly tell us than how did Haeutamant get transformed into Haraiviati.

    What is the date of Yashts? Do you agree it is using Persian or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    Here, You have found Haetumant river but in another post you say that:



    What a strange logic!
    You do not find reference to a certain thing in Yast and you take by it that they did not/do not exist at all !!

    However, we must remember that names of the places and rivers all over the world continue to change from time to time. That is why there is no unanimity on the identification of several rivers. There are more than one rivers/places of the same name here and there. Therefore one cannot reject some evidence solely on the base of absence of the same in one source of one's choice. Kindly see, what other researchers say on the issue :

    According to the findings of various researchers over the years, Haetumant/Haraqaiti/Hairavaiti are the Persian names of the same river which correspond to the Vedic Sarasvati. Its modern name Helmand is also suggested by some.

    Hillebrandt [Vedische Mythologie, 1, 99 et seq:3. 372-378] has identified Vedic Sarasvati as Arghandab in Archosia and said that the scene of action of the Sixth Mandala of the Rigveda was enacted in Iranian lands. Brunnhofer first supported this view and later decided for the Oxus for this action.

    The controversy continues for a prolonged time [ in spite of over two centuries of researches] on the question of identification of Vedic Sarasvati.

    That is the reason, that this new thread was started for discussion on the issue.

    Difference of opinion on the issue are unavoidable, so participants must scrutinize not outrightly reject the opinions/views of others. Even if someone does not find a contemporary reference today, he may find it by going deeper in the study and find it later; and then, he can improve upon his earlier taken view.

    This is the way research is conducted.




    Last edited by nrao; May 27th, 2013 at 02:04 PM.
    - Naveen Rao

  38. The Following User Says Thank You to nrao For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (May 27th, 2013)

  39. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    Yes, In reply to your charge, pesh-e-khidmaat hai:



    SODH KARANE MEIN KHUSHION KE LACHCHHE HAIN !

    KUCHCHH NADAN HAMEIN PAGAL SAMAJHATE HAIN!!

    LEKIN WOH ITANA JAAN LEN HUM PAGAL HI ACHCHHE HAIN!!!
    Nobody is doubting your ability to write sher or something like that, however you should not hallucinate that somebody is feeding me anything.
    Maybe somebody is overfeeding you a hookah.
    - Naveen Rao

  40. The Following User Says Thank You to nrao For This Useful Post:

    rajpaldular (May 27th, 2013)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •