Sarasvati in late Vedic literature...

 

Though the River Sarasvati has highly been praised in Rigveda, we find very confusing references to it in later Vedic literature and heavily corrupted Vedicized literature, making it hard to believe whether they are speaking of the real Sarasvati or talking about the poetic remembrance of a long forgotten River which was left far behind and hence became invisible to them!  The various illogical clarifications keep on appearing to explain the sudden disappearance of the Holy River, but in any case, the river wouldn’t have disappeared all of sudden. Had it been the case it could have a catastrophic geological impact resulting in loss of human life. However, we do not find any such terrible aftermath recorded in the Vedic literature. Had it been a gradual process of drying continued for at least a couple of hundred years, though mythically, the information would have been recorded, because it was the holiest of the rivers!  But we do not find such information or even indication in the Vedic literature. 

This would only mean that they are not talking about the Ghaggar river at all. Ghaggar was never disappeared. The fact was that the Vedic adherents had left the Sarasvati far behind and hence now was invisible to them and hence they created mythical stories surrounding its absence in a new geography. 

 Along with Sarasvati, Sarayu, and Indus are the great rivers (Mahanadi) to the Vedic seers who have praised them with great affectionate devotion. However, in later Vedic texts, we find a mention that this river became invisible at the place named Vinasana in Kurukshetra. (Panchavimsha Brahman 25.10.6 & Jaiminiya Brahman 4.26).

Yajurveda explicitly states that the five rivers in Punjab are five streams of the Sarasvati. (34.11) Here, Yajurveda does not indicate that the Sarasvati was an independent river.

Mahabharata tells us a different story. It says Sarasvati originated in the Himalayas at Plaksavana, a place located in the north of Vinasana from where one could reach by horse ride within 40 days. Also, Tandya Brahmana states that conducting Sarasvata session between these two places, Vinasana and Plaksavana, is highly beneficial. (Tandya Brahmana 25.10.12)

Mahabharata further states that at Vinasana Sarasvati disappeared and at Chamasodbheda it reappeared where many other rivers joined her. (Vanaparva 130.4-5)

Puranas provide us another contradictory account. They state that the Sarasvati originated in the Himalayas and while flowing through Kurukshetra it disappeared in the deserts of Rajasthan and reappeared at Mount Abu and met with the sea at Prabhas Teertha. Mahabharata too, while elaborating on Balarama’s pilgrimage from Prabhas Teertha to Plaksavana in the Himalayas mentions many holy centers located at the Bank of Sarasvati. (Shalyaparva 35-54)

From the Puranas, we get three distinct rivers named Sarasvati. One is the river in Kurukshetra, the second is the Pushkar-Sarasvati, and the third is a river that meets the sea at Prabhasa. (Vamana and Padma Purana). All the stories surrounding Sarasvati are so fictional that it makes it difficult to believe it was a real river intended for creating these myths.

However, Manusmriti gives us an entirely different account of the River Sarasvati. Manusmriti 2.17 and 2.19 gives us the following description.

17. That land, created by the gods, which lies between the two divine rivers Sarasvati and Drishadvati, they (sages) call Brahmavarta.

19. Kurukshetra, the place ruled by Kurus, the land ruled by Panchala, and Surasenaka is the land where Brahmarshies lived and is called Brahmarshi Desha.

  

Another popular myth is floating is the Sarasvati River turned eastward and disappeared underground which confluences invisibly with Ganga-Yamuna at Prayaga. 

Presently there are two small rivers in Gujrath and Saurashtra regions those are called Sarasvati.

One may get confused with the variety of the accounts that are flowing to us from various texts and myths. They are filled with mythical elements like curses of the seers.

Presently, the general assumption is that the Ghaggar is the lost river Sarasvati. However, it doesn’t originate in the Himalayas. From the Mahabharata account, too, it does not seem likely that the River originated in the Himalayas as one could reach its source, Plaksavana, within forty days by horse ride. The geological proofs that so far have surfaced indicate that the Ghaggar took several hundred years to dry up because of the climatic changes and other geological events like tectonic shifts. However, we do not find any such hint of any catastrophic event occurring in the past in the history of the holiest and most adorable river's account.

The Mahabharata reached to present form in 3^rd to 4^th AD. Most of the locations of the pilgrimage centers that are elaborated in Mahabharata do not exist which promotes the thought that these descriptions only could have been fictional. Also, the place in Mahabharata, where Balarama narrates the story of his pilgrimage is clearly artificially created. Panchavimsha Brahmana and  Jaiminiya Brahmana are the works of a late era compared to Satapatha or Aitareya Brahmana. By that time most probably the memories of the real Sarasvati River had already faded and an attempt was being made to fashion out the location in new geography by creating new myths of various kinds and naming any river as Sarasvati the Vedics came across. 

Adiparva of Mahabharata (3. 144) gives different geography of the Kurukshetra. It informs that the Kurukshetra is situated on the banks of the Ikshumati River where Takshaka and Ashvasena used to line up. Various accounts that appear in Mahabharata are not only confusing and contradictory but sometimes it appears that some scenes have been created out of sheer imagination just to forcibly accommodate the Sarasvati River which does not help us to ascertain any geography of the River Sarasvati intended to the composers of Mahabharata.

The places named Vinasana and Plaksavana are totally absent from the bank of any dried-up river of northwest India and Pakistan.

The account of Manusmriti is more interesting, most possibly close to reality because the second chapter of it clearly seems to have been written during a very early era when Vedic religion was in an attempt to be codified.

The Manusmriti do not know any regions of North India by name except for Kuru, Panchal, Matsya, and Surasenaka. Manusmriti declares, elsewhere reside only Shudras. Known geography to them does not go beyond the Vindhya Mountains. Only Kuru, Panchal, etc. regions are called the region of the Brahmarshis.

But the region which is enumerated first, the Brahmavarta, created by the Gods is located between the Drishadvati and Sarasvati Rivers.

This shows that the regions intended by Manusmriti are located in two distinct places.

The rivers flowing through the Brahmavarta are Sarasvati and Drishadvati. This forms the original Brahmavarta, not the present place which is touted being Brahmavarta.

The Kuru, Panchal, and other enumerated regions together form the land of Brahmarshies, but Manusmriti explicitly tells us that the Sarasvati and Drishadvati do not flow through these regions.

If the Ghaggar River is the Sarasvati, then it creates a serious anomaly because Ghaggar flows through the Kurukshetra, but certainly not through the Panchal or Surasenaka.

Balarama’s account in Mahabharata doesn’t indicate that the river was located anywhere close to Kurukshetra where the Mahabharata war was being viciously fought. Prabhas Teertha also is not at all related to the present or ancient course of the Ghaggar-Hakra River.

Rigveda states that there are three great rivers (Mahanadi) Sarayu, Indus, and Sarasvati. Sarayu is identified with a river in Afghanistan named Haroyu, present Harirud. Sarasvati also was known as Harahvaiti in Afghanistan. Drishadvati River, though it remains unidentified, could be the Khash River that flows parallel to Helmand and forms a kind of delta. This region, however, according to Manusmriti, is the land created by the Gods.

Manusmriti, in a way, preserves the memory of the land where Vedas were composed and once upon a time, Vedic tribes flourished.

It should be noted that the meaning of ‘Brahma’ in Vedic Sanskrit is Mantra (verses), hence it could have been called ‘Brahmavarta’ because their Vedic verses were composed.

The land enumerated after Brahmavata is the land of Brahmarshis, the seers who had mastered the Vedic verses. This land is of Kuru, Panchala, Matsya and Surasenakas.

Hence, the rest of the mythical stories about Sarasvati and its disappearance are contradictory and clearly fictional. The fact is the Holy River Sarasvati had really disappeared from the eyes of the later Vedics as they had to leave that original habitat to move towards the Indus region. However, the memories that were preserved faded away in the later course of the time. Gradually Sarasvati was given a divine sanctity by accepting her in the form of goddess of wisdom.

Had it been a real river flowing through North India, no matter whether it dried out, the name of the river would have remained unchanged because it is the Vedic religion that was flourishing in the North for a long time. There is no indication that the Ghaggar was ever alternatively called Sarasvati. In any case, Ghaggar is not the corruption of Sarasvati. The disappearance of the mighty and praiseworthy mother-like river to the Vedics of the past owing to the fact that the handful of staunch supporters of the religion had to vacate their earlier habitat and gradually created myths surrounding her disappearance. Ghaggar is not a remnant of the Sarasvati though some try to imagine so out of their attempts to force their beloved theories.