Finished Sanjay Sonawani's book (Origins of the Vedic Religion: And Indus-Ghaggar Civilisation) .
Key take
aways :
1) Vedic tribes were
entirely different (and separate) to Indus valley civilisation. Modern Hinduism
is a combination of both civilisations
- I broadly agree with
this finding, based on evidence marshalled by Sanjay. The original Hindu
religion is (and remains) idolatrous and has absolutely NOTHING in common with
Rig Vedic religion. Rig Vedic religion can't be mixed with Hinduism, as commonly
understood - although what we now get is a kind of uneasy amalgam of the two.
(The fact that Dayanand Saraswati had to work very hard to get fire alters to
be built across the country, is proof that the Vedic religion had degraded
around 150 years ago).
I have a question re:
the caste system. How did that come into place? That issue has not been
adequately dealt with in the book, although I notice that some discussions of
Indus Valley civilisation highlight the existence of separate sections of
cities which presumably accommodated different castes.
2) Rig Vedic and
Avestan people were contemporaries from South and North Afghanistan,
respectively (one could have been slightly older than the other, but it is hard
to say).
- The evidence
assembled is comprehensive and largely persuasive. I'm inclined to consider the
Avestan culture as older than the Vedic, though, based on the evidence in
Sanjay's book, and the evidence assembled by Witzel.
I would like a greater
discussion of soma - which is only found (nearby) in south Iran. This, to me,
is a sign of the middle-Eastern origin of the ideas underpinning both these
religions.
3) There must have
been a script of some form to record the Vedas, a script we have since lost: it
being hard (if not impossible) to memorise the Vedas by rote.
- I'm not so persuaded
by this, having seen how Vedas are memorised by rote. There is little
possibility, in my view, of a Sanskrit script coming into place in the early
days of the RV. It was never hard (but not impossible) even in the relatively
early days of language to create permanent records in some form or shape, but
there is absolutely no record of written Sanskrit till around 500 BC. No doubt
the language developed somewhat before that record but there is no requirement
of a script in order to transmit the Vedas. It is important, though, that since
the process of memorising and transmitting was expensive, it needed political
support.
4) Like with the
transmission of most historical religions, the Rig Vedic religion was transmitted
by movement of preachers, not through war (invasion) or the movement of people.
- Violence is not a
good way to transmit religion. Persuasion is a much better way. Sanjay argues
that the people of Afghanistan are the same (and so also the people of the
Indus Valley) are unchanged. They haven't moved en-masse, but their
religion/culture has changed. This broadly makes sense.
However, the
transmission of any religion require resources, so there is almost always an
accompaniment of successful religions by political or financial outreach. The
fact that there are plenty of battles discussed in the Avesta and Rig Veda,
suggests that the intrusion of Rig Veda.
What is missing or
insufficiently discussed:
1) The Rta.
- This is actually the
core idea of the Vedas - the system of natural order. This is also found in the
Avesta (asha/arta). More importantly, this has been referred to in the Mittani
kingdom in extensive detail (http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zor.../ranghaya/mitanni.htm).
2) PIE theory and
Prakrits.
There was a recent
discussion/ debate on my blog between Sanjay and another commentator regarding
this issue. I think Sanjay should study the PIE theory and Prakrits and fit
these into his model. He does suggest that language is not a new thing and
evolved tens of thousands of years ago, so there are common roots. However, a
better explanation of the Prakrits is needed.
OVERALL COMMENT
I have already
explained (in my view) why it is impossible for RV to have transmitted outside
India. RV is a "finished" product, while other versions found outside
India are fragments (although Avesta is close enough). But this is how things
develop: from less complex to more complex. Therefore there is (in my view) a
further history to Avesta/ Rig Veda - that lies possibly in the Mittani/
Hittite and other civilisations. These could be precursor religions to
Zoroastrianism/ Vedism.
The sequencing of
events seems to me to be the following:
- Gods like Indra/
Varuna conceptualised somewhere in the middle east.
- Conception of Rta
conceptualised.
- Idea of fire worship
conceptualised (in a primitive form)
- But no formal hymns
or rituals created
- Then these ideas
transmitted to Afghanistan through preachers
- These ideas most
forgotten in the middle East (although somewhat similar ideas did continue
through Mithraic religion (which is well documented)
- Zoroaster is born in
North Afghanistan and tries to revive this older religion. Starts off a
religious 'document'
- Battle of 10 kings
- Neighbouring tribes
adopt the Avestan religion (they have precisely the same reverence for Asuras,
in the initial stage).
- Due to further
battles, disputes, the tribes change their approach to Asuras. RV prefers
devas, now
- The tribes (and
religions) separate and go their own way
- Being politically
displaced, the Vedic tribes find a foothold in North India (Punjab) and further
expand the RV (still no script), as part of consolidation
- Vedic tribes are
successful in merging with the remnants of the Indus Valley civlisation (which
has **entirely** died out by the time they reach North India)
- People like Manu
arise to "formalise" everything and we get the hodge-podge called
modern Hinduism - which claims monotheism (Vedic) but practices weird forms of
idolatory.
Sonawani's book (and
theory) has been very helpful in thinking through various things, even though I
find he needs to broaden his search (to the middle East and the PIE/prakrits).
I'm going to try to
create a list of facts that everyone agrees with and then try to find which
theory fits.
Sanjay, this is not a
review of your book. Just some initial points. I'll make some further notes and
publish on my blog in the coming weeks. Happy to get your thoughts on these
initial notes, so I can correct any errors of understanding.
Btw, I have no idea
how the Prakrits came into being. Need to think more about it.
