Date of the Buddha and RV

[Vishal Agarwal]

Dr. Fosse: when comparative material from other I-E cultures are similar to
Vedic material (e.g. the purusha myth, which has a counterpart in Norse
religion), we may assume  that that material goes back to the common I-E
period (unless there are good reasons for assuming a loan).
VA: Even ancient non-IE cultures like the Chinese have the Purusha Myth.
When the texts of Scandinavians are hardly more than a millenium old, what
is the proof that these Norse legends are several millenia old? Plus, why
not assume the third alternative--independent origin and development. This
is common even in science (Eg. Laws of Electrochemistry discovered
independently by two persons.) For that matter, the Agastya Shilpatantra
Samhita (manuscript at BORI Pune) describes a device very similar to the
Voltaic Cell. There is no loan here, no common origin.
Dr. Fosse: Bernard Sergent has suggested that Vedic culture (at least the
Brahmana stage) represents an amalgamation of Aryan and Harappan culture. If
this is correct - and it seems a tempting solution to me - then certain
elements with an Harappan background may be as old - or older - than the
Harappan culture, and consequently older than the Aryan migration into
India.
VA: This could also suggest a pre-IVC date for the Mantras. Read a review of
his book at Dr. Elst's site.
Dr. Fosse:......although the astronomical data are not quite as clear and
straightforward as they sometimes seem in the debates on
this list. Jacobi's views...
VA: Jacobi is an old author.  The introduction to a recent edition of the
Vedanga Jyotisha (Yajurvediya)  are written by a Vaidik proficient in
Astronomy and he has demonstrated that the text belongs to the 14th Cent.
B.C.E. Decades back, the astronmical evidence was analyzed minutely in
several articles in ABORI and thereby, the TB and the SB were dated as early
as 28th Cent. .B.C.E. (and this accords well with the Indian  tradition)
Dr. Fosse:  If we are dating the Vedas as they appear today, in the
linguistic garb that we find in our editions, then they are not necessarily
much older than 1000 BCE.
VA: That is an uproven assertion on which even the Linguists have not
reached a consensus. Remember that only about 25% of Avesta is extant. The
Indologists have studied only the Shakalya Rigveda Samhita. Hardly any
studies on the Pada and Krama. Even the manuscripts of the other Shakhas of
Rigveda that are extant -Baskhala, Samkhayana and Ashvalayana (under
publication) have not been seen by Indologists. And besides the usual
rearrangement of verses, they do show some linguistic peculiarities. For
instances, Shankhyana replaces the sound ccha with chha and shows numerous
textual variants from the vulgate. They have their own Arshanukramanis and
Padapatha (manuscripts are available)--different from that of the vulgate.
Till all this is done, such assertions cannot be made. In any case, such a
date is arrived using assumptions (date of Zoroaster etc. ) which are
questionable

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com