Dates of written Rgveda

George Thompson GthomGt at CS.COM
Sun Mar 12 13:41:47 UTC 2000

In a message dated 3/11/00 8:30:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
vsundaresan at HOTMAIL.COM writes:

> George Thompson <GthomGt at CS.COM> wrote:
>  >I seriously doubt that Patrick Olivelle *gave* you this impression.  It
>  >would
>  >seem to me rather that you just took it.  Patrick Olivelle knows that 500
>  >BCE
>  >is too late for the latest strata of the RV.
>  It seems to me that the confusion is due to not specifying what is the
>  extent of the text that gets to be called RV. For most Indologists, it is
>  primarily the samhitaa portion, whereas a lot of Prof. Olivelle's comments
>  relate to the AraNyakas and upanishads.
>  Vidyasankar

Well, technically speaking, you are right, of course.  But it is hard to
imagine anyone understanding "RV" as a reference to RV  brAhmaNas or RV
AraNyakas or RV upaniSads.  No, RV is generally recognized to be a short-hand
but unambiguous reference to RV saMhitA.

Of course, I do not know if Dr. Farmer knows this.  There is no evidence to
suggest that he does. So it is probably better to be explicit about this.

Thanks for your correction.

Also, Maniambalam Arasu adds the following:



Briefly, I think that the answer is yes.  There are many members of this list
who are much more familiar with contemporary Vedic schools, and their
traditions, than I am. Perhaps they can provide some details and insights. I
myself have never heard of Sakuntala Devi. Please tell me more about her

Best wishes,


More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list