Omilosmeleton.gr

Rιgvedic Pur
N Kazanas, Omilos Meleton, Athens, Oct. 2004.
The word pur occurs in the RV (= Rgveda) more than 70 times, when compounds purbhίd and puramdara are put aside. Mayrhofer (1956-) rightly questions a relation with piparti(1) 'füllt, fills' but surprisingly makes no connection with piparti`(2) 'rettet, schütz / saves, protects'; the ancient Dhatupatha gives √ pr palanapuranayoh 'in the sense of protecting and filling', where obviously the first meaning connects with pur.
The word is variously translated as castle, citadel, fort, fortification, fortress, rampart, stronghold, wall and city or town. It is recognized as cognate with Greek πόλις polis, Lithuanian pilis and Lettish pils, all three meaning 'town, fort'. However, a careful examination of the use of pur in the RV (with the aid of A. Lubotsky's Concordance. and the Vedic Index) shows that it has only the meaning of defence or protection. Take the example of Susna's 'mobile' carisnu pur, VIII 1, 28. None of the structures mentioned above can fit here: no such structure in the rigvedic material world is mobile and, in any case, this pur belongs to the demon of drought, a supernatural figure. (It was once suggested that pur might be a chariot, but pur is a defensive structure and not offensive like the chariot.) K Geldner translates wandelnde Burg 'mobile/mutable town/fort' and adds in a note (28a) die Zauberburg 'the magical Burg' which seems correct (1951-7). He helps further by giving two references: (a) I 121, 10 is ambiguous because it speaks of light and darkness, of Susna's ojas 'might' and of his phaliga which has uncertain meaning but has been thought to be 'cloud' or 'cave'; (b) V 31, 7 is unambiguous in that it lauds Indra's strength shown in killing the serpent Ahi, in arresting Susna's maya 'magic, occult power' and in driving away the Dasyus. Maya will be discussed later on but we can note here that it is not unconnected with pur. Then, rsi Agastya prays (I 166, 8) to the Maruts (regarded as Storm-gods) to protect (raks-) from evil (agha) and injury (abhihruti) the man they favour (av-) "with hundred-fold purs satabhujibhih purbhίh": here too no physical structures with hundred walls or folds could possibly protect a man from evil (sin or impurity) and injury; no such many-walled structure existed (allowing for a hyperbole) and, in any case, the Maruts are not builders. Here, however, Geldner gives (ibid) Mit hundertfachen Burgen 'with 100fold Burgs (=towns/forts)' – which means nothing. Of course it could be argued that the use here is metaphorical, but we shall find that in all instances the use is "metaphorical" and that pur rarely denotes unambiguously a material fortification and nowhere a town. Most frequently it denotes a supernatural, occult or magical protective force or field.
In a reply to Prof. M. Witzel D Frawley thinks that the RV is connected with a "semi-urban culture like the Harappan" (2002:13). He states: "the term pur for city (a term that obviously means city in Greek thought, ie Pura = Polis) is common throughout the text [of the RV]". The Greek and Baltic cognates being far too distant cannot furnish acceptable evidence for rigvedic usage any more than the later use of pur/pura/pur ; so all this must be disregarded in respect of the RV. However, as was indicated earlier, a metaphorical use of a material defensive means should not be ruled out. Starting with a simple protective bulwark (even a hump on the ground or a fissure) this developed into an elaborate defensive wall protecting a human settlement; this in turn extended to the human settlement, i.e. a town/city fortified. This is well reflected in the Greek akro-polis, usually the fort a little above the urban area, or in the later Indic -pura 'a (fortified) town', as in Hastina-pura, Jai-pur(a), etc. But in the RV pur has no such significance.
Frawley continues, "Both the Vedic people and their enemies have a hundred, i.e. several [purs] (satapura eg Rigveda 6.48.8; RV 2.4.6; RV 4.27.1)". The first reference VI 48,8 is a prayer to god Agni to protect (pahi) from anxiety (amhas) the one–who-kindles-the-fire with satam purbhίh "a hundred purs" – whatever pur might be. Frawley is misreading the text, which does not say there are 100 'cities' but that a specific type of person should be protected with 100 purs; obviously, as above, a fire-kindler can't be protected from anxiety with 100 forts or cities! The second reference is to Indra crushing the 100 purs of Sambara, a much repeated motif in the RV. If Sambara is not a native aboriginal king against whom the Aryans are fighting (and Frawley like myself does not believe any such thing) but is a fiend or demonic figure in a magical, non-material dimension of the world we know, then his 100 (or 99) purs, prove nothing about the existence of actual Aryan cities. The third reference is again to 100 purs but these are ayas , i.e. of metal (copper, bronze ?), and surely the Vedic people had no metal-made cities. What is more, these 100 metallic purs are said to guard/confine/conceal (raks-) the celestial Eagle (or some such divine figure). There is no conceivable sense in which 100 cities could possibly do such a thing; here Geldner translates hundert eherne Burgen '100 bronze Burgs' but connects them with demons (Dämonen, n 1c). (Further down, note 2, I consider the possibility that these purs are within the womb garbhe.) Consequently all three references (and one could quote several more just as inapt) do not indicate that there were cities in the ordinary world of the RV. However, Frawley refers also to "the Vedic city or pur as 'wide, broad and extensive" (in RV I 189,2). But in this hymn also the poet prays to Agni to lead him and his clan or people afresh and with prosperity (svastibhih) beyond all difficulties and become (bhava) a pur "wide, broad and extensive" for them and their offspring (tokaya tanayaya). It is again inconceivable that Agni would become a "city". So Frawley's interpretation of pur is wrong.1 R.S. Bisht, the eminent archaeologist, excavator at Banawali, also takes pur to be 'city/town'; this is one of his main points of convergence between the RV and the Harappan or Indus-Sarasvat Civilization (1999/2000). He gives a long list of references assuming pur to mean 'town' but does not apply philology to analyse contextually any one of them: the mere repetition
that pur indicates a town/fort proves nothing. What is worse, there are mistranslations of some
passages in the RV where the indeclinable puras 'before, in front' (with uddata on the
termination) is (inadvertently?) taken as the nom/acc pl puras 'towns' (with accent on the stem:
p 410-411 and n 190). Also, he should know there is no evidence of Harappan 'hundred-buttress forts' and metallic ones (ayas pur in RV) nor of towns destroyed by human violence (eg fire).The RV is definitely pre-Harappan on two very significant counts (and others, less important). First, it knows not rice vr hi, so essential to later rituals, cotton karpasa, silver rajata- , brick istaka and fixed hearths/altars (amply attested in the Brahmanas and/or Sutras) – all of them important items of the Harappan culture. Second, the Sarasvat river dried up almost completely by c 1900 BC, and RV VII, 95, 2 says that the river flows "from the mountains to the ocean". So the RV is earlier than 1900 BC. However, G. Possehl, another expert on the ISC, examined (1998) all the palaeoenvironmental and geological data relevant to the Sarasvat and concluded that the river could have flowed down to the ocean only before 3200 at the very latest, preferring a date closer to c 3800! P.H. Francfort had arrived at a similar conclusion six years earlier (1992). Between, say, 3200 and 1900 the river stopped flowing into the ocean and went through further stages of dessication. So, on this evidence, the RV is pre-Harappan; it is the Brahmanas that converge with early Harappan phases. We should note that in a recent article S. H. Levitt by comparing the development of religious themes and images in the early Mesopotamian and Vedic traditions arrives at the same conclusion, namely that the early RV may well be before 3000 (Levitt 2003). That the Rigvedic people, the five traditional tribes, lived in communities is undoubted. Although nomads should not be excluded, many of the communities were settled along the banks of the 7 rivers and chiefly the Sarasvat (RV III, 23, 4; VI, 61, 12; etc). They had agriculture, as is testified by hymns IV, 57 (to ksetrapati 'Lord of the field/soil'), VIII, 91, 5 (girl Apala and her father's field), X, 101, 3 (cultivation) and by so many implements – khanitra 'shovel', langala, s ra 'plough', srn 'sickle', etc. Then, they were weavers with loom, shuttle, warp and woof (RV I, 134, 4; II, 36, 6; VI, 9, 2-3; etc). They also had metallurgy and smithies of sorts (IV, 2, 17; V, 9, 5; IX, 112, 2; etc). All such activities imply a settled people, not nomad pastoralists (as the distorting Aryan Invasion Theory would have them). But the towns of the Harappan mature or late phases are a far cry from the Rigvedic settlements – which are more accurately reflected in Plato's early ideal community, leading a simple agricultural life, eating barley-bread, drinking wine in moderation and singing hymns to 1 If one thinks the rigvedic people lived in towns and had forts, one should look for other kinds of evidence – though I think there is no indication of urban structures in the RV.
the gods (Republic 372E). The word pur provides no evidence at all for the existence of towns or forts (as in historical times) in the Rigvedic world, as is shown in this study,1 though some crude material defences were used at times.
I shall not tire the reader with other writings which claim that pur denotes 'city/fort' or any of the meanings listed above (see particularly W Rau 1976 and Mayrhofer 1996). I shall only advert briefly to the Vedic Index (I, 538-9), which also refers to I 189, 2 with its prithv bahula na urv pur, stating that this "fortification" must have been "of considerable size": I dealt with this in an earlier paragraph. This valuable work notes that "a fort 'made of stone' (asmanmay ) is mentioned", also "strongholds of iron (ayas ) … but these are probably only metaphorical". It refers to the "Autumnal (sarad ) forts" which "apparently" belong to Dasas, perhaps "against Aryan attacks or against inundations in that season," and to forts "with a hundred walls (satabhunj )". It concludes by mentioning the "siege of forts" in post-rigvedic Samhitas and Brahmanas and that fire was used in these sieges according to RV VII 5,3. This is a good brief summary but the comments in the Vedic Index are misleading since they are based on the Aryan Invasion Theory. Starting with the last point – the use of fire during sieges is imaginary. It is well established now that no Harappan towns had been sacked by allegedly invading Aryans. RV VII 5,3 says merely that the 'dark tribes' (vίsa asikn h) fled in disarray for fear of Agni Vaisvanara, the god (not ordinary fire, surely) who shone glowing while 'rending' (darayan, not 'burning down') their purs. The 'dark tribes' could be fiends or fears active at night and/or evil, demonic forces.
The references to later texts concern conflicts between asuras 'demons' and devas 'gods'. In fact, in Aitareya Brahmana I 23 the Asuras made the earth a copper/bronze (ayasmay ) pur, the Midspace (antariksa) a silver (rajata) pur and the sky a golden (harin purs have nothing to do with any kind of human towns or citadels. The same Brahmana, a little further on, II 11, says that the gods, in order to protect their sacrifice from the Asuras, placed around the sacrificial post three purs agnimay 'made of Agni'. Surely it would be absurd to suppose that Agni built three 'fortifications' of stone or metal or mud or wood round the post. In fact this same passage explains that the repulsing of the Asuras is done by taking the holy fire round the place thrice (paryagni kurvanti …. tripuram paryasante)! Here surely we have a kind of ritual magic. And the same is found in Taittir ya Samhita II 5, 3 where if a man comes under attack of witchcraft (abhicaryamana), he should perform the ten-night-ritual and thereby surround himself with the protection of a devapur 'divine pur'! In the same Samhita VI 2, 3 the Asuras had three purs, the lowest being of copper, the next of silver and the highest of gold: Rudra cleft them with an arrow made up of the powers of Agni, Soma and Visnu.
The pur of stone (asmanmay ) occurs only once in RV IV 30,20, where Indra overthrew 100 of them for the benefit of his protegé Divodasa, a liberal offerer. On the face of it these stone-forts would seem to belong to human enemies of Divodasa. But from other references to this incident (I 51,6; 112,14, the Asvins help here; 130,7; etc, but especially II 14,6 and 19,6) these purs belong to the drought-demon Sambara. So even these cannot be said to be in any way ordinary human forts (or cities) built of stone.
I submit that the asmanmay pur no less than the ayas 'metallic' one is metaphorical denoting a degree of hardness and colour or some such quality (like the silver and golden ones in Aitareya Brahmana and other post–rigvedic texts).
The references to metallic purs are many. One at least says that Indra with the bolt in his arms killed the Dasyus and brought down (nitar t) [their] metallic purs (II 20,8). Here we might think the Dasyus are local aborigines destroyed by the invading Aryans, but they had no metal-forts, surely. We can say that this is a metaphor and refers to hardness and/or colour also. But I don't see why the poet should describe an ordinary fortification of stone+mud+wood as "metallic". Stone is just as shiny and hard as the metal ayas and mud or wood or both can hardly be shiny or hard like metal. (We don't really know what is involved exactly since the construction and constitution of the purs are nowhere given in the RV.) Moreover it is Indra, a super-natural force, that destroys them – not men's weapons. Let us see the other references. We have already examined the 100 metal-forts that guarded the Eagle (IV 27,1): here these forts are in the womb garbhe (or under the charge of demons).2 Then three references (I 58,8; VIII 3,7 and 15,14) are prayers to Agni to protect the poet (and his people) from various calamities including anxiety amhas (I 58,8) with purs of metal. Another one, X 101,8, is a prayer to the Visvedevas to "fashion (krnudhvam) inviolable metal purs" in connection with the pouring of the soma-drink; since only demons interfere with the sacrifice, the required purs would be of such substance as to stop those other-worldly forces. Another one (VIII 95,1) calls the river Sarasvat "a metal pur" which is a secure support/defence (dharuna). In yet another one (VIII 100,8) the Eagle (suparna here) pierced the metal pur with the speed of mind, flew to heaven and fetched soma to the Boltbearer. All are non-material purs including those of the Dasyus in II 20,8. The three of Agni and the one of the Visvedevas are certainly magical or super-natural in However, the reference to the seven purs of the enemies of king Sudas in VII 18, 13 seems to be different. This hymn refers to the fighting of Sudas and the confederation of the ten kings, an internecine war which Sudas won with Indra's help. In this hymn Indra destroyed all their 'fixed/firm defences' (drmhitani) and their 7 purs, which here probably describe some kind of material structure. But even here some aspects are ambiguous. It is not as though Sudas attacked the 10 kings on their own native ground. This battle took place by the river Purusn where Sudas and his army was hard pressed, surrounded on all sides by the more numerous forces of the 10 kings (RV VII, 83, 6-8). What exactly were the drmhitani and purs destroyed by Indra? Surely the confederate foes could have had no forts/citadels, unless they were 'secure defensive positions'. But I am again inclined to think that the reference is to non-material protective means. The incident is most probably historical, but the number 7 has mystical associations and occurs in other cases.
There are some references to 'autumnal' sarad purs but not many. In I 131,4 Indra overpowered unspecified "autumnal purs" known in former times. In I 174,2 he broke down the seven autumnal purs, shelter of tribes "with abusive speech mrdhravac". Here these tribes could be human beings. In VI 20,10 Indra again destroys seven autumnal purs, shelter of Dasas. Here too the Dasas may be said to be human beings. These may be instances where the purs could belong to humans. However, the recurring mystical number 7 and the destruction by a god introduce strong elements of doubt and suggest again the supernatural. Moreover, I wonder if we are entitled to translate this adjective sarada- as 'autumnal'. It would be more correct, perhaps, in these cases to translate as 'ancient/old/enduring', or 'annual' in the sense of being renewed every year. These are ancient or annual (and to us) supernatural means of protection.
In connection with the supernatural aspect, most interesting is the curious reference to Susna's 'mobile' carisnu pur, VII 1,28, which Indra crushed with blows of his bolt. Clearly, a mobile pur, as shown earlier, is beyond all concepts of forts, cities, ramparts or whatever, in the physical world of the Vedic people. (Quite rightly Geldner connected it with magic.) Only a 2 Here Geldner and others think that demons hold imprisoned the Eagle in these metal forts. This is possible, of course. Truth is that this myth with its various interconnections is lost to us. There is not enough information in the RV to enable us to reconstruct it even approximately. Post-rigvedic sources with their fragmented references already indicate that they no longer have it complete or understand it fully. For references, see Vedic Index under 'Vamadeva'. I find most interesting the re-occurrence of the verse RV IV 27, 1 in Aitareya Upanishad II 1, 5 and its interpretation there. The Upanishad suggests that here the spirit of seer Vamadeva is confined and concept within what is usually regarded as the "mythological" super-natural sphere can make sense of Susna's carisnu pur. This at once illumines and suggests a similar sense for Agni's metallic purs and particularly the one which is satabhuj , VII 15,14: obviously this fiery field with 100 folds or encirclements can only be magical or occult. One may argue that it is ordinary physical fire that destroys the purs of enemies but it is difficult to see how such a fire (or many fires) could repulse inimical armies. (Surely the enemies also could use fire as a weapon.) Fire would dispel the darkness of night or creatures of darkness like ghosts and fiends – or wild animals. Then, there are the prayers that Agni should guard people against distress and anxiety with his purs (I 58,8; VI 48,8), which would involve an esoteric psychological or spiritual type of protective means. The satabhuj pur of the Maruts, I 166,8, is not very different, as was Just as interesting is the reference to amasu pursu parah wherein is protected the Offspring- of-Waters Apam Napat II 35. W O' Flaherty translates this as "far away in fortresses of unbaked bricks" (1981:105) and one can't help but wonder where she found the "bricks", since the RV mentions them nowhere! I can only assume she follows Geldner who translates In den rohen Burgen 'in raw towns/forts', which means nothing, and who, to cover up the deficiency, adds in a note (6c) nicht wie die gewönlichen Burgen aus gebrannten Ziegelsteinen gemacht 'not like the usual Burgs made from baked bricks' (!) without telling us where in the RV we find 'usual Burgs made from baked bricks' (ibid) – since there are no such constructions! Then O' Flaherty in an explanatory note mentions Agni, "safe. among enemies who do not control fire and so do not fire their bricks, or who (as the sun) is safe from his enemies… in his own 'natural' citadels not made of baked bricks, ie the clouds". The confusion here is almost unbelievable. Why and how exactly would Agni feel safe in such conditions and who are these "enemies"? Fire's biggest enemy is water; so fire dives and dwells in the waters protected within fortresses of unbaked bricks! Is this at all sensible? I don't think so. As for the sun, are not the clouds themselves his only traditional enemies? Neither unbaked-brick-fortresses (in water?!) nor physical enemies are involved here. ama- here (and perhaps elsewhere) should mean 'non-artificial, natural'. Thus Apam Napat in his own non-artificial, natural, divine condition with his own occult, defensive powers (pursu) is protected against any malignity or niggardliness (arati) and falsehood or unrighteousness (anrta). If we had even one description of material forts/towers elsewhere in the RV, we could take pursu here as being metaphorical towers (billows, perhaps).
Another interesting case is the gomati pur in RV VIII, 6, 2. The phrase at first sight presents a difficulty since the adjective is usually translated as 'having kine'. But go- can mean 'wealth' by extension and certainly 'star, light'. So the phrase can just as plausibly be translated as 'protective-fold rich in light'. So this is ambiguous: it could be a pen with cows also but hardly a city.
There are many more instances of pur without any other distinctive feature: I 33,13; II 19,6; IV 16,4 and 26,3; VI 20,3; VII 19,5; etc. All the non-divine purs are destroyed by Indra mainly, to a much lesser extent by Agni (VI 16,39; VII 5,3; X 46,5) and even less by Soma (IX 48,2). In one case Indra is said to have shattered (vrnak) the purs of Cumuri, Dhuni, Pipru, Sambara and Susna – all demonic figures. Elsewhere he destroys other demons' purs, Vala's (VI 18,5) and Namuci's and Vangrda's (I 53, 7-8). Often he uses his bolt (eg I 33,13) which is said to be his bull (I 131, 3) but in other cases he uses simply his ojas 'might/strength' (eg I 53,7) or his maya 'magical power' (I 51,5). He uses this maya in other exploits also as when he stops the overflowing waters of a river or puts to sleep 30.000 Dasas (IV 30,12 and 21). This occult power is of course an attribute of other gods as well, chiefly of (Mitra and) Varun-a; it is by means of this that Varuna, the chief mayin 'wielder of maya', creates and regulates The power maya is also an attribute of asuras, in the later sense of 'demons'. As we saw, in V 31, 7 Susna is said to have maya. Then, in X 138,3 Indra destroys the firm works (drlha, here but elsewhere pur) of demon Pipru who is described as mayin; in I 117,3 the Asvins offset the maya of "the malignant Dasyu" and free Atri. I think that maya and purs are connected in that the purs are created by gods and asuras with this power. Nowhere in the RV do we find one single statement that any pur (or drlha) was destroyed by human beings just as we find no statement that any pur was constructed by human beings (though VI 45, 9 does refer to men's drlhani, which however are created by maya, and asks Indra to destroy them). In VI 75,19 the poet says 'the holy power (or prayer) is my inmost armour' brahma varma mamantaram. The divine pur is like this inner varma which is brahma. In fact, in Atharvaveda V 8, 6 we find the interesting verse "when [the enemies] attacked the divine strongholds (-pur-), the holy-power (brahma) made protective armours (varmani)" (or "[Indra] made the brahma-power into armours"):3 here we have all three elements. From this point of view the hymns refer perhaps to an age we have long forgotten and ceased to believe in, the age when divine beings mingled with human beings and helped them with divine purs against demonic beings and their purs. I say "perhaps" because it is difficult for us to accept such a situation as real, yet it does not seem impossible.
In that far distant age some men too are said to have used maya or a manifestation of it as mental power, speech, knowledge, or the holy brahma-power. This spiritual power is used by Vasistha to help king Sudas defeat his enemies (brahmana instr VII 33,3); by the same brahmana Atri disclosed the sun (V 40, 6). V svamitra stopped the flow of the rivers by the force of his speech vacas (III 33,8 and 10). The Rbhus, again, used 'power-of-mind' manas (IV 33,9) and 'true holy-spells' satyamantra (I 20,2-4) or dh and dh ti 'thought, visionary power' (I 110,4; IV 36,2 and 4) to perform their miraculous deeds, like the rejuvenation of the Parents (IV 33,3) and so on; consequently they were given immortality in the mansion of the Sungod (I 110, 2-4). For almost 2000 years Christians, most learned people and scientists as well as uneducated folk, have accepted as true the miracles performed by the prophets of the Old Testament (Moses crossing the Red Sea, etc) and by the apostles and saints (rescuing and healing people). Yet when they meet similar miraculous works by the rsis (= prophets and saints) in the Vedic hymns, they call them "mythology", as if divine powers are restricted only to Christianity. Moreover, the rsis' attainment of a divine condition or immortality is, surely, no more "mythological" (unreal or incredible) than the prophets' and saints' attainment of a celestial or paradisal state basking in God's radiance. Most modern scholars think to solve the problem of this discrepancy by rejecting all miracles, religion and spirituality – which seems to be a much more general attitude now. But surely the miracle of life, birth and death, and the spirituality of mind, word and action will never cease, however materialist and drab or hedonistic ordinary life becomes.
Indeed, Dr J. Mack, a psychiatrist at Harvard University, writes: "It appears ever more likely that we exist in a multidimensional cosmos or multiverse. The cosmos. far from being an empty place of dead matter and energy appears to be filled with beings, creatures, spirits, intelligences, gods. that have through millennia been intimately involved with human existence" (1999: 169). Thus, there is no reason not to interpret pur as a supernatural defence. 3 For similar uses of brahma being varma see also AV VII 100, 1; VIII 2, 10; IX 2, 16; XVII 1, 27-28: all noted in (PUR) BIBLIOGRAPHY
1999/2000 'Harappan and the Rgveda: Points of Convergence', The Dawn of Indian Civilization Up to 600 BC ed G C Pande vol 1, pt 1 (397-439), PHISPC, Centre of Studies in Civilization, N Delhi.
2002 'Witzel's vanishing ocean…' http://www.bharatvani.org/davidfrawley/ReplytoWitzel.html 1951-7 Der Rig-Veda vols 33-36, HOS, Camb Mass.
2003 ‘Final Reply’ in Journal of Indo-European Studies vol 31, 1-2 Spring/Summer(187-240).
1999 ‘The ¥gveda and Indoeuropeans’ A.B.O.RI vol 80 (15-42), Pune.
2003 ‘The Dating of the Indian Tradition’ Anthropos vol 98 (341-359).
1997 A Rgvedic Word Concordance, New Haven, American Oriental Society.
1999 Passport to the Cosmos: Human Transformation. NY, Random House.
Mayrhofer M. 1956/1996 KEWA & EWA; Heidelberg, C Winter.
O'Flaherty W. 1981 The Rig Veda London, NY, Penguin Classics.
1976 The Meaning of pur in Vedic Literature; Mϋnchen, W Finck. Vedic Index (1912) 2 vols 1995, by A A Macdonell & A B Keith: M Banarsidass, Delhi.

Source: http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/RigvedicPur_002.pdf