Was Battle of 10 kings a real battle at all ?

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,648
New Delhi, India
#51
Asura doesn't originally have negative conotations, it just means 'lord', which is why it is used to broadly in the earliest stratum of the texts. It gains some negative connotations in some contexts during the later period. Avestan is much more conservative in this respect.
Note, that later Indian bards seem to confuse the a as a privative pre-fix through a common linguistic tendency called analogy. So an Asura becomes one who is without -sura, in this case alcohol or perhaps the intoxicated state of the soma ritual.

Historicity of the Dasarajna Yuddha:
It seems quite probable. Either way, there is a reduction of diversity amongst later texts and rituals which suggests one strain becomes dominant, even if only for a time. Why not the Bharatas? I know scholars like Witzel like to read a historical event where the Bharatas take over and the later war between the Kauravas and the Pandavas represent two different 'houses' of the 'dynasty'.
10 tribes is a very suspect number, but on balance I find it hard to consider this to be a fantastical rather than a historical event.
Asura in Avestan or Vedic meant "powerful'. That is why the deities as well as the demons (Vritra) are mentioned as 'asura'. In the puranic period they took the meaning as 'demons' and 'suras' became their opponents, i.e., the 'deities'. "Sura' in case of deities has no connection with intoxication or liquor.

10 tribes (actually more than 10 are mentioned in RigVeda - Battle of the Ten Kings - Wikipedia) are quite possible. Even now we may have people belonging to 20 tribes in a village in India. Bharatas are mentioned as opponents in some verses, but not in other verses. Bharatas finally ended as beneficiaries of the 'Battle of Ten Kings', and in later times along with Sudasa's clan, the 'Tritsus', came to be known as 'Kurus'.
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,544
USA
#52
Ok, to answer some linguistic questions:

Asura doesn't originally have negative conotations, it just means 'lord', which is why it is used to broadly in the earliest stratum of the texts. It gains some negative connotations in some contexts during the later period. Avestan is much more conservative in this respect.

Note, that later Indian bards seem to confuse the a as a privative pre-fix through a common linguistic tendency called analogy. So an Asura becomes one who is without -sura, in this case alcohol or perhaps the intoxicated state of the soma ritual.

Historicity of the Dasarajna Yuddha:

It seems quite probable. Either way, there is a reduction of diversity amongst later texts and rituals which suggests one strain becomes dominant, even if only for a time. Why not the Bharatas? I know scholars like Witzel like to read a historical event where the Bharatas take over and the later war between the Kauravas and the Pandavas represent two different 'houses' of the 'dynasty'.

10 tribes is a very suspect number, but on balance I find it hard to consider this to be a fantastical rather than a historical event.
There is no meaning of Asura in Rig Veda that is indicative of no intoxication (a-surA), and nor is soma any alcohol.
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,544
USA
#53
Dasyus, as I have always said, were originally the imaginary demons of Aryans who abducted the sun during the long, cold and dark Arctic night when the Aryans lived there before the coming of ice-age. The story has its counter-parts in all IE cultures. Later the word has also been used for opponents of RigVedic Aryans. There is no mention of a major conflict between the indigenous people of India and the migrant Aryans.In India also, the word Aryan was racial/religious. Remember the five clans (Pancajanas).

Read about 'Trita Aptya' in the light of the theory of 'Arctic Home in Vedas' (B.G. Tilak) here:
Nobody abducted the Sun and that is not what Dasyu means. Read the etymology of the word before you give wrong meanings. And certainly the Aryans were not migrants. They were indigenous.
 

Aupmanyav

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,648
New Delhi, India
#55
For example, Trita Aptya is one of the Rishis in Rig Veda, while he is an ancestor in Avestan.
Sure, Trita is a 'rishi' of RigVeda. Trita means the third, so he could have been the third son or the third child of his father. How does it prove that he was the Trita Aptya, an Aryan deity?

"Trita, a somewhat obscure god, who is mentioned only in detached stanzas of the RV., comes down from the Indo-Iranian period. .. Other demon adversaries of Indra are Arbuda, described as a wily beast, whose cows Indra drove out; Visvarupa, son of Tvastr, a three-headed demon slain by both Trita and Indra, who seize his cows; and Svarbhanu, who eclipses the sun."
A Vedic Reader (Excerpts)
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,544
USA
#56
Sure, Trita is a 'rishi' of RigVeda. Trita means the third, so he could have been the third son or the third child of his father. How does it prove that he was the Trita Aptya, an Aryan deity?

"Trita, a somewhat obscure god, who is mentioned only in detached stanzas of the RV., comes down from the Indo-Iranian period. .. Other demon adversaries of Indra are Arbuda, described as a wily beast, whose cows Indra drove out; Visvarupa, son of Tvastr, a three-headed demon slain by both Trita and Indra, who seize his cows; and Svarbhanu, who eclipses the sun."
A Vedic Reader (Excerpts)
The Rishi of the verse is Trita Aptya. What are you belaboring?
 

Aatreya

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
3,544
USA
#60
I mean people name their children after their deities. That is how I got my name, Amar Nath. Most common. :)
So? Trita Aptya has two parts - Trita and Aptya. Aptya would be a derived form of Apta, meaning son of Apta. Your parents giving you the first name Amarnath is not equivalent to someone using the name Trita Aptya because it has both first name and father's name. Reusing both names is less probable.