Are The Nivids as Ancient as They are Claimed to Be?

Shrikant G. Talageri

The Rigveda is the oldest document in the world: it goes back in its earliest stages
to beyond 3000 BCE — how far beyond would still at this stage be a matter of
speculation. Although AIT followers would refuse to take it back beyond 1500
BCE or, with conditions and clauses, a few hundred years earlier, they would still
generally agree to it being the oldest recorded Indo-Aryan language document, or
the record of the oldest Indo-Aryan practices within India.

However, human nature is not always satisfied with simple facts, it prefers
mysteries and the idea of hidden, lost or unrecorded entities: the idea that yah to
sirf ek jhalak hai ("this is just but a glimpse"). So we have the idea, even in
tradition, of many lost or unrecorded versions or recensions of the Rigveda of
which the present version or recension, the kala, is just one. The names of
alternative recensions, usually cited, are the b kala, val yana and
kh yana.

But these are not just names, we actually have fragmentary manuscripts which are
known by these names. The most famous or well known of the hymns in these
alternate versions are the khila s ktas. And the eleven v lakhilya s ktas (which
are part of the kala text as the eleven hymns VIII.49-59, which seem to have
been the last to be incorporated within Book 8) are also often suggested as
originally part of the b kala text (which also include some of them in the
fragmentary manuscripts) incorporated into the kala text.

This often led to complications in the numbering of the hymns in Book 8 in the
translations and references of many early Indologists: some of them, like
Grassmann, Wilson, Griffith, and others, removed the eleven v lakhilya s ktas
VIII.49-59 from the main body of Book 8, and placed them as a separate appendix
to Book 8, numbering them v lakhilya 1-11, or even at the end of the Rigveda as a
whole, numbering them Rigveda 1018-1028. Worse still, they additionally
changed the hymn numbers of the following 44 hymns in Book 8 from VIII.60-
103 to VIII.49-92. With some scholars using the regular numbering for these
hymns from VIII.49-103, and some using these changed numbers, there was
plenty of confusion in citing references from these hymns. Even the (in my
opinion) greatest of Indologists, Edward Hopkins used the changed numbers in his
pioneering article "Pr g thik n " (JAOS 1896, HOPKINS 1896a), but corrected
himself in later articles.

But I will not discuss all these alleged variations, versions and recensions of the
Rigveda here. While they are all very important in the study of ancient literature
because they are after all pre-Buddhist Vedic texts (or so I will assume), the fact
that they were not kept alive with the same rigor as the regular kala text, the fact
that they are found in fragments, and the fact that they contain words which are
very definitely post-Rigvedic words, or very late Rigvedic words in the kala
text, rules them out as candidates for being considered equally old or comparable
in antiquity to the text of the kala text found in exactly the same form in every
corner of India, and which alone should be regarded as the Rigveda proper.

[Correction: I am told there are complete manuscripts for the val yana and
kh yana texts, and both are published with their padap has, and that there is
actually a tape recording of the oral text of the latter recited by a N gara brahmin
and recorded by the IGNCA. It will be really interesting to examine them
(although it will not be easy for me at least to do so without modern aids like a
transliterated pdf and word concordances). However, the texts, or whatever is
different in them from the present known version of the Rigveda, will very likely
turn out (like the v lakhilya and khila hymns) to be late variations replete with
New Words far posterior to the present known version].

What I will be discussing is the concept of Nivids or short sacred invocations. this
was triggered by certain observations by Haug in his Introduction to his translation
of the Aitareya Brahmana: "I must lay particular stress on the Nivids which I
believe to be more ancient than almost all the hymns contained in the
Rigveda", and he adds: "That no attention has been paid as yet to these
important documents by the few Vedic scholars in Europe, is principally
owing to the circumstance of their not having been known to them" (HAUG
1863:36).

"More ancient than almost all the hymns contained in the Rigveda"? What
exactly is the basis for this claim? He clarifies the "reasons why I refer the so-
called Nivids to a still more remote antiquity [….] The word nivid frequently
occurs in the hymns, and even with the epithet p rva or p rvya old (see 1,89,3;
96.2; 2,36,6). The Marutvat ya Nivid is, as it appears, even referred to by
V madeva (4,18,7) [….] the repetition of the Nivids is juxtaposed with the
performance of the Shastras (6,67,10). The Br hma am regards the Nivids,
particularly that one addressed to Agni, as those words of Praj pati by means
of which he created all beings" (HAUG 1863:36-37).

The logic is totally inexplicable: how do all these various things all add up to
proving that the Nivids are "More ancient than almost all the hymns contained
in the Rigveda"?

a) The word astra or stra (whatever he means by Shastras) is nowhere to be

found in VI.67.10 or anywhere near it, and the verse does not give any such special
importance to the word Nivid: it merely mentions the word in passing.

b) The words "p rva or p rvya old" do not automatically mean "More ancient
than almost all the hymns contained in the Rigveda".

c) V madeva is nowhere near being the most ancient composer in the Rigveda, that
his merely referring to the word Nivid should, for any reason, be interpreted as
being so pregnant with meaning.

d) Not only is the myth of Praj pati creating all beings a late one in a (post-
Samhita) Brahmana text, but a religious text describing a word, hymn, prayer, or
particular God, as "creating all beings" is not proof of the extreme antiquity of that
word, hymn, prayer, or particular God. Moreover, the very word Praj pati itself is
a Middle Word in the Rigveda, totally missing in the three Oldest Books and
found only as follows:
Old Rigveda:
IV. 53.1.

New Rigveda:
IX. 5.9.
X. 85.43; 121.10; 169.4; 184.1.

Then Haug proceeds to argue (HAUG 1863:36-37) that the fact that the
Zoroastrian texts also mention Ahura Mazda creating the world by uttering a
prayer proves his point! And, further on, goes on to argue: "Another proof of the
high antiquity of the Nivids is furnished by the Zend-Avesta. The many
prayer formulas in the Yasna which commence with niva -ahay mi, i.e. I
invite, are exactly of the same nature as the Nivids" (HAUG 1863:38-39). As I
have already conclusively shown in my books and articles that the special common
elements in the Rigveda and the Avesta are late elements in the Rigveda, this
(admittedly 160 year-old) argument has no teeth. Moreover, while the word nivid
as a noun is present in the Rigveda, it is not found even once in the Rigveda (or
even the other Samhitas) in a verbal form as apparently found in the Avestan
prayer formulae.

But Haug continues to assert that "the Nivids [….] are doubtless the most
ancient pieces of Vedic poetry" (HAUG 1863:39), and cites examples from
Hebrew and Chinese poetry as proof that sacrificial formulae predate rhythmical
hymns.

There is of course, little point in criticizing something written as long ago as 1863,
but the fact is that, as Haug says, it is true that by and large "no attention has been
paid" by Indologists even in later times to these Nivids, and so Haug's words still
in a way seem to hold the fort if and when any reference is made to the
chronological position of the Nivids in Vedic liturgy.

But then, what are the Nivids, what exactly is meant by this term, and which book
gives us a list of these Nivids? Well, it so happens that there is a supplement to the
Rigveda known as the Nividadhy ya, and one Indian scholar has made a detailed
study of the Nividadhy ya, giving all the Nivids in that text in the original, with
English translation, and with some detailed notes: "A Critical Study of the
Nivids", by Surendraprasad Niyogi, published by K. L. Mukhopadhyaya, and
printed at the Calcutta Oriental Press Ltd., Calcutta, 1961.

Niyogi makes the same claims about the antiquity of the Nivids as Haug did a
century earlier, when he tells us: "The language of the Nivids reveals its earlier
character. The language is older than the oldest parts of the gveda", and in so
many words he discounts the early nature of the Rigveda: "From a study of the
language and style of the gveda, it is very difficult to accept the theory that
the gveda is the first poetry of the world" (NIYOGI 1961:16).

These sweeping statements are not supported by any data details which show how
he has arrived at his classification of the "oldest parts of the gveda" and exactly
which hymns he includes in that category, or what exactly he means by "a study of
the language and style of the gveda", or on what basis he finds it difficult to
"accept the theory that the gveda is the first poetry of the world".

So it is necessary to examine the Nivids detailed in his book in order to check the
veracity of his claim, since if the only two major books referring to or analyzing
the Nivids make this same claim, and this claim has repercussions on the status of
the Rigveda and can influence academic studies on the subject, this is a matter of
great importance.

But first, it must be understood that that there are two distinct entities involved
here: firstly, the word nivid as it appears in the Rigveda, and, secondly, the
specific collection of invocations in the supplement to the Rigveda known as the
Nividadhy ya.

The word nivid is found in the Rigveda as follows:

OLD RIGVEDA:
VI. 67.10.
IV. 18.7.
II. 36.6.
NEW RIGVEDA:
I. 89.3; 96.2; 175.6; 176.6.

It is first found in an Old Hymn in the Oldest Book 6. Then it is found in two Old
Hymns in the two Middle Books 4 and 2. Then, four times in the New Book 1,
twice in the repeated refrain at the end of two hymns (I.175 and 176) and twice
otherwise.

Haug tells us that the word "frequently occurs in the hymns" (HAUG 1863:36),
but actually it is a rare word: it is not found in six books: in the Old Books 3, 7
and in the New Books 5, 8, 9, 10. Except for the two references by agastya
composers in a refrain, it is used only by the a giras composers in four hymns and
an a giras-turned-bh gu composer in one hymn. Further, it is just found once in
the Yajurveda, and twice in the Atharvaveda.

So very definitely it is an old word referring to old invocations: as Haug points out,
it is preceded in three hymns (II.36.6; I.89.3; 96.2) by the word p rva or
p rvya.

So the only question is: are the Nivids or invocations listed or collected in the
Nividadhy ya those same invocations which are referred to in a hymn in the
Oldest Book in the Rigveda, and which could be called at least as old as the hymns
in that Oldest Book? (Even the nivid referred to in VI.67.10 cannot automatically
be described as "older than the hymns of the Rigveda", since the nivid is not
referred to as "old" in that particular reference).

Max Muller had pointed out: "Of course the Nivids which kh yana ' rauta
S tra' VIII. 16-25, gives cannot be those to which the poets of the Rigveda
several times allude", and Niyogi, quoting this, tells us: "As to the question
whether the Nivids preserved in the Nividadhy ya are the same as referred to
in the gvedic mantras or not, the reply is this that the preservation of the
Nivids of one hundred seventyfive clauses in a manner different from that of
the gveda Sa hit will prove their genuineness" (NIYOGI 1961:6-7)!! By this
incredible logic, the genuineness of every single (even) non-Vedic document
stands proved, because every single other document was preserved "in a manner
different from that of the gveda Sa hit "! But surely "genuineness" does not
mean "older than the oldest parts of the gveda"?

Niyogi later attempts to deal with two other arguments apparently raised against
the antiquity of the Nivids in the Nividadhy ya: the first is the fact that the
Nividadhy ya is a prose text, and it is commonly accepted that in Vedic literature
the prose literature (starting with the Yajurveda) comes after the metrical (poetic)
literature represented in the Rigveda. And the second is that the Nividadhy ya
does not show the accents in the words: all Vedic texts are accented, and
unaccented literature is a feature of later Classical Sanskrit.

Both these arguments against the antiquity of the Nivids in the Nividadhy ya are
perfectly strong and valid ones, though not necessary clinching ones. But the kinds
of arguments made by Niyogi only weaken his case further.

He indirectly argues for example that unaccented texts come earlier than the
accented ones!! His exact words: "The reciters and teachers of Veda do not
require nor they did ever require the aid of texts marked with accents. The
system of marking the texts with accents came at a later period even after
P ini and so the case was not uniform in the case of all Vedic texts. This is a
device to preserve the correct accents of the text from mispronunciation.
When the tradition is living no accent mark is required for the pronunciation
of texts" (NIYOGI 1961:10). By this inverted logic, the Rigveda and the other
accented Veda Samhitas were not a part of "living tradition"!

He later adds two more arguments: first: the Nivids in the Nividadhy ya must
have been kept alive orally for a longer period (than the other Vedic texts) and they
"moved from the lips of priests to their disciples officiating in the Soma
sacrifices and were recorded afterwards" (NIYOGI 1961:11) by which time it
may not have been felt necessary to mark accents. Second, the Nivids were
supposed to be recited in "monotony (eka ruti)" and "there is no need of
accentuating a text where monotony prevails" (NIYOGI 1961:11). His
conclusion: "So it is not strange that the Nividadhy ya which has no place in
the main body of the gveda Sa hit should be without accent marks though
it is earlier than most of the hymns of the gveda" (NIYOGI 1961:12).
As already pointed out, the arguments against the antiquity of the Nivids in the
Nividadhy ya are perfectly strong and valid ones, though not necessary clinching
ones. But the clinching argument is the linguistic argument. As we saw, Niyogi
claims: "The language is older than the oldest parts of the gveda" (NIYOGI
1961:16).

On the contrary, the language of the Nivids in the Nividadhy ya is definitely the
language of the New Rigveda, or, in many cases, even later than the latest parts of
the Rigveda.

[Before going into the language of the Nividadhy ya, a word about Niyogi's
extremely strange perspective on the AIT angle behind historical interpretations of
the Vedic texts. He seems to support the idea that the "Aryans" came to India from
outside: "It is reasonable to think that the Mother Earth is an Indian creation
with the growth of the love of the land where the Aryans settled and which
was purified by the frequent performance of sacrifice" (NIYOGI 1961:25), and
he displays the imperialist outrage of any invading and conquering race that the
natives should dare to object to their invasion and "purification" of the land, or
raise obstacles to their rule. The natives (though he does not use that word)
automatically become the aggressors by resisting the aggression of the superior
invaders, and the "Aryans" become the victims: "It is probable that the
exploitation of the Aryans in India at the hands of non-Vedic or foreign people
was a great national calamity and Indra acted as the saviour of his exploited
followers" (NIYOGI 1961:24)!!]

The Nividadhy ya consists of "eleven sets of short prose mantras addressed to

different deities or different aspects of the same deity. Each of these eleven
sets of mantras again consists of clauses (padas) ranging from twelve to thirty
in number independent of or syntactically connected with one another. The
total number of such clauses is one hundred and seventy-five" (NIYOGI
1961:3). So: a total of 11 nivids, 175 clauses.
Though this is a critique of Niyogi's book, one must pay tribute to him, and to his
dedicated scholarship, for bringing out this deep study with text, translation and
notes, of a rare and difficult-to-access text not easily available elsewhere.

A study of the language of the text of the Nividadhy ya shows the text to be a
linguistically late text (even without regard to its unaccented and prose nature)
replete with New Rigvedic or post-Rigvedic words.

To begin with the first of the eleven Nivids is an introductory Nivid, and the
shortest one, and certain common formulaic clauses found in the other ten Nivids
are missing in it.

The other ten Nivids have certain common formulaic padas towards the end,
which have some common Rigvedic words like deva, k atra, brahma, yajam na
and devah ti.

But they also have the following four formulaic words found in all the ten Nivids:
predam, premam, vas , and sunvantam. The first word is found twice in each
of the ten Nivids 2-11. The second word is also found twice in each of the ten
Nivids 2-11, once as premam and once in a derived form prem m. The third and
fourth words are found once in each of the ten Nivids 2-11.

Three of these four words are New Words found only in the New Rigveda and
Redacted Hymns , and the fourth (like so many words listed in our earlier article
on on the g tsamadas of Book 2, is found from Book 2 onwards:

1. predam:
VIII. 37.1.
X. 108.1

2. premam:
III. 34.5.
[prem is not found at all in the Rigveda].

3. vas :
I. 53.20.
[A close form vasad is found again in the New Rigveda in I.144.2].

4. sunvantam:
OLD RIGVEDA:
II. 12.14; 30.7.
NEW RIGVEDA AND REDACTED HYMNS:
I. 176.4.
VIII. 2.18; 13.5.
IX. 112.1.

Also, we find the following New Words (found only in the New Rigveda and
Redacted Hymns) in these Nivids:

NIVID 1:
at rta: I.126.1; V. 25.5; 42.1; VIII. 26.1; 99.7; X.64.5; 149.1.

NIVID 2:
marudga a: I.23.8; II.41.15; VI.52.11; VIII.89.2; IX.66.26; X.66.2.
marutstotra: I.101.11.
marutsakh : VII.96.2; VIII.76.2,3,9; 103.14; X.86.9.
par vati: I.47.7; 53.7; 112.13; 119.8; 134.4; V.30.5; 73.1; VIII.8.14; 12.17;
13.15; 33.10; 45.25; 50.7; 53.3; 93.6; 97.4; IX.44.2; 65.22.
an dh a: I.19.4; IV.32.5; VII.15.14; VIII.22.18; X.138.4.
ambarahatya: I.112.14.
a vam: IX.10.5; 91.3.

NIVID 3:
v ratama: III.52.8.
bhett : VIII.17.14.
nijaghnir: IX.53.2.
darm : I.132.6 [darm am: I.61.5; X.46.5]
bhart : V.58.7; X.22.3; 74.5.

NIVID 4:
ana v ha: X.59.10; 85.10.
sub hu: II.32.7; VIII.17.8.
matsat: IV.31.12; V.40.4; VI.44.16.

NIVID 5:
jasvat : X.169.1.
prajanana: III.29.1.

NIVID 6:
sa vatsara: I.110.4; 140.2; 161.13; 164.4; VII.103.1,7,9; X.87.17; 190.2.
matsat: IV.31.12; V.40.4; VI.44.16.
ami h : III.29.16.

NIVID 7:
t vat : X.114.8.
vi vamahasa: X. 93.3.
pacata: I.61.7; III.28.2; V.34.1.
takvan: I.134.5; 151.5; X.91.2 [takva: VIII.69.13].
matsat: IV.31.12; V.40.4; VI.44.16.

NIVID 8:
matsat: IV.31.12; V.40.4; VI.44.16.

NIVID 9:
su ubha: I.62.4; IV.50.5; V.75.4; X.78.4.
p nim tara: I.23.10; 38.4; 85.2; 89.7; V.57.2,3; 59.6; VIII.7.3,17; IX.34.5.
var anir ija: III.26.5; V.57.4.
bhandadi a: V.87.1.
matsat: IV.31.12; V.40.4; VI.44.16.
an dh a: I.19.4; IV.32.5; VII.15.14; VIII.22.18; X.138.4.

NIVID 10:
gh t havana: I.12.5; 45.5; VIII.74.5.
matsat: IV.31.12; V.40.4; VI.44.16.
apro iv n: VIII.60.19.
NIVID 11:
atirat: I.33.13; III.34.5; VIII.14.7.
matsat: IV.31.12; V.40.4; VI.44.16.
pinvat: IX.68.3; 97.33.
jinvat: IX.12.6.

The following are some words which are found only in Book 2, or which start in
the Rigveda from the Old Hymns of Book 2 and are then found only in the New
Rigveda and Redacted Hymns:

NIVID 4:
sabheyam: OLD: II.24.13. NEW: I.91.20

NIVID 6:
kan na: OLD: II.15.7. NEW: I.66.4; 116.10; 117.18; 152.4; 163.8; III.48.1;
IV.32.23; V.3.2; VIII.69.14; X.40.9; 99.10.

NIVID 11:
aram t: OLD: II.12.2; 15.5.
prakupit m: OLD: II.12.2.

We could go on to add specific forms found in the Nivids which are found only in
the New Rigveda and the Redacted Hymns: for example, the specific form
paramasy m (Nivid 2) is found in the Rigveda in I.108.9,10. And the specific
form satvan m (Nivid 3) is found in the Rigveda in VIII.96.4; X.103.10.

There are also many words and forms which are post-Rigvedic: the most
prominent is pampha ata in Nivid 11, which (or at least the root pha ) is
found only in the Brahmana-Aranyaka texts. Another prominent example is the
word s vitra in Nivid 4: Savit is a very prominent God in the Rigveda (the
"g yatr mantra" is addressed to him), but forms of the word savit beginning
with s - (like s vitra and s vitr ) are found only in the language of the later
Yajurveda and Atharvaveda.
In short: the language of the Nivids in the Nividadhy ya is late Vedic language.
The very fact that the language can breezily be stated as being "older than the
oldest parts of the gveda" without analysis, and these conclusions can remain
unquestioningly accepted in principle, shows the level of casualness as opposed to
seriousness that is involved in chronological studies of the Vedic language.

In any case, the exercise undertaken in this article not only lays to rest the myth
that the Nivids in the Nividadhy ya are extremely ancient within the chronology
of Vedic texts, but also demonstrates the efficacy of examination of the chronology
of Vedic vocabulary on the basis of the division of the Rigveda into an Old
Rigveda and a New Rigveda.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

HAUG 1863: The Aitareya Brahmana of the Rigveda. Haug, Martin. Trubner
and Co., London, 1863.

HOPKINS 1896a: Pr g thik ni. Hopkins, Edward W. pp. 23-92 in JAOS (Journal
of the American Oriental Society), Vol. 17.

NIYOGI 1961: A Critical Study of the Nivids. Niyogi, Surendraprasad. Publ.

K.L. Mukhopadhyaya, Calcutta 1961.