Wednesday, May 30, 2018

Major flaw in Vedveer Arya’s chronological history of ancient Tamilagam.

Next article: The fallacies about Kharavela in "The Chronological History of Ancient Tamilagam" by Vedveer Arya

I happened to read a forward from a face book entry made by Sri Vedveer Arya on “Dravida Shishu and the date of Adi Shankara” in which he derived the date of Tirujnana Sambhandar from his association with Ninraseer Nedumaran alias Koon Pandyan (original pronunciation is Goon Pandyan, where ‘goon’ means bent or curved back). According to him Koon Pandyan belonged to 1300-1200 BCE and he was the successor of Ukkira Peru Valudi (Ugra Peruvaɻuti) to whom he assigns the date 1276 BCE.

Ugra Peruvaɻuti was the last patron of the last and the 3rd Sangam assembly and the date assigned to him has great ramification for dating the Indian past as he was the last king of a very long Tamil Sangam era that spanned for nearly 10,000 years! Date of Ugra Peruvaɻuti deserves to be called as a cut-off date which must fit well with cross-referential dates before, after and during his period. Miffed by this date given by Vedveer Arya, I started to look for the exact context where he has written this and came across his paper “The Chronological History of Ancient Tamilagam (From 11226 BCE to 5th Century CE)” where I found not just one but many incorrect statements on information found in Sangam texts and challengeable dates of kings. Fearing that a refutation of all of them would make this article too lengthy, I decided to concentrate on the date of Ugra Peruvaɻuti alone here, while reserving the rest in different articles later.

The major source of information about Ugra Peruvaɻuti comes from the commentary by Nakkīrar for a text called “Iṟaiyanār Agapporuḷ”, supposed to have been authored by Lord Shiva himself. The first flaw is that Vedveer Arya pre-supposes the existence of two Nakkīrar-s and attributes this commentary to Nakkīrar II while attributing some Sangam poems in the name of Nakkīrar to Nakkīrar I and some others to Nakkīrar II. This flaw is an obvious outcome of his non- acquaintance with the original commentary in Tamil and his dependence on secondary works on this commentary with the result that he is echoing the opinion of the writers of the secondary books and not the commentary by Nakkīrar himself.

For, in the original text by Nakkīrar, it is well made out that there was only one Nakkīrar and all the Sangam poems in the name of Nakkīrar was by the same person who wrote this commentary as well. In the very beginning of the commentary Nakkīrar reveals this while describing the circumstances that made him write this commentary.

Only one Nakkīrar

Nakkīrar begins his commentary fulfilling the established norms of Sangam publications, such as stating the name of the text, the nature of the text – whether primary or secondary, the topic of the text and to whom it was given (read out) – the patron king, the land and the listeners. In describing to whom it is given, he narrates the background of this text.

Once there was a drought for 12 years in the Pandyan land with the result that people had moved out of the country to find greener pastures. At the end of 12 years, it rained well and the conditions for living returned to normalcy. The King Ugra Peruvaɻuti called upon all the people who had left the country to come back. He also desired to constitute the assembly of Sangam, and revive the system of study and development of Tamil literature. Heeding his call, many Tamil scholars returned with whatever texts they had in hand.

In those days scholars had specialized in certain topics and were not in the know of everything of Tamil grammar and literature. This is known from the information in the commentary that of all the three parts of grammar (eɻutthu / letters, sol / word and poruḷ / meaning), only eɻutthu and sol were available. (This grammar work must have been Tolkāppiyam, though there is no explicit reference to it in the commentary). None who returned to the country was an expert in Poruḷ Adhikaram. This caused anguish to the king and the scholars. Lord Shiva, the patron deity of the Pandyans decided to put an end to their anguish.

One day the priest at the Shiva temple (could have been Madurai Meenakshi temple – mentioned as ‘Devar kōttam’ in the commentary) who normally would not clean the under-part of the seat of the Lord, thought of cleaning it and to his surprise found some copper plates lying there. This was brought to the notice of the king and it was found to contain Tamil verses on the topic, Poruḷ’. This made the people think that the Lord Himself had written the work to complete the missing part of grammar. The topic was found to be ‘Agam’ (pertains to personal and love life ) and therefore this work came to be called as “Agapporuḷ”. As Shiva was known as “Iṟaiyanār” (meaning God) in Tamil, this work acquired the name “Iṟaiyanār Agapporuḷ”.

(It must be mentioned here that Vedveer postulates two Iṟaiyanār-s, implying that there were two Shiva-s! One who gave a verse to Dharumi which is found in Kurunthogai and the other, the composer of this Agapporuḷ. If we accept his logic, there were three Shiva-s, the 3rd one being the earliest of all and was the founder of 1st Sangam era. But Vedaveer finds a way to partially rein back this run-away absurdity by claiming that this Agapporuḷ was originally written in the 1st Sangam age by Iṟaiyanār. So another absurdity encased among many such absurdities – and this one claiming that a text found in the last Sangam assembly of the last Sangam era was written in the first Sangam assembly of the first Sangam era, perhaps as the first composition! Nothing can pale out this absurdity – not even his claim that Tolkāppiyam was ‘influenced by Bharata’s Nātyashāstra and Mānava Dharmashāstra’ – despite the fact that texts like Tolkāppiyam state in categorical terms what they talk about.)

Continuing from the paragraph preceding the above, the task of finding the meaning of the sutras of this work commenced. With no one giving a convincing commentary, Nakkīrar along with other poets went to the king and requested him to find a suitable judge or teacher (kāraṇika – this is the word written in the commentary) to assess the commentaries presented. But the king was annoyed at this request and what he told them reveals the identity of Nakkīrar. The King said that all the 49 were unparalleled poets of the Sangam assembly; how could he find someone superior to them in judging their work. (1)

Prior to this Nakkīrar writes in the commentary that 49 poets contributed to the 3rd Sangam among whom he mentioned his own name. The king was obviously referring to all the poets who contributed until then to the 3rd Sangam era. Nakkīrar’s name does not appear in any other Sangam era.  

As the anguished king and others were praying at the temple to find a way out, it so happened around midnight on one of those days they heard a divine voice (āakāsh vāṇi) telling them to invite one “Urutthira Sanman” (Tamilised form of Rudra Janman), the Uppurik kiɻān, (the resident of Uppur) a re-incarnation of Kumaraswamy (Lord Muruga, born due to a curse) to assess the work as Kāraṇika. The commentary which makes him shed tears and raises goose bumps, must be accepted as the best commentary.

The assembly was constituted and many people presented their commentaries. Only two poets made an impact on the Kāraṇika. One was the famous Marudaniḷa Nāganār and the other was Nakkīrar. The Kāraṇika felt the impact for every word of Nakkīrar, which was not so with the other poet and this made him choose Nakkīrar’s commentary as the best one.

This information given in this work makes it known that there was only one Nakkīrar in the entire Sangam period and he was a contemporary of the king of the last Sangam assembly. He was the same person who shot into fame for having dared Lord Shiva (Iṟaiyanār)  Himself when he appeared to defend his poem given to Dharumi (Dharmi). That poem is found in a Sangam compilation called Kurunthogai.

The confusion about the identity of Nakkīrar had come up among some researchers due to the reason that a list of teachers is given in the commentary itself through whom this text had gone from one hand to another. Nakkīrar taught this commentary to his son who in turn taught it to another. Thus goes the list. This made some researchers to suggest that the commentary was written by another person by name Nakkīrar who appeared at a much later date than original Nakkīrar.

But the fact is that the list does not contain the same name Nakkīrar again. The list shows the persons to whom the commentary has gone. At every successive generation or after the commentary had been mastered by a teacher to be able to impart it to others, his name had been added in the list while the original commentary had been retained as it was, while making copies of it.

The problem with two Nakkīrar-s.

The issue with two Nakkīrar-s is that Vedveer Arya attributed two different time periods for two Nakkīrar-s. The earlier one (Nakkīrar I), according to him was a contemporary of Pandyan king Nedunjeɻiyan  in whose honour Nakkīrar I composed a Sangam text called Nedunalvādai. Claiming that he was many generations earlier than Nakkīrar II, Vedveer continues to say that Nakkīrar II who wrote commentary to Iṟaiyanār Agapporuḷ was also the composer of another Sangam work called “Tirumurugatruppadai”.  He based this claim on the list of kings given by a secondary and refutable text written in 1920 and not on any internal evidence of the Sangam texts themselves.

In quoting this text he had made erroneous entry that Pandyan king Nedunjeɻiyan was the 83rd king and Ugra Peruvaɻuti was the 104th king.

His exact words are,

“Nankudi Velir Varalāru” (NVV), a Tamil text consisting of 1035 poems written by Arumuga Nayinar Pillai speaks about the genealogy of the Irungovel branch of Pāndya dynasty. It gives the names of 201 generations of Pāndyan kings. According to this text, Nedunchelian II was the 83rdking and Ukkirapperu Valudi (1330-1250 BCE) was the 104th king.

This is not true as per that text. The text mentions them as 83rd and 84th kings – as successors – a father and son duo which is true as per the Sangam texts. The 104th king was Ukkira Pandyan and not Ugra Peruvaɻuti.

The dates given by Vedveer Arya are also not what that texts says. The text gives the date 62-42 BC to Nedunjeɻiyan and 42 BC- 1 AD to Ugra Peruvaɻuti , but Vedveer pushes back the date by 1000 years, saying,

“Considering the average reign of 33 years, Nedunchelian II might have flourished around 1850-1800 BCE.”

His date for Ugra Peruvaɻuti was 1330-1250 BCE!

He has based his chronology on his own earlier work on the date of Theravada Buddhism and Gajabahu, who was present in the consecration of Kannagi temple by the Cheran king Senguttuvan. The date of Seguttuvan can be cross checked with an important historical figure, namely Sarakarni with whom the Cheran went on to conquer a Yavana king (internal reference found in Silappadhikaram). This Satakarni was Gautamiputra Satakarni whose date has been well established (1st century of the Common Era).

Without going into the merits and demerits of Vedveer’s date of Gajabahu, let me put forth the connection between the two Pandyan kings with whom he is associating two Nakkīrar-s. 
Nedunjeɻiyan was a popularly known as one who defeated his opponents in Talaiyalanganam. In his youth he confronted a confederation of 7 kings – 2 Tamil kings (chera and Chola) and 5 Veḷir kings and defeated them all. The Chola king defeated in this war at Talaiyalanganam was Perunarkilli, the one who conducted Rajasuya yajana (he had that as his title).

The interesting part is that this Cholan king was seen in the same dais with the Pandyan king we have been talking all along, i.e., Ugra Peruvaɻuti! The famous poetess Auvaiyar has written in her composition that all the three kings of the three Tamil dynasties are found together (Purananuru 367) and wished that this unity must be there at all times. The three kings were Pandyan Ugra Peruvaɻuti, Cholan Perunarkill who did Rajasuya yajna and the Cheran king Māri Veṇko.  

This means the Cholan king defeated by Nedunjeɻiyan had bought peace with the Pandyans and had become friendly with the successor Pandyan king Ugra Peruvaɻuti. Apart from Sangam literature, another input comes from epigraphy. The Sanskrit part of the bigger Sinnamanur plates lists out the achievements of earlier Pandyans. There it mentions the victory of a Pandyan king at Talaiyalanganam – The only king associated with this victory was Nedunjeɻiyan that Vedveer associates with Nakkīrar I. The inscription says that the Pandyan king cut off the heads of two kings in this war – which was fought by 7 kings as per Sangam texts. So five kings were spared of their life.

Nedunjeɻiyan who won the battle at Talaiyalanganam as a small boy.

The inscriptions continue to say (in the next verse) that Mahabharata was translated in Tamil and in subsequent verse says that Tamil Sangam was established in Madurai. This had happened in the times of Ugra Peruvaɻuti.

So the events between Nedunjeɻiyan and Ugra Peruvaɻuti were just three – winning Talaiyalanganam, translation of Mahabharata and constituting the Sangam Assembly. The survivor of the war (Cholan king) with the former had continued to live and was spotted along with the latter (Ugra Peruvaɻuti) by Auvaiyar. This is revealing of the fact that the Cholan king survived the war by seeking friendly relationship with the Pandyan king Nedunjeɻiyan. This was firmed up in Ugra Peruvaɻuti’s times perhaps by sharing the bonhomie of constituting the Sangam assembly.

From the Cholan genealogy given in Tiruvalangadu copper plates, it is known that the Cholan king Pernarkill had preceded Karikal Cholan. Karikal Cholan’s daughter was married to the Cheran family and Seguttuvan was born to her. It was Seguttuvan who consecrated Kannagi as a deity.

The line of kings constructed from these events goes like this:

·       Pandyan Nedunjeɻiyan who won at Talaiyalanganam = (contemporary of) = Perunarkill who did Rajasuya.

·       Perunarkill who did Rajasuya = (contemporary of) = Ugra Peruvaɻuti who constituted the last Sangam assembly. 

·       Perunarkill who did Rajasuya was succeeded by Karikala Chola.

·       Karikal Chola’s grandson = Cheran Seguttuvan = (contemporary of) = Gautamiputra Satakarni.
This puts in perspective the probable time period of the last Sangam Assembly conducted by Ugra Peruvaɻuti.

The Cheran King Seguttuvan ruled for 55 years and his expedition to Himalayas during which he teamed up with Satakarni to defeat the Yavanas was at the fag end of his rule. Going with the date of Gautamiputra Satakarni at the 1st century of the Common Era, it can be said that Senguttuvan’s birth goes before or around the start of the Common Era.

This puts the date of Senguttuvan’s maternal grandfather Karikal Chola to the last century before the Common Era.

Pernarkilli who did Rajasuya yajna, and preceded Karikal Chola must have lived in 1st or 2nd century before the Common Era.

From this it is deduced that the last Sangam Assembly was convened by Ugra Peruvaɻuti sometime between 1st and 2nd century before the Common Era.

If Nedunjeɻiyan who won the war at Talaiyalanganam about whom Nakkīrar composed a text  was the same one mentioned in Mangulam inscriptions, then the time of Last Sangam goes well into the 2nd century BCE as Mangulam inscriptions are dated at 3rd century BCE. That will be discussed in another article.

The bottom-line is Nakkīrar was the jewel of the last Sangam Assembly and presented his commentary to Iṟaiyanār Agapporuḷ. He is being termed as Nakkīrar II by Vedveer Arya. The same Nakkīrar wrote a poem on the previous king Nedunjeɻiyan and Vedveer identifies him as Nakkīrar I. Such arbitrary presentation of Sangam poets and the Sangam Era is bound to vitiate the already mis-used and mis-interpreted poetry of Sangam Era.


(1) From Iṟaiyanār Agapporuḷ

நாம் அரசனுழைச் சென்று, நமக்கோர் காரணிகனைத் தரல்வேண்டும் என்று
கொண்டுபோந்து, அவனாற் பொருளெனப்பட்டது பொருளாய்,
அன்றெனப்பட்டது அன்றாய் ஒழியக்காண்டும்என்று, எல்லாரும் ஒருப்பட்டு, அரசனுழைச் சென்றார். அரசனும்
எதிர்சென்று, ‘என்னை, நூற்குப் பொருள் கண்டீரோ?’ என, ‘அது காணுமாறு
எமக்கோர் காரணிகனைத் தரல்வேண்டும்என, ‘போமின், நுமக்கோர்
காரணிகனை யான் எங்ஙனம் நாடுவேன்! நீயிர் நாற்பத்தொன்பதின்மர்
ஆயிற்று. நுமக்கு நிகராவார் ஒருவர் இன்மையின் அன்றேஎன்று அரசன்
சொல்லப், போந்து, கல்மாப் பலகை ஏறியிருந்து அரசனும் இது சொல்லினான்,
யாம் காரணிகனைப் பெறுமாறு என்னைகொல்என்று சிந்திப்புழி

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Migration of Aryan Gods from India to Europe – Triglav, a case in point.

The folk tradition of Serbia contains references that resemble Vedic Gods. Their chief God was known as Triglav, literally meaning ‘three heads’. A blogpost on Old European culture has chronicled the old records of the three-headed Triglav in pre-Christian era of Serbia from which we are able to derive Indic connection to the Slavic paganism. When Christianity made inroads in that part of the globe, all the old forms of worship including that of Triglav were destroyed. Whatever little emerging from the archaeological discoveries in recent times stands the chance of being used for Aryan Invasion but the folk songs highlighted in that blogpost establish a reverse movement from India. However caution needs to be applied in studying when this movement has happened as there are hints of a more recent movement in the songs while the pagan features found in those regions seem to have sprung up from a very old tradition –which are however Vedic in essence. An examination of them is being done in this article.

One of the Serbian folk songs sounds like the Svasti vachan of the Vedic tradition. It is reproduced here before delving into the Serbian version.

Swasthir maanushebhyah :
Oordhwam jigaathu bheshajam/
Sham no asthu dwi-padhe:
Sham chathush padhe
OM Shanti Shanti Shanti:


Let there be goodness to human beings.
Let the plants which are like medicine to us, grow up well.
Let the bipeds and quadrupeds be well.
Let there be our goodwill to them.
Let there be peace at all three levels of
Bhu (earth or physical ),
Bhuvah (intermediary or vital)
and svah (heaven or mental levels of) all these beings.

The Serbian version prays for the well being of the quadrupeds and human beings in a similar way by invoking the three Gods symbolized by Triglav – the three Gods resembling the Trimurti of the Vedic pantheon.

The Ser...May our cattle be healthy
All the cows and all the sheep
All the kids and all the lambs
All the great big horses
Which carry our heroes
Dear solders of the god Triglav
god Triglav the holy trinity
Vishnji god, the creator
Strong Živa the destrojer
and Branjanj the protector...

The names of the Gods Vishnji, Živa and Branjanj in the last three lines sound similar to Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma, with a slight variation in the works associated with them.

Image of Triglav from that blogspot

Trimurti (combination of Brahma,Vishnu and Shiva) from India

From the version given by three different biographers ( Ebbo, Herbord and monk from Priflinger) who lived between 8th and 12th century CE, it is known that Triglav with three heads was characterised as ruling the three worlds, heaven, earth and underworld. This resembles the three levels of Bhu, Bhuvah and Svah. The three Gods enshrined in Triglav are unmistakably the Trimurtis of the Vedic culture.

Other folk songs of Serbia give us some clues on the time period of a connection with India.
In the song titled, “The saints are dividing the treasure”  Ognjena Marija (Fiery Mary) sister of St Petar, St Nicolas, St John, St Ilia and St Pantelija tells her brothers why she is crying:

...And kind Mary (Holy Mary) replies:
O my brother, Thunder god Ilija
how can i not cry
when i am coming from country of India
from India the accursed country.
In India there is complete lawlessness:
young are not respecting the old,
children are not respecting parents,
they have black cheeks before the god of truth,
a godfather is betraying godson,
brother is fighting brother,
brother in law is sleeping with sister in law,
and brother does not call his sister a sister...

In this verse the thunder God Ilija is the same as Indra and it is the only God other than the Trimurti that find mention in the folk songs revealed in the blogspot.

The name India appears as “Inđije” in this song. The song clearly establishes origins in India and leaving India under distress in a war like condition.

The name India is of recent origin. If the composers of this song had come from India at some time in the past, it is least probable that they identified the country as India if it was before the Common Era. The song describes all round lawlessness – something unthinkable anytime in the pre-Islamic India. We can therefore confidently place the time of origin of these singers in India towards the end of the first millennium of the Common Era. Support for this conjecture comes from another folk song of Serbia.

This song is a ‘Christmas time ceremonial prayer song found in the collection of Vuk Stef. Karadžić. It gives important clues on the time period of this song. It is in the form of a dialogue with a dove which flew to India! The singer asks the Dove where he was flying. The Dove says ‘to India, our country’!

...gray Živa, mighty gray,
mighty gray dove!
where did you travel?
and gray Živa, mighty gray dove, answers:
"I traveled all the way
To India our country.
I flew over Hindustan
And over Tatarstan
Black Hindus and Tatarus.
I flew to our Master
Our mighty God Triglav
And I watched what he was doing
What he was doing and ordering.”

The names Hindušana (Hindustan), Tartariju (Tatars) and Hinduš (Hindus) in this song can only be of recent origin
U Inđiju našu zemlju.
Prolećela Hindušana
I tu Globu Tartariju
Crni Hinduš i Tartaru.

The Dove describes an India that is different from what the crying Mary described to her brothers. To a question on what Triglav was doing in India, the Dove replies that He is doing good, making gold and silver cups. The implied message is that Triglav continues to be in India and not in Serbia! The Dove suggests that they can alternatively pray to the younger God Svarožić (Dabog, the baby Sun) who can give them all goodness and most importantly no fear of ‘Hindustan’, ‘Tataria’ and ‘Manchuria’ as Dabog has no fear of these three.

Young God Svarožić (Winter solstice sun, baby sun, Dabog, the Giving god)
To give us everything good
Most of all long life.
Long life good health
And wealth that God Dabog carries with him.
Young god Svarožić (Dabog) sings in all the land
He is not afraid of Hindustan
Neither is he afraid of black Tataria
Nor the immense wasteland
A bloody black Globa
black Globa Tataria (I don't know what Globa means, but it could be Gobi desert),
And that nasty Manchuria.

Caustic references to Globa Tataria and Manchuria clearly reveal the issues troubling the composers of these songs. The composers who once lived in India had to shift to Serbia fearing threat to their life in a situation of total lawlessness all around. The major threat had come from Tatars and Manchurians. From the presently available records, we can say that the murderous raids of Genghis Khan in North - North West parts of olden India – in what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan – had been referenced in these songs. The people who had faced grave threat to life in these parts of olden India had fled to Serbia and beyond. Their travails have been retained in ballads. The use of names such as India and Hindustan and ‘ji’ in Vishnji can only be from this time period of Mongol raids.
This also gives rise to a view that the idea of Triglav was taken by them from India and that Triglav was not present in Slavic pantheon before. But there are references to the contrary.

The earliest reference to Triglav comes in the works of Ebbo (c. 775 – 851) which is much earlier to Mongol raids. Ebbo had personally seen the worship of Triglav in Serbia as a three headed deity ruling the three worlds (heaven, earth and under sorld). According to him Triglav was the highest Slavic God and there was a temple for him in the city of Volin on the slopes of three hills. This must be Wolin of Poland known for a temple of Triglav described by another chronicler, Adam of Bremen (11th century CE). Interestingly the archaeological find of Triglav of Wolin is four-headed and not three headed! 

Statue of Triglav in Wolin, Poland from

Another four-faced Triglav was discovered in Ukraine in 1848 and this was dated at 11th to 12th century CE.  From the description of the researcher Dynda we get a detailed picture of the pillar of Triglav of this find. The pillar of Triglav is divided into three parts with the bottom most one having figures holding the pillar above. The topmost one has four heads facing four directions. They are covered with a common cap. The pillar is said to represent the axis connecting the three worlds, earth, heaven and under world.

The four headed Triglav also has a parallel in Vedic culture – in the form of Brahma. Brahma the creator God is originally four faced – indicating creation on all four sides. But iconographic depiction of him can show only three faces and he is shown with three faces only in many places in India.

Four faced Brahma with the 4th face hidden from sight.

The four faced deity can be mistaken for a three faced one, if, and only if the interpretation had not been native to the place where it is found. The inter-change between three faced and four faced image for Triglav exactly reveals a secondary evolution of Thought on Triglav which is not native to Slavic tradition. This means the pillar (in the nature of Dhvajā or standard), the concept of axis associated with the pillar, the three worlds under the rule of Triglav and the three works of creation, protection and destruction are not at all the original concepts of Slavic theology but a borrowed or an imported one.

The idea of Trimurti and the four faced Brahma are different but to find them fused with each other and as inter-changeable goes to prove that these distinct ideas degenerated with time. But this again can be interpreted as being original to Slavia and travelled to India later (with Aryan Invasion). Here are the reasons why it cannot be so.

The foremost reason is the identification of a mountain with Triglav.

Ebbo talks about the three hills of Triglav. There does exist a mountain by the same name Triglav in Slovenia (in pre 1991 Yugoslavia) – the highest in Slovenia and in Julina Alps. It has three peaks but considered as one – a Triglav giving three heads.

There stood a temple of Triglav on this peak giving rise to the notion that Triglav was indeed three headed deity, and not a four headed one. A four headed Triglav could have come up with dis-connect with original ideas.

Both the peak and the deity of Triglav were associated with each other. The peak gained both a mythical and a sacred origin, as known from the folk tradition quoted by Dynda that “in the beginning the great Triglav mountain arose from the sea” (i.e. the peak of the Julian Alps)”.  The simple fact is that this mountain is away from the sea and had least chance of having risen from the sea.

Though Dynda quotes references from Witzel and others for a mythical concept of Primordial Mountain arising from the sea, he nevertheless brings out the version from A.Pleterski that there was no such tradition in Slovenia, though such a notion is found in the local folklore. This further firms up the idea that the concept of Triglav was not autochthonous to Slavic culture.

The peak of Triglav has a parallel with a similar peak of Shiva, the Trinity God in Mount Kailash. A comparison of these two peaks shows amazing similarity.

The highest peak of Triglav looks similar to Mt Kailash.

Mount Triglav

The slopes of Triglav are similar to the slopes of Mt Kailash.

Mt Kailash can be aptly termed as having risen from the churning of the Primordial Ocean that caused the rise of Himalayan ranges. In real terms, only Kailash was associated with a water body – the Manasa Lake while Triglav was not – even though it was deemed so by tradition.

Triglav was housed on top of the mount of Triglav, like how Lord Shiva is identified with the mount of Kailash.  In some sects of Vedic culture, Shiva himself is the Trimurti.

Interestingly enough, the temples of Triglav had a sacred tree and a well in pre- Christian era. They all have been destroyed. Tree and well or a water body are inseparable features of any temple in Vedic culture. From Ebbo’s chronicles it is known that priests of Triglav temple managed to hide the images of Triglav under the sacred tree to escape destruction by Christianisation. Worship of Triglav was continued for some time in the form of veneration of the tree where local people offered coins to the deity. All these features have an explanation in India, in Vedic culture and not in Europe.

The presence of Triglav in Serbia even before the migrants from India had taken asylum there  could be traced back to the times of celts. A three headed deity was also found in Irish mythology sporting a spear and described as a young warrior. Called as Lugh, this deity had an important place in celtic culture.

Celtic God Lugh

In the name of Lugh a festival called Lughnasadh was held in celtic regions where Serbia is also located. In olden days grand sport events were conducted at Lughnasadh dedicated to Lugh.

Lúghnasadh was the occasion of major assemblies where legal matters were settled, political problems were discussed, craftsmen, artists and entertainers got a chance to show off their talents, and sporting events brought scattered communities together.” (Details here) .

This has a parallel to the Matsya festival celebrated at Pushkar in Matsya desa – perhaps the oldest sports event on record. This festival finds mention in Mahabharata (Virata parva- chapter 13) as a grand event that was held in honour of the Four-faced Brahma! It must be mentioned here that while no one exactly knows whether Lugh of Lughnasadh (the sport event comparable with Matsya festival) was four faced, from the images of Triglav with three faces and four faces at times, it can be reliably told that a four faced Brahma transformed into three faced Lugh for the reason the original Thought behind Lugh-concept did not evolve there.

The celtic Lugh has better candidature to have evolved into Triglav of Serbia, well before the entry of migrants from olden India in the wake of Mongol raids. The migrants with the knowledge of Trimurti had accepted Triglav as same as Trimurti but were yearning for blessings from Trimurti of India. Trimurti had continued to bless the people of India with gold and silver cups (from Serbian folk songs) neglecting the migrants who had left India. It is here a compromise figure is brought in the form of Younger God Dabog (in the folk song).

Other information on Triglav further strengthens the view of migration of theology from India to Europe long ago. For example, Triglav was wielding spear and sword. He was depicted with the heads of goats in some chronicles. Spear and goat are associated with Skanda, the son of Shiva. A fused presence of all these with the concept of Trimurti of three Vedic Gods can only happen with migration of ideas from India to Europe. The other way traffic is not possible as the concepts have clear-cut explanation only in Vedic culture. 

Aryan Invasion theorists have a huge task of explaining the flight of theological ideas to Europe from India before establishing movement of people on the reverse!


“The Three-Headed One at the Crossroad: A Comparative Study of the Slavic God Triglav” by  Jiří Dynda

“Origin of Olympic Games traced to Matsya festival at Pushkar” by Jayasree Saranathan.

“Triglav , Trojan, Trinity, Trimurti, Agni” by Serbian Irish