Dear Sir,
I shall try to answer this. But before i begin, must say that whatever am gonna write is from my limited exposure. Everything is subject to sudden and abrupt changes based on availability of varied / new info (and surely there is a lot of exploration to do as yet so this view may also change).
Dear Smt. HH,
I have been trying my best to complete this reply for the last two days but could finish it only now. Much water has, in the meantime, flown under the thread!
The above remark of yours applies to most of us, doesn't it?
1) The Vishnu of 3 steps of the Rigveda imo has nothing to do with the Puranic story of Mahabali. The Rigveda verses merely says
1.a) In RV.6.49 that Vishnu 'measured the earth 3 times for distressed persons'.
1.b) In RV 7.100 that Vishnu travelled the earth for the possession of the land of Manu.
I do not believe so. The very idea of naming a post-vedic deity as viṣṇu must IMO have arisen from the vedic Vishnu only and from nowhere else as long as we don't have any evidence of another Vishnu worship in some place in the āryāvarta or near about. I believe that for some as yet unknown reason/s this name Vishnu became a favourite, as a consequence of which Vishnu got fitted into many a slot which had to be filled up with a vedic deity in later periods. He (Vishnu) thus was forced to make different avatāras, one of which is vāmana. This is my impression.
There is atleast a 1000 year gap between the vedic period and puranic period. Rigveda does not mention Bali, or any person or any story.
From Malati Shengde's work also it is rather clear that Vishnu travelling the earth 3 times in the Rigveda has nothing to do with the Vamana Purana story (as explained from Page 69 to 74 of this:
The Civilized Demons: the Harappans ... - Google Books ).
However, imo, these "3 steps of Vishnu" was merely (ab)used to create the "Vamana figure" by the Bharadwajas at a later date.
If ṛgveda had mentioned bali or mahābali, we would have got a different story with partial details and we would most probably be discussing now, as to whether this Bali was a naga or asura or austro-asiatic dravidian king etc.
Since the daśāvatāras including matsyāvatāra which recovered the stolen vedas (all four of them), are obviously post-vedic contingensies for viṣṇu, these avatāra stories appear to me as definitely later inventions. On what basis you have ascribed Vāmana to the Bharadwājas is not known (clear) to me.
Sentence 1.b to me merely means Indra-Vishnu waged wars and conquered land belonging to the Nagas. Am in agreement that the 'land of Manu' belonged to the Nagas. I feel Manu was a Naga or (from the south-dravidian group that had admixed with austroasiatic (naga) speakers). Manu's son, Iskhwaku (aka Rishabha) also were such 'Nagas' (imo).. Because many characters in the geneology of Rama are Naga characters (Takshaka, Ahinaga, Nishada, or they are linked with Naga characters (ex: Kusha married a Naga princess).
1.b (R.V. 7.100 4) and the previous ṛk 7.100.3, if read together, we find that viṣṇu has been described as eṣaḥ devaḥ etāṃ pṛthivīṃ mahi tvā triḥ vicakrame (eṣaḥ devaḥ etāṃ pṛthivīṃ mahi tvā triḥ vicakrame = This deva has crossed over the three worlds in three giant footsteps.) Hence it may not be acceptable to say an opinion of the above type. There is also no immediate reference to indra and viṣṇu jointly waging wars in the said hymn. I feel, therefore, that any unbiased reader has to accept that RV 7.100.3 & 4 do presuppose some "measuring of these worlds" "in three footsteps". Whether this presupposes the vāmanāvatāra and kicking down of mahābali is not clear. It is highly probable that the ṛgvedic ṛṣi had only the indra's sidekick viṣṇu going araund the settlement of the vedic people thrice in leaping spaces (giant strides) and ensuring protection from enemies. But from RV7.100.3 it was just a small step to the bali story.
To understand the Vamana story, i prefer to compare the cave paintings of Mahabalipuram with the Vamana Purana story. One is the option which i mentioned in post 38. But here is an alternative which i think makes more sense.
Making immediate and sure sense is ok but I believe the RV verses to be more authentic, because,
1. any pilaster or any sculpture has to come from the imagination of sculptors who should have already been given a detailed description of even minute details of what all he should/should not include. Thus no sculpture can be taken as representing an original idea expressed spontaneously, like say a rik.
2. The Pallava rule is generally believed to be the harbinger of the vedic aryan belief systems in the Dravidian country after the dark "Kalabhra" interregnum. So, it is more likely that these the cave paintings of Mahabalipuram came out as a direct depiction of the vāmanapurāṇa story. If this be true, what benefit will it be "to understand the Vamana story, i prefer to compare the cave paintings of Mahabalipuram with the Vamana Purana story"? Such comparison will, at best, reveal how far the sculptors have carried out their work true to the book.
From the Mahabalipuram mandapa-gudis we can resonably conclude the following:
A) The Varaha-Perumal panel shows Vishnu as Varaha subduing a Naga. The panel basically revolves around the story that a Serpant (Naga) had taken away earth and so Varaha delves into the ocean, subdues the Naga and rescues Bhoodevi (
depicted sitting on Varaha's lap in the panel). This possibly is indicative of either or both points below (since there is evidence for both):
A.a) dravidian speakers killed off austroasiatic (proto-naga) speakers; This was too far back in time in late mesolithic or early neolithic, so instead of this, the point below makes more sense.
A.b) the panel is indicative of dravidian divergence, where south-dravidian lingusitic group (tamil) and central-dravidian linguistic group (telugu) diverged off in seperate directions and kept fighting later in tribal squabbles. This is very much possible. Both had admixed with austro-asiatic (naga) speakers, but south-dravidian (tamil) supposedly had admixed (that is killed off the men and mated with the women) so much that it left no trace of a seperate austroasiatic tribe or group amongst its speakers (so this group cud be the 'nagas' depicted in the Varaha Perumal panel who were defeated by the central-dravidian speakers).
When it comes to "nagas" I am always perplexed; there are many guesses as to who were the nagas and also who all could have been nagas. For instance, in his book "Tamil Studies", Shri M. Srinivasa Aiyangar M.A., has given the view as under:
"The well-known classification of rational
beings உயர்திணை by the Tamil grammarians into
makkal (மக்கள்), devar (தேவர்) and narakar(நரகர்) or
nagar (நாகர்) points to the existence of three types of
people in the Tamil land, namely, the Dravidian
Tamils (Makkal), the Aryan-Brahmans (Devar) and
the aboriginal tribes (Na'gar). 'Na'ga' is a word loosely
applied to all the aborigines who used to inhabit the
forests, the low regions and other unknown realms
(Narakam). Even so late as the eleventh century when
the process of the capture and absorption of the
aboriginal peoples by the superior Dravidians was
going on, the more powerful of the Na'ga tribes seem
to have struggled hard to maintain their sturdy inde-
pendence and to preserve their racial integrity." For
we find in the early Tamil works that the Nagas are
described as a race of dark people with curly matted
hair. The ancient Tamils were acquainted also with
a tribe of naked nomads (நக்கசாரணர்) probably a sec-
tion of the Nagas living in an eastern Island. They
were cannibals and spoke an unknown language. "
In the light of such uncertainties, I do not venture into any interpretation involving mesolithic nagas, or later nagas. What appeals to me is that the வராஹ was scripted as having gone under the earth (ground); every one knew that snakes usually hid themselves in holes which were underground so to say. The scribes who wrote out the epics and puranas viewed pātāḷa as yet another place, underground, like a tier. That was why the nāgaloka was described as ruled by vāsuki (M.Bh., Adi Parva), that there is a well (kūpa) there and drinking its water gives one the strength of 1000 elephants. (ibid.) that pātāḷa is situated several thousands of distances away from the earth, it has an area of more than thousand yojanas, and much more. Here's an extract from
The Mahabharata, Book 14: Aswamedha Parva: Anugita Parva: Section LVIII
"Then, O Janamejaya, the Earth, opening with those strokes having the force of thunder, yielded a way to the (nether) regions inhabited by the Nagas. By that path Utanka entered the world of Nagas. He saw that that region lay extended thousands of Yojanas on all sides. Indeed, O blessed one, it was equipt with many walls made of pure gold and decked with jewels and gems. There were many fine tanks of water furnished with flights of stair-cases made of pure crystal, and many rivers of clear and transparent water. He saw also many trees with diverse species of birds perching on them. That perpetuator of Bhrigu's race behold the gate of that region which was full five Yojanas high and a hundred Yojanas in width. Beholding the region of the Nagas, Utanka became very cheerless. Indeed, he, despaired of getting back the earrings. Then there appeared unto him a black steed with a white tail. His face and eyes were of a coppery hue, O thou of Kuru's race, and he seemed to blaze forth with energy. Addressing Utanka, he said, 'Do thou blow into the Apana duct of my body. Thou wilt then, O learned Brahmana, get back thy ear-rings which have been taken away by a descendant of Airavata's race! Do not loathe to do my bidding, O son. Thou didst it often at the retreat of Gautama in former days.'
"Utanka said, 'How did I know thee in the retreat of my preceptor? Indeed, I wish to hear how I did in those days what thou biddest me do now.'
"The steed said, 'Know, O learned Brahmana, that I am the preceptor of thy preceptor, for I am the blazing Jatavedas (deity of fire). By thee I was often worshipped for the sake of thy preceptor, O child of Bhrigu's race, duly and with a pure heart and body. For that reason I shall accomplish what is for thy good. Do my bidding without delay.' Thus addressed by the deity of fire, Utanka did as he was directed. The deity then, gratified with him, blazed up for consuming everything. From the pores of his body, O Bharata, in consequence of his very nature, a thick smoke issued threatening terrors to the world of Nagas. With that mighty and wide-spreading smoke, O Bharata, everything became enveloped in gloom, so that nothing, O king, could any longer be seen in the world of the Nagas. Cries of woe were heard throughout the mansions
p. 106
of the Airavatas, uttered by the Nagas headed by Vasuki, O Janamejaya."
I, therefore, consider that the depiction of a snake in the pilaster may simply have been to emphasize the fact that the boar avataar had indeed gone to the snake-world nāgaloka, that vhile it dug up the bhūmādevi, it also carried one snake unknowingly on its horns and nothing more.
2) The Vamana Purana story goes that Mahabali was banished with the 3rd step. However, the Trivikrama-Vishnu panel of Mahabalipuram depicts no such banishing feature. Here is the Trivikrama Panel:
Cave Temples of Mahabalipuram, Tamil Nadu - Archaeological Survey of India It is impossible to say which one in that carving is Mahabali.
Further explanation on the Trivikrama panel is given here (Page 96 to 106):
Principles of composition in Hindu ... - Google Books
Somehow all authors try to fit in the Trivikrama panel depiction with the Vaman Purana story, although in the Mahabalipuram caves
1) There is no image of Mahabali in the Trivikrama panel. There are 2 images on the right side of the panel (under Trivikrama's left leg). One seems to be a man fleeing, and another is a man falling. We are told (by art historians in various books on the basis of Vamana Purana) that the falling man represents Mahabali. But on what basis he is identified as Mahabali, we don't know. Trivikrama's raised leg is being touched by a man with a crown in a sitting position. For all we know, this sitting man with the crown could be Mahabali.
2) We do not see Trivikrama placing his leg on the head on any figure in the cave-carvings.
3) Trivikrama is not dressed as a brahmin. Instead he is holding weapons in his 8 arms. Such a Trivikrama Vishnu (with 8 arms holding weapons) is not mentioned anywhere in Vamana Purana.
4) Dating wise, i agree with the points that (a) the mahabalipuram caves pre-date the Vamana Purana story; and (b) the Mahabali banishing account was introduced into Vamana Purana around the 9th century. The Vamana Purana story basically makes no sense, why would Vishnu banish his own devotee.
Regards.
trivikrama is the depiction of viṣṇu’s viśvarūpa to all those present in Bali's court or yajnasaala, as the case might be. vāmana by himself, as a puny brahmin brahmachari, could not have measured all the three worlds bhū, bhuvar and svarlokas, in two steps. Hence we should be prepared to look at trivikrama as the "culmination" of vāmana. You are correct in saying that trivikrama has not been shown in the pilaster with his foot on anyone's head. But see the posture of the crowned person near the left foot; it is bent over backwards as if floating or falling down. Since SB states that Bali was bound by varuṇa pāśa by garuḍa probably on viśṇu’s orders, we may take that Bali was probably afflicted by some disease like dropsy or diphtheria and hence unable to even move easily. The panel tries to depict this abnormal state by the backward bent of the crowned person IMO. We have not dissected the vāmanapurāṇa version yet. So, I think we should do that also now.
