Was the Rigvedic Sarasvatī river flowing from the mountains to the sea?

When there is some debate about the date of Rigveda, is often mentioned the first half of stanza RV 7.95.2 in order to prove that the Sarasvatī river was still flowing in its full course from the mountains to the sea:

ékācetat sárasvatī nadī́nāṃ 

śúcir yatī́ giríbhya ā́ samudrā́t 

Jamison and Brereton (2014) translate: "Alone of the rivers, Sarasvatī shows clear, as she goes gleaming from the mountains all the way to the sea." Although the Padapāṭha gives the imperfect acetat from the form with sandhi ékācetat, they interpret it as an injunctive cetat, translated as present ("shows clear"), although the injunctive can have also a past meaning. The dictionary of Rigveda by Grassmann accepts the imperfect form (see here), the only case in Rigveda of imperfect from this stem of the verb cit 'to perceive' or 'to become perceptible'. Here they have chosen the second meaning, like Geldner, who translated "Einzig unter den Strömen hat sich Sarasvatī hervorgetan" ("Alone among the streams has Sarasvatī distinguished herself").

It is also possible to translate with a past simple: "Alone of the rivers, Sarasvatī appeared, going pure from the mountains to the ocean." On the other hand, the locative nadī́nāṃ suggests in fact that she distinguished herself, alone (ékā), "among the rivers". There is a good parallel in fact in RV 6.61.13:  

prá yā́ mahimnā́ mahínāsu cékite dyumnébhir anyā́ apásām apástamā / rátha iva bṛhatī́ vibhváne kṛtā́ upastútyā cikitúṣā sárasvatī
"The one who by her greatness shines ever more brightly among the great (rivers), (beyond) the others by her brilliance, the busiest of the busy, like a chariot lofty and fashioned for wide ranging, she is to be praised by (every) observant one—Sarasvatī." (Jamison and Brereton)

Another interpretation, that, we will see, is followed by Sāyaṇa, would be with the first meaning, "to perceive, be attentive, think of", speaking of a personified divine river:

"Alone among the rivers, Sarasvatī was attentive (to the prayer), going pure from the mountains to the ocean."

But why do we have this imperfect tense here? In RV 7.96.3 there is instead the present cetati, again with the sacred river as subject (bhadrám íd bhadrā́ kr̥ṇavat sárasvatī ákavārī cetati vājínīvatī). Geldner and Jamison and Brereton translate in the same way there:

"Glück soll uns die glückbringende Sarasvatī schaffen. Die Stutenreiche tut sich als Freigebige hervor" ("May the auspicious Sarasvati bring us good fortune. The mare-rich goddess is known for her generosity") (Geldner)

"Good Sarasvatī will do good. She shows brightly as the unstinting one, rich in prize mares" (Jamison and Brereton)

Griffith instead translated "is never niggardly in thought". And Jamison and Brereton translate cetati in RV 1.128.4 yajñásya cetati "(Agni) is attentive to the sacrifice". However, it is true that in 7.96.3 the absence of object (in genitive or accusative) and the adjective ákavārī 'not stingy' as predicative of the subject suggest an intransitive meaning of cit- 'to appear, be known as'.

Now, let's see what follows in the same stanza (7.95.2cd):

rāyáś cétantī bhúvanasya bhū́rer 

ghr̥tám páyo duduhe nā́huṣāya 

Jamison and Brereton translate: "Taking note of the abundant wealth of the world, she has milked out ghee and milk for the Nāhuṣa." Geldner: "Reichtum der vielgestaltigen Welt kennend, spendete sie Schmalz und Milch dem Nahusstamm." ("Knowing the richness of the diverse world, she donated lard and milk to the Nahus tribe.") 

Here, we have again the verb cet-, but this time the meaning accepted also by Jamison and Brereton and Geldner is 'taking note, perceiving'. As they write in comment: "Given the semantic multivalence of the root √cit and the pleasure poets take in manipulating and juxtaposing its forms, this functional shift within a verse is not surprising."

 

Geldner then cites in note Bṛhad Devatā 6.20-24.

There, we find this story (in Macdonell's translation):

"20. King Nāhuṣa in former days wishing to consecrate himself for a thousand years, travelled over this (earth) with a single chariot, saying to all streams:

21. 'I am about to offer sacrifice; bring me shares (for it), either in pairs or singly.' The rivers replied to the king : 'How can we, who have but very little power,

22. bring you all the shares for a sacrificial session lasting a thousand years? Resort to the Sarasvatī: she will bring them for you, Nāhuṣa.'

23. Saying 'So be it,' he quickly went to the river Sarasvatī and she received him and yielded (duduhe) (him) milk (and) ghee.

24. This exceedingly marvellous act of the Sarasvatī towards the king, the son of Varuṇa (Vasiṣṭha) proclaimed with the second (stanza) of the first (of the two hymns, viz. vii. 95. 2)."

From this story, we learn that actually the river Sarasvatī was the only one who was attentive to the request of king Nāhuṣa. Also Sāyaṇa's commentary glosses: ekā sarasvatī nady acetat / nāhuṣasya prārthanām ajñāsīt "Only the river Sarasvatī took note: she perceived the prayer of Nāhuṣa". 

About the context, he says: "The king named Nāhuṣa, intending to perform a sacrifice for a thousand years, prayed to the river Sarasvatī, who gave him butter and milk, sufficient for a thousand years." This story was so important and well known that we find it again in the Mahābhārata, this time explaining the full identity of the king, who is the son of Nahuṣa, Yayāti:

MBh IX.40.29cd-30: yayau tīrthaṁ mahābāhur yāyātaṁ pṛthivīpate //

yatra yajñe yayātes tu mahārāja sarasvatī / sarpiḥ payaś ca susrāva nāhuṣasya mahātmanaḥ //

"That great-armed one (Balarāma) went to the Tīrtha of Yayāti, o lord of the earth, where, in the sacrifice of Yayāti, o great king, the Sarasvatī made flow clarified butter and milk for the great-souled son of Nahuṣa."

So, if we accept this story as source of this stanza, everything seems clear. However, it is also possible that the source of the story is the Rigvedic stanza itself and all the commentarial tradition attached to it. In fact, milk and ghee are related to waters, including those of the Sarasvatī, also in other Rigvedic passages. Again in the following hymn RV 7.96, st.5, the waves of Sarasvat (male form of Sarasvatī, considered a god of waters) are ghṛtaścút 'dripping with ghee'. And in RV X.64.9: sárasvatī saráyuḥ síndhur ūrmíbhir mahó mahī́r ávasā́ yantu vákṣaṇīḥ / devī́r ā́po mātáraḥ sūdayitnvò ghṛtávat páyo mádhuman no arcata “Sarasvatī, Sarayu, Sindhu with their waves—let the great strengthening ones come here greatly with their help— the divine waters, the sweetening mothers. Sing their ghee-rich, honey-rich milk for us.” (Jamison and Brereton)

So, it seems that ghee and milk are just a poetical metaphor for the beneficial waters of the river. However, this does not deny that there is a specific reference to the ancient king Nāhuṣa, that was even connected with a Tīrtha, a pilgrimage site. In fact, it is the only occurrence in Ṛgveda of the singular of nāhuṣa, and in RV 10.63.1 we have the only occurrence of the singular of nahuṣya: yayāter... nahuṣyasya, where it clearly indicates the patronymic of Yayāti. So, we can have here a reference to the fact that the river Sarasvatī was overflowing with water at the time of king Nāhuṣa, and the fact that it was 'flowing from the mountains to the sea', which should be obvious, can actually be a special remark about a time when the Sarasvatī had a perennial course, before 4.5 kya (2550 BCE) according to a recent study. Since Yayāti according to the Paurava genealogies was at least 30 generations before Divodāsa, a contemporary of Vasiṣṭha and the old Rigveda where RV 7.95 belongs, who lived at the time of the drought around 2000 BCE (see here), we can place Yayāti around 2600 BCE, if we consider him a historical figure. 

 

 

PS: I would like to thank VR Patil for his Note on the Rigvedic Verse “Rv-7.95,2” for inspiring this analysis: he is the first one to my knowledge who suggested that this verse can refer to the ancient river in a previous condition: "in the present note, we shall restrict our discussion on a verse selected from the hymn Rv-7.95 dedicated to Saraswati wherein the Poet has brought out the pre-Rigvedic condition of the most celebrated river of Vedic People. [...] As far as the term Nahusha/Nahusa is concerned, it is the name of the king who was the descendant of Royal Queen Ila, but lived during the pre-Rigvedic time, and ruled his kingdom from the town located on the bank of river Saraswati. The Poet in the above verse has made it clear that during the early part of Nahusha’s regime, as there was no rain deficiency (please refer to verse Rv-6.49,7 for the designation of river Saraswati as Paviravi Kanya or the child of Lightning which clearly indicates the rain dependency of river), Saraswati used to complete her natural journey from origin to Ocean. Subsequently, when Saraswati came under the influence of demon Vritra (personification of Drought), then the ancestors of Rigvedic Poets introduced a new warrior god Indra to slay Vritra. But the entry of Indra in the Vedic world was strongly opposed by Nahusha as he had full faith in Seven Adityas".

Compare also the rich post of "Pradyaus", that was reported to me by the author after I have written this one.