Sleet of Emotional Quivers on RadhaKrishn Eternal Love CC # 9 - Page 107

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

1. See, the problem with thinking of a veda or vedas as ONE work is that we start imagining an author or a group of authors writing it. No, those were the collected wisdom of ages.

VYASA compiled the vedas. He didn't write them, but he compiled the info. So it's fairly reasonable to believe most of the stuff he got together dated until his time. Why wouldn't he? For him, it was writing a textbook. He'd naturally get all the info dating up to his time.

So MBh and surrounding events can happen in Iron Age and still be included in vedas.

2. Moreover, the vedas are also in Panini sanskrit.

Which means whichever form has come to us in the modern era has been composed during or after Panini who lived after MBh era.

3. Rig Veda being a Bharat vanshi work.

2 possibilties.

(1) The Bharatas mentioned there might not even be Dushyantha Bharatas.

Priyamvadho nama sutho manoh swayambhuvasya ha !

Thasyagnigrasthatho nabhitrishbhashcha suthasthathah !!

Avatheerana puthrashatham thasyasidrahaychaparagham !

Vikyatham varshamethaghyannaamnaa bharathamuthapram !!

Manu had a son Priyamvadha who had a son called Agnigra

A had a son nabhi

N had a son Rishabha

Rishabha had a 100 sons, eldest of whom was Bharata, servant of Narayana, after whom the land is named.

This Bharata tribe is likely the one in Rig Veda.

The chief mention of Bharatas in RV is in the Mandala by Vishvamitra. But remember, Bharata of Kurus would be Vishvamitra's grandson. That clan had not yet formed to take part in the battle of 10 kings.

(2) if it were Dushyanta Bharatas, then it definitely was MBh era.

4. Regardless, Rig Veda's most prominent personality is Indra, not Bharat vanshis, regardless of role Battle of 10 Kings might have played.

Indra was not a friend to Krishna.

5. The similarities are too big to ignore between the Krishnasur of Rig Veda and the Krishna of MBh/HV/SB

1) No I don't think Vedas are one. The Vedas were compiled across centuries. I have said the same thing in my previous message too. Vedas complication took centuries if not millenniums. The difference between the language of earlier Vedic books like 2,3 and the last books like 1 and 10 is do huge that the same couldn't have had happened in a time gap of few centuries.. However the complied RigVed that we had around 1500 BCE was you could call the last edition. Post that it was only reprints ,😂 nothing changed henceforth (I guess that's why we don't get Yavanas n Romakas in Vedas) is what historians have a near consensus on. Those became Apaurasheya post this time

Although we attribute Ved Vyas as the complier of Vedas but each Mandala actually mentions the name of its complier (just the hymns mention the name of their composer). Aside Ved Vyas wasn't one person, anyone of his stature was given the post of Ved Vyas, hence even if we take that Vyas was the one to compile the final edition of the Vedas it's clear that this needn't be out Ved Vyas ji

2) No Vedas are not in Panini Sanskrit. The Vyakaran for which Panini had made is commonly known as Classical Sansksrit (aur Laukik Sansksrit in Hindi) and that is an Indo Aryan language being near contemporary to Pali or other Prakrit languages. Vedas on the other hand is in the ancient language of Vedic Sanskrit which is supposed to be the direct descandent to the Proto Indo European language and belongs to the Indo Iranian group of languages. Vedic Sansksrit has more resembles with the Avestan language of the Iranians than it has with the Classical Sansksrit of Panini. No contamination of Vedic literature(including Both Samhitas and Aryanyakas) with the Panini language is another proof that it has to be a much older text

3) Yes the composer is Vishwamitra. But is he the same Vishwamitra as the ancestor of Kurus? Rishis like Vishwamitra n Vashisht have had their presence across texts from Vedas to Ramayana

As per my understanding of the text(purely mine I could be wrong here) Bharat Vanshis were the patrons of the sages who composed the Vedas. Indra et all were the gods of their tribe ( and that of a few other tribes) probably that is how most of their heroics and worship of their Gods got into the storyline. As I already mentioned in my previous message, Yayati's story was just an attempt to bring all the influencial tribes to a common ancestory.

Anyhow I can agree to your point that this group from Mahabharatha could be a different family still they did belong to the Puru clan

4) Completely agreed here Indra was definitely not a friend of Krishna. Krishna had openly challenged his divinity and stopped his worship

5) For the similarities thing as I said there are differences too, the similarities are mostly there in the SB version of Krishna. The mights of Krishnasur could have been imported to the SB version of Krishna to make him more superhuman since SB makes every attempt to further seal his divinity.

P S There are many resembles in Naradas too, yet we all agree that they were different people

Originally posted by: Chiillii

Some conclusive facts based on all the available texts.

1. Bharata mentioned in Vedas is son of Rishabhanatha (who actually rejected vedas and took to Jainism). India is named Bhaarat after him.

This is not dushyant bharata. So please do not get confused.

Mahabharata is about Dushyant Bharat's family. Vedas talk about Rishabhanath Bharat. Timelines also concur with these.

Vyasa was not the author or composer of Vedas. He was the compiler. Vyasa made the final critical edition of vedas and split them into Rig Sama Yajur and Atharva.

The Vedas we have today were transcribed by disciples of Panini and are therefore in Panini Sanskrit. Panini was the one who formalised the modern rules for grammar of Sanskrit. We still follow it.

There is a gap of several centuries between 1st compilation of Vedas, Critical Edition of Vyasa and Panini version of Vedas.

For eg. We Have Vyasa composing Mahabharata 1000s of years ago. We have Bhandarkar Oriental Institute compiling Critical edition from 1259 existing manuscripts 20 years ago while we have its English and Hindi Translation by Bibek Debroy as a much recent work.

Vashishtha- Varuni group of rishis had a set of their version of Vedas as a single compilation. Similarly Bhargava - Kanva - Angirasa had one. There was a southern Agastya version as well.

Just like 3 major recensions of Mahabharata that we have - Kashmiri, Burdwan and Kumbakonam. And we have Indonesian version which is same story but very different in narrative.

Similarly Vedas also existed in multiple versions with the rishi clans as I have mentioned above and similar to Indonesian MB we have Iranian Zenda Avesta, which is of same origin and content as vedas but narrative is totally different.

Like BORI made critical edition of MB after collecting all the different manuscripts (1259 full scripts and several partial ones) with extensive studying, analysing, removing non consistent or interpolated text, etc. Krishna dwaipayana's life work was critical edition of Vedas. He collected all available versions of Vedas from all major rishi clans, analysed them, removed inconsistencies and interpolations and arrived at a critical edition and split it into 4 separate books.

It was eventually accepted as precise and to be used by every one henceforth by all Rishi Clans And because he single handedly completed such a humungous task. He was given the title of Veda Vyasa. You need to remember the fact that all the vedas were transmitted orally from every Guru to Shishya. They were not written down anywhere. People memorized them verbatim and passed them on.

Several centuries later Panini created an updated Sanskrit. And Vyasa's Vedas were translated into it. Just Sanskrit BORI edition has been translated into English and Hindi today.

Also please note: This is very important, Indra of Vedas is not the same Indra of Mahabharata or Puranas.

Vedas are apaurusheya not because they were not created by a Human.

But because the Deities spoken of in the Vedas are apaurusheya. They are phenomenon of nature.

Indra is Rain. Vritra is drought. The Vajra made of bones of Dhadichi is puranic story. Vajra actually means lightning that precedes rain.

So the hymns addressed in vedas to Indra is actually addressed to natural phenomenon of rain, not to person Indra son of Kashyap.

The only real persons spoken of in Vedas were king Sudasa and his enemies the 10 kings. Their battle is alluded to in the text and Sudasa wins the battle because sudden lighting and heavy rains flood the river saraswati just when the fleet of 10 kings were attempting cross it, thereby decimating bulk of their armies and enabling sudasa to defeat them.

Varuna is water, Agni is fire, Maruts are different storms (tornado, cyclone, gale, hurricane) etc

Ashwins are dawn and dusk.

Similarly Krishnasur is storm cloud. Not Krishna son of Vasudev.

I understand rest of the points and am nearly of the same opinion too but Vedas are definitely not in Panini's Sansksrit it is very much there in Vedic Sansksrit. Even the words used in earlier books are later books are very different.

The books 2-3 refer to night for example as "Natt" books 5 and 7 uses the word "Shab" and the last books have the word "Ratri" as we use it now.

Panini's work was very much there but they didn't change Vedas into his language or Vyakaran.

The time of Vyasa, was time of major distress across the subcontinent. A major war had happened with millions of death. Saraswati had been drying and mass migrations had been happneing for few centuries now.

The social upheaval and unrest had to be contained and religion was the tool that the brahmanas used. Pauranic stories, with mythical elements and supernatural was used to control the masses to bring some form of social order. Concept of kings as Avatar of God was popularised to bring in discipline and respect for authority And a divine formless vishnu was given as origin of all.

Vyasa was probably the one who came up with this idea and major royal clans were ok with it as long as they themselves got an avataric ancestor. Vyasa was like a prophet spreading the true word of God.

But he was countered by those who did not wish nature worship spirituality of Vedas diluted by puranas. They started making idols of formless Brahman as (Shiva - Male) or (Devi - Female). First as Linga and Yoni to indicate formlessness and then as humanist forms. Eventually shakti worshippers had to bring in avatars of shakti to counter vaishnava.

Devi was also forced to take Avatar as Sati, Parvati etc.

Shiva worshippers held out the longest. But eventually they were subsumed with ansha avatar like Hanuman and even ashwatthama. Eventually Vaishnava won.

Before puranic period, there were no idols or temples. God almighty was formless and vedic rishis worshipped nature and its various phenomenon. Communal worship was through yagnas or fire ceremony on an altar.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

I think you know about the pro Aryan Migration groups' point. They have called the R1A1 haplogroup genome as the Steppes genes which was missing in the two skeletons(one of them being that of a woman who as it is don't have this genome even today in India) of Rakhigiri tested and thereby concluded that the bearers of this haplogroup have come from outside since no proof of this haplogroup has been found in India before

On the contrary the Anti Aryan migration group Mentions that not only does this haplogroup find it's presence in a very small population of the country (only around 20-22%) but also this haplogroup is found more in the people of Eastern India like UP Bihar than in the areas of Punjab from where this supposed migration happened. Aside the percentage presence of this haplogroup is nearly in same percentage in South India (supposedly Dravidian group) and in the regions of North west india.

Not just this although no trace of R1A1 genome was found in ancient India but the parent group of this genome (from which this genome bifurcated) namely R and R1 groups have been traced earliest in India i.e. 80kya and 36kya respectively. Hence stating that this R1A1 group developed outside India can't be a conclusive statement.

So basically this genome discovery hasn't given any conclusive evidence but just served as an additional support to the claims of either side historians.

What you're saying is this gene is present in modern day Indians from certain regions. It wasn't present in the Rakhigarhi material. That's precisely the point. Mixing happened after IVC time.

Also, using South Indians as a template for ancient Indians isn't done by any geneticist. There are residents of Andamans (I believe... or one of the other islands where mixing has been minimal), that they use for gene studies.

A gene not present in Rakhigarhi material, present in modern Indians, not present in the Andaman tribes studies would actually lean toward AIT or AMT. Not the indigenous theory side.

If you choose to imagine mass migration came without problems, that's your prerogative. However, human history suggests it would've been nearly impossible.

Originally posted by: Chiillii

The time of Vyasa, was time of major distress across the subcontinent. A major war had happened with millions of death. Saraswati had been drying and mass migrations had been happneing for few centuries now.

The social upheaval and unrest had to be contained and religion was the tool that the brahmanas used. Pauranic stories, with mythical elements and supernatural was used to control the masses to bring some form of social order. Concept of kings as Avatar of God was popularised to bring in discipline and respect for authority And a divine formless vishnu was given as origin of all.

Vyasa was probably the one who came up with this idea and major royal clans were ok with it as long as they themselves got an avataric ancestor. Vyasa was like a prophet spreading the true word of God.

But he was countered by those who did not wish nature worship spirituality of Vedas diluted by puranas. They started making idols of formless Brahman as (Shiva - Male) or (Devi - Female). First as Linga and Yoni to indicate formlessness and then as humanist forms. Eventually shakti worshippers had to bring in avatars of shakti to counter vaishnava.

Devi was also forced to take Avatar as Sati, Parvati etc.

Shiva worshippers held out the longest. But eventually they were subsumed with ansha avatar like Hanuman and even ashwatthama. Eventually Vaishnava won.

Before puranic period, there were no idols or temples. God almighty was formless and vedic rishis worshipped nature and its various phenomenon. Communal worship was through yagnas or fire ceremony on an altar.

@Bold the Vedic followers didn't do idol worship but idol worship has an ancestory in India. Shivalinga has been found in Kalibagan dating even before the advent of Aryans/Rig Vedics into this region. The seals of MohanJoDaro do suggest those people doing idol worship of Devi Ma.

Ancient India definitely had followers of Devi ma and Shiva (or at least Yoni+Linga a trend that later Shaivites took into their form). Indra was the God of Rig Vedics are a few others. With the passage of time as these worshippers of different Gods came further close, RigVedics realized that their Indra can't compete with Shiv or DeviMa hence they shifted to make the Upendra of Vedas (who had captured the universe in three steps) as the chief deity Vishnu which was equal in power to Shiv of DeviMa

Coming to Puranas these are very later texts around the time of Panini or post that, Saraswati dried latest in 1800-1500 BCE. These two couldn't be coinciding events

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

1) No I don't think Vedas are one. The Vedas were compiled across centuries. I have said the same thing in my previous message too. Vedas complication took centuries if not millenniums. The difference between the language of earlier Vedic books like 2,3 and the last books like 1 and 10 is do huge that the same couldn't have had happened in a time gap of few centuries.. However the complied RigVed that we had around 1500 BCE was you could call the last edition. Post that it was only reprints ,😂 nothing changed henceforth (I guess that's why we don't get Yavanas n Romakas in Vedas) is what historians have a near consensus on. Those became Apaurasheya post this time

Although we attribute Ved Vyas as the complier of Vedas but each Mandala actually mentions the name of its complier (just the hymns mention the name of their composer). Aside Ved Vyas wasn't one person, anyone of his stature was given the post of Ved Vyas, hence even if we take that Vyas was the one to compile the final edition of the Vedas it's clear that this needn't be out Ved Vyas ji

2) No Vedas are not in Panini Sanskrit. The Vyakaran for which Panini had made is commonly known as Classical Sansksrit (aur Laukik Sansksrit in Hindi) and that is an Indo Aryan language being near contemporary to Pali or other Prakrit languages. Vedas on the other hand is in the ancient language of Vedic Sanskrit which is supposed to be the direct descandent to the Proto Indo European language and belongs to the Indo Iranian group of languages. Vedic Sansksrit has more resembles with the Avestan language of the Iranians than it has with the Classical Sansksrit of Panini. No contamination of Vedic literature(including Both Samhitas and Aryanyakas) with the Panini language is another proof that it has to be a much older text

3) Yes the composer is Vishwamitra. But is he the same Vishwamitra as the ancestor of Kurus? Rishis like Vishwamitra n Vashisht have had their presence across texts from Vedas to Ramayana

As per my understanding of the text(purely mine I could be wrong here) Bharat Vanshis were the patrons of the sages who composed the Vedas. Indra et all were the gods of their tribe ( and that of a few other tribes) probably that is how most of their heroics and worship of their Gods got into the storyline. As I already mentioned in my previous message, Yayati's story was just an attempt to bring all the influencial tribes to a common ancestory.

Anyhow I can agree to your point that this group from Mahabharatha could be a different family still they did belong to the Puru clan

4) Completely agreed here Indra was definitely not a friend of Krishna. Krishna had openly challenged his divinity and stopped his worship

5) For the similarities thing as I said there are differences too, the similarities are mostly there in the SB version of Krishna. The mights of Krishnasur could have been imported to the SB version of Krishna to make him more superhuman since SB makes every attempt to further seal his divinity.

P S There are many resembles in Naradas too, yet we all agree that they were different people

The theory that Bharatvanshis could not have been the the ones mentioned in vedas is not just mine. It is something many Indologists agree on. Also, I don't generally spout off on esoteric stuff without having something solid to base things on. I wouldn't have said it without that genealogy of Manu's.

When the Manu lineage is clearly stated in Bhagavatha Purana, and the Vasishta-Vishvamitra proxy war is mentioned in Battle of 10 Kings, the timeline of the battle should be clear. Those Bharatas were not Dushyanta Bharatas.

ie, RV most definitely was not a Bharat vanshi text.

Let's for the sake of argument suppose it were. Even then, Indra is the main deity in RV. He would definitely be lauded no matter who he was fighting.

And all of those events didn't happen together. Compiling texts means compiling from over a period of time until the time of his compilation. Given that and given the significant similarities in what was said of Krishna, I believe they were one and the same.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

What you're saying is this gene is present in modern day Indians from certain regions. It wasn't present in the Rakhigarhi material. That's precisely the point. Mixing happened after IVC time.

Also, using South Indians as a template for ancient Indians isn't done by any geneticist. There are residents of Andamans (I believe... or one of the other islands where mixing has been minimal), that they use for gene studies.

A gene not present in Rakhigarhi material, present in modern Indians, not present in the Andaman tribes studies would actually lean toward AIT or AMT. Not the indigenous theory side.

If you choose to imagine mass migration came without problems, that's your prerogative. However, human history suggests it would've been nearly impossible.

My point is that the gene is not present in Rakhigiri but the parent of that gene is present in India for 80000 years. Just because 2 samples didn't have doesn't mean that no one had that genes. Aside even if that is true, still there is absolutely nothing to prove that these migrants were the composers of RigVed.

Its simple R group later slowly developed into R1/R2 etc. groups. The earliest traces of R group was found in India around 80 thousand years old, earliest trace of R1 was found in India 36 thousand years old. The R1 group gives birth to R1a group, however the earliest trace of this group wasn't found in India but in Steppes. Two samples of Rakhigiri didn't have this R1a genome. Now this simply means that the person there didn't have this genome, that doesn't prove that it was completely absent from whole over India. Since R1 genes has been there in India for 36000 years (years before that in any other place), it is very much possible that it's mutation to R1a happened in India too, just that Rakhigiri areas didn't have that genome. It was probably present in Eastern India. If not then that would mean a group of Indians having R1 genes went out mutated into R1a group and their descandents returned to India. If R1a is a Steppes genes then it's parent R1 is a purely Indian gene

No that South Indian gene sampling was done just for this particular study. Had their genes shown lesser R1A1 haplogroup genome presence the Aryan Dravidian divide could have been established but the results were just opposite.

About mass migration without problem the reason is that there is absolutely no evidence that any Archeologist could find of an invasion, no mass grave, (only one near to that was found in MohanJoDaro that turned out to be a burial ground having bodies of ages), no huge number of murdered images nothing. That showed no invasion leading all major historians to shift from AIT to AMT. To think of back then there was no country boundary, people shifted where they wanted if there was an Empty area. Maybe Aryans came found an empty area and settled here.

About the wars you said in the Vedas they are either mythical representations of natural events or if Indra was a real person these events happened years before the Vedas were compiled because it takes centuries for someone to elevate to the position of God. In case of Latter these fights would have happened before they reached India because their entry happened around 1700 BCE and Vedas as I said was completed by 1200BCE. Indra was already a God by 1380 BCE as we know by Mittani Hittite treaty. It takes time for a human to become God. In case of former we might ignore those verses for historical discussion

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

The theory that Bharatvanshis could not have been the the ones mentioned in vedas is not just mine. It is something many Indologists agree on. Also, I don't generally spout off on esoteric stuff without having something solid to base things on. I wouldn't have said it without that genealogy of Manu's.

When the Manu lineage is clearly stated in Bhagavatha Purana, and the Vasishta-Vishvamitra proxy war is mentioned in Battle of 10 Kings, the timeline of the battle should be clear. Those Bharatas were not Dushyanta Bharatas.

ie, RV most definitely was not a Bharat vanshi text.

Let's for the sake of argument suppose it were. Even then, Indra is the main deity in RV. He would definitely be lauded no matter who he was fighting.

And all of those events didn't happen together. Compiling texts means compiling from over a period of time until the time of his compilation. Given that and given the significant similarities in what was said of Krishna, I believe they were one and the same.

No I agree to your point those BharatVanshis could (rather now I think definitely) be different from the ones in Mahabharata. Rig Veda was still a BharatVanshi text but not of the BharatVanshis of Mahabharat but of Rishabha

My point is that Mahabharatha happened after the complication of Vedas. BB Lal sir date it around 900 BCE, AL Basham dates it around 1100BCE. Vedas complication was completed by 1500BCE i.e. including everything that happened Vedas in it's present form were formulated by the Mahabharatha war. Rig Ved definitely was

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

My point is that the gene is not present in Rakhigiri but the parent of that gene is present in India for 80000 years. Just because 2 samples didn't have doesn't mean that no one had that genes. Aside even if that is true, still there is absolutely nothing to prove that these migrants were the composers of RigVed.

Its simple R group later slowly developed into R1/R2 etc. groups. The earliest traces of R group was found in India around 80 thousand years old, earliest trace of R1 was found in India 36 thousand years old. The R1 group gives birth to R1a group, however the earliest trace of this group wasn't found in India but in Steppes. Two samples of Rakhigiri didn't have this R1a genome. Now this simply means that the person there didn't have this genome, that doesn't prove that it was completely absent from whole over India. Since R1 genes has been there in India for 36000 years (years before that in any other place), it is very much possible that it's mutation to R1a happened in India too, just that Rakhigiri areas didn't have that genome. It was probably present in Eastern India. If not then that would mean a group of Indians having R1 genes went out mutated into R1a group and their descandents returned to India. If R1a is a Steppes genes then it's parent R1 is a purely Indian gene

No that South Indian gene sampling was done just for this particular study. Had their genes shown lesser R1A1 haplogroup genome presence the Aryan Dravidian divide could have been established but the results were just opposite.

About mass migration without problem the reason is that there is absolutely no evidence that any Archeologist could find of an invasion, no mass grave, (only one near to that was found in MohanJoDaro that turned out to be a burial ground having bodies of ages), no huge number of murdered images nothing. That showed no invasion leading all major historians to shift from AIT to AMT. To think of back then there was no country boundary, people shifted where they wanted if there was an Empty area. Maybe Aryans came found an empty area and settled here.

About the wars you said in the Vedas they are either mythical representations of natural events or if Indra was a real person these events happened years before the Vedas were compiled because it takes centuries for someone to elevate to the position of God. In case of Latter these fights would have happened before they reached India because their entry happened around 1700 BCE and Vedas as I said was completed by 1200BCE. Indra was already a God by 1380 BCE as we know by Mittani Hittite treaty. It takes time for a human to become God. In case of former we might ignore those verses for historical discussion

I don't think you're getting my point re: genetics.

I'm not arguing current south Indians and north Indians are Aryan/Dravidian. There has been a lot of intermixing. No geneticist worth his degree would make the mistake of comparing Rakhigarhi DNA with current south Indian genome.

Comparison can only be between RG and ancestral south Indian DNA which NOT modern south Indian DNA. Has there been comparison between RG and the tribal population mentioned? AFAIK, no. Because if they are similar to RG (ie, lacking the particular gene), there would a political problem.

Which is actually something I don't understand because modern Indians have too much intermixing to be considered Aryan or Dravidian. Yes, some were conquerors and some were victims, but we carry the blood of both.

Still, closing our eyes to science is usually not good in the long run.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

I understand rest of the points and am nearly of the same opinion too but Vedas are definitely not in Panini's Sansksrit it is very much there in Vedic Sansksrit. Even the words used in earlier books are later books are very different.

The books 2-3 refer to night for example as "Natt" books 5 and 7 uses the word "Shab" and the last books have the word "Ratri" as we use it now.

Panini's work was very much there but they didn't change Vedas into his language or Vyakaran.

I'll explain this with an example...

Water in Sanskrit is popularly called Jal. The alternative synonyms are apa and neer.

In Hindi however water is popularly called Pani.

Many assume that Pani is urdu word absorbed in Hindi like many words are.

But it is not. It is derived from sanskrit Paniya which is another synonym of water.

Same one word has multiple synonyms that get used in different regions. While north Indian hindi uses Pani, UP uses Jal

As I mentioned Vyasa collected different versions of Vedas from different rishis.

You will find the variations in nouns and verbs across the texts not just in one or two chapters.

Also vedas are prose (metered poems) a tool used to make them easy to memorize without mistakes. So to match the meter, different synonomns get used at different places.

However Vedic Sanskrit did evolve a lot in terms of grammar as well as usage of nouns and verbs, and formalised by Panini. It was like Sanskrit and Khadi boli Hindi but in reverse.

Language was essentially the same, but regional variations were always there. Since Vedas are not from a single source or location, those variations are natural in the text