Sanskrit literature, the Ŗsis usually act as stock characters, appearing in a variety of places and at different points in history. They show up, as I've said before, whenever holy characters are needed. This indicates one of several possible scenarios.
First, the seven Ŗsis are immortal. I find this highly unlikely. Without discounting it completely, we simply have no evidence that the immortal characters in ancient literature are still alive today (which is what we would expect from immortal characters). Again, the Gilgamesh epic tells us that the heroes of the Flood, Utnapishtim and his wife, were blessed with immortality. If my understanding of immortality is correct, then we would expect Utnapishtim and his wife to still be alive today. They are not, however, at least not to my knowledge. Likewise, the Seven Ŗsis, as a group of people, are not alive and well in India today. Again, without being willing to completely dismiss the literature, we can safely regard this scenario as
highly unlikely
.
The second scenario is that there has been more than one group of Ŗsis throughout history, and the Ŗsis in the vessel with Manu are different from the Ŗsis that appear in later (or earlier) literature. This one is actually possible. The Ŗsis may not refer to specific
people
, but, instead, a specific
group
or
class
of people. "Ŗsi" is often translated as "sage," and could be a reference to their social status. This is hinted at in the
Rig Veda
, Book X, where it is said that, in reference to the original Ŗsis, newer ones have "taken up the reins like chariot drivers," indicating that these "sages" are a type of club or elite group that would train and groom successors. However, as mentioned above, the group of Seven Ŗsis, as an organization, is no longer around, so the precise interpretation of the term is still up in the air. Individual sages can be found throughout India and other parts of Southeastern Asia, but a formal group of them no longer exists. So while I accept this scenario, I do so with reservations.
Lastly, though, the presence of the sages in the Fish Story may indicate that the seven Ŗsis
represent
the seven people who were
actually on the vessel with the hero
. There were, at some point, seven other crew members with the hero. What I believe happened is that the identity of those seven was, ultimately, lost, and the original passengers were replaced with the culturally appropriate Ŗsis. I find this scenario the
most
likely out of the three. If the source of the diaspora was the Middle East, then this particular thread was kept as the story passed on, but the details became lost, adapting themselves to the changing cultures. Couple this hypothesis with the already questionable account of the hero, and I have some severe reservations accepting the Sanskrit version as accurate. On the other hand, there
is
the cargo to consider.
The cargo is truly and undeniably feasible if the Sanskrit version is accurate. Manu and the seven Ŗsis brought aboard seeds. There were no animals with which to contend, there was no waste from the animals, no elephant trumpeting, no geese squawking, no dogs barking, no cats giving the humans attitude…. The Hindu version is truly feasible from a cargo perspective. In the other two versions, each of which contains both seeds and animals, we potentially run into an entire host of problems. Among the problems are care and feeding, waste disposal, and, most of all, storage. To tackle the storage problem, we would need to examine the size of the vessels.
In the Kariña myth, we are not told how large the vessel was. All we are told was that it was a canoe, large enough to hold everyone and everything on board. From a feasibility study, then, there is little we can do in order to gain answers. The Hebrew version, on the other hand, gives us actual dimensions of the vessel but fails to tell us how many animals are on board. If Woodmorappe's estimates are correct, however, 1.1
First, the seven Ŗsis are immortal. I find this highly unlikely. Without discounting it completely, we simply have no evidence that the immortal characters in ancient literature are still alive today (which is what we would expect from immortal characters). Again, the Gilgamesh epic tells us that the heroes of the Flood, Utnapishtim and his wife, were blessed with immortality. If my understanding of immortality is correct, then we would expect Utnapishtim and his wife to still be alive today. They are not, however, at least not to my knowledge. Likewise, the Seven Ŗsis, as a group of people, are not alive and well in India today. Again, without being willing to completely dismiss the literature, we can safely regard this scenario as
highly unlikely
.
The second scenario is that there has been more than one group of Ŗsis throughout history, and the Ŗsis in the vessel with Manu are different from the Ŗsis that appear in later (or earlier) literature. This one is actually possible. The Ŗsis may not refer to specific
people
, but, instead, a specific
group
or
class
of people. "Ŗsi" is often translated as "sage," and could be a reference to their social status. This is hinted at in the
Rig Veda
, Book X, where it is said that, in reference to the original Ŗsis, newer ones have "taken up the reins like chariot drivers," indicating that these "sages" are a type of club or elite group that would train and groom successors. However, as mentioned above, the group of Seven Ŗsis, as an organization, is no longer around, so the precise interpretation of the term is still up in the air. Individual sages can be found throughout India and other parts of Southeastern Asia, but a formal group of them no longer exists. So while I accept this scenario, I do so with reservations.
Lastly, though, the presence of the sages in the Fish Story may indicate that the seven Ŗsis
represent
the seven people who were
actually on the vessel with the hero
. There were, at some point, seven other crew members with the hero. What I believe happened is that the identity of those seven was, ultimately, lost, and the original passengers were replaced with the culturally appropriate Ŗsis. I find this scenario the
most
likely out of the three. If the source of the diaspora was the Middle East, then this particular thread was kept as the story passed on, but the details became lost, adapting themselves to the changing cultures. Couple this hypothesis with the already questionable account of the hero, and I have some severe reservations accepting the Sanskrit version as accurate. On the other hand, there
is
the cargo to consider.
The cargo is truly and undeniably feasible if the Sanskrit version is accurate. Manu and the seven Ŗsis brought aboard seeds. There were no animals with which to contend, there was no waste from the animals, no elephant trumpeting, no geese squawking, no dogs barking, no cats giving the humans attitude…. The Hindu version is truly feasible from a cargo perspective. In the other two versions, each of which contains both seeds and animals, we potentially run into an entire host of problems. Among the problems are care and feeding, waste disposal, and, most of all, storage. To tackle the storage problem, we would need to examine the size of the vessels.
In the Kariña myth, we are not told how large the vessel was. All we are told was that it was a canoe, large enough to hold everyone and everything on board. From a feasibility study, then, there is little we can do in order to gain answers. The Hebrew version, on the other hand, gives us actual dimensions of the vessel but fails to tell us how many animals are on board. If Woodmorappe's estimates are correct, however, 1.1
Similar Books
