We are passing through a dark time. Many have lost their life-savings in the market crash. The excesses of the IT bubble are being wrung through other sectors of the economy, and it is not clear when the market will recover. There is a war hanging in the air. If it breaks out, what will that do to jobs? Will this be the war against terror or the war for oil? Will the al-Qaeda hiding in Pakistan show their hand? If there is civil war in Pakistan, who will safeguard the nukes? So many troubling questions!
Since it is getting hard to make sense of the present, it may be good to be reminded that we do not always understand the past. Here are a few examples of the textbook view that don't square up:
1. There was no image worship in the Vedic times
I was reminded of this recently in Delhi by an earnest young Englishman, an archaeology and anthropology lecturer, who was certain that image-worship in India started only with the Imperial Guptas. Indeed, “Hindu Art and Architecture” published by Thames and Hudson, London, informs that there were tentative beginnings of sculptural forms with Hindu themes in the 2nd century BC followed by a gap in the 3rd and the 4th centuries, and Hindu images reached quick development only during the time of the Guptas.
But what do the texts say? Hold it, you'll say, the texts do not matter because references therein must be later interpolations. But there are texts that we are certain have been free of interpolation.
One such text is the “Ashtadhyayi” of Panini, the great grammarian of the 5th or 4th century BC. Its terse sutras are written in a technical language in which changes would alter meaning, and its commentaries are attested back to the 4th century. In this text there is clear mention of images. The ordinary images were called pratikriti and the images for worship were called archa (see As. 5.3.96-100). Patanjali, the 2nd century BC author of the “Mahabhashya” commentary on the “Ashtadhyayi”, tells us more about the pratikriti and archa.
Amongst other things we are told that a toy horse is called ashvaka. (This means that the queen who lay down with the ashvaka in the Ashvamedha did not sleep with the dead horse.) Deity images for sale were called Shivaka etc., but an archa of Shiva (Rudra of the earlier times) was just called Shiva. Patanjali mentions Shiva and Skanda deities. There is also mention of the worship of Vasudeva (Krishna). We are also told that some images could be moved and some were immoveable. Panini also says that an archa was not to be sold and that there were people (priests) who obtained their livelihood by taking care of it.
Panini and Patanjali mention temples which were called prasadas. There is no mention of the term mandira. The earlier Shatapatha Brahmana which is smack in the period of the Vedas, informs us of an image in the shape of Purusha which was placed within the altar (I have described this in my recent column on temples).
So what doesn't square up? If temples and images were an important part of the social and economic life in the times of Panini and Patanjali, where is the evidence in terms of images to back it up? If there were social reasons that religious sculpture was not produced until the 4th century AD, what were they?
Is it possible that the earliest images have been misassigned chronologically? The technology of photoluminescence can help answer that question.
2. The Mahabharata is late (400 BC-400 AD)
The Mahabharata is generally assigned the period of 400 BC-400 AD, and the Ramayana is assigned a narrower 200 BC-200 AD.
The Mahabharata tradition itself claims that the text was originally 8,800 verses by Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa when it was called the Jaya. Later, it was enlarged to 24,000 verses and it came to be called the Bharata. It was transmitted by Vyasa to Vaishampayana and finally recited by Ugrashravas as the Mahabharata of the 100,000 verses; the two latter rishis appear thus to be responsible for its enlargements.
Now, the Upanishads speak of texts called Itihasa-Purana and although the Mahabharata is called Itihasa, there is no certainty that this was the only such Itihasa text that has ever existed. The experts will concede that there may have been an old kernel of the story going back to the Mahabharata War (its date is another question that is best left to another occasion), but the expansion of the text into the three phases of the Jaya, the Bharata, and the Mahabharata took place only after 400 BC.
This is where Dakshiputra Panini throws a curveball. He speaks of the Bharata and the Mahabharata in one of his sutras (6.2.38). This means that the epic was substantially complete by 500 BC, although it may have undergone further modifications and interpolations in subsequent centuries. The evidence of the sutra by Panini seems to have escaped most historians.
You: "This is only one piece of evidence. We can't go against authorities. What other proof do you have?”
Let's examine the contents of the Mahabharata. Large sections of the epic are devoted to diverse topics-- it really was an encyclopaedia of its times. One of the most revolutionary things happenings in the religious life of the people during 400 BC to 400 AD was the rise of Buddhism. But examine the hundreds of pages of the epic on religion and there is no mention of it. The only religions mentioned in the text are: Vedic, Sankhya, Yoga, Pashupata, and Bhagavata. We cannot argue that the rishis who wrote the Mahabharata kept one of the most important religious ideas of their times out of the story just because they knew this would become controversial in the 20th century.
Even the political life described in the Mahabharata does not correspond to the imperial phase of the 400 BC - 400 AD. Cattle raids are the big thing in it, not imperial conquest. There are also no references in the epic to the Sishunaga Kings, the Mauryas, the Shungas, or the later dynasties. The Buddhist Jatakas that were written during these royal dynasties, on the other hand, are aware of the characters of the epic. One Jataka, for example, speaks disparagingly of Draupadi for having had five husbands.
Given that Panini (say, 400 BC) knows of the Mahabharata, how can we say that the epic was completed only in 400 AD? It doesn't square up.
Close
Intersting conversation going on, heh:-) Well, If I understand Prasad's argument correctly, I can put in this way: The people who hold views in favour of 500 BC shankara, just shifting Buddha to 1700 BCE to place chronology to justify 500 BC. This is entirely incorrect. vr8194's argument: I agree with your views on Indology-as-finality. Here is my take: Indologists placed 3000 BC in stone era, and mythicized purans. And Secular hindu fringe ape this, as we saw in these forums. How about Shri Rama of 5000 BC. No wonder, Native scholars are moving in this direction, to correct muddied aryabhatta yuga theory. Thus, it is time to correct Indology versions as well as Native scholars' versions so far.
Reply | | Report Abuse
Mr. Prasad and vr8197, thanks for extra info. I hope some serious scholars would pay more effort to clear these doubts. May be it will take some more time. We should not be status-quoist and at the same time not prejudicial. Many theories created by the west about indology have gone a lot of change. I am not a historian. I read it for curiousity to know about the past. Recently, I went through "The story of civilization" by Will Durant. I have finished reading 3 volumes (and in total there are 10 volumes). In the second volume "Greek Civilization", I found that Pythagoras came to India in 9th century BC and was deeply influenced by Hindu world views. (Probably he also learned about Geometry and numerology etc. in India too.) On return,He established a Pythagorian school that influenced western thought for long time. In the third volume I read about the influence of it on Roman and Christianity religions. Again He (Durant) is a western scholar and has written these volumes for western people. So it is quite possible deeper reasearch will bring out more facts. We should not cook up stories but earnestly seek for the truth.
Reply | | Report Abuse
Prasad, I apologize for misunderstanding. Here is the problem: Of course, some scholars attended colloquim, and debated about 800 AD Shankara, 500 BCE Buddha. They are not pontificating that 509 BCE Shankara, nor making it as primordial source. The question is about PRIMORDIAL sources of Indology datings. They start from 2000 BCE-stone age, 1000 BCE Brahmanas, 300 AD, Ashoka(which Ashoka is another question.) Why the secular intelligentia leans towards this primodrial source? What would we learn from these secular asiatic researches, if we draw CITATION GRAPH to delineate primordial sources. That tells the story of Indology. Thats why I requested to come up with ORIGINAL sources, rather than what Indologists are believed based on these original sources(Indology Primordial Matter) So that, we can comeup with better story. Apart from this, I did not read your articles. I will check them later
Reply | | Report Abuse
Apropos vr8197's comments: I wish to point out that I am NOT an apologist for the establishment historians; if you care to read my articles on Sulekha, or even my earlier comments here closely, this will be very clear. All the info you quote has been known & conjuctured for a long time. What I wish to point out is: In order to increase awareness to research Indian history to set right the wrongs committed earlier, we have to be scientific & dispassionate, and be able to distinguish between substantiable facts & strong conjuctures. We should marshal our information correctly and present it cogently. If we don't do this, we will be playing into the hands of the Establishment, which always tries to dismiss the new researchers as a group of amateurish crackpots. I see many talented researchers falling into this trap. For example, the Mahabharata has a great deal of coherent internal astronomical evidence to establish that the war indeed happened in 3138 BC (please see my brief article on the Mahabharata War on Sulekha, which lays out the ground); whereas we have far less evidence to suppose that the Buddha was born 18 cent BC. If you read the Andhrabhoomi articles closely & dispassionately you will see this yourself.
Reply | | Report Abuse
Another Independent comment: There is 1200 years anamoly in these stuff: 1. Indology's MBh, 1875 BC, Acharji placed MBh in 3067 BCE.(Note, I am not dating the evolution of transmissions, re-written versions aka Indology's Philology) 2.Indology's Shankara, 800 AD. Adi shankara ca. 500 BCE 3. Indology's Buddha, ca. 600 BCE. Gautama Buddha, ca. 1800 BCE 4. Indology's Chandragupta, ca. 300 BCE. Mourya chandragupta, ca. 1500 BCE, who kicked selfish Nandas Dynasty. Here is list of Maghada dynasties:
1. br`hapratha, 3138-2132 BCE, 1006, 22
2.Pradyotha, 2132-1994 BCE, 138, 5
3.Sishunaaga, 1994-1634 BCE, 360, 10
4.Nanda, 1634-1534 BCE, 100, 9
5.Maurya, 1534-1218 BCE, 316, 12
6.Shunga, 1218-918 BCE, 300, 10
7.Kaanva, 918-833 BCE, 85, 4
8.Andhra, 833-327 BCE, 506, 32
9.Gupta, 327-82 BCE, 245, 7
It is fashion for us to thrash native pauraanik versions and placing Indology's wrong Gospel as primordial source.
Let us presume that native version is wrong, why dont you develop alternative consistent one, rather than chosing Indology Gospel as Benifit of Doubt. Nobody would like to put effort on this, except making some SECULAR comments.
Reply | | Report Abuse
#43, dishing out others' arguments is Indology way w/o proper proof, except made up Indica. For example, C. Umesh Book, you brought up, is good to read your side of the story. Yes, Everybody willing to listen to your arguments presented in C. Umesh. Without seeing others' arguments(Mumbai colloquim), and dishing the same is which, we inherited via SECULAR GOSPEL. Thats what your version of writing says here to us. Of course, our secular brethern followig the same framework via universalization of Theology, as it were in dec-christianized christology. I am willing to listen to your and Umesh Version of the story. I aint thrashing unlike Indology theologists. Let us come to main point: Sandrocottus issue is discussed at http://www.andhrabhoomi.net/charitra8.html Buddha is discussed at http://www.andhrabhoomi.net/charitra10.html Related discussed on Various Shaka-s is at http://www.andhrabhoomi.net/charitra9.html I ask everybody to read Homework, rather than following one book/One commentary. We knew there exist various native versions, and commentaries on them, commentories on commentaries. Who the heck is doing all this work, except quoting some Indology, or Native scholar's version. Thus, we are proving ourselves as secularized aka we are in Xian theology framework. Alright.
Reply | | Report Abuse
Thanks vr8197 for bringing this article to my attention. The arguments in the article are known for long, but are difficult to substantiate from many perspectives. Just to quote one perspective: The Buddha's date in 6th century BC is one of the sheet anchors of Indian history. Sankara & Sureswara criticised a very evolved form of Buddhism of the early medieval period. I know supporters of the 509 BC date for Sankara counter this by placing the Buddha in the 18th century BC, but this flies in the face of many many known facts!
Reply | | Report Abuse
Thanks Mr.Prasad and vr8197. I will read them. I doubt if those are final. There should be unanimous dating to these things. But, my fear is it is like another Aryan invasion theory.
Reply | | Report Abuse
Prasad, Consider the data from various Mats. Except Sr`ngeri, other kanchi Mats have chronology of acharyas goes back to ca. 500 BCE. Do you mean that they faked to fool Indologists and their secular historians. Of course not! How do you reconcile various versions. Anyway, the crux of these arguments appeared in Telugu daily at http://www.andhrabhoomi.net/charitra11.html The above article contributed mostly to Bombay's colloquium on Dating Shankara.
Reply | | Report Abuse
Another point you could add to it: Note that the MB unlike the Puranas does not mention the Ashwini equinox either. Besides noting the Rohini-Krittika shift, there are a couple of verses in the unnumbered later verses that speak of a Sravana solstice (c. 900 BCE). This makes sense only if the MB was finished by the time of Buddha.
Reply | | Report Abuse
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
Displaying 1 - 10 of 49 Blog Comments