Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

This is a broad, catch-all category of works that fit best here and not elsewhere. If you haven't found it someplace else, you might want to look here.

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Wed Jun 23, 2021 11:04 pm

Part 1 of 3

Lumbini On Trial: The Untold Story
Lumbini Is An Astonishing Fraud Begun in 1896

by T. A. Phelps
© T. A. Phelps
2008

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.



Highlights:

There are compelling reasons for believing that the site of Lumbini is an extraordinary hoax. The details of its discovery in 1896 reveal a tale of deception and intrigue, which is now told for the first time...

[T]he finds made at Piprahwa, in Basti District, Uttar Pradesh...that of Tilaurakot and its surrounding sites, in the Western Tarai of Nepal... neither of these claims can be considered as acceptable, and ... equal doubt attaches to the present site of Lumbini also...

[A]ny attempt to assess the reliability of the present identifications should begin by taking a close look at the circumstances surrounding their discovery. Chief among the participants in those events... was the notorious figure of Dr Alois Anton Fuhrer, a German archaeologist employed by the (British) Government of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh between 1885-98, and co-discoverer of the present Lumbini site.

Modern Indologists, while aware of Fuhrer’s unsavoury reputation, have neglected to conduct any really close scrutiny of his activities, fondly believing that these have long since been satisfactorily catalogued and assessed, and that Fuhrer may be safely consigned to oblivion in consequence. Unfortunately, this is far from being the case. Fuhrer, in fact, drove a coach and horses through critical areas of Indological research, and his deceptions continue to have far-reaching consequences for world history to this day. He was a prolific plagiarist and forger (who worked, alarmingly, on the first two volumes of the Epigraphia Indica) and I have good reason to believe that his deceptions were sometimes condoned, even exploited, by the Government of the day, for imperial reasons of their own...

Fuhrer’s first venture into fraudulent activity appears to have occurred in 1892, when he copied inscriptions from Buhler’s articles on Sanchi and Mathura, reworked them, and wrote the results into the report of his own excavations at the site of Ramnagar. This wholesale deception appears to have passed completely unnoticed during this period, including, apparently, by Buhler himself, with whom Fuhrer was then in correspondence. He also incised Brahmi inscriptions on to stone exhibits in the Lucknow Museum at this time...

Fuhrer found a pillar near the Nepalese village of Nigliva. An Asokan inscription was reportedly discovered by Fuhrer on a broken piece of this pillar, the main shaft of which lay close by...

The inscription referred to Asoka’s enlargement of the stupa of the ‘previous Buddha’, Konagamana, which according to Fuhrer was situated close by, ‘amidst vast brick ruins stretching far away in the direction of the southern gate of Kapilavastu’. Fuhrer gave extensive details of this ancient and impressive structure, declaring that it was ‘undoubtedly one of the oldest Buddhist monuments in India’, and stating that ‘on all sides of this interesting monument are ruined monasteries, fallen columns, and broken sculptures’.

All this was pure moonshine however, as later surveys soon revealed. The stupa didn’t exist, and it was found that Fuhrer had copied its elaborate details (including those ‘ruined monasteries, fallen columns, and broken sculptures’) from Alexander Cunningham’s book ‘Bhilsa Topes’...two years before Fuhrer’s visit -- Hoey had commissioned the local Governor, Khadga Shamsher, to take rubbings of the pillar inscriptions in this area, ‘but these were not of Asoka lettering’. Fuhrer also lied when he claimed that the inscribed portion of this pillar was ‘resting on a masonry foundation’, the precise measurements of which he also gave; this didn’t exist either, this broken piece being merely stuck into the ground at the site. Indeed, Hoey declared that Fuhrer had ‘lied and lied on a grand scale’ concerning his alleged Nepalese discoveries, adding that ‘one is appalled at the audacity of invention here displayed’.

Finally, the Divyavadana describes how Asoka was conducted to Lumbini for the first time by his spiritual preceptor, Upagupta, who pointed out to the king the spot where the Buddha was born. Though the Lumbini pillar inscription states that this visit occurred during the twentieth year of Asoka’s reign, the nearby Nigliva inscription states that Asoka ‘increased for the second time the stupa of Buddha Konagamana’ when he had been reigning for only fourteen years. This is absurd. Why would Asoka decide to enlarge the Konagamana stupa -- and for the second time -- six years before he had even set foot in the Lumbini area?...

(1896) found Fuhrer back in Nepal once more, this time ‘to explore the whole neighbourhood of Taulihawa as far as Bhagvanpur, where there is said to exist another Asoka Edict pillar’... V. A. Smith had obtained rubbings from it ‘a dozen years’ earlier, and had found only ‘mediaeval scribblings’ on its exposed portion at that time.

The site was supposedly called ‘Rummindei’, this being considered to be a later variant of the name ‘Lumbini’...it appears that neither the Nepalese officials nor the hill-men called it 'Rummindei'...

The Indian Survey map of 1915 lists the spot as ‘Roman-devi’; it should be noted that another ‘Roman-devi’ exists about 30 miles WSW of the Nepalese site, near the Indian town of Chandapar. Today, the site is situated in the ‘Rupandehi District’ of Nepal...

The subsequent excavations around the pillar reportedly disclosed an Asokan inscription about a metre below ground, and level with the top of a surrounding brick enclosure...

Fuhrer had supposedly left the site just before any excavations had begun, leaving the Governor and his ‘sappers’ to do the digging. In his official letter on the matter, Fuhrer stated that he had advised the Governor ‘that an inscription would be found if a search was made below the surface of the mound’ on which the pillar was situated. Since there was no previous historical reference to such an inscription, one wonders at Fuhrer’s remarkable prescience on this occasion...

The appearance of this inscription in 1896 marked its first recorded appearance in history...

In Watters’ book ‘On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India’ (prepared from an unpublished manuscript after his death) the following statement is found with reference to the Lumbini site:
‘Yuan-chuang, as we have seen, mentions a stone pillar, but he does not say anything about an inscription on it. The Fang-chih, however, tells us that the pillar recorded the circumstances of Buddha's birth’.

The Fang-chih -– a shortened version of Yuan-chuang’s account -- does nothing of the sort...

It was a posthumous interpolation into Watters’ original text by its editors, Rhys Davids, Bushell, and Smith...

Fuhrer was later found to have fraudulently laid claim to the discovery of about twenty relic-caskets at sites close to Lumbini, which allegedly bore Asokan, and even pre-Asokan inscriptions. One of these items supposedly contained a tooth-relic of the Buddha, which Fuhrer illicitly exchanged for gifts with a Burmese monk, U Ma (the correspondence between these two makes for lamentable reading, with Fuhrer exploiting U Ma’s gullibility quite unmercifully). Following an official enquiry into the matter, this tooth-relic was found to be ‘apparently that of a horse’ : Fuhrer had explained its large size to an indignant U Ma by pointing out that according to ‘your sacred writings’ the Buddha was nearly thirty feet in height!

According to Fuhrer, this ‘Buddhadanta’ had been found by a villager inside a ruined brick stupa near Tilaurakot, and was ‘enshrined in a bronze casket, bearing the following inscription in Maurya characters: “This sacred tooth-relic of Lord Buddha (is) the gift of Upagupta” (the mentor of Asoka). Having obligingly parted with the relic, the villager had refused to part with the inscribed casket itself ‘which is still in his possession’. Fuhrer reported finding this bogus Asokan inscription during the selfsame visit which saw the discovery of the Asokan inscription at Lumbini. Moreover, according to Fuhrer, the Lumbini inscription included words which were supposedly spoken by Upagupta whilst showing Asoka the Buddha’s birth-spot: ‘It would almost appear as if Asoka had engraved on this pillar the identical words which Upagupta uttered at this place’, he tells us, all wide-eyed. However, what with a bogus Upagupta quote on the casket, an Upagupta quote on the pillar, and Fuhrer’s keen taste for forging Brahmi inscriptions, we may here recall that he had fraudulently incised Brahmi inscriptions on to stone four years earlier (see ‘Fuhrer's Early Years’). And indeed, this pillar inscription ‘appeared almost as if freshly cut’ when Rhys Davids examined it in 1900, a view echoed by Professors N. Dutt and K. D. Bajpai, who noted that ‘it appears as if the inscription has been very recently incised’ when they examined it fifty years later. W. C. [William Claxton] Peppe observed that ‘the rain falling on this pillar must have trickled over these letters and it is marvellous how well they are preserved; they stand out boldly as if they had been cut today and show no signs of the effects of climate; not a portion of the inscription is even stained’.

Inscriptions on other Asokan pillars located at sites associated with the Buddha’s life and ministry -- Sarnath and Kosambi, for example -- contain no references to their Buddhist associations, as this pillar so conspicuously -- and twice -- does; and no other inscription makes reference to any erection of a particular pillar by Asoka (as this one does) either...

There is an additional mystery here. As noted above, Fuhrer had supposedly left the site just before the inscription was unearthed. Yet he had travelled up from Lucknow, crossed the Nepalese Tarai to Nigliva by elephant -– a difficult and laborious undertaking -- and then been further redirected to the ‘Rummindei’ site, where he had been officially appointed to superintend the excavations. The existing accounts state that having finally arrived at the site, Fuhrer identified the pillar as Asokan, assured Khadga Shamsher that an Asokan inscription would be found after further excavation, and then, astonishingly, left before the inscription was exposed. This is frankly unbelievable...V. A. Smith stated that a nearby landowner, Duncan Ricketts, ‘had the good fortune to be present while the inscription was being unearthed. Dr Fuhrer arrived a little later’. But Smith’s statement ignores Fuhrer’s earlier presence at the site; and since the accounts which were furnished by Fuhrer and Khadga Shamsher make no reference to Ricketts anyway, one assumes that Fuhrer had alerted him to these excavations after this mysterious departure (Ricketts lived just a few miles away). So what’s to stop Fuhrer from forging the inscription, reinterring the excavated soil (a common archaeological practice) and then notifying Ricketts of events at the site, an action which would have served to remove any subsequent awkward questions on the matter? Only this scenario, it seems to me, can explain Fuhrer’s sudden absence at this critical moment - by far the most important in his entire archaeological career - and it is evident that skulduggery was very much at work here.

Fuhrer also refers to a ‘pilgrim's mark’ on the upper part of this pillar, and whilst providing no photograph of it, still less any details of its language, script, or content, he dates it at around 700 AD. He states that since this item was visible above ground whilst the Asokan inscription lay hidden beneath the soil, this somehow explains Yuan-chuang’s failure to notice the latter during his visit to Lumbini around 635 AD. However, since there is no such ‘pilgrim's mark’ on this pillar anyway -- this was yet another Fuhrer lie –- it is evident that this was merely another clumsy attempt by Fuhrer (as with the phony Nigliva stupa) to add credence to this Asokan inscription also...

There are, moreover, serious epigraphical problems with the pillar inscription itself...

More damaging still, however, is the presence of the term ‘Sakyamuni’ in this inscription. Simply put, it shouldn’t be there. ‘Sakyamuni’ is a later, Sanskritised form of this term, and thus has no place in an allegedly Asokan Brahmi inscription...There would thus appear to be no epigraphical support for the presence of ‘Sakyamuni’ in this Asokan Brahmi inscription, and I shall charge that this exposes it as yet another Fuhrer forgery...

In 1994, I photographed an official notice at the present Lumbini site (see Fig. 1 ) the text of which ran as follows:
‘The famous Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsang says:- “Lumbini is on the bank of the River Telar where an Asokan pillar (with a split in the centre), the Mayadevi Temple, the Sacred Tank, and a few stupas are situated”.’

Yuan-chuang, alas, makes no such statement, and like Fa-Hsien, his account makes no mention whatsoever of any ‘Mayadevi Temple’ at Lumbini. He is also, as we have seen, quite specific about the stupas at the site, and of their significance, and his account mentions only a ‘little river of oil’ and not the River Telar (which runs about a kilometre away from the present site anyway). As for the ‘Mayadevi Temple’ itself, I can find nothing to connect this structure with Lumbini, let alone with anything Buddhist. Neither pilgrim makes any reference to it as I have noted, and the present item is an entirely modern affair anyway, beneath which lay the remains of an earlier structure exposed by P.C. Mukherji in 1899. The ornately-carved bricks which formed part of this earlier edifice were identical to those found in structures at the nearby Sivaite sites of Sagarwa and Kodan, these being dated by Debala Mitra at ‘not earlier than the eighth century AD’.

Similarly, the sandstone image in this ‘temple’ (see Fig. 2) supposedly of Mayadevi giving birth to the Buddha, appears equally dubious on a close examination of its origins. This bas-relief, in which the figures are so defaced as to be unrecognisable (see Fig. 5) formed part of the remains of various broken statues which Mukherji found during his visit to the site in 1899. These items consisted of Hindu deities such as Varahi, Durga, Parvati, Ganesh, etc -- nothing Buddhist -- and it is noted that the supposed image of Mayadevi bears a striking resemblance to figures of yakshis and devatas also...all of these items -- the so-called ‘Mayadevi’ figure included -- were associated with the earlier structure found by Mukherji, and are therefore of mediaeval Hindu provenance. There is thus nothing Buddhist about the ‘Mayadevi Temple’ at all, and it is not a temple either.

In January 1898, W. C. [William Claxton] Peppe, manager of the Birdpur Estate in north-eastern Basti District, U. P., announced the discovery of soapstone caskets and jewellery inside a stupa near Piprahwa (see map) a small village on this estate. An inscription on one of these caskets appeared to indicate that bone relics, supposedly found with these items, were those of the Buddha. Since this inscription also referred to the Buddha’s Sakyan kinsmen, these relics were thus generally considered to be those which were accorded to the Sakyas of Kapilavastu, following the Buddha’s cremation...

• Peppe had been in contact with Fuhrer just before announcing the Piprahwa discovery (Fuhrer was then excavating nearby, at the Nepalese site of Sagarwa: see map). Immediately following Peppe's announcement, it was discovered that Fuhrer had been conducting a steady trade in bogus relics of the Buddha with a Burmese monk, U Ma. Among these items -– and a year before the alleged Piprahwa finds -- Fuhrer had sent U Ma a soapstone relic-casket containing fraudulent Buddha-relics of the Sakyas of Kapilavastu, together with a bogus Asokan inscription, these deceptions thus duplicating, at an earlier date, Peppe’s supposedly unique finds. Fuhrer was also found to have falsely laid claim to the discovery of seventeen inscribed, pre-Asokan Sakyan caskets at Sagarwa, his report even listing the names of seventeen ‘Sakya heroes’ which were allegedly inscribed upon these caskets. The inscribed Piprahwa casket was also considered to be both Sakyan and pre-Asokan at this time -- though its characters have since been shown to be typically Asokan -- and no other Sakyan caskets have been discovered either before or since this date.

• The bone relics themselves, purportedly 2500 years old, ‘might have been picked up a few days ago’ according to Peppe, whilst a molar tooth found among these items (and retained by Peppe) has recently been found to be that of a pig. The eminent archaeologist, Theodor Bloch, declared of the Piprahwa stupa that ‘one may be permitted to maintain some doubts in regard to the theory that the latter monument contained the relic share of the Buddha received by the Sakyas. The bones found at that place, which have been presented to the King of Siam, and which I saw in Calcutta, according to my opinion were not human bones at all’....

• The caskets appear to be identical to caskets found in Cunningham’s book ‘Bhilsa Topes’ (see Figs. 7-12) a source also used by Fuhrer for his Nigliva deceptions. A photograph of the ‘rear’ of the inscribed Piprahwa casket, taken in situ at Piprahwa in 1898 (and never published thereafter) discloses that a large sherd was missing from the base of the vessel at this time (see Fig. 8). Having closely examined this casket in 1994, I noted that a piece had since been inserted into this broken base, and that this had been ‘nibbled’ in a clumsy attempt to get this piece to fit. The photograph also reveals a curious feature on the upper aspect of the casket; this, I discovered, was a piece of sealing-wax (since transferred to the inside) which had been applied to prevent a large crack from running further. From all this, it is evident that this casket had been badly damaged from the start, a fact not mentioned in any published report. But is it likely, one is prompted to ask, that this damaged casket, supposedly containing the Buddha’s relics, would have been deposited inside the stupa anyway? Or is this the broken casket, ‘similar in shape to those found below’, which was reportedly found near the summit of the stupa, and which had vanished without trace thereafter? This casket -– also damaged -- was the first of the alleged Piprahwa finds; so did Peppe take it to Fuhrer, and did Fuhrer then forge the inscription on it? Is the Piprahwa inscription simply another Fuhrer forgery? As Assistant Editor on the Epigraphia Indica, Fuhrer would certainly have had the necessary expertise to do this, quite apart from his close association with the great epigraphist, Georg Buhler (who may have unwittingly provided Fuhrer with the necessary details, according to the existing accounts).

• On his return to the U.K., Peppe was contacted by the London Buddhist Society, and agreed to answer readers’ questions on his finds. Shortly afterwards however, the Society was notified that Peppe had suddenly been taken seriously ill, and was therefore unable to answer any questions as proposed. The Society declared the matter to be ‘in abeyance’ in consequence; but Peppe died six years later, leaving all such questions still unanswered.


-- Lumbini On Trial: The Untold Story. Lumbini Is An Astonishing Fraud Begun in 1896, by T. A. Phelps


Contents:

• Introduction
• Fuhrer’s Early Years
• The Nigliva Discovery
• The Lumbini Discovery
• The Lumbini Pillar Inscription
• The Location of The Lumbini Pillar
• The Mayadevi Temple
• The Piprahwa Discoveries
• The Kapilavastu of the Chinese Pilgrims
• Will the Real Kapilavastu Please Stand Up?
• Lumbini
• The Rama Stupa
• From Rama to Kusinara
• Kusinara
• Postcript
• References
• Illustrations

Introduction

There are compelling reasons for believing that the site of Lumbini is an extraordinary hoax. The details of its discovery in 1896 reveal a tale of deception and intrigue, which is now told for the first time.

At present, controversy continues to surround the location of Kapilavastu, the Buddha’s native town, with both India and Nepal promoting bids for this historically significant site. The Indian claim is based on the finds made at Piprahwa, in Basti District, Uttar Pradesh; the Nepalese, by that of Tilaurakot and its surrounding sites, in the Western Tarai of Nepal. It is my intention in this paper, however, to demonstrate that neither of these claims can be considered as acceptable, and to show that equal doubt attaches to the present site of Lumbini also. I further propose to nominate what I consider to be the correct locations for these and other major Buddhist sites, and to give detailed evidence in support of these proposals.

An old French saying declares that to know a river you should know its source, and any attempt to assess the reliability of the present identifications should begin by taking a close look at the circumstances surrounding their discovery. Chief among the participants in those events -- and in my view central to them all -- was the notorious figure of Dr Alois Anton Fuhrer, a German archaeologist employed by the (British) Government of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh between 1885-98, and co-discoverer of the present Lumbini site.

Modern Indologists, while aware of Fuhrer’s unsavoury reputation, have neglected to conduct any really close scrutiny of his activities, fondly believing that these have long since been satisfactorily catalogued and assessed, and that Fuhrer may be safely consigned to oblivion in consequence. Unfortunately, this is far from being the case. Fuhrer, in fact, drove a coach and horses through critical areas of Indological research, and his deceptions continue to have far-reaching consequences for world history to this day. He was a prolific plagiarist and forger (who worked, alarmingly, on the first two volumes of the Epigraphia Indica) and I have good reason to believe that his deceptions were sometimes condoned, even exploited, by the Government of the day, for imperial reasons of their own. Following Fuhrer’s resignation in 1898, the Secretary to the Lieutenant-Governor of the North-Western Provinces remarked, in a letter to central Government, that ‘His Honor fears it must be admitted that no statement made by Dr Fuhrer on archaeological subjects, at all events, can be accepted until independently verified’. Unfortunately this verification was by no means as rigorous as one might perhaps have wished, as we shall shortly see.


Fuhrer’s Early Years

Fuhrer was appointed to the position of Curator at the Lucknow Provincial Museum in 1885, and became Archaeological Surveyor to the Government of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh shortly thereafter. In 1889, he challenged the accepted identification for the site of Kapilavastu (then thought to be Bhuila Dih in Basti District) an event which should be borne in mind whilst reviewing later developments in his career.

Fuhrer’s first venture into fraudulent activity appears to have occurred in 1892, when he copied inscriptions from Buhler’s articles on Sanchi and Mathura, reworked them, and wrote the results into the report of his own excavations at the site of Ramnagar. This wholesale deception appears to have passed completely unnoticed during this period, including, apparently, by Buhler himself, with whom Fuhrer was then in correspondence. He also incised Brahmi inscriptions on to stone exhibits in the Lucknow Museum at this time, forgeries which should also be noted in the light of subsequent events.
Ramnagar failure (1891)

In 1891, Führer started excavations at the Ramnagar site of Ahichchhatra. The excavations were quite disappointing. Pressured by the need to get results, Führer started to report invented discoveries, such as ancient dated inscriptions that never existed, and non existent Jain inscriptions. Heinrich Lüders would later be able to show that the supposed Jain inscriptions were fakes compiled from earlier real inscriptions found in Mathura. In 1912 Lüders summarized "As all statements about epigraphical finds that admit of verification have proved to be false, it is very likely that no inscriptions at all have turned up".

In 1912, the German Indologist Heinrich Lüders identified in the Lucknow Provincial Museum forged inscriptions in Brahmi on artifacts belonging to Führer's excavations at Mathura and Ramnagar, forgeries which he attributed to Führer himself. Some of the forged inscriptions were direct copies of inscriptions on other objects, previously published in Epigraphia Indica.


-- Alois Anton Führer, by Wikipedia

The Nigliva Discovery

In 1893, Fuhrer reported that Jaskaran Singh, a wealthy landowner from Balrampur, had found an inscribed Asokan pillar at Bairat, a deserted spot near the Indo-Nepalese border. Two years later, Fuhrer ‘left for Balrampur...to look up the Asoka pillar’ which Singh had reported, but ‘it turned out that the information furnished by Major Jaskaran Singh was unfortunately misleading as to the exact position of this pillar’, and ‘after experiencing many difficulties’, Fuhrer found a pillar near the Nepalese village of Nigliva (see map). An Asokan inscription was reportedly discovered by Fuhrer on a broken piece of this pillar, the main shaft of which lay close by. Though the local villagers supposedly told him that ‘other inscriptions were hidden beneath the soil’ in which this stump was partly buried, Fuhrer was refused permission to excavate, and he was thus ‘compelled to content myself with taking impressions and paper moulds of the lines visible above ground’. Permission to excavate was granted two months later, but as this was ‘without any results whatsoever’, it is evident that the inscription was that of ‘the lines visible above ground’ on Fuhrer's arrival. This is most important, as we shall shortly see.

The inscription referred to Asoka’s enlargement of the stupa of the ‘previous Buddha’, Konagamana, which according to Fuhrer was situated close by, ‘amidst vast brick ruins stretching far away in the direction of the southern gate of Kapilavastu’. Fuhrer gave extensive details of this ancient and impressive structure, declaring that it was ‘undoubtedly one of the oldest Buddhist monuments in India’, and stating that ‘on all sides of this interesting monument are ruined monasteries, fallen columns, and broken sculptures’.

All this was pure moonshine however, as later surveys soon revealed. The stupa didn’t exist, and it was found that Fuhrer had copied its elaborate details (including those ‘ruined monasteries, fallen columns, and broken sculptures’) from Alexander Cunningham’s book ‘Bhilsa Topes’.
Moreover, Fuhrer’s statement that this Asokan inscription was ‘visible above ground’ on his arrival raises further grave doubts. For in a later report by Drs. Hoey and Waddell, it emerged that in 1893 -– i.e. two years before Fuhrer’s visit -- Hoey had commissioned the local Governor, Khadga Shamsher, to take rubbings of the pillar inscriptions in this area, ‘but these were not of Asoka lettering’. Fuhrer also lied when he claimed that the inscribed portion of this pillar was ‘resting on a masonry foundation’, the precise measurements of which he also gave; this didn’t exist either, this broken piece being merely stuck into the ground at the site. Indeed, Hoey declared that Fuhrer had ‘lied and lied on a grand scale’ concerning his alleged Nepalese discoveries, adding that ‘one is appalled at the audacity of invention here displayed’.
Nigali-Sagar pillar of Ashoka (1895)

The Nigali Sagar pillar (also called "Nigliva" pillar) was initially discovered by a Nepalese officer on a hunting expedition in 1893. In March 1895, Führer inspected the Nigali Sagar pillar, one of the pillars of Ashoka, and identified a Brahmi inscription said to be also from the time of Ashoka.

Besides his description of the pillar, Führer made a detailed description of the remains of a monumental "Konagamana stupa" near the Nigali Sagar pillar, which was later discovered to be an imaginative construct. Furher wrote that "On all sides around this interesting monument are ruined monasteries, fallen columns, and broken sculptures", when actually nothing can be found around the pillar. In the following years, inspections of the site showed that there were no such archaeological remains, and that, in respect to Führer's description "every word of it is false". It was finally understood in 1901 that Führer had copied almost word-for-word this description from a report by Alexander Cunningham about the stupas in Sanchi.


-- Alois Anton Führer, by Wikipedia

Finally, the Divyavadana describes how Asoka was conducted to Lumbini for the first time by his spiritual preceptor, Upagupta, who pointed out to the king the spot where the Buddha was born. Though the Lumbini pillar inscription states that this visit occurred during the twentieth year of Asoka’s reign, the nearby Nigliva inscription states that Asoka ‘increased for the second time the stupa of Buddha Konagamana’ when he had been reigning for only fourteen years. This is absurd. Why would Asoka decide to enlarge the Konagamana stupa -- and for the second time -- six years before he had even set foot in the Lumbini area?
The Divyāvadāna or Divine narratives is a Sanskrit anthology of Buddhist avadana [Buddhist literature correlating past lives' virtuous deeds to subsequent lives' events] tales, many originating in Mūlasarvāstivādin vinaya texts... The stories themselves are therefore quite ancient... but this particular collection of them is not attested prior to the seventeenth century. Typically, the stories involve the Buddha explaining to a group of disciples how a particular individual, through actions in a previous life, came to have a particular karmic result in the present. A predominant theme is the vast merit (puṇya) accrued from making offerings to enlightened beings or at stupas and other holy sites related to the Buddha.

-- Divyavadana, by Wikipedia

The Lumbini Discovery

The following year (1896) found Fuhrer back in Nepal once more, this time ‘to explore the whole neighbourhood of Taulihawa as far as Bhagvanpur, where there is said to exist another Asoka Edict pillar’. Fuhrer had referred to this other ‘Asoka Edict pillar’ in his 1895 report, though there was then no reason for believing that this pillar -- the present Lumbini pillar -- was Asokan; V. A. Smith had obtained rubbings from it ‘a dozen years’ earlier, and had found only ‘mediaeval scribblings’ on its exposed portion at that time.

The site was supposedly called ‘Rummindei’, this being considered to be a later variant of the name ‘Lumbini’.
But as E. J. Thomas observed:
‘According to Fuhrer, “this deserted site is still locally called Rummindei” (Monograph, p. 28). This statement was generally accepted before Fuhrer’s imaginativeness was discovered, and is still incautiously repeated. Yet he admitted that it was not the name used by the present Nepalese officials. “It is a curious fact (he says) that the true meaning of this ancient Buddhistic name has long been forgotten, as the present Nepalese officials believe the word to signify the sthan of Rupa-devi”. V. A. Smith said “the name Rummindei, of which a variant form Rupadei (sic) is known to the hill-men, is that of the shrine near the top of the mound of ruins”. This gives no further evidence for Fuhrer’s assertion, and it appears that neither the Nepalese officials nor the hill-men called it Rummindei’.

The Indian Survey map of 1915 lists the spot as ‘Roman-devi’; it should be noted that another ‘Roman-devi’ exists about 30 miles WSW of the Nepalese site, near the Indian town of Chandapar. Today, the site is situated in the ‘Rupandehi District’ of Nepal.

The Lumbini Pillar Inscription.

Whatever the event, in December 1896 Fuhrer met up at this Nepalese ‘Rummindei’ with the local Governor, Khadga Shamsher, ‘a man with intrigue in his bones’, who having assassinated one Prime Minister of Nepal and plotted against two others, eventually fled to British India and sanctuary.
Image

Commanding-General His Highness Raja Khadga Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana (Nepali: खड्ग शमशेर जङ्गबहादुर राणा) or Khadga Shamsher Jang Bahadur Kunwar Rana previously known as Khadga Shamsher Kunwar Rana was Nepalese politician, military general, governor and courtier in the Kingdom of Nepal. He was born in the Rana dynasty as third son of Commander-In-Chief of the Nepalese Army Dhir Shamsher Kunwar Rana. He was influential in the family coup of 1885 that led to the political rise of his Shamsher faction through the murders of then ruling Prime Minister of Nepal and his uncle Maharaja Ranodip Singh Kunwar, Ranodip's favourite nephew and would-be-successor Jagat Jang Rana and his other politically rival non-Shamsher cousins. On the aftermath of the coup, he secured the position of the Commander-In-Chief of the Nepalese Army and was second-in-line to Prime Minister Maharaja Bir Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana before he was removed out of the roll of the succession of Ranas in 1887. Afterwards, he served as Governor of Palpa and constructed the renowned Rani Mahal. In December 1896, he together with German archaeologist Dr. Alois Anton Führer discovered the Lumbini pillar inscription of Ashoka that proved Gautam Buddha's birthplace as Lumbini.

-- Khadga Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana, by Wikipedia

The subsequent excavations around the pillar reportedly disclosed an Asokan inscription about a metre below ground, and level with the top of a surrounding brick enclosure.

The credit for the discovery of this inscription later prompted an official enquiry, since Fuhrer had supposedly left the site just before any excavations had begun, leaving the Governor and his ‘sappers’ to do the digging. In his official letter on the matter, Fuhrer stated that he had advised the Governor ‘that an inscription would be found if a search was made below the surface of the mound’ on which the pillar was situated. Since there was no previous historical reference to such an inscription, one wonders at Fuhrer’s remarkable prescience on this occasion.
However, since this inscription provides the basis for the identification of this place with Lumbini, I propose to deal with it before passing on to other features at this site.

The appearance of this inscription in 1896 marked its first recorded appearance in history. The noted Chinese pilgrims, Fa-hsien and Yuan-chuang, make no mention of it in their accounts of the Lumbini site (though Yuan-chuang does give a detailed description of a pillar) and as Thomas Watters observed:
‘We have no records of any other pilgrims visiting this place, or of any great Buddhists residing at it, or of any human life, except that mentioned by the two pilgrims, between the Buddha’s time and the present.

In Watters’ book ‘On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India’ (prepared from an unpublished manuscript after his death) the following statement is found with reference to the Lumbini site:
‘Yuan-chuang, as we have seen, mentions a stone pillar, but he does not say anything about an inscription on it. The Fang-chih, however, tells us that the pillar recorded the circumstances of Buddha's birth’.

The Fang-chih -– a shortened version of Yuan-chuang’s account -- does nothing of the sort, since though it also refers to a stone pillar at Lumbini, no inscription ‘recording the circumstances of Buddha’s birth’ is mentioned in this text either. Watters, a great Sinologist, was referred to by V. A. [Vincent Arthur] Smith as ‘one of the most brilliant ornaments’ of Chinese Buddhist scholarship, and it is inconceivable that he would have made this critical mistake. Indeed, when Smith asserted that the Lumbini pillar inscription ‘set at rest all doubts as to the exact site of the traditional birthplace of Gautama Buddha’, Watters acidly retorted that ‘it would be more correct to say that the inscription, if genuine, tells us what was the spot indicated to Asoka as the birthplace of the Buddha’. Note that ‘if genuine’: this shows that Watters not only had his doubts about this inscription, but that he was also prepared to voice those doubts in public. Moreover, according to Smith, ‘Mr Watters writes in a very sceptical spirit, and apparently feels doubts as to the reality of the Sakya principality in the Tarai'. From all this, it will clearly be seen that this Fang-chih ‘mistake’ was totally at variance with Watters’ ‘very sceptical spirit’ regarding these supposed Nepalese discoveries (Lumbini included); and I shall therefore charge that it was a posthumous interpolation into Watters’ original text by its editors, Rhys Davids, Bushell, and Smith. If this charge is correct –- and I am quite sure that it is -- then the reasons behind this appalling deception can only be guessed at, I need hardly add.
It has been demonstrated that the caretakers of the Pali tradition systematically expunged references to various ideas and practices to which they objected, especially things thought to be non-Indian (Sven Bretfeld, p.c., 2012). (Bretfeld, Sven 2003. Visuelle Reprasentation im sogenannten "buddhistischen Yogalehrbuch" aus Qizil. Veroffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 61 (Indien und Zentralasien: Sprach-und Kulturkontakt): 168-205) (Google translate: Visual representation in the so-called "Buddhist yoga textbook" from Qizil. Publications of Societas Uralo-Altaica 61 (India and Central Asia: Language and Culture Contact): 168-205)).

-- Greek Buddha: Pyrrho's Encounter With Early Buddhism in Central Asia, by Christopher I. Beckwith

Fuhrer was later found to have fraudulently laid claim to the discovery of about twenty relic-caskets at sites close to Lumbini, which allegedly bore Asokan, and even pre-Asokan inscriptions. One of these items supposedly contained a tooth-relic of the Buddha, which Fuhrer illicitly exchanged for gifts with a Burmese monk, U Ma (the correspondence between these two makes for lamentable reading, with Fuhrer exploiting U Ma’s gullibility quite unmercifully). Following an official enquiry into the matter, this tooth-relic was found to be ‘apparently that of a horse’ : Fuhrer had explained its large size to an indignant U Ma by pointing out that according to ‘your sacred writings’ the Buddha was nearly thirty feet in height!
The work ended rather as it had begun, with a long quotation from a Buddhist text in which the ascetic Vacchagotta addresses the Sakyamuni and compares his teaching to a mighty sal tree that loses all its dead branches, twigs and bark, and yet stands 'neat and clean in its strength. It is as if, oh Gautama, one were to set up that which was overturned; or were to disclose that which was hidden; or were to point out the way to a lost traveller; or were to carry a lamp into a dark place, that they who have eyes might see forms. Even so has Gautama Buddha expounded the Doctrine in many ways.'

It is hard to find a kind word to say about this extraordinary book. Either it was written by someone far out of his academic depth who resorted to padding on a grand scale, or it is the work of someone not quite in touch with reality, so desperate to see what Faxian and Xuanzang had seen centuries ago that he willingly suspended disbelief.

If the proofs of Antiquities were indeed received by Buhler in Vienna and read by him they must have troubled him greatly. And if Buhler ever got the opportunity to compare those proofs with Anton Fuhrer's 'preliminary brief report' on his most recent excavations in the Nepal Tarai he would have realised that his old student's claims to have discovered Kapilavastu — claims which he, Professor Georg Buhler, had fully endorsed and lauded in print — were bogus.

That 'preliminary brief report' was written in March 1898 as soon as Fuhrer got back to Lucknow. It contained two indisputable successes: Fuhrer's identification of Sagarwa lake as the site of the Sakya massacres visited by the Chinese pilgrims; and his identification of the Asokan column at the village of Gotihawa as the Buddha Krakuchanda memorial pillar seen by Xuanzang. But, crucially, what it never explained was where exactly the city of Kapilavastu was or what Fuhrer had found there. His impressive sounding map references — 'lat. 27°32'-38' N. and long. 83°3'-10' E: — meant that Kapilavastu city covered an area in excess of sixty square miles, not the twenty-eight that Fuhrer himself implied.

What Fuhrer's report also highlighted was that the copper reliquaries recovered from the seventeen Sakya stupas at Sagarwa bore the names 'of the following Sakya heroes, viz. Kundakumara, Junahakamara, Dhammapalakumara, Aljunakamara, Mahimsaasakumar, Yudhitthakurnar, Guttilakumara, Nandisena, Surasena, Sugaragutta, Aggidatta, Cetaputta, Giridanta, Sutasoma, Akitti, Lipananda, and Sabbadatta.'

These names, Fuhrer claimed, were 'for the most part engraved in pre-Asoka characters on the outside of the caskets, in two instances written in ink inside the lid, and in three cases they are carved in the bricks forming the relic chambers.' And as well as these seventeen inscribed caskets of the slaughtered Sakyas there was also the casket covered with an ornamented copper lid found in the ruined great stupa at Sagarwa, 'on which was incised in pre-Asokan characters the following: "Relics of the Sakya Mahanama", the successor to King Suddhodana of Kapilavastu.'

Despite the presence of a capable draftsman who produced accurate drawings of the stupas' bricks with their inscribed weaponry (see p. 109), and despite a camera on hand, Fuhrer's final report contained not a single drawing or photograph of any of these inscriptions. Fuhrer had made his claims knowing that the Nepalese Captain had confiscated all the caskets and that it was extremely unlikely that they would ever be seen again.

'If the alleged inscriptions had been found,' was Vincent Smith's subsequent comment, 'he would of course have photographed them.... They were coated with verdigris (secured by oxidation) and no inscriptions on them could possibly have been detected without very careful cleaning. ... There can, therefore, be absolutely no doubt that the alleged inscriptions were absolute forgeries! In fact, Smith was wrong: these were not forgeries, which implies physical existence; they were plain lies.
Image
Verdigris

Professor Buhler certainly received at least one communication from Fuhrer while the latter was still in Nepal. On 21 February he wrote from Zurich to Rhys Davids in England asking for his help over the word Sukitti or Sukiti, occurring on an inscription found by an English planter and sent to him by Fuhrer, adding that: 'The account, sent by Fuhrer, of the result of the Nepalese excavations at Kapilavastu and the neighbourhood is very good. Nothing must be said about it in public. He has been ordered to send a preliminary report ten days after his return.' Fuhrer was back in Lucknow at the beginning of March, so that his preliminary report should have been completed by mid-March. If Prof. Buhler ever saw a copy of that preliminary report the sheer audacity of Fuhrer's claims to have found and read no less than eighteen pre-Asokan inscriptions must have set the alarm bells ringing....

On 2 February 1898 — that is to say, when Fuhrer was still deeply entrenched in his main dig at Sagarwa — the Government of Burma wrote to the Government of the NWP&O concerning complaints it had received from a monk named U Ma. These involved a certain Dr. A. A. Fuhrer, Archaeological Surveyor to the Government of the NWP&O. Shin U Ma had first taken the complaints to a local government official in Burma, Brian Houghton, and had then backed them up with tangible evidence in the form of letters received from Dr. Fuhrer. Houghton had duly passed U Ma's complaints and copies of his letters on to government headquarters in Rangoon, as a consequence of which they arrived on the desk of the Chief Secretary to the Government of the NWP&O, who passed them on to the Secretary of the Department of Revenue and Agriculture, Archaeology and Epigraphy. From there they made their way to the desk of the Commissioner of Lucknow.

As soon as he returned to his offices at the Lucknow Museum in early March Fuhrer was confronted with the communication from Burma and asked to explain himself. According to the file, his letters to the Burmese monk went back as far as September 1896, when he had written to U Ma about some Buddhist relics he had sent him, allegedly obtained from Sravasti. The contents of this first letter indicate that the two had met while the Burmese was on a pilgrimage to the holy sites in India and had struck up a friendship ...

Dr. Fuhrer and U Ma had then come to some arrangement for the one to send the other further relics. On 19 November 1896 Fuhrer wrote again to U Ma to say that:
The relics of Tathagata [Sakyamuni Buddha] sent off yesterday were found in the stupa erected by the Sakyas at Kapilavatthu over the corporeal relics (saririka-dhatus) of the Lord. These relics were found by me during an excavation of 1886, and are placed in the same relic caskets of soapstone in which they were found. The four votive tablets of Buddha surrounded the relic casket. The ancient inscription found on the spot with the relics will follow, as I wish to prepare a transcript and translation of the same for you.

This letter of 19 November 1896 was written more than a year after Fuhrer's first trip into Nepal made in March 1895 (during which he made his discovery of the Asokan inscription on the stump at Nigliva Sagar), but just before he set out on his second foray into Nepal (where he would meet up with General Khadga Shumsher Rana at Paderiya on 1 December 1896). Yet already, it seems, he had found Kapilavastu. In the year referred to in his letter — 1886 — he was still a relative newcomer to the NWP&O Archaeological Department and had yet to conduct his first excavation.

Fuhrer's next letter to U Ma was dated 6 March 1897, three months after his much trumpeted Lumbini and Kapilavastu discoveries. In it he referred to more Buddha relics in his keeping which he would hold on to until U Ma returned to India. Seven weeks later, on 23 June, there was a first reference to a 'tooth relic of Lord Buddha', and five weeks on, on 28 August, a further reference to 'a real and authentic tooth relic of the Buddha Bhagavat [Teacher, thus Sakyamuni]' that he was about to post to U Ma.

The letters now began to come thick and fast. On 21 September Dr. Fuhrer despatched 'a molar tooth of Lord Buddha Gaudama Sakyamuni ... found by me in a stupa erected at Kapilavatthu, where King Suddhodana lived. That it is genuine there can be no doubt.' The tooth was followed on 30 September by an Asokan inscription Fuhrer claimed to have found at Sravasti. Then on 13 December Fuhrer wrote to say that he was now encamped at Kapilavastu, in the Nepal Tarai, where he had uncovered 'three relic caskets with dhatus [body relics] of the Lord Buddha Sakyamuni, adding that he would send these relics to U Ma at the end of March. What is most odd here is that on 13 December 1897 Fuhrer had not yet entered the Nepal Tarai, having been given strict instructions that he was not to do so until 20 December....

The arrival in Burma of the Buddha's molar tooth seems to have been too much for the hitherto credulous Burmese monk, who soon afterwards wrote what sounds like a very angry letter protesting at the remarkable size of the tooth in question. This letter was evidently forwarded from Lucknow to Basti and then probably carried by mail runner to Fuhrer's 'Camp Kapilavastu' at Sagarwa. It was replied to on 16 February 1898, when the Archaeological Surveyor was still encamped at Sagarwa. Writing at some length, Fuhrer went to great pains to mollify the Burmese, declaring that he could quite understand why `the Buddhadanta [Buddha relic] that I sent you a short while ago is looked upon with suspicion by non-Buddhists, as it is quite different from any ordinary human tooth' — as indeed it was, since it was most probably a horse's tooth — 'But you will know that Bhagavat Buddha was no ordinary being, as he was 18 cubits in height [18" x 18 = 27 feet] as your sacred writings state. His teeth would therefore not have been shaped like others: In a further bid to shore up the credibility of the tooth, Fuhrer went on to say that he would send U Ma —
an ancient inscription that was found by me along with the tooth. It says, 'This sacred tooth relic of Lord Buddha is the gift of Upagupta.' As you know, Upagupta was the teacher of Asoka, the great Buddhist emperor of India. In Asoka's time, about 250 BC, this identical tooth was believed to be a relic of the Buddha Sakyamuni. My own opinion is that the tooth in question is a genuine relic of Buddha.

This supposed Asokan inscription was afterwards found to be written in perfectly accurate Brahmi Prakrit, its most obvious models being the many similar relic inscriptions found at Sanchi and other Buddhist sites, with which Fuhrer was very familiar through his work on Epigraphia Indica....

[T]he fact is that the file of the Fuhrer-U Ma correspondence was going the rounds of the concerned departments of the Government of the NWP&O in Allahabad in the spring of 1898. Because it touched on matters in Burma, which at that time came under the authority of the Government of India, it must also have been known and talked about in Government House, Calcutta. The professional opinions of senior members of the Asiatic Society of Bengal may well have been sought, the most respected among them being the editor of Asiatic Researches, the journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. This was the Swiss philologist Dr. Augustus Hoernle, a leading authority on early Central-Asian languages, who was at this time working on the decipherment of Khotanese texts written in Brahmi script (and whose own reputation was about to be badly dented by his acceptance of the forgeries of the notorious Islam Akhun of Kashgar, exposed by Aurel Stein in 1901). Philologists formed a tight circle and if Dr. Hoernle knew of the Fuhrer-U Ma correspondence, he may well have communicated his concerns to Vienna. Whether or not Dr. Hoernle was involved, it would have been surprising if whispers of the U Ma scandal had not reached London and Vienna by the end of March or the first week of April 1898.

As for Anton Fuhrer, nemesis was now fast approaching in the person of Vincent Smith, who corresponded with Dr. Hoernle in February and March while working with Willie Peppe on his article on the Piprahwa excavation for the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. No mention of the U Ma scandal can be found in the surviving correspondence of any of these parties, but there is just a hint of a growing desperation on the part of Dr. Fuhrer in a letter written by him to Willie Peppe on 31 March from Lucknow Museum. Fuhrer had been expecting him in Lucknow on the 26th, together with the Piprahwa stone coffer and its contents, but Peppe had not come and he had heard nothing from him:
The long looked for 26th March has come and gone, and I am sorry to say I had not the pleasure of seeing you here. If you are still coming do kindly allow me to prepare coloured drawings of all the objects found in your excavations. I shall be very happy to send a man to Birdpore on any day you mention, so that he could bring a part of the valuables here, in order to prepare an illustrated report. Or, if you do not mind, you could send the things by registered post (unpaid), and I shall return all objects with as little delay as possible.

But Peppe prevaricated, and a month later Fuhrer had still not received the promised relics. On 21 April he wrote again to Peppe to say that he would be 'glad to receive your relics in small instalments when ever you can spare them; adding that he had 'sent Prof. Buhler at Vienna copies of the photographs and a correct impression of the [urn?] inscription. He will send you soon a printed copy of [his article in the Journal of?] the Academy of Sciences at Vienna.' This suggests that when Fuhrer wrote this letter on 21 April he had not received any recent news from Vienna.

A few days later Fuhrer received a polite but firm letter from General Khadga Shumsher Rana in answer to his appeal for support against Dr. Waddell. The General agreed that he, Dr. Fuhrer, 'certainly had a good share in identifying the birthplace of Buddha' — but not the major role he had publicly given himself.

At this point, no doubt thoroughly fed up with all the public bickering that had long gone on between two government servants — Drs. Waddell and Fuhrer — the Lieutenant-Governor of the NWP&O himself stepped in to order that 'discussions of a controversial nature regarding claims to the merit of prior discovery' should be excluded from all future publications. As far as Sir Antony MacDonnell was concerned, 'Dr. Fuhrer's share in the discovery was confined to the deciphering of the inscriptions [on the columns at Lumbini and Nigliva Sagar],' and that was it.

As Anton Fuhrer's star began to fade so Vincent Smith's rose. In mid-March 1898, having refused to accept his resignation, the Lieutenant-Governor now offered him an immediate promotion to the post of Commissioner of Faizabad Division, to be taken up at the end of the year, and in the meantime a temporary 'acting' post as Chief Secretary to the Government of the NWP&O. This more than salved Smith's wounded pride and he accepted with alacrity. His promotion came with the additional bonus of a hot weather spent away from the open furnace of the plains in the cooling lakeside air of Naini Tal, in the foothills of the Kumaon Himalayas.

Just as Simla served as the summer capital of the Government of India so Naini Tal filled the same role as the summer capital of the Government of the NWP&O, an Elysium to which all the province's departments and headquarters staff migrated in mid-March, only returning to the plains in October. As acting Chief Secretary, Smith now found himself at the very centre of things, in direct touch with every senior government official in every department, and with the ear of the Lieutenant-Governor himself, Sir Antony MacDonnell.

Spoken of behind his back as 'our Fenian friend' because he was an Irish Catholic with nationalist sympathies, MacDonnell was a dedicated administrator but disliked and even feared by his more junior ICS colleagues on account of an ill-temper which he combined with a steely exterior. It was said of him by a friend that 'If Antony and another are cast away in an open boat and only one of them can live, it will not be Antony who is eaten'. These qualities had earned him the nickname of the 'Bengal Tiger' during his years in the Bengal secretariat and as acting Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal. A little later, Lord Curzon, as Viceroy, was to describe MacDonnell as 'a strange creature, by far the most able administrator we have in this country but .. destitute of human emotion' and regretted that 'so conscientious a worker and so able an official should not hit it off better with his own subordinates and should be, as is alleged, so suspicious and so severe towards any excepting the few whom he trusts among his own men'. Whether this was a fair assessment or not, it seems that in the case of his acting Chief Secretary the Lieutenant-Governor set aside his suspicious nature and came to rely on his judgement.

Anton Fuhrer also took to the hills. He had long been due some local leave, which he took in early April, although in his case it meant going by train with his family to the more distant but less expensive hill-station of Mussoorie. He was still on leave in Mussoorie when he heard of the distressing news from Vienna.

-- The Buddha and Dr. Fuhrer: An Archaeological Scandal, by Charles Allen
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36119
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Wed Jun 23, 2021 11:05 pm

Part 2 of 3

According to Fuhrer, this ‘Buddhadanta’ had been found by a villager inside a ruined brick stupa near Tilaurakot, and was ‘enshrined in a bronze casket, bearing the following inscription in Maurya characters: “This sacred tooth-relic of Lord Buddha (is) the gift of Upagupta” (the mentor of Asoka). Having obligingly parted with the relic, the villager had refused to part with the inscribed casket itself ‘which is still in his possession’. Fuhrer reported finding this bogus Asokan inscription during the selfsame visit which saw the discovery of the Asokan inscription at Lumbini. Moreover, according to Fuhrer, the Lumbini inscription included words which were supposedly spoken by Upagupta whilst showing Asoka the Buddha’s birth-spot: ‘It would almost appear as if Asoka had engraved on this pillar the identical words which Upagupta uttered at this place’, he tells us, all wide-eyed. However, what with a bogus Upagupta quote on the casket, an Upagupta quote on the pillar, and Fuhrer’s keen taste for forging Brahmi inscriptions, we may here recall that he had fraudulently incised Brahmi inscriptions on to stone four years earlier (see ‘Fuhrer's Early Years’). And indeed, this pillar inscription ‘appeared almost as if freshly cut’ when Rhys Davids examined it in 1900, a view echoed by Professors N. Dutt and K. D. Bajpai, who noted that ‘it appears as if the inscription has been very recently incised’ when they examined it fifty years later. W. C. Peppe observed that ‘the rain falling on this pillar must have trickled over these letters and it is marvellous how well they are preserved; they stand out boldly as if they had been cut today and show no signs of the effects of climate; not a portion of the inscription is even stained’.

Inscriptions on other Asokan pillars located at sites associated with the Buddha’s life and ministry -- Sarnath and Kosambi, for example -- contain no references to their Buddhist associations, as this pillar so conspicuously -- and twice -- does; and no other inscription makes reference to any erection of a particular pillar by Asoka (as this one does) either. And with the exceptions of Sarnath and Sanchi, where only broken bases of pillars have been found, the surfaces of all other inscribed Asokan pillars are almost covered with inscriptions, whereas this pillar, and the nearby Nigliva pillar, display only single meagre inscriptions of 4 -5 lines each, and as J. F. Fleet has pointed out, they are not really edicts at all.

There is an additional mystery here. As noted above, Fuhrer had supposedly left the site just before the inscription was unearthed. Yet he had travelled up from Lucknow, crossed the Nepalese Tarai to Nigliva by elephant -– a difficult and laborious undertaking -- and then been further redirected to the ‘Rummindei’ site, where he had been officially appointed to superintend the excavations. The existing accounts state that having finally arrived at the site, Fuhrer identified the pillar as Asokan, assured Khadga Shamsher that an Asokan inscription would be found after further excavation, and then, astonishingly, left before the inscription was exposed. This is frankly unbelievable. Are we really to believe that after several days’ arduous efforts to reach this site, and declaring that this world-shaking discovery was close at hand -– a couple of hours’ excavation away at most -– Fuhrer would then simply walk away, leaving Khadga Shamsher to expose the inscription in his absence? This is like believing that Howard Carter would choose to walk away from the opening of Tutankhamun’s tomb; it was, after all, a defining moment not just of Indian archaeology, but of world history also. V. A. Smith stated that a nearby landowner, Duncan Ricketts, ‘had the good fortune to be present while the inscription was being unearthed. Dr Fuhrer arrived a little later’. But Smith’s statement ignores Fuhrer’s earlier presence at the site; and since the accounts which were furnished by Fuhrer and Khadga Shamsher make no reference to Ricketts anyway, one assumes that Fuhrer had alerted him to these excavations after this mysterious departure (Ricketts lived just a few miles away). So what’s to stop Fuhrer from forging the inscription, reinterring the excavated soil (a common archaeological practice) and then notifying Ricketts of events at the site, an action which would have served to remove any subsequent awkward questions on the matter? Only this scenario, it seems to me, can explain Fuhrer’s sudden absence at this critical moment - by far the most important in his entire archaeological career - and it is evident that skulduggery was very much at work here.

Fuhrer also refers to a ‘pilgrim's mark’ on the upper part of this pillar, and whilst providing no photograph of it, still less any details of its language, script, or content, he dates it at around 700 AD. He states that since this item was visible above ground whilst the Asokan inscription lay hidden beneath the soil, this somehow explains Yuan-chuang’s failure to notice the latter during his visit to Lumbini around 635 AD. However, since there is no such ‘pilgrim's mark’ on this pillar anyway -- this was yet another Fuhrer lie –- it is evident that this was merely another clumsy attempt by Fuhrer (as with the phony Nigliva stupa) to add credence to this Asokan inscription also. Why else would Fuhrer invent it?

There are, moreover, serious epigraphical problems with the pillar inscription itself. The term ‘silavigadabhi,’ which occurs in this inscription, appears to have baffled all attempts at translation thus far. According to Pischel, vigadabhi is "literally, ‘not so uncouth as a donkey'" (a translation which Fuhrer cheerfully endorsed) though quite how this phrase might relate to the birthplace of the Buddha remains unclear.

Since ancient times the donkey has been the symbol of the physical body as the bearer of the spirit, but the donkey represents the physical body as it became after the Fall, serving the spirit only reluctantly, both lazy and tough, difficult to guide, yet full of endurance when laden, clever and stubborn. In Isis and Osiris Plutarch tells that the god Osiris -- who corresponds to what is higher and divine in man -- was suffocated by Seth Typhon in a casket which had the form of a human body. This Seth Typhon is portrayed with a donkey's head. Here already the donkey appears as the symbol of the living physical body. When the human body became hardened, and grew to be the casket of the soul, man began to develop material understanding, but became cosmically dull. St. Francis of Assisi called the physical body brother donkey.

-- The Pictorial Language of Hieronymus Bosch, by Clement A. Wertheim Aymes


When you have seen the one who makes the grass green, it's like meeting your own father in a crowd -- you'll have no doubt whatsoever.

Nasruddin went galloping through Baghdad one day on his donkey. He went up every street and into every alley and across every plaza. Every place he goes, an unending race, a hunt and search. Everybody got curious, everybody came out of their houses, and they were all yelling, "Nasruddin, Nasruddin, what are you looking for?" He said, "I lost my donkey, and I'm looking for it."

The donkey represents what everybody is looking for, which is a mystical school. It's the answer to all the riddles of the universe. And you hunt for east, west, north, south, up, down, everywhere you can imagine, and all the time it's carrying you around. It's the human nervous system which takes out of the infinity of the universe the little reality tunnel that you consider reality, which is your creation, which you think is the whole of the universe, unless you went to a Sufi school, or studied General Semantics, or did a lot of Zen meditation, or dropped LSD once or twice. Then you realize the universe is much bigger and more complicated than any little map we can make of it. The map is not the territory. The words that describe the map are not the territory, are even further from the territory.

What I've been trying to do is put the donkey on your back in such a way you'll never forget the master, the great magician who makes the grass green, the one who creates the whole universe you live in.

-- Maybe Logic -- The Lives and Ideas of Robert Anton Wilson


"And thou thyself, thou old pope, how is it in accordance with thee, to adore an ass in such a manner as God?"

Better to adore God so, in this form, than in no form at all! Think over this saying, mine exalted friend: thou wilt readily divine that in such a saying there is wisdom.

Mine old heart leapeth and boundeth because there is still something to adore on earth.

The old God liveth again.

"And thou," said Zarathustra, "thou bad old magician, what didst thou do! Who ought to believe any longer in thee in this free age, when THOU believest in such divine donkeyism?

Perhaps I dare not believe in God: certain it is however, that God seemeth to me most worthy of belief in this form.

Thou thyself -- verily! even thou couldst well become an ass through superabundance of wisdom.

"And thou thyself, finally," said Zarathustra, and turned towards the ugliest man, who still lay on the ground stretching up his arm to the ass (for he gave it wine to drink).

A little valiant nonsense, some divine service and ass-festival, some old joyful Zarathustra fool, some blusterer to blow your souls bright.

Forget not this night and this ass-festival, ye higher men! THAT did ye devise when with me, that do I take as a good omen, -- such things only the convalescents devise!

And should ye celebrate it again, this ass-festival, do it from love to yourselves, do it also from love to me! And in remembrance of me!

-- Thus Spake Zarathustra, by Friedrich Nietzsche


Frequently [Monsignor Escriva] talked to us about cleaning and especially about cleaning his room. He insisted that his room was simply a kind of corridor, which was true in a way. His office, however, was not simply a corridor, nor was the room where he ordered that special glass cases be constructed to keep all the donkeys and at a later stage ducks that men and women numeraries from all over the world sent him as presents. The collection was picturesque and varied. It was based on the story that one day he prayed to the Lord: "I am a poor mangy donkey" and heard an answer from heaven saying, "A donkey was my throne in Jerusalem." Hence, on occasion when he gave someone his photograph, he would inscribe "Ut iumentum" (Like a donkey). During the time that Alvaro del Portillo was Opus Dei prelate he continued the practice. There is no word yet on what the current prelate, Javier Echevarria, will do.

-- Beyond the Threshold -- A Life in Opus Dei, by Maria del Carmen Tapia


More damaging still, however, is the presence of the term ‘Sakyamuni’ in this inscription. Simply put, it shouldn’t be there. ‘Sakyamuni’ is a later, Sanskritised form of this term, and thus has no place in an allegedly Asokan Brahmi inscription. Its earliest appearance occurred when the north-western Prakrit inscriptions began to show Sanskrit influence –- so-called Epigraphical Hybrid Sanskrit, a development which arose two or three centuries after Asoka -- and before this it was always written as ‘Sakamuni’, in both Brahmi and Kharosthi inscriptions. There would thus appear to be no epigraphical support for the presence of ‘Sakyamuni’ in this Asokan Brahmi inscription, and I shall charge that this exposes it as yet another Fuhrer forgery. Though it occurs in a few Pali texts, these were also written down much later, and as J. F. Fleet observed:

‘The inscriptions of India are the only sure grounds of historical results in every line of research connected with its ancient past; they regulate everything that we can learn from coins, architecture, art, literature, tradition, or any other source.


A similar caution has been expressed by Richard Salomon:

‘...there can be no question that in Buddhological studies as a whole the testimony of the inscriptions has not generally been given the weight it merits, and that the entire field of the history of Buddhism, which has traditionally been dominated by a strongly text-oriented approach, must be re-examined in its light.


The Location of the Lumbini Pillar

The pillar at the present Lumbini site is in the ‘wrong’ place; that is, it is in a very different position, relative to the so-called ‘Sacred Pool’, from that given by Yuan-chuang (and the pillar rests upon a support-stone, it should be noted here). According to this pilgrim, a decayed ‘Asoka-flower’ tree lay twenty-five paces to the north of the pool at Lumbini, marking the birth-spot of the Buddha. To the east of this lay an Asokan stupa, marking the spot where ‘two dragons’ bathed the newly-born prince; to the east of this were two more stupas, close to two springs; to the south of these was another stupa; close to this were four more stupas; and close to these was the stone pillar itself, broken in half and lying near to a little ‘river of oil’. A little elementary geometry will disclose that the pillar thus lay -- apparently at some distance -- to either the east or to the south-east of the pool. At the present site, however, the pillar (on its support-stone, remember) stands a mere 75 metres or so to the north-north-west of the pool, a position diametrically opposed to that given by Yuan-chuang in his carefully-detailed account.

The Mayadevi Temple

In 1994, I photographed an official notice at the present Lumbini site (see Fig. 1 ) the text of which ran as follows:

‘The famous Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsang says:- “Lumbini is on the bank of the River Telar where an Asokan pillar (with a split in the centre), the Mayadevi Temple, the Sacred Tank, and a few stupas are situated”.’


Yuan-chuang, alas, makes no such statement, and like Fa-Hsien, his account makes no mention whatsoever of any ‘Mayadevi Temple’ at Lumbini. He is also, as we have seen, quite specific about the stupas at the site, and of their significance, and his account mentions only a ‘little river of oil’ and not the River Telar (which runs about a kilometre away from the present site anyway). As for the ‘Mayadevi Temple’ itself, I can find nothing to connect this structure with Lumbini, let alone with anything Buddhist. Neither pilgrim makes any reference to it as I have noted, and the present item is an entirely modern affair anyway, beneath which lay the remains of an earlier structure exposed by P.C. Mukherji in 1899. The ornately-carved bricks which formed part of this earlier edifice were identical to those found in structures at the nearby Sivaite sites of Sagarwa and Kodan, these being dated by Debala Mitra at ‘not earlier than the eighth century AD’.

Similarly, the sandstone image in this ‘temple’ (see Fig. 2) supposedly of Mayadevi giving birth to the Buddha, appears equally dubious on a close examination of its origins. This bas-relief, in which the figures are so defaced as to be unrecognisable (see Fig. 5) formed part of the remains of various broken statues which Mukherji found during his visit to the site in 1899. These items consisted of Hindu deities such as Varahi, Durga, Parvati, Ganesh, etc -- nothing Buddhist -- and it is noted that the supposed image of Mayadevi bears a striking resemblance to figures of yakshis and devatas also (see Figs. 2-4). It is by no means certain that the all-important top piece of this ‘Mayadevi’ figure, with its raised arm holding a tree-branch, was originally associated with the torso either. This feature was absent when Hoey first saw the image in 1897, being later added by Mukherji from among the broken pieces mentioned above. During a subsequent visit, Landon noted that among various examples of Mukherji's careless assembly of these pieces was one showing a head of Ganesh placed on ‘the headless body of a female deity’ (see Fig. 6). Whatever the event, all of these items -- the so-called ‘Mayadevi’ figure included -- were associated with the earlier structure found by Mukherji, and are therefore of mediaeval Hindu provenance. There is thus nothing Buddhist about the ‘Mayadevi Temple’ at all, and it is not a temple either.


The Piprahwa Discoveries

In January 1898, W. C. Peppe, manager of the Birdpur Estate in north-eastern Basti District, U. P., announced the discovery of soapstone caskets and jewellery inside a stupa near Piprahwa (see map) a small village on this estate. An inscription on one of these caskets appeared to indicate that bone relics, supposedly found with these items, were those of the Buddha. Since this inscription also referred to the Buddha’s Sakyan kinsmen, these relics were thus generally considered to be those which were accorded to the Sakyas of Kapilavastu, following the Buddha’s cremation. The following year, these bone relics were ceremonially presented by the (British) Government of India to the King of Siam, who in turn accorded portions to the Sanghas of Burma and Ceylon. Concerning this discovery, however, the following points should be noted:

Peppe had been in contact with Fuhrer just before announcing the Piprahwa discovery (Fuhrer was then excavating nearby, at the Nepalese site of Sagarwa: see map). Immediately following Peppe's announcement, it was discovered that Fuhrer had been conducting a steady trade in bogus relics of the Buddha with a Burmese monk, U Ma. Among these items -– and a year before the alleged Piprahwa finds -- Fuhrer had sent U Ma a soapstone relic-casket containing fraudulent Buddha-relics of the Sakyas of Kapilavastu, together with a bogus Asokan inscription, these deceptions thus duplicating, at an earlier date, Peppe’s supposedly unique finds. Fuhrer was also found to have falsely laid claim to the discovery of seventeen inscribed, pre-Asokan Sakyan caskets at Sagarwa, his report even listing the names of seventeen ‘Sakya heroes’ which were allegedly inscribed upon these caskets. The inscribed Piprahwa casket was also considered to be both Sakyan and pre-Asokan at this time -- though its characters have since been shown to be typically Asokan -- and no other Sakyan caskets have been discovered either before or since this date.

• The bone relics themselves, purportedly 2500 years old, ‘might have been picked up a few days ago’ according to Peppe, whilst a molar tooth found among these items (and retained by Peppe) has recently been found to be that of a pig. The eminent archaeologist, Theodor Bloch, declared of the Piprahwa stupa that ‘one may be permitted to maintain some doubts in regard to the theory that the latter monument contained the relic share of the Buddha received by the Sakyas. The bones found at that place, which have been presented to the King of Siam, and which I saw in Calcutta, according to my opinion were not human bones at all’.
Bloch was then Superintendent both of the ASI [Archaeological Survey of India] Bengal Circle and the Archaeological Section of the Indian Museum, and would presumably have drawn not only upon his own expertise in making this assertion, but also that of the zoologists in the Indian Museum itself. This museum -– formerly the Imperial Museum -- was then considered to be the greatest in Asia.

The caskets appear to be identical to caskets found in Cunningham’s book ‘Bhilsa Topes’ (see Figs. 7-12) a source also used by Fuhrer for his Nigliva deceptions. A photograph of the ‘rear’ of the inscribed Piprahwa casket, taken in situ at Piprahwa in 1898 (and never published thereafter) discloses that a large sherd was missing from the base of the vessel at this time (see Fig. 8). Having closely examined this casket in 1994, I noted that a piece had since been inserted into this broken base, and that this had been ‘nibbled’ in a clumsy attempt to get this piece to fit. The photograph also reveals a curious feature on the upper aspect of the casket; this, I discovered, was a piece of sealing-wax (since transferred to the inside) which had been applied to prevent a large crack from running further. From all this, it is evident that this casket had been badly damaged from the start, a fact not mentioned in any published report. But is it likely, one is prompted to ask, that this damaged casket, supposedly containing the Buddha’s relics, would have been deposited inside the stupa anyway? Or is this the broken casket, ‘similar in shape to those found below’, which was reportedly found near the summit of the stupa, and which had vanished without trace thereafter? This casket -– also damaged -- was the first of the alleged Piprahwa finds; so did Peppe take it to Fuhrer, and did Fuhrer then forge the inscription on it? Is the Piprahwa inscription simply another Fuhrer forgery? As Assistant Editor on the Epigraphia Indica, Fuhrer would certainly have had the necessary expertise to do this, quite apart from his close association with the great epigraphist, Georg Buhler (who may have unwittingly provided Fuhrer with the necessary details, according to the existing accounts).

On his return to the U.K., Peppe was contacted by the London Buddhist Society, and agreed to answer readers’ questions on his finds. Shortly afterwards however, the Society was notified that Peppe had suddenly been taken seriously ill, and was therefore unable to answer any questions as proposed. The Society declared the matter to be ‘in abeyance’ in consequence; but Peppe died six years later, leaving all such questions still unanswered.

So I went to the phone book, and I looked up “Tibet.” Now in London, there’s 12 million people, the phone book is in four volumes, but I looked up in the “T’s,” and there was only one entry that began with the word “Tibet.” And that was “The Tibet Society of the United Kingdom.”

So I saw that, and noted down the address -- I think it was 58 Eccleston Square -- and I didn’t think of phoning. I thought, “Well, I’ll go in person to see what happens.” ...

[S]o I got in the car, and I knew where Eccleston Square was, and I managed to find a parking place ... And it was sort of a Victorian townhome. And I went up the steps and there was a brass plate that said, “Buddhist Society.” And I thought, “Ha, that’s a good sign.” And underneath it it said, “Tibet Society.” So I pressed that bell push, the buzzer sounded, the door opened, and I went in.


-- Richard Arthure on Meeting Chogyam Trungpa, by The Chronicles of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche


Image
TIBETAN REFUGEES

Sir. – Recent devastating events in Tibet caused over 15,000 Tibetans to cross the perilous Himalayas into India. It may be a long time before these unfortunate people can safely return to their overrun country. Our own consciences should allow us neither to neglect nor forget them.

The Indian Government has manfully coped with this addition to its own problems at home. In this country we are bound in honour to help relieve needs of the Tibetan refugees, because from 1905 to 1947 there was a special relationship between Tibet and the United Kingdom – a relationship handed on to the new India.

On balance we think it wisest to concentrate chiefly on collecting money which can be used for the benefit of the refugees, not least in the purchase of necessary antibiotics and other medicaments. The Tibet Society has opened a Tibet Relief Fund for which we now appeal in the hope of a generous response. Donations should be sent to the address below or direct to the National Bank Ltd. (Belgravia Branch), 21 Grosvenor Gardens, S.W.I.

Yours faithfully,

Thubten Jigme Norbu; F.M. Bailey;Birdwood; J.D. Boyle; [Indian Foreign Secretary Sir] Olaf Caroe; Clement Davies; A.D. Dodds-Parker; Peter Fleming [Master of Deception: The Wartime Adventures of Peter Fleming, by Alan Ogden]; Thomas Moore; [Esmond Harmsworth, 2nd Viscount Rothermere] Harmsworth; Marco Pallis; Hugh E. Richardson; Francis Napier Beaufort-Palmer, Chairman; Major J.C.W. Napier-Munn [Tac HQ Calcutta (Advanced HQ ALFSEA)], Hon. Secretary; D.C. Nicole, Hon. Treasurer, The Tibet Society.


-- The Tibet Relief Fund, 58 Eccleston Square, S.W. I., Letter to the Times, July 31, 1959, p.7.


-- Tibet Relief Fund: About Us, by Tibet Relief Fund


• The declassified ‘Secret’ political files of the period reveal the disquiet felt by the Government of India over French and Russian influence at the Siamese royal court at this time. Hence, no doubt, this bequest!

In 1972 an Indian archaeologist, K. M. Srivastava, made the startling claim to have discovered yet further relics of the Buddha in a ‘primary mud stupa’ below the Peppe one. According to him, the ‘indiscriminate destruction’ caused by Peppe meant that the 1898 bone relics could not be safely determined to be those of the Buddha, and the inscribed casket somehow ‘pointed’ to those relics allegedly found (by him) lower down, which were thus the real relics of the Buddha as mentioned by the casket’s inscription. Since this bizarre proposal thus rests upon the notion that the 1898 inscription is genuine –- hardly likely, as we have seen -– then this claim becomes equally improbable in consequence. I also note that Srivastava makes no mention, in any of his publications on his alleged finds, of the earlier bequest of the Peppe relics to Siam. Naturally, one wonders why.

(For a fuller exploration of this vexed question, see my website ‘The Piprahwa Deceptions: Setups and Showdowns’ at http://www.piprahwa.org.uk).

The Kapilavastu of the Chinese Pilgrims

It is thus with a certain sense of relief that one turns to the testimonies of the two great Chinese pilgrims, Fa-Hsien and Yuan-Chuang, since not only did these pilgrims actually visit Lumbini and Kapilavastu, but their accounts reveal precisely how they got there also. These accounts remain the definitive guides to the whereabouts of ancient Indian Buddhist sites, and as Cunningham, Beal, and other authorities have declared:

‘…the voyages of the two Chinese travellers, undertaken in the fifth and seventh century of our era, have done more to elucidate the history and geography of Buddhism in India than all that has hitherto been found in the Sanskrit and Pali books of India and the neighbouring countries’.


Now not only did the pilgrims agree on the location of Kapilavastu (and thus serve to confirm each other’s testimony) but since they both actually went to Kapilavastu, then this must surely settle any question regarding its whereabouts. From the city of Sravasti, both pilgrims placed Kapilavastu in a south-easterly direction, and at a distance of 500 li (Yuan-chuang) or 12 yojanas (Fa-Hsien). This is between 84-90 miles. Yet neither of the present identifications for Kapilavastu shows the slightest accordance with the pilgrims’ bearings. Piprahwa lies only fifty-five miles east of Sravasti, whilst Tilaurakot lies east-north-east at around the same distance (see map). Having acknowledged the impossibility of reconciling these locations with the pilgrims’ accounts, V. A. [Vincent Arthur] Smith then attempted to ‘solve’ the problem by relocating Sravasti itself into Nepal (see map). Later excavations reconfirmed Cunningham’s identification of Sravasti with the Indian site of Sahet-Mahet however, and this intractable problem has remained ever since (though discreetly ignored by all later researchers, I note). But we must search for Kapilavastu where the pilgrims found it -– regardless of any present claims to the contrary -- and prior to Fuhrer’s Nepalese identifications this was thought to be ‘well within the Basti District’, an area, like the neighbouring Gorakhpur District, rich in ancient Buddhist sites, still largely unexcavated and unexplored.

‘…our knowledge about the position of Kapila may be reduced to this: that it lay on the route from the Buddhist cities of eastern Gorakhpur to the Buddhist Sravasti of Gonda; and that that route probably passed between the Ghagra and Rapti rivers’.


Before proceeding further, it will be necessary to point out that most traces of the original Kapilavastu site will have long since disappeared anyway. As Herbert Härtel has pointed out:

‘The hope to recover the original structures and ruins of a town or habitation of the time of the Buddha, let us say Kapilavastu, is almost zero’.


The problem being that the earliest burnt brick buildings found in India date to the second century BC (with the exception of the Harappan sites, which need not concern us here) and any earlier remains would have long since returned to clay in consequence. This being so, we are thus compelled to rely upon the pilgrims’ accounts together with whatever local traditions may tell us, and this in an area where the threads of all such traditions were systematically broken, and Buddhist sites were either abandoned to the jungle or converted into Hindu sites instead. Astonishingly, however, one such tradition has survived; and I now propose to examine this in detail, since it would appear to hold the key to the Kapilavastu problem at last.

Will the Real Kapilavastu Please Stand Up?

Between the Ghagra and Rapti rivers, at the correct distance from Sravasti (about 84 miles) and in the right direction also (south-east) lies the pilgrimage site of Maghar, about sixteen miles west of Gorakhpur (see map). At present this site is visited by Hindu, Sikh, and Muslim pilgrims, since it marks the final resting-place of the great poet/saint Kabir, who died at this spot in 1518 AD. Kabir’s sayings disclose that he had not only received his spiritual enlightenment at Maghar, but that he had also elected to die there, in deliberate defiance of contemporary Brahmin teachings. These declared that Maghar was ‘accursed’, and held that whilst dying in Varanasi assured rebirth in heaven, death at ‘barren’ Maghar meant rebirth in hell, or as an ass, etc... Such dire fulminations from the Varanasi Brahmins against Maghar -– a small village, 200 kms. distant -- constitute a sure indication that this place was once an important rival religious site, which they found it necessary to discredit. But why would anyone have wished to die at Maghar anyway? The answer is not far to seek. According to Buddhist tradition, ‘the Buddha was, after his parinirvana, in some sense actually present at the places where he is known to have formerly been’, and ‘a devout death that occurred within the range of this presence assured for the individuals involved -- and these were both monks and laymen -- rebirth in heaven’. Since, as we shall now see, there is compelling evidence to show that Maghar was formerly the site of Kapilavastu itself, then the reason for people electing to die there then becomes abundantly clear, as indeed, does Brahmin hostility towards this place.

For A. C. L. [Archibald Campbell] Carlleyle, who did archaeological tours of this area in the 1870s, tells us not only that the Maghar site is ‘very ancient’, but that it was ‘reputed to have been the seat of Buddhist hierarchs for some time after Kapilavastu was destroyed’. Kapilavastu was destroyed during the Buddha’s lifetime, by the king of Sravasti; yet when the Chinese pilgrims visited the Kapilavastu site a thousand years later, they still found Buddhist monks in residence (and these would doubtless have included ‘Buddhist hierarchs’). One also notes ‘the prominent association of this place with Buddhism’, together with the curious tradition that with the arrival of Kabir, a dried-up local stream began to flow once more. This is more likely to refer to the reawakening at Maghar, of the anti-Brahmin, anti-caste tradition of Buddhism by the similar teachings of Kabir, one feels, than to any sudden and supernatural antics of the local River Ami. And just who was the protective ‘Lord’ of the (Buddhist) Tharus -- the earliest recorded inhabitants of Maghar -- whose place of worship (beneath a tree) was called the ‘Thakur-dih’, or high place of the Lord, but upon whose name ‘tradition is silent’?. On visiting this site in 2005, I was twice informed by local sources that Chinese travellers had also visited long ago, and that they had stayed in the area for a while. The remains at the deserted ‘Thakur–dih’ site -– which include ancient walls and wells -- call for detailed and careful archaeological examination, as do various mounds in the vicinity.

From all this it can clearly be seen that ‘very ancient’ Maghar was once a major Buddhist site. Just as the Chinese pilgrims found Buddhist monks living at the Kapilavastu site a thousand years after its destruction, so we are told that Maghar was also occupied by important Buddhist monks ‘after Kapilavastu was destroyed’. We have direct historical evidence, from Kabir, that people deliberately chose to die at this place, and whilst the Varanasi Brahmins cursed it, and declared that choosing to die there meant rebirth in hell, Buddhists believed that to die in a place where the Buddha had once walked meant rebirth in heaven. And since Maghar lies around 84 miles south-east of Sravasti, and is thus in perfect agreement with the location which was given by both of the Chinese pilgrims for Kapilavastu, there can surely remain no doubt that this is indeed the place where Kapilavastu itself once stood.

Lumbini

From the palace-city of Kapilavastu, Yuan-chuang travelled to the Arrow Well. He states that this lay 32 li (between 5-6 miles) to the southeast of the city, a bearing which agrees with that given by Fa-hsien. From here, Yuan-chuang travelled ‘80 or 90 li north-east’ -- about 15 miles -- to the Lumbini Garden, though he gives no direct distance between Kapilavastu and Lumbini. Fa-hsien, however, states that he went directly from Kapilavastu ‘50 li east’ to Lumbini (about nine miles) but this distance is impossible to reconcile with Yuan-chuang's triangulation. If Yuan-chuang's bearings are correct -- and they are usually more precise than those of Fa-hsien -- then Lumbini must have been just a few miles further on.

According to the Buddhist scriptures, the Rohini River constituted the border between the Sakyan clans of Kapilavastu and Koliya, and the Lumbini pleasure-park was used by these clans for their mutual recreation. From this it would appear that they thus regarded Lumbini as a territorially ‘neutral’ site, which presumably lay on or close to this river border.

‘About one and-a-half miles to the north-west of Gorakhpur, close to the junction of the Rohini with the Rapti, is a large and high mound, the ruins of the ancient Domangarh, said to have been founded by, and to have received the name from, a ruling tribe called Dom-kattar. The bricks which compose the interior or oldest portion of the ruins of Domangarh are very large and thick, and of a square shape. During the construction of the Bengal and North-West Railway, in 1884, a relic-casket was discovered near this khera containing an amulet of thin plate gold, representing Yasodhara and Rahula, the wife and son of prince Siddhartha, as well as the ornaments of a child. The relics are deposited in Lucknow Provincial Museum.’


The interment of a relic-casket at Domingarh reveals that it was once a sacred Buddhist place (there are stupa remains still present at the site). The representations on the amulet are of interest, whilst the large size and square shape of the oldest bricks strongly suggest that they are Mauryan, and may therefore be part of the Asokan stupa mentioned by Yuan-chuang at Lumbini. Kushan terracottas (1st-3rd centuries AD) and Northern Black Polished Ware (500-100 BC) have recently been discovered at Domingarh, these artefacts being housed in the Purvayatan Museum at Gorakhpur University. These latter finds push the dating of this site’s occupation back to a very ancient period indeed, the NBP Ware finds being possibly contemporaneous with the Buddha himself.

Domingarh lies about 14 miles east of Maghar (see map) bearings which would accord with those travelled by Yuan-chuang between Kapilavastu and Lumbini. Moreover, its position is in precise agreement with the bearing -– 35 miles east -– which was given by both pilgrims for their next place of visit, which was that of the Rama Stupa (which I take to be the Ramabhar Stupa, for reasons given below) and it is, indeed, directly en route from Maghar to this stupa. Domingarh lies on the Rohini river (which as noted above, marked the border between the Sakyan clans of Kapilavastu and Koliya) and since - before the railway – the site became an island in this river during the rains, it would thus have been regarded as a ‘neutral’ recreational place by the two neighbouring Sakyan clans in consequence. It is still a pleasant place to visit, being on a slightly elevated stretch of ground with fresh air and good views, and local Europeans even built a sanatorium -- a place of healing -- upon it, and would visit it for purposes of recreation. Close to it, curiously, is a village called Koliya, and the great mediaeval saint, Gorakhnath (whom many regard as a crypto-Buddhist) chose a nearby site for his ashram. Local information has it that Domingarh was named after a queen ; this may link with Yuan-chuang’s version of ‘Lumbini’ as ‘La-fa-ni’ (‘beautiful woman’) whilst other accounts state that Lumbini was named after a Koliyan queen.

The Rama Stupa

Both pilgrims report that having left the Lumbini Garden, they travelled east 200 li / 5 yojanas (about 35 miles) to ‘Lan-mo’ (Rama) where they found an Asokan stupa, with its attendant vihara, situated beside a lake. Earlier traditions regarding the Rama stupa are mentioned by both pilgrims in considerable detail. One of these traditions declared that it was the only stupa containing relics of the Buddha which had remained untouched by Asoka, whilst another tradition held that wild elephants had repeatedly paid homage at the stupa with gifts of flowers.

Taking Domingarh as Lumbini, we find the Kasia site about 35 miles due east, bearings which match those given by both pilgrims from Lumbini to the Rama Stupa. By far the oldest structure at the Kasia site -- the bricks are deemed to be Asokan -- is the Ramabhar Stupa (see map) which, like the Rama stupa of the pilgrims, is situated beside a lake. Whilst this name -– ‘Ramabhar’ -– has always been a puzzle to scholars, I take it to signify the stupa of Rama and its attendant vihara (since ‘bhar/bihar’ = ‘vihara’ ). At this site, a life-size statue of a seated Buddha (the ‘Matha-Kuar’) bore an inscription – now abraded - which began with the words ‘Rama rupa’ (a rupa being an image of the Buddha).. During excavations of 1904-5 a plaque was discovered, also bearing a seated Buddha, showing a row of elephants carrying flowers, precisely as depicted in the tradition mentioned by the pilgrims for the Rama stupa. Most of the votive offerings which were found at the Kasia complex were found at the Ramabhar stupa, a fact which attests to the stupa’s position as the central sacred feature at this site. Since, according to tradition, the Rama stupa’s Buddha-relic was left untouched by Asoka, this relic would signify the Buddha's ‘parinirvanic presence’ at Kasia, thus explaining the ‘parinirvana’ statue, the ‘parinirvana’ copperplate, and the sealings of the ‘monastery of the Mahaparinirvana’, all of which were found at this location.. At present, Kasia is identified with the site of Kusinara, where the Buddha died; but if this identification were correct, and we then backtracked from Kasia using the pilgrims’ accounts, we would find Kapilavastu situated somewhere northwest of Allahabad, and Sravasti located northwest of Lucknow. Nobody, I trust, would seriously attempt to support such proposals.

From Rama to Kusinara

From the Rama Stupa, both pilgrims travelled 100 li / 3 yojanas (about 21 miles) east to the spot where Siddhartha sent back his charioteer, Khanna, following the flight from the palace. The scriptures state that having left by the eastern gate of Kapilavastu at midnight, the prince crossed the Anoma River at daybreak, and thus found safety within the neighbouring kingdom of the Mallas. Having instructed Khanna to return to Kapilavastu, Siddhartha then cut his hair, changed his royal robes for those of an ascetic, and spent a few days at a nearby mango-grove before heading south.

Both of the Chinese pilgrims followed the prince’s escape route from Kapilavastu, and their accounts reveal that not only had Siddhartha travelled directly eastwards to reach this place of renunciation (hence his well-known exit from the eastern gate of Kapilavastu) but that in doing so he had left both his father’s domain, and also –- rather daringly -- crossed Koliya, the domain of his in-laws. Since both of these Sakyan territories were then part of Kosala -- and were in turn, subject to the rule of the king of Sravasti - it would thus appear that the young prince had resolved to leave Kosala entirely, and to flee to a place from which he could not be compelled to return. Authorities agree that the eastern border of Kosala was then the Great Gandak river. From the Rama Stupa, the Chinese pilgrims travelled 3 yojanas / 100 li (21 miles) eastwards to this ‘Place of Renunciation’, and since this distance and direction also equate precisely with those from the Ramabhar Stupa to the Great Gandak (see map) it seems evident enough that this great river border was also the Anoma River of the scriptures.

Kusinara

From Siddhartha’s ‘Place of Renunciation’, both pilgrims travelled 180 li / 4 yojanas southeast to the Ashes Stupa of the Moriyas of Pipphalivana (bearings which would indicate the Siwan District of western Bihar: see map) and from there, having travelled through a ‘great forest’ (Yuan-chuang) they arrived at the site of Kusinara, where the Buddha died. Now while Fa-hsien gives ‘12 yojanas east’ (about 84 miles) from the Ashes Stupa to the Kusinara site, Yuan-chuang, contrary to his usual custom, gives no distance, but corrects Fa-hsien’s direction to ‘northeast’. This overall distance and direction is confirmed by the ‘Fang-chih’ moreover, which gives 500 li northeast -- also about 84 miles - for this journey. These bearings take us to the ancient Champaran area of north-western Bihar, an historically fascinating area, now sadly strife-torn and neglected, which nevertheless ‘presents an immense field for research’ according to V. A. Smith. The Champaran gazetteer, whilst referring to Yuan-chuang’s ‘great forest’, also mentions Champaran’s glorious Vedic past:

‘Legendary history, local tradition, the names of places and archaeological remains, all point to a prehistoric past. Local tradition asserts that in the early ages Champaran was a dense primeval forest, in whose solitude Brahman hermits studied the aranyakas, which, as their name implies, were to be read in silvan retreats; and the name Champaran itself is said to be derived from the fact that the district was formerly one vast forest ( aranya ) of Champa (magnolia) trees... it was a place of retreat for Hindu ascetics, where, removed from worldly ambitions, they could contemplate the Eternal Presence in the silence of a vast untrodden forest. Various parts of the district are connected by ancient tradition with many of the great Hindu rishis ... such as Valmiki, in whose hermitage Sita, the banished spouse of Rama, is said to have taken shelter. This great sage is reputed to have resided near Sangrampur, and the village is believed to be indebted for its name (which means the city of the battle) to the famous fight between Rama and his two sons, Lava and Kusha ... it seems probable that Champaran was occupied at an early period by races of Aryan descent, and formed part of the country in which the Videhas settled … and founded a great and powerful kingdom. This kingdom was in course of time ruled over by king Janaka ... under his rule according to Hindu mythology, the kingdom of Mithila was the most civilized in India. His court was a centre of learning, and attracted all the most learned men of the time; Vedic literature was enriched by the studies of the scholars who flocked there; his chief priest, Yajnavalkya, inaugurated the stupendous task of revising the Yajur Vedas; and the speculations of the monarch himself, enshrined in the sacred works called the Upanishads, are still cherished by the Hindu community.’


These details recall that in response to Ananda's plea not to die in this ‘little wattle-and-daub town’, the Buddha replied that ‘long ago’ -- also a reference to Vedic times -- Kusinara had once been a great royal city called Kushavati. The Champaran area is noted for having what are believed to be the only Vedic remains ever discovered in India (thought to be royal tombs) at the site of Lauriya Nandangarh, where an Asokan pillar also stands. Here several great burial mounds were found, in one of which were coffins containing ‘unusually long skeletons’, presumably of ancient warrior-kings. I believe that this was the region into which the young Siddhartha had first ventured, seeking wisdom from its forest rishis, and that it was also the area towards which he later struggled, despite sickness and pain, as his deliberately-chosen place to die. There is compelling evidence to show that this event -- the parinibbana, or passing-away of the Buddha - occurred at the site of Rampurva (see map) near the present Indo-Nepalese border.

Both pilgrims agree with the Mahaparinibbana Sutta in stating that the Buddha died on the bank of the river Hiranyavati (or Ajitavati) between two sal trees, Yuan-chuang adding that Asoka had commemorated the spot with a stone pillar. This pillar Yuan-chuang locates four li -- about a kilometre -- northwest of the town of Kusinara at the time of his visit. Another stone pillar was located to the north of the town, and marked the place of the Buddha's cremation; this pillar he places ‘300 paces’ from the river's edge. He also mentions a ‘yellowish-black’ soil at the site, which he believed might contain relics.

The Asokan site of Rampurva still awaits proper excavation, most of it having disappeared beneath the alluvial deposits left by successive inundations from a nearby large river. This river I take to be the one mentioned by the two Chinese pilgrims. When they were discovered in 1877, the two Asokan pillars at this site were situated 300 yards apart -- exactly as mentioned by Yuan-chuang for the two Kusinara pillars -- and were also placed in similar bearings to those given by this pilgrim, one being situated slightly to the west of the other. The pilgrims mention only two sites at which two Asokan pillars were found - those of Sravasti and Kusinara -- and Rampurva is the only site in India where there are two Asokan pillars (there are none, I should add, at Kasia). The so-called ‘Southern Pillar’ at the Rampurva site I therefore take to mark the place of the parinibbana, whilst the ‘Northern Pillar’ marked the Buddha's cremation-spot. At the time of its discovery, the ‘Southern’ pillar was situated between two mounds ; these mounds marked the locations of the two sal trees. The material which covered these mounds was a yellowish kankar, or lime, not known in this vicinity (it was also found in the Lauriya Nandangarh mounds mentioned above); this I take to be the curious ‘yellowish-black soil’ mentioned by Yuan-chuang at the Kusinara site. Sir John Marshall declared that the ‘Southern’ pillar at Rampurva ‘appears to have been wilfully mutilated, perhaps with the purpose of destroying some inscription on it’ and a large section of this pillar’s surface has indeed been deliberately hacked away, a fact which doubtless accounted for its breakage at this point (see Fig. 13). This is clearly damage which is wholly commensurate with the removal of an inscription, and I shall assume that this deed was perpetrated by later enemies of Buddhism who believed, as Yuan-chuang’s guides informed him, that it mentioned the details of the Buddha’s final passing at this spot.

Finally, I note that Fa-hsien gives 12 yojanas - about 84 miles - as the distance between Kusinara and a stone pillar near Vaishali. If this refers to the famous Asokan lion-pillar near this place -- and no other pillar has been found near there -- then this distance matches that between Rampurva and Vaishali (see map). V. A. Smith noted that Yuan-chuang ‘expressly states that Vaishali lay on the road from Pataliputra to Nepal. Basar (Vaishali) lies on the ancient royal road from the capital (Pataliputra) to Nepal, marked by three of Asoka’s pillars, which passed Kesariya, Lauriya Araraj, Betiya, Lauriya-Nandangarh, Chankigarh, and Rampurva, entering the hills by the Bhikna Thori Pass’. This ‘ancient royal road’ is clearly marked, with a double broken dotted line, on the 1" to 1 mile Survey of India maps. It was, I believe, the ancient via regis that was trodden by the Buddha to Kusinara (Rampurva), the same route being followed thereafter by Asoka, and later, by the Chinese pilgrims themselves.

POSTCRIPT

India should now reclaim her greatest son, Siddhartha Gautama (at present, he’s Nepalese). Unfortunately, despite the worldwide prestige -– not to mention the revenue -– which this tremendous prize may bring, I believe that India will implacably reject it as a poisoned chalice. After all, the Brahmins fought Indian Buddhism for centuries before its final downfall, and they’re certainly not about to welcome it back, as the ongoing struggle for the control of Bodh Gaya grimly demonstrates. And what, too, about Kabir? He is generally considered to be the greatest Indian religious figure for a thousand years, and since everybody appears to want a piece of him –- Sikhs, Muslims, and Hindus alike –- then they’re not going to welcome the proposal that he chose to die at the site of the Buddha’s home town either. And what effect might this tremendous homecoming have on all those feisty Buddhist Dalits, or on all those modern young Indians who know that Buddhism is now ‘cool’, and is much admired throughout the West? Small wonder then that there would now appear to be an Indian conspiracy of silence upon these findings, and that everyone is still trying to proceed as before, ‘wrapt in the old miasmal mist’. Buddhists, however, should be well aware of this silence, for if the conclusions which are set out above are correct –- and some important people now think that they are - then these critical sites of world history (which include two of the Four Holy Places of Buddhism) have now been rediscovered following fifteen hundred years of darkness, and there may not be another chance to set the record straight. It really is as simple as that.

© T. A. Phelps, 2008. Comments on this article would be most welcome, and should be sent to taphelken@hotmail.com
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36119
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Thu Jun 24, 2021 3:47 am

Part 3 of 3

References

1. H. Luders, ‘On Some Brahmi Inscriptions in the Lucknow Museum’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (UK) 1912, fn., p. 167. Fuhrer was then Assistant Editor (to Burgess) on the Epigraphia Indica. See ref. 4 also.
2. Proceedings of the Government of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, Public Works Department, B. & R. Branch, ‘Miscellaneous’, Aug. 1899, Proceeding no. 100 (India Office Library, London).
3. A. A. Fuhrer, ‘The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur’ (1889), Archaeological Survey of India Reports (New Imperial Series) Vol. 11, p. 69.
4. See ref. 1, pp. 161-8. Luders neglects to mention that Fuhrer had supplied Buhler with the details of these and other inscriptions –- almost 400 in all –- for Buhler’s assessment in the Epigraphia Indica, and epigraphists will now have the unenviable task of establishing the authenticity of these items. Immediately following Fuhrer’s exposure in 1898, Buhler drowned in Lake Constance in mysterious circumstances, and since he had enthusiastically endorsed all of Fuhrer’s supposed discoveries, one cannot help but wonder whether this tragedy was accidental.
5. See ref. 1 (Luders) pp. 176-79, and ‘Catalogue of Archaeological Exhibits in the United Provinces Museum, Lucknow’ (Part 1: Inscriptions) by Pandit Hirananda Shastri, 1915, fn. 4, p. 39.
6. ‘The Pioneer’ newspaper, Allahabad, 15th September, 1893, p. 3 ; J. Burgess, ‘The Academy’ (London) 44 (October 14th, 1893) p. 324 ; Annual Progress Report (A. Fuhrer) Arch. Survey of India, N-W. P. & Oudh Circle, y/e 1894, para. 22 ; and P. C. Mukherji, ‘A Report on a Tour of Exploration of the Antiquities in the Tarai, Nepal’, Archaeological Survey of India Reports, New Imperial Series, Vol. 26 (1901) p. 2 (n. b. not of V. A. Smith’s ‘Prefatory Note’ to this work).
7. Annual Progress Reports, Archaeological Survey, N-W. P. and Oudh Circle, Epigraphical Section, y/e 1895 and 1897. It would appear that Singh had redirected Fuhrer to Nigliva (where Singh owned some villages) in 1895, but Fuhrer’s earlier reports differ widely on the location of Singh’s supposed find. The first public notification was Fuhrer’s 1893 ‘Pioneer’ item (see ref. 6). According to this, Singh’s discovery was near Bairat, a village 21 miles north of Bahadurganj in Nepal, but Fuhrer's 1894 Progress Report then alters this to a spot near Nepalganj, 100 miles west of Singh's reported location. So why did Fuhrer revise Singh’s account so drastically? Moreover, according to Fuhrer’s 1893 ‘Pioneer’ account, Singh had discovered an Asokan ‘lion-pillar’ bearing all of of the seven known Asokan pillar inscriptions as well as two exciting new ones in a new script, these supposedly being ‘addressed to the Buddhist clergy of the Visas, the early predecessors of the Bais of Nepal’. All this was, of course, complete nonsense, and the pillar at Nigliva (1895) bore not the slightest resemblance to this ‘lion-pillar’ with its nine Asokan inscriptions (which has never been found, I need hardly add). But why didn’t Singh himself promptly protest the untruthfulness of Fuhrer’s report when it appeared in the ‘Pioneer’? Since this newspaper was noted for its links to intelligence, and Singh was a relative of the Maharajah of Balrampur (a powerful zamindari family which had aided the British during the Mutiny) one wonders whether the original (1893) report was some sort of ‘plant’, designed to further British ‘forward’ imperial interests in Nepal. Whatever the event, this paved the way for all the other alleged Asokan discoveries in the Nepalese Tarai (‘Rummindei’ included) but an increasingly paranoid Nepalese Government soon put an end to these archaeological intrusions into its territory, and the border became firmly closed to all such ‘surveys’ shortly thereafter (cf. Smith’s fulminations on the matter in the JRAS (UK) 1897, pp. 619-21).
8. Annual Progress Report for N-W. P. and Oudh, Epigraphical Section, (Fuhrer) y/e 1895, p. 1. The Architectural Section of this Report was mistaken in stating that ‘In March 1895 the Architectural Surveyor accompanied Dr Fuhrer on a short trip to Nigliva, Tahsil Tauliva, in the Nepal Tarai, to procure photographs of a new Asokan edict pillar which was discovered there in 1893 by Major Jaskaran Singh of Balrampur’. The photographs mentioned –- which accompanied both this Progress Report and Fuhrer’s later ‘Monograph’ (1897) –- show the inscribed Nigliva pillar stump after excavation, and as Fuhrer himself states that Nepalese permission for this excavation was only given for May, this shows that the Architectural Surveyor’s ‘short trip’ (which could hardly have included Fuhrer’s Balrampur visit to Singh) had also occurred in May, i.e. two months after Fuhrer’s initial arrival at Nigliva.
9. ‘A Monograph on Buddha Sakyamuni’s Birthplace’, by A. A. Fuhrer (1897) Arch. Surv. of Northern India Reports, Vol. 6, p. 25 (reprinted in Varanasi (1972) as ‘Antiquities of Buddha Sakyamuni’s Birthplace’). See also ref. 8, p. 2.
10. See ref. 6, Smith’s ‘Prefatory Note’ to Mukherji’s report, fn., p. 4.
11. See ref. 2, Aug. 1899, Proceedings nos. 90-91, pp. 29-33 (India Office Library, London). The same details are also disclosed in the Government of India Proceedings (Part B), Department of Revenue & Agriculture, Archaeology & Epigraphy, April 1899, File no. 6 ; see ‘Enclosure 1’ (Report) of letter no. 53A, and also letter no. 41A in this file. (National Archives of India, New Delhi). This report by Waddell and Hoey, detailing the results of their own (1899) excursion into the Tarai, led to the Government suppression of Fuhrer’s ‘Monograph on Buddha Sakyamuni’s Birthplace’ shortly thereafter. In a letter accompanying this report, Waddell stated that the alleged stupa of Konagamana ‘did not in reality exist -- it was a pure fabrication to reconcile this false identification with the descriptions of the Chinese pilgrims’. There is, however, good reason to believe that the deception also extended to the inscription itself. Hoey stated that following his appointment at nearby Gorakhpur in 1892, he had ‘employed an agent who travelled over these parts and the Nepal Tarai, and brought me notes of the pillar at Nigali Sagar and other remains including Piprahwa and Rumindei’. In 1893 Hoey befriended Khadga Shamsher, the Governor of this Tarai area, who ‘sent me rubbings from pillars, but these were not of Asoka lettering’. From this it is evident that since Hoey knew about the Nigliva pillar before Fuhrer’s arrival (and according to Fuhrer this pillar was ‘known far and wide to the people of the Tarai’) it would also have been included in Khadga Shamsher’s earlier examinations on Hoey’s behalf. But whereas Shamsher found no Asokan inscription in 1893, Fuhrer supposedly arrived at Nigliva in 1895 and found an inscription ‘visible above ground’, and without any need for excavation. And if, as Fuhrer states, the local villagers were aware of this inscription also, then why hadn’t they alerted the Governor to it during his earlier examination of the site?
12. See ref. 9 (Fuhrer, Monograph ) pp. 33-4.
13. See ref. 7, y/e 1896, p. 2.
14. See ref. 8 (Fuhrer) and ‘The Birthplace of Gautama Buddha’, by V. A. Smith, JRAS (UK) 1897, fn., p. 617.
15. ‘The Rummindei Inscription’, by V. A. Smith, Indian Antiquary, Vol. 34 (1905) p. 1.
16. ‘The Life of Buddha’, by E. J. Thomas (1927) fn., p. 18.
17. See ref. 6 (Mukherji) pp. 4, 43, and Plate 1. See also V. A. Smith, Annual Progress Report, Archaeological Survey Circle, N-W. P. & Oudh, y/e 1899, p. 8.
18. ‘Nepal’, by Perceval Landon (1928) Vol. 2, p. 76.
19. ‘Nepal under the Ranas’, by Adrian Sever (1993) p. 469. See also ‘Princess’, by Vijayaraje Scindia (1985) pp. 5-8.
20. See ref. 2, Aug. 1899, proc. no. 12 (p. 5).
21. ‘Kapilavastu in the Buddhist Books’, by Thomas Watters, JRAS (UK) 1898, p. 563.
22. ‘On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India’, by Thomas Watters, Vol. 2 (1905) p. 17.
23. See ‘She-Kia-Fang-Che’, trans. by P. C. Bagchi (Calcutta, 1959) p. 69. A noted Sinologist, who has consulted a recent Chinese variorum of the Fang-chih, assures me that Bagchi’s translation, whilst ‘not very good’, is nevertheless correct upon this most important point. There is no mention whatsoever of any inscription on the Lumbini pillar in the Fang-chih text, and Watters was far too good a scholar to have made such an absurd blunder.
24. See ref. 14 (Smith) p. 619.
25. See ref. 21 (Watters) p. 547.
26. See ref. 6 (Smith’s ‘Prefatory Note’) p. 17.
27. In the Preface to Watters’ book, Rhys Davids wrote that ‘We have thought it best to leave Mr Watters’s Ms. untouched, and to print the work as it stands’. This statement was yet another demonstrable lie. Rhys Davids was evidently unaware that Watters had already published a considerable portion of this work in an earlier series of articles entitled ‘The Shadow of a Pilgrim’ (there are extracts from these online) in ‘The China Review’, Vols. 18-20 (1890-92). A comparison of the text of these articles with that of the book discloses that these posthumous editors of Watters had, in fact, substantially tampered with his original text, omitting entire paragraphs and radically rearranging others. Unfortunately, these ‘China Review’ articles stop just short of Yuan-chuang’s account of his visit to the Kapilavastu area, so we will never know just exactly what Watters did write in this subsequent section of his work. I also note that although Watters tentatively referred to the Lumbini inscription in his earlier ‘Kapilavastu in the Buddhist Books’ (JRAS 1898, pp. 533-71) he made no mention of this phony ‘Fang-chih’ reference in this article. But then, this was published while he was still alive.
28. A. A. Fuhrer, Annual Progress Report, Archaeological Survey, N. -W. P. & Oudh Circle. y/e 1898, p. 2. See also ref. 6 (Smith’s 'Prefatory Note' to Mukherji's report) p. 4, and also ref. 17 (Smith, Ann. Prog. Rep. 1899) pp. 1-2.
29. Government of India Proceedings (Part B), Department of Revenue & Agriculture (Archaeology & Epigraphy section), Aug. 1898, File no. 24 of 1898, Proceedings nos. 7-10. (National Archives of India, New Delhi).
30. Ibid. See also ref. 6 (Smith’s ‘Prefatory Note’ to Mukherji’s report) p. 4.
31. See ref. 7, y/e 1897, p. 3; and ref. 9 (Fuhrer, Monograph) Chapter 5, concluding paragraph.
32. ‘Lumbini’, by T. W. Rhys Davids, ‘Encyclopaedia of Religion & Ethics’, Vol. 8, p. 196.
33. ‘Development of Buddhism in Uttar Pradesh’, by N. Dutt and K. D. Bajpai, (Lucknow, 1956) p. 330.
34. ‘Asokan Pillars: A Reassessment of the Evidence (2)’, by John Irwin, Burlington Magazine, Vol. 115, p. 714 (Nov. 1973) ; J. F. Fleet, ‘The Rummindei Inscription and the Conversion of Asoka to Buddhism’, JRAS (UK) 1908, p. 472. The remarks on the ‘Lumbani’ pillar by W. C. Peppe are taken from his initial draft of the JRAS account of his alleged Piprahwa discoveries, which was privately printed in Calcutta (n. d.) by J. H. H. Peppe. A copy of it can be seen in the few Peppe Papers which are in the custody of the Department of South Asian Studies at Cambridge University, and it offers a markedly different version of the Piprahwa events from that seen in his July 1898 JRAS account, which was heavily edited by the ubiquitous V. A. Smith before publication.
35. ‘The Birthplace of Gautama Buddha’, by V. A. Smith, JRAS (UK) 1897, p. 618.
36. See ref. 9, pp. 27-8, and Fuhrer’s Annual Progress Report, Archaeological Survey, N. -W. P. and Oudh Circle, Epigraphical Section, y/e 1897, pp. 3-4. This is not, of course, the 12 th century Tapu Malla inscription near the top of the pillar, nor the Tibetan ‘Om Mani Padme Hum’ inscription close to it. And despite returning to the site with his draughtsman (who appears to have been unaccountably absent when Fuhrer first appeared at the site) no photograph or drawing was made of this most important item, and nobody else has since made any reference to it either.
37. Epigraphia Indica, vol. 5, p. 5 (Buhler) and ref. 9, p. 34 (Fuhrer).
38. Commenting on an inscription on the Wardak Vase (2nd century AD) N. G. Majumdar writes that ‘the name is Sankritized as Śakyamuni’ (Epigraphia Indica, Vol. 24, p. 2). Though I can find no other instance of sakyamuni - as distinct from sakamuni – in any other Brahmi inscription, the term occurs in ten Kharosthi inscriptions. Of these, six also show sakamuni, while the four showing sakyamuni – those on the Avaca, Kurram, and two Wardak caskets – were all found in the Gandhara area, viz, north-western Pakistan / eastern Afghanistan, being written in the Kharosthi script and utilising the Gandhari Prakrit.
39. J. F. Fleet, ‘Inscriptions’, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 14, 11th edn. (1911) p. 622.
40. ‘Indian Epigraphy’, by Richard Salomon (1998) p. 242.
41. See article ‘Asokan Pillar at Lumbini : Additional Information’ (in Nepali) by Tara Nanda Mishra, published in the Saturday supplement to the ‘Gorkhapatra’ newspaper, Kathmandu, 27 Baisakh, 2043 (1986) and ‘Evolution of Buddhism and Archaeological Excavations in Lumbini’, by Tara Nanda Mishra, in ‘Ancient Nepal’, no. 155, June 2004.
42. See ref. 6 (Mukherji) pp. 35-6 and Plates 21 & 22. The former ‘modern, mean construction’ (Fuhrer, 1897) has recently been removed from the face of the earth, and has since been replaced by a larger (and even more modern) construction.
43. ‘Buddhist Monuments’, by Debala Mitra (Calcutta, 1971) p. 251.
44. See ref. 6 (Mukherji) p. 36 and Plates 24, 24a, and 26.
45. ‘Nepal’, by Perceval Landon, Vol. 1, pp. 9-10.
46. V. A. Smith, ‘The Piprahwa Stupa’, JRAS (UK) 1898, p. 868. See also Mahabodhi Society Journal (Calcutta) May 1900, pp. 2-3.
47. Govt. of India Proceedings (Part B), Department of Revenue & Agriculture, (Archaeology & Epigraphy section), Aug. 1898, Proceedings no. 15, File no. 30 of 1898, p. 2. (National Archives of India, New Delhi).
48. See ref. 29. In a letter to U Ma dated 19th November, 1896, Fuhrer writes : ‘My Dear Phongyi, The relics of Tathagata, sent off yesterday, were found in the stupa erected by the Sakyas of Kapilavastu over the corporeal relics (saririka-dhatus) of the Lord. The relics were found by me during an excavation in 1886, and are placed in the same relic-casket of soapstone in which they were found. The four votive tablets of Buddha surrounded the relic-casket. The ancient inscription found on the spot with the relics will follow, as I wish to prepare a transcript and translation of the same for you’. Since Peppe was deemed to have made an identical discovery a year later (viz., that of an inscribed soapstone casket containing those relics of the Buddha that were accorded to the Sakyas of Kapilavastu after the Buddha’s cremation) it would appear that this earlier deception was thus merely a ‘dry run’, as it were, for the supposed Piprahwa finds of 1898. From this letter it will also be seen that Fuhrer sent a bogus soapstone relic casket to U Ma, but no details can now be traced about this item - its appearance, how Fuhrer obtained it, or its subsequent fate - and no details of the alleged inscription can now be traced either. Fuhrer’s letters to U Ma - there are eleven of them, stretching between 1896 to 1898 - have never seen the public light of day, and make for instructive and entertaining reading. For their details, see ref. 29.
49. See ref. 28 (all refs. quoted).
50. W. C. Peppe', ‘The Piprahwa Stupa, containing relics of Buddha’, JRAS (UK) 1898, p. 576.
51. Charles Allen, ‘The Buddha and Dr Fuhrer’ (2008) p. 260. See also ‘ The Sunday Times Magazine’ article cited in ref. 53.
52. ‘Notes on the Exploration of Vaisali’, by Theodor Bloch, ASI Annual Report, Bengal Circle, y/e April 1904, p. 15.
53. See Buhler’s ‘A Preliminary Note on a Recently Discovered Sakyan Inscription’, JRAS (UK) 1898. Having received an early copy of the inscription from Fuhrer, Buhler wrote back and ‘begged Mr Peppe to look if any traces of the required I in the first word, of the medial I in the second, and of a vowel-mark in the last syllable of bhagavata are visible’, all these additional details being duly present when the final copy of the inscription was published. The caskets (including the inscribed item) are now in the custody of the Indian Museum, Calcutta. No drawing or photograph was ever made of the missing (summit) casket however, the earliest of the supposed finds. It is absent from the Indian Museum’s collection (and Accession List) of the Piprahwa items, and no mention of it occurs in Smith’s detailed list of the Piprahwa finds either (see ref. 46 (Smith) pp. 868-70). Of the twenty drawings of the Sagarwa and Piprahwa items which were listed in Fuhrer’s 1898 Progress Report, the three Piprahwa drawings are now missing from the ASI archives at Agra (including the drawing of the inscribed casket). As for the Piprahwa jewellery, Smith stated that ‘Mr Peppe has generously placed all the objects discovered at the disposal of Government, subject to the retention by him, on behalf of the proprietors of the estate, of a reasonable number of duplicates of the smaller objects’ (see ref. 47, Smith's reference to those ‘duplicates’ being later repeated in the JRAS : see ref. 46). Since recent events have shown, however, that Peppe retained one-third - 360 pieces - of the original items of Piprahwa jewellery, it is evident that this proposal to ‘place all the objects discovered at the disposal of Government’ was not met, and the question thus arises as to whether these items were unlawfully retained thereafter (see ‘The Sunday Times Magazine’ (UK) March 21st, 2004, pp. 36-42). One also wonders why Smith found it necessary to lie - to central Government, no less - upon the matter of those ‘duplicates’.
54. ‘Buddhism in England’ (Journal of the Buddhist Society, London) July 1931, pp. 61-4; Oct. 1931, p. 78; Mar- Apr. 1932, p. 180.
55. ‘Political and Secret’, Home Correspondence, 1898 (India Office Library, London). The official correspondence immediately following this discovery (see ref. 47) draws attention to the political advantages to be gained from awarding the relics to surrounding Buddhist countries, and also makes various pointed references to the presence in India at this time of a Siamese crown prince, Jinavarmavansa - a cousin to the King - who soon showed a keen interest in acquiring the bone relics for Siam.
56. See ‘Discovery of Kapilavastu’, by K. M. Srivastava (1986), ‘Buddha's Relics from Kapilavastu’ (same author) 1986, and ‘Excavations at Piprahwa and Ganwaria’ (1996). He also claimed to have discovered - precisely as Debala Mitra had earlier predicted - clay sealings bearing the word ‘Kapilavastu’, in monastic remains adjacent to the stupa (though neither Peppe nor Mukherji had found a single instance of these when they had earlier excavated at these selfsame remains). Alarmed by these claims however, that doyen of Buddhist archaeologists, Herbert Härtel, declared sharply at the 14th International EASAA Conference in Rome (1997) that ‘it is high time to set a token of ‘scientific correctness’ in this extremely important matter’, but his call for action went unheeded, authorities worldwide preferring to maintain a deafening silence instead (see Herbert Härtel, ‘On the Dating of the Piprahwa Vases’, in ‘South Asian Archaeology 1997’, Rome, 2000). In 2006, a conference was held under the auspices of the Royal Asiatic Society at Harewood House, in England, in an attempt to ‘clear the air’ over the vexed problem of Piprahwa, but it was decided not to publish the findings that were then disclosed (some of which have been published in this paper) the authorities electing, yet again, to discreetly close the lid on this particular Pandora’s box. It is, in fact, high time that this tiresome old ‘relic of Empire’ was finally put to bed, but since many powerful agendas are at stake here – religious, political, financial, and academic - this is unlikely to happen at present.
57. ‘The Travels of Fah-Hian and Sung-yun’, by Samuel Beal (1869) page before Preface.
58. Throughout this essay I have utilised Sir H. M. Elliot’s conclusion that the yojana of Fa-hsien was ‘as nearly as possible’ 7 miles, as revealed by the distances between known sites, e. g. Vaishali to Pataliputra (Patna) - 35 miles - which is given by Fa-hsien as 5 yojanas ; Elliot cites further examples also (‘Memoirs of the History, Folk-lore, and Distribution of the Races of the North-Western Provinces of India’, by Sir H. M. Elliot (1869) Vol. 2, pp. 195-6). This, in turn, shows the li of Yuan-chuang to have been about 308 yards, since this pilgrim cites 40 li to the yojana.
59. ‘Sravasti’, by V. A. Smith, JRAS (UK) 1900, pp. 6-7.
60. ‘Kausambi and Sravasti’, by V. A. Smith, JRAS (UK) 1898, pp. 520-31.
61. ‘The Site of Sravasti’, by J. Ph. Vogel, JRAS (UK) 1908, pp. 971-5, and ‘Archaeological Exploration in India, 1907-8’, by J. H. Marshall, JRAS (UK) 1908, pp. 1098-1104.
62. H. C. Conybeare, ‘Statistical, Descriptive and Historical Account of the North-Western Provinces of India’ (Vol. 6) 1881, p. 716.
63. ‘Archaeological Research on Ancient Buddhist Sites’, by Herbert Härtel, in ‘The Dating of the Historical Buddha’ (Pt.1) p. 62, (ed. Heinz Bechert, 1991).
64. ‘A Weaver Named Kabir’, by Charlotte Vaudeville (1993) pp. 56 and 61-2. According to Kabir, Maghar was ‘haramba’, from the Arabic ‘haram’, meaning ‘forbidden’ (the word ‘harem’ derives from the same root). Interestingly, a young Hindu at nearby Gorakhpur told me that his mother declared that it was unlucky to think of either Maghar or the (Buddhist) Kasia site in the early morning, a tradition also indicative of the ‘forbidden’ Buddhist nature of both places.
65. Gregory Schopen, ‘Burial ‘Ad Sanctos’ and the Physical Presence of the Buddha in Early Indian Buddhism’: Religion, Vol. 17, pp. 193-225 (1987). The issue of the Buddha’s ‘parinirvanic presence’ in stupas, images, relics, places, etc., is also examined in ‘Embodying the Dharma’, ed. by K. Trainor and D. Germano (New York, 2004) and ‘Relics of the Buddha’, by John S. Strong (Princeton University Press, 2004). See also ref. 84 (below).
66. ‘Report of Tours in Gorakhpur, Saran, and Ghazipur in 1878-80’, by A. C. L. Carlleyle, Archaeological Survey of India Reports (Old Series) Vol. 22, p. 72, (1885). See also ref. 64 (Vaudeville) p. 61-2. It is noteworthy that Carlleyle himself made not the slightest attempt to follow the implications of this extraordinary statement (and alas, gave no indications of its origin either) but his use of the word ‘reputed’ suggests that this information came from a local source. Even more extraordinary is the fact that nobody has since made the glaringly obvious connection between Carlleyle’s statement and the location of Kapilavastu, given the bearings which are cited by the pilgrims. Here, surely, was the key to the real whereabouts of Kapilavastu staring everyone right in the face.
67. See ref. 22 (Watters) p. 1., and ‘Travels of Fa-Hsien’, by H. A. Giles, p. 36 (1926). The pilgrims also visited the so-called ‘Scene of the Sakyan Massacre’, where Sakyan youths were said to have beem slaughtered in a vain attempt to ward off the attack on Kapilavastu. Since both pilgrims place this site to the north-west of the city, this provides yet further evidence of the fact that Kapilavastu lay to the south-east of Sravasti, from whence the attack came. Yuan-chuang also noted the remains of around 1000 ruined monasteries and ten ruined cities in the Kapilavastu region. Whilst such features appear to be absent from the areas around the present nominations for the site of Kapilavastu, Carlleyle noted that the remains at Tameshwar, near to Maghar, appeared to be those of ‘an ancient city of considerable size and importance... (with) many Buddhist viharas and monasteries’. Similar nearby sites were also noted by Carlleyle at the time of his visits in the 1870s - Koron-dih, Mahasthan, Bakhira-dih, etc. All still await excavation.
68. See ref. 64, pp. 61-79.
69. ‘The History, Antiquities, Topography, and Statistics of Eastern India’, (usually referred to as ‘Eastern India’) by Francis Buchanan-Hamilton (ed. R. M. Martin) Vol. 2, p. 393 (1838). The ‘Thakur-dih’ area is behind the very northernmost houses of the village, immediately to the south of the Gorakhpur-Basti road, and can be accessed from an old road/track which runs to the east of the main turn off into Maghar. It is near to Ghanshiampur. I would welcome any further information on this site (see my email address at the end of this paper). According to a recent website, Buddhist pilgrims are now increasingly visiting Maghar (presumably as a result of reading my conclusions) and the UP government has proposed that a park be built there in consequence. If so, it is much to be hoped that archaeological considerations are held uppermost in any such ‘development’.
70. This information, it should be noted, emerged quite spontaneously, and with no prompting from me. Such local traditions often persist strongly in rural areas. On rediscovering the remains of the ‘lost’ 7th century Chinese Nestorian Christian monastery of Da Qin in 1998, Martin Palmer discovered that local sources were also perfectly well aware of the former existence of the place, the tradition having persisted there for 1400 years.
71. ‘A Manual of Budhism’, by R. Spence Hardy (1853) p. 144. Since the present Lumbini site lies 27 kms. west of this river border, this would thus have located it deep inside any former Kapilavastu territory, and it would hardly have been considerd ‘neutral’ in consequence.
72. ‘Monumental Antiquities and Inscriptions of the North-Western Provinces’, by A. A. Fuhrer (1891) p. 242. See also Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (Part 1) p. 56 (1884), and Minutes of the Managing Committee (North-Western Provinces and Oudh Provincial Museum) Vol. 1, 1885-6, Appendix A (p. 107). Since Lucknow Museum has informed me that neither this casket nor its associated items can now be traced, no date for this deposit is presently available (though since coins were also found, this strongly suggests a Kushan provenance). For earlier topographical accounts of the site, see ref. 69 (Buchanan-Hamilton) pp. 352-3, and ref. 66 (Carlleyle) pp. 64-7. Buchanan-Hamilton referred to the presence of ‘many small detached heaps’ at the site during his visit in the early 1800s : were these votive stupas, one wonders? He also mentions two ancient shrines of Mohammedan holy men at Domingarh. Doubtless these were Sufi pirs, remarkably eclectic in their spiritual outlook, whose cult ‘often developed by taking over an old Buddhistical site’ according to Prof. Vaudeville (as Kabir did at Maghar). Though the decline of Buddhism in India often saw the conversion of remaining Indian Buddhists to Islam, this was done largely for pragmatic social reasons, and Buddhist sites and beliefs were by no means promptly abandoned by such conversions.
73. See ref. 77 (Sastri).
74. ‘Archaeological Geography of the Ganga Plain’, by Dilip Chakrabarti (2001) p. 219. Chakrabarti states that this was ‘personal information’ from Krishnanand Tripathi, of the Department of Ancient History at Gorakhpur University. When I telephoned Tripathi however, he chose not to answer my questions, referring me instead to Dr P. N. Singh of the Banaras Hindu University. A colleague of his, Dr R. N. Singh, promised to supply me with further details on the matter, but has signally failed to do so, referring darkly to unspecified ‘socio-political problems’ instead. I have thus been unable to obtain details of the BHU dig, when it was conducted, or by whom, and if anyone can obtain further details on these finds, please let me know (my email address is given above). Equally inexplicable – given the important 1884 discoveries noted in ref. 72 - is the absence of any earlier excavation at this site, particularly given the continued presence of both V. A. Smith and Hoey at Gorakhpur during the 1890s. An old bed of the Rohini formerly ran to the east of the Domingarh mound (cf. Yuan-chuang’s ‘little river of oil’) and if my conclusion that Domingarh was Lumbini is correct, then any Asokan pillar remains should be sought in this area. A road has recently been driven through the site, though it obviously warrants careful, prompt, and extensive archaeological excavation. As noted above however, the 1884 relic-casket find was made during the local railway construction, and the records show that great difficulty was had in providing support for the bridge across the Rohini. One suspects that the Domingarh site may thus have been plundered for ballast purposes, and like much else of ancient India, now lie lost forever beneath such works.
75. See ref. 22 (Watters) p. 15, and also ref. 69 (Buchanan-Hamilton) vol. 2, pp. 352-3: ‘It is called the Domingarh, or the castle of the Domlady’.
76. See ref. 22 (Watters) p. 20, and ref. 67 (Giles) p. 39.
77. Hirananda Sastri, Annual Report, Archaeological Survey of India (Northern Circle) 1910-11, p. 69. Sastri mentions ‘the very heavy square bricks of the Mauryan type of which it is mostly built’. Cf. the oldest bricks, ‘very large and thick, and of a square shape’, found at the Domingarh site mentioned earlier, and the similar bricks found at Rampurva (see section below on ‘Kusinara’) which Daya Ram Sahni identified as ‘the remnants of an extensive floor laid in Asoka’s time’ (‘Excavations at Rampurva’, ASI Director-General’s Report, 1907-08, p. 183).
78. The Ramabhar Tal (lake) : see A. Cunningham, Archaeological Survey of India Reports (Old Series) Vol. 1, Plate 27, and also ref. 77 (Sastri) p. 69. I note that in an 1893 letter to Hoey, L. A. Waddell had likewise concluded that ‘Kasia and the Ramabhar Chour (sic) is Ramagram’ (Papers of V. A. Smith, Special Collections and Western Manuscripts, Bodleian Library, Oxford University). See ref. 89 also.
79. The stupa appeared to be ‘the centre of a group of religious buildings’; see ref. 77 (Sastri) p. 70.
80. See ‘Kusinara or Kusinagara’, by V. A. Smith, JRAS (UK) 1902, p. 153 ; ‘Bihar ( = vihara)’. The State of Bihar is also said to have drawn its name from Muslim chroniclers, who noted the large number of Buddhist viharas in the province.
81. See ref. 69 (Buchanan-Hamilton) pp. 357-8. Sastri mentions an inscribed stone found at the south-eastern aspect of this stupa, which ‘has some five lines of writing on it which is much worn’ (ASI Annual Report, Northern Circle, 1911-12, p. 140). Unfortunately, he gives no date, script, or possible content of this inscription, and the stone itself now appears to have been either buried or removed. Was this the inscription seen by Yuan-chuang, which purportedly mentioned the appearance of the naga from the lake during Asoka’s visit?
82. J. Ph. Vogel, Annual Report, Archaeological Survey of India (Punjab and United Provinces Circle) 1904-5, p. 47. What is decipherable of the ‘inscription, greatly obliterated,’ which is found on this plaque?
83. See ref. 77 (Sastri), p. 72 (‘Miscellaneous’, no.17).
84. ‘Simply put, the presence of relics is equal to the presence of the Buddha. This is confirmed by early inscriptions.’ (‘Buddhist Reliquaries From Ancient India’, by Michael Willis, p. 14, British Museum Publications, 2000). See also ref. 65.
85. See ref. 22 (Watters) pp. 25-6, and ref. 23 (Bagchi) p. 70. It should always be borne in mind, I feel, that for Fa-hsien ‘east’ could mean anywhere east of a north-south axis (ditto with regard to other directions also) whilst for Yuan-chuang, similarly, ‘north-east’ meant anywhere between north and east. On the fascinating question of how the pilgrims navigated between sites, it must be remembered that the Chinese had utilised the lodestone as early as the 4th century BC, and that this had been improved by the introduction of a magnetized needle by 600 AD (which may account for Yuan-chuang's greater accuracy in these matters). As monks they would also have stayed in monasteries en route, where the resident monks would doubtless have supplied them with advice, guides, etc for their onward journey.
86. Champaran District Gazetteer (1907) by L. S. S. O’Malley, pp. 14-15.
87. Mahaparinibbana Sutta.
88. See ref. 80 (Smith) pp. 154-5, ref. 78 (Cunningham) p. 70, and Bengal Administration Reports for 1868-69, para. 273. The reports on this intriguing find are somewhat garbled, one saying ‘leaden coffins’, another an ‘iron coffin’. Were these perhaps Malla ( = ‘athlete’) skeletons, one wonders? The Buddha’s body was cremated inside two ‘iron vessels’, according to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta.
89. Having arrived at this conclusion by the simple expedient of following, on a map, the distances and directions from Sravasti to Kusinara which are given by the Chinese pilgrims, I was intrigued to note that L. A. Waddell, presumably using the same process, had arrived at a similar conclusion : ‘I believe that Kusinagara, where the Buddha died, may be ultimately found to the north of Bettiah, and in the line of the Asoka-pillars which lead hither from Patna (Pataliputra)’ (‘A Tibetan Guide-book to the Lost Sites of the Buddha's Birth and Death’, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1896, p. 279). Rampurva lies thirty-odd miles north of Bettiah along the Narkatiaganj-Gawnaha Road railway line, and about 3 kilometres s/w of the latter station. According to an unpublished 1897 report, Waddell deputed P.C. Mukherji to ‘search for the site of the Buddha’s Parinirvana in the jungly tract from Rampurva, where is an inscribed Asoka pillar, to Bhikna Thori’. Waddell and I thus arrived at identical conclusions regarding the whereabouts of both the Ramagrama and Kusinara sites simply by following the pilgrims’ directions, and though he elected to choose Lauriya Nandangarh, I am quite certain that he would have chosen nearby Rampurva if he had known that there were two pillars at the site (a fact discovered later). Moreover, one suspects that Sir John Marshall entertained similar notions also, particularly after the reconfirmation of Sahet-Mahet as Sravasti : hence, presumably, his evident interest in the apparently ‘missing’ inscription at Rampurva (see ref. 97, below). The Mukherji/Waddell report is among V. A. Smith’s papers at the Bodleian Library, Oxford (see ref. 78).
90. See ref. 22 (Watters) p. 28.
91. Ibid, pp. 39-42.
92. Ibid, p. 39.
93. Daya Ram Sahni, ‘Excavations at Rampurva’, Archaeological Survey of India, Director-General's Report (1907-8) p. 182 : ‘Up to the depth of 7 feet the digging was quite easy, for we were digging through layers of clay alternating at irregular intervals with sand, deposited obviously by some large river...’
94. See ref. 66 (Carlleyle) : the orientation arrow on Plate 6 (map) would appear to confirm this. See also ref. 93 (Sahni) p. 185. Since the pillars were subsequently moved to the top of the western mound near the ‘Southern’ pillar (see Ann. Rep., Arch. Surv. of India, Eastern Circle, 1912-13, p. 36) their original find-spots presumably await rediscovery at the site. Whilst the pillars at Sravasti have never been found, a correspondent informs me that in 1976 he saw part of one in use as a sugar-cane crusher in a nearby village, though on a later visit it had disappeared.
95. See ref. 66 (Carlleyle) p. 53.
96. See ref. 22 (Watters) pp. 39-40, and Theodor Bloch, Archaeological Survey of India (Eastern Circle) Annual Report, 1906-7, p. 121.
97. ‘Archaeological Exploration In India, 1907-8’, by J. H. Marshall, JRAS (UK) 1908, p. 1088. Since the upper part of this pillar was found lying on the Asokan flooring at the site (which is about ten feet below the surface) other researchers have concluded that it was broken at an early date, but I see no particular necessity to endorse this proposal. The lion-capital on the ‘Northern’ pillar would appear to have been deliberately - and literally – ‘defaced’ also (a notorious Muslim practice) and Cunningham records that a Muslim raiding-party, returning from Bengal, took cannon pot-shots at the nearby Lauriya Nandangarh lion-capital in 1660, damaging it in the mouth. The pillars at Rampurva could thus have been damaged along with these later events, and with the entire site being heavily waterlogged – ‘a morass’, according to Carlleyle and Garrick - the broken pieces from the ‘Southern’ pillar could easily have sunk down through the silt thereafter. Long trenches, over two metres deep, which were dug by Carlleyle in 1877, had silted over when Garrick visited the site a mere three years later.
98. V. A. Smith points out - quite correctly, in my opinion - that Fa-hsien's account regarding the location of this ‘leave-taking’ pillar (which this pilgrim states was inscribed) is in error, and that Yuan-chuang’s account is the more reliable in placing it close to Vaisali (see ref. 80 (Smith) pp. 146-9). Since the present Vaisali pillar appears to have sunk under its own vertical weight, its shaft has yet to be fully revealed in its entirety, and the question of whether it is inscribed remains unresolved in consequence.
99. ‘Vaisali’, by V. A. Smith, JRAS (UK) 1902, pp. 270-1. See also ref. 66 (Carlleyle) p. 50. The maps are available in the Map Room of the British Library, London, and the road is also shown on Plate 1 of the ASI Reports (Old Series) Vol. 16. Doubtless, the long-lost villages mentioned in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta lay along it - Kotigama, the Nadikas, Bhandagama, Hatthigama, etc - and presumably lay about 1 yojana (7 miles) apart.

Illustrations

Image
Fig. 1. Sign at present Lumbini site, 1994

Image
Fig. 2. P.C. Mukherji's 1899 drawing of the 'Mayadevi' sculpture (compare with Fig. 5). Note the dubious join of the top piece, and the Sivaite trident on the left.

Image
Fig. 3. Chulakoka (devata). (Bharhut Stupa).

Image
Fig. 4. Chanda (yakshini). (Bharhut Stupa).

Image
Fig. 5. Photograph of Fig. 2.

Image
Fig. 6. Landon's photograph (taken ca. 1920) showing P.C. Mukherji's assembly of a head of Ganesh on the torso of a female deity. Is this the correct torso for the 'Mayadevi' head? (see Figs. 2 and 5)

Image
Fig. 7. The sonari (Bhilsa) casket. Compare with Fig. 8.

Image
Fig. 8. The inscribed Piprahwa casket, photographed at Piprahwa in 1898. Note the appearance, on both caskets, of the final two characters above the inscriptional line.

Image
Fig. 9. The Mogallana casket (from one of the Sanchi stupas) as shown in Alexander Cunningham's book, 'Bhilsa Topes.'

Image
Fig. 10. The small (uninscribed) Piprahwa casket. Compare with Fig. 9 item.

Image
Fig. 11. The Sadhara (Bhilsa) casket Copyright The Trustees of The British Museum.

Image
Fig. 12. The lota from Piprahwa, photographed in 1898. Note double bands of incised rings (top and middle) as on Fig. 11 item. The vessels are also of identical size.

Image
Fig. 13. The 'Southern' pillar at Rampurva.

Image

Image
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36119
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Thu Jun 24, 2021 5:41 am

Part 1 of 2

Historical Dates From Puranic Sources
by Prof. Narayan Rao
vamadevananda.wordpress.com
https://vamadevananda.wordpress.com/tag ... ta-maurya/

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


-- A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature So Far As It Illustrates The Primitive Religion of the Brahmans, by Max Muller, M.A., Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford: Correspondant de l'Institut Imperial de France; Foreign Member of the Royal Bavarian Academy; Honorary Member of the Royal Society of Literature; Corresponding Member of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, and of the American Oriental Society; Member of the Asiatic Society of Paris, and of the Oriental Society of Germany; and Taylorian Professor in the University of Oxford, Printed by Spottiswoode and Co., 1859

-- Discourses Delivered Before the Asiatic Society: And Miscellaneous Papers, on The Religion, Poetry, Literature, Etc. of the Nations of India, by Sir William Jones, 1824

-- Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian; Being a Translation of the Fragments of the Indika of Megasthenes Collected by Dr. Schwanbeck, and of the First Part of the Indika of Arrian, by J.W. McCrindle, M.A., Principal of the Government College, Patna, Member of the General Council of the University of Edinburgh, Fellow of the University of Calcutta, With Introduction, Notes and Map of Ancient India, Reprinted (with additions) from the "Indian Antiquary," 1876-77, 1877

-- Errors in Arrian, by A. B. Bosworth

-- Bias in Ptolemy's History of Alexander, by R. M. Errington

-- Chandragupta Maurya, by Purushottam Lal Bhargava, M.A., Shastri, With a Foreword by Dr. Radha Kumud Mookerji, M.A., Ph.D., P.R.S. 1935

-- Who was Sandrocottus: Samudragupta or Chandragupta Maurya?, The Chronology of Ancient India, Victim of Concoctions and Distortions, by Vedveer Arya

-- Astronomical Dating of the Mahabharata War, by Dieter Koch


Highlights:

Sheet Anchor Date

Professor Max Muller improved upon the work of Sir William Jones by trying to correlate the Indian history with Greek history. One ancient event the date of which is well known in the Christian era is the invasion of Alexander. However, there is no mention whatsoever of Alexander or anything connected with his invasion in any Purana or any other ancient Indian account including the Buddhist Chronicles.

Professor Max Muller then searched the Greek accounts and the narrations of the other classical European writers for the name of any Indian ruler who could be located. One such name is Sandrocottus. He is said to have succeeded Xandramese who was a contemporary of Alexander. Sir William Jones had suggested that Chandragupta of Mudra Rakshasa could be the Sandrocottus of Greek history. Professor Max Muller confirmed this identification. His main purpose was to arrive at a chronology acceptable to the intellectuals of the nineteenth century. In fact his motives and methods are best described in his own words. In his “History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (Allahabad Edition 1859 A.D)” Professor Max Muller writes as follows …

There is but one means through which history of India can be connected with that of Greece, and its chronology be reduced to its proper limits. Although we look in vain in the literature of the Brahmanas or Buddhists for any allusion to Alexander’s conquest, and although it is impossible to identify any of the historical events, related by Alexander’s companions, with the historical traditions of India, one name has fortunately been preserved by classical writers who describe the events immediately following Alexander’s conquest, to form a connecting link between the history of the East and the West. This is the name of Sandrocottus or Sandrocyptus, the Sanskrit Chandragupta.

We learn from classical writers Justin, Arrian, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Quintus Curtius and Plutarch, that in Alexander’s time, there was on the Ganges a powerful king of the name of Xandramese, and that soon after Alexander’s invasion, a new empire was founded there by Sandrocottus who was succeeded by Sandrocyptus. These accounts of the classical writers contain a number of distinct statements which could leave very little doubt as to the king to whom they referred.

Indian historians, it is true, are generally so vague and so much given to exaggeration, that their kings are all very much alike, either all black or all bright. But nevertheless, if there ever was such a king of the Prasii, a usurper, residing at Pataliputra, called Sandrocottus; it is hardly possible that he should not be recognized in the historical traditions of India. The name of Chandragupta and the resemblance of this name with the name of Sandrocottus was first, I believe, pointed out by Sir William Jones. Dr. Wilford, Professor Wilson and Professor Lassen have afterwards added further evidence in confirmation of Sir William Jone’s conjecture; and although other scholars and particularly M. Troyer, in his edition of the Rajatarangini, have raised objections, we shall see that the evidence in favor of the identity of Chandragupta and Sandrocyptus is such as to admit of no reasonable doubt.


From this identification, the coronation of Mourya Chandragupta around the year 327 B.C. was taken as the sheet anchor date for Indian chronology. Though most of the modern scholars of Indian history do not know it, all the dates of ancient Indian history have been arrived at by calculating backward and forward from this sheet anchor date. For example Lord Buddha (according to some of the Buddhist chronicles) was born nearly 340 years before the coronation of Mourya Chandragupta. Accordingly his year of birth was fixed as 567 B.C.

Later, as more and more Puranic and Buddhist documents were discovered, those which did not conform to the aforesaid chronology were either ignored or stated to be unreliable. For example among the different documents on Lord Buddha the Ceylonese chronicles have been accepted as most reliable though those were written much later in the Christian era in Pali language. The orientalists who have continued the research after Professor Max Muller have only tried to add to the earlier chronology without questioning its validity.

Having worked out a chronology acceptable to the Europeans, the indologists started looking for archeological and other evidence to confirm it and this they thought they found in plenty in the form of stone inscriptions attributed to emperor Ashoka ... Their failure to arrive at the correct dates and details of the events was only due to the firm belief among the intellectuals of their time that the universe is less than 6000 years old. Unfortunately, in the process they have altered certain verses and otherwise mutilated the texts of the Puranas in their editions, such as Wilson’s Vishnu Purana, which are today most widely read.

The Christian missionaries have also been unintentionally guilty of such vandalism as they have often destroyed some of the manuscripts of Puranas which fell in their hands. They were doing so with the firm belief that by such destruction they are saving the posterity from these sin-provoking documents....

According to Puranic evidence, there had expired 1500 odd years after Parikshit, when Mahapadmananda was coronated.

Between Parikshit and the Nandas, there were 3 royal dynasties, namely the Brihadratha, Pradyota and Sisunaga families. The ten kings of the Sisunaga dynasty ruled for 360 years, beginning from 1994 BC and ending with 1634 BC At this time, an illegitimate son, Mahapadma-Nanda, of the last Sisunaga emperor, Mahanandi, ascended the throne of Magadha. The total regnal period of this Nanda dynasty was 100 years. After this with the assistance of Arya Chanakya, Chandragupta Maurya ascended the throne of Magadha, in the year 1534 BC.

The Mauryas ruled for a total of 316 years, and were replaced by the Sungas. The Kanvas, who succeeded the Sungas, were themselves overthrown by one of the Andhra chiefs, which dynasty reigned for a period of 506 years. Then followed the reign of the Sri Guptas for a period of 245 years, a period also referred to as the (last of the) golden ages of Bharata. It was Samudragupta of the Sri Gupta dynasty, who was known as Asokaditya Priyadarshin. The inscriptions of Asoka belong to this Gupta emperor and not to the Asoka Maurya who came to power 218 years after the Buddha....

The Hypotheses Of Sir William Jones...

That the Sandracottus mentioned in Megasthenes’ Indika was Chandragupta Maurya. He based this on two observations of Megasthenes: one, that Pataliputra was situated at the confluence of two rivers which he wrongly read to be the Sone and the Ganges. There are two wrong inferences made in this statement: a) Megasthenes never mentions Pataliputra, but he uses the term Palibothra as the capital and b) Megasthenes mentions the two rivers as the Ganga and the Erannoboas, which was the Greek word for Yamuna. The equivalent Sanskrit name of Yamuna was Hiranyabahu, as prevailed in those times. While Megasthenes mentions the Sone elsewhere in his work, he clearly does not associate it with Palibothra. But Sir William deliberately chose to associate the capital Palibothra with the confluence of the Sone and the Ganga, and hence read it as Patliputra...

After studying the fragments of Megasthenes’ Indika in detail, Pandit Bhagavad Datta offers another similar plausible explanation, and concludes: “Yamuna was flowing thru Palimbothra, known in ancient times as Paribhadra, the capital of the Prassi kingdom. Palimbothra was 200 miles from Prayag on the way to Mathura. The Kshatriyas were known as Paribhadrakas or Prabhadrakas. Their King was Chandraketu. The capital city of Paribhadra was near Sindhu Pulinda, which is in Madhya desa and is today known as Kali-Sindha. The Karusha reservoir was between Sindhu Pulinda and Prayag.”

However, after Sir William’s announcement, notwithstanding the aforesaid facts, Max Mueller anointed the identification of Sandracottus with Chandragupta Maurya and proceeded to declare Alexander’s invasion, and the subsequent visit of Megasthenes, as the sheet anchor of Indian History, neither of which events are of great significance in Indian history....

What Does Megasthenes Say About The Kings Who Ruled

1. He calls Sandracottus the king of the Prassi and he mentions the names of Xandramus as predecessor and Sandrocyptus as successor to Sandracottus. There is absolutely no resemblance in these names to Bindusara (the successor to Chandragupta Maurya) and Mahapadma Nanda, the predecessor.

2. He makes absolutely no mention of Chanakya or Vishnugupta, the Acharya who helped Chandragupta ascend the throne.

3. He makes no mention of the widespread presence of the Baudhik or Sramana tradition [Rishi tradition] during the time of the Maurya empire.

4. He claims the capital is Palimbothra or Palibothra, and that the city exists near the confluence of the Ganga and the Eranaboas (Hiranyabahu). But the Puranas are clear that all the 8 dynasties after the Mahabharata war had their capital at Girivraja (Rajagriha), located in the foothills of the Himalayas. There is no mention of Pataliputra in the Puranas. So, the assumption made by Sir William that Palimbothra is Pataliputra has no basis in fact and is not attested by any piece of evidence. If the Greeks could pronounce the first P in (Patali) they could certainly have pronounced the second p in Putra, instead of bastardising it as Palimbothra. Granted the Greeks were incapable of pronouncing any Indian names, but there is no reason why they should not be consistent in their phonetics.

5. The empire of Chandragupta was known as Magadha Empire. It had a long history even at the time of Chandragupta Maurya. In Indian literature, this powerful empire is amply described by its name but the same is absent in Greek accounts. It is difficult to understand as to why Megasthenes did not use this name “Magadha” and instead used the word Prassi, which has no equivalent or counterpart in Indian accounts....

That a person with such a scant knowledge of Sanskrit would have the audacity to rewrite the entire history of the Indian Civilization, based merely on scraps and remnants of a travelogue, written by an individual who is not even highly regarded by more revered Greek historians, is astonishing...

Surely such a sloppy, baseless conjecture would be reason enough to discredit the thesis. The Indics should have cringed when they were told that the undecipherable scrap of paper left of “Indika” was more credible than the Puranas written in a language with very little ambiguity; but such are the depths to which the Indic has sunk. He is apt to believe the words of a conqueror, who is not qualified to tell the story with any degree of accuracy and who is himself qualifying his proposal as something of a speculation, than the words of the great Rishis of yore, who wrote in the precise language of Sanskrit...

Megasthenes (ca. 350 BC – 290 BC) was a Greek traveler and geographer from Ionia in Asia Minor or present day Turkey. He became an ambassador of Seleucus of Syria to the court of Sandracottus (mistakenly believed to be Chandragupta Maurya) of India, in Pataliputra. However the exact date of his embassy is uncertain. Scholars place it before 288 BC. Arrian explains that Megasthenes lived in Arachosia, with the satrap Sibyrtius, from where he visited India: “Megasthenes lived with Sibyrtius, satrap of Arachosia, and often speaks of his visiting Sandracottus, the king of the Indians.” Arrian, Anabasis Alexandri.

We have more definite information regarding the parts of India which Megasthenes visited. He entered the country through the district of the Pentapotamia of the rivers, of which he gave a full account (thought to be the five affluents of the Indus, forming the Punjab region), and proceeded from there by the royal road to Pataliputra. There are accounts of Megasthenes having visited Madurai (then, a bustling city and capital of Pandya Kingdom), but appears to have not been to any other part of the country. His observations were recorded in Indika, a work that served as a source to later writers such as Strabo and Arrian. He describes such geographical features as the Himalayas and the island of Sri Lanka.

Megasthenes also mentioned the country’s caste system, more in terms of profession, status and personality descriptor. But the problem from an Indic perspective is that very little of the Indika survives intact today and we are left with second hand accounts of Greek historians. In fact McCrindle, in “Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arian,“ says that the Greek writers such as Megasthenes were not highly regarded and were prone to lying. Strabo was of the opinion that Megasthenes simply created fables and as such no faith could be placed in his writings. In Strabo’s own words: “Generally speaking the men who have written on the affairs of India were a set of liars. Deimachos is first, Megasthenes comes next.”

Diodorus also held similar opinions about him...

The Greek records mention Xandramas and Sandrocyptus as the kings immediately before and after Sandracottus. These names are not in any way phonetically similar to Mahapadma Nanda and Bindusara, who were respectively the predecessor and successor of Chandragupta Maurya. However, if Sandracottus refers to Chandragupta “Gupta”, Xandramas could be his predecessor Chandrashree alias Chandramas (the last of the main dynasty of Andhra Satavahana Kings) and Sandrocyptus to be Samudragupta. The phonetic similarity becomes quite apparent and other supporting evidence too confirms the identity of Sandracottus with Chandragupta Gupta...

In the Puranic and other ancient texts, there is no allusion to any invasion or inroad into India by foreign people up to the time of Andhra kings. The only person who bore a name similar to “Sandracottus” mentioned by the Greeks, who flourished at the time of Alexander, was Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty, who established a mighty empire on the ruins of the already decayed Andhra dynasty. His date from puranic records is 2811 years after the Mahabharata War, which corresponds to 328 B.C. His current place on the historical dateline is 4th Century AD, which is an obvious error.

It is also interesting to note that the accounts in the life of Sandracottus of the Greeks, the political and social conditions in India at that time, match with those of Chandragupta Gupta era. Therefore, the Greek and Puranic accounts agree only with the identity of Chandragupta Gupta and Sandracottus...

The truth of the matter is that the proto-historical thought prevailing in entire Western world until 18th Century was circumscribed by the Biblical premise: God’s creation was begun about 4000 BC! Nobody was without this limiting perspective while interpreting historical evidence -– written, oral or archeological. Jones remained true to the Biblical dogma of Genesis, which he took to be a literal account. His chronology for ancient India, including the dating of Chandragupta Maurya to the period of Alexander’s invasion of India, was dictated at least in part by the Biblical dogma....

As may be the case, there are two major disservice that Jones did to the Indic Civilisation. One was the possible misdating of Chandragupta Maurya by several centuries and the other was postulating the assumption of a PIE [Proto Indo European], which implied an Urheimat (ancestral home) from where the Indo Europeans fanned out to the four corners of the Eurasian landmass. By so doing, he laid the seeds for a fractured historical narrative for the Indics, which was not supported by any Indian legend, tradition or folklore. In short, he saddled the Indics with perpetually having to refute dual falsehoods: a false chronology and an imposed ‘Aryan Invasion’ or what has been light heartedly called the “Aryan Tourist theory.”

When it came to synchronism, the only significant data that Sir William could utilise was the Greek invasion under Alexander. This was the earliest date that he could come up with, and the data he had was the notes kept by Megasthenes, the ambassador sent to India by Seleucus Nikator, one of the generals of Alexander who broke away from the main Alexandrian empire to set up his own Satrapy....

Jones’ speech informs us of his fancies: that he has found a classical but nameless Sanskrit book of about 2,000 years before; that, Chandragupta Maurya was no other than the very Sandracottus who is described by Megasthenes to have made a treaty with Seleucus around 312 BC; and, to establish that Chandragupta belonged to the Maurya dynasty, he mentions about some poem by Somdev which speaks of the murder of Mahapadma of the Nanda dynasty and his eight sons by Chandragupta in order to usurp the kingdom.

In this way Jones created an arbitrary and fictitious connection between Chandragupta Maurya and Sandracottus.


-- Historical Dates From Puranic Sources, by Prof. Narayan Rao


Sheet Anchor Date

Professor Max Muller improved upon the work of Sir William Jones by trying to correlate the Indian history with Greek history. One ancient event the date of which is well known in the Christian era is the invasion of Alexander. However, there is no mention whatsoever of Alexander or anything connected with his invasion in any Purana or any other ancient Indian account including the Buddhist Chronicles.

Professor Max Muller then searched the Greek accounts and the narrations of the other classical European writers for the name of any Indian ruler who could be located. One such name is Sandrocottus. He is said to have succeeded Xandramese who was a contemporary of Alexander. Sir William Jones had suggested that Chandragupta of Mudra Rakshasa could be the Sandrocottus of Greek history. Professor Max Muller confirmed this identification. His main purpose was to arrive at a chronology acceptable to the intellectuals of the nineteenth century. In fact his motives and methods are best described in his own words. In his “History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (Allahabad Edition 1859 A.D)” Professor Max Muller writes as follows …


There is but one means through which history of India can be connected with that of Greece, and its chronology be reduced to its proper limits. Although we look in vain in the literature of the Brahmanas or Buddhists for any allusion to Alexander’s conquest, and although it is impossible to identify any of the historical events, related by Alexander’s companions, with the historical traditions of India, one name has fortunately been preserved by classical writers who describe the events immediately following Alexander’s conquest, to form a connecting link between the history of the East and the West. This is the name of Sandrocottus or Sandrocyptus, the Sanskrit Chandragupta.

We learn from classical writers Justin, Arrian, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Quintus Curtius and Plutarch, that in Alexander’s time, there was on the Ganges a powerful king of the name of Xandramese, and that soon after Alexander’s invasion, a new empire was founded there by Sandrocottus who was succeeded by Sandrocyptus. These accounts of the classical writers contain a number of distinct statements which could leave very little doubt as to the king to whom they referred.

Indian historians, it is true, are generally so vague and so much given to exaggeration, that their kings are all very much alike, either all black or all bright. But nevertheless, if there ever was such a king of the Prasii, a usurper, residing at Pataliputra, called Sandrocottus; it is hardly possible that he should not be recognized in the historical traditions of India. The name of Chandragupta and the resemblance of this name with the name of Sandrocottus was first, I believe, pointed out by Sir William Jones. Dr. Wilford, Professor Wilson and Professor Lassen have afterwards added further evidence in confirmation of Sir William Jone’s conjecture; and although other scholars and particularly M. Troyer, in his edition of the Rajatarangini, have raised objections, we shall see that the evidence in favor of the identity of Chandragupta and Sandrocyptus is such as to admit of no reasonable doubt.


From this identification, the coronation of Mourya Chandragupta around the year 327 B.C. was taken as the sheet anchor date for Indian chronology. Though most of the modern scholars of Indian history do not know it, all the dates of ancient Indian history have been arrived at by calculating backward and forward from this sheet anchor date. For example Lord Buddha (according to some of the Buddhist chronicles) was born nearly 340 years before the coronation of Mourya Chandragupta. Accordingly his year of birth was fixed as 567 B.C.

Errors In Dating

Later, as more and more Puranic and Buddhist documents were discovered, those which did not conform to the aforesaid chronology were either ignored or stated to be unreliable. For example among the different documents on Lord Buddha the Ceylonese chronicles have been accepted as most reliable though those were written much later in the Christian era in Pali language. The orientalists who have continued the research after Professor Max Muller have only tried to add to the earlier chronology without questioning its validity. Certain observations about the sheet anchor date are given in Appendix II.

Having worked out a chronology acceptable to the Europeans, the indologists started looking for archeological and other evidence to confirm it and this they thought they found in plenty in the form of stone inscriptions attributed to emperor Ashoka (and some other kings such as Kharabela). Here it must be emphasized that the European indologists deserve all the credit for their efforts to work out a detailed history of ancient India. Their failure to arrive at the correct dates and details of the events was only due to the firm belief among the intellectuals of their time that the universe is less than 6000 years old. Unfortunately, in the process they have altered certain verses and otherwise mutilated the texts of the Puranas in their editions, such as Wilson’s Vishnu Purana, which are today most widely read.

Many of the extant manuscripts were written on palm leaf or copied during the British India colonial era, some in the 19th century. The scholarship on Vishnu Purana, and other Puranas, has suffered from cases of forgeries, states Ludo Rocher, where liberties in the transmission of Puranas were normal and those who copied older manuscripts replaced words or added new content to fit the theory that the colonial scholars were keen on publishing.

-- Vishnu Purana, by Wikipedia


The Christian missionaries have also been unintentionally guilty of such vandalism as they have often destroyed some of the manuscripts of Puranas which fell in their hands. They were doing so with the firm belief that by such destruction they are saving the posterity from these sin-provoking documents.

Because...the content of this literature is partly extremely unpleasant... it is precisely for that reason that it is all the more desirable that the original and the old are emphasized. -- August Blau

-- Frederick Eden Pargiter: Excerpt from The Puranas, by Ludo Rocher


However, sufficient number of the different versions of the different Puranas is still available in the monasteries in India, as well as the libraries in Great Britain, Germany, America and other countries for a complete and correct chronology of Indian history to be worked out.

In calculating the dates from the Puranas the following procedure should be adopted to rectify the errors and discrepancies.

1. Proper distinction should be made between the Puranas and the other ancient texts. For example, Abhigyana Shakuntalam, Mudra Rakshasa, Raghu Vansa, Harsha Charita etc. are magnificent literary works and not historical documents.

2. In some Puranas the dates are given in more than one era. In such cases comparison should be made to detect any possible error. Possible grammatical errors as well as the consistency and continuity of the verses should be carefully checked.

3 The dates of events worked out from different Puranas should be tallied and compared with the dates worked out from astronomical data.

Image
The iron pillar in the Qutb complex near Delhi, India. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Indian History And Its Historians

Image
Coin of the Gupta king Chandragupta II

Part IV: Who Ruled North India During Megasthenes’ Visit? (contd)

According to Puranic evidence, there had expired 1500 odd years after Parikshit, when Mahapadmananda was coronated.

Mahapadma Nanda (IAST: Mahāpadmānanda; c. 4th century BCE), according to the Puranas, was the first Emperor of the Nanda Empire of ancient India. The Puranas describe him as a son of the last Shaishunaga king Mahanandin and a Shudra woman, and credit him with extensive conquests. The different Puranas variously give the length of his reign as 28 or 88 years, and state that his eight sons ruled in succession after him.

The Buddhist texts don't mention him, and instead name the first Nanda ruler as robber-turned-king Ugrasena, who was succeeded by his eight brothers, the last of whom was Dhana Nanda.


-- Mahapadma Nanda, by Wikipedia


Between Parikshit and the Nandas, there were 3 royal dynasties, namely the Brihadratha, Pradyota and Sisunaga families. The ten kings of the Sisunaga dynasty ruled for 360 years, beginning from 1994 BC and ending with 1634 BC At this time, an illegitimate son, Mahapadma-Nanda, of the last Sisunaga emperor, Mahanandi, ascended the throne of Magadha. The total regnal period of this Nanda dynasty was 100 years. After this with the assistance of Arya Chanakya, Chandragupta Maurya ascended the throne of Magadha, in the year 1534 BC.

The Mauryas ruled for a total of 316 years, and were replaced by the Sungas. The Kanvas, who succeeded the Sungas, were themselves overthrown by one of the Andhra chiefs, which dynasty reigned for a period of 506 years. Then followed the reign of the Sri Guptas for a period of 245 years, a period also referred to as the (last of the) golden ages of Bharata.
It was Samudragupta of the Sri Gupta dynasty, who was known as Asokaditya Priyadarshin. The inscriptions of Asoka belong to this Gupta emperor and not to the Asoka Maurya who came to power 218 years after the Buddha.


Narahari Achar of Memphis University has confirmed several of these dates, including that of the Buddha, using the Planetarium software that has its algorithms based on Celestial Mechanics. The method has established that the Puranic dates are correct based on the sky observations that were recorded by the ancients. This must be regarded as an independent verification since the principles of celestial mechanics were unknown to the ancient Indic.

The eighteen major and eighteen minor purāṇās make up an enormous body of Sanskrit literature, not easy to read, much less to synthesize to see the common cultural threads linking them to the Ṛgveda... All the important purāṇas describe the night sky and present ancient astronomical models based on Meru and the Pole Star. In a few of the available texts the nucleus of this sky model can be traced back to the Vedas. The BP one of the earliest among the eighteen purāṇa explains the waxing and waning of moon as part of its astronomy...

Since, at present, the texts are inflated and have many errors due to transmission and copying problems, it is difficult to discuss the numbers mentioned differently in some of these texts....

It is known that no absolute dates can be put forth for any of the eighteen Purāṇa texts, which have grown over time with bulky additions. But, all or most of them retain the story of Dhruva as the Pole Star with variant readings. This is a clear indication of the branching of the Purāṇas from a nucleus which lies in the Vedic texts such as the TA and the ekāgni-kāṇḍa which knew the prominent constellation Śiśumara with 14 stars, the fixed Dhruva and the Meru connecting the earth with the NCP. Among the Purāṇas it is in BP we find matter of fact statements about Dhruva. As far as ancient astronomy and cosmology are concerned, BP preserves the original concepts, out of which the Viṣṇu, Vāyu, Lińga and Matsya Purāṇa have bifurcated with further variations. This chronological perspective finds support in the works of a few indologists also...

In the identification of the equinox day, BP mentions that when Sun is in the first quarter of kṛttikā (Alcyone) and Moon in the fourth quarter of viśākha (α-Libra), the day and night are equal. Similarly when Sun is in the third quarter of viśākha and Moon is at the beginning of kṛttikā it is viṣuvam (equinox). This statement appears in several of the Purāṇas and hence cannot be ignored as spurious. This has been discussed in detail in relation to other ancient astronomical statements by Koch123, to show that the record preserved in the Purāṇas holds valid for 1885-1645 BCE.

-- Ancient Indian Astronomy in Vedic Texts, by R.N. Iyengar


The Hypotheses Of Sir William Jones

He made the following inferences from the work of Megasthenes, which were in retrospect colossal errors …

1. That the puranic chronology was completely erroneous.

2. That the Sandracottus mentioned in Megasthenes’ Indika was Chandragupta Maurya. He based this on two observations of Megasthenesa : one, that Pataliputra was situated at the confluence of two rivers which he wrongly read to be the Sone and the Ganges. There are two wrong inferences made in this statement : a) Megasthenes never mentions Pataliputra, but he uses the term Palibothra as the capital and b) Megasthenes mentions the two rivers as the Ganga and the Erannoboas, which was the Greek word for Yamuna. The equivalent Sanskrit name of Yamuna was Hiranyabahu, as prevailed in those times. While Megasthenes mentions the Sone elsewhere in his work, he clearly does not associate it with Palibothra. But Sir William deliberately chose to associate the capital Palibothra with the confluence of the Sone and the Ganga, and hence read it as Patliputra.

It seems necessary to fix with precision the sense in which we mean to speak of advantage or utility....nor should we wholly exclude even the trivial and worldly sense of utility, which too many consider as merely synonymous with lucre, but should reckon among useful objects those practical, and by no means illiberal arts, which may eventually conduce both to national and to private emolument. With a view then to advantages thus explained... [and] consistent with our chief object already mentioned, we may properly begin with the Civil History of the Five Asiatic Nations, which necessarily comprises their geography, or a description of the places where they have acted, and their astronomy, which may enable us to fix with some accuracy the time of their actions...

In the first place, we cannot surely deem it an inconsiderable advantage that all our historical researches have confirmed the Mosaic accounts of the primitive world; and our testimony on that subject ought to have the greater weight, because, if the result of our observations had been totally different, we should nevertheless have published them, not indeed with equal pleasure, but with equal confidence; for truth is mighty, and, whatever be its consequences, must always prevail; but, independently of our interest in corroborating the multiplied evidences of revealed religion, we could scarce gratify our minds with a more useful and rational entertainment than the contemplation of those wonderful revolutions in kingdoms and states which have happened within little more than four thousand years...

That no Hindu nation but the Cashmirians, have left us regular histories in their ancient language, we must ever lament; but from the Sanscrit literature, which our country has the honour of having unveiled, we may still collect some rays of historical truth, though time and a series of revolutions have obscured that light which we might reasonably have expected from so diligent and ingenious a people. The numerous Puranas and Itihasas, or poems mythological and heroic, are completely in our powers and from them we may recover some disfigured but valuable pictures of ancient manners and governments; while the popular tales of the Hindus, in prose and in verse, contain fragments of history; and even in their dramas we may find as many real characters and events as a future age might find in our own plays, if all histories of England were, like those of India, to be irrecoverably lost. For example: A most beautiful poem by Somadeva, comprising a very long chain of instinctive and agreeable stories, begins with the famed revolution at Pataliputra, by the murder of king Nanda with his eight sons, and the usurpation of Chandragupta; and the same revolution is the subject of a tragedy in Sanscrit, entitled, the Coronation of Chandra, the abbreviated name of that able and adventurous usurper. From these once concealed, but now accessible, compositions, we are enabled to exhibit a more accurate sketch of old Indian history than the world has yet seen, especially with the aid of well attested observations on the places of the colures....Now the age of Vicramaditya is given; and if we can fix on an Indian prince contemporary with Seleucus, we shall have three given points in the line of time between Rama, or the first Indian colony, and Chandrabija, the last Hindu monarch who reigned in Bahar; so that only eight hundred or a thousand years will remain almost wholly dark...while the abstract sciences are all truth, and the fine arts all fiction, we cannot but own, that in the details of history, truth and fiction are so blended as to be scarce distinguishable.

By collating many copies of the same work, we may correct blunders of transcribers in tables, names, and descriptions.

Geography, astronomy, and chronology have, in this part of Asia, shared the fate of authentic history; and, like that, have been so masked and bedecked in the fantastic robes of mythology and metaphor, that the real system of Indian philosophers and mathematicians can scarce be distinguished: an accurate knowledge of Sanscrit, and a confidential intercourse with learned Brahmens, are the only means of separating truth from fable; and we may expect the most important discoveries from two of our members, concerning whom it may be safely asserted, that if our Society should have produced no other advantage than the invitation given to them for the public display of their talents, we should have a claim to the thanks of our country and of all Europe. Lieutenant Wilford has exhibited an interesting specimen of the geographical knowledge deducible from the Puranas, and will in time present you with so complete a treatise on the ancient world known to the Hindus, that the light acquired by the Greeks will appear but a glimmering in comparison of that he will diffuse; while Mr. Davis, who has given us a distinct idea of Indian computations and cycles, and ascertained the place of the colures at a time of great importance in history, will hereafter disclose the systems of Hindu astronomers, from Nared and Parasar to Meya, Varahamihir, and Bhascar; and will soon, I trust, lay before you a perfect delineation of all the Indian asterisms in both hemispheres, where you will perceive so strong a general resemblance to the constellations of the Greeks, as to prove that the two systems were originally one and the same, yet with such a diversity in parts, as to show incontestibly that neither system was copied from the other; whence it will follow, that they must have had some common source.

The jurisprudence of the Hindus and Arabs being the field which I have chosen for my peculiar toil, you cannot expect that I should greatly enlarge your collection of historical knowledge; but I may be able to offer you some occasional tribute; and I cannot help mentioning a discovery which accident threw in my way, though my proofs must be reserved for an essay which I have destined for the fourth volume of your Transactions. To fix the situation of that Palybothra (for there may have been several of the name) which was visited and described by Megasthenes, had always appeared a very difficult problem, for though it could not have been Prayaga, where no ancient metropolis ever stood, nor Canyacubja, which has no epithet at all resembling the word used by the Greeks; nor Gaur, otherwise called Lacshmanavati, which all know to be a town comparatively modern, yet we could not confidently decide that it was Pataliputra, though names and most circumstances nearly correspond, because that renowned capital extended from the confluence of the Sone and the Ganges to the site of Patna, while Palibothra stood at the junction of the Ganges and Erannoboas, which the accurate M. D'Ancille had pronounced to be the Yamuna; but this only difficulty was removed, when I found in a classical Sanscrit book, near 2000 years old, that Hiranyabahu, or golden armed, which the Greeks changed into Erannoboas, or the river with a lovely murmur, was in fact another name for the Sona itself; though Megasthenes, from ignorance or inattention, has named them separately. This discovery led to another of greater moment, for Chandragupta, who, from a military adventurer, became like Sandracottus the sovereign of Upper Hindustan, actually fixed the seat of his empire at Pataliputra, where he received ambassadors from foreign princes; and was no other than that very Sandracottus who concluded a treaty with Seleucus Nicator; so that we have solved another problem, to which we before alluded, and may in round numbers consider the twelve and three hundredth years before Christ, as two certain epochs between Rama, who conquered Silan a few centuries after the flood, and Vicramaditya, who died at Ujjayini fifty-seven years before the beginning of our era.

-- Discourse X. Delivered February 28, 1793, P. 192, Excerpt from "Discourses Delivered Before the Asiatic Society: And Miscellaneous Papers, on The Religion, Poetry, Literature, Etc. of the Nations of India", by Sir William Jones, 1824


We quote the following passage of Sunil Bhattacharya from his paper:

“Even though Megasthenes had specifically mentioned Sone separately, yet Sir Jones conveniently stated that Megasthenes mentioned about Sone negligently. But there was none in those days to protest against such horrendous accusation hurled at Megasthenes. Present day well-informed historians know that there was indeed the city of Pratisthanpur at the confluence of Ganga and Yamuna, which was also mentioned by the great poet Kalidasa of the 8th century BCE, in his drama “Vikramorvashiya”. The city of Pratisthanpur was destroyed completely about one thousand years ago by a devastating fire and from that time onward that city has been known as Jhusi (or Jhunsi), a name derived from the Hindi word Jhulasna or “to burn.” Megasthenes stated that in those days all buildings / houses near rivers and the sea were made of wood and Palibuthra, being at the confluence of Ganga and Yamuna, was no exception; and that the structures with brick and clay were built only in places far away from the rivers and the sea. Thus it appears possible that the fire destroyed all the traces of the ancient wooden structures, if any of these at all survived till the time of the devastating fire. Jhusi is located towards the east of Allahabad, just across the river Ganga. Archaeologists have found grains and other artifacts in the mounds of Jhusi, which dates back to before the 4th century BCE. The Asoka pillar found in Jhusi had inscriptions of Samudragupta and it was shifted to the Allahabad Fort and the emperor Jahangir also made his inscription on it. The Asoka inscription on it was of Samudragupta, after he had converted to Buddhism and had assumed the name of Asokaditya. All the Gupta kings had their second names ending in “-aditya”.'


After studying the fragments of Megasthenes’ Indika in detail, Pandit Bhagavad Datta offers another similar plausible explanation, and concludes: “Yamuna was flowing thru Palimbothra, known in ancient times as Paribhadra, the capital of the Prassi kingdom. Palimbothra was 200 miles from Prayag on the way to Mathura. The Kshatriyas were known as Paribhadrakas or Prabhadrakas. Their King was Chandraketu. The capital city of Paribhadra was near Sindhu Pulinda, which is in Madhya desa and is today known as Kali-Sindha. The Karusha reservoir was between Sindhu Pulinda and Prayag.”

However, after Sir William’s announcement, notwithstanding the aforesaid facts, Max Mueller anointed the identification of Sandracottus with Chandragupta Maurya and proceeded to declare Alexander’s invasion, and the subsequent visit of Megasthenes, as the sheet anchor of Indian History, neither of which events are of great significance in Indian history.

Troyer did not agree with this conclusion and noted this fact in the introduction to his translation of Rajatarangini of Kalhana. He even communicated his views to Prof. Max Mueller in a letter but did not receive a reply. Max Mueller ignored the objections of Troyer and Colebrook, and hailed the discovery and Sir Jones’ inferences as authentic!


What Does Megasthenes Say About The Kings Who Ruled

1. He calls Sandracottus the king of the Prassi and he mentions the names of Xandramus as predecessor and Sandrocyptus as successor to Sandracottus. There is absolutely no resemblance in these names to Bindusara (the successor to Chandragupta Maurya) and Mahapadma Nanda, the predecessor.

2. He makes absolutely no mention of Chanakya or Vishnugupta, the Acharya who helped Chandragupta ascend the throne.

3. He makes no mention of the widespread presence of the Baudhik or Sramana tradition [Rishi tradition] during the time of the Maurya empire.

4. He claims the capital is Palimbothra or Palibothra, and that the city exists near the confluence of the Ganga and the Eranaboas (Hiranyabahu). But the Puranas are clear that all the 8 dynasties after the Mahabharata war had their capital at Girivraja (Rajagriha), located in the foothills of the Himalayas. There is no mention of Pataliputra in the Puranas. So, the assumption made by Sir William that Palimbothra is Pataliputra has no basis in fact and is not attested by any piece of evidence. If the Greeks could pronounce the first P in (Patali) they could certainly have pronounced the second p in Putra, instead of bastardising it as Palimbothra. Granted the Greeks were incapable of pronouncing any Indian names, but there is no reason why they should not be consistent in their phonetics.

5. The empire of Chandragupta was known as Magadha Empire. It had a long history even at the time of Chandragupta Maurya. In Indian literature, this powerful empire is amply described by its name but the same is absent in Greek accounts. It is difficult to understand as to why Megasthenes did not use this name “Magadha” and instead used the word Prassi, which has no equivalent or counterpart in Indian accounts.


The Colossal Error In Indian Historiography

This is indeed a remarkable tale even when viewed from the different perspectives of the Indic and the Occidental. That a person with such a scant knowledge of Sanskrit would have the audacity to rewrite the entire history of the Indian Civilization, based merely on scraps and remnants of a travelogue, written by an individual who is not even highly regarded by more revered Greek historians, is astonishing and bespeaks a degree of hubris that matches the grandeur of the Himalayas. In fairness to Sir William, it must be said that he himself may be utterly surprised at the seriousness with which his speculations were received and subsequently anointed by scholars at home. This is in addition to the great weight that is given to Greek historians’ writing about India, despite their atrocious bastardisation of Sanskrit terms.

And even if Sir William believed he had a good cause to stand by, what of the Indics of the modern era? Have the Indics taken leave of their senses? Surely such a sloppy, baseless conjecture would be reason enough to discredit the thesis. The Indics should have cringed when they were told that the undecipherable scrap of paper left of “Indika” was more credible than the Puranas written in a language with very little ambiguity; but such are the depths to which the Indic has sunk. He is apt to believe the words of a conqueror, who is not qualified to tell the story with any degree of accuracy and who is himself qualifying his proposal as something of a speculation, than the words of the great Rishis of yore, who wrote in the precise language of Sanskrit.

There is a palpable sense of frustration when we see that more than 50 years after Independence we still teach the chronology that was erroneously derived from the torn fragments of Indika.

… to be continued
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36119
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Thu Jun 24, 2021 7:09 am

Part 2 of 2

Indian History And Its Historians

Part III: WHO WAS RULING IN INDIA DURING THE VISIT OF MEGASTHENES


In order to examine these hypotheses we must digress to the characterisation of Megasthenes by Greek historians such as Arrian, Strabo and Diodorus.

Megasthenes (ca. 350 BC – 290 BC) was a Greek traveler and geographer from Ionia in Asia Minor or present day Turkey. He became an ambassador of Seleucus of Syria to the court of Sandracottus (mistakenly believed to be Chandragupta Maurya) of India, in Pataliputra. However the exact date of his embassy is uncertain. Scholars place it before 288 BC. Arrian explains that Megasthenes lived in Arachosia, with the satrap Sibyrtius, from where he visited India: “Megasthenes lived with Sibyrtius, satrap of Arachosia, and often speaks of his visiting Sandracottus, the king of the Indians.” Arrian, Anabasis Alexandri.

We have more definite information regarding the parts of India which Megasthenes visited. He entered the country through the district of the Pentapotamia of the rivers, of which he gave a full account (thought to be the five affluents of the Indus, forming the Punjab region), and proceeded from there by the royal road to Pataliputra. There are accounts of Megasthenes having visited Madurai (then, a bustling city and capital of Pandya Kingdom), but appears to have not been to any other part of the country. His observations were recorded in Indika, a work that served as a source to later writers such as Strabo and Arrian. He describes such geographical features as the Himalayas and the island of Sri Lanka.

Megasthenes also mentioned the country’s caste system, more in terms of profession, status and personality descriptor. But the problem from an Indic perspective is that very little of the Indika survives intact today and we are left with second hand accounts of Greek historians. In fact McCrindle, in “Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arian,“ says that the Greek writers such as Megasthenes were not highly regarded and were prone to lying. Strabo was of the opinion that Megasthenes simply created fables and as such no faith could be placed in his writings. In Strabo’s own words: “Generally speaking the men who have written on the affairs of India were a set of liars. Deimachos is first, Megasthenes comes next.”

Diodorus also held similar opinions about him.
So who and what should we believe? It was Dr. Schwanbeck who, we are told, had collected all the fragments that were extant at that time, and who finally comes to the conclusion that Megasthenes can be largely vindicated of the charge of mendacity (that was leveled at a host of other Greek historians).

The Greek records mention Xandramas and Sandrocyptus as the kings immediately before and after Sandracottus. These names are not in any way phonetically similar to Mahapadma Nanda and Bindusara, who were respectively the predecessor and successor of Chandragupta Maurya. However, if Sandracottus refers to Chandragupta “Gupta”, Xandramas could be his predecessor Chandrashree alias Chandramas (the last of the main dynasty of Andhra Satavahana Kings) and Sandrocyptus to be Samudragupta. The phonetic similarity becomes quite apparent and other supporting evidence too confirms the identity of Sandracottus with Chandragupta Gupta. The correction also settles the ridiculous start of Vikram Era from 58 BC, while Vikramaditya himself is placed about four centuries later!

The Puranas transmit the Hindu tradition and historical records to successive generations. In fact we are told in the Mahabharata that ‘the Vedas are afraid of him who has not studied the Epics and the Puranas, for he would indeed kill them with his ignorance of the truth propounded in them.’

The Puranas are a class of literary texts, all written in Sanskrit verse, whose composition dates from the time of Veda Vyasa, who lived at the time of the Mahabharata War. The Puranas are regarded by some as the Veda when studied under a magnifying glass. The word “Purana” means “old” and in fact Panini assigns the meaning “complete” (cognate with purna). Generally they are considered as following the chronological aftermath of the epics, though sometimes the Mahabharata, which is generally classified as an Itihaasa (history), is also referred to as a Purana.

Some scholars, such as van Buitenen, are inclined to view the Puranas as beginning around the time that the composition of the Mahabharata came to a close. Certainly, in its final form the Mahabharata shows puranic features, and the Harivamsa (appended to the Mahabharata), wherein the life of Krishna or Hari is treated at some length, has sometimes been seen as a purana. The special subject of the Puranas is the powers and works of the gods, and one ancient Sanskrit lexicographer, Amarasinha, regarded by some as a Jain and by others as a Buddhist, reputed to be a courtier of Vikramaditya, defined a purana as having five characteristic topics, or pancalaksana:

• The creation of the universe, Sarga;
• Its destruction and renovation, Prati-sarga;
• The genealogy of gods and patriarchs, Vamsa;
• The reigns of the Manus, forming the periods called Manavantaras;
• The history of the Solar and Lunar races of kings, Vamsanucharita.

No one purana exhibits in detail all five of these distinguishing inclusions, but some regard the Vishnu Purana as most close to the traditional definition. Vyasa composed the Puranas in 400,000 “Grantha”. A Grantha is a stanza consisting of 32 syllables. Of these, the Skanda Purana alone accounts for 100,000. It is perhaps the world’s biggest literary work. The remaining 17 Puranas add up to 300,000 Granthas. Apart from them, Vyasa composed the Mahabharata, which contains nearly 100,000 Granthas.

Each Purana is devoted to a particular deity. There are Saiva, Vaisnava and Sakta Puranas. The 18 Puranas are: Brahma Purana (Brahma), Padma Purana (Padma), Narada Purana (Naradiya), Markandeya Purana, Visnu Purana (Vaisnava), Siva Purana(Saiva), Bhagvata Purana, Agni Purana (Agneya), Bhavisya Purana, Brahma-Vaivarta Purana, Linga Purana, Varaha Purana (Varaha), Skanda Mahapurana, Vamana Purana, Kurma Purana (Kaurma), Matsya Purana (Matsya), Garuda Purana (Garuda) and Brahmanda Purana.

In the Puranic and other ancient texts, there is no allusion to any invasion or inroad into India by foreign people up to the time of Andhra kings. The only person who bore a name similar to “Sandracottus” mentioned by the Greeks, who flourished at the time of Alexander, was Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty, who established a mighty empire on the ruins of the already decayed Andhra dynasty. His date from puranic records is 2811 years after the Mahabharata War, which corresponds to 328 B.C. His current place on the historical dateline is 4th Century AD, which is an obvious error.

It is also interesting to note that the accounts in the life of Sandracottus of the Greeks, the political and social conditions in India at that time, match with those of Chandragupta Gupta era. Therefore, the Greek and Puranic accounts agree only with the identity of Chandragupta Gupta and Sandracottus.
A complete picture of the Dynastic lists and the names of individual Kings of the Magadha Empire is furnished here below:

1. Birth of Bhishma ………………….. ………………………………..3396 B.C
2. Birth of Vedavyasa…………………. ………………………………3374 ,,
3. Age of Vysampayana…………………. ……………………………3300 ,,
4. Age of Yaajnavalkya………………… ……………………………..3280 ,,
5. Kanwa Rishi……………………….. …………………………………..3250 ..
6. Bodhayana (Sutrakara)………………. ………………………….3200 ,,
7. The Saptarshis (or the Great Bear) entered Magha…3176 ,,
8. Coronation of Yudhistira at Sakraprastha … …………..3176 ,, (before the War)
9. Yudhistira lost his Empire in the game of Dice……….. 3151 ..
10. Murder of Keechaka by Bhimasena……………………… 3139 ,,
11. Date of Mahabharata War…………….. ……… 3138 ,,
12. Coronation of Yudhistira……………. …………………………3138 ,,
13. Yudhistira Era begins………………. …………………………..3138 ,,
14. Birth of Parikshit…………………. ……………………………….3138 ,,
15. Coronation of Brihatkshana, king of Ayodhya ……… 3138 ,, (Ikshwaku Dynasty)
16. Coronation of Maarjaari / Somadhi, king of Magadha 3138 ,, (after the War)
17. Coronation of Gali (king of Nepal) …………………….. …3138 ,, (after the War)
18. Coronation of Gonanda-II, king of Kashmir ………….3139
19. Sri Krishna Nirvana ……………….. …………………………..3102 ,,
20. Kali Era begins (Cycle year Pramaadhi)… 3102 ,,
21. Submersion of Dwaraka-Nagara…………. ………………3102 ,,
22. Annihilation of Yadava Dynasty……….. …………………3102 ,,
23. Coronation of Parikshit……………… ………………………..3101 ,,
24. Jayabhyudaya Yudhistira Saka begins…… …………..3101 ,,
25. Yudhistira Kaala (or Death of Yudhistira)…………….3076 ,,

1 Death of Parikshit………………………. …………………………3041 B.C
2 Coronation of Janamejaya…………………. ………………….3041 .,
3 Janamejaya’s Gift Deed (Cycle year Plavanga).. ……3012 ,.
4 Age of Aryabhatta……………………….. ……………………….2742 .,
5 Yudhistira Saka of the Jains……………… ………………….2634 ,,
6 Birth of Buddha…………………………. ……….. 1887 ,,
7 Niryana of Buddha……………………….. ………………………1807 ,,
8 Coronation of Mahapadma Nanda…………….. ………….1634 ,,
9 Coronation of Chandra Gupta Maurya……. 1534 ,,
10 Coronation of Asoka……………………… …………………..1472 ,,
11 The Yayana king ‘Amtiyoka’……. ………………………..1472-36 (of Maurya inscriptions)
12 Age of Panini……………………………………….. ……………1400 ,,
13 End of reign of Salisuka of the Maurya dynasty… 1320 ,,
14 Age of the Yavana king “Milinda” …….. ………………1320-1307 ,,
15 Nagarjuna Yogi………………………….. ……………………..1294 ,,
16 Kanishka……………………………….. ………………………….1294-1234 ,,
17 Coronation of Pushyamitra Sunga…………… …………1218 ,,
18 Age of Patanjali………………………… ……………………….1218 ,,
19 Malava-Gana-Saka………………………… ………………….725 ,,
20 Birth of Vardhamana-Maha·Vira…………….. ………..599 ,,
21 Birth of Kumarila Bhattacharya……………. …………..557 ,,
22 Saka Bhupa Kala (Cyrus Era)………………. ……………550 ,,
23 Niryana of Vardhamana Maha Vira…………… ………528 ,,
24 Kumarilabhatta pushed out from the terrace…. …525 ,,
25 Birth of Adi Sankara……………………. …. 509 ,,
26 Upanayana of Adi Sankara………………… ……………..504 ,,
27 Death of Siva Guru, Sankara’s Father……… ……… 501 ,,
28 Authurasanyaasa of Sankara……………….. ………….500 ,,
29 Krama sanyasa of Sankara…………………. ……………499 ,,
30 Death of Aryamba (Sankara’s mother)………. ……493 ,,
31 Niryana of Govinda Bhagavatpada…………… ……..493 ,,
32 Meeting of Sankara with Kumarilabhatta…….. …493 ,,
33 Death of Kumarila. (Self Immolation)………. ……..493 ,,

1 Sanyasa of Mandana Misra(Sureswaraeharya)…. 491 B.C.
2 Establishment of Dwaraka Peetha …………………… 491 B.C.
3 Sankara’s Visit to Nepal……………………………… …….488 B.C.
4 Jyothir Mutt in the Himalayas…………………………. 486 B.C.
5 Govardhana mutt (Puri)……………………………….. …485 B.C.
6 Sarada Mutt (Sringeri )………………………………. ……484 B.C.
7 Kamakoti Peetha(Conjeevaram)…………………….. 482 B.C.
8 Niryana of Sri Sankara……………………………….. 477 B.C.
9 Era of Sri Harsha………………. ………………….. 457 B.C.
10 Coronation of Chandragupta of Gupta Dynasty…………….. 327 B.C.
11 Gupta Era Begins ……………………………………. 327 B.C.
12 Invasion of Alexander ……………………………….. 326 B.C.
13 Birth of Vikramaditya Ujjayani ………… ………….101 B.C. (Panwar dynasty)
14 End of Gupta dynasty ………………………………… 82 B.C.
15 Coronation of Vikaamaditya at Ujjain…………….. 82 B.C.
16 Era of Vikramaditya………………. ………………… …………..57 B.C.
17 Kalidasa , Varahamihira and others, …………….. 57 B.C. (nine gems in Vikramaditya’ court)
18 Era of Salivahana……………………………………. …….78 A.D.
19 Bhattotpala…………………………………………. ……..338 A.D.
20 Bhaskaraoharya ……………………………………… ..486. A.D.
21 Coronation of Bhoja Raja (Panwar Dynasty.). 638 A.D.
22 Birth of Ramanujacharya………………………….. 1017 A.D.
23 Birth of Madhvacharya…………………………….. 1119 A.D.
24 Death of Ramanujacharya………………………… 1137 A.D.
25 Battle of Staneswar…………………………………… 1193 A.D. (Ghori vs Prithviraj)

[Source: http://trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogs ... ishma.html]

Readers are requested to have a good look at these precisely stated dates with details, and ask the question: Is there any reason for us to disbelieve the entire information?

… to be continued

Image
A symbol of the eight fold path “Arya Magga” (the noble path of the dhamma) in early Buddhism.

Indian History And Its Historians

Part II: Sir William Jones, Founder, Royal Asiatic Society


The real pioneer of European Indology was Sir William Jones (1746–1794), reputedly a scholar, gifted linguist, founder of the Royal Asiatic Society and, by all accounts, a man of superior intellect. He was a judicial officer in the East India Company and, it appears, a confidante of Warren Hastings (1732-1818.).

Jones ostensibly became an ardent admirer of India. He wrote, “I am in love with Gopia, charmed with Crishen (Krishna), an enthusiastic admirer of Raama and a devout adorer of Brihma (Brahma), Bishen (Vishnu), Mahisher (Maheshwara); not to mention that Judishteir, Arjen, Corno (Yudhishtira, Arjuna, Karna) and the other warriors of the Mahabharata appear greater in my eyes than Agamemnon, Ajax and Achilles appeared when I first read the Iliad.”

The truth of the matter is that the proto-historical thought prevailing in entire Western world until 18th Century was circumscribed by the Biblical premise: God’s creation was begun about 4000 BC! Nobody was without this limiting perspective while interpreting historical evidence -– written, oral or archeological. Jones remained true to the Biblical dogma of Genesis, which he took to be a literal account. His chronology for ancient India, including the dating of Chandragupta Maurya to the period of Alexander’s invasion of India, was dictated at least in part by the Biblical dogma.

Jones may not have had an ulterior motive in doing this, since these were the times prior to advent of Charles Darwin. All the same, his disinclination to apply a more critical eye while setting up a dateline benchmark on rather flimsy data gives us a reason to recall his prejudice for the deep Biblical, which in turn belief renders his intent suspect. In 1786, while delivering his third lecture, Sir William made the following statement which aroused the curiosity of many scholars and finally led to the emergence of comparative linguistics. Noticing the similarities between Sanskrit and the Classical Languages of Europe such as Greek and Latin he declared:

“The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine all three of them, without believing them to have sprung from some common source which, perhaps, no longer exists; there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanskrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family…”


There is cognitive dissonance in this stance of Sir William who, on the one hand, praises the Sanskrit language and its significance while, at the same time, not inviting a single Indian to participate in the deliberations of the Royal Asiatic Society. In fact, Indians were effectively barred from such participation. He had a good understanding of Vedanta and its the fundamental nuance between existence and its perceptibility: that, matter cannot be denied but had no essence independent of our mental perception of it; that “existence and perceptibility are convertible terms.”

But we [are] rushing ahead. We must understand the milieu of the times, to fathom the motivations of the individuals on the stage then, who took momentous decisions on our behalf. Who were these people who came to India so eagerly? What motivated them to do so? Prodosh Aich has documented the real story behind the study of Indology, the subject that Sir William was credited with initiating. There are many questions that he answers in the book Lügen mit Langen Beinen (Lies with Long Legs).

For example, individuals who served in upper echelons of the British East India company were awarded the title Sir (or a Knighthood) before being sent to India, presumably to impress the Indians. A gentleman with the title “Sir” was a Knight of the British Empire, reminiscent of the Knights of King Arthur. A Knight did not belong to the hereditary nobility, except on rare occasions. In order to become a Lord and sit in the House of Lords, one had to own a substantial estate; but land was scarce in England and hence, while it was possible to impress the Indian by awarding a Sir, it rarely resulted in their elevated to Peerage.

We mention this to emphasise that the vast majority of officials who came to India were from modest circumstances and only became wealthy after their stay in India. In other words, the instances were rare when the individual was already famous as an achiever or was a scholar of some repute before he came to India. So it was in the case of Sir William, whose primary motivation in coming to India was to attain wealth, at a [more] accelerated pace than he could hope for in his own country.

As to his mastery of languages, it appears to be considerably exaggerated. He is credited with knowing 32 languages! He apparently knew Greek and Latin, and had learned Arabic and Persian. But so great was his ignorance of Indic languages that he was unable to distinguish any of the languages spoken in Bengal when he arrived in Calcutta, in 1782. He was advised by Charles Wilkins to learn Sanskrit, upon which he is quoted as saying ‘Life is too short and my necessary business too long for me to think at my age –- he was 38 then –- of acquiring a new language, when those which I have already learned have such a mine of curious and agreeable information.’ Thus began the study of Indo European languages as one family. Such a study falls under the rubric of a field known as Philology.

Philology is the study of ancient texts and languages. The term originally meant a love (Greek philo-) of learning and literature (Greek -logia). In the academic traditions of several nations, a wide sense of the term describes the study of a language together with its literature, historical and cultural contexts, which are indispensable for a complete understanding of the literary works. Philology thus comprises the study of the grammar, rhetoric, history, interpretation of authors, and critical traditions associated with a given language. Such a wide-ranging definition is becoming rare nowadays, and “philology” tends to refer to a study of texts from the perspective of historical linguistics.

Inadvertently, Sir William set in motion a chain of events beginning with the search for a Proto Indo-European language (PIE). What puzzles us is that it never occurred to him, as far as we are aware, that possibly Sanskrit itself could be the grand ancestor to all Indo-European languages. Until then, Europeans had assumed that the oldest language related to the European languages was Hebrew. Given the anti-Semitic feelings that simmered underneath the surface in European hearts, there was a general relief among all when Sir William’s study informed them that the roots of their heritage lay elsewhere than in Hebrew. But even as it did, the pioneer realised that transferring that origin onto the “unwashed millions” of a subject people would perhaps be equally unacceptable. Indeed, it would have been prohibitive and preposterous to even think, much less admit, that India possessed the linguistic technology (in Panini’s Ashtadhyayi) to explain the grammar of their own languages.

As may be the case, there are two major disservice that Jones did to the Indic Civilisation. One was the possible misdating of Chandragupta Maurya by several centuries and the other was postulating the assumption of a PIE [Proto Indo European], which implied an Urheimat (ancestral home) from where the Indo Europeans fanned out to the four corners of the Eurasian landmass. By so doing, he laid the seeds for a fractured historical narrative for the Indics, which was not supported by any Indian legend, tradition or folklore. In short, he saddled the Indics with perpetually having to refute dual falsehoods: a false chronology and an imposed ‘Aryan Invasion’ or what has been light heartedly called the “Aryan Tourist theory.”

When it came to synchronism, the only significant data that Sir William could utilise was the Greek invasion under Alexander. This was the earliest date that he could come up with, and the data he had was the notes kept by Megasthenes, the ambassador sent to India by Seleucus Nikator, one of the generals of Alexander who broke away from the main Alexandrian empire to set up his own Satrapy.


We will assume for the moment that the accepted date of the invasion, when Alexander was in the Indus valley, is indeed 326 BCE. There are severe difficulties with this dating. At the outset, the name “Alexander” rings no bells in India; it does not appear in any Indian literary text and is therefore, from Indian perspective, a “manufactured” event … hardly a judicious choice for historical synchronism pertaining to this land. Sir William however is delighted with his discovery, of Megasthenes being the ambassador of Seleucus Nikator to the Maurya Empire. We quote Sir William from his discourse on February 28, 1793, while marking the tenth anniversary of the Asiatic Society:

“I cannot help mentioning a discovery which accident threw in my way, (I) thought my proofs must be reserved for an essay which I have destined for the fourth volume of your Transactions. To fix the situation of that Palibothra which was visited and described by Megasthenes, had always appeared a very difficult problem.”

“… but this only difficulty was removed, when I found in a classical Sanscrit book, near 2000 years old, that Hiranyabahu, or golden-armed, which the Greeks changed into Erannoboas, or the river with a lovely murmur, was in fact another name for the Son itself, though Megasthenes, from ignorance or inattention, has named them separately. This discovery led to another of greater moment; for Chandragupta, who, from a military adventurer, became, like Sandracottus, the sovereign of Upper Hindostan, (and) actually fixed the seat of his empire at Pataliputra, where he received ambassadors from foreign princes; and was no other than that very Sandracottus who concluded a treaty with Seleucus Nicator; so that we have solved another problem, to which we before alluded, and may in round numbers consider the twelve and three hundredth years before Christ.”


Jones’ speech informs us of his fancies: that he has found a classical but nameless Sanskrit book of about 2,000 years before; that, Chandragupta Maurya was no other than the very Sandracottus who is described by Megasthenes to have made a treaty with Seleucus around 312 BC; and, to establish that Chandragupta belonged to the Maurya dynasty, he mentions about some poem by Somdev which speaks of the murder of Mahapadma of the Nanda dynasty and his eight sons by Chandragupta in order to usurp the kingdom.

In this way Jones created an arbitrary and fictitious connection between Chandragupta Maurya and Sandracottus. He says in his speech,


“A most beautiful poem by Somadev, comprising a very long chain of instructive and agreeable stories, begins with the famed revolution at Pataliputra, by the murder of King Nanda with his eight sons, and the usurpation of Chandragupta; and the same revolution is the subject of a tragedy in Sanscrit, entitled the Coronation of Chandra.” (p. Xxviii)


These were the basic points of his speech that was called “the Discovery” of the identity of Chandragupta Maurya as Sandracottus.

But the problem is that such a formulation was completely erroneous in all historical aspects and there are several hypotheses that he makes that are no longer valid. What are these?

… to be continued

Journal : A Page From History

Source: http://archive.org/stream/chandraguptam ... p_djvu.txt



Chandragupta Maurya has been praised by Indian and foreign authors alike for bestowing prosperity upon his country. Thus, Visakhadatta, the author of the Mudrarakshasa, has treated him as a deity descended upon earth to restore peace in the country, then troubled by barbarians.

Among foreign writers the only one who has accused Chandragupta of tyranny is the Roman historian Justin. But his opinion is in contradiction with the earlier account of Megasthenes, who everywhere refers to the prosperity of the Indian people.


Image
Chandragupta Maurya1

Chandragupta distinguished himself in many dimensions. He was the conqueror of a vast territory, the emancipator of his country, the capable administrator of a great empire, and the harbinger of peace to his people. Considered to be the first historical emperor of India, he was undoubtedly the mightiest ruler of his time and one of the most lustrous stars in the firmament of monarchy.

It is not easy to embark upon a comparison, but as it is one of the best ways of understanding a person, it would be worthwhile to compare Chandragupta with three of the world’s greatest kings: Alexander, Akbar and Napoleon.

Alexander the Great was undoubtedly a great conqueror. We are bound to be dazzled when we recall to mind his wide conquests in a brief space of time, for he died quite young. Yet the truth is that much of what Alexander accomplished had already been planned by his father, Philip, a man of uncommon ability. Alexander had found his field prepared by his father, and thus had little difficulty to face at the outset of his career. In the words of Mr. H. G. Wells ”the true hero of the history of Alexander is not so much Alexander as his father Philip."

Moreover, the countries conquered by Alexander gained nothing by the change of masters. It may be argued that he had schemes of organisation which were frustrated by his early death. But this is hardly borne out by his career. His vanity was insuperable, and his purpose seems to have been to dazzle the world by his valour. His purpose accomplished, he literally drank himself to death.

Chandragupta, on the other hand, was a man of a different metal. As brave and courageous as Alexander himself, his sole purpose seems to have been to bring peace and honour to his country. He had no advantages of birth and was actually an exile at the outset of his career. He too was a young man when he came on the scene, but in a brief space of time he had not only conquered but thoroughly organized a vast empire, giving all the advantages of a good government to his people.

Akbar, the Moghul monarch, was indeed much like Chandragupta. He has often been compared with Asoka, but in many respects his genius was more aligned with that of Chandragupta. Like Chandragupta, he was a man of ‘blood and iron’. Like him again, he was a great conqueror and a great administrator. But it must be remembered that Akbar had inherited the resources needed for forming a great empire as against Chandragupta who struggled from poverty and exile to power.

The success of Akbar’s administration was more due to the personal qualities of his ministers than to his thorough organisation and even Dr. Vincent Smith has admitted that ”Akbar’s machine of government never attained the standard of efficiency reached by the Mauryas eighteen or nineteen centuries before his time.”

Napoleon certainly was one of the most brilliant figures in history. He resembles Chandragupta in as much as he also rose by dint of merit, and not by virtue of his birth. In his early youth he dreamt of an independent Corsica, much as Chandragupta seems to have dreamt of the independence of his country. Later though, Napoleon intent coiled up around mere ambition for conquest, and he actually failed to maintain the consequent empire. In fact, his country gained nothing by his splendid exploits.

Chandragupta was thus, on the whole, an uncommon genius. He was the founder of the greatest Hindu dynasty, to which also belonged the most famous Buddhist and Jain monarchs.

“In regard to slavery, Kautilya’s attitude stands apart as a glowing light of liberalism and humanity in a barbaric age. While his contemporary Aristotle was justifying slavery as a divine and a beneficent human institution not only sanctioned by nature, but justified by the circumstances of social existence, Kautilya denounced it and strove to abolish it, characterising it as a custom which could exist only among the savage Mlecchhas (a term for Greeks in his time).

“He boldly enunciated that among Aryas (free-born) none should be unfree or enslaved. His definition of the Arya was not narrow. According to him, the Sudra was equally an Arya, along with members of the higher castes/’ Chanakya (as Kautilya, came to be known) was one of the pioneers to include the Sudra within the Aryan fold, and his motive must have been to strengthen Aryavarta, the country of Bharata.

“His view on other social matters are also generally liberal and commendable. He was, hence, not without admirers, for Kamandaka, the author of Nitisara, has praised him highly.”

-- Provision In Respect Of Slavery in Arthashastra: A Manual For Social, Political & Economic Administration, by Kautilya, Chandragupta’a Prime Minister


* * *

According to Megasthenes, Greek King Seleukos Nikator’s ambassador in Chandragupta’s court, all Indians were free and not one of them was a slave. But in the light of Arthasastra, we have to modify this statement. As a matter of fact, slavery did exist but a perusal of Arthasastra makes it clear that it was so different from the slavery which prevailed in the west, that a Greek could hardly notice it.

It was forbidden to sell an Arya or freeman (including Sudra) into slavery except at the person’s own option and dire necessity.

“It is no crime," says Kautilya, “for Mlecchhas to sell or mortgage the life of their own offspring, but never shall an Arya be subjected to slavery." He then proceeds to say that if a man is enslaved for inevitable reasons, he should be soon redeemed.

“But in order to tide over family troubles, to find money for fines or court decrees, or to recover the (confiscated) household implements, if the life of an Arya is mortgaged, they (his kinsmen) shall as soon as possible redeem him (from bondage); and more so if he is a youth or an adult capable of giving help."

Moreover, a slave in the west had no personal rights; his person was dead. In India, a dasa was little worse than a servant as long as he was not redeemed. His offspring were free even during his period of bondage. A dasa could even earn independently if he had time from his master’s work, and could regain his Aryahood if his independent savings became equal to the value for which he was purchased.

If a man abused or caused hurt to his slave, or employed the latter to do an ignoble work, the slave became free. Thus it is clear that although there were dasas in India, the kind of slavery prevalent in the west was non-existent in India.

Image
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36119
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Fri Jun 25, 2021 2:13 am

Part 1 of 4

Ancient Indian Astronomy in Vedic Texts
by R.N. Iyengar
Distinguished Professor
Centre for Ancient History and Culture
Jain University, Bangalore
(Formerly Professor, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore)
[email: RN.Iyengar@jainuniversity.ac.in]
Written for Presentation at
IX International Conference on Oriental Astronomy
November 15-18, 2016, Pune, India 

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

-- Law of the instrument, by Wikipedia


-- Astronomical Dating of the Mahabharata War, by Dieter Koch

-- Alberuni's India: An Account of the Religion, Philosophy, Literature, Geography, Chronology, Astronomy, Customs, Laws and Astrology of India About A.D. 1080, by Dr. Edward C. Sachau, Professor in the Royal University of Berlin and Principal of the Seminary for Oriental Languages; Member of the Royal Academy of Berlin, and Corresponding Member of the Imperial Academy of Vienna, Honorary Member of the Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, London, and of the American Oriental Society, Cambridge, USA, 1910

-- Rules of the Siamese Astronomy, for calculating the Motions of the Sun and Moon, translated from the Siamese, and since examined and explained by M. Cassini, a Member of the Royal Academy of Sciences, Excerpt from "A New Historical Relation of the Kingdom of Siam", Tome II, by Monsieur De La Loubere

-- French Jesuit Scientists in India: Historical Astronomy in the Discourse on India, 1670-1770, by Dhruv Raina

 
Preface

Astronomy in popular perception is about stars, planets, sun, moon, eclipses, comets, meteorites and associated observable phenomena. Something of all of these was known to our ancients though not in the same form and detail as it is available now. In the context of India, the question is what was known, in what detail and when. For the siddhānta period, roughly starting with the Common Era, (CE) such questions have been fairly well answered. This has been possible since several texts of the period, specifically devoted to astronomy are available for systematic study. But for the more ancient period we have no exclusive texts other than Lagadha’s Vedānga Jyotiṣa (c 1400 BCE) which is a calendar with no reference to eclipses or planets. Hence when one talks of Vedic Times several precautions are necessary. Firstly even though for the pre-siddhāntic period many texts are available, they are neither specific to astronomy nor are they by particular authors. Second, the texts were all orally transmitted by memory for generations before they were scripted on palm leafs. This knowledge tradition has come down to us mainly in Sanskrit. Three broad classes of BCE texts can be identified namely Vedic, Purānṇic and Śāstraic. Texts of the first group including the ancillaries such as the Sūtras and the Pariśiṣṭas are preserved unchanged in their original form with practically no variation with time. The same cannot be said about the two Epics, the eighteen and more Purāṇas, Samhitās of Parāśara and Vṛddha Garga which have undergone changes in CE also. Texts on grammar, prosody, dramas of Bhāsa, Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra, Bharata’s Nāṭyaśāstra, Jaina and Buddhist literature making up the third group are relatively late. But these also provide insights into Indian astronomy before CE. In addition to the above clarification it is essential to bear in mind the time frame of development of the above class of literature which spans some three to four thousand years starting from an unknown past to the first millennium BCE. Hence we have to also address the question of chronology consistent with whatever verifiable information that can be found.

It is generally observed that Vedic culture personified celestial objects and their actions. Hence the texts carry a background that has to be deciphered for extracting the archaic models of the visible sky. When we read that a demon (asura) fell from the sky and went underground, we can safely infer that this picture should have been probably correlated in time and space with a meteorite fall. Similarly when it is said that an āsura covered Sun, we may suspect this event to be an eclipse. This allegorical approach was known to the Vedic tradition as recorded by Yāska (c 700 BCE) who records three types of interpretations for several hymns of the Ṛgveda. These are the adhiyajña, adhyātma and the adhidaiva; the sacrificial, philosophical and celestial (divine) meanings respectively. For example the adhidaiva meaning of the word Soma is Moon, whereas in a Vedic sacrifice as per the adhiyajña, Soma is a creeper of that name. In the Upaniṣads the philosophical meaning of Soma is manas or mind. The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (ŚB) has the esoteric statement:

candramā vai somo devānāmannam tā pourṇamāsyāmabhiṣuṇvanti || (ŚB. 11.1.5)
Moon is Soma the food of gods; they approach him on Full Moon.


But, Yāska, quite clearly says in the Nirukta (11.4-5) that Soma is Moon whom no gods literally eat. It is easy to see that the reference in such cases is to the waning moon said to be consumed by gods on a daily basis starting from Full Moon. The Vedic seers personified celestial objects as they beheld some cosmic transcendental unity and pattern through observable natural phenomena. Hence it should not be surprising to find in Vedic sacrifices, Hindu religion and Vedānta philosophy reflections of ancient sky pictures, however hazy they might seem now. This type of modelling sky observations by our Vedic ancestors can be called scientific naturalism.

Scientific naturalism is a view according to which all objects and events are part of nature, i.e. they belong to the world of space and time. Therefore everything, including the mental realm of human beings, is subject to scientific enquiry.

-- Naturalistic theories, by https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/han ... 8/041.html


The sky descriptions become more interesting especially when numbers are associated with the celestial divinities. In the following four articles we investigate briefly how comets, meteorites, and eclipses were experienced and pictured in the Vedic texts. Over a long period of time the effect of precession was also felt as with the loss of importance for the constellation Śiśumāra (Draco) and shifting of the Pole Star Dhruva. The astral descriptions and the religious lore behind the above astronomical entities provided the inspiration for the development of observational and mathematical astronomy in India.

Some portion of the present study has appeared in the Indian Journal of History of Science (2005, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012) in the form of papers. However, considerable new information, beyond the published material, can be found in the following pages.

1. Comets and Meteorites in the Ṛgveda

Introduction


The Ṛgveda Samhitā is the most ancient literature of India available for our study. The three other Vedas namely the Yajurveda, Sāmaveda and the Atharvaṇaveda along with their ancillary texts are closely linked to the Ṛgveda in several ways. The remote antiquity of the Ṛgveda and the live tradition of oral transfer of the Vedas by complex linguistic artifices are evidences for the utmost importance attached by Hindus in preserving the original information as precisely as possible. It is an attested fact that even after several millennia, RV containing 10 books (maṇḍala) with 1028 hymns (sūkta) totaling 10552 verses (mantra) is learnt and recited with exactly the same content and sequence all over India. This is the primary source for finding the most ancient celestial observations made in the Indian skies. Even though RV is not a book on astronomy or on natural sciences, it is a collection of hymns covering a large variety of themes ranging from the physical to the spiritual, human to the superhuman, religion to philosophy, individual to the collective, earth to the sky to the universe. It spans several centuries in its compositional spread and represents a wide area of land also in its coverage with names of rivers, mountains, lands and lakes. The language of RV is by definition, Vedic Sanskrit and its style can at best be described as inspired poetry emanating out of spontaneous intuition, revelation or contemplation. Hence explaining the text strictly through analytical methods of grammar, etymology, dictionaries and linguistics will make us miss the forest for the trees.

Any one approaching RV faces the daunting problem of extracting the meanings of the hymns. This difficulty is known since the time of Yāska who already noted that RV hymns can be interpreted in several different ways. Due to the archaic nature of the Vedic language, precise meanings may remain unknown, but the overall contextual implications when read with other similar hymns should be reasonably clear.
Hence when a particular event or deity is described more number of times, a clear picture of what the ancient composers meant emerges. To approach RV in this fashion, we have to follow the ancillary texts and the traditional Sanskrit commentaries, instead of going by modern day translations. This helps us to find whether the origin of a later Vedic ritual can be traced to the sky pictures of RV. Among the various editions of RV available, the Mysore Palace edition of the Ṛgveda (abbr. MPRV) is versatile1. This gives in thirty six volumes an exhaustive introduction, the text, traditional meaning, ritual application, grammatical explanation, and the complete Sanskrit commentary of Sāyaṇa along with the ancillary texts needed to follow the Ṛgveda. The translations and interpretations of the hymns given here follow closely the commentary of Sāyaṇa and the traditional explanations given by the compilers of the MPRV edition.

Ketu in the Vedas

Astronomy is popularly understood as a subject about the sun, the moon, the planets, eclipses and comets. While the sun and the moon, even when they are lauded as deities, can be easily recognized as celestial objects it may not be so clear for a modern reader whether other objects are described in the Vedic texts. A further difficulty arises as the Hindu socio-religious pluralistic tradition in constant flux tends to attribute different meanings to the same word. A case in point is the word ketu that appears some eighty times in the RV with the following distribution in the ten books.

[I:19; II: 0; III:10; IV: 3; V: 8; VI: 7; VII: 8; VIII: 4; IX: 3; X: 18]


What strikes here as significant is the absence of the word in the second book and its increased use in the first and the tenth books. This word is interpreted in the Nirukta as knowledge, flag, herald, insignia, and as a memory trigger. Hence the RV word dhūmaketu which means comet in almost all Indian languages is taken by Sāyaṇa to mean an epithet for the sacrificial fire with a smoke banner. This is a typical example of the adhidaiva meaning [the foremost, preserver or “god” of all natural phenomena] getting masked in the orthodox adhiyajña tradition [relating to a sacrifice]. The Atharvaṇaveda (AV) has a famous hymn in which dhūmaketu is mentioned along with sun, moon and rāhu, indicating that in Vedic parlance too the word ketu should have primarily referred to a visible celestial object2. The text of the RV contains a cryptic statement yādṛgeva dadṛśe tādṛgucyate (V.44.6) that is; the seers say what they saw. Thus it would be interesting to investigate whether Comets and such other transient celestial objects were the inspiration behind some of the RV hymns.

The specific word dhūmaketu meaning literally smoke- or dust-banner occurs seven times in the RV but, only in I, VIII and X books, which are considered to be relatively later compositions in comparison with the other books. According to traditional interpretation this word qualifies agni the (sacrificial) fire. One wonders, if this were to be the unique meaning, why this epithet is absent in the other family books which also profusely refer to agni. Is it possible the word dhūmaketu with two meanings, fire (agni) and anomalous event (utpāta), as listed in the Amarakośa could be traced to RV, when in ancient times a comet with a (dusty) smoky extension, like the earthly fire which has smoke for its insignia inspired the composers of some hymns? The word utpāta denoting anomalous natural events does not appear in RV. But the word adbhuta which stands for strange and unusual objects or events is used in RV as an epithet for agni the fire. Could this adbhuta in some sense point to strange fiery transient objects observed in the sky? The Ṣaḍvimśa Brāhmaṇa of the Sāmaveda has a chapter called Adbhuta Brāhmaṇa. This deals with special rituals to be observed during unusual events, grouped as somadevatyāni adbhutāni. This includes shooting stars, meteorites and comets (ketavaḥ)3. It is notable that the Nirukta (1.6) interprets adbhutam as abhūtam, that is, unprecedented. Thus, prima-facie there is a case for dhūmaketu to be an unexpected comet or a fireball similar to a strange fire with a smoky extension.

Dhūmaketu

Now we consider the seven RV hymns with the word dhūmaketu in the order of the books in which they appear. Hymn (I.27) starts comparing agni to a tailed horse4. In the second verse of the hymn this object is qualified as having wide motion (pṛthupragāmā). In the sixth verse this agni is called citrabhānu, that is one having varied colors. This fire is qualified in the tenth verse as rudra, one with ferocious form. This is followed by a prayer with a specific name for the fire in question.

sa no mahān animāno dhūmaketuḥ puruścandraḥ |dhiye vājāya hinvatu || (I.27.11)

May the great, illimitable, brilliant dhūmaketu (smoke-banner) be pleased with our rite and inspire us.


MPRV aptly points out that there can be no special similarity between agni and a tailed horse as in this hymn, even as a figure of speech. The hymn is clear that the object of its attention is stationed in the sky. If this agni were to have a tail, have perceptible movement, be large without specific measure (mahān animāno) and look like a big bright celestial herald (viśpatiḥ daivyaḥ ketuḥ bṛhadbhānuḥ| v.12) it could as well have been a comet described aptly by the word dhūmaketu. The epithet viśpatiḥ signifies the object to be closely connected with maruts, who are called viś in the RV. This point will be considered later.

Next we come across this word in a hymn by Praskaṇva of the Kaṇva family to which belong the authors of the eighth book.

adyā dūtam vṛṇimahe vasum agnim purupriyam | dhūmaketum bhāṛjikam vyuṣṭiṣu yajñānām adhvaraśriyam || (I.44.3)

We choose today at day break as messenger the good agni, the beloved of many, the smokebannered, who shines with his brightness and who is the protector of the doer of sacrifice.


Here the action of selecting agni as messenger (dūtam) is in the first person. This agni is qualified as dhūmaketu and bhārjika. The word bhārjika means shining according to Yāska5. This may mean one who is shining or may mean one who is famous as Bhā. This agni is addressed in (v.4) as guest (atithi), highlighting his transient nature. In (v.10) agni is referred also as purohita and as vibhāvasu who had shone previously at many dawns (pūrvā anu uṣaso vibhāvaso didetha). MPRV interprets purohita traditionally as, one (the fire) who is installed in the east of the sacrificial altar in the āhavanīya pit. This hymn ends in (v.14) with a request to the fire-tongued maruts to be heard (sṛṇvantu marutaḥ agnijihvāḥ). This hymn appears to be closely related with hymns of the 8th book of RV. The transient nature of the fire, named vibhāvasu or bhā with links to maruts, amply hints at this object to be a comet. As per the MPRV explanation, this hymn is an invocation to the celestial agni, the comet deity, already deified from previous tradition.

In the RV hymn (I.94) to agni every verse ends with the refrain let us not suffer injury as we have friendship with you. (agne sakhye mā riṣāmā vayam tava ). This is a prayer to agni seeking protection particularly from the fiery maruts. The first verse refers to agni as jātavedas. MPRV describes the technicalities of this word quoting the Bṛhaddevatā (BD) an important ancient authority on preserving the tradition of RV6. As per this, RV seers call terrestrial fire agni, fire in the mid-space jātavedas and fire in the sky vaiśvānara. There is a mystic meaning to the word jātavedas, but the localization of this fire is again mentioned in BD with the extra information that this fire is known to all (or seen by all) created again and again in mid-space7. This agni is thought about at every syzygy by offerings (v.4). The next verse (v.5) is interpreted differently by Sāyaṇa and Skandasvāmin. MPRV provides both the meanings, the one by Skandasvāmin reads more realistic. As per this, agni is seen all through the nights in different colours and is brighter than even the light at day break (uṣaso mahān). In (v.7) agni is praised as one who is seen to be similar from all places (viśvataḥ sadṛńg asi). Even though he is really at a distance (in the sky) he seems to be near. In (v.9), agni is requested to kill with his weapons the enemies of the devout. The next verse is

yad ayukthā aruṣā rohitā rathe vātajūtā vṛṣabhasyeva te ravaḥ |ādinvasi vanino dhūmaketunāgne sakhye mā riṣāmā vayam tava || RV(I.94.10)

When you have yoked the wind driven red (animals) to the chariot, your roar is like that of a bull. You cover forest trees by a banner of smoke. Let us not suffer injury as we have friendship with you.


Here the word dhūmaketu seems to be used in the sense of a smoke cover. However the agni addressed in this hymn has for its background not any ordinary terrestrial fire but the one in mid-space significantly coloured red. The next verse (v.11) mentions that the drops of this agni eat grass (drapshāḥ yavasādaḥ). The word yavasādaḥ literally means one who eats (burns) yavasa which is taken to be grass by tradition. But this may as well refer to destruction of grain fields. Sāyaṇa likes to interpret drapsāḥ as flames, but in the context of a fire from above, dropping of fiery matter would be apt. This is followed by a request to mitra and varuṇa to protect the poet from the strange fury of the maruts who live in the mid-space. The description of maruts is picturesque as,

avayātām marutām heḷa adbhutaḥ|| (I.94.12)

The cry (rumbling sound) of the descending maruts is strange (unprecedented).


Sāyaṇa explains this to mean, the anger of the gods known as maruts moving below the heavens happens to be severe. In the above hymn the word dhūmaketu is not used directly to refer a comet. But the hymn is about agni that is between the earth and the visible sky. The prayer is to ward off the danger posed directly by maruts, with ritualistic connotations linked to earthly fires ignited by atmospheric agents. The weapons of agni that could kill enemies, but from which protection is sought by the poet, can be conjectured to have been showers of stony meteoritic debris. This interpretation would be consistent with the action of maruts at other places in RV.

Image
Agni...is conceptualized in ancient Hindu texts to exist at three levels, on earth as fire, in atmosphere as lightning, and in the sky as sun.

-- Agni, by Wikipedia


The only family book using the word dhūmaketu is the 8th book of the Kaṇvas. The first verse of hymn (VIII.43) declares this to be a laudation to agni the uninterrupted doer of sacrifice. The third verse mentions agni to be burning the forests. The immediate next two verses are

harayo dhūmaketavaḥ vātajūtā upadyavi | yatante vṛthagagnayaḥ ||
ete tye vṛthagagnayah iddhāsaḥ samadṛkṣata | uṣasāmiva ketavaḥ || (VIII.43.4,5)

Individual forms of swift wind-impelled smoke-bannered fires move in the sky.
These separated fires shining in the front appear like heralds of the dawns.


In the next verse (v.6) the black dust raised by the feet of jātavedas as he travels, when fire spreads on earth, is described. The physical implication of the above verses would be that the composer is describing one or more celestial fiery objects with smoke or dust trails seen before dawn. These celestial fires are linked to fire on ground, which may indicate either a cause effect relation or a poetic similarity. The objects are many and said to be emphatically separated and moving. As a physical picture this fits the description of a meteor swarm encountered by earth while passing through the trail of a comet. Here the word dhūmaketu is used to indicate swiftly moving objects in the sky. Since the word dawn is used in plural (uṣasām), perhaps this spectacle could be seen for several days before day break in the eastern sky. The next hymn (VIII.44) is also about agni. Here in (v.7) this agni is called ancient (pratnam) and invoker (hotāram) and the guest of honour in sacrifices (adhvarāṇām abhiśriyam). This ancient agni is the object named as Dhūmaketu Vibhāvasu.

vipram hotāram adruham dhūmaketum vibhāvasum |yajñānām ketum īmahe || (VIII.44.10)


Tradition interprets the word vibhāvasu as one having light for wealth (dīptidhanam) and identifies him with agni. If here also dhūmaketu meant the sacrificial fire of the humans, why once again the composer refers to agni as the banner of sacrifices? On the other hand the matter-of-fact meaning would be:

We pray to the wise guileless invoker, the comet (dhūmaketu, the smoke-bannered) vibhāvasu, the banner of (divine) sacrifices.


It is seen that in the 8th book the word dhūmaketu refers to visible transient objects that might have included meteors and comets in a general sense. In the tenth book the hymn (X.4) is about agni the link between men and gods, who traverses in between (v.2). In the next verse (v.3) he is said to be eager to come to sacrifices on earth looking down from above with a desire to return. There appears considerable difficulty in interpreting the 5th verse with the word dhūmaketu. MPRV takes the first part as a question and constructs a meaning with which the commentator is not satisfied. The text and the interpretation are as follows.

kūcijjāyate sanayāsu navyo vane tasthau palito dhūmaketuḥ |asnātāpo vṛṣabho na praveti sacetaso yam praṇayanta martāḥ || (X.4.5)

Where is the new agni born? He is present in the old plants, grey haired, smoke-bannered. Though not needing a bath, as he is pure, he rushes to water like a bull….


This interpretation reads strained and forced. The simple meaning based on the context of the preceding and succeeding verses would be of a fire that is white in colour, seen above a forest. Its rush towards water may be a real event of a fireball entering a water body. This matches with agni being called jātavedaḥ later in (v.7), the technical meaning of which is fire in mid-space. Even though the meaning of the word dhūmaketu in this hymn remains ambiguous, it is still linked to a fiery object that approaches a water body, from above. The last appearance of the word dhūmaketu in RV is in

devo devān paribhūr ṛtena vahā no havyam prathamas cikitvān | dhūmaketuḥ samidhā bhāṛjīko mandro hotā nityo vācā yajīyān || (X.12.2)


Here, the word is used in the sense of sacrificial fire with no direct relation to the sky except for the qualification bhāṛjikaḥ as in (I.44.3). This completes a brief discussion on the seven occurrences of the word dhūmaketu in RV. It is noted that all the above hymns are addressed to agni, a prominent deity in RV. Interestingly in the tenth book agni is called bhāsāketu that means light-bannered, which is nearly the opposite of dhūmaketu, the smoke-bannered.

yamāsā kṛpaniḷam bhāsāketum vardhayanti | bhrājate śreṇidan || (X.20.3)


Sāyaṇa interprets the word bhāsāketu, as flame bannered fire or one who gives out light. It is not clear why this should not have been the name of a celestial object, for, in the very next verse this fire is described as who when he moves up penetrates the ends of the sky, illumining the firmament. Further the hymn lauds this fire as one that is standing above the sacrificial altar. Traditionally the phrase sadma minvan puraḥ eti in (v.5) is interpreted to mean that this fire measures the fireplace by his movements. This description would be more suitable for a bright celestial object that was stationary for some time and then started moving as though measuring the sky. Sāyaṇa’s explanation of this as representing the sacrificial fire amply indicates that the Vedic sacred fire on earth is a symbol or simulation of a visible bright celestial object ritualistically invoked through special hymns. In (v.9) this fire is described to move straight in a big car showing colours, white, black, red and crimson. A cosmological background is also indicated here, since the car of bhāsāketu was fashioned by the Creator. On the whole this hymn is consistent in describing a comet-like celestial object, out of which some aspect of the terrestrial religious fire, as described in the later Yajurveda Samhitā and Brāhmaṇa texts, has been modeled. Similarly the word vṛṣāketu may be related with an object seen in the night sky. This name appears in the hymn RV (X.92) attributed to Śaryāta son of Manu.

yajñasya vo rathyam viśpatim viśām hotāram aktoratithim vibhāvasum |śocan śuṣkāsu hariṇīṣu jarbhuradvṛṣāketuryajato dyām aśāyata || (X.92.1)


This ketu has some connection with vibhāvasu who was described in the hymn (I.44) considered previously. Here also vibhāvasu is called the guest of the night similar to (I.44). Sāyaṇa interprets the first half as a call to gods for worshipping vibhāvasu. His statement paricarati iti śeṣaḥ is an assumption. The second half is independently taken to mean the giver of desires (vṛṣā), the banner (ketuḥ) reposes in heaven. In line with Sāyaṇa, MPRV gives the meaning of the above verse as

You (gods, adore) the charioteer of the sacrifice, the lord of men, the invoker of the gods, the guest of night, the resplendent (agni). Blazing amid the dry (bushes) preying upon the green, the showerer of desires, the banner (of light), the adorable, reposes in heaven.


Since vibhāvasu is a guest of night (aktoḥ atithim) with its location in the sky (dyām asāyata), the word vṛṣāketu most probably refers to a comet of that name.

Maruts

The above brief review brings out the major physical characters of agni called dhūmaketu, but clearly in relation with two other celestial objects namely maruts and vibhāvasu. Maruts are well known Vedic deities, taken to be representing winds and thunder storms inducing rain by traditionalists as well as by modern scholars. However, their explicit relation with dhūmaketu provides a clue to their correct decipherment as meteoritic storms. Maruts are a group of deities, usually known as the sons of Rudra and occasionally directly as Rudrāḥ. The key discriminatory feature of maruts is that they are a collection of individuals who could be seen and hence countable in some sense. They are said to be separated among themselves. They increase by two and three and their count varies from twenty-one (I.133.6) to forty-nine (VIII.28.5) to sixty-three (VIII.96.8). They could even be seen in waves of thousands (I.168.4). If these properties were to be reconciled with a physically possible natural object, maruts have to be taken as a shower of meteors. No doubt there are hymns associated with maruts that refer to lightning, rain, wind, thunderous sound and consequent shaking of trees, people and mountains. However, seen in the perspective of a celestial agni called dhūmaketu being a comet, the above actions of maruts are more valid for a swarm of meteors rather than for a monsoon thunder storm.

Maruts are closely associated with Indra in many hymns and these read like recollection of past events for a ritual. There is palpable spontaneity in the hymns to maruts with the figures of speech and epithets picturesquely describing a rare spectacle. In all, thirty-three full hymns are devoted exclusively to maruts and these deities are mentioned more than five hundred times by name in RV. Hence it is not possible here to discuss all the occurrences and the differing nuances of this word, used always in the plural, spread over the ten books of RV. Interest here will be limited to descriptions of maruts that are graphic and hence appear like direct observations or recollections of some past episodes.

Maruts come (to earth) along with agni from above. They are brilliant with terrible forms and kill people. Maruts sit as deities in heaven, above the luminous vault. They move the mountains and disturb the oceans (I.19.6, 7). Here, following Sāyaṇa, MPRV argues that however strong a wind may be it cannot possibly shake hills, and hence the word parvatān should be taken as clouds and not as mountains. But if maruts are taken naturally for what they are, namely extra terrestrial objects, they could have shaken mountains with air blasts and impacts. In the next verse maruts are described as widening with their light (raśmibhiḥ tanvanti| I.19.8) and storming the oceans with their power. The earliest ańgiras was agni, to support whom maruts were born with their glittering spears (I.31.1). Here traditionalists take maruts to be winds with the assumption that the word raśmibhiḥ should mean sūryaraśmibhiḥ. That this is an uneasy explanation is clear when we note that MPRV says that vāyu and maruts are distinctly different deities not only in the text of RV but also in the practice of Vedic rituals.

Three hymns (I.37-39) dedicated to maruts highlight their meteoritic nature, as being self luminous and spotted. The poet says in first person that he can hear from where he is located, the roaring sound of maruts (I.37.1-5).
In the next verse the poet wonders, who could be the strongest among the maruts, since they shake heaven and earth like mere trees? The common man is said to be protecting his dwellings from the (impact of) maruts.

nivo yāmāya mānuṣo dadhra ugrāya manyave | jihīta parvato giriḥ || (I.37.7)

To withstand your ferocious journey man has strengthened his dwelling with columns. Even rugged hills get crushed (at your approach).


Maruts have mowed down men on earth and have made mountains fall. Wherever the group of maruts goes, everyone is sure to hear their roaring sound (I.37.12, 13). Maruts come from the sky to the earth, but not the other way round (I.38.2). That maruts could not go back from earth is ingeniously expressed as,

yadyūyam pṛśnimātaro martāsaḥ syātana | stotā vo amṛtaḥ syāt || (I.38.3)

Children of Pṛśni! You may become mortals, but let those who laud you remain not dead.


Maruts are sure to bring airless showers to deserts (I.38.7). MPRV wonders why the word airless (avātām) has been used to describe showers (miham). This doubt arises if miham is taken as ordinary rain. An intense meteoritic shower can make the target region airless for some time, which fact was known to Vṛddha Garga a later astronomer8. It is repeatedly said that people were afraid of maruts. If these deities were really harbingers of monsoon rainfall, the following descriptions read out of place.

adha svanāt marutām viśvam ā sadma pārthivam | arejanta pra mānuṣāḥ || (I.38.10)

At the roar of the maruts, every house on the earth shook. The people also trembled.

parāha yatsthiram hatha naro vartayathā guru| vi yātana vaninaḥ pṛthivyā vyāśāḥ parvatānām|| (I.39.3)

When you overthrow what is stable and whirl away what is heavy, your course is through the forests and the mountains.

ā vo makṣū tanāya kam rudrā avo vṛṇīvahe |gantā nūnam no’vasā yathā puretthā kaṇvāya bibhyuṣe || (I.39.7)

Sons of Rudra! We pray to you for the quick protection of our progeny. Like you came once previously, come for the sake of frightened Kaṇva.


The April 2015 Nepal earthquake (also known as the Gorkha earthquake) killed nearly 9,000 people and injured nearly 22,000. It occurred at 11:56 Nepal Standard Time on 25 April 2015, with a magnitude of 7.8Mw or 8.1Ms and a maximum Mercalli Intensity of VIII (Severe). Its epicenter was east of Gorkha District at Barpak, Gorkha, and its hypocenter was at a depth of approximately 8.2 km (5.1 mi). It was the worst natural disaster to strike Nepal since the 1934 Nepal–Bihar earthquake. The ground motion recorded in the capital of Nepal was of low frequency, which, along with its occurrence at an hour where many people in rural areas were working outdoors, decreased the loss of property and human lives.

The earthquake triggered an avalanche on Mount Everest, killing 22, making 25 April 2015 the deadliest day on the mountain in history. The earthquake triggered another huge avalanche in the Langtang valley, where 250 people were reported missing.

Hundreds of thousands of Nepalese were made homeless with entire villages flattened, across many districts of the country. Centuries-old buildings were destroyed at UNESCO World Heritage Sites in the Kathmandu Valley, including some at the Kathmandu Durbar Square, the Patan Durbar Square, the Bhaktapur Durbar Square, the Changu Narayan Temple, the Boudhanath stupa and the Swayambhunath stupa.
Geophysicists and other experts had warned for decades that Nepal was vulnerable to a deadly earthquake, particularly because of its geology, urbanization, and architecture. Dharahara, also called Bhimsen Tower, a nine-storey 61.88-metre (203.0 ft) tall tower, was destroyed. It was a part of the architecture of Kathmandu recognized by UNESCO.

Continued aftershocks occurred throughout Nepal at the intervals of 15–20 minutes, with one shock reaching a magnitude of 6.7 on 26 April at 12:54:08 NST. The country also had a continued risk of landslides.

A major aftershock occurred on 12 May 2015 at 12:50 NST with a moment magnitude (Mw) of 7.3. The epicenter was near the Chinese border between the capital of Kathmandu and Mount Everest. More than 200 people were killed and over 2,500 were injured by this aftershock, and many were left homeless.

-- April 2015 Nepal earthquake, by Wikipedia


Nodhā Gautama in hymn (I.64) describes maruts as having fearful forms. They are drop-like (falling objects) and shining like suns (asurāḥ ghoravarpasaḥ drapsiṇaḥ sūryā iva śucayaḥ | I.64.2). It is indicated that maruts induced winds and rains before their arrival. This seems to have been the reason for the traditional interpretation of maruts as storm deities before rainfall. In the hymns (I.86, 87 & 88) Gotama Rāhugaṇa mentions that maruts were worshipped by people since many years seeking protection. Maruts are described as having wheels of gold and rushing like boars with tusks of iron (ayodamṣṭrān vidhāvato varāhūn). The epithet asurāḥ above does not indicate any ethnic group but just that maruts as deities in the sky threw stones and other objects towards earth. The word asura is derived traditionally, as explained by Sāyaṇa, from the root asu kṣepaṇe (to throw).

Hymns (I.166) onwards by Agastya further reveal the physical side of maruts. All creatures on earth along with their dwellings shake in fear that they might get hit by the weapons of maruts. The tearing weapons of maruts hit animals like well aimed darts. Maruts are visible at a distance shining like stars (dūre dṛśo ye divyā iva stṛbhiḥ| I.166.11). Their visible hairlike extension is figuratively described as Rodasī, their companion with disheveled hairs (viṣita stukā I.167.5). Maruts, although formless, seemingly have a form. They are self born and always tremble in their path. They come in thousands like waves on water (I.168.4). They came down to earth together effortless, with burning looks and shook the mountains (svayuktaḥ divaḥ vṛthā ava āyayuḥ…bhrājadṛṣṭayaḥ dṛḷhāni cit acucyuvuḥ || v.5). The next verse, indirectly mentions that they enter the sea. Maruts on their approach gleam like serpents (ahi bhānavaḥ). The material of the weapons of maruts is made clear by Agastya as,

Far be from us, your impetuous shaft. Far from us be the stone you hurl (1.172.2)


In the second book, sage Gṛtsamada prays to Rudra

…….mā naḥ sūryasya sandṛśo yuyothāḥ…….||
pariṇo heti rudrasya vṛjyāḥ paritveṣasya durmatirmahī gāt|| (II.33.1 & 14).

….O, father of maruts, do not exclude us from seeing the sunlight…. Let not Rudra’s quoits have us as targets. Let his frightening anger avoid us.


Even though maruts poured in, the material they rained is not said to be ordinary water. It is described as Soma, ghee, milk, honey or a liquid coloured like honey. Maruts showered medicines which were accepted by Manu the ancestor of the poet (II.33.13).

If one agrees to the principle of internal consistency as an approach to understand RV, one can not assign different meanings to the same word used in very similar contexts. Doubts arise about the words parvata and giri occurring in connection with maruts. Traditionalists take this to be mountains in some verses but as clouds in other places. A typical example of this ambiguous interpretation is in hymn (III.26) attributed to Viśvāmitra. Sāyaṇa assumes maruts produce a rain of water and hence takes the word parvatān to mean clouds, where as there is nothing in the three verses (III.26.4-6) to indicate ordinary rainfall. The statement marutaḥ pravepayanti parvatān should normally mean maruts shake the mountains. This remains consistent in all places if maruts are understood to be representing meteorites or fragments of extra terrestrial objects falling on earth.

Ten of the thirty-three hymns devoted to maruts are found in the 5th book. These are important since tradition holds hymns (V.52-61) to be the inspired composition of seer Śyāvāśva. Hymn (V.52) is a laudation in which maruts are said to be capable of exceeding the nights in their travel, which means they were visible in day light also. In (V.52.7) they are praised as seen in the sky, on earth and in the rivers. Specifically they are found in River Paruṣṇī (v.9). Maruts dug a well for Gotama (v.12), as in RV (1.85.10-11) which in physical terms would mean creation of an impact crater. This hymn ends in (52.17) referring to River Yamunā. The next hymn (V.53) starts wondering who knows the origin of maruts? They release their treasury for their devotee (v.6) and help release parjanya (rain water?). Further, in (v.9) six more rivers Rasā, Anitabhā, Kubhā, Krumu, Sindhu and Sarayū are linked with maruts. The prayer in (v.13, 14) is for the material showered by maruts namely, seeds (bījam) and water (āpaḥ). Hymn (V.54) is a laudation to the force or power behind the group of maruts, who with stony weapons (aśma didyavaḥ) disturb mountains. They, children of Rudra, shake everything like a boat on water, day and night, and disturb forts difficult to enter (durgāṇi). Hymn (V.55) is a prayer in which maruts are described to make a shower out of the sea (samudrataḥ). The material carried by them is called purīṣa, which is not rain water, but assumed to be so by Sāyaṇa. Hymn (V.56) is an invocation to maruts to come down to earth from above. Effortlessly, maruts bring down the rocks of the mountains. In (V.57) they are called vāśimantah, as in (I.87.6). As per Yāska this refers to weapons made of stones or to voice. Clearly, this epithet refers to stony meteorites making rumbling sound as they approached earth at high speed. Maruts are in the form of large drops (purudrapsāḥ) and carry the name amṛtam. Hymn (V.58) contains verses in which maruts are associated with water. But in (v.5) maruts are described to be of equal measure like spokes (in wheels) and (length of) days. Traditionalists take the first verse of hymn (V.59) to describe rainfall, by stretching the word arṇava to mean clouds. However, direct reading of the verse only indicates a shower of bright materials getting into the seas. The next verse (V.59.2) does not refer to rainfall, but to the trembling earth compared to a shaking boat. Hymn (V.60) is similar to others in highlighting the power of maruts to disturb the mountains.

parvatścinmahi vṛddho bibhāya divaścitsānu rejate svane vaḥ | yatkrīḷatha maruta ṛṣṭimanta āpa iva sadhryañco dhavadhve || (V.60.3)

Hey maruts! When you start playing, even the ancient big mountain fears your sound. The lofty regions of the sky tremble. Carrying spears you rush together like a stream of water.


The comparison āpa iva in the above verse, should put to rest doubts about maruts being agents of rainfall. Their stormy shower was only like a water stream.

In the sixth book of RV, hymn (VI.66) describes maruts as samānam in the first verse. Sāyaṇa explains, maruts are always of the same form (marutaḥ sadā samānarūpāḥ) and quotes RV (V.60.5) to emphasize that there are no elders and youngsters among them (ajyeṣṭhāso akaniṣṭhāsa ete). The next verse (VI.66.2) mentions that maruts shine like fires and increase by two and three. They are dustless and created with gold, wealth and power. The MPRV meaning for the word girayaḥ in (VI.66.11) as clouds unnecessarily negates the above realistic description of maruts as visible transient objects.

The lauds to maruts in the seventh book by Vasiṣṭha are similar to the hymns by other seers. May your weapons be far from us, is the constant prayer (VII.57.4). The birth of maruts was with great commotion. They were fast, fierce and wrathful. The whole world was afraid to look at them during their brightened travel (VII.58.2).

In the eighth book there is some further interesting information about maruts. The seventh hymn describes maruts in the same way as in other books, but is emphatic on the hills and peaks getting physically affected. Like hills control themselves (bend) at the arrival of maruts, even rivers control their flows (VIII.7.5). This meaning is acceptable to Sāyaṇa also. The last three verses of this hymn show that maruts should have been extra terrestrial objects hitting hill peaks. These were thought to be connected with a celestial object, referred by the generic name agni.

girayścinni jihate parśānāso manyamānā | parvatāścinni yemire ||
ākṣṇayāvāno vahantyantarikṣeṇa patataḥ | dhātāraḥ stuvate vayaḥ ||
agnirhi jāni pūrvyaścchando na sūro arciṣā | te bhānubhirvitasthire || (VIII.7.34-36)

(As the maruts arrive) hills get hit and disturbed from their position. Even mountains are controlled. Speedy carriers bear the flying maruts through space. They are givers of riches to the worshipper. Agni was born previously (among gods) bright like the sun. Then the maruts stood surrounding him with their lights.


The above rendering closely follows Sāyaṇa, with the word girayaḥ here being taken as hills by him also. The word ākṣṇayāvāno is explained by Sāyaṇa as traveling faster than the eyes. There is one more hymn lauding maruts in the eighth book by Sobhari Kāṇva. In this we find a reference to maruts disturbing islands and deserts (VIII.20.4). In this hymn the 13th verse informs that even though maruts are many and extend widely like a sea, they are known by only one name as per ancestral tradition. In (VIII.20.17), maruts are qualified as sons of Rudra (rudrasya sūnavaḥ) and as asurasya vedhasaḥ. The word asuraḥ is explained by Sāyaṇa at many places as one who throws, derived from the root asu kṣepaṇe (to throw). However in the present verse he interprets asuraḥ as creator of clouds, which hardly fits the context. The direct meaning of one who throws (stones/missiles) is appropriate here also, since the falling objects would have been like stones.

In the tenth book hymns (X.77 & 78) are devoted to maruts. These appear to have been composed after the status and position of maruts in the sacrifices had been finalized. Oblation to maruts is mentioned in (X.77.7), which is not so conspicuous in the other books of RV. An interesting highly technical simile describes the motion of maruts as, like the nave of a wheel with spokes (rathānām na ye arāḥ sanābhayaḥ | X.78.4). Sāyaṇa explains this in detail as; even though maruts are several, they move equally spaced like spokes connected at the center of a wheel9. The descriptions of maruts in the various hymns are broadly similar, with minor differences which indicate repetition of the same natural event with variation in the details. Inducing rain was not the main function of RV maruts, as assumed by the tradition and later classical Sanskrit literature. Relation with water is a minor detail mentioned in the 5th book, but otherwise the majority of the hymns uniformly describe maruts as a collection of bright objects that moved in swarms, appearing even in day times. They made a characteristic sound inducing fear in men. They were known to bring stones hitting the hills and the ground. At least once they created a crater with water for Gotama. This poetic but nevertheless realistic description cannot possibly be valid for any event other than a cluster of meteorites or fragments of an asteroid hitting the earth.

Then the Guru marched onward, and readied U-yug-bre- mo-snar, where the twelve bstan-ma furies hurled thunderbolts at him, and tried to crush him between mountains; but the Guru evaded them by flying into the sky, and with his "pointing-finger" charmed their thunderbolts into cinders. And by his pointing-finger he cast the hills and mountains upon their snowy dwellings. Thereupon the twelve bstan-ma, with all their retinue thwarted and subdued, offered him their life-essence, and so were brought under his control...

Then the Guru, proceeding onwards, arrived at the northern Phan- yul-thang, where the three Injurers — sTing-lo-sman of the north, sTing-sman-zor gdon-ma, and sTing-sman-ston— sent hurricanes to bar the Guru's progress. On which the Guru circled "the wheel of fire" with his pointing-finger, and thus arrested the wind, and melted the snowy mountains like butter before a red hot iron. Then the three gNod-sbyin, being discomfited, offered up their life-essence and so were subjected.


-- The Buddhism of Tibet, or Lamaism With Its Mystic Cults, Symbolism and Mythology, and in its Relation to Indian Buddhism, by Laurence Austine Waddell, M.B., F.L.S., F.R.G.S., Member of the Royal Asiatic Society, Anthropological Institute, etc., Surgeon-Major H.M. Bengal Army


Vibhāvasu

Our study of the word dhūmaketu shows that this fire in the sky was related with maruts and also with vibhāvasu. From a detailed study of RV text it is seen that maruts, beyond reasonable doubt, must have been showers of meteors and/or meteorites. Since comets and meteor showers can have causal connections, it appears that vibhāvasu in some places of RV refers to a comet. This word is interpreted in the tradition of Sāyaṇa as fire qualified as wealth of the night, which is the literal meaning obtained by breaking the word into its two components vibhā and vasu. Even in this sense it retains in its name a significant comet image. The word vibhāvasu occurs in the first (I.44.10), third (III.2.2) and the fifth (V.25.2, 7) books. Next it is used five times in the eighth book, twice in the 9th book and thrice in the 10th book.

In the second verse of the agni-vaiśvānara nivid (III.2) by Viśvāmitra, the birth of agni is described. As per the Bṛhaddevatā, nivids indicate the qualities of the deities addressed in such hymns. Agni is here described as brightening heaven and earth at his birth. He is qualified also as viśām atithiḥ vibhāvasuḥ. This is taken as guest of men, affluent in radiance.

Since the word viś means maruts in several other places, here also the agni referred must be related with maruts. As per the Bṛhaddevatā vaiśvānara is fire in the sky, jātavedas fire in the mid-space and agni the fire on earth. In the 14th verse of (III.2) the prayer is to the fire seen at daybreak, emblem of the sky, a big horse (uṣarbudham divaḥ ketum mūrdhānam vājinam brhat|). The implied meaning of the hymn is that, vibhāvasu was a horse-like fire seen in the eastern sky early in the morning (rochanasthām). This leads to the inference that the word here stands for a comet.

In RV (V.25.2) the reference is to the fire praised as vibhāvasu who was kindled in the past by gods and seers. Further in (v.7), this agni is addressed as vibhāvaso, because from him riches come out. Quite interestingly in the 8th verse this fire is lauded as self effulgent in the sky, making thundering sound and is said to be like a huge rock (bṛhat grāveva ucyate). It is generally observed that the word Vibhāvasu is used in RV with differing meanings, but it refers to a celestial figure, identifiable as a comet in a few places.

Many More Comet Images

The reference to dhūmaketu identifiable as Comet appears in the relatively late books of RV namely, the first, eighth and the tenth maṇḍalas. However, there are distinct references in the earlier books of RV to an ancient fire in the sky correlated with agni, vaiśvānara, mātariśvan, arvan, ajaikapāt, ahirbudhnya, pūṣan and other deities. Hence, in the earlier layers of RV transient celestial objects might have been described using nomenclature the original physical meanings of which might have been forgotten. The only way to address this issue is to see how likely such celestial fires match with known modern comet and/or meteor images. To keep the discussion brief, only three such instances are considered here.

The famous hymns (I.162 & I.163) on Aśva by Aucathya are traditionally taken to refer to the Horse-sacrifice (Aśvamedha). But these hymns primarily describe a bright horse-like moving object in the sky. This event in a slightly different form appears also in the Mahābhārata10. In hymn (I.162), the celestial horse, a replica of which is sacrificed in the Aśvamedha is described. This is the medhyāśva (sacrificial horse) born out of tvaṣṭā (I.162.19). This particular verse has two meanings referring to both the divine horse which was killed by gods and the terrestrial animal which is to be similarly sacrificed by men. MPRV quotes the Taittiriya Samhitā to clarify the close relationship between tvaṣṭā and arvan11. The deity called arvan was the first born in the sky, making sound, with wings of falcon and ankles of deer (I.163.1). This horse given by Yama was harnessed by Trita for Indra to ride. Here the word Yama is interpreted in the Nirukta as agni, which as per Sāyaṇa would indicate the simultaneous birth of agni and Indra. In (v.3) this arvan is said to be threefold with three bonds in the sky (trīṇi divi bandhanāni). Sāyaṇa interprets these three bonds to be similar to the three ropes with which an earthly horse is held12. Further, the seer describes the sequence in which he saw the horse. In (v.5) he says; I saw your reins (te bhadrā raśanā apaśyam). Next the poet saw the head of this horse. MPRV reports two types of arranging the words of (v.6), to yield meanings applicable to the earthly horse and the heavenly horse respectively. In the derived meaning, the horse is said to be going from the earth by way of heavens to the sun. The primary meaning is; the poet in first person says that he saw the head of the horse in the sky flying down towards the earth (divā avaḥ patayantam patatri….. śiraḥ apaśyam || I.163.6). This is continued in the next verse to inform: I beheld your best form at the cow’s foot (te rūpam uttamam apaśyam……ā pade goḥ|). Sayaṇa takes the word goḥ pade to mean the sacrificial place on earth, which is the secondary meaning of the hymn suited to the sacrificial tradition. However, primarily for an object seen in the sky it should have been natural to mention its location with respect to the stars and hence one should take cow’s-foot as the nakṣatra with that meaning which is proṣṭhapada (Pegasi). Reference to this location appears again in RV (III.39.5 & IX.71.5). The hymn which so far described a single object, refers in the next verse (v.10) to multiple celestial horses comparing their flight to that of a line of swans (hamsā iva śreṇiśo yatante|). This picture is a plain indication of transient celestial objects flying like birds in a line. This simile is again used in (III.8.9) to describe the arrival of yūpāḥ, the sacrificial columns of gods in the sky, which has an inbuilt comet image.

The 48th hymn in the 6th book is about agni and maruts. The sixth verse in this hymn describes the sight of agni moving in the night sky along with smoke. He with attractive colours becomes visible pushing aside the darkness and stays through the night (dhūmena divi dhāvate…śyāvāsu ūrmyāsu tamaḥ tiraḥ ā dadṛśe|). From (v.11) onwards maruts are praised to bring riches from above. In (v.21) the poet mentions that maruts cover the sky with their brightness like the sun and are the cause of killing vṛtra. The last verse mentions that the earth and the sky got created only once. Similarly the milk of pṛśni, namely maruts, showered only once. Pṛśni is the night sky dotted with stars, compared to a spotted cow. This hymn is inspired by a special sky event to sing a prayer to agni and maruts.

The hymn to keśins (X.136) has definite comet imagery. This hymn is about bright, long hairy objects in the sky. However, the hymn also reflects deeper mystical and philosophical thoughts. This hymn has the earliest reference to the concept of vātaraśanāḥ, which in later Indian astronomy became the invisible air-strings of force holding the planets in their position. This hymn perhaps indicates a cosmic view emerging out of traditional knowledge and new observations.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36119
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Fri Jun 25, 2021 2:18 am

Part 2 of 4

Veiled Sun

The above analysis of RV, even though limited in extent, makes a case for the ancient seers to have witnessed some unusual and spectacular events in the sky. But, the description of the purported effects of the transient sky objects on earth is intriguing. When the hymns describe distress it would appear that the community had to face some unexpected adverse climatic conditions due to a disturbed sky. This is not a farfetched inference when it is noted that in several hymns the physical sun is said to be covered by some type of dust, so much so there was no recognizable day break for considerable length of time. There are too many hymns and legends about this event for us to ignore the absence of sunlight as a poetic license to describe the dark night of the human soul or as the prolonged winter of the northern latitudes. In RV (I.51.4) Indra is said to have established sun after destroying vṛtra. In RV (I.86) maruts are prayed to remove the darkness and create the light for which people were longing. Hymn (I.175) is about Indra stealing Sun’s wheel, which is an euphemism for the absence of normally expected rise, movement and setting of the Sun. Hymns (I.183 and 184) refer to the ending of a period of darkness. In the second book hymn (II.15) is about Indra crushing the vehicle of uṣas, which is a metaphor for a continuous dawn like condition without a visible sun. Indra had to be supplicated by men who struggled to get sunlight (II.19). Indra found the sun dissolving in darkness near the cow’s-foot (III.39.5, 6). In (4.16.9) Indra is implored in the battle for sunlight. Indra is said to have hurt uṣas, daughter of the sky which refers to absence of day break, near River Vipāśa (IV.30.9-11). This event is recounted in a slightly different form in the tenth book in hymn (X.138). In hymn (V.31.11) when the night was ending, sun’s wheel is said to have gone backwards. This is again a reference to absence of day break and nonexistence of observable sun’s movement across the sky. Even though the temporal ordering of the various events is left in doubt, the metaphoric texts lead one to perceive extreme climatic conditions preceded by uniquely spectacular celestial events. Maruts should have had an important role to play in these natural events, since they are said to reduce heat and conduct a sacrifice in the heavens (V.54.1). In (V.59.5) it is said that maruts are capable of blocking the sun by their showers (sūryasya cakṣuḥ pra minanti vṛṣṭibhiḥ|). This has been routinely taken, by many translators, to be a cloud cover on a rainy day. However, this interpretation does not match with the immediate next verse, which refers to a special event in the sky.

Like line of birds they flew in lengthened lines from heaven’s ridges to the borders of the sky. Rudra’s children are all similar with none younger or older. (V.59. 6, 7)


This must have been a wide meteoritic ring or trail of a comet obstructing the sun’s orb being seen from the earth.

In (VI.7.5) vaiśvānara is praised to have freed and set the sun in the sky for all to see. A similar statement occurs in (X.156.4) mentioning that agni has made Sun mount the sky. Several hymns to Indra are prayers for sunlight or laudation after sunlight was restored. In (VI.17.5) Indra gives splendour to Sun, which had been lost. In RV (VI.39) the reference is to a light called Indu which brightened the worlds that were not shining. Reference to the widespread abnormal darkness appears in one form or other in several places of RV, with its all pervasive cosmological, philosophical, mystical and religious influence running through the later Vedic texts13. Some hymns of RV praise Indra for having given light to sun as in (VIII.3.6). A few others (VIII.12.30, VIII.89.7) laud Indra for having fixed sun in the sky. In the hymn (X.37) dedicated to Sun, the general prayer is; May we never suffer from want of sun’s presence, which is very similar to the verse (II.33.1) from an earlier stratum of RV. One of the most cryptic descriptions of the sun being covered up is in the seventh book,

tānīdahāni bahulānyāsan yā prācīnamuditā sūryasya | yataḥ pari jāra ivācaranty uṣo dadṛkṣe napunar yatīva|| (VII.76.3)

Many days were over before the old sun rose again. In this period Uṣas was seen behaving like a maiden with her lover.


The above is a plain statement that once, there was a long gap between dawn and sun rise. It also implies that the Vedic seers considered this period to be uṣas or dawn only. Since nothing is said about the nights, it is conjectured that they could recognize the passage of time as implied in the key phrase ahāni bahulāni (many days). The immediate next verse (VII.76.4) mentions about the ancestors of the poet rejoicing after discovering the hidden light of sun. The above incident and the verse are perhaps the basis for all later legends associating Prajāpati (Creator) with uṣas (his own creation figuratively called daughter) as in the Vedic Brāhmaṇa literature14.

Discussion

As is known agni and Indra are the most important deities in RV. This is true, not only in a statistical sense, but also in terms of the importance they have carried in the Vedic rituals and literature devoted to the elucidation of RV. Even though the original agni of RV was clearly celestial, the terrestrial sacrificial agni assumed greater significance in the traditional (yājñika) interpretation of RV by Sāyaṇa and others before him. The reason for this is not difficult to find. The Vedic religion of yajña on earth is a replica of what the gods did once upon a time. This yajña of the gods was of celestial origin with its effects reaching the earth. Hence this was of profound spiritual significance to the originators of Vedic religion and philosophy to raise questions about the place of man in the universe culminating in the Vedānta or the Upaniṣads. There are several instances in the Vedas where this point is stated either metaphorically or even directly. In the second book (II.21.5), Uśijs (Ańgiras) are said to have found the path by means of yajña. The allegorical reference is to the overthrow of vala to get the waters released. RV hymn (VIII.89) by Nṛmedha and Purumedha (Ańgiras) is about Indra supported by maruts as a group. In this hymn the principle of yajña is said to have originated when Indra spread between the earth and the sky for killing vṛtra. This yajña of gods had a corresponding sacrifice on earth also, which in modern parlance could be called a natural disaster. Maitrāyaṇī Samhitā mentions that gods did a sacrifice at Kurukṣetra15. This is confirmed with further elaborations in the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka16. Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa categorically states, maruts killed Prajāpati's creatures because they (maruts) were not initially worshipped by the people. Prajāpati (Progenitor of people) had to behold a particular offering and present it to maruts in order to save his creation17. A similar statement occurs in the same text about maruts disturbing the work of Prajāpati18. Since RV is the earliest among the Vedas, other texts derive inspiration from RV for their contents and practices. Thus Vedic literature has evidences to infer, the sacrifice by the gods through the agency of meteoritic storms called maruts in RV might have depleted population in the northern parts of ancient India.

The present study started by tracing the word dhūmaketu. In the sequel maruts and vibhāvasu were found to be intimately connected with the fiery dhūmaketu. Vibhāvasu could be the name of one or more comets but the evidence is equivocal. It is possible this word was used in some hymns as a qualification for agni, which depending on its location was called by different names. In one place significantly, vibhāvasu is said to be like a big rock (V.25.8) making one surmise that the ancients had guessed the basic nature of these near earth objects, sometimes called deities but at other instances as demons, correctly. It is maruts that get more space than the other two objects considered here, almost competing with Indra and agni with whom they are any way closely related. The minimal commonality in the physical feature of maruts, is their countable membership to a group (gaṇa), unlike undifferentiated masses of clouds or sheets of water. The Brāhmaṇa texts explain that maruts are viś; the groups (or clans) and this means their abundance in the skies19,20. The perception of the RV composers (I.27.12) was that as in their community traders and agricultural people (viś) were in abundance, so were maruts abundant in the sky. The Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa declares this explicitly; maruts are the most numerous among the gods21.

Three broad phases can be discerned in the description of maruts. The first, probably the earliest in time, are hymns which express awe at the approach of maruts. These also express a sense of fear that maruts are prone to kill people on earth. In the second group are prayers so that the shower of stones may avoid the worshippers of maruts. The third layer contains hymns wherein maruts are invoked to come to prayer or worship. It may not be wrong to conjecture that this trend should have been directly matching with the frequency of the storms of maruts. We also find hymns in which maruts are prayed to bring medicines and precious materials (sanāddhi vo ratnadheyāni santi | X.88.8). This should be a later view of maruts after physical examination of the falling objects and a feel for their contents. A point to be reconciled is the meaning of maruts as wind deities in later literature. We guess, with the status of Indra getting downgraded in time to a mere rain god, maruts always linked with Indra, were also brought down as wind deities. This has happened notwithstanding the fact parjanya and vāyu are the independent rain and wind deities in RV.

The later Vedic texts corroborate the above points, since they essentially describe invocations and offerings to maruts. The Taittirīya Āraṇyaka which, states that maruts were in abundance and killed people, also states that there is only one Rudra and the innumerable thousands (Rudra’s children) are not seen any more but only remembered22. It also associates a season with maruts, namely the hemanta ṛtu the dewy season which is the two month period ending with the winter solstice23. It is most likely; maruts were thought to originate from a particular object in the sky, called Rudra. In many hymns of RV maruts are the children of Rudra, and their downward gliding motion is described by the unique word skandanti from which the proper name Skanda has originated. It is noted here that not in all Vedic literature maruts are denoted as Rudra’s children. The Taittirīya Āraṇyaka differentiates rudragaṇa from marutgaṇa and mentions that the first appear in the grīśmaṛtu, the two month season ending with the summer solstice before the rainy season starts. The latter appear in the hemantaṛtu, as in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa. The commentators mention that both are sky deities appearing in their respective seasons. Rudragaṇa is described as being white robed and recurring with the summer season24. The second group appears red with anger as though ready for battle in the dewy season25. It is easily recognized that both are meteor groups separated by six months. This again makes a case for ancient sky observations and earthly rituals going hand in hand. It also hints at the development of observational astronomy starting with the identification of seasons, connected with the observable meteor showers, which once should have caused destruction on land. This raises the question whether marut was a generic word for all types of meteoritic activity or it referred to particular types. This cannot be answered definitively at present. Ulkā the popular word for meteorite in classical Sanskrit is already in use in RV. This word in plural occurs in (IV.4.2) where agni is asked to cast his firebrands (meteors) around. Again ulkā appears in the singular in (X.68.4) where a meteor is said to be cast down from Sun. The group nature that is special to maruts is absent in the occasional meteor called ulkā. It is not the case that the composers of the 4th and the 10th books were not aware of maruts. But they deliberately brought in a new word to discriminate maruts from other transient falling objects. The Ṣaḍvimśa Brāhmaṇa further brings in new terminologies and events tārāvarṣa or star showers, and dig-dāha meaning blaze of the cardinal directions or zodiacal light in addition to ulkā and ketu.

Modern Concepts

Only a small sample of RV hymns is investigated in the present study. But, if the events described in these were descriptions of real events, either by direct experience or based on family tradition, the situation would indicate the occurrence of an ancient natural disaster attributable to meteoritic showers, comets, dust veils and climate alteration for an extended length of time. Evidence for such a severe natural disaster to have occurred in ancient India is available also in the Mahābhārata and the Skānda Purāṇa26.

In recent years scientific evidence for near earth objects to have impacted earth in the past has been growing. The path of the Taurid group of extra terrestrial objects consisting of meteors, meteoroids, asteroids and Comet Encke intersect the orbit of the earth making earth vulnerable for impacts from these objects. Some of these objects instead of reaching the ground may vaporize in the atmosphere leading to air blasts and fires as it happened in Tungska, Siberia in 1908. It is held by astronomers that in the last 10,000 years Comet Encke split and further disintegrated to leave a trail of debris which caused dust veils that would have temporarily blocked sunlight reaching earth27,28. Thus, the Ṛgvedic descriptions of maruts killing people on earth, birth of agni and the Horse in the sky, vṛtra covering the sun, Indra restoring sunlight, breaking down of viśvarūpā son of tvaṣṭā and celestial deities coming down to earth (India) to become important in cultural and religious practices, are to be taken as natural events of low probability but not impossible to have happened in the fourth millennium BCE or earlier.

Chronological Footprint

The relatively late usage of the word dhūmaketu in RV has chronological significance for understanding the development of astronomy in ancient India. The word dhūmaketu for a transient celestial object in the RV and in the AV is in harmony with the use of the word to indicate a comet in later literature. This acquires significance since, names of some of the Vedic deities (devatā) coincide with the names of comets and other non-planetary objects described by Parāśara, Vṛddha-Garga, Nārada and Devala who have left records of what may be called scientific literature prior to the development of mathematical astronomy in India29. Parāśara knew twenty six comets (ketu) long before Varāha-mihira (6th Cent. CE) stated them in the wrong order in his Bṛhatsamhitā. The last comet of this list was called the dhūmaketu.

The most conservative dates for RV agree that the canons were closed, including the late 8th and the 10th books, by 1500 BCE. This, situation not only supports the deciphering of some RV deities as transient celestial objects, but also indicates the existence of a parallel tradition of sky observations contemporaneous with what is mentioned poetically in RV. Parāśara and subsequently Vṛddha-Garga had more things to say about comets. These conspicuously included their specific names, year number, and position in the sky, movement, color, visibility, duration, and effect on earth. They also classified meteors (ulkā) into five types. Parāśara and Vṛddhagarga mention that a graha (grasper) called Tvaṣṭā can darken Sun and Moon at odd times. Varāha-mihira, a votary of mathematics for predicting eclipses severely criticizes Parāśara for his eclipse divination methods, but retains the above legend in his writings. We conjecture that strong belief in the historical reality of such a rare event should have been in the collective memory of the community since the start of the Ṛgveda, for Varāha to accept its possibility and retain this event in the Bṛhatsamhitā.

Interestingly, maruts and correlated sky objects do not refer to the moon directly. References to the moon, months, intercalation, eclipses probably belong to another strata of RV coming after the havoc caused by maruts and the consequent climate alteration effects subsided. It is as if the original group of people left their memories of a divine (celestial) catastrophe in poetic language upon which their successors added further observation of the sky leading to lunar and solar rituals. An algorithmic calendar attributed to Lagadha became a necessity for timing the rituals. The Ṛgveda is well aware of eclipses and their recurrent nature. This is in contrast to sun getting veiled due to atmospheric dust or trail of comet debris. While the observation of a solar eclipse by Atri is easily recognized, lunar eclipses are metaphorical invoking agni to a yajña when moon appears red in colour. The number 3339 mentioned twice in RV is explained by the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa unambiguously as a lunar number. This symbolic connection between the above Ṛgvedic number and the eighteen year eclipse period is discussed in the next chapter.

2. Eclipse Cycle Number 3339 in the Ṛgveda

Introduction


The composers of the Ṛgveda and their immediate followers were not just casual onlookers of the night sky but were inspired and clearly fascinated with what they observed. They not only named an object as dhūmaketu the smoke-bannered fire, they also noted that maruts appeared always in a group consisting of individually differentiated members, all looking similar, but moving together as if they had a central axis. The spectacle should have been so attractive the observers liked to count the numbers in the group or gaṇa, out of which gaṇita (Mathematics) evolved. It need not concern us here whether this counting was out of fear or for adoration or out of just curiosity. We need not also wonder whether these numbers were correct or not, beyond recognizing that counts of 7, 63, 108 are possible to be counted in naked eye observations of a meteor burst or shower. From the evidences presented in the previous article one can infer that when a transient celestial object such as a comet apparition intervened between sun and earth, the concept of ketu-graha as an object that could mask sun and perhaps even the moon arose.

Eclipses of sun and moon must have been experienced by the Vedic people as they became consciously sensitive to the visible sky. The codified darśa-pūrṇamāsa rite, observed to this day by some āhitāgnis, indicates a fairly sophisticated stage when time reckoning and the calendar had become important. Between such practices and the ancient worship of maruts with invocations to celestial fires, what can we infer about possible eclipse observations described in RV? This question is not simple to answer, since the word rāhu so common in later literature does not appear in RV, in stark contrast to the word ketu that appears eighty times. The first reference to rāhu by name is in the Atharvaveda where the moon, planets, meteors, rāhu and the dhūmaketu are mentioned together30. Thus, at least by the time of compilation of the Atharvaveda the Vedic community had differentiated the actions of rāhu and ketu, as agents capable of masking the celestials. In the later texts of Parāśara, Garga, the two Epics and classical Sanskrit literature, rāhu modeled as a large dark planet is taken as the cause of both solar and lunar eclipse. In the RV the well recognized solar eclipse is attributed to svarbhānu but description of lunar eclipse is not easily recognizable in the text. In hindsight this is only natural, since in contrast to the darkening of sun, moon appears red in a total eclipse. Thus for the earliest Vedic observers it was natural to postulate two different obstructing agents for the day time and night time events.

The covering of the sun by maruts, stopping of the chariot of the sun and the many prayers for restoration of sun’s light cannot be taken as references to solar eclipses. The predominant action of vṛtra was prolonged masking of sunlight, whereas any solar eclipse could have been for comparatively very short durations. However, the word vṛtra can be interpreted as one who covers and since it is said that he was won over by Indra, the same imagery might have been used in the early periods to describe solar eclipses also. Usage of the same word to denote two distinct objects can be reconciled when one can attribute the same type of action to the two objects. As is known vṛtra is the archetype asura or demon in later purāṇa legends. We infer that a negative meaning for the word asura had gradually gained acceptance during the RV period itself, as someone who could obstruct celestial objects. This is reflected in the legends about maruts that they once killed the children of prajāpati because they were not respected. Conversely those venerated by people were known as asura, who could discharge stony weapons towards earth. The homonyms asurā… pūrvadevā suradviṣaḥ listed in the Amarakośa support this conclusion31. The word sura in the sense of deva or a deity is not found in RV. The popular interpretation of asura as the opponent of sura is a later development in the Brāhmaṇa texts. However, in some places in RV, asura are in conflict with deva the celestial luminaries of the adhidaiva meaning. Thus it should not be surprising to see asura being described as personified dark objects in the sky. In fact we find the word asura, that is used to refer to maruts in RV, is also used directly or in a derivative form while describing eclipses. We see that in such cases the composers might have referred to the past actions of asura covering the sun or some other luminary. This situation no doubt brings in some ambiguity in locating references to eclipses in Vedic literature, except when the statements are explicit and hence cannot be taken otherwise.

Solar Eclipse

Indian tradition takes the RV sūkta (V.40) to be the description of a solar eclipse. Modern authors also agree with this explanation. It will be interesting to briefly review the contents of this hymn to appreciate the epithets and terminologies used.

Oh Sun! When svarbhānu the āsura struck you with darkness the worlds became
like a person not knowing where he stood. (5)

Indra! While you were removing the illusions of svarbhānu that spread
below the sun, Atri by his fourth prayer rescued Sun concealed by darkness. (6)

Let not the violator devour me with darkness. You are Mitra whose wealth is truth.
Let you and King Varuṇa protect me. (7)

Then, Atri bringing the stones together, offering prayers to deities dispelled
the darkness and placed the eye of Sun in the sky. (8)

Only the Atris and none others, could subsequently find Sun whom
āsura svarbhānu struck with darkness. (9)


Several interesting information can be gathered from the above hymn. The above verses (5- 9) are part of a larger hymn that addresses Indra. Even though the event is popularly known as Atri’s eclipse, it is Indra who is said to have removed svarbhānu. Sun prays to Atri along with Mitra and Varuṇa seeking protection. After this, it is said that Atri placed Sun in the sky. The 9th verse is somewhat unconnected with the previous verses since it refers to the family members of Atri and not to any specific Atri. The eclipse shadow called svarbhānu has the epithet āsura, which is popularly rendered as demon. But from what we found in the previous chapter maruts were the original asuras who could throw stones at earth. They had also covered up Sun once. However, in RV this word has other positive connotations as being powerful and at times even as divine. Here in the hymn RV (V.40) we see the evolution of the concept of an obstruction being called āsura a derivative of asura who had to be removed by Indra. This clear link between āsura and eclipse shadow indicates that wherever the word asura/āsura appears one has to investigate whether or not any metaphorical picture of an eclipse is embedded in the hymn. The above event is also the traceable textual source for the legend of rāhu equated with svarbhānu being known as an asura in later literature. The word asura in the purāṇas is more in the sense of an enemy of sura who in turn are equated with gods or regent deities. As already noted rāhu the eclipse causer appears in Vedic literature first in the Atharvaveda. Since svarbhānu is āsura, with tenuous connection to maruts, the word rāhu is likely to be a short form of the epithet varāhu used for maruts in RV (I.88). After a few more hymns in the same book we read in (V.49.2)32

Knowing the asura's time of returning, worship the deity savitar with hymns and praises.


This verse uses the technical word, prati-prayāṇam, which means return journey or travel. Reference to the return journey of asura and worship of Sun leaves one wondering whether this pertains to an expected solar eclipse. This hymn has viśvedevāḥ as its deities, in common with several other hymns yet to be considered that carry some type of eclipse imagery.

Viśvedevāḥ (VD)

The group of deities known as viśvedevāḥ is of considerable importance in Vedic literature and also in Hindu religious observances. It has been the practice to translate this word as Allgods, which hardly conveys the role of these deities in the Vedas. A brief review of the traditional stand on these deities is important for our further analysis, since viśvedevāḥ (VD) were also countable like maruts.

In RV apart from many isolated verses there are fifty-eight independent hymns devoted to VD. What was the role of VD in the Vedic world view? On this point, there is difference of opinion among the later texts and commentators. In one place in the ŚB it is said VD created the directions33. However, in another place they are described as the seasons34. The attributes and actions of VD are varied, but are almost always connected with time and space and hence important in our study. Bṛhaddevatā (BD) of Śaunaka an explanatory text describing the legends, organization, numbers, and actions of the RV deities, is indispensable in the study of RV. As per BD the eleven hymns starting with (V.41) in the 5th book of RV are devoted to VD35. According to BD (1.136) all the Vedic deities structured into three sub-groups taken together are known as viśvedevāḥ. The hymns about VD are also classified into three groups (BD 3.42). A list comprising of both individual deities and several sub-groups is given in BD, as making up the full VD group36. BD also provides names of some forty RV seers who had understood or realized the nature of viśvedevāḥ37. But, the hymns assigned to many of these seers are found to be about agni. The explanation of the Vedic tradition for this apparent anomaly is; when agni’s cosmic actions are described, such a hymn refers to VD38. What was this special cosmic action of agni which took the Vedic seers beyond meteors, comets, lightning and the sun that further necessitated a set of countable deities? The answer to this question is also available in the Bṛhaddevatā39

The seers of Atri family, for removing the ill effect of Sun who was seen (covered) by svarbhānu, woke up agni with twenty-seven hymns. (BD 5.12)


Thus as per the orthodox tradition all the twenty-seven hymns of the fifth book devoted to agni have some connection with eclipses. One can easily suspect that this relation between a solar eclipse and agni, other than indirectly indicating that Sun was recognized as a form of fire, should have been through a connection between VD and agni.

About the total number of deities recognized by RV there is difference of opinion among the commentators. As per the Nirukta even though there are only three natural deities localized to earth, atmosphere and sky, due to their separate activities the deities are counted as thirty three40. According to this logic still larger numbers can be recognized depending on the multiplicity of actions assigned to the thirty-three deities. In RV (I.34.11) the two aśvins are invoked to arrive along with the Thirty-three deities41. This evidently implies that the Thirty-three meant some sub-group excluding aśvins whose importance is obvious in RV. Notwithstanding such differences, quite surprisingly, there is unanimity among all the authorities that the total number of VD is 3339.

In the RV we come across many small numbers and also a few fairly large numbers. The small ones such as 3, 7, 12, 27, 49, 360 can be explained as having some physical significance and are also easily countable. A notionally large number appearing in a sacred text due to chance is more apt to be in hundreds and thousands in round figures. Curiously enough 3339 is a large number but is too precise and specific to be taken as an arbitrary count of VD due to chance. It is deliberately connected with agni which in turn has had a link with VD, and this number is repeated twice in the RV in the third and the tenth books.

The hymn RV (III.9) is by Gāthina Viśvāmitra, a legendary figure of immortal fame in the cultural history of India. This hymn has agni as its deity. The main purport of the hymn is to invoke agni who has to come from a distance, being hidden as the child of celestial waters. In brief, the legend alluded here is that agni was hiding in a cave, like a lion, till viśvedevāḥ searched him and found him out (RV III.9.4). The next verse mentions that mātariśvan has brought by force this agni who was playing at a distance42. Sāyaṇa interprets mātariśvan as atmospheric wind which can bring fire by force. The phrase sasṛvāmsamiva is explained as like bringing a son by force who was playing somewhere at will43. This simile is quite unusual, since it indicates something that was long awaited, to have happened suddenly. Beyond this the cosmic action of this agni is not made explicit in this hymn. The last verse of the hymn is about the above agni being worshipped by 3339 deities. This verse occurs again in the tenth book. The text with the translation by Aurobindo of this verse is44

trīṇi śatā trī sahasrāṇyagnim trimśacca devā nava cāsarpayan|
aukṣan ghṛtairastṛṇan barhirasmā ādiddhotāram nyasādayanta|| (RV III.9.9; X.52.6)

Gods three thousand and three hundred and thirty and nine waited upon the Fire. They anointed him with many streams of the clarity; they spread for him the seat of sacrifice, and seated him within as Priest of the call.


This verse is the famous nivid that specifies the number of viśvedevāḥ to be 3339. Why this verse and the characteristic number find mention twice in RV is not explained in the Vedic literature. However the use of this special number in RV appears to be by design since the context of the hymns (III.9) and (X.51-X.55) are fairly similar.

Saucīka Hymns

Hymn (X.52), where the number 3339 occurs for the second time in RV, is about viśvedevāḥ attributed to the authorship of Saucīka Agni. It is possible this name of the composer is notional and not meant to denote any real person. If viśvedevāḥ can be rendered as all-gods, the name saucikāgni can be translated as indicator-fire. This again makes one wonder what could have been the connection between viśvedevāḥ and agni. Quite interestingly hymns (X.51) and (X.53) are also by Saucīka Agni and these also contain cryptic metaphorical references to devāḥ and agni.

Hymn (X.51) is in the form of a conversation between devāḥ and agni, where in (v.2), agni wonders ‘how many gods have clearly beheld my form’. There is also an allusion, like in RV (III.9) considered previously, to agni hiding in secret places. The legend outlined in the hymn is briefly as follows. Agni had three elder brothers who were doing the work of carrying sacrificial offerings to gods. All the three died due to the harsh vaṣaṭ sounds uttered during the sacrifices. Hence the youngest fire known as saucīka fearing the same treatment will befall him, was hiding in (celestial) waters, till viśvedevāḥ found him and requested him to come out and help in carrying sacrificial offerings to gods. Saucīka agrees to their request under the condition that he should have prominent role in the yajña and that he should get the prayāja and anuyāja offerings. BD explains this legend at great length to conclude with the total number of VD as the sum of three different numbers, namely 3000; 309 and 3045. This establishes that bringing saucīkāgni was the prime role of the VD deities adding up to 3339. The next hymn RV (X.52) starts with agni asking VD to instruct him as to how he should pass on the sacrificial offerings to them. In (v.2) agni mentions aśvins as the adhvaryus and samidh or Moon as the Brahman in the yajña. Quite cryptically this samidh is offered as oblation to aśvins. The Vedic tradition does not identify aśvins with any specific celestial object but is quite clear that samidh should be equated with soma and the moon46. The next verse (v.3) alludes to counting of days or nights, where the reference is to one who springs to life month by month and by each day (aharahaṛ jāyate māsi māsi). The conclusion that this should be a reference to moon is unavoidable. Agni being honoured by 3339 gods is the theme of the last verse (v.6) of this hymn.

Hymn (X.53) contains nine verses attributed to VD and two to saucīkāgni. In the first two verses (v.1, 2) VD laud agni who is sitting as the leader of the sacrifice. Significantly (v.2) is the mantra arādhi hotā prescribed to be meditated upon at the start of the Vedic darśapūrṇamāsa (DP) rituals observed at New Moon and Full Moon. In (v.3) it is declared:

Agni has arrived with the life (time) given to him by the gods and has made our offerings to the gods auspicious. We have obtained (understood) the secret of the sacrifice.


Tradition attributes this statement to VD. However, as a matter of fact, the poet is here most probably eulogizing a lunar eclipse, since moon as per the previous verse was the sacrificial offering. Moon was also the Brahman, who in Vedic parlance is the presiding officer during a sacrifice. This word also can mean one who had grown big indicating a full moon. The life given to agni by the gods has to be a time period and is to be connected with the number 3339. This secret of agni, who was the tongue of gods for drinking soma, was known to the composer.

The next verse (v.4) is by agni declaring the best advice by which gods can overcome asuras, where this word is used obviously in a negative sense. This verse, like the second verse above, is prescribed for use in the DP rituals47. Linked with the moon and the Full Moon rites the word asura might be an oblique reference to an eclipse. The next verse is also said by agni, but the second-half of (v.5) is more appropriately by the human poet requesting earth and sky for protection from earthly and heavenly pollution (aṁhasaḥ). Tradition takes the word aṁhasaḥ as pāpa, which in turn is usually translated as sin, which does not fit into the context. However, if we recognize that the sky picture of moon being offered in sacrifice by agni, as an eclipse, the word aṁhasaḥ refers quite appropriately to the cosmic pollution caused due to the covering of sun or moon during an eclipse; a religious belief widely prevalent in cultures influenced by the Hindu world view. In (v.6) agni is asked by VD to follow the sun protecting the luminous path, which is a poetic but plausible reference to the ecliptic. This statement makes it clear, that in this context agni is not the Sun, but some other agent which had actually approached Moon. In (v.7) the deities eligible to take soma are asked to arrive in a chariot that is eight cornered or is bound eight fold.

Hymn (X.54) is about Indra the supreme force of RV. It was observed previously in RV (V.40.6) that the covering of the sun by svarbhānu was removed by Indra. Here in (X.54.6) also Indra is said to establish the light in the celestials.

Hymn (X.55) in the first two verses refers to Indra addressed as Maghavan with secret celestial forms. In (v.3) he is said to envelop heaven and earth with the same type of light. He oversees in various roles the five deities (pañcadevān), the Seven-times-seven (saptasapta or forty-nine) entities season by season, along with the Thirty-four (catustriṁśatā). The above three numbers should naturally refer to three sets of countable objects in the sky. Sāyaṇa’s gloss takes the five deities to be the five tribes that include humans, which meaning is unlikely as humans are not referred as devāḥ in RV. In verse (v.5) the reference is to vidhu that is Moon, whom Sāyaṇa interprets as Indra in the form of Time. The gist of this verse can be rendered as48

He is woken up from his slumber running his course with many around him…. He who died yesterday is living today.


The next verse (v.6) is even more cryptic in mentioning the arrival of the ancient red bird which has had no nest to dwell in (aruṇaḥ suparṇaḥ anīḍaḥ|). Again Sāyaṇa takes this red bird to be Indra, equated by him previously with vidhu, normally interpreted as Moon. If the poetic language is disentangled, the context can be understood to be a celestial event in which Full Moon is seen and an apparition of red colour also appears. Mention of the arrival of a red coloured bird with no permanent nest to reside, is easily recognized as a transient event associated with the total eclipse of the moon. The summary of the archaeo-astronomical information contained in the above five hymns is: in the night sky, moon’s colour turned red due to the arrival of saucīkāgni brought in by viśvedevāḥ numbering 3339.

Marriage of Sūryā with Soma

Hymn RV (X.85) is one of the most beautiful poetry in the whole of Vedic literature. This is popularly known as the marriage hymn describing the bridal procession of sūryā for her union with soma the Moon. The implied imagery of a lunar eclipse, hidden beneath the ancient enchanting poetry of the meeting of two celestial persons, is quite apparent from the beginning of the hymn. This hymn also presents a window to one of the esoteric cosmic thought that forms the basis of Hindu mysticism. There are forty-seven verses in this long hymn. We consider here only those connected with soma which in the adhidaiva sense is the moon as per the orthodox tradition of Yāska49. The gist of the astronomical information available is as follows.

Earth is held by truth and the heaven is upheld by Sun. Ādityas depend on the cosmic order, while Moon is stationed in the sky. (1)

Soma the moon is stationed near the nakṣatras. (2)

He who crushes and drinks the juice thinks that the herb is Soma. But only the seers know the real nature of the regent deity of Soma (the moon). (3)

Soma! You are protected by seven layers of covers. Humans cannot take part in drinking you. (4)

Soma! Whereas the gods drink you, you become bright again. The wind protects the Soma, while moon is the creator of the years. (5)


The above five verses introduce moon as the object of the hymn. The next seven verses (v.6- 12) describe the travel of Sun’s daughter sūryā in the sky towards her husband the Moon, in abstract terms. Her friends were Lauds and Hymns; her dress was made of Sāma music; her chariot was the Mind and her cover was the Sky. Two bright objects (śukrau) were the bullocks drawing her cart. In other words she was really invisible, till the poet was able to see her dress in colour much later in verse (v.35). In this picture the two aśvins appear as visible, hinting them to be twin stars witnessing the act. Verse (v.13) provides the locus of the celestial marriage through a metaphor.

sūryāyā vahatuḥ prāgāt savitā yam avāsṛjat|
aghāsu hanyante gāvo’rjunyoḥ paryuhyate || (X.85.13)


Traditionally this is rendered to mean:

The bullocks of the cart with the wedding gifts were whipped in the Maghā asterisms. Sūryā was carried to her husband’s place in the Arjunī asterisms.


This is the literal meaning given by Sāyaṇa also. But in view of the context of the night sky being pictured, the word gāvaḥ in the adhidaiva sense should mean rays or light, which is an accepted meaning of the word as per the Nirukta50. This leads to the direct meaning:

The light rays (of moon) are hit in passing through the Maghā stars, while sūryā is carried over by moon in the Arjunī stars.


This in plain language means the shadow on the moon started near group of six stars called Maghā the brightest among them being the ecliptic star Regulus. The eclipsed moon progressed in time towards Arjunī which refers to the two stars of the Pūrva-phalguni nakṣatra. In summary the eclipse was in the constellation Leonis. The next verse (v.14) mentions that when aśvins arrived asking for sūryā, their request was supported by viśvedevāḥ. We are not sure of the role of aśvins in the sky picture, other than inferring they should have been two closely spaced stars, but mention of viśvedevāḥ probably indicates a connection with their characteristic number 3339. Verses (18 & 19) are about the playful nature of sun and moon, where the property of being reborn is associated with the moon. The hymn from (v.20) onwards digresses on to the marriage of humans except in a few places where sūryā is referred. For example (v.35) is about the visible form of the three-fold dress of sūryā the pollution due to which only a seer can relieve. Similarly the upper cloth of a human bride is said to be afflicted by a deity, dark coppery red in colour. This reference to coppery red in relation to sūryā can be inferred to be the colour of the moon’s orb as seen from earth during a total eclipse. We have seen previously that viśvedevāḥ are the deities who bring agni. In verses (38-41) sūryā is said to have been given to agni by the gandharva who in turn got her from soma. The hymn presents a picture of the night sky, with moon being visible. Circumstances describing the journey of Sun’s daughter, named suryā to marry moon and the coppery red colour of the apparition indicate a total lunar eclipse. Mystically, this event highlights the cosmic agni-soma union.

Vedic Long Count 3339

From the above analysis a physical connection between the 3339 viśvedevāḥ and an agni who can cause eclipses is seen to exist. Even if the hymns were to be taken as mystical poetry the reference to the waxing and waning of moon and further eclipse imagery is too conspicuous to be overlooked. Most probably in the early stages of theorization, svarbhānu and sūryā, both literally indicating a connection with the sun, were taken to be the active external partners in solar and lunar eclipses caused by agni brought in by viśvedevāḥ. The intriguing aspect of this ancient theory of eclipses is the number 3339 and its intended meaning. The extant Vedic texts are essentially silent on this. Sāyaṇa’s gloss on the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa (II.7.12.2) where this number 3339 occurs, declares that over and above the thirty-three RV deities others are supernumeraries. Some modern day scholars have also speculated on the nature of this number. Shama Shastry takes 3339 to be the number of year-gods and looks for a link with a 33 year cycle51. Sarma interprets this as a period of thirty years consisting of 371 lunar months52. Kak thinks that 3339 is the total number of gods in a year personified as agni53. He breaks the number into its factors 9 and 371 to identify the first as the bhāmśās in a tithi and the latter as the number of tithis in a solar year. While these authors have at least guessed this number to be associated with a time measure, majority of indologists and historians have presumed this to be just a part of variable Vedic mythology, wherein the number of gods increased from thirty-three to higher figures (even 33 Crores) with time. This type of speculative generalization has happened due to literalistic interpretation of Vedic texts following the sacrificial tradition ignoring the celestial nature of the deities and their actions. On the other hand, Purāṇas by tradition are supposed to be of help in understanding the Vedas. In fact the adhidaiva tradition is preserved in bits and pieces in some of the Purāṇas. Fortunately, the physical meaning of the above number 3339 and related legends are well preserved in the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa.

Purāṇic Harmony
The eighteen major and eighteen minor purāṇās make up an enormous body of Sanskrit literature, not easy to read, much less to synthesize to see the common cultural threads linking them to the Ṛgveda. Here, the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa (BP) will be considered briefly to bring out the rationale behind the 3339 viśvedevāḥ of the Ṛgveda. All the important purāṇas describe the night sky and present ancient astronomical models based on Meru and the Pole Star. In a few of the available texts the nucleus of this sky model can be traced back to the Vedas. The BP one of the earliest among the eighteen purāṇa explains the waxing and waning of moon as part of its astronomy. A few verses are given below with a working translation to appreciate the legend of somapāna (drinking of the moon), by the gods

āpūrayan suṣumṇena bhāgam bhāgamahaḥ kramāt |
suṣumṇā āpyāyamānasya śuklā vardhanti vai kalāḥ || BP. I. ( 23.61)

The bright parts (of moon) increase in the śukla pakṣa, with sun filling them up in daily
sequence through his suṣumṇā ray.

Bhakṣārtham amṛtam somaḥ pourṇamāsyām upāsate |
ekām rātrīm suraiḥ sarvaiḥ pitṛbhiḥ sarṣibhiḥ saha ||
somasya kṛṣṇapakṣādau bhāskarābhimukhasya tu |
prakṣīyante pitṛdevaiḥ pīyamānāḥ kalākramāt ||
trayaśca trimśataścaiva trayaḥtrimśat tathaiva ca |
trayaśca trisahasrāśca devāḥ somam pibanti vai ||
ityetaiḥ pīyamānasya kṛṣṇā vardhanti vai kalāḥ |
kṣayanti tasmāt śuklāśca kṛṣṇā āpyāyayanti ca || BP.I. (23.66-69)

Moon is approached by all the deities, manes and Ṛṣis for a night on Full Moon, for partaking nectar. From the beginning of the dark fortnight, parts of moon facing sun, decrease being drunk by the manes digit by digit. Three hundred and three, then thirty-three and again three thousand and three gods drink soma. Being drunk this way, the dark digits increase with corresponding decrease in the bright digits.


This is a clear enunciation of the scientific naturalism behind the 3339 gods and what their role must have been in the Ṛgveda. The nomenclature of the deities might have changed, but these were special and their count was sequential, in the order of the decreasing phases of moon adding to 3339. The above description is in tune with the Ṛgveda and the Vedic ritualistic picture of moon and drinking of soma by the gods. The tripartite Vedic division of viśvedevāḥ is also maintained in the purāṇa as the sum of three numbers 33, 303 and 3003.

Eclipse Cycle of 18 Years

The symbolism of gods drinking the digits of moon, which obviously refers to the dark fortnight, and their total number being 3339, has its origin in the Ṛgveda. For this characteristic number the above purāṇic model has to be accepted as the proper explanation. The count started on pūrṇimā to proceed till amāvāsya and stopped till the next Full Moon, to repeat again in the same fashion with gaps in the bright fortnights. In other words, this number is the count of tithis only in the dark fortnights summed up as 3339 sequentially for a special purpose. If both the fortnights were to be included, the real time elapsed by this count would be 6678 tithis. At the rate of thirty tithis per lunation, this long count is equal to 222.6 lunations, which in round figures is the eclipse cycle of 223 synodic months. It is known that for the Vedic people months were lunar but the year was solar. It is also known from Lagadha’s Vedāńga Jyotiṣa that one solar year was taken to have 371 tithis. Hence the Vedic number 3339, which is half of 6678, is a proxy for 18 solar years. Agni, viśvedevāḥ, yajña and somapāna described in various places of RV are symbols or metaphors for technically modeling the celestial phenomenon of similar lunar eclipses. The context of the number in the RV and evidence from the BP leads to the conclusion that the number 3339 was the Vedic long count of nights or tithi linked with lunar eclipses occurring near the same nakṣatra.


Other Vedic Texts

Later texts such as the Taittirīya Samhitā (TS), the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (ŚB) and the Tāṇḍya Brāhmaṇa know the solar eclipse of RV but describe the same in different ways. The Taittirīya Samhitā has a sacrificial interpretation mentioning that the eclipse shadow, as it receded, was taken to be a barren divine animal (devapaśu). It is said that the gods discussed as to whom that animal should be offered54. There is no mention of Atri or Indra in this hymn. ŚB (V.3.2.2) also knows svarbhānu and the solar eclipse. This text attributes the release of Sun from darkness to Soma and Rudra. Soma is moon and solar eclipses occur only on amāvāsya day when moon enters sun as per the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa. Rudra is the progenitor of the marut group, which had covered Sun’s eye once in the past. This might be the reason for ŚB to link the release of Sun to Soma and Rudra. Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa (XXIV. 3-4) describes the eclipse quoting RV (V.40.9) and linking the event with the svarasāman, the saptadaśastoma and the viṣuvant day. Tāṇḍya Brāhmaṇa (IV.5.2; IV.6.13) refers to svarbhānu and a solar eclipse. Most probably this is also a reference to the solar eclipse of RV. However, Sengupta has treated the two events as independent and also dated them under assumptions that are not independently verifiable55. According to him The RV solar eclipse is dateable to the summer solstice day corresponding to 26th July 3928 BCE. Since the Tāṇḍya Brāhmaṇa refers to the svarasāman days along with the solar eclipse he has argued that this eclipse should have happened on the equinoctial day corresponding to 14th September 2451 BCE. Stockwell based on the interpretation of some German scholars that the RV solar eclipse occurred three days before the autumnal equinox, dated the RV eclipse to 20th October 3784 BCE56. From several considerations it appears that all the Vedic texts refer only to the original total solar eclipse of RV experienced in the 4th millennium BCE.

The Vājasaneya Samhitā (33.7), the Kāṇva Samhitā (32.7) of the Śukla Yajurveda and the khilasūkta of RV repeat the viśvedeva-nivid of RV (III.9.9). The Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa (TB) records the same hymn at (II.7.12.2). Thus, the use of the number 3339 was wide spread in ritualistic observances. TB (I.3.10) describes the legend of Indra returning on an amāvāsya after having defeated asuras. It further refers to the arrival of pitṛs at that time and they being given a boon to drink soma on amāvāsya. Their number is said to be six as being related to the six seasons. This most probably refers to a solar eclipse the details of which are not available now.

Ṛgvedic hymns describe or at least allude to eclipses in poetic fashion relating the events with agni, soma, viśvedevāḥ, yajña, Indra, svarbhānu, sūryā and the coppery red colour. But the significance of number 3339 that appears in association with VD is no where stated in the Vedas. The purāṇa text presents the meaning of the number clearly but stops short of relating it to eclipses. However, by combining the Vedic and purāṇic information we can safely conclude that the Vedic people knew the so called saros of 223 lunations, nearly equal to eighteen years, in a more fundamental and hence original form as 6678 tithi. Discovery of this number and its use in describing a natural astronomical event represents the earliest development of scientific thinking in India. This knowledge probably was treated as secret and hence its origin has so far remained shrouded in mystery. Such a special number surely would have left its foot prints on the sands of time and hence gets revealed once the archaeoastronomical metaphors are uncovered as demonstrated above.

Discussion

Evidence available so far, points out that the long count number was discovered with the help of lunar eclipses. This is implied by the counting of the 3339 tithis starting from a Full Moon and carrying this count only during the dark fortnights, to end on an amāvāsyā. The expectation would have been that the subsequent Full Moon would be an eclipse night. Duncan Steel in his famous monograph on eclipses discusses how ancient civilizations could have arrived at the 18-year cycle by observing the moon rather than marking solar eclipses57.

Vedas are broadly divided into Samhitā, Brāhmaṇa, Āraṇyaka and Upaniṣad. The Ṛgveda Samhitā is the most ancient with parts of the text belonging to as ancient as the 4th millennium BCE. RV as available now is organized as sūkta, made up of mantra or metrical verses endowed with knowledge said to have been revealed to a Ṛṣi (seer). What is interesting is that the text contains special numbers, at least one of which, namely, 3339 is a long count connected with the 18-year lunar eclipse cycle. Brāhmaṇā texts are taken to be explanatory guides for the Samhitās. However, in their available format, the explanations are too convoluted with ritualistic jargon and hence not easily amenable for establishing a one-toone relation with the original hymns. In the present case the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa preserves a simple explanation for the above number. This leads us to the conclusion that 3339 represents the tithis, in the dark fortnights, separating two lunar eclipses of the same type. Tithi is a time unit well known to Vedānga Jyotiṣa, Purāṇas, siddhāntic astronomy and continues to be used in India to this day. The present study indicates that this concept has come down to us from RV times, even though how it was originally measured is not yet completely understood. But it may be noted, the word tithi in the sense of date in a year is explicitly used in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. Unfortunately those who read only the English translation of this important Vedic text miss this word since Eggeling in his translation left out this word58. Since there are some historians who hold on to the opinion that the word tithi is not of Vedic origin, it is necessary to quote the original text. This appears in the legend of Manu’s Flood (ŚB I.8.1)

sa yatithim tatsamām paridideśa tatithim samām nāvamupakalpyopāsām cakre||


This alludes to the promise of the Fish to come on a specified tithi in a specified year and that Manu awaited the arrival of the Fish on that tithi in that year with a boat ready for travel. Although no specific year or day is mentioned the word tithi has been used in this early Vedic text in the sense of date.

Now, turning our attention to Purāṇas, there is a view that in the remote past these were fewer in number. Since the present day versions contain same or similar texts in too many places, it is logical to postulate the origin of these books from a single source, which is not traceable in its original form now. Existence of itihāsa and purāṇa are known at least from the Vedic Brāhmaṇa and Upaniṣad times as evidenced in T.B (III.12.8.2) and the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (3.4.1). It is possible, like the Brāhmaṇas explaining the ritualistic and the Upaniṣad the philosophical aspects (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad III.9) the Purāṇa once explained the physical worldly meaning of the Vedas.

The legend of gods and manes drinking nectar of moon appears in several Purāṇas. Since, at present, the texts are inflated and have many errors due to transmission and copying problems, it is difficult to discuss the numbers mentioned differently in some of these texts. For example, in the vulgate Viṣṇu and the Lińga Purāṇa texts we read,

trayastrimśatsahasrāṇi trayastrimśat śatāni ca|
trayastrimśat tathādevāḥ pibanti kṣaṇadākaram|| (VP. II.12.7)

trayastrimśatśatāścaiva trayastrimśat tathaiva ca|
trayastrimśatsahasrāṇi devāḥ somam pibanti vai ||
evam dinakramāt pīte vibudhaistu niśākare |
pītvārdhamāsam gacchanti amāvāsyam surottamāḥ || (LP. 56.11-12)


The numbers of deities mentioned above add to 36333; whereas the remaining statements are as in the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa. There is no reason to believe that VP and LP propose astronomical models different from the one that appears in BP. It is found that BP is more reliable for matter-of-fact astronomy than VP. Hence we can take the number 3339 as the valid Vedic long count restated in the Purāṇas also. How was this number observed, marked and counted? What could have been the influence of this number on the darśapūrṇamāsa sacrifice which draws inspiration from the saucīka hymns of the 10th book of RV? These questions are studied in the next chapter.

3. Darśapūrṇamāsa Rite, Moon’s Abode and Calendar

Introduction


In the previous chapter we have seen that RV associates the occult number 3339 with the Moon in the Saucīka hymns of the 10th book. The mantras of these hymns are prescribed for use in the darśa-pūrṇamāsa sacrifice (Newmoon-Fullmoon rite or DP rite), thus hinting at a possible connection between the DP rites and the above number. As the name itself indicates, DP rite in the earliest period of its institution must have been based on directly observing the Moon, till a practical calendar was developed. The Vedāńga Jyotiṣa (VJ) of Lagadha spells out its objective as providing a way to know the correct times for observing Vedic rites. Hence, we can safely say that the algorithmic VJ calendar is later than the Vedic rituals such as the DP rite. A question of seminal importance is how the characteristic lunar number 3339 was traced and counted over a long period of time of at least 18 years, before the evolution of a formal calendar? What connections could exist among the long count, lunar eclipses, the DP rite and the VJ? In this chapter these questions are addressed, to the extent possible, by analyzing some of the Vedic texts for available clues.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36119
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Fri Jun 25, 2021 2:19 am

Part 3 of 4

Darśa-pūrṇamāsa-iṣṭi

Ancient Vedic practices prescribe offerings in fire to be carried out on various occasions. Among these the darśapūrṇamāsa-iṣṭi (DP rite) is an astronomy related religious practice, as the name directly indicates. The ritual is also known as DP-yāga and sometimes as DP-yajña. As per Āpastamba an ancient authority on Vedic rituals, DP rite is prescribed by both the Ṛgveda and the Yajurveda59. There are no explicit statements about the performance of this rite in the RV other than the Saucīka hymns which are prescribed for use in the DP rite by all the authorities. Hence, this can be taken as a clue provided by the tradition that the viśvedeva number 3339 is connected with the DP rite and the moon. The ritual is described to varying levels of detail in the texts belonging to the Yajurveda. The construction of the altars in which sacrificial oblations are offered is described in the Śulba Sūtra texts which are formulaic and hence cryptic but preserve the scientific developments of the Vedic period in some detail. The mathematics and geometry behind the construction of the different shaped altars have been investigated in the past notably by Datta60, Sarasvati61, Sen and Bag62, and Seidenberg63. A variety of geometric shapes are prescribed in the texts. But the symbolism behind them is explicitly made known only in a few cases. While the square, circle and semicircle are relatively simple the geometrical design of the śyena-citi (Falcon altar) is complex. However as the name indicates the required shape of this altar is of a bird. We may conjecture that based on some type of physical observation, experience or principle the shapes first came into vogue, the details of which are not available now. Another important formalism of the Vedic altars is in their specified area. The gārhapatya, āhavanīya and dakṣiṇa altars that are respectively circular, square and semicircular have to be equal in area. This principle demands squaring a circle and circling a square which eventually leads to estimating the irrational quantities π, √2 and √3 in terms of rational fractions.

The DP rite is among the śrauta sacrifices requiring a group of priests to assist the yajamāna (sacrificer) and his wife to complete the prescribed ritual. The details of the canonical hymns selected from different texts and the complete procedure of carrying out the ritual are available in print64. The DP rite needs four altars namely the gārhapatya, āhavanīya, dakṣiṇa and the darśa-pūrṇamāsa-vedi (DP altar). The last one is also known as dārśikivedi and sometimes as antarvedi. We have already seen the first three of these are of different shapes but of equal area. These three altars are built with bricks in five layers to carry fire in them to make prescribed offerings. The most intriguing altar is the DP altar which is not built in five layers, has no fire lit on it and for all practical purposes is just a sacred platform, nonetheless indispensably central to the esoteric principles behind the ritual. The symbolism behind the DP altar is not described in any of the texts except for intriguing and cryptic hints. But the geometrical construction of this altar, which is like an enclosed platform, is carefully detailed so that the altar acquires a special curved shape. Since the DP rite is connected with the moon it is natural to suspect that the DP altar should have some archaeo-astronomical significance linked with the moon.

Design of the DP Altar

The design and marking of the DP altar is described in several Śulba Sūtra texts65. The details are nearly same in all the texts with some minor differences. All texts mention that the altar should be constructed symmetrically about the base line (pṛṣṭhyā) in the East-West direction. Here an interesting question would be how the E-W line was drawn. The Kātyāyana Śulba text prescribes the use of gnomon for following the shadow of sun to mark the E-W direction. The Mānava Śulba text proposes observing two visible stars to mark the E-W line. The text followed by the translation of Sen and Bag is:

antareṇa citrāsvātī śravaṇapratiśravaṇau kṛttikāpratikttike tiṣyapunarvasū ca prāgdeśo’yam yugamātroditayoḥ pāśañca || Mānava Śulba Sūtra (1.3)

By the middle of a pair (of nakshatras) Citrā and Svātī, Śravaṇa and Pratiśravaṇa, Kṛttikā and Pratikṛttikā, Tiṣya and Punarvasū, having risen 86 ańgulas (above the horizon), is (fixed) is the eastern (cardinal) point, and it is (brought into a line) with the ties (of the chord).


This indicates that the line was drawn early morning, aligning it with the centre of specified pair of stars, when these stars were above the horizon by a yuga which is mentioned in other places to be equal to 86 ańgula. How this altitude which is really an angular distance was measured is a matter of conjecture. We guess that ańgula as a known linear measure was used to fix the angular position of the stars above the horizon with the help of a vertical staff. Four star pairs are mentioned for this purpose most probably corresponding to the four quarters of the year. These are: citrā-svātī; śravaṇa-pratiśravaṇa; kṛttikā-pratikṛttikā; and tiṣyā-punarvasū. The method suggested seems to be to identify a pair of visible stars early in the morning in the eastern sky and mark a line on the ground as if the line passes in between the two stars. The statement that kṛttikā (Alcyone) once arose precisely due east as per the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa gives credibility to the E-W alignment of the central axis of the DP altar for some esoteric astronomical purpose. The stars citrā and svāti (Spica-Arcturus) are on either side of the celestial equator. The two appear nearer to each other and hence these two when visible a few degrees above the eastern horizon can indicate the eastern direction. The details of fixing the staffs to make the E-W marking are not available in the texts. But from the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa (I.5.2) it is known that Vedic people observed a desired nakṣatra before sun rise and made marks on ground to estimate the time remaining for the star to be visible in the eastern sky66.

Once the E-W line is taken as drawn, further construction is symmetric about this line. First an isosceles trapezium ABCD is drawn as shown in Figure 1. The eastern and the western sides AC and BD are respectively 48 and 64 ańgula in length. The height of the trapezium is 96 ańgula. With points C and D fixed, a rope of length 2CD is stretched in the southern direction till point F. With F as the centre and FC as the radius, an arc of a circle is made to pass through points C and D. This is repeated symmetrically on the northern side AB. Similar arcs are drawn on the eastern and western sides. This altar is not a citi wherein offerings are made in the fire; hence there are no prescriptions about the shapes of the bricks to be used on this altar. Nevertheless this altar is as important as the other three altars in the DP rite. Principally darbha grass is spread on the DP altar for seating special deities and water ablutions are offered on this altar to Ekata, Dvita and Trita the three elder brothers of Saucīkāgni of the hymns of RV (X.51-55).


Image
Figure 1. Geometry of the DP altar
Area of the DP Altar


An important concept associated with a Vedic altar is its shape and area. As per the Śatapatha Brāhamaṇa the circular gārhapatya is supposed to represent the earth, whereas the square āhavanīya stands for the sky. Both these altars along with the semicircular southern altar are of same area equal to one vyāma. The DP altar is situated within the space enclosed by the above three as shown in Fig.2. The positioning of the DP altar between the circular earth and the square sky naturally implies that its special shape hides a cosmic symbolism. The ritual manuals discriminate the DP altar from the other three altars for some special reason. What strikes the eye is the peculiar shape of the altar which is deliberate and painstakingly explained in the manuals. The principle of equivalence of the areas encourages us to find the area of the DP altar, the construction of which is available in the Baudhāyana Śulbasūtra among others. The area of the basic trapezium (Fig.1) is 5376 square units. Since by construction CDF is an equilateral triangle, the area of the curved region cut out from the trapezium is (π/6 - √3/4) CD2. The exact length of the side CD is 96⅓ units, which is slightly more than the height of the trapezium.

Image
Figure 2.

From these considerations the area cut out on the four sides of the trapezium can be found to be 2261 units. This gives the exact area of the DP altar to be 3115 units. It is to be noted here the above value is based on the presently known accurate values of the irrational numbers π and √3 and the exact expression for the area of the arc of a circle. Here we may pause and ask; what could have been the area the ancients desired to have for the finished altar? Since no text mentions this area but only gives the construction, we attempt to estimate the desired area to the level of approximation of the Śulba Sūtras. If the Samhitā and Brāhmaṇa texts represent earliest observations of the sky, the Śulba Sūtras are records of early Indian mathematics and geometry. The area of a circle was estimated by dividing the figure into large number of squares. In the present case for the arc of the circle in Fig.1, our ancients must have used a similar approximation which is not available in the texts. However we can take errors in such approximations to be represented effectively by errors in the values used for the irrational numbers π and √3. The Śulba Sūtra texts provide considerable information on how the above irrational numbers were handled by the Vedic people eventually arriving at approximate values. The best of the ancient approximations were π = 3.0885 (as a fraction) and √3 = 26/15 as explained in detail by Sen and Bag67. Hence the area implied to be removed from the basic trapezium was most probably equal to 2032 square units making the desired area of the final altar to be 3345 units. If the Vedic priests took the length of AB = CD as 96 instead of the correct 96⅓, the area of the DP altar would have been 3334 units. The above two numbers can be taken as fair estimates of the area desired for the altar when it was conceived for the first time in the remote past. This result is remarkable as the two values happen to be too close to 3339 the Ṛgvedic count of the deities viśvedevāḥ correlated with lunar eclipses as demonstrated in Chapter 2. Hence, we can infer beyond reasonable doubt that the desired area of the original DP altar was equal to 3339 units. This choice was not due to chance but was a deliberate selection to provide equivalence for the number of viśvedevāḥ to be seated on the DP altar in the Vedic rite. In turn, this number should have been the count of tithi in the dark fortnights between two similar lunar eclipses occurring near the same nakṣatra.

The above analysis helps us to unearth the symbolism behind the shape of the DP altar and the possible method adopted for counting the Ṛgvedic large number 3339. The Vedic and the Purāṇa texts mention that gods consume moon digit by digit in the dark fortnights. In matter of fact language this means the waning moon was observed each night and a count was kept. This is astronomically meaningful since in the dark fortnight moon would be visible all through the night after its rise. Starting from a Full Moon rising at sun set, moon rise is delayed by about an hour on each subsequent night but remains visible till sun rise. It is in this context the Vedic concept of deities drinking Moon only in the dark fortnight has to be appreciated as a naturalism which is at the root of Vedic philosophy and religion. From modern astronomy it is known that moon’s orbit is inclined to the ecliptic by about ±5°.

Since the ecliptic and the equator are inclined at about 24° with each other an observer on earth will see Moon wandering, sinuously on either side of the local E-W direction. If at a fixed time, every night the observer were to follow the location of the Moon, starting from its maximum deviation the figure over a long period of time will appear symmetric about the EW line and curved on the N-S sides like the DP-altar. Actually this will be a bounded region in the visible sky apparently flat and aptly denoted as the candra-maṇḍala (Moon’s Abode) in the Purāṇas. The extreme southern and northern positions of the moon are similar to the solstices of the sun. Vedānga Jyotisha in fact mentions ayana (N-S-N movement) for both sun and moon. But we have not come across unambiguous lunar standstill statements in the ancient texts. Nevertheless, the possible recognition of a standstill provides a clue to how the Vedic people might have kept track of the waning moon. Suppose the Vedic astronomer (nakṣatradarśa) started with a lunar eclipse near a major standstill and marked moon’s declination approximately by placing a pebble or piece of stone on the ground, about a nearly E-W line for 3339 nights, the resulting figure would be very similar to the DP altar. The counting method automatically correlates with the phase of the moon and eventually leads to the formal DP altar for purposes of calendar and religion based on cosmic concepts. A modern verification of this claim is demonstrated in Figure 3. This figure is a plot of the declination of moon for 3339 nights, starting at the bottom from 7th September 2006 with a lunar eclipse to end on the New Moon of 24th September 2024. It can be verified an eclipse will take place on the subsequent Full Moon. The resultant shape of the diagram that transfers the position of the moon on to the ground will be very robust as can be expected from Figure 3. Even with many misses and mistakes the symbolic shape of moon’s abode in the sky gets captured fairly well by the DP altar. The enveloping boundaries are not circular, but the Śulba Sūtra prescriptions are good approximations. This figure also helps us to understand how in ancient times moon might have been observed for keeping count of tithi. Even though tithi is widely prevalent in India even now, the present way of fixing the tithi was not the method followed in Vedic times. In the previous chapter we have seen that the word tithi was used in Vedic times to denote a date within a year. We do not know precisely how this was done, but it certainly depended on the phases of the moon. The DP rite as described in the Sūtra texts and the still later manuals is strictly codified with precise instructions and minute details of Vedic hermeneutics. However, for the ritual to get fixed so accurately, considerable time should have elapsed during which period variable interpretations and observations must have been prevalent. We get some inkling to this in the texts to arrive at a plausible conjecture that the DP rite should have helped in the evolution of the Vedic Calendar or Vedāṇga Jyotiṣa (VJ) of Lagadha.

Image
Figure 3. Position of moon on 3339 consecutive nights of the dark fortnights starting from 7th September 2006

DP rites are enjoined to be carried out for 15 years or 30 years or lifelong. The Śatapatha Brāhamaṇa (XI.1.2.10) instructs:68

“One ought to perform DP-yāga for 15 years. In these there are 360 Full Moons and New Moons. There are 360 nights in a year. He gains these nights (in 15 years). If he performs the DP-yāga for another 15 years, he gains the year itself.”


The rationale here is that the lunar year has 360 tithi, where as the solar is 372 tithi long. This difference of 12 tithi can be made up in 30 years since, 12x 30= 360 to bring the two rhythms together. This, of course, does not make the solar and lunar years to correctly synchronize, due to the wrong length of the solar year. But it is only through such efforts the VJ with better intercalation could have evolved.

VJ Calendar and the Vedic Long Count

VJ is a text critically edited and studied in the past by several scholars69,70,71 . Hence, here we limit our attention to investigate how the Vedic long count could have influenced VJ. It is known that the Vedic people had a luni-solar calendar where the year was solar but the months were lunar. Intercalation was practiced to bring the solar and lunar year into harmony by various methods. The central theme of VJ is to provide an algorithm to find in advance the tithi, parvan, nakṣatra in the formalized Vedic five year cyclic calendar. Thus its focus is not observational but essentially computational. VJ has come down to us in two branches, namely the ārca-jyotiṣa and the yājuṣa-jyotṣa. The basic elements are common to both and hence the two are generally considered together as a single tradition of ancient Vedic astronomy. The basis of VJ is the five year yuga period equated to 62 synodic lunar months of 1830 days, taken equal to 67 sidereal months. There are 1768 moon rises and 1835 risings of the ecliptic star Śraviṣṭhā (Dhaniṣṭhā, Vāsava, β-Delphini), with which sun and moon came together at winter solstice c 1400 BCE. The length of a solar year according to VJ is 371 tithi or 366 days. Any three independent elements among the above parameters lead to the complete luni-solar calendar of VJ. There are several publications discussing the strength and weakness of VJ as a calendar. The glaring inaccuracy is with the length of the solar year which is too long. Hence if the formulae are used blindly, the results would perceptibly miss reality within a few years. However it has been pointed out in the past72 corrections were done in the form of intercalary months and dropping of tithi to keep the calendar in tune with the sun. There have been efforts to interpret VJ, claiming that the 19-year Metonic cycle is implied by the Ṛgvedic VJ text which would have lead to a near perfect synchronization between the lunar and solar movements73. This does not explain why Lagadha went in for a five year cycle with excess length of the solar year. Thus, the Metonic 19-year knowledge or equivalent long count could not have been the basis of VJ. It may be noted here that the five year cyclic calendar with 366 days per year was adopted also by the astronomical text Sūryaprajñapti-Candraprajñapti, (c 500 BC) belonging to the Jaina tradition74.

The Vedic year

Vedic people had recognized several types of years such as the nākṣatra, the lunar, the sāvana, the solar and the intercalary year. The Nidāna Sūtra (V.11-12) belonging to the school of the Sāmaveda states this as,

ṣaṭtrimśono navonaśca ṣaḍahono’tha sāvano’ṣṭādaśabhiḥ jyāyān ahobhiḥ sāvanāt paro
nākṣatram iti|| māsaśca tasya caiva trayodaśa cāndramasaḥ sāvanaśca
ubhāvathāṣṭādaśyuttano aṣṭā-saptatrimśate pourṇamāsyām prasādhayet ||

The year that is less (than the sāvana year) by 36, the year that is less by 9, that which is less by 6, then the sāvana year, then the year greater by 18 days. The sidereal year (less by 9) has thirteen months (of 27 each). The two kinds of years are the lunar and the sāvana. The year greater than 18 days has to be observed in (between) 37-38 Full Moon.


This was understood by taking a sāvana year of 360 tithi as the reference. The first one deficient by 36 was the nākṣatra year of twelve sidereal months making 324 tithi. Then the one less by 9 was a lunar year consisting of 13 months of 27 tithi each. The sāvanā lunar year of 360 tithi was made up of 12 synodic months. The solar year of 366 days and intercalary years of longer duration were also recognized. For our purpose the points to note are that the month was always reckoned with the help of moon’s position and the VJ solar year with 371 tithi was an approximate effort at making the sāvana year match with the position of the sun. The rich variety of years clearly indicates an effort at synchronization of two or three different observable celestial rhythms. Since it is the moon that was observed, the ancients must have first noted the synchronization between the sidereal and the synodic months. It is the near equivalence of 12 synodic months with 13 sidereal months, counted in terms of sunrises, would have lead to the concept of year as a longer measure of time than the month. This harmonizes with the earliest Ṛgvedic word denoting year as samā, used in the sense of being same, coincident, equivalent. With the recognition of seasons as dependent on the sun, synchronization of three rhythms seems to have become important. The Nidāna Sūtra refers to this equivalence more accurately in the form of a verse which was already known to the Vedic community it was addressing,

yasmin vai parivatsare sauryo māso’tha cāndramaso |
nākṣatro na vilupyate kasvittam veda kasvit ||
aṣṭāsaptatrimśate tasmin samvatsare mite |
sauryo māso’tha cāndramaso nākṣatro na vilupyate ||

Who knows that year in which the solar, the lunar, and the sidereal months are not lost, who knows that? In the year measured by 37 or 38 (full-moons), the solar, lunar and the sidereal months are not lost.


This points to the approximation of 37 synodic months with 40 sidereal months, even though the latter number is not mentioned. Similarly, for the solar cycle also to have matched, 37 synodic months should have been taken equal to three (solar) years. The number word aṣṭāsapta- trimśate gives the meaning of being between 37 and 38, not of 37 or 38, as in the above translation of Shamasastry75. Taking 30 tithi per month, one gets 1110 tithi in three (solar) years giving 370 tithi per year, which is nearly the value used in VJ. The above also hints at the presence of a three year cycle that should have existed before the improved five year cycle of VJ came into vogue. The text of the Nidāna Sūtra cited above is openly available on the internet76. However, it is to be noted that on page 72 of this web edition the words atha sāvanaḥ appear wrongly as atha sādhanam, which is not meaningful in the context.

In the available core Vedic literature there are no direct references to occurrence of eclipses during a ritual. But, a close reading of the hymns prescribed for the rites, shows several interesting statements pointing to a relation between eclipses and the ritualistic numbers. For example, the Nidāna Sūtra mentions a special sidereal year that falls short by nine (navona) in relation to the sāvana year of 360 tithi. This year had 13 months of 27 tithi making the length of the year to be 351 tithi. This corresponds to a year of 346-347 (solar) days. What was being achieved by this, unless this had some hidden connection with the eclipse year? In modern parlance, eclipse year is the time taken for the lunar nodes to be in line with the sun and the moon, when an eclipse is possible. The well known eclipse period of 223 lunation is equal to 18.03 solar years or 6585.32 days. This consists of 19 eclipse years of 346.6 days. The unknown element here is the ancient way of measuring tithi. We can however be reasonably certain that it was associated with the phases of the moon. Nevertheless tithi was known to be less than the mean solar day with its value stated to be equal to (61/62) in VJ. Desire to avoid fractions in the remote period of Vedic astronomy must have given place to approximations in terms of integers with an error of one unit. Thus, the eclipse year length might have been approximated to 351 tithi, while its actual length was nearer to 351½ tithi. Nineteen such years lead to 6669-6678½ tithi which is twice the special number 3339 already stated in the Ṛgveda twice.

VJ Parameters

With the above long count of 3339 tithi, we can understand how the basic VJ parameters might have been arrived at. The eclipse period must have been taken equal to 18 nominal solar years. This was a consequence of the older concept of 37-38 synodic months being equal to three solar years, consisting of 1110 tithi discussed above. If the solar year were to be taken equal to 370 tithi, one would directly get 18.04 years as the eclipse period. On the other hand to get a round figure; 18-year was taken as a special, perhaps occult number leading to 371 tithi per year, which is an important VJ parameter. Since we know that the correct solar day count would be 6585.32, dividing this by 18 gives the length of the nominal solar year to be 365.851 days rounded off to 366 by VJ. If one takes 223 synodic months as equal to 18 years, the first four convergent of the fraction 223/18 are 12/1, 25/2, 37/3, 62/5. The last one namely (62/5) is the VJ approximation. This was an improvement over a previous approximation of (37/3) which was known to the Vedic people as stated above in the Nidāna Sūtra. Similarly, since 223 synodic months are equal to 241 sidereal months, we can approximate the fraction (241/223) as 13/12, 27/25, 40/37, 67/62. VJ uses the last approximation of 67 sidereal months as equal to 62 synodic months, which is better than the previous one of 40/37 corresponding to three years, as mentioned in the Nidāna Sūtra.

Yajurvedic Texts


There are several instances of numbers adding to 17, 18 or 19 as special length of years embedded in the Yajurveda texts. In the Vājasaneya Samhitā (XVIII.24-28) the number sequences 1 to 33 of odd integers and 4 to 48 of even integers increasing in steps of four, are given followed by a list of symbolic animals with their ages. The ages mentioned are 1½, 2, 2½, 3, 4 and 6 adding to 19 years. This is followed by offerings to seasons and months showing the context to be part of Time worship. The same Samhitā at (XXI 12-17) repeats year numbers adding to 19 associating them, respectively with meters gāyatri, uṣṇik, anuṣṭup, bṛhatī, pankti, and triṣṭup. Similar statements occur in the Kāṇva Samhitā (30.24-28), and in the Taittirīya Samhitā (TS IV.7.10), where the animal-ages add to either 17½ or 18 years. The difference is due to the interpretation of the word paṣṭavāham, taken to be 4½ or 5 or 6. The number of syllables in each of the above named meters increases by four and the total adds to 204 corresponding to the other total namely 17 years of 12 months each. Even in the ritualistic context the hymn appears to embed some type of number equivalence between the animal-ages and the meters. If the length of the year is taken as 360 tithi, we have 17x 360 = 204 x 30. On the other hand if it is taken as 354 days, we get the length of the synodic month to be (17x354)/204 = 29½ days, which is exactly the value adopted by VJ. As already noted the nākṣatra year of 324 nights/days with 27 units per month was also in vogue in ancient times. It is observed that 17 x 324 = 204 x 27. Such interesting properties of the number 17 based on observation of the moon could have lead to the early adoption of this as Prajāpati’s number in the Vedas. The immediate next hymn of the Taittirīya Samhitā (IV.7.11-12) supports this inference. This is the famous sequence of seventeen odd integers 1 to 33, increasing in steps of 2, adding to 289 and equal to square of 17. This is followed by a sequence of even integers 4 to 48 increasing in steps of 4 adding to 312. The implied timewise equivalence of two numbers in the previous hymn makes us wonder whether the number pair (289, 312) also has some useful astronomical property. Quite interestingly 289 synodic months are nearly equal to 312 sidereal months.

Even though there is a case for the VJ parameters to have come out of the observed 18 years, lunar eclipses are not mentioned in VJ. This situation may appear anomalous. However, there is mention of moon’s lateral movement across the ecliptic, denoted as ayana similar to the seasons associated with the north-south movement of the sun. This has been ignored in the past as being of no astronomical significance77. But as demonstrated above the Vedic DP altar is correlated with the lateral wandering of the moon in the sky. VJ mentions that there are 134 ayana or north-south-north movements of moon in 67 nakṣatra months. Each ayana consists of three Ṛtu. Even though this has nothing to do with the felt (weather) seasons associated with the Sun, the lateral lunar movement is real to an observer on earth. The Vedic word Ṛtu is usually translated as Season as though indicating the felt weather. But in the earliest periods of scientific development, Vedic people had already noted that the “felt seasons” can be five or six or even seven in a year. This got formalized more accurately based on observation of sun’s position with the nakṣatra as in the Maitrāyaṇīya Āraṇyaka and later in the VJ, Parāśaratantra and the Vṛddhagarga Samhitā, the details of which require a separate chapter. Here it suffices to point out that a Ṛtu was defined as the time interval for sun or moon to cover a span of four-and-half nakṣatra space in the sky.

Moon stationed with a known nakṣatra say Maghā (Regulus) will come back to the same star after nearly 28 tithi, but not with the same phase. Thus starting with māgha-pūrṇimā, a sidereal month later, the nakṣatra will be Maghā but the tithi will not be pūrṇimā. During the course of this month, every night moon can be observed to occupy different nakṣatra position in a sinuous fashion. This happens all through the (solar) year with nearly 27 ayana for moon. VJ recognizes the similarity between sun and moon in the sense of what happens to sun in one year happens to moon in one month. Further as the year evolves, moon continuously wanders on either side of the 27 nakṣatra band closely representing the ecliptic. During this serpentine movement whenever a Full Moon occurs on the ecliptic, a lunar eclipse is possible. We have already seen how the symbolism of the 3339 viśvedevāḥ is connected with lunar eclipses. Number symbolism of meters, measures, areas appear in Vedic texts almost everywhere. The Taittirīya Samhitā starts with the DP rite hymns, elaborated in 14 anuvāka (sections). The total number of syllables in these hymns adds to between 3339 and 3349. The 9th anuvāka is about the preparation of the vedi or the DP altar with interesting etiology. The legend of an asura named Araru and his shadow falling on earth is cited. The altar is enjoined to be dug for only four ańgula, because a deeper altar belonged to the ancestors. This appears in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa (III.2.9)

“(If the vedi should be) excessively (i.e. too deeply) excavated, it would belong to the Fathers (i.e. the deceased ancestors) (and it would not be fit for the sacrifice to the gods). He (the Adhvaryu) excavates it to such an extent that it is equal to Prajapati, the mouth of the sacrifice. (Formerly) the vedi hid itself from the gods. They found it four angulas deep (in the earth). That is the reason why it should be excavated four angulas deep.”78


One wonders whether there is a hint here that such altars were in use for a long time before the DP ritual got fixed. Even more interesting is the further laudation of the altar79:

“…you are the self-law….you the glorious one, take the earth…. by means of its self-law and place it on the moon.”


This is the extract of the translation of the hymn by Kashyap80. As per Sāyaṇa’s interpretation also the altar was used by the ancestors of the current practitioners to establish earth on the moon as per natural self-law (svadhā)81. Even though we cannot claim that the shadow of the earth falling on moon was known to be the natural reason for the eclipse, the legends related to the DP altar, its shape and area point towards the pervasive influence of the Ṛgvedic number 3339 and its hidden meaning connected with eclipses, in the proceedings of the DP rite.

It is not surprising eclipses, their periodicity and predictability have engaged the Hindu mind since the remotest past as evidenced by the RV and other Vedic texts. While legends, folklores and beliefs were plenty; observation, explanations and physical models were not lagging behind. The various Purāṇas allude to the mythical eclipse demon Rāhu but unequivocally equate this with the shadow of the earth, as in the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa82. The Mahābhārata, lauded as the Fifth-veda, occupies the position of a text in transition between the Vedas and the Purāṇas. Although in the first book legendary explanations about eclipses are stated, in the sixth book a physical model in which Rāhu the dark planet moving below sun and moon but larger in size than the two celestial objects is cited as the cause of eclipses83. Between such speculative efforts and the well reasoned mathematical astronomy starting with the Common Era, there was growth of matter-of-fact observational astronomy parts of which are still preserved in the Parāśaratantra and the Vṛddhagārgīya Jyotiṣa.

Summary and Conclusion

There are many numbers in the Ṛgveda and other texts, in the form of some types of time measures. These range from the short muhūrta (RV III.33.5) to longer days, fortnights, months, years and even longer periods. Vedāńga Jyotiṣa (VJ) of Lagadha recognizes formally several other measures necessary for calendar calculations. The long count number 3339 is also a time measured in tithi linked only with the waning moon. Since as per VJ there are 371 tithi in a solar year, the long count is a proxy for 223 lunation or 18 years. This is the so called Saros eclipse cycle knowhow, supposedly inherited by the Chaldeans from their Babylonian predecessors84. But 223 is only a derived number based on the more fundamental count 3339 and the time measure tithi, which number and word appear respectively for the first time in the Ṛgveda and the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. Hence the statement of Pingree that tithi and the VJ owe their inspiration to outside sources is unfounded85. The direction of transmission of this knowledge could as well have been from India to Chaldea. The shape and the area of the DP altar in synchrony with the Vedic long count lead us to argue that the number should have been counted by placing a pebble on ground marking the relative position of moon on successive nights. Quite interestingly in RV (V.40.8) during the solar eclipse, Atri is said to have placed the eye of the sun in the sky by bringing together the stones.

The DP rite is special in several ways. From the astronomical point of view, the DP altar holds an esoteric central role. The hymns used in the liturgy refer to the sky and there is always more than what meets the eye in Vedic rituals. In one place, the altar is said to be in the sky and protected in the north by Mitra and Varuṇa, with the invariable law86. Naturally this makes one wonder whether Mitra and Varuṇa, two of the most important Vedic deities could have been visible stars in the northern sky, with some special properties. Such cryptic statements add an extra dimension to the astronomy of the Vedic times, since the practitioners did not limit themselves to physical observations but wished to attain a position in the sky. This mystical naturalism gets highlighted by the role of the Brahman, the presiding priest of the DP rite, who blesses the sacrificer silently

may the yajamāna attain a place at the base of the heaven, near the constellation Saptarṣi87.


The northern sky region around the Saptaṛṣi-maṇḍala (U. Major) has always held prominent position in ancient texts as the base of the heaven and the centre of the universe. This region was the seat of another constellation known as Śiśumāra, identifiable with the modern constellation Draco. The first star at the head of this figure was called Dharma. Two among the fourteen stars making up the figure of this constellation were known as Mitra and Varuṇa in the ancient texts, to which the above TS hymn (I.1.11) refers. The fourteenth star at the tail end of this aquatic animal figure was called Abhaya, the original Dhruva or the fixed Pole Star.

4. Śiśumāra the forgotten Northern Constellation with Dhruva the Vedic Hindu Pole Star

Introduction


Alberuni (973-1048 CE) in his book on India mentions that devout Hindus held that the Pole Star was in the constellation that looks like a four-footed aquatic animal called, Śākvarā and also as Śiśumāra88. He further says that this name sounds similar to the Persian Susumar, which is the constellation of the Great Lizard, same as the modern Draco. He further adds that “the Hindus tell ludicrous tales about this figure.” By this, he alludes to the Purāṇas that praise people with correct knowledge of the 14 stars making up the constellation to be blessed with an extra 14 years of life. Alberuni, as is well known, was interested in the philosophical and intellectual traditions of India. He translated into Arabic, apart from astronomical texts, the Yogasūtra of Patañjali. While explaining the aphorism; dhruve tadgati jñānam (YS 3.29) Alberuni again discusses the constellation Śiśumāra and Dhruva the Pole Star, as per the ancient Hindu tradition prevalent during his time89. Alberuni had admiration for Indian astronomers for their scientific approach to the subject. But, none of the siddhānta texts of the period described any constellation by the name Śiśumāra. Curiously enough, they were much more interested in establishing the first visibility conditions for the southern star Agastya (Canopus). This should not be surprising, since there was no visible star at the North Celestial Pole (NCP) during the first millennium of the Common Era (CE) which was the prime period of mathematical astronomy in India. This situation perhaps prompted Alberuni not to take the Purāṇas seriously as having preserved more ancient observations, in the form of legends and cultural beliefs. However, common people carried in their collective memory the story of a child prince by name Dhruva who was established as the fixed Pole Star and the Purāṇas had already built up a cosmological sky model around Dhruva. The orthodox Vedic tradition of the vedāntins, cultivated in parallel also held that Dhruva the Pole Star was located in the constellation Śiśumāra. From modern astronomy it is known that such a situation was possible in the remote past c 3000 BCE, when α-Draconis (Thuban) was the Pole star. Recognition of this fact has far reaching consequences for understanding the history of ancient India and of Hindu astronomy going back to Vedic times.

In this article Vedic literature is considered first, followed by the Purāṇas and a few later texts. The information thus collected brings out some aspects of dhruva-centric or polecentric astronomy that must have existed in India before the Common Era.

Taittirīya Āraṇyaka

The word dhruva occurs in many places starting from the Ṛgveda. The accepted meaning of this word is fixed, true, stationary, unchanging with shades of meaning very similar to these. For example in the Ṛgveda hymns (I.73, IV.5, VI.52, VII.88, X.173) the word is used as an adjective to indicate the firmness of objects such as the earth, the mountain, and the sky. In the 10th book the hymn (X.173) extols Varuṇa the King, as being true and steadfast. From the context of the hymn, this appears to be a prayer to a universal force, with the sky and most likely a star in the background. In the Yajurveda and the Atharvaṇaveda, eight and sometimes ten directions are named. In this nomenclature invariably udīci stands for north, ūrdhva for above and dhruvā dik refers to the lower direction in the sense of fixed earth. However, in the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka (TA) a change in this notation is seen. The phrase adharāyai diśe (TA II.20.1) instead of the more common dhruvāyai diśe, is used to denote the lower direction.

TA is an accented Vedic text, belonging to the Kṛṣṇa-Yajurveda branch. This text contains several interesting astronomical information that should be of interest to historians of science. The first praśna (section) of the text is about the six seasons and how they have to be recognized taking note of social behavior and some natural changes. Time is explained as flowing out of Sun and that Time flows like a river continuously (TA I.2). The text declares, the knowledge of Sun’s station to be available to everyone using the four tools; memory, direct observation, history and inference 90. As pointed out previously in the first Article in this series, two meteoritic showers spaced at six months interval find place (TA I.3; I.4) in recognizing the grīṣma (summer) and the hemanta (dewy) seasons. The concept of mahāmeru the imaginary mountain-like axis connecting earth with the heavens appears for the first time in Vedic literature in TA. The text alludes to seven suns and one more, the eighth called Kaśyapa, who does not leave meru but goes round the mahāmeru91. This concept of a celestial body going round meru evolved into a physical astronomical model in the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa as will be explained later.

We have seen in the previously that the performer of the darśapūrṇamāsa sacrifice wishes to be stationed near Saptaṛṣi at the base of the heavens. This esoteric concept finds unambiguous mention in TA where it is mentioned that the Seven Sages and Agastya are living with the stars92. This tradition of naming stars, we may presume, must have started after the earthly sojourn of the eponymous human ṛṣis. Hence, it would be of interest to identify such stars by their modern names. Through unbroken tradition, and copious textual citations, Agastya can be equated with Canopus. But the same cannot be done with the other seven stars, since the names of the sages are not mentioned in TA except for Atri. The commentators of TA have taken the Seven Sages and Agastya to be the originators of the gotra system, as mentioned in the later Sūtra literature93. Hence it is not necessary to identify the Seven Sages alluded to in TA only with the stars of U. Major, even though such equivalence appears natural. The Saptarṣi-maṇḍala is unequivocally identified with U.Major, but the tradition of ṛṣi-names of the stars has changed over time94. The name of sage Atri once again appears in TA as a star in the description of the celestial Śiśumāra, a constellation in the form of an aquatic animal (alligator, or whale or dolphin), with a star named Abhaya at its tail end, which over time acquired the legendary name Dhruva, due to its property of being fixed in position as seen from earth.

The Celestial Śiśumāra

The second book (prapāṭhaka) of TA known also as the Svādhyāya Brāhmaṇa, gives the hymns used in the daily prayers of those initiated into the Vedic rites. The nineteenth hymn of this book known as the Brahmopasthānamantra is used at the conclusion of the evening meditation, which in the most ancient times was carried out outdoors most probably near a water body. The astronomical part of the text with a free translation follows:

….dharmo mūrdhānam brahmottarāhanuḥ yajño’dharā viṣṇurhṛdayam samvathsaraḥ prajananam aśvinau pūrvapādāvatrirmadhyam mitrāvaruṇavaparapadau agniḥ pucchasya prathamam kāṇḍam tata indrastatḥ prajāpatirabhayam caturtham| sa vā eṣa divyaśśākvaraśśiśumāraḥ…| …….dhruvastvamasi dhruvasya kṣitamasi tvam bhūtānāmadhipatirasi tvam bhūtānām śreṣṭho’si tvām bhūtānyupaparyāvartante namaste namaḥ……śiśukumārāya namaḥ|| (TA. II.19.1)

….Dharma is the forehead, Brahma is the upper jaw, Yajña is the lower jaw, Viṣṇu is the heart, Samvatsara is the genital, Aśvins are the forelegs, Atri is the center, Mitra and Varuṇa are the hind legs. Agni is the first stem of the tail, then Indra, then Prajāpati and then Abhayam is the fourth. This is the shining celestial Śiśumāra…….You are fixed (dhruva), you are the place of Dhruva……You are the Lord of Beings; you are the best among them. (All) Beings go around you. Namaste!…… salutations to you the boy-child.


The commentary of Sāyaṇa clearly mentions that this hymn is to be used in the evening, turning towards the north and looking at the dhruva-maṇḍala, for meditating on the Cosmic Brahman95.

The above hymn lists fourteen stars, Dharma, Brahma, Yajña, Viṣṇu, Samvatsara, (Twin) Aśvins, Atri, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, Indra, Prajāpati, Abhaya, along the body of the figure of the Śiśumāra, starting from its head to the end of its tail, unequivocally said to be in the sky. Both Bhatta-bhāskara (10th Cent.) and Sāyaṇa (14th Cent.) describe the esoteric import of the hymn, along with the parts and form of the animal figure in the sky. The former commentator takes Prajāpati to be Kaśyapa the eighth sun, mentioned previously in TA as not leaving the meru96. This hints at the circumpolar nature of at least some of the stars of this constellation, which finds prominent mention in the later Purāṇas. The hymn is more about the constellation figure as a group of stars, but the equivalence of Abhaya with the Pole Star later known as Dhruva is evident from the context. The text of TA is among the so called forest books supposed to be learnt in the seclusion of a forest, as it contains secret mystical and naturalistic meanings at the same time. The play on the word Śiśumāra finally concluded as śiśukumāra (boy-child) should have been the inspiration for the legend of the fear less child prince Dhruva, placed in the sky as the Pole Star near Viṣṇu, who is the regent deity at the heart of the Śiśumāra.

In the accented text Ekāgni-kāṇḍa, also belonging to the Kṛṣṇa-yajurveda, hymns to be used in Vedic marriage rites are given. The hymn for observing and addressing the Pole Star Dhruva is:

dhruvakṣitiḥ dhruvayoniḥ dhruvamasi dhruvatasthitam | tvam nakṣatrāṇām methyasi sa mām pāhi pṛtanyataḥ || Ekāgni (I.9)


Here the quality of Dhruva as a star is said to be fixed. Dhruva is praised as the methī or the fixed column to which the nakṣatras are bound. The commentator Haradatta explains the word methī as khalevālī, a thick wooden peg fixed in the ground, to which animals are tied so that they do not stray away97. This methī became the meḍhī a pole or column in the Purāṇas, highlighting the fixity of the star Dhruva and the importance of Meru in the development of early astronomical models. As we go back in time naturally uncertainties increase, but beyond reasonable doubt the composers of the above Yajurveda texts knew Abhaya alias Dhruva as the Pole Star; that is a central star farthest in the sky, to which other celestial bodies were tied and kept in their path.

The Śiśumāra, which we meet again in the Purāṇas, based on the vivid description of the position of the 14 stars and the importance attached to its form, can be identified with the constellation Draco. It follows; Dhruva in its earliest nomenclature as Abhaya has to be equated with Thuban or α-Draconis. By back computations it is known that α-Draconis was the Pole Star during 3200-2400 BCE. In this long period, the declination of this star varied from 870 56’ to 87036’, reaching nearest to NCP with 89053’ in 2830 BCE. The naming of the Vedic star Abhaya (No-fear) as Dhruva (Fixed, Certain) in the Śiśumāra should have happened during the above period, which provides an important chronological footprint not only for the Vedic culture but also for the roots of Hindu astronomy. By 1900 BCE the separation of Dhruva from NCP increased to 50 and the circumpolar nature of the star would have been evident to observers of the night sky. The declination changed to nearly 820 by 1500 BCE and the drift of the star away from the NCP should have been glaringly evident for observers in India. In the Maitrāyaṇī Āraṇyaka Upaniṣat (aka Maitrī Upaniṣat, MAU) one of the important question posed by King Bṛhadratha to Sage Śākāyanya was, why Dhruva drifts, why the air strings holding the celestial bodies dip98. Implicit in this question is the statement: the North Star understood by us as fixed has changed its position; an unmistakable reference to the effect of precession as noticed by King Bṛhadratha. This Yajurvedic text also contains astronomical statements to the effect that the northern course of sun started at the middle of the dhaniṣṭhā star division99. This corresponds to a few centuries before the Vedāńga Jyotiṣa of Lagadha which states that the winter solstice coincided with sun at the beginning of star dhaniṣṭhā. This is a well discussed topic with the said observation dateable to c 1400 BCE100. The amount of precession between the two observations would be six to seven degrees. Thus, the drift of the Pole Star mentioned by King Bṛhadratha above is broadly consistent with 1900-1800 BCE.

The knowledge of Śiśumāra as a constellation, in contrast to the word meaning an aquatic animal, is wide spread in Vedic literature. In the first book of the Ṛgveda (I.116.18) we come across Aśvins bringing riches to Divodāsa in a cart to which were yoked a śimśumāra and a vṛṣabha. Griffith famous as the translator of RV, overlooking the astronomical culture of the Vedas, has translated this literally to mean a cart drawn by a porpoise and a bull yoked together101. In the commentary of Sāyaṇa, the word śimśumāra is identified as a variant of the word śiśumāra. Sāyaṇa also recognizes the impossibility of an aquatic animal and a land animal yoked to drag a cart pn earth and explains this as the special act of the divine twins the Aśvins exhibiting their extraordinary powers102, which obviously makes the location to be the visible sky. Even if Divodāsa were to be a human king, favouring whom the above is mentioned, it should not be difficult to recognize that the verse alludes to an event in the sky in which the constellations Draco and a group of stars resembling the head of a bull, most likely the Taurus, were meant by the poet.

The Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa of the Sāmaveda has an interesting story about the cosmography behind the name Śiśumāra. It is said that originally this was a Ṛṣi or seer of the same name in the earthly ocean. He did not praise Indra fully and hence got stranded on the sands. After having praised Indra fully by the śarkara sāman song he could get into the water again. Later he attained the sky as the constellation with the same name. The word śarkara means constellation which is a variant of the word śākvara as in TA. The text further says that the śarkara sāman chant is meant for crossing the oceans103. This has to be taken as a reference to the circumpolar nature of the bright stars of the Śiśumāra constellation which must have helped ancient mariners in navigating the seas. The Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa text also has a similar legend about the constellation Śiśumāra. The Gṛhya Sūtra texts which were fixed much later than the accented core Vedic texts are prescriptive in nature about religious rites and customs to be followed by the orthodox. The religious practices of different Vedic clans which must have been prevalent since the most ancient times are codified in the formulaic Sūtra literature, not only canonizing the hymns to be used in the rites, but also fixing the actions to be followed by the main performers, participants and the priests. There are several different Sūtra texts attached to the four Vedas demonstrating not only their lateness, but also their spatial spread in accounting for the variation in the practices. However, the common feature of all these texts, in the historical context, is their memory of Dhruva as a fixed star to be invoked, seen and shown to the bride in the marriage rite. In all cases, the hymn for addressing Dhruva is same as or very similar to the one in the Ekāgni-kāṇḍa (I.9) mentioned above. The Hiraṇyakeśi Gṛhya Sūtra, in particular, prescribes worship of stars Arundhatī, Saptaṛṣi, and Dhruva even during the first kindling of the fire used in Vedic sacrifices. This text extols the Pole Star as, Brahman, fixed, non-slipping, non-shaking and as the centre of the universe.

It is noted that the Vedic people had direct knowledge of the constellation with fourteen stars, resembling in its outline an aquatic animal known as Śiśumāra, the 14th star counted from the head and placed on its tail being the fixed Dhruva or the Pole Star. The effect of precession on the sky picture was also felt as recorded in the Maitrāyaṇīya text, where Dhruva was observed to be drifting away from its original position. Notwithstanding such natural effects, the formality of showing the star Dhruva has continued in Hindu marriages over centuries coming down in the same form to this day as a ritual, even though everyone may not know which star was originally invoked by the prescribed hymns. But the orthodox successors to the Vedic tradition have preserved this information quite correctly as will be seen later.

It has to be pointed out here that the not so well known Indian scholar Aiyangar104, in his writings on Indo-Aryan mythology discussed the TA hymn on Śiśumāra as representing a constellation in the sky and hesitatingly proposed that the Dhruva of this hymn was perhaps the Pole Star. He was more interested in gathering and deriving philosophical information from the Vedic and Purāṇa stories. He did not recognize the constellation Śiśumāra in astronomical terms but drifted widely to other astral myths in an effort to match the Vedic and the Purāṇic stories without appreciating the effect of precession as recorded in the astral legends.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36119
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Fri Jun 25, 2021 2:23 am

Part 4 of 4

Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa (BP)

This tradition of observing Śiśumara and Dhruva was not restricted to the closed Vedic groups but was available to everyone as depicted in the Purāṇas, which have preserved such observational knowledge in the form of cultural astronomy. The story of the young boy Dhruva, who by his penance got the boon of being fixed in the north as the Pole Star, is a popular legend widely known all over India. The origin of this story can be traced to the Viṣṇu Purāṇa (VP) and repeated in several other texts. However, the related background astronomy is preserved in the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa without mythological embellishments. Since the word Dhruva means fixed, certain, unchanging, it is implicit that the boy Dhruva was identified with the eponymous Pole Star. This fact becomes interesting since BP, VP and several other texts not only provide cogent information on its location in the sky but also mention the observable self-rotation of Dhruva as the driving force for other celestial bodies to move around the NCP. This theory of Dhruva, takes us to the most ancient form of Indian astronomy which was dhruva-centric, or meru-centric. It is known that no absolute dates can be put forth for any of the eighteen Purāṇa texts, which have grown over time with bulky additions. But, all or most of them retain the story of Dhruva as the Pole Star with variant readings. This is a clear indication of the branching of the Purāṇas from a nucleus which lies in the Vedic texts such as the TA and the ekāgni-kāṇḍa which knew the prominent constellation Śiśumara with 14 stars, the fixed Dhruva and the Meru connecting the earth with the NCP. Among the Purāṇas it is in BP we find matter of fact statements about Dhruva. As far as ancient astronomy and cosmology are concerned, BP preserves the original concepts, out of which the Viṣṇu, Vāyu, Lińga and Matsya Purāṇa have bifurcated with further variations. This chronological perspective finds support in the works of a few indologists also105.

The dhruva-centric model of the sky can be best appreciated in the BP as an outcome of direct observation. We consider here BP first and later look at variant information from a few other texts. In the first chapter of BP a list of the contents to be covered is provided. This promises astronomy related to Dhruva as:

sūryādīnām syandanānām dhruvādeva pravartanam|
kīrtyate śiśumāraśca yasya pucche dhruvaḥ stithaḥ || BP. I (1.84)

The movement of sun and other moving celestial bodies is explained as induced by Dhruva only. The constellation Śiśumāra, at the tail of which Dhruva stays, is also described.


This theory is further elaborated in chapters 21-24, totaling 520 verses, with many ancient concepts about Sun, Moon, eclipses and planets. Here, we restrict our attention only to a few important statements concerning Śiśumāra and Dhruva.

tatomandataram nābhyām cakram bhramati vai tathā|
mrtpiṇḍa iva madhyastho dhruvo bhramati vai tathā ||
trimśanmuhūrtānevāhuḥ ahorātram dhruvo bhraman|
ubhayorkāsṣṭhayormadhye bhramte maṇḍalāni tu ||
kulāla cakranābhiśca yathā tatraiva vartate|
dhruvastathāhi vijñeyastatraiva parivartate|| BP. I (21. 94, 95, 96)

Like the lump of clay at the middle of the potter’s wheel moves slowly sitting at the navel, Dhruva rotates. Dhruva moves in circles day and night consisting of 30 muhūrtas, at the middle of the two directions (north and south). Like the nave of the potter’s wheel stays in the same place, so also Dhruva should be known to be rotating there itself.


Chapter 21 containing 176 verses gives an account of sun’s motion, with definitions of seasons, equinox and solstice. It introduces the cosmography of Mt. Meru connecting the earth and the heavens like a vertical pole in the north, around which all celestial bodies are modeled to move in circular paths. The star Dhruva is said to be at the tip of the Meru. The starry space in the sky between the nakṣatras of ajaveethi and star Agastya (Canopus) is said to be the pitṛloka (abode of manes), where as the corresponding region in the north between nakṣatras of nāgaveethi and Saptaṛṣi (U.Major) is the devaloka (abode of gods)106. The chapter ends by declaring the famous third step of Viṣṇu to be in the north above the Saptaṛṣi wherein Dhruva, Dharma and others are located107.

Chapter 22 starts with a description of the position of Dhruva as

bhūtasammohanam hyetad vadato me nibodhata |
pratykṣamapi dṛśyam ca sammohayati yat prajāḥ||
yo’yam caturdaśaṛkṣeṣu śaiśumāre vyavasthitaḥ |
uttānapādaputro’sau meḍhībhūto dhruvo divi||
sa vai bhrāmayate nityam candrādityau grahaiḥ saha |
bhramantamanugacchanti nakṣatrāṇi ca cakravat|| BP. I (22. 5, 6, 7)

Listen to this explanation of mine which is real and observable but mystifying people. He, who is at the tail of the 14 stars looking like a śiśumāra; Dhruva the son of Uttānapāda, has become the main pivot of the pole in the sky. Verily, he rotates the sun, the moon and the planets continuously. The stars follow him who is himself circling like a wheel.


In the above the narrator (Sūta) is appealing to people to observe the sky and understand the ancient theory of Dhruva as the controller of the motion of the celestial bodies. Since Dhruva as a north star is said to be in a figure looking like a śiśumāra, this group of stars should be same as the constellation meant by the Vedic texts discussed already. BP further elaborates the self-circling motion of Dhruva and that of the stars (tārāḥ) and the nakṣatras around him. The point to be noted is the differentiation between the general stars and the nakṣatras. The latter are the 27 ecliptic asterisms and Dhruva was never one among them. There are 84 verses in this chapter, arguing for a physical model for the motion of sun seen in the day but, linked to Dhruva seen only in the night. The northern and southern sojourn of the sun also had to be explained within this model. Without going into the details, we note that Sun’s chariot is said to have only one wheel the axle of which is connected to Dhruva by two strings of light which take care of the change in the orbit of sun around the earth. We speculate that the older analogy of the potter’s wheel was unable to mimic the observed apparent motion of the sun and hence the two axle model and connection to Dhruva with two unseen strings was proposed to simulate action at a distance. This change is also seen in the example of the animal driven oil mill proposed as a physical model for understanding the motion of the stars around Dhruva.

yāvatyaścaiva tārāśca tāvanto vātaraśmayaḥ|
sarvā dhruve nibaddhāśca bhramantyo bhrāmayanti tāḥ||
tailapīḍā yathā cakram bhramanto bhrāmayanti ha|
tathā bhramanti jyotīṁṣi vātabaddhāni sarvaśaḥ|| BP.I (23.96,97)

There are so many wind-reins as there are stars. All (reins) are bound to Dhruva; themselves rotating; they make the stars to go round. As in an oil press, the wheel goes round and makes the other (the pole) rotate; so do the luminaries held in grip by the wind-strings, revolve.


Image

In the oil mill, the central pole is rotated by the motive force provided by an animal moving in a circular path. In the Purāṇic sky model, the roles are reversed, such that the locally spinning Dhruva can make the celestial bodies at a distance to move around in their circular path, the connection being through strings (or rays) of wind (or light).

Chapter 23 of BP is indispensable to anyone interested in the history of Indian astronomy as it explains the astronomical symbolism behind the lunar number 3339, first appearing in the Ṛgveda108. Towards the end of this chapter the text describes the location of Dhruva along with other companion stars making up the animal figure Śiśumara.

evam dhruva nibaddho’sau sarpate jyotiṣāńgaṇaḥ |
saiṣa tārāmayaḥ proktaḥ śiśumāro dhruvo divi ||
yadahnā kurute pāpam dṛṣṭvā tanniśi muñcate|
yāvatyaścaiva tārāstāḥ śiśumārāśritā divi ||
tāvantyaiva tu varṣāṇi jīvitābhyadhikāni tu |
sākāraḥ śiśumāraśca vijñeyaḥ pravibhāgaśaḥ || BP. I (23. 99, 101b)

Thus, centered in Dhruva, the circle of luminaries revolves. And this Śiśumara, fixed in the sky, is to be understood as made of stars. Whatever sin one commits during day, one is divested of it upon seeing Śiśumara in the night. As many stars as there are associated with Śiśumara in the sky, so many years more, does one live on. (For this) the form of the Śiśumara should be known in terms of its parts.


The chapter ends with a good description of the Śiśumāra constellation enumerating the constituent stars numbering fourteen. This is perhaps the earliest example of a star group being represented and named by an animal figure.

uttānapādastasyātha vijñeyaḥ sottarā hanuḥ |
yajño’dharastu vijñeyo dharmo mūrdhānamāśritaḥ ||
hṛdi nārāyaṇaḥ sādhyo aśvinou pūrvapādayoḥ |
varuṇaścaryamācaiva paścime tasya sakthinī ||
śiśnam samvatsarastasya mitraścapānamāsritaḥ |
pucche agniścamahendraśca mārīcaḥ kaśyapo dhruvaḥ ||
tārakāḥ śisumārasya nāstam yāti catuṣṭayam ||
agnīndra kaśyapānam to caramo’sau dhruvaḥ smṛtaḥ || BP. I (23. 102-104, 105b, 107b)

His (Śiśumāra’s) upper jaw should be understood as Uttānapāda. Yajña (Kratu) is known as the lower jaw and Dharma as the head. At the heart is Nārāyaṇa (Sādhya). The twin Aśvins occupy the forelegs while Varuna and Aryamā are at the hind legs. Samvatsara is the genital and Mitra occupies the seat. In the tail are Agni, Mahendra, Mārīca-Kaśyapa and Dhruva. The (previous) four stars of the Śiśumāra never set. It is remembered that Dhruva is the last star after Agni, Indra and Kaśyapa.


This listing of stars on the body of the Śiśumāra is almost same as in TA with minor variations in the names, but the geometrical picture of the animal figure is same as in TA. The “addition of 14 years of life” which Alberuni found not rational, was a ploy of the narrator when BP was still orally transmitted, for encouraging people to observe and preserve the names of the constituent stars and the form of the constellation accurately.

Viṣṇu Purāṇa (VP)

The Viṣṇu Purāṇa one of the important religious texts relates the earthly story of Dhruva with poetic embellishments and devotional fervour. In the BP the boon for Dhruva to be in the sky as the Pole Star is given by Brahma, where as in the VP, Viṣṇu is said to give the boon. Interesting astro-mythological information provided in the VP is that Dhruva’s mother Sunīti stays near him in the sky as a companion star. This provides a constraint on the identification of Dhruva in the Śiśumāra constellation. In the description of the stars making up the constellation fourteen are mentioned as in BP. The only difference being the word mārīcaḥ qualifying Kaśyapa is missing in VP. The cosmological functions assigned to Dhruva in the VP are same as in BP. Both mention Dhruva as the fourth after Agni and that the last four stars ending with Dhruva do not set. The Matsya and the Vāyu Purāṇa repeat similar astral information with a few deletions, about Dhruva and Śiśumāra.

Bhāgavata and Devibhāgavata

This is again a highly respected text mainly extolling devotion to Viṣṇu and his incarnations. Many of the statements in this text about Dhruva that are in prose form (BookV.Ch 23) are same as in VP but not all the fourteen stars of the Śiśumāra are named. Dhruva is initially associated with stars Agni, Indra, Prajāpati, Kaśyapa and Dharma and is compared to a fixed object or pillar around which heavenly bodies rotate driven by Time. Dhruva’s rotation as the driving force is conspicuously absent in this text. Further the text quite categorically states that some people meditate on the figure of Śiśumāra as the body of Vāsudeva. These people are said to think of Dhruva at the end of the tail; Prajāpati, Indra, Agni and Dharma on the trunk of the tail, Dhāta at the root of the tail and Saptarṣi (U.Major) at the waist. The text further describes how the coiled figure has to be imagined with sun, moon, stars and all the planets at the various places of its universal body109. In the Devī Bhāgavata the description of Dhruva is an exact restatement of the Bhāgavata in verse form. Here also some people are said to imagine the Śiśumāra constellation in an extended form to cover the whole sky as the divine body of Viṣṇu (8.18; v. 11-26). Whatever may be the inspiration for this extension, it is easy to observe that these texts lack the care and detail with which BP describes its dhruvacentric astronomy. The texts that are liberal with religious concepts at the cost of astronomical pictures can be easily recognized as being chronologically later, when the original Dhruva was not at the NCP.

The Constellation

The constellation of Śiśumāra consisting of fourteen observable stars that make up a figure like a dolphin (or porpoise or alligator) is well preserved in the Vedic and the Purāṇa texts. The Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa of the Sāmaveda already discussed indicates that the circumpolar property of the bright stars of this constellation was of help in navigation. The celestial ocean in which the constellation is said to rise and move can be recognized as the Milky Way, which BP calls viyadgańgā or the heavenly Gańgā River. With all the above details, recognition of this constellation as the modern Draco should be obvious. However, Allen110 in his classical book on star names gives two meanings to Śisūmāra namely, Draco and Delphinius, the latter meaning attested nowhere in the ancient literature. The reason for this can be traced to the faulty rendering of original Sanskrit texts in popular translations. For example the vulgate Matsya Purāṇa has a footnote that makes Śiśumāra to mean the zodiac personified and no other than the child Viṣṇu111. In his translation of the Viṣṇu Purāṇa, Dutt112 takes fancifully Śiśumara in one place as the stellar sphere. Even the modern translation of the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa by Tagare113 adds an unnecessary footnote citing the Bhāgavata that all the stars and constellations are located as different parts of the body of this heavenly porpoise. However, as seen previously the Bhāgavata mentions that some people for meditation follow such a procedure and as far as the BP text is considered such an interpretation is impossible. As per the original texts in the BP and the VP there is no way to conceive the constellation other than placing the fourteen stars on the outline figure of a Śiśumāra for its visual picture. The statement that four of the stars on the tail, with Dhruva as the fourth do not set clearly makes these circumpolar, for the observer and narrator Sūta of BP. The one to one correspondence between the Vedic and the Purānic description leads us to the conclusion that the constellation meant should be the Draco in the northern sky. Referring to Figure 1, the ancient description stopped with α-Draconis (Thuban) without including stars κ- and λ- Draconis. The names of some of the Vedic stars can be tentatively identified with their modern equivalents. Behind α-Draconis (Thuban) are ι, θ, η stars that can be recognized as Prajāpati, Indra and Agni. The name Samvatsara literally Year, for one of the stars (5th or 6th from Dhruva) is interesting. It is said to be the genital, meaning thereby in Vedic parlance, the producer of Years. It would be interesting to investigate this further to see whether a star of this constellation which exhibited visibility phenomena could have been used as a marker for recognizing the beginning of the New Year in the 3rd millennium BCE. The stars Dharma and Brahma of TA can be identified as γ- and β-Draconis (magnitude 2.24 and 2.79) respectively. The Purāṇas changed Brahma to Uttānapāda so that his son Dhruva (Abhaya) remains at the end of the same figure, along with his mother Sunīti identifiable as star 10-Dra of magnitude 4.5. The forelegs with the two Aśvins and hind legs with Mitra and Varuṇa are identifiable as the two bends in the figure.

Image
Figure 1. Constellation Draco with the Current (2000 AD) Pole Star at NCP (http://www.iau.org/static/public/constellations/)

Precession

The constellation Śiśumāra, Dhruva and Meru have influenced the cultural practices of Indians for more than four thousand years. Nevertheless the inviolable effect of precession started taking its toll on the prime position Śiśumāra had as a constellation in the cardinal north direction during the 3rd millennium BCE. We have already seen mention of shifting and moving of Dhruva in the Maitrāyaṇīya Āraṇyaka in the 2nd millennium BCE. The Mahābhārata revered the constellation, when King Drupada announced the marriage of his daughter Draupadī. The place for holding the famous archery competition was named Śiśumārapura and this was located to the northeast of the capital city114. The name and the specific mention of direction is an unmistakeable reference to the shift of the constellation towards northeast in the sky also. As the figure shifted far away from its prime north position its shape altered to bring in new names such as Nahuṣa (serpent) and Ajagara (python) in the precession legends, in which the southern star Agastya (Canopus) also finds a role. The first recognition of the southern star and its identification with Sage Agastya in the Kurukṣetra region seems to have taken place around 3100 BCE115. With passage of time the visibility interval of this star increased as also its altitude and importance of its first visibility in the Vedic annual cycle116. It is interesting to note here that many of the legends connected with Agastya are about balancing the earth and rectification of the North-South direction. A popular astral legend appearing in the Mahābhārata is about King Nahuṣa seated in a palanquin being carried in the heavens by the Seven Sages and Agastya, on their shoulders, when Agastya was kicked by Nahuṣa for being too slow117. Agastya in anger curses the heavenly King Nahuṣa to lose his exalted position to become an ordinary ajagara (python). This legend is easily recognized as an allegory for precession being felt in the form of the Śiśumāra constellation losing its prime northern celestial position, along with star Agastya coming into prominence as a new bright star in the south. An interesting study of the religious influences of the Nahuṣa-Agastya legend has been carried out by Hiltebeitel118. According to him, the identification of the heavenly Nahuṣa with the constellation Draco was first proposed by two German scholars, both Adof Holtzmann (uncle and nephew). The Mahābhārata also mentions the movement of Dhruva as a bad omen before the Great War119. This statement as also the most probable date of the war is in harmony with the middle of 2nd millennium BCE, when due to precession α-Draconis was no more at the NCP120.

Among the three elements handed down by the Vedic TA, the visible entities were the star Dhruva and the constellation Śiśumāra. As these shifted position, the two receded from the day to day lives of common people, only to remain as legends. The third one namely the meru was always imaginary, but this withstood the passage of time best, providing the basis for the cosmological view of not only Hinduism, but also of Jainism and Buddhism and appears now all over India in temple architecture. The cosmology of the Brahmāṇḍa and other Purāṇas describing multiple ring shaped oceans, mountains and continental boundaries with distances stated in thousands of yojanas along with special numbers for sun, moon and planets sounds strange on first reading. However, recent studies by Kloetzli121 on VP and by Thompson122 on the Bhāgavata, show that Purāṇas present real three dimensional pictures projected on to a two dimensional plane, in layers, as in an astrolabe. A similar study on BP is desirable since, it is the source for all the ancient astral information that has been borrowed by the other texts either totally or with additions, deletions and distortions.

A difficulty one faces with BP is regarding its fixture in writing which must have happened in the early centuries of the Common Era. All Purāṇas basically claim to narrate ancient legends. Hence, one can object that BP text describing the Śiśūmāra need not refer to Thuban as the Pole Star, but another one lying very close to the Pole. Such a possibility cannot be denied, since BP can be interpreted to state 15 stars, by counting the stars Mārīca and Kaśyapa separately. The only eligible candidate for this possible alternate identification of Dhruva is κ-Draconis, which was nearest to the NCP c 1300 BCE at declination 850 13’, violating the property of being seen to be fixed, even though it could still indicate the north direction. This possibility does not in any way affect the conclusions about Abhaya-Dhruva being known as a fixed star in the Vedic period. The other candidate suggested in the literature for being near the NCP is star Kochab (β-U.Minor). The nearest approach of this star to NCP was 83 degrees. This fact as well as the geometry of U.Minor, does not fit into the textual descriptions of Dhruva better than α- or κ-Draconis. Even though BP has a stray statement (21.144) about the equinox being located at the beginning of meṣa (rāśi) and the end of tulā (rāśi) matching with the Common Era, there are several other observations that synchronize clearly with 2nd millennium BCE. In the identification of the equinox day, BP mentions that when Sun is in the first quarter of kṛttikā (Alcyone) and Moon in the fourth quarter of viśākha (α-Libra), the day and night are equal. Similarly when Sun is in the third quarter of viśākha and Moon is at the beginning of kṛttikā it is viṣuvam (equinox). This statement appears in several of the Purāṇas and hence cannot be ignored as spurious. This has been discussed in detail in relation to other ancient astronomical statements by Koch123, to show that the record preserved in the Purāṇas holds valid for 1885-1645 BCE.

First Millennium BCE

The very fact that BP first refers to Dhruva as a fixed peg to which the stars are tied, and next to a self-circling Dhruva driving the sun, moon and stars, is evidence of correction to previous hypotheses made necessary due to the effect of precession. The further cosmological extensions with large spatial measure numbers must have been inspired by the imaginary Meru, at the tip of which Dhruva was taken to reside. This may be a development of the first millennium BCE, when there was no visible Pole Star at NCP. Texts reliably dateable to the first millennium BCE are very few. We have already seen that the Gṛhya Sūtras dateable to c 500 BCE refer to the more ancient Vedic rites. These do not refer to Śiśumāra but by unbroken tradition the location of Dhruva must have been known to the faithful. The Atharavaveda Pariśiṣṭa (AVP) an unaccented text, considered to be an appendix to the Atharvaṇa Veda, is available in 76 Chapters124. The work contains very ancient as well as not so ancient material, added most probably after c 500 BCE. The text refers to Pāṇini (AVP 43.4.16) and also to dināra a gold currency (AVP 36.26.3) of foreign origin which was in circulation in the northwest part of India at the turn of the Common Era. AVP has long chapters on stars, planets and comets like a jyotiṣa-samhitā. For the present purpose it is sufficient to note that Chapter 52 titled Grahasańgraha preserves a collection of names of stars and constellations other than the well known nakṣatras along the ecliptic. In this list the Seven Sages with names; Gautama, Atri, Vasiṣṭha, Viśvāmitra, Kaśyapa, Ṛcīkaputra and Bharadvāja, are said to be fixed in the north. This is followed by another star group fixed at the end of the middle sky, with unmistakable reference to Dhruva with Śiśumāra and a few others followed by Viṣṇupada125. Some of the stars are named differently from the Vedas and the Purāṇas, but the constellation figure of Śiśumāra, the famous ancient star Dhruva and the station of Viṣṇu are same as in the TA and BP texts. Some of the texts of the Jain tradition fixed within a few centuries after the advent of Mahāvira (599-527 BCE) contain information in the form of omens, anecdotes, and the calendar. The Bhadrabāhu Samhitā (c 300BCE) mentions a comet masking śimśumāra as a bad omen126. A more detailed statement about a comet by name Calaketu rising in the west and moving north touching Saptaṛṣi and Dhruva before turning south, is available in the Parāśaratantra127. Such statements indicate that the constellation was variedly remembered, with or without Dhruva.

Common Era (CE)

As we enter the CE the nature of Indian astronomy, as is well known, changes its colour with emphasis on mathematics. The connection between the astronomical knowledge of the more ancient period and the Siddhānta texts of the CE is not well investigated. There was no recognized star at NCP during CE and we do not come across reference to dhruva unambiguously as the Pole Star till the 15th Century. But the terminology dhruvaka for polar longitude is derived from dhruva, interpreted as the Pole, an imaginary point on the sphere. Meru finds mention in the chapters on Bhuvanakośa but not dhruva as a visible star at NCP. Brahmagupta (598-670 CE) discussing the rotation of the celestial sphere uses the phrase dhruvayoḥ nibaddham, meaning the two geometrical north and south poles of the sphere. The group of stars near the Pole was named dhruvamatsya (Polar-fish) and not as Śiśumāra. Bhāskarācārya (1114-1185 CE) in his Siddhānta-śiromaṇi, under Bhuvanakośa refers to the mouth and tail of this polar-fish and its synchronization with sun rise and sun set. In the 15th Century the present Polaris or α-U.Minor had reached close to the Pole at about 86o and a line connecting it to star markaṭi (β-U.Mi or Kochab) was recognized to rotate like a hand in a clock. This fact was used by Padmanābha to develop his astronomical instrument Dhruvamatsya- yantra for finding time as in a clock128.

Controversy among Indologists

European scholars started taking interest in Sanskrit language, grammar and the Vedic literature from the 18th Century onwards. A topic of interest to many of these scholars was the date of the Ṛgveda, the most ancient literature of India, variously assigned from 4th millennium BCE to 1500 BCE. Jacobi129 a German scholar of repute was a proponent of astronomy as a means of dating the Vedic culture. He pointed out the importance given by all the Gṛhya Sūtras to show Dhruva as the Pole Star to the bride in the Vedic marriage rites. His argument was, since there was no Pole Star during the composition of the Sūtra literature, the composers of these texts should have known a star which was at the NCP in more ancient times, which can be none other than α-Draconis (Thuban). Jacobi somehow referred only to the late marriage codes for presenting his case. His opponents prejudiced as they were against dating the Ṛgveda to any period before 1500 BCE, treated Dhruva as an independent entity mentioned only in the Sūtras without any connection to the Vedic Śiśumāra. Typical was the dismissal by Whitney130 an American academic, when he wrote “….any star not too distant from the pole would have satisfied both the newly wedded woman and the exhibitor; there is no need of assuming that the custom is one handed down from the remote period when α- Draconis was really very close to the pole, across an interval of two or three thousand years during which there is no mention of pole-star, either in Veda or in Brāhmaṇa.” Keith working in India in the Colonial Office translated into English Taittirīya Samhitā and several other Vedic texts. Notwithstanding his knowledge of the country and its culture, he was derisive of the Hindu marriage ritual to comment131 “…the argument from the pole star assumes an accuracy in the demands of the primitive Indian wedding ritual which is wholly unnatural.” While criticizing the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa text mentioning that the Pleiades do not slip from the east he wrote “a passage which consists of foolish reasons for preferring one or other of the Nakṣatras; we are in the same region of popular belief as when in the Sūtra literature the existence of Dhruva, a fixed polar star, is alleged.” As if not satisfied with the above arguments he added a foot note on page 79 of his monograph; “The pole star, Dhruva, appears in the Gṛhya Sutras only.” It appears Whitney and Keith had no understanding of the TA text, assuming that they had read it. Keith coauthored a Vedic Index with Macdonell132, which is popular as a reference book even now. Under Dhruva there is reference to Jacobi and the controversy of this being the Pole Star. But under the entry Śimśumāra/Śiśumāra the word is taken just as an aquatic animal with no archaeo-astronomical recognition of a constellation. This is misleading, since even the Monier-Williams Dictionary of 1899 listed one of the meanings of Śiśumāra as: a part of the heavens having stars of that shape.

Conclusion

Any attempt to trace the history of Indian astronomy cannot overlook the vast Vedic literature starting from the Ṛgveda and the Purāṇas. These texts present the oldest description of a constellation named the Śiśumāra comprising of fourteen stars including the Pole Star. The identification and constraints for locating Dhruva, the ancient Pole Star, as vividly described in the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka of the Yajurveda and the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa are presented in this article from a chronological perspective. It is seen that the legendary Dhruva has left his imprint permanently on the sands of time, starting from 3200-2800 BCE to the present day. The ancient Indian cultural practice of maintaining a spiritual dialogue between the visible sky and the earth (Dyāvā-pṛthvī) has passed through the Vedic Samhitā, Brāhmaṇa, Āraṇyaka to the Purāṇas with many twists and turns and still later into the period of mathematical astronomy, preserving reference to two Pole Stars, a rarity for any culture. Scientific astronomers of the early siddhānta period scrupulously avoided the Śiśumāra of the Veda and the Purāṇa but retained the term dhruva to mean a fixed reference point, which terminology they needed for the coordinate dhruvaka133. But with passage of time, as star Polaris approached the NCP, the nearby group of stars was named Dhruvamatsya (Polar Fish) and the new Pole Star was kept at the mouth of the animal, in contrast to the ancient Dhruva placed at the tail of the aquatic animal Śiśumāra (Figure 2). This ambivalence must have confused an outsider like Alberuni since the orthodox Hindus whom he knew, must have held on to their belief that the Pole Star was at the tip of the tail of the constellation Śiśumāra, looking more like an alligator and not a fish. This amply demonstrates the long memory of the devout Hindus of their ancestral astral religion carried through centuries, attempting synchronization of their faith with the universal law as perceived in the Vedas.

The best example of how the Vedic facts are remembered is available in the commentaries on the Viṣṇusahasranāma, (Thousand names of Viṣṇu) which is a part of the Mahābhārata. All the three schools of vedānta, following Śankara, Rāmānuja and Madhwa recognize this text as important for their tradition. All the three commentaries specific to the three schools interpret the 441st name nakṣatranemi, as a homonym for Viṣṇu, the controller of the nakṣatras, stationed at the heart-region of the (constellation) śiṁśumāra, quoting the Vedic and Purāṇic texts in differing details. Śankarācārya explains that Dhruva sitting on the tail of this figure rotates the stellar circle. He quotes cryptically, the Vedic authority for his explanation as viṣṇuṛhṛdayam, which is the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka hymn (II.19)134. This commentary has a gloss by Tāraka Brahmānanda Sarasvati a monk of the Śankara tradition. His date is not exactly known, but he was after Sāyaṇa and hence can be assigned to 15-16 Century CE. We have already noted that Sāyaṇa commenting on the TA hymn says that one has to see the Dhruva-maṇḍala in the evening (see f.n. 8). One may wonder, which part of the sky was meant by the Dhruva-maṇḍala, since Polaris was approaching the NCP and dhruvamatsya was perhaps known to the general populace. We can surmise that Sāyaṇa being a follower of Śankara would have known correctly the sky part of Śiśumāra with the last star being the Dhruva of the TA hymn. However, any semblance of doubt that may remain is set right by Tāraka Brahmānanda Sarasvati in his gloss. He not only elaborates on the original text and the commentary of his mentor but takes trouble to give the identification of the Śiśumāra in the sky. He first explains the meaning of this word as an animal figure looking like a Lizard or Iguana135. Next he says that Dhruva is residing at the tip of the uplifted tail of this figure, leaving the faithful with no doubt as to where to look for the Dhruva. In passing we note that Alberuni also refers to Draco as The Lizard.

We conclude that the Vedic people of the Yajurveda branch beheld the sky picture of a constellation named Śiśumāra (the modern Draco) with fourteen stars the last one being stationary without motion to be called Dhruva (α-Draconis) the Pole Star c 3000 BCE. They also preserved this information in their orally transmitted text Taittirīya Āraṇyaka which formed the basis for the meru centric astronomical models of the later Purāṇas and the still later cosmological speculations in the siddhānta astronomical texts.

Image

Figure 2. The Path of the North Celestial Pole among the Stars due to Precession
(Author: Tau’olunga June, 2006. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... sion_N.gif) Figure adapted from the above link. The polar circle in blue colour shows the period in which visible Pole Stars are possible at the NCP. Negative years are BCE. Common Era starts from 0 year.


_______________

Notes:

1 Ṛgveda Samhitā; edited by a group of ten scholars, published by the Mysore Palace, 1950. This thirty-six volume series in Kannada script is complete with Samhitā and Pada Pāṭha, Khila, Sāyaṇa’s commentary, Anukramaṇi, Ṛgvidhāna, Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, the Bṛhaddevatā and the Nirukta with elaborate traditional explanations which are indispensable to follow RV.

2 Śam no bhūmirvepyamānaḥ śamulkāhatanca yat| ….śam no grahāhcāndramasāh śamādityaśca rāhuṇā| śamno mṛtyurdhūmaketuḥ śam rudrāḥ tigmatejasaḥ || Atharvaṇaveda (XIX.9.7-10).

3 atha yadāsya tārāvarṣāṇi colkāḥ patanti, nipatatnti, dhūmāyanti| diśo dahyanti, ketavścottiṣṭhanti……..ityevamādini tānyetāni sarvāṇi somadevatyānyadbhutāni….|| Ṣaḍvimśa. Brā. (6.9.2)  

4 aśvam na tvā vāravantam vandadhyā agnim namobhiḥ | samrājantam adhvarāṇām|| RV (I.27.1)

5 bhāṛjikaḥ prasiddha-bhāḥ| dhūmaketuḥ samidhā bhāṛjīkaḥ ityapi nigamo bhavati || Nirukta ( 6.4)

6 ihāgnibhūtastu ṛṣibhirloke stutibhirīlitaḥ | jātavedā stutomadhye stuto vaiśvānaro divi|| (BD 1.67):

7 vidyate sarvabhūtairhi yadvā jātaḥ punaḥ punaḥ| tenaiṣa madhyabhāgendro jātavedā iti stutaḥ|| (BD2.31)

8 patanti gagane colkāḥ sanirvātā diśo daśa| sajvālāngāradhūmādyāḥ sūryasyābhimukhā iva || (Unpublished Manuscript No.1402, RORI, Alwar. Also quoted by Ballālasena in his Adbhuta Sāgara.)

9 rathānām na rathacakrāṇāmivārāḥ te yathā bahavo’pi sanābhayaḥ samānanābhayo bhavanti tadvadye sanābhayaḥ samānabandhanā ekasminnevāntarikṣe vartamānāḥ || (Sāyana’s commentary on RV X.78)

10 tvāṣṭrī tu saviturbhāryā vaḍavārūpadhārinī | asūyata mahābhāgā sā’ntarikṣe aśvināvubhau || mahat hayaśiro bhūtvā yattad vedavido viduḥ | tamagnim udgiran vaktrāt pibatyāpo mahodadhau|| (MB. Ādi Parvan 66.36 & 180.22)

11 tvaṣṭā vīram devakāmam jajāna tvaṣṭurarvā jāyata āśuraśvaḥ|| TS (V.1.11)

12 āhuste trīṇi divi bandhanāni|| TS (IV.6.7):

13 citrāvaso svasti te pāramśīyetyāha rātrirvai citrāvasuravyuṣṭyai vā etasyai purā brāhmaṇā abhāiṣurvyuṣṭimevāvarundhe || Tai.Sam. (I.5-7) ( In ancient times the sages feared that they may not see the dawn again. By the Citrāvasu hymn, it is said, they won the dawn.)

14 prajāpatirha svām duhitaramabhidadhyau| divam voṣasam vā mithunyena yāsyāmiti tām sambabhūva|| ŚB.(I.7.4.1-4)

15 devā vai sattramāsata kurukṣetre|| Mai. Sam. (IV.5.9)

16 devā vai satramāsata…teṣām kurukṣetram vedirāsīt| tasyai khāṇḍavo dakṣiṇārdhamāsīt| tūrghnamuttarārdhaḥ| pariṇajjaghanārdhaḥ| marava utkaraḥ || Tai. Āra. (5.1.1)

17 samvatsaro vai prajāpatiḥ| samvatsareaivāsmai prajāḥ prājanayat| tāḥ prajā jātā maruto’ghnan asmān api na prāyukṣateti| sa etam prajāpatirmārutam saptakapālam apaśyat| yāḥ pūrvāḥ prajāḥ asṛkṣī| marutastā avadhiṣuḥ || Tai. Brā. (I.6.2.2-3-4)

18 maruto yajñamajighānsan prajāpateḥ || Tai. Brā. (I.3.4.4)

19 viśo vai maruto bhūmo vai viṭ || ŚB. (III. 9.1.17)

20 maruto hi vai devaviśaḥ antarikṣa bhājanāḥ || Kauṣītaki Brā. (7.9.16):

21 maruto hi devānām bhūyiṣṭāḥ || Tai. Brā. (2.7.10.1)

22 ya eko rudra ucyate| asankyātāḥ sahasrāṇi smaryate na ca dṛśyate|| Tai. Āra, (I.12.1)

23 hemantaṛtunā devāḥ marutastriṇave stutam || Tai. Brā. (II.6.19.2)

24 viśeṣaṇam tu vakṣyāmaḥ| ṛtūnām tannibodhata| suklavāsā rudragaṇāḥ | grīṣmeṇāvartate saha | nijahan prthivīm sarvām || Tai. Āra. (1-3-3).

25 abhidhūnvanto abhighnanta iva| vātavanto marudgaṇāḥ| amuto jetumiṣumukhamiva| sannaddhāḥ saha dadṛśe ha| apadhvastairvastivarṇairiva| viśikhāsaḥ kapardinaḥ| akruddhasya yotsyamānasya| kruddhsyeva lohinī| hematah cakṣuṣī vidyāt| akṣṇayoḥ kṣipaṇoriva || Tai. Āra. (I.4.2)

26 Profile of a natural disaster in ancient Sanskrit literature. By R.N.Iyengar; Ind. J Hist. Sci., 2004; 39.1. pp. 11-49.

27 The Cosmic Winter. By Clube and Napier; Basil Blackwell; U.K. 1990.

28 Rogue Asteroids and Doomsday Comets. By D. Steel J. Wiley & Sons New York. 1995.

29 Iyengar R.N., Archaic Astronomy of Parāśara and Vṛddhagarga, IJHS 43.1, pp.1-27, 2008.

30 śam no bhūmirvepyamānaḥ śamulkāhatanca yat| ….śam no grahāhcāndramasāḥ śamādityaśca rāhuṇā| śamno mṛtyurdhūmaketuḥ śam rudrāḥ tigmatejasaḥ | Atharva Veda Samhitā (XIX.9.7-10).

31asurā daityadaiteyadanujendrāridānavāḥ| śukraśiṣyā ditisutāḥ pūrvadevāḥ suradviṣaḥ|| (Amarakośa I.1.12)

32 pratiprayāṇam asurasya vidvān sūktairdevam savitāram duvasya |
upa bruvīta namasā vijānan jyeṣṭham ca ratnam vibhajantamāyoḥ || RV (V.49.2)

33 viśvedevāḥ vaiśvanarā diśaḥ kṛtvā tāsvetām āśiṣamāśāsata || ŚB. (6.5.2.6)

34 ṛtavo vai viśvedevāḥ tadenām viśvairdevaiḥ ṛtubhiḥ samvidānaḥ || ŚB. (7.1.1.43)

35 ko nu vām vaiśvadevāni ekādaśa parāṇyataḥ|| (B.D.5.36).

36 saptarṣayo vasavaścāpi devā atharvāṇo bhṛgavaḥ somasūryāḥ|
pathyā svastī rodasī coktamantre kuhūrgungūraditirdhenuraghnyā||
asunītirilā cāptyā vidhātānurmatirha yā |
angirobhiḥ sahaitāḥ syuruktamantrāśca devatāḥ ||
vaiśvānaro hi suparṇo vivasvān prajāpatirdyauḥ sudhanvā nagohyaḥ|
apāmnapādaryamā vātajūtirilaspatiścāpi rathaspatiśca||
ṛbhavaḥ parjanyaḥ parvatā gnāśca dakṣo bhago devapatnīrdiśaśca|
ādityā rudrāḥ pitaro’tha sādhyā nipātino vaiśvadeveṣu sarve || BD (8.125-128)

37 medhātithiragastyastu bṛhaduktho manurgayaḥ|
ṛjiśvā vasukarṇaśca śāryāto gotamo luśaḥ|
svastyātreyaḥ parucchepaḥ kakṣīvān gāthinaurvaśau |
nābhākaścaiva nirdiṣṭo dyuvasyurmamamatā sutaḥ||
vihavyaḥ kaśyapaṛṣiravatsāraśca nāma yaḥ|
vāmadevo madhucchandāḥ pārtho dakṣasutāditiḥ|| BD (3.55-60)

38 āgneyam sūktamaibhiryadvaiśvadevam ihocyate |
tadviśvalingam gāyatram vaiśvadeveṣu śasyate || (BD 3.33).

39 svarbhānudṛṣṭam sūryasya apahatya tato’trayaḥ|
saptavimśatibhiḥ sūktaiḥ abodhītyagnimastuvan || (B.D. 5.12)

40 tisra eva devatā iti nairuktāḥ | agniḥ pṛthvīsthānaḥ| vāyurvendro vāntarikṣasthānaḥ| sūryo dyusthānaḥ| tāsām mahābhāgyādekaikasyāpi bahūni nāmadheyāni bhavanti| api vā karma pṛthaktvāt|| Nirukta (7.5)

41 ā nāsatyā tribhir ekādaśair iha devebhir yātam madhupeyam aśvinā| RV (I.34.11)

42 sasrvāmsamiva tmanāgnim ittha tirohitam|
ainam nayan mātariśvā parāvato devebhyo mahitam pari|| RV (III.9.5)

43 sasṛvāmsamiva | yathā svācchandyena sasṛvāmsam sarantam gacchantam putram pitā balādānayati| tadvat||
(Sāyaṇa Bhāṣya on RV III.9.5)

44 Hymns to the Mystic Fire, by Sri Aurobindo, S.A.Ashram, Pondicherry, 1998

45 tavāgne yajña ityetat pratyārdhi sviṣṭakṛcca saḥ|yasya trīṇi sahasrāṇi nava trīṇi śatānica || trimśaccaivatu devānām sarvāneva varāndaduḥ| tato’gniḥ sumanāprīto viśverdevaiḥ puraskṛtaḥ || (BD 7.75,76)

46 kaḥ samit samiddḥ candramāḥ| candramā brahmā bhavatu| …sa ca samit samiddhaḥ candramāh vām yuvayorhomārtham……āhutirbhavatvityarthaḥ|| somātmako hi candramā hūyate|| ( Sāyaṇa Bhāṣya, MPRV Edition )

47 tadadya vācaḥ prathamam masīyeti samāpya|| Āśvalāyana Gṛhya Sūtra (1.2)

48 vidhum dadrāṇam samane bahūnām yuvānam santam palito jagāra|
devasya paśya kāvyam mahitvādya mamāra sa hyaḥ sam āna|| RV (X.55.5)

49 samānām samvatsarāṇām māsa ākṛtiḥ | somo rūpaviśeṣairoṣadhiścandramā vā|| Nirukta (11.4-5)

50 svedayaḥ| kiraṇāḥ|gāvaḥ|raśmayaḥ|…….suparṇā iti pañcadaśa raśmināmāni|| Nirukta (1.5)

51 Drapsa the Vedic Cycle of Eclipses by R. Shama Shastry, Mysore 1938.

52 Sarma K.V. A Survey of Source Materials; IJHS, 20.1-4, 1985 pp.1-20.

53 Astronomical Code of the Ṛgveda by S.Kak, Munshiram Manoharlal Publn. N,Delhi 2000.

54 svarbhānurāsuraḥ sūryam tamasā’vidhyat tasmai devāḥ prāyaścittamaicchan …....te devā abruvan
devapaśurvā ayam samabhūt kasmā iyamālapsyāmaha iti || TS (II.1.2.2)

55 Ancient Indian Chronology by P.C.Sengupta, Univ. of Calcutta, 1947

56 Stockwell J.N., The Astronomical Journal, XV, 10, 1895 Boston.

57 Eclipse- The celestial phenomenon that changed the course of history, by D.Steel; National Academy of Sciences, USA, 2003.(http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10123.html)

58 The Śatapatha Brāhamaṇa (English Translation in 3 vols. SBE series) by J.Eggeling. Motilal Banarsidas, N.Delhi, 1963. Extracts from the translation of J. Eggeling: “…Thereupon it said, in such and such a year that flood will come……when the flood has risen thou shalt enter into the ship…..And in the same year which the fish had indicated to him, he attended to (the advice of the fish) by preparing a ship; and when the flood had risen, he entered into the ship….hence that (slope) of the northern mountain is called Manu’s descent. The flood then swept away all these creatures, and Manu alone remained here.” (ŚB I.8.1)

59 yajñam vyākhyāsyāmaḥ||…..ṛgvedayajurvedābhyām darśapūrṇamāsau || Āpastamba-paribhāṣā-sūtra (1-4). (Ed.) A.M.Śāstri; Mysore,1893.

60 Datta B.B., “The Science of Śulba, a study in early Hindu Geometry”, Calcutta Univ., Kolkata, 1932

61 Sarasvati T.A., “Geometry in Ancient and Medieval India”, MLBD Publ., Delhi 1979.

62 Sen S.N. and Bag A.K., “The Śulba Sūtras with Text, Translation and Commentary”, INSA, N.Delhi, 1983.

63 Siedenberg A., "The geometry of the Vedic rituals,", in Agni, Frits Staal (ed.), Vol.2, 95-12, 1983.

64 Paranjape V.R., (Ed.) Śrauta Sanjīvini-1;Darśapūrṇamāsa Prayogaḥ. Bhāratī Prabodha Śodha Samsthā; Sonda, 2007

65 Sen S.N., and Bag A.K., ibid.

66 yatpuṇyaṁ nakṣatraṁ | tadbaṭ kurvītopavyuṣaṁ | yadā vai sūrya udeti | atha nakṣatraṁ naiti| yāvati tatra
sūryo gacchet | yatra jaghanyaṁ paśyet| tāvati kurvīta tatkārī syāt | puṇyāha eva kurute || TB (I.5.2)

67 Sen S.N., and Bag A.K., ibid.

68 Shamasastry, R., Drapsa: The Vedic Cycle of Eclipses, Panchacharya Electric Press, Mysore, 1938.

69 Sastry T.S.K (Ed.) Vedāńga Jyotiṣa of Lagadha, IJHS, 19.4. Supplement, pp l-74. INSA N.Delhi, 1984

70 Shamasastry, R. Vedāńga Jyoutiṣa, Text, Translation and Commentary, Mysore. 1936.

71 Kouṇḍinyāyana S.A., Lagadhamuniproktam Vedāńgajyotiṣam (with commentaries of Somākara and Kauṇḍinyāyan) Chaukāmba Vidyābhavan. Vārāṇasī, 2005.

72 Abhyankar, K.D., Pre-siddhiintic Indian Astronomy, ISERVE, Hyderabad. 2002

73 Holay, P.V., Vedic Astronomy, Apte Smarak Samiti. Nagpur. 1989.

74 Kanhaiyalal (Ed.) Sūryaprajñapti-Candraprajñapti, Jināgama Granthamālā, 29 Beawar. 1989.

75 Shamasastry R., Drapsa: The Vedic Cycle of Eclipses, Panchacharya Electric Press, Mysore, 1938.

76 http://is1.mum.edu/vedicreserve/kalpa/s ... _sutra.pdf.

77 Sastry T.S.K (Ed.) Vedāńga Jyotiṣa of Lagadha, IJHS, 19.4. Supplement, pp l-74. INSA N.Delhi, 1984.

78 Dumont P.E., The Full-Moon and New-Moon Sacrifices in the Taittirīya Brāhamaṇa (I Part, Text with Translation) Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., 101, 2, 1957, pp,216-243.

79 purā krūrasya visṛpo virapśinnudādāya pṛthivīm jīradānuryām airayan candramasi svadhābhiḥ tām dhīrāso anudṛśya yajante|| TS (I.1.9).

80 Kashyap R.L., Taittirīya Samhitā (Text with Translation), Vol., 1SAKSIVC, Bangalore. 2002.

81 pūrve yajamānā vedirūpam yām pṛthivīm kṛtsnabhūmerāsuryāḥ sakāśadūrdhvamādaya candramsyamṛtakiraṇaiḥ sārdham sthāpitavantaḥ idānīmtanāstu dhīmantaḥ tāmimām vedim manasānucintya tasyām yajante|| Sāyaṇa Bhāṣya (TS I.1.9)

82 tulyastayostu svarbhānuḥ bhutvādhastāt pravartate| uddhṛtya pṛthvīcchāyām nirmito maṇḍalākṛtiḥ || Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa (I Pt.23.101)

83 Bhīṣma Parvan; Chapter 40; verses 40-47. The Mahābhārata, Crtical Edition, BORI, Poona.

84Neugebauer O., “A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy” Springer-Verlag. Germany 1975

85 Pingree, D "Indian Astronomy", Proc. American Philosophical Society, 122,6, pp.361-364. 1978.

86 mitrāvaruṇau tvottarataḥ pari dhattām dhruveṇa dharmaṇā || TS (I.1.11.12)

87 …..nākasya pṛṣṭhe yajamāno astu| saptaṛṣīṇām sukṛtām yatra lokastatremam yajñam yajamānam ca dhehi|| (See Ref.6 )

88 Sachau E.C. Alberuni’s India: An Account..….of India About A.D.1030. (Vols. I & II) London. 1910.

89 Pines S. and Gelblum T. Alberuni’s Arabic Version of Patanjali’s Yogasutra: A Translation of the third chapter and comparison with Related Texts. Bull. School of Oriental and African Studies, Univ. of London, 2, pp. 258-304, 1983.

90 smṛtiḥ pratyakṣamaitihyam anumānaścatuṣṭayam| etairādityamaṇḍalam sarvaireva vidhāsyate|| TA (I.2.1)

91 kaśyapo’ṣṭamaḥ sa mahāmerum na jahāti|…..na hi śekumiva mahāmerum gantum | apaśyam aham etat
sūryamaṇḍalam parivartamānam | gārgyaḥ prāṇatrātaḥ |gacchanta mahāmerum|| TA (I.7.1-3)

92 ṛṣayassaptātriśca yat| sarve’ trayo agastyaśca| nakṣatraiśśamkṛto’vasan||

93 viśvāmitro jamadagnirbhāradvājo’tha gautamaḥ|atrirvasiṣṭaḥ kaśyapa ityete saptarṣayaḥ | saptānām ṛṣīṇām agastyāṣṭamānām yadapatyam tadgotramityācakṣate|| (Āśvalāyana Śrauta Sūtra Pariśiṣṭa)

94 Mitchiner J.E., Traditions of the Seven Ṛṣis, MLBD N.Delhi, 2000.

95 anena mantreṇa udańmukho bhūtvā dhruvamaṇḍalam paśyan śiśumārarūpeṇa tamupatiṣṭhet || Sāyaṇa’s Commentary on TA (Edited by H.N.Apte, Anandashrama Press, Pune, 1898).

96 Taittirīya Āraṇyaka with the Commentary of Bhaṭṭabhāskara Miśra (Edited by A.M.Shastri and K.Rangacharya. Mysore 1900).

97 Ekāgnikāṇḍa with the Commentary of Haradatta (Edited by L.Srinivasacharya). G.O.L.Mysore 1902

98 kimetairvārnyānām śosanam mahārnavānām śikharinām prapatanam dhruvasya pracalanam vraścanam vātarajjunām nimajjanam prthivyāh sthānādapasaranam…|| MAU (I.4)

99 sūryo yonirvai kālasya|tasyaitadrūpam yannimeṣādikālāt sambhṛtam dvādaśātmakam vatsarasya āgneyamardhamardham vāruṇam maghādyam śravisthārdhamāgneyam| krameṇotkramena sārpādyam śraviṣṭhārdhāntam saumyam|| MAU (VI.14)

100 Vedāńga Jyoutiṣa of Lagadha (Ed. by T.S.K.Sastry) IJHS, 19.4. Supplement, 1-74. N.Delhi. 1984.

101 When to his house ye came, to Divodāsa, hasting to Bharadvāja, O ye Aśvins,
The car that came with you brought splendid riches: a porpoise and a bull were yoked together. (RV I.116.18; Translation by Griffith R.T.)

102 tasmai divodāsāya prāpayāmāsa| apica tasmin rathe vṛṣabhaḥ anaḍvān śimśumāraḥ grāha ca paraspara viruddhāvapi svasāmarthya prakaṭanāya yuktā vāhanatayā samyuktāvāstām || (Commentary of Sāyaṇa, RV I.116)

103 Caland W. English Translation of the Pañcavimśa-Brāhmaṇa, Bibliotheca Indica Series, 255, Calcutta, 1932.

104 Aiyangār M.N. Essays on Indo-Āryan Mythology, Bangalore 1898. Available at: (https://archive.org/details/MN40106ucmf_3)

105 Clarke W.E., A note on Pargiter’s Ancient Indian Historical Tradition, J Am. Ori. Soc, 43, pp. 130-131, 1923.

106 uttaram yadagastyasya hyajaveethyāśca dakṣiṇam|pitṛyānaḥ savai panthāḥ vaiśvanarapathādbahiḥ||
nāgavītyuttaroyaśca saptaṛṣigaṇadakṣiṇaḥ|uttaraḥ savituḥ panthā devayānaśca sa smṛtaḥ ||
BP (21.156) and BP (21.168)

107 ūrdhvottaram ṛṣibhyastu dhruvo yatra savai smṛtaḥ | etadviṣṇupadam divyam tṛtīyam vyomni bhāsvaram ||
yatra gatvā na śocanti tadviṣṇoḥ paramam padam | Dharmadhruvādyāḥ tiṣṭanthi yatra te lokasādhakāḥ ||
BP (21.175, 176)

108 See previous articles 2 and 3 of this series.

109 kecanaiḥ tajjyotiḥ anīkam śiśumāra samsthānena bhagavato vāsudevasya yogadhāraṇāyām anuvarṇayanti||

110 Allen R.H. Star Names and Their Meanings, Dover Publications. Inc., USA.1963

111 The Matsya Purāṇa (Text and Transl by H.H.Wilson) Arranged by N.S.Singh, Nag Publ. N. Delhi, 1997

112 Dutt M.N. English Translation of the Viṣṇu Purāṇa, Chowkamba Publ.Varanasi. 1972.

113 Tagare G.V. English Translation of the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa, Motilal Banarsidas Publ. N.Delhi, 2000.

114 tataḥ purajanāssarve sāgaroddhūta nissvanāḥ| śiśumārapuram prāpya nyaviśan teca pārthivāḥ||
prāguttareṇa nagarād bhūmibhāge same śubhe| samājavāṭaḥ śuśubhe bhavanaiḥ sarvato vṛtaḥ||
MB Ādi Parvan ( Ch 176 v 15,16)

115 Abhyankar K.D. Folklore and Astronomy:Agastya a Sage and a Star, Current Science, 89, pp.2174-2176. 2005.

116 Iyengar R.N. Parāśara’s Six Season Solar Zodiac and Heliacal Visibility of Star Agastya in 1350-1130 BCE. IJHS, 49.3, pp.223-238, 2014.

117 Mahābhārata, Udyoga Parvan , Ch.17, v. 14-18. (BORI, Pune Critical Edition).

118 Hiltebeitel A. Nahuṣa in the Skies: A Human King of Heaven. History of Religions. 16.4. pp.329-350. 1977.

119 dhruvaḥ prajvalito ghorah apasavyam pravartate || (Bhīṣma Parvan Ch.3, v.17)

120 Iyengar R.N. Internal Consistency of Eclipses and planetary positions in the Mahābhārata IJHS. 77-115, 2003.

121 Kloetzli W.R. Maps of Time-Mythologies of Descent: Scientific Instruments and the Purāṇic Cosmograph. History of Religions, 25,2. pp.116-147, 1985.

122 Thompson R.L. The Cosmology of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (First Indian Edition) MLBD Publn. Delhi. 2007.

123 Koch D., Astronomical Dating of the Mahābhārata War. Erlenbach, Switzerland. 2014. (http://www.gilgamesh.ch/KochMahabharata6x9_V1.00.pdf)

124 Atharvaveda Pariśiṣṭa (Ed.)G. M. Bolling and J. von Negelein, Leipzig,1910

125 śiśumāreṇa sahitā dhruveṇa ca mahātmanā | pulastyaḥ pulahaḥ somo bhṛgurāńgirasā saha ||
hāhāhūhū ca vijñeyau viṣṇoścapadam uttamam| madhyāntasthāvarāṇāmtu niyatāviti buddhimān||AVP(52.10.4,5)

126 Bhadrabāhu Samhitā (Ed.) A.S.Gopāṇi, Sindhi Jaina Granthamālā. Bharatiya Vidhya Bhavan, Bombay, 1949.

127 Parāśaratantra (Reconstructed text with translation and notes) by R.N.Iyengar. Jain University Press, Bangalore, 2013.

128 Sarma S.R. The Dhruvabhrama-Yantra of Padmanābha. J. Rashtriya Samskrita Samsthan, Vol.6, pp.321- 343, N.Delhi, 2012.

129 Jacobi H.G. On the date of the Ṛgveda, (Transl. from German) The Indian Antiquary, 23, 154-159. 1894.

130 Whitney W.D. On a recent attempt by Jacobi and Tilak to determine on Astronomical Evidence the Date of the earliest Vedic Period as 4000 BC. The Indian Antiquary, 24, 361-369. 1895.

131 B.Keith (1925) The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads Harvard Univ. Press, USA

132 Macdonell, A. A., & Keith, A. B. Vedic Index of Names and Subjects. J. Murray. London,1912.

133 Abhyankar K.D. Dhruvaka-vikshepa system of Astronomical Coordinates, Ind. J. Hist. Sci. 41, 151-157. 2006

134 Viṣṇusahasranāmastotram with the commentary of Śankarācārya and the gloss of Tāraka Brahmānanda Sarasvati (Edited by R.Rama Sastry) ORI Sanskrit Series, 106, Univ. of Mysore 1961.

135 śimśumāro jalajantuviśeṣaḥ saraṭagodhādyākāraḥ, tadākṛti jyotiścakram – śimśumaracakram tasya pradakṣiṇāvartakuṇḍalībhūtasya unnamitapucchāgre vyavasthito dhruvaḥ ||
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36119
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Fri Jun 25, 2021 6:51 am

Some Purana References, from -- Astronomical Dating of the Mahabharata War
by Dieter Koch
2014/2015

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.




A very good example for a mixture of old and new astronomical concepts is given in chapter 2.8 of the Viṣṇupurāṇa. Experts agree that this work was compiled in post-Hellenistic times (3rd/4th cent. AD). In VP 2.8.28ff. (quoted on p. 41f.), it is stated that the solstices are at the initial points of Capricorn and Cancer and the equinoxes at the initial points of Aries and Libra. This statement clearly stems from post-Hellenistic times, from the first half of the 1st millennium CE. However, later in the same chapter, in VP 2.8.76-79 (quoted below on p. 27f.), it states that when the Sun is in the third quarter of Viśākhā and the full moon in the first quarter of Kṛttikā, then that is the autumnal equinox. This statement is only valid for the 2nd millennium BCE. Thus, there is obviously very old and very young material mixed together in this text....

The list of nakṣatras, as known today and as found in astronomical works of the post-Hellenistic period, begins with Aśvinī. However, in lists given in the Purāṇas, the Mahābhārata, and in Brāhmaṇa texts, Kṛttikā appears in the first place (e. g. MBh 13.63(64).5ff.) Kṛttikā is more frequently mentioned than any other lunar mansion. It seems that Kṛttikā, as well as Maghā, which is approximately in square to Kṛttikā, were of exceptional importance. The reason seems to be that in ancient times the vernal equinox was in Kṛttikā and the summer solstice in Maghā; or otherwise the fact that the full moon, when it occurred in Kṛttikā, roughly coincided with the autumn equinox, and the full moon in Maghā with the winter solstice. In principle, this explanation allows an astronomical dating of this calendrical system, although not necessarily a dating of the texts that refer to it. As has been said already, the doctrine could be a lot older that the written documents in which it first appears...

An interesting text that mentions the equinoxes, which even Venkatachelam quotes, although he fails to recognize its real significance, is found in Viṣṇupurāṇa 2.8., and with some variations also in Brahmāṇdapurāṇa 1.21 and Vāyupurāṇa 50:

When the Sun is in the first part of Kṛttikā, then the [full] moon
stands in the forth (read: third) part of Viśākhā without any doubt.
When the Sun enters the third part of Viśākhā,
then one should know that the [full] moon stands at the beginning of Kṛttikā.
Then this is the holy time which is called the “equinox”.
Then [people] of devoted nature give gifts to the gods (var. to the ancestors).
By means of the Sun the equinox must be known, the time must be indicated by means of the Moon.
Night and day are equal, when this equinox takes place.
For Brahmins and ancestors, this is the beginning (mouth) that generates gifts.
Whoever has given gifts on the equinox, becomes one who has done [everything] that ought to be done.


While the Viṣṇupurāṇa might have been composed in the Christian era, there can be no doubt that the astronomical observations underlying the above verses date to the first half until the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE. Besides, the work turns out to be a conglomerate of doctrines from very different epochs. For, right in the same chapter, VP 2.8.28ff., it is mentioned that the solstices are at the initial points of Capricorn and Cancer. These verses are post-Hellenistic and were obviously written in the first half of the 1st millennium CE. Astronomically speaking, there are 2000 years between this passage and the one quoted above.

What is interesting about the cited text is that the lunar mansions are divided into four parts and that a circle of 27 (not 28) equal lunar mansions seems to be used. For, in a circle of 27 lunar man-sions, the first quarter of Kṛttikā stands in opposition to the third quarter of Viśākhā. (The fact that verse 76 mentions the fourth part must be an error, as becomes obvious from verse 77.) When the full moon takes place on the equinox, then the Sun and the Moon were found on this axis. Now, if it were known exactly where the starting point of the nakṣatra circle was assumed, these verses could be dated with a precision of 240 years. Unfortunately, this is not known. However, as has been stated, if the sidereal zodiac according to Lahiri is assumed, where the star Citrā (= Spica) is in the middle of the lunar mansion Citrā, then it results in a fairly reasonable distri-bution of the principal stars in their respective lunar mansions. Thus if the Lahiri zodiac is used as an approximation, then this astro-nomical observation from the Viṣṇupurāṇa can be dated to about 1885 – 1645 BCE....

There is also the following verse, which is found in different ver-sions in several Purāṇas:

When the Sun is in Śravaṇa [reaching] northern culmination,
then he wanders rising in the northern regions of the sixth continent [called] Śakadvīpa.
When the Sun is in Śravaṇa and Uttarāṣāḍhā,
then he wanders in the northern regions of the sixth continent [called] Śakadvīpa.
When the Sun is [reaching] northern culmination in [the month of] Śrāvaṇa,
then he wanders in the most northern region on the continent of Gomeda.


The former two versions wrongly state that the Sun reaches his northern culmination in Śravaṇa. In reality, that would be his south-ern culmination. The third version is more correct in that it mentions the month of Śrāvaṇa rather than the lunar mansion Śravaṇa. But whatever may be the original wording of the text, it clearly points to an epoch where the winter solstice was in Śravaṇa or Śraviṣṭhā, the two lunar mansions whose full moons were assigned to the month of Śrāvaṇa. As has been stated already, the solstice was at the beginning of Śravaṇa around 440 BCE, and at the beginning of Śraviṣṭhā around 1400 BCE...

A good example for a post-Hellenistic definition of the zodiac, the equinoxes, and the solstices is found in Viṣṇupurāṇa 2.8.28ff.:

At the beginning of his northward course (uttarāyaṇam), the Sun enters Capricorn, then [he enters] Aquarius and Pisces, from one zodiac sign to the other, O twice-born one.
After enjoying these three [zodiac signs], the Sun arrives at the equinox and makes day and night equal.
Then the night goes to decrease and the day grows daily.
And then, at the end of Gemini, the Sun arrives at his highest culmination. When he has reached Cancer, he makes the southward course (dakṣiṇāyanam).


This definition, which is actually equivalent to the tropical zodiac, as found in Ptolemy’s works, was valid for several centuries in India. It is found in Purāṇas and in all works of astronomy and astrology of the post-Hellenistic period, including the works of Sphujidhvaja, Varāhamihira, Āryabhaṭa and in Sūryasiddhānta.42 “Vedic” astro-logers do not like to hear all this, because they want to believe that Indian astrology as we know it today was revealed more than 5000 years ago by the holy sages of Vedic times and that their doctrines from the beginning were not tropical, but sidereal....

There are also other texts in Purāṇas that explain the daily rotation of the stars about the pole star (or the celestial pole) by the fact that they are tied to it by “wind strings” and that their circular motion is caused by the rotation of the pole star. Some scholars believe that these texts also prove a scientific understanding of the precession of the equinox in Vedic times. However, if the texts are studied more closely, this turns out to be wishful thinking. In reality these texts only deal with the daily rotation of the sky, not with precession. Other than the above-cited text from Maitryupaniṣad, they are not aware of precession...

Also, Dhruva is called a star in the tail of Śiśumāra in several places in Purāṇas, e.g. in the following verse:

After Dhruva, the son of Uttānapāda, had propitiated that lord of the world, he was placed into the tail of the constellation Śiśumāra....


Finally, Jha refers to the mysterious doctrine of the vīthīs in Vāyupurāṇa 50, which in his view alludes to the trepidation theory. His argument is as follows:

Verse-130 states that Sun's path during the Uttarāyana is called Nāgaveethee, and Sun's path during the Dakshināyana is called Ajaveethee. When Sun rises in three nakṣatras from moola to (poorva and uttara) āshādha, it is ajaveethee, and when the Sun rises in three nakshatras from Abhijit (i.e., Abhijit or Shravana or Dhanishthā), then it is Nāgaveethee.

What does it mean? Uttarāyana and Dakshināyana are here defined not in terms of human Sunrise or Sunset, but divine Sunrise and Sunset. Divine Sunrise occurs when sāyana Sun has longitudes from -27 deg to +27 deg with respect to the mean reference point 270 deg for Mean Divine Sunrise
or Uttrāyana-onset, i.e., from 243 deg (Moola) to 297 deg (Uttarāshādha) which is an evidence of both pendulum like motion of Dhruva as well as of trepidating ayanāmsha known as Dolāyana in contrast to circular motion of modern concept of ayanāmsha known as chakrāyana. Although exact degrees are not mentioned in these verses, no other explanation is possible excepting that based on trepidating Dolāyana, which puts nir-ayana Makara Samkrānti or Divine Sunrise always at 270 degrees and sāyana Makara Samkrānti from 243 deg to 297 deg...


Thus Jha believes that ajavīthī (the “path of the goats”) and nāgavīthī (the “path of the snakes”) represent the two sections of the ecliptic that lie on either side of the initial point of sidereal Capricorn and have the size of 27° each. According to the trepidation theory, which is a precursor of the theory of precession, the winter solstice oscillates within this range in a period of 7200 years. Since Jha defines uttarāyaṇa and dakṣiṇāyana sidereally, the two vīthīs always fall in opposite half-years or ayanas. And since the two vīthīs comprise 27° each, the solstitial point necessarily falls into some lunar mansion between Mūla and Dhaniṣṭhā. Jha therefore assigns the area of Mūla, Pūrvāṣāḍhā, and Uttarāṣāḍhā to ajavīthī, and the area of Abhijit, Śravaṇa and Dhaniṣṭhā to nāgavīthī. The text thus alludes to the trepidation theory, in Jha’s opinion.
In reality, however, the text does not support this. The wording is as follows:

The nāgavīthī is northerly and the ajavīthī southerly.
Mūla and the two Āṣāḍhās are the three risings of/in the ajavīthī.
Abhijit ... before ... Svāti are the three risings of/in the nāgavīthī.


Unfortunately, it is difficult to make sense out of the last line. The text is obviously corrupt. However, it is obvious that there is no mention of the triple Abhijit, Śravaṇa und Dhaniṣṭhā, and one would have to adjust the text considerably in order to make it accord with this idea. Jha’s translation shows that he does “correct” the text somehow, but he does so silently without mentioning the problem:

Northern veethee or path is Nāgaveethee and southern veethee is Ajaveethee. Sunrise (occurs) in any of three nakshatras from moola to both āshādhas which make up Ajaveethee. (And) sunrise (occurs) in any of three nakshatras likewise from Abhijit (to shravana and dhanishthā) which make up Nāgaveethee.


It must be noted that Jha suppresses the mention of Svāti, which obviously contradicts his interpretation...

In Harivaṃśa, the following verses are found:

The creatures will go into destruction together with the Kali age.
When this Kali age has been destroyed, then a new Kṛta age
will emerge, according to the rule, by nature, not otherwise.


The context of this verse treats the incarnations of Viṣṇu on the earth at the end of each yuga. And in Viṣṇupurāṇa it says:

Kṛtam, Tretā, Dvāparaḥ und Kaliḥ [form] a [period] of four ages.
One thousand of them is called a day of Brahmā, O sage.
In one day of Brahmā, O Brahmin, 14 Manus
appear. Listen [to learn] their change that is caused by time (Kāla).
The Seven Ṛṣis, the gods, Śiva, Manu, his sons, and the kings
are created and destroyed at the same time, as they were formerly.


The four ages Kṛta, Tretā, Dvāpara, and Kali, constitute a “great age” (mahāyugam, caturyugam). One thousand of them form a “Day of Brahmā”, the “Creator God”. A day of Brahmā also contains 14 Manu periods (manvantaram), each of which contains 71 “great ages”. Manu is the name of the ruler of one of these 14 periods. At the end of a Manu period, the Manu dies, and a new one takes office. The verse quoted above actually seems to indicate that the divine beings are destroyed and recreated at the beginning of each Manu period.

However all that may be in detail, it is obvious that the super-conjunction of all planets has something to do with this reabsorption of everything into God and its re-emanation from him at the end of each age. Everything, including the planets, are absorbed into God and re-emerge from him.

The Viṣṇupurāṇa has the following verses:

The yogis who contemplate Brahma, having one goal only,
to them [belongs] that highest abode that is seen by the sages.
The Moon, the Sun, and the other planets go there again and again and return [at the end of each yuga].
Even today, those who meditate on the 12 syllables, do not return.


The last line refers to the spiritual liberation that ends the cycle of birth and death.

It seems, however, that the planets unite in a super-conjunction at the end of each yuga, not only at the end of a day of Brahmā and not only at the end of a Manu period or a great age (mahāyuga)...

Thus at the time the world reaches destruction, the planets are swallowed up by Nṛsiṃha, who represents the Sun, and shortly thereafter proceed to their combined heliacal rising. They go forth from a conjunction, then separate and wander separately “as they please”...

As has been illustrated, The Mahābhārata epic contains clear evidence that a super-conjunction of all planets took place at the time of the great war. However, the traditional belief amongst Hindu astrologers is that a super-conjunction did not occur in the year of the war, but 36 years later, in the year when Kṛṣṇa died and the kali-yuga began. The date given for this event is 17th/18th February 3102 BCE. The astronomical configuration for this traditionally accepted kaliyuga date will be examined shortly. However, it should first be considered whether a super-conjunction 36 years after the war could be derived from textual evidence within the Mahābhārata itself.
To begin with, the Mahābhārata itself states that the super-conjunction and the transition from dvāparayuga to kaliyuga took place during the year of the war. This is evident from the following verse:

When the transition of Kali and Dvāpara arrived,
the battle between the two armies of the Kurus and Pāṇḍavas took place in Kurukṣetra (Samantapañcaka).


Another passage reads as follows:

When you see [Arjuna] in battle with white horses, with Kṛṣṇa as his charioteer,
wielding the weapons of Indra, Agni, and the Maruts,
and the thunder-like roaring sound of [his bow] Gaṇḍīva,
then tretā-, kṛta-, and dvāparayuga will be over.
When you see Kuntī’s son Yudhiṣṭhira in battle,
devoted to Japa and Homa and supervising his own large army,
who, like the Sun, is invincible [and] burns the army of the enemies,
then tretā-, kṛta-, and dvāparayuga will be over.
When you see Bhīmasena empowered in battle ... (10)


And another verse:

The two armies resemble two oceans that flow together at the end of the age,
that are churned up by wild sea monsters, and abound with huge crocodiles.


And on the 18th day of the battle, Kṛṣṇa says to Balarāma:

... know that the Kali age has arrived.


The “contradiction” between the astronomical tradition and the Mahābhārata can perhaps be explained by the fact that the transition between the yugas is considered to extend over a longer period of time, the so-called “dawn” (saṃdhiḥ) of the ages. However, it is impossible that a gathering of planets lasts over a period of 36 years. Nor do celestial mechanics permit another such super-conjunction to occur 36 years after a super-conjunction, where all planets disappear in the light of the Sun. An interval of at least 38 years is necessary. This is because Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions, which are always included in a super-conjunction, happen only once every 20 years, and also because Mars and the other planets must accidentally accompany them.

The question arises whether the Mahābhārata narrative also provides evidence of a second super-conjunction that would have occurred almost four decades after the war around the day of Kṛṣṇas demise.

It is interesting that in the 16th book of the Mahābhārata, shortly before the death of Kṛṣṇa, similar omens occurred as have been described for the year leading up to the great war:

When the 36th year arrived, O joy of the Kurus,
Yudhiṣṭhira saw inauspicious omens.
The winds blew in tempests, dry and raining gravel.
The birds circumambulated to the right.
The great rivers flowed backwards. The [four] directions were shrouded in mist.
Meteors descended bringing rain of coal from the sky onto the earth.
The Sun disk was shrouded in haze, O king.
He was constantly without rays at sunrise and was seen vesseled in clouds.
Terrifying halos were seen around both the Moon and Sun,
in three colours with black and harsh edges, with devouring reddish light.
These and many other incidences that indicated danger/fear,
are seen day after day, O king, that cause agitation to the heart.


There is no mention of planets in this passage. It is interesting, how-ever, that the omens described are very similar to those that occur shortly before the great battle. The only thing that is missing is the mention of the super-conjunction. However, it can be found in a related text. In Bhāgavatapurāṇa 1.14.17 it says:

See, the glare of the Sun is destroyed, the planets gather together in the sky.
Sky and earth are set on fire, as it were, by the host of living beings that are [entangled] in battle.


The burning of the sky and the earth might allude to the reddish evening or morning sky, above which the gathering of planets could be seen. However, it seems that in reality this text is referring to the super-conjunction which occurred during the war. It is likely that the super-conjunctions during the war and the one at the time of Kṛṣṇa’s death were one and the same.

In MBh 16.5(4), the death of Kṛṣṇa in the forest is described as follows:

After he had withdrawn his senses, speech, and mind,
had laid himself down and gone into mahāyoga,
Jara came to this place
at the same time, greedy, desirous of a deer, impetuous.
Lying there in yoga, Kṛṣṇa
was taken as a deer by the greedy Jara.
He pierced the sole of his foot with an arrow
and swiftly went to him, wanting to catch the [deer].
Thinking he had sinned,
he touched (Kṛṣṇa’s) feet with his head, his appearance full of pain.
Then the Great Self consoled him,
rising up and pervading heaven and earth with beauty.
When he reached the sky, the Vasus, the Aśvins,
the Rudras, Ādityas, Vasus and Viśvedevas,
rose towards him, and the sages and siddhas
and the foremost of the Gandharvas with the Apsaras.
Then O king, the holy one, with terrible glare,
Nārāyaṇa (Kṛṣṇa), the origin and the imperishable one,
the teacher of yoga, pervaded heaven and earth with beauty;
the Great Self arrived at his own immeasurable abode.
Then Kṛṣṇa joined the gods and the Ṛṣis
and the Cāraṇas, O king,
worshipped by the foremost of the Gandharvas, the best Apsarās,
the Siddhas, Sādhyas and Cānatas.
These gods welcomed him, O king.
The best of the sages praised him as the lord with their words.
(B6: after he had united with the kings of the world, Śiva, Brahmā etc.,
praised by the hosts of the gods and siddhas.)
The Gandharvas awaited him with praises,
and Indra welcomed him lovingly.


Although a conjunction of the planets is not mentioned, the text gives the impression that there are some astronomical occurrences. Kṛṣṇa rose to the sky and filled heaven and earth with beauty. After that a considerable number of superhuman beings are mentioned that “rose towards him” (pratyudyayur). Could this have a deeper meaning? Could it be a mythological representation of a super-conjunction and a synchronous heliacal rising of all planets?

If so, what then would Kṛṣṇa represent? The Moon? The verses from Harivaṃśa quoted further above describe how the planets gathered around the Moon. Perhaps Kṛṣṇa represents the last crescent of the Moon that rose in the morning, and the planets made their heliacal rising “towards him”. When holy or powerful beings gather about their leader, then this is often compared to a clustering of the planets around the Moon. The same theme can be found in the following verse from the Bhāgavatapurāṇa. Śuka, the son of Vyāsa, gives a lesson to King Parīkṣit while being surrounded by many Ṛṣis:

Surrounded by the hosts of the Brahmarṣis, Rājarṣis and Devarṣis, himself being the greatest amongst the greatest,
the Holy One (Śuka) shone like the Moon, when multitudes of planets and the stars of the lunar mansions engulf him.


This verse might indeed allude to the configuration that took place at the beginning of kaliyuga. Parīkṣit is the first king after Yudhiṣṭhira, thus the first king of the kaliyuga.

A similar description is given at the return of Rāma to Kosala. All people gather about him, and then it can be read that:

Sitting in his celestial chariot, praised by women and lauded by bards,
the Holy One shone, O king, like the rising Moon [is praised] by the planets.


And the Bhāgavatapurāṇa says:

Balarāma appeased those Vṛṣṇi men, who were prepared [for battle];
He, who destroys the impurity of the [yuga of] quarrel (kaliḥ), did not want the quarrel (kaliḥ) between the Kurus and the Vṛṣṇis.
He went to Hastināpura with a chariot that shone like the Sun,
surrounded by Brahmins and elders of the family, like the Moon [is surrounded] by the planets.


And:

Wherever he went, O king, the inhabitants of the cities and the country
gathered around him with gifts in their hands, like the Sun risen together with the planets.


Also interesting is the following verse from Brahmapurāṇa:

No doubt this earth might be without moon, sun and planets [at the end of the yuga],
however the earth will never be without the sons of Puru.


When all the planets and the Moon are in conjunction with the Sun, it is impossible that the Moon and planets could be visible in the sky. But, why is the Sun surrounded by the planets in both these verses, whereas in the verse before that the Moon is surrounded by them? Astronomically, it does not necessarily make a big difference. It is only shortly before sunrise or shortly after sunset that the planets and the Moon can all be visible clustered together. The Sun is always very close to them. Besides, this kind of conjunction often follows or precedes a conjunction of all planets with the Sun, where they actually disappear in the light of the Sun and become invisible. This is in reference to earlier explanations of the various stages and types of super-conjunctions. Thus when in some places the planets gather around the Sun and in others around the Moon, then this is in relation to the different phases of one and the same super-conjunction.

Reverting to the demise of Kṛṣṇa, another description of his ascension is found in Bhāgavatapurāṇa 11.30 and 31. After Kṛṣṇa was hit by the hunter Jara’s arrow, his charioteer Dāruka finds him below a fig tree:

Dāruka looked for the way to Kṛṣṇa and found it:
he could smell the fragrance of Tulasī in the wind and followed it,
to his lord, who, surrounded by sharp shiny weapons, had set down there at the root of the Aśvattha tree.
Overwhelmed by a flood of love, he fell down to his feet, after he had jumped down from the chariot, his eyes filled with tears.
“O Lord, when I do not see your lotus feet, then my sight disappears and enters into darkness.
I cannot see the [four] directions and can find no peace, like a night when the Moon has disappeared.”
Whilst the charioteer was speaking these words, the chariot with the Garuḍa sign
flew up to the sky, O king of kings, in front of Dāruka who was looking upwards.
Behind the [chariot] followed the celestial weapons of Viṣṇu.
To the charioteer, who was in a state of great astonishment at this [occurrence], spoke Kṛṣṇa:


Again, this passage seems to talk of astronomical events. After all our considerations, their interpretation is obvious. The Moon has not been visible in the sky the whole night long. When Dāruka complained to his lord about the darkness, the chariot of Kṛṣṇa rises up to the sky. Could the chariot represent the last crescent of the Moon that rose in the eastern morning sky? And could the “sharp shiny weapons” that ascended to the sky behind him be the planets? Before rising, these weapons surrounded Kṛṣṇa. Does this picture symbolise the conjunction of all planets with the Moon and the Sun?

Immediately thereafter, there is talk of an assembly of gods and all kinds of supernatural beings, among which were Brahmā, Śiva and his wife Parvatī:

Then Brahmā and Śiva arrived with Parvatī,
the gods, lead by the great Indra, the sages together with the lord of the creatures,
the ancestors, Siddhas and Gandharvas, the Vidyādharas and great Nāgas,
Cāraṇas, Yakṣas and Rakṣās, Kinnaras, Apsaras and twice-born ones,
in their desire to see the ascent of the holy one, and in their longing for the Supreme [Lord],
praising and lauding the deeds and the birth of Kṛṣṇa.
They released a rain of flowers, while densely filling the sky with the rows of their celestial chariots, O king, filled with the highest devotion.


All sorts of celestial beings gathered around Kṛṣṇa and formed a kind of “conjunction” in the sky. It may also be mentioned, in an analogy to the verses quoted above: “... like the planets and stars gather around the Moon”. The host is headed by Brahmā and Śiva. This awakens memories of RV X.141.3 (brahmāṇaṃ ca bṛhaspatim), and Brahmā can perhaps be identified with Jupiter (Bṛhaspati) and Śiva with Venus (Śukra).

The holy one looked at the grandfather [Brahmā]; the all-pervading one united the all-pervading powers of his Self,
[uniting] his Self within his Self, and closed his lotus eyes.
His own person, that had given pleasure to the world and had been [full of] happiness [based on] concentration and meditation:
he burnt it with fire-like yoga concentration and entered his own [true] abode.


Kṛṣṇa causes his own cremation through the “fire” of his spiritual concentration. Could this mean – on an astronomical level – that the old Moon enters the glare of the Sun and thereby the invisible world? The text continues:

Drums resounded in the sky, and flowers (or: good thoughts) rained from the heights.
Truth, duty, firmness, fame, and glory followed him and left the earth
The gods and the other [beings], lead by Brahmā, could not see how Kṛṣṇa, whose path was unknown, entered his own abode, and they were very astonished.
As a lightning bolt runs through the sky, leaving behind a circle of clouds,
Kṛṣṇa’s departure could not be witnessed by mortal deities.
When Brahmā, Śiva, and the other [gods], saw Kṛṣṇa’s yogic departure,
they were amazed and praised it, and each of them went into his own world.


The gods broke up their assembly, separated, and each of them went his own way, like the planets use to do after a super-conjunction. The disappearance of Kṛṣṇa could allude to the disappearance of the old moon’s crescent in the light of day.

Other Purāṇas give a different description of the cremation of Kṛṣṇa, but even there some evidence of an astronomical configuration can be seen, e. g. in Viṣṇupurāṇa 5.38 and Brahmapurāṇa 212.8:

And Arjuna searched for the dead bodies of Rāma and Kṛṣṇa
and performed their funeral rites, also for the other [heroes] one by one.
The eight that are said to be his queens, headed by Rukmiṇī,
embraced the body of Kṛṣṇa and entered into the fire.
And the best Revatī also embraced the body of Rāma
and entered into the blazing fire, refreshed and cooled by the contact with him (or: it?).
And when Ugrasena and Vasudeva heard it
and Devakī and Rohiṇī, they also entered into the fire.
After Arjuna had done the funeral rites for them according to rule,
he departed and took everyone including Vajra with him.
The thousands of wives of Kṛṣṇa that departed from Dvārakā,
and Vajra and the people – Arjuna took them under his protection and went quietly away.
After Kṛṣṇa had abandoned the world of the mortals, the splendid assembly and the assembly hall
and the Pārijāta tree went up to the sky, O Maitreya.
On the day Kṛṣṇa (Hari) went to the sky and departed from earth,
on that very day the powerful era of Kali commenced.
And the ocean flooded the empty [city] of Dvārakā;
only the house of Kṛṣṇa was not flooded by the sea.


Together with Kṛṣṇa, the “bright assembly” (sabhā)81 and the “assembly hall of the gods” (sudharmā) rose to the sky. From our above considerations it is very likely that, again, this description alludes to the super-conjunction of all planets with the Sun and their synchronous heliacal rising. The super-conjunction could also be represented by the fact that some of his close relatives entered into the funeral pyre of the “Kṛṣṇa sun”. Thus perhaps that barbaric custom that requires widows to burn themselves together with their deceased husbands has an astronomical-astrological motif.

Thus it can be deduced, as the sources seem to indicate, that there were two super-conjunctions: one during the great battle, and another one almost four decades later when Kṛṣṇa died. However, the evidence supporting the second super-conjunction is rather cryptic, whereas the first one is described very clearly.

In fact, it is more likely that there was only one super-conjunction that was associated with both events, with the war and the death of Kṛṣṇa. It must be remembered that the super-conjunction occurs at the end of an age and constitutes part of the general pralayaḥ, or the “dissolution” of all things back to their origin. It is followed by a new emanation (sṛṣṭiḥ) of the cosmic order and a new age, which is accompanied by a synchronous re-emergence of the planets from the Sun. The transition from one age to the other is indicated by only one super-conjunction, not by two...

Hindus firmly believe that the Kaliyuga began on 18th February, 3102 BCE and that this date, or actually rather the counting of days and years that starts on that date, has been passed down to us through an unbroken tradition. However this must be questioned. The date of the start of the kaliyuga is not attested in any older sources, neither the Purāṇas, the Mahābhārata, or in any other Vedic text. In fact, as will be shown, it is even incompatible with these sources, although traditionalists will assume all kinds of mental handstands and somersaults in order to make those incompatibilities seemingly disappear. There are no archaeological or historical data providing any such clues that the date 3102 BCE has any significance whatsoever.

The kaliyuga era was first attested to by the ancient astronomer Āryabhaṭa, who assumed the beginning of kaliyuga to be 3600 years before the 23rd year of his life, which corresponds to the year 499 CE. Traditionalists love referring to the inscription of King Pulakeśin II in Aihole, Karṇāṭaka, which allegedly supports this dating. However, this inscription dates from the year 634 CE and is therefore even younger than Āryabhaṭa. Moreover, some authors refer to a number of title deeds written on copper plates that allegedly go back to King Janamejaya, who is said to have lived near 3000 BCE. However, these “copper grants” are obvious forgeries that served the purpose to support claims of ownership. Hence the statement found in Āryabhaṭa’s work is in fact the oldest testimony for the kaliyuga era, and over a whole period of 3600 years, the alleged tradition did not leave any trace in literary or archaeological sources. It must therefore be considered speculation. While the Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas do provide evidence that planetary clusterings were observed and considered important in ancient times, there is no available evidence that could support the kaliyuga era commencing in either 3102 or 3104 BCE.

Serious scholars therefore, do not accept the idea that the kaliyuga beginning on 18th February 3102 BCE is based on a true, unbroken tradition. Rather they assume that this date was back-calculated by Indian astronomers of late antiquity. It served as a mooring point for a theory of planetary cycles, as given in the Sūryasiddhānta, the most important work on ancient Indian astronomy....

There is a text found in several of the Purāṇas that links the beginning of the Kaliyuga with the death of Kṛṣṇa. However, instead of a conjunction of all planets, it mentions a conjunction of the Seven Ṛṣis in the lunar mansion Maghā. This text can be found in several different variations in VP 4.24.102ff., BhP 12.2.24ff., BrAP 2.74.225ff., MatsyaP 271.38ff. The text begins as follows:

From the birth of Parīkṣit until the inauguration of Nanda,
one must know, there are 1015 (var. 1050, 1115, 1500) years.


Parīkṣit is the first king of Hastināpura after Yudhiṣṭhira. His inauguration took place after Kṛṣṇa’s funeral, when Yudhiṣṭhira and his brothers renounced the kingdom and abdicated. Nanda is also called Mahāpadma in some versions of the text. He was the first king of the Nanda dynasty of Magadha. According to the Viṣṇupurāṇa, the Nandas ruled for about 100 years and were followed by Chandragupta Maurya, who seized power over Maghada in 321 BCE. The great number of variations of this text, e.g. the numbers of years mentioned, illustrates the text’s poor transmission. It is difficult to have confidence in any data given in it. Since the time between Parīkṣit’s seizure of power and Mahāpadma is between 1000 and 1500 years, Parīkṣit’s lifetime and the Mahābhārata battle would have fallen between the 20th and the 15th century BCE. This is in stark contrast to the traditional kaliyuga era, said to begin in 3102 BC. [However, traditionalists shun no effort in order to defend the Kaliyuga Era 3102 BCE. For that purpose, they are even ready to rewrite not only the whole history of India, but even the whole world history. The flowers of these absurd efforts: Buddha was allegedly born in 1887 BCE, Candragupta Maurya crowned in 1534 BCE, Aśoka in 1472 BCE, Śaṅkara was born in 509 BCE, etc. etc. (see K. Venkatachelam, The Plot in Indian Chronology, Appendix III). I shall not dwell on this, but refer to T. S. Kuppanna Sastry, Collected Papers on Jyotisha, p. 255-317, where the thinking errors in such approaches are exposed.]

The Saka Era of Varahamihira (Salivahana Saka) [Rep. from Journal of Indian History (Trivandrum), 36 (1958) 343-67.]

Introduction


With reference to chronology the word Saka is used in two senses: (1) As a common noun meaning any era (as for e.g., in the terms Yudhisthira Saka, Vikrama Saka, Malava Saka, Salivahana Saka etc.) and, (2) As a proper noun to mean a particular era called the Saka-kala or Saka Era. Most Indologists believe that the Saka Era is the same as what later is generally referred to as the Salivahana Saka which commenced with the month of Caitra occurring in 78 A.D., i.e., at the end of 3179 years of the Kali Era, for it can be shown that all astronomical works and commentaries thereon, wherever they mention a Saka Era, mean only the Salivahana Era, starting, as mentioned above, from 3179 Kali elapsed. But some like the late T.S. Narayana Sastri,1 [Cf. his Age of Sankara, (Madras, 1918), Pt. I, pp. 224ff.] Gulshan Rai,2 [Cf. his article, 'The Persian Emperor Cyrus, the Great, and the Saka Era,' Journal of the Panjab University Historical Society, (JPUHS), 1 (1932) 61-73, 122-36.] Kota Venkatachelam,3 [Cf. his Plot in Indian Chronology, (Vijayawada, 1953), 49-51; Indian Eras', Journal of the Andhra Historical Research Society, (JAHRS), 20 (1949-50), 43ff; 21 (1950-52), 61-73, 122-36.] and V. Thiruvenkatacharya4 [Cf. his 'Ayanamsa and Indian chronology: The Age of Varahamihira, Kalidasa etc.' Journal of Indian History (JIH) 28 (1950) 103ff. and 'The Andra Saka' JAHRS, 22 (1952-54) 161-8.] (VT) take the word to mean a certain Cyrus Era or Andhra Era which they say, started from 550 B.C.5 [ ] Kane mentions two others of the group: Janannatha Rao, Age of Mahabara war (1931), C.V. Vaidya starting the Sakakala from Buddha's nirvana. We now find that T.S.N is the source for all these people, and almost every argument used by them is his. In his Age of Sankara he has used a Yudhisthira Era of 3140-39 B.C., and a Saka Era of 576 B.C., which he later shifted to 550 B.C. Still another view is expressed by K. Rangarajan, who takes it to mean an era which commenced from 523/22 B.C. with the first Viceroy of India appointed by the Persian Emperor.6 [ ] They also try to show that it never means the Salivahana Saka.7 [ ] What astounds us is that even where there is clear evidence that Salivahana Saka is to be taken, (in the shape of statements that 3179 is to be added to the years gone in the Saka Era to get the years gone in Kali)8 [ ] these scholars ignore it implicitly as in the case of the Saka-kala mentioned by Brahmagupta and Bhaskara II.9 [ ] When this is the fate of such clear evidence, we need not be surprised if they identify with their alleged Cyrus or Andhra Era, the Saka Era mentioned in giving the epochs of karanas (astronomical manuals) as in the case of the Pancasiddhantika (PS), the Khandakhadyaka or the Laghumanasa, or in giving the date of a work given by the author, as for instance by Bhattotpala at the end of his commentary on the Brhajjataka or in inscriptions like the Aihole Inscription, or in sundry other places as in the Brhatsamhita 1.13, in all of which cases the identification has got to be made by examining the months and tithis and ksepas mentioned therewith.

The reason why they want to identify the Sakakala with the so-called Cyrus or Andhra Era is this: They believe that there was a “plot hatched by European Indologists” to post-date by several centuries the ancient events of Indian history, and that most Indian Indologists have become unconscious victims of that plot. They try to show that the Yudhisthira and Saptarsi Eras are everywhere identical, and were actually started 25 years after the beginning of the Kali Era. Using this they try to show that it is Samudra Gupta of the Gupta dynasty that is to be identified with the Sandracottus of the Greeks, and not Candragupta Maurya, which latter identification has been taken by the European Indologists as the sheet-anchor of Indian chronology, and the chronology of the dynasties before and after that time is established therefrom. Now, the identification of Sakakala with Salivahana Saka stands in their way. Hence their attempt to identify it with the so-called Cyrus or Andhra Era whose very existence is a matter of dispute, there being no evidence for it.

Most historians have not taken these people seriously, thinking that the very extravagance of their claims would be a deterrent to the acceptance of their views. But attempts have been made by Professors Gulshan Rai and VT to give astronomical and mathematical proofs to show that Varahamihira (VM) belongs to 123 B.C. and not to 505 A.D., (as he is generally believed to be), and thereby that the Sakakala mentioned by VM is the Cyrus or Andhra Era.10 [JPUHS I (1932) 124-27; and JIH 28 (1950) 103ff. and JAHRS 22 (1952-54) 172. Following his change to 551 B.C. as the Saka Epoch, in his Popular Astronomy, VT has changed VM to 124 B.C. from 123 B. C. But the arguments for the refutation of 123 B.C. are applicable in toto for the refutation of 124 B.C. also. ] They also attempt to show that the Sakakala mentioned by Bhattotpala as stated above is the Cyrus or Andhra Era, and therefore the Saka year 888 given by him corresponds to 338 or 339 A.D.;11 [JPUHS I (1932) 73 (date given 338 A D.), and JIH 28 (1950) 123 (date given 339 A D.) In his Popular Astronomy VT, has shifted this to 338 A.D. But in his ‘Andhra Saka’ VT gives this date as 340 A.D. ( ib„ p, 173).] which would mean that Brahmagupta, Aryabhata Bhaskara I etc. must precede this date. The present article is intended to expose the hollowness of the above theory and to show that the astronomical arguments adduced in support of it (which to the lay reader may look formidable) are erroneous, and thus knock the bottom out of the claims of this set of writers.

-- Collected Papers on Jyotisha, by T.S. Kuppanna Sastry (Former Hony. Professor, Sanskrit College, Madras), 1989


The text continues:

Of the first two of the Seven Ṛṣis who are seen rising in the sky,
exactly in their middle is seen the junction star at night.
The Seven Ṛṣis stand in conjunction with this [junction star] for 100 years according to human [calculation].
And in the time of Parīkṣit they were in the [lunar mansion] Maghā, O best one of the twice-born.


The Seven Ṛṣis – whoever they might be – gather and form a conjunction in the lunar mansion Maghā. At first only two leading ones gather about the junction star Maghā (Regulus), later all the seven join them. The conjunction lasts for 100 years, during the reign of King Parīkṣit.

Then the Kali [age] began, which by nature lasts for 1200 years [of gods].
When the holy one, the part of Viṣṇu (i. e. Kṛṣṇa), went to the sky, O twice-born one,
who was born from the family of Vasudeva, then the Kali [age] had arrived.
As long as he touched this earth with his lotus feet,
so long the Kali [age] was not able, to twine around the earth.
However, when that part of the everlasting Viṣṇu had ascended from the earth to the sky,
Yudhiṣṭhira, the son of dharma, together with his brothers gave up the kingdom.
For, when Yudhiṣṭhira (Pāṇḍava) saw inauspicious omens,
after Kṛṣṇa had passed away, he arranged the inauguration of Parīkṣit.
When these [seven] great Ṛṣis enter the [lunar mansion] Pūrvāṣāḍhā,
(var. When the [seven] great Ṛṣis go from the Maghās to Pūrvāṣāḍhā,)
then, starting from Nanda, that [Kali age] will increasingly take its course.
On the day that Kṛṣṇa went to the sky, precisely on that [day]
began the Kali age. Hear its calculation from me:


Verse 112 mentions another conjunction of the Seven Ṛṣis that took place in the lunar mansion Pūrvāṣāḍhā, about 1000 years later at the inauguration of King Nanda. Hence, taking into account the verse further above concerning the years elapsed between Parīkṣit and Nanda, it follows that the correct number of years must be either 1015 or 1050 years. Hence, Parīkṣit’s life time would fall into the 15th century BCE.

The longer text version of Brahmāṇdapurāṇa (BrAP 2.74.228-233b) includes some additional verses that say that it takes the Seven Ṛṣis 2700 years to complete the whole circle of the nakṣatras and that they spend 100 years in each nakṣatra. This information is in agreement with the above-mentioned statements that the Seven Ṛṣis once formed a conjunction in the lunar mansion Maghā and 1000 years later another conjunction in Pūrvāṣāḍhā.

But who are the Seven Ṛṣis, and what kind of astronomical phenomenon is hidden behind this “theory”? Tradition identifies them with the constellation Ursa Major, and the astrologer Varāhamihira in his Bṛhatsaṃhitā (chap. 13) is in agreement:

The Seven Sages, who cause the north to shine with a bead necklace, as it were, [through whom the north] laughs with a crown of white lotus flowers, as it were, whom [the north] has as its lords, as it were,
who, commanded by the leadership of the pole star (dhruva) revolve and cause [the north] to dance [in circles], – I shall explain the motion of these [Seven Sages] according to the teaching of Vṛddhagarga.


In any case, there can be no doubt that in Varāhamihira’s opinion, the Seven Ṛṣis are a constellation near the celestial north pole.

The subsequent verses talk of exactly the same theory that also appears in the Purāṇas:

The Seven Sages were in Maghā when King Yudhiṣṭhira ruled the earth,
and the Śaka Era and [the era] of this king are 2526 [years] apart.
One lunar mansion by one they move 100 years in each.
[The lunar mansion] that from the rising in the east leads them in direct line, – that is where they are in conjunction.


King Yudhiṣṭira was inaugurated after the end of the Mahābhārata battle. According to the above verses, this happened 2526 years before the Śaka Era, which is counted from the year 78 CE. From this, it can be calculated that the year of the battle was 2449 BCE. (-2448). I shall not dwell on the absurd mental gymnastics by which traditionalists try to reconcile Varāhamihira’s statement with the kaliyuga commencement being the year 3102 BCE. More interesting are the astronomical clues given by the text....

Unfortunately, the clustering of 781 BCE does not fit King Nanda’s reign either, which must be dated to the 4th century BCE. It must be conceded that a perfect solution for these problems cannot be found. However, it must be understood that the Purāṇa text, which was written at the earliest, in the 4th century CE is not based on historical observations but rather on astrological historical speculations...

A correlation of planets and gods is not found before Brahmāṇḍapurāṇa 1.2.24.47ff. There, Saturn corresponds to Yama, Jupiter to Bṛhaspati, Mars to Skanda, Venus to Śukra, and Mercury to Nārāyaṇa. Out of these names, the epic only uses Bṛhaspati for Jupiter and Śukra for Venus. Saturn is called Śanaiścara, Mars Aṅgāraka, and Mercury Budha. Thus Yama-Saturn is the only god that can be immediately identified as the father of one of the Pāṇḍavas, viz. of Yudhiṣṭhira. Saturn is associated with death, time, and dharma in the epic (MBh 12.192 (199).32). Yudhiṣṭhira also has the title dharmarājā, “King of Dharma”, which seems to accord well with the planet Saturn.

Could the divine fathers of the remaining Pāṇḍavas also be assigned to planets? Indra, the king of the gods, who plays the part of Jupiter Pluvius in the Vedic religion, could be identified with the planet Jupiter. The Aśvins could represent the “twin planets” Venus and Mercury, which are similar to each other in behaviour as they are inner planets. Hence Vayu remains for Mars. Making Arjuna then represent Jupiter, Bhīma, Mars, and Nakula and Sahadeva for Mercury and Venus.

However, while these specific assignments are uncertain, the basic assumption that the five Pāṇḍavas could originally have represented the five planets remains quite plausible. The heroes of the epic are often described as “bright” and “brilliant” and compared to celestial bodies, including planets, the Moon, and the Sun (see quotations on p. 337 and 339ff.). Even where heroes are compared to the Sun, there could actually be a planet behind it, because the planets are themselves often allegorised to suns. As in the following verse from the Harivaṃśa, which refers to the configuration at the end of an age and obviously describes a conjunction of all planets with the crescent of the old moon:...

In summary, it can be stated that the Western tradition of astronomical cycles is attested only since about 400 BCE (Plato, Berossus). Since Babylonian precursors of this doctrine are not known, it is likely that it was developed after 500 BCE as a side product of Babylonian planetary theories, in which planetary cycles played an important role.

If the Indian and Chinese testimonies of the super-conjunctions in the years 1198 and 1059 BCE are authentic, then of course the question arises whether the western cyclic models of history were not inspired by an Indian precursor. The idea of an eternal recurrence of the same seems to be rather Indian than Western in nature.

Still, the following points should be borne in mind:

1. The yuga theory of the Purāṇas, according to which a “great yuga” covers 43,20,000 years, is not found in the older Vedic literature and is even unknown to early works of Hellenistic Indian astrology (Yavanajātaka, Romakasiddhānta). It is thus obviously younger than the above-cited Western sources.

2. The planetary theories of the Siddhāntas are all younger than the above-cited Western sources. In pre-Hellenistic works of Indian astronomy and astrology (Vedāṅgajyotiṣa, Parāśaratantra), they do not appear.

On the other hand, the idea that all the planets come together and form a super-conjunction at the end of a cosmic age obviously first appeared in India and China. This idea is not found, e.g. in Homer’s epics.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36119
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Articles & Essays

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests