Generally, many scholars say that India borrowed her astronomy from Greece and Babylon based on some wishful thinking and some statements of Varahamihira and Al-Beruni. In this short essay, we will verify the validity of such arguments.
Recently, the above hypothesis is being proved wrong by referring to various Jain astronomical works which bridge the gap between the period of Vedanga Jyotisa and Siddhantic period. While the Indians ‘may have’ borrowed some ideas like using geometry in astronomy from the Greeks, their astronomical works are largely indigenous and are not mere copies/translations of the Greek texts.
One of the oft repeated arguments of the ‘foreign origin’ school is that Al-Beruni has identified Paulisa Siddhanta with Paulus of Alexandria.
There is no tradition among the Hindus about any Paulus of Greece (Yavana Desa) connected with the Paulisa Siddhanta. The name of the author is ‘Pulisa’. To be noted is the fact that ‘puli’ is a Tamil word for tiger. Hence one need not identify Pulisa with any foreign author. In all probability, he should have been a South Indian rather than a Greek. One reason why Al-Beruni would have considered the work to be named after Paulus is that he knew the Greek astronomers and hence when he saw a name quite close to the name ‘Paulus’, he must have considered it to be named after Paulus of Alexandria. Even from his description of the book in Chapter 14 of his work, one can find that the identification of ‘Paulisa’ with Paulus of Alexandria was done by him and was not told to him by any local informer/pundit. Being so, the act of some scholars in pointing out this passage as an evidence for the external origin of Indian astronomy appears to be an absurd proposition.
Next, we shall take the work ‘Romaka Siddhanta’. In this case, it is possible that the word ‘Romaka’ refers to ‘Rome’ as Al-Beruni claims. But so far, no such Greek/Roman work is known which appears to be the origin of Romaka Siddhanta. The influence of Ptolemy is not to be found in this work. Also, the claim that it was first compiled by Romaka Rishi is advanced by the Indian pundits. Incidentally, it is also possible that the work was composed in India by some European (or his descendent) who had taken to the Indian way of living (like Heliodorus who became a Bhagavata). All in all, one can accept that Romaka Siddhanta was indeed a creation of a foreigner or that some ideas from Rome (or Greece) were incorporated in it.
Next comes the ‘Surya Siddhanta’. Exactly one verse in the Siddhanta speaks about Maya venturing to Romaka to receive the knowledge of astronomy from a barber in that city. It does not give any details of the travel. If indeed the author had traveled to Rome to acquire such knowledge, he would have mentioned atleast some of the difficulties he faced. A question may arise as to why such a verse is found if the author had not traveled to Rome. The following points give a more than satisfactory reply:
The work is claimed to be written by Maya at the end of Krta Yuga.
It is also claimed that the Sun God personally instructed Maya on the nuances of astronomy.
In India, people used to believe that the foreign lands are impure and that only India is the holy land. The Sun God is claimed to have taken the birth of a barber in Rome due to a ‘shaap’.
Thus, we can see that the travel to Rome is part of a mythical story in which Rome most probably got a place because of it being an impure land and it was also one of the most popular cities of the ancient world and hence, the author may have been attracted to it.
Moreover, as in the case of Romaka Siddhanta, no influence of Ptolemy in found (i.e.) the tables given are independent of the Greek/Babylonian tables.
Finally, one question remains. If Indian astronomy is an indigenous development, why is it that in two specific cases, Rome is involved?
The only explanation devoid of extremities can be this:
Ancient Indians had great interest in the night sky as various astronomical happenings are mentioned in the Vedas and such happenings formed the basis for determining the time of their Yagnas.
As shown by Chandra Hari in his paper ‘On the Origin of Sidereal Zodiac and Astronomy’ in ‘Indian Journal of History of Science 33(4), 1998’, the fixed sidereal Zodiac was adopted from the ancient Indians by the Babylonians. But the development of astronomy was somewhat hampered because of the fact that Indians failed to apply advanced geometrical techniques in the field of astronomy. They had attained considerable development in arithmetic and algebra which they used in astronomy with limited success (e.g. Jain astronomical texts).
In the meanwhile, Greeks had obtained greater proficiency in geometry and applied that science in the field of astronomy with spectacular results. Indians came to know about these techniques (application of geometry in astronomy) through the traders and applied them in their own way which was somewhat different from those of Ptolemy. In fact that Ptolemy’s tables are not found in Indian astronomical texts and hence, we can be sure that his ‘Almagest’ had never reached India. Thus, we can say that Indians borrowed some ideas from the Greeks but used them to produce an indigenous system of their own.
(To be noted is the fact that the above analysis has been done on the basis that 'Romaka' refers to Rome or its inhabitants. If any evidence relating to any Indian city known by the same name or any evidence realting to Romaka being a mythical city of Indian mythology (like the cities on Meru), then we can definitely say that Siddhantic astronomy is entirely indigenous as there are no other evidences which point out that they have a foreign origin.)
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Origin of Saptarshi Cycle and Its Implications
Saptarshi Cycle is often mentioned in ancient Indian literature when dealing with chronological tables.
The paper ‘Saptarshi’s visit to different Nakshatras: Subtle effect of Earth’s precession’ by Aniket Sule, Mayank Vahia , Hrishikesh Joglekar, Sudha Bhujle deals with the origin of this cycle.
As Sule et al point out, the so called ‘Saptarshi Cycle’ is a non-existent one as far as astronomy is concerned. They have pin pointed the origin of this idea to the period 2200 – 2100 BCE (the period of Mature Harappan). Keeping their findings in mind, we try to map out the possible period of Puranic literature and the period of Mahabharata. We also take into account the fact that Puranas are multi layered texts and that the earliest date of the compilation of Purana cannot be found on the basis of Saptarshi Cycle.
The most famous statements found in the Puranas and Brhat Samhita etc regarding the Saptarshi cycle is that Emperor Yudhishtira ruled on the earth when the Saptarshi were in Magha. In Vishnu Purana, it is claimed that Parikshit is a contemporary of the author and that the Saptarshi were in Magha during that period..
In the paper cited above, it is shown that Saptarshi were in Magha (Regulus) during 300(+ / - 25) BCE. It is also shown that Saptarshi were in the adjacent stars of Magha (considered by some to be a part of ‘Magha’ division) from about 1000 BCE itself.
Now that we know the period when Saptarshi were in Magha, shall we say that the period of Emperor Yudhishtira must be the first millennium BCE. Such a claim would be questionable and entirely baseless due to the following reasons:
Vishnu Purana ( IV.24.104) states that between Parikshit and Nanda, 1500 years passed (the correction made by Pargiter is accepted as it is in keeping with the periods of various dynasties specified in IV.23 and IV.24).
IV.24.112 of Vishnu Purana states that when the Saptarshi were in Purvashada, Nandas ruled (The periods given for various Maghada Kings in IV.23.13 and IV.24.8&19 show a difference of 1500 years between Parikshit and Nanda. But the present verse gives only 1000 years as the difference as there are only 10 nakshatras from Magha to Purvashada. I think that the correct reading must be ‘Purva Bhadhra(pada)’/'Purva Proshta').
We can understand, from the above two points, that the chapters IV.23 and IV.24 were written a long time after the Mahabharata War and even the period of Nanda.
The royal chronicles are recorded on the basis of Saptarshi Cycle (in the Puranas) to enable easy remembrance of the time line and period of the various dynasties.
Therefore, the only thing we can be somewhat sure about is that the above mentioned chapters must have been written when the Saptarshi were in Magha.
The author specifically states so in Vishnu Purana IV.24.106 when he says that during the reign of Parikshit, the Saptarshi were in Magha. It has to be noted that in IV.20.52-53, the author claims to live in the period of Parikshit.
We also know that the Saptarshi Cycle is astronomically impossible and hence, we can say that during the composition of these chapters, the Saptarshi must have been in Magha or else the author would not have elaborated on it very much. Neither would he have tried to give the exact nakshatra period during which Nanda(Mahapadma) ruled. Because the Saptarshi have never visited the Purvashada/Purvabhadra anytime in the past 10,000 years.
On the basis of the above mentioned issues, we try to find out the basis on which the nakshatra periods of Parikshit and Nanda have been arrived at.
On the basis of the above points, we consider that the author must have arrived at the nakshatra period of Emperors Yudhishtira and Parikshit by back calculation providing a nakshatra for every 100 or so years. There is no other way in which the author could have made the statements regarding the nakshatra periods.
The only possibility is that the author had, based on the periods of various kings provided by the chronicles which he had used, estimated the time of Parikshit to be some 27 odd centuries before his time and hence, concluded that the Saptarshi were in Magha during the period of Emperor Parikshit.
Similarly, with the prior knowledge that some 1500 years (or 1015 according to some) had passed between Parikshit and Nanda, he must have calculated the Nakshatra period of Nanda.
The above points also point out how the anomaly between the traditional date and that provided by Kalhana for the period of Emperor Yudhishtira could have occurred.
Being based on unscientific assumptions, the determination of Saptarshi Cycle’s exact nakshatra during a period became a very confusing issue and the opinions of the astronomers varied as shown by Al-Beruni (Chapter 44 of Al-Beruni’s India).
Hence, we may conclude that Saptarshi Cycle was used for chronological purposes as it allowed the Puranic editors to give different names to each century and enabled them to easily remember the time line and period of various dynasties. Therefore, to give these nakshatra positions undue importance (like claiming that Parikshit ruled when the Saptarshi were ‘literally’ in Magha and that Nanda ruled when they ‘were in’ Purvashada/Purvabhadra) would lead us nowhere. In short, the data relating to the nakshatra positions in the Saptarshi Cycle cannot be treated as an ‘astronomical proof’ in any manner to determine the date of the Mahabharata or the different dynasties.
P.S. Asko Parpola has claimed that the ‘fish signs’ found at IVC refer to the Saptarshi. On the basis of the paper cited above, we conclude that it is highly probable. The idea of the 100 year nakshatra period could have been formed only during the Mature Harappan period as shown in that paper.
But Parpola identifies the IVC as Dravidian. He interprets the fish sign as referring to star based on the fact that ‘meen’ in Tamil means both fish and star.
On the basis of the above identification, shall we say that the IVC is definitely Dravidian?? The answer will be ‘No’. Because even in the Rgveda, the night sky has been compared to the ocean (But I don’t subscribe to Prof Witzel’s ridiculous theory that the Vedic people did not know the real ‘samudra’). Such comparison/identification is purely metaphorical. Being so, the Vedic people could easily compare the stars of the sky to the fishes of the ocean just as the Dravidians could use ‘fish sign’ for star based on the common word ‘meen’. Hence, one need not consider the identification (which is highly probable) made by Parpola to be a definite proof for the IVC being Dravidian.
The paper ‘Saptarshi’s visit to different Nakshatras: Subtle effect of Earth’s precession’ by Aniket Sule, Mayank Vahia , Hrishikesh Joglekar, Sudha Bhujle deals with the origin of this cycle.
As Sule et al point out, the so called ‘Saptarshi Cycle’ is a non-existent one as far as astronomy is concerned. They have pin pointed the origin of this idea to the period 2200 – 2100 BCE (the period of Mature Harappan). Keeping their findings in mind, we try to map out the possible period of Puranic literature and the period of Mahabharata. We also take into account the fact that Puranas are multi layered texts and that the earliest date of the compilation of Purana cannot be found on the basis of Saptarshi Cycle.
The most famous statements found in the Puranas and Brhat Samhita etc regarding the Saptarshi cycle is that Emperor Yudhishtira ruled on the earth when the Saptarshi were in Magha. In Vishnu Purana, it is claimed that Parikshit is a contemporary of the author and that the Saptarshi were in Magha during that period..
In the paper cited above, it is shown that Saptarshi were in Magha (Regulus) during 300(+ / - 25) BCE. It is also shown that Saptarshi were in the adjacent stars of Magha (considered by some to be a part of ‘Magha’ division) from about 1000 BCE itself.
Now that we know the period when Saptarshi were in Magha, shall we say that the period of Emperor Yudhishtira must be the first millennium BCE. Such a claim would be questionable and entirely baseless due to the following reasons:
Vishnu Purana ( IV.24.104) states that between Parikshit and Nanda, 1500 years passed (the correction made by Pargiter is accepted as it is in keeping with the periods of various dynasties specified in IV.23 and IV.24).
IV.24.112 of Vishnu Purana states that when the Saptarshi were in Purvashada, Nandas ruled (The periods given for various Maghada Kings in IV.23.13 and IV.24.8&19 show a difference of 1500 years between Parikshit and Nanda. But the present verse gives only 1000 years as the difference as there are only 10 nakshatras from Magha to Purvashada. I think that the correct reading must be ‘Purva Bhadhra(pada)’/'Purva Proshta').
We can understand, from the above two points, that the chapters IV.23 and IV.24 were written a long time after the Mahabharata War and even the period of Nanda.
The royal chronicles are recorded on the basis of Saptarshi Cycle (in the Puranas) to enable easy remembrance of the time line and period of the various dynasties.
Therefore, the only thing we can be somewhat sure about is that the above mentioned chapters must have been written when the Saptarshi were in Magha.
The author specifically states so in Vishnu Purana IV.24.106 when he says that during the reign of Parikshit, the Saptarshi were in Magha. It has to be noted that in IV.20.52-53, the author claims to live in the period of Parikshit.
We also know that the Saptarshi Cycle is astronomically impossible and hence, we can say that during the composition of these chapters, the Saptarshi must have been in Magha or else the author would not have elaborated on it very much. Neither would he have tried to give the exact nakshatra period during which Nanda(Mahapadma) ruled. Because the Saptarshi have never visited the Purvashada/Purvabhadra anytime in the past 10,000 years.
On the basis of the above mentioned issues, we try to find out the basis on which the nakshatra periods of Parikshit and Nanda have been arrived at.
On the basis of the above points, we consider that the author must have arrived at the nakshatra period of Emperors Yudhishtira and Parikshit by back calculation providing a nakshatra for every 100 or so years. There is no other way in which the author could have made the statements regarding the nakshatra periods.
The only possibility is that the author had, based on the periods of various kings provided by the chronicles which he had used, estimated the time of Parikshit to be some 27 odd centuries before his time and hence, concluded that the Saptarshi were in Magha during the period of Emperor Parikshit.
Similarly, with the prior knowledge that some 1500 years (or 1015 according to some) had passed between Parikshit and Nanda, he must have calculated the Nakshatra period of Nanda.
The above points also point out how the anomaly between the traditional date and that provided by Kalhana for the period of Emperor Yudhishtira could have occurred.
Being based on unscientific assumptions, the determination of Saptarshi Cycle’s exact nakshatra during a period became a very confusing issue and the opinions of the astronomers varied as shown by Al-Beruni (Chapter 44 of Al-Beruni’s India).
Hence, we may conclude that Saptarshi Cycle was used for chronological purposes as it allowed the Puranic editors to give different names to each century and enabled them to easily remember the time line and period of various dynasties. Therefore, to give these nakshatra positions undue importance (like claiming that Parikshit ruled when the Saptarshi were ‘literally’ in Magha and that Nanda ruled when they ‘were in’ Purvashada/Purvabhadra) would lead us nowhere. In short, the data relating to the nakshatra positions in the Saptarshi Cycle cannot be treated as an ‘astronomical proof’ in any manner to determine the date of the Mahabharata or the different dynasties.
P.S. Asko Parpola has claimed that the ‘fish signs’ found at IVC refer to the Saptarshi. On the basis of the paper cited above, we conclude that it is highly probable. The idea of the 100 year nakshatra period could have been formed only during the Mature Harappan period as shown in that paper.
But Parpola identifies the IVC as Dravidian. He interprets the fish sign as referring to star based on the fact that ‘meen’ in Tamil means both fish and star.
On the basis of the above identification, shall we say that the IVC is definitely Dravidian?? The answer will be ‘No’. Because even in the Rgveda, the night sky has been compared to the ocean (But I don’t subscribe to Prof Witzel’s ridiculous theory that the Vedic people did not know the real ‘samudra’). Such comparison/identification is purely metaphorical. Being so, the Vedic people could easily compare the stars of the sky to the fishes of the ocean just as the Dravidians could use ‘fish sign’ for star based on the common word ‘meen’. Hence, one need not consider the identification (which is highly probable) made by Parpola to be a definite proof for the IVC being Dravidian.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Kalhana and Emperor Yudhishtira
This is an attempt to reconcile the differences between the traditional reckoning and the dates given in Kalhana's Rajatarangini.
Tradition has it that Kali Yuga begun at midnight February 17/18, 3102 BCE. It is also considered that Emperor Yudhisthira abdicated his throne shortly after this date. It is also said that Lord Krishna gave up His existence on earth on this day.
Kalhana says in his ‘Rajatarangini’ (I.51) that Pandavas and Kauravas lived at 653 Kali Era. He also claims that when Yudhisthira ruled over the earth, the Great Bear was in Magha and that it happened in the seventh century(2526 years Before Saka) Kali Era(Raja. I.55-56). He also cites the Brhat Samhita of Varahamihira to make good his case.
Now, we begin our attempt at reconciling these various dates.
The beginning of Kali at 3102 BCE is true as John Playfair has shown. Kalhana accepts it when he says that Pandavas lived at 653 Kali (Raja. I.51).
The astronomical dating of the Mahabharata done by Sri Narahari Achar is very convincing as he clearly proves that the year of Mahabharata is 3067 BCE based on the astronomical sightings recorded in the Mahabharata. He also places the date of Krishna’s ascension to Vaikunta at 3031 BCE. This date is the most convincing among the various dates given by different scholars till this day.
The Vishnu Purana states that the time of Kali had arrived even when Krishna was on the earth and that only after His departure did Kali afflict the earth (Vishnu Purana 4-24). Going by this, we can say that the present date for the beginning of Kali is the time at which Kali’s time began and not the time when it began to afflict the earth. It seems there has been confusion over this and hence everything (from the beginning of Kali to the departure of Krishna) has been filled into the year 3102 BCE.
Further, Kalhana says that 52 Kings ruled Kashmir from Gonanda I to Abhimanyu I. But he says that details about 35 Kings are not available. Also, he does not know about the individual reigning period of the 17 Kings about whom he mentions some details.
Then Kalhana describes about Gonanda III and his dynasty. From I.53 of Rajatarangini, we shall find that Gonanda III ruled at 1184 BCE (The verse says that from Gonanda III to the time of Kalhana, 2330 years).
Now, Kalhana has tried to find out the period of the 52 Kings from the above details. In Raja I.54, he says that the 52 Kings ruled for a period of 1266 years. In Raja I.48-49, Kalhana says that the Gonanda and the other Kings (mentioned in the first Taranga) ruled for 2268 years. From the above, we can find that Gonanda III to Yudhishtira I (last King of the First Taranga) ruled for 1002 years.
Armed with the above information, we shall try to reconcile the huge difference in dates.
The basis of Kalhana’s date for Emperor Yudhisthira’s reign is the Brhat Samhita. We can see that his entire astronomy is based on it (Reference to it is made in Raja VII.1720).
Some scholars say that the Saka Era used by Varahamihira in his Brhat Samhita is different from what we use today and that the date of Yudhishtira given by him is not different from the traditional one. Leaving aside this opinion, we can understand from the above mentioned facts that Kalhana believed in the accuracy of Varahamihira.
It is also known that Kalhana did not know about the reigning periods of the ‘52 Kings’. Thus, Kalhana has arrived at the entire period of the 52 Kings by comparing the dates of Gonanda III and Emperor Yudhishtira (of whom Gonanda I was a contemporary as per the ‘Nilamata Purana’).
Normally, the dates and periods provided by Kalhana are more accurate as he has referred to various sources before arriving at such dates. But in the case of the ‘52 Kings’, he had very few materials and so, he has based his dates entirely upon the Brhat Samhita and Nilamata Purana. Hence, the dates given by Kalhana for the 52 Kings are not as authoritative as the dates given for the subsequent Kings. Therefore, we may conclude that Kalhana’s date for Emperor Yudhishtira can be discarded in favour of the traditional date as the entire traditional literature is emphatic in stating that Emperor Yudhishtira was ruling at the beginning of the Kali Yuga.
Next comes the anomaly between the dates suggested by Puranic literature on one hand and Sri Narahari Achar on the other. The date suggested by Sri Achar is 3067 BCE for the Mahabharata war while the traditional date will be 3138 BCE (36 years before the ascension of Sri Krishna). But this is a problem of interpretation and nothing else. As we saw earlier, Vishnu Purana (4.24) states that Kali Era began even when Lord Krishna was on the earth but it began to affect the earth only after His ascension. Hence, we can say that the traditional date of Kali Era is the date of its actual beginning and not the date of Sri Krishna’s ascension. But the later pundits seemed to have taken the beginning of the Kali Era as the date of Sri Krishna’s ascension and that is the cause of this anomaly.
Hence, we may conclude that the date of the beginning of Kali Era is midnight 17/18 February, 3102 BCE. Similarly, the year of Mahabharata war is 3067 BCE and that the year of Sri Krishna’s ascension is 3031 BCE and that the statement of Kalhana shall be discarded for want of credible proof to support his claim.
Tradition has it that Kali Yuga begun at midnight February 17/18, 3102 BCE. It is also considered that Emperor Yudhisthira abdicated his throne shortly after this date. It is also said that Lord Krishna gave up His existence on earth on this day.
Kalhana says in his ‘Rajatarangini’ (I.51) that Pandavas and Kauravas lived at 653 Kali Era. He also claims that when Yudhisthira ruled over the earth, the Great Bear was in Magha and that it happened in the seventh century(2526 years Before Saka) Kali Era(Raja. I.55-56). He also cites the Brhat Samhita of Varahamihira to make good his case.
Now, we begin our attempt at reconciling these various dates.
The beginning of Kali at 3102 BCE is true as John Playfair has shown. Kalhana accepts it when he says that Pandavas lived at 653 Kali (Raja. I.51).
The astronomical dating of the Mahabharata done by Sri Narahari Achar is very convincing as he clearly proves that the year of Mahabharata is 3067 BCE based on the astronomical sightings recorded in the Mahabharata. He also places the date of Krishna’s ascension to Vaikunta at 3031 BCE. This date is the most convincing among the various dates given by different scholars till this day.
The Vishnu Purana states that the time of Kali had arrived even when Krishna was on the earth and that only after His departure did Kali afflict the earth (Vishnu Purana 4-24). Going by this, we can say that the present date for the beginning of Kali is the time at which Kali’s time began and not the time when it began to afflict the earth. It seems there has been confusion over this and hence everything (from the beginning of Kali to the departure of Krishna) has been filled into the year 3102 BCE.
Further, Kalhana says that 52 Kings ruled Kashmir from Gonanda I to Abhimanyu I. But he says that details about 35 Kings are not available. Also, he does not know about the individual reigning period of the 17 Kings about whom he mentions some details.
Then Kalhana describes about Gonanda III and his dynasty. From I.53 of Rajatarangini, we shall find that Gonanda III ruled at 1184 BCE (The verse says that from Gonanda III to the time of Kalhana, 2330 years).
Now, Kalhana has tried to find out the period of the 52 Kings from the above details. In Raja I.54, he says that the 52 Kings ruled for a period of 1266 years. In Raja I.48-49, Kalhana says that the Gonanda and the other Kings (mentioned in the first Taranga) ruled for 2268 years. From the above, we can find that Gonanda III to Yudhishtira I (last King of the First Taranga) ruled for 1002 years.
Armed with the above information, we shall try to reconcile the huge difference in dates.
The basis of Kalhana’s date for Emperor Yudhisthira’s reign is the Brhat Samhita. We can see that his entire astronomy is based on it (Reference to it is made in Raja VII.1720).
Some scholars say that the Saka Era used by Varahamihira in his Brhat Samhita is different from what we use today and that the date of Yudhishtira given by him is not different from the traditional one. Leaving aside this opinion, we can understand from the above mentioned facts that Kalhana believed in the accuracy of Varahamihira.
It is also known that Kalhana did not know about the reigning periods of the ‘52 Kings’. Thus, Kalhana has arrived at the entire period of the 52 Kings by comparing the dates of Gonanda III and Emperor Yudhishtira (of whom Gonanda I was a contemporary as per the ‘Nilamata Purana’).
Normally, the dates and periods provided by Kalhana are more accurate as he has referred to various sources before arriving at such dates. But in the case of the ‘52 Kings’, he had very few materials and so, he has based his dates entirely upon the Brhat Samhita and Nilamata Purana. Hence, the dates given by Kalhana for the 52 Kings are not as authoritative as the dates given for the subsequent Kings. Therefore, we may conclude that Kalhana’s date for Emperor Yudhishtira can be discarded in favour of the traditional date as the entire traditional literature is emphatic in stating that Emperor Yudhishtira was ruling at the beginning of the Kali Yuga.
Next comes the anomaly between the dates suggested by Puranic literature on one hand and Sri Narahari Achar on the other. The date suggested by Sri Achar is 3067 BCE for the Mahabharata war while the traditional date will be 3138 BCE (36 years before the ascension of Sri Krishna). But this is a problem of interpretation and nothing else. As we saw earlier, Vishnu Purana (4.24) states that Kali Era began even when Lord Krishna was on the earth but it began to affect the earth only after His ascension. Hence, we can say that the traditional date of Kali Era is the date of its actual beginning and not the date of Sri Krishna’s ascension. But the later pundits seemed to have taken the beginning of the Kali Era as the date of Sri Krishna’s ascension and that is the cause of this anomaly.
Hence, we may conclude that the date of the beginning of Kali Era is midnight 17/18 February, 3102 BCE. Similarly, the year of Mahabharata war is 3067 BCE and that the year of Sri Krishna’s ascension is 3031 BCE and that the statement of Kalhana shall be discarded for want of credible proof to support his claim.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Karunanidhi's Ignorance and his habit of hurting Hindu sentiments
The CM of TN has made some reemarks about the nude sculptures in Hindu temples and has also made comments on ceratin deities of Ganesh which are said to be nude and he has also claimed that the embarassed priests cover them with clothes.
On reading about the above utterances of Karunanidhi, I was caught in between laughter and anger. Karunanidhi does not know anything about the basics of Hindu religion. Still he has dared to make ridicule of this religion. Perhaps, we must also be as militant as his Islamic and Christian brothers.
Karunanidhi does not seem to know that, in ancient South India, it was common for women to remain bare breasted. Going by this condition, one will find that most of the nude figurines are not 'nude' as per the norms of the society in those days.
Secondly, the human body is a creation of God. This body is considered as the most perfect as it is in this 'janma' that a soul has the means to attain Moksha. Moreover, the ancient Hindus were not Islamic fanatics for whom any depiction of nudity(or even mere human forms) in art is grossly immoral. The human body was praised for what it was(as seen in the works of Kalidasa, Kambar etc). Even sexual activities are shown in certain sculptures. Sex was not a taboo in ancient India. Neither had 'sex' attained the levels of immorality as seen in certain Western nations now. In India, it was given its right place. Being the way of reproduction, it had an aura of supernaturalism and at the same time, it was also a matter of privacy and impurity.
Thus, in temples, having 'sex' is forbidden but the sculptures in temples show such activities. Everything in the world, pure or impure, was depicted in the temple sculptures. The reason is that all these things are a part of God's creation. Sex and wars were given their place of honour in the temple sculptures. As pointed out earlier, human body is the most perfect 'janma' possible and sex is supernatural because of its ability to produce life. Hence, in certain sculptures, we see women worshipping a male's 'linga'(penis). Certain scenes of adultery are also depicted in the temples to enable the people to understand its perverted nature and its ability to make people commit sins and thus equip them to control their passion. Similarly, bravery was considered a great virtue. Death in battlefield was considered to be a virtuous act which books a place in heaven. Hence, many scenes of the battlefield are found in the sculptures.
Thirdly, we can note that, in any temple, the number of sculptures depicting the deities, sages, bhaktas and men/women with 'namaste(vanakkam)' is more in number than the sculptures of sex/war.
As for the CM's observation on nude deities of Ganesha being clothed, he does not seem to know that all the deities in the temples are clothed(no matter whether the deities are nude or not) as the Agamas say so. It is also to be noted that during the 'Abhishekam/Tirumanjanam' , the clothes of the deities are removed. Neither the priests nor the bhaktas are embarrassed or 'aroused'(as claimed by some cheap DK rationalists) during the Abhishekam. For them, any male deity is Father and any female deity is Mother. Hindu bhaktas certainly don't indulge in 'incest'. Perhaps some of these 'rationalists' are indulging in such mean acts(perhaps that is the reason for their mean thinking).
Let Karunanidhi understand that a complete taboo on expressing about anything sexual is not the habit of the Tamils whose culture he claims to uphold. Let him also understand that one should not attack/ridicule any faith without knowing about the philosophical basis of that religion and the spiritual reasons for their various practices.
On reading about the above utterances of Karunanidhi, I was caught in between laughter and anger. Karunanidhi does not know anything about the basics of Hindu religion. Still he has dared to make ridicule of this religion. Perhaps, we must also be as militant as his Islamic and Christian brothers.
Karunanidhi does not seem to know that, in ancient South India, it was common for women to remain bare breasted. Going by this condition, one will find that most of the nude figurines are not 'nude' as per the norms of the society in those days.
Secondly, the human body is a creation of God. This body is considered as the most perfect as it is in this 'janma' that a soul has the means to attain Moksha. Moreover, the ancient Hindus were not Islamic fanatics for whom any depiction of nudity(or even mere human forms) in art is grossly immoral. The human body was praised for what it was(as seen in the works of Kalidasa, Kambar etc). Even sexual activities are shown in certain sculptures. Sex was not a taboo in ancient India. Neither had 'sex' attained the levels of immorality as seen in certain Western nations now. In India, it was given its right place. Being the way of reproduction, it had an aura of supernaturalism and at the same time, it was also a matter of privacy and impurity.
Thus, in temples, having 'sex' is forbidden but the sculptures in temples show such activities. Everything in the world, pure or impure, was depicted in the temple sculptures. The reason is that all these things are a part of God's creation. Sex and wars were given their place of honour in the temple sculptures. As pointed out earlier, human body is the most perfect 'janma' possible and sex is supernatural because of its ability to produce life. Hence, in certain sculptures, we see women worshipping a male's 'linga'(penis). Certain scenes of adultery are also depicted in the temples to enable the people to understand its perverted nature and its ability to make people commit sins and thus equip them to control their passion. Similarly, bravery was considered a great virtue. Death in battlefield was considered to be a virtuous act which books a place in heaven. Hence, many scenes of the battlefield are found in the sculptures.
Thirdly, we can note that, in any temple, the number of sculptures depicting the deities, sages, bhaktas and men/women with 'namaste(vanakkam)' is more in number than the sculptures of sex/war.
As for the CM's observation on nude deities of Ganesha being clothed, he does not seem to know that all the deities in the temples are clothed(no matter whether the deities are nude or not) as the Agamas say so. It is also to be noted that during the 'Abhishekam/Tirumanjanam' , the clothes of the deities are removed. Neither the priests nor the bhaktas are embarrassed or 'aroused'(as claimed by some cheap DK rationalists) during the Abhishekam. For them, any male deity is Father and any female deity is Mother. Hindu bhaktas certainly don't indulge in 'incest'. Perhaps some of these 'rationalists' are indulging in such mean acts(perhaps that is the reason for their mean thinking).
Let Karunanidhi understand that a complete taboo on expressing about anything sexual is not the habit of the Tamils whose culture he claims to uphold. Let him also understand that one should not attack/ridicule any faith without knowing about the philosophical basis of that religion and the spiritual reasons for their various practices.
Monday, January 8, 2007
Why rever Saddam???
I find the various protest groups, that are being organised over Saddam's execution, as both amusing and disturbing. Muslim leaders must understand that just because a person is a Muslim, one cannot be discharged from the heinous crimes that one has committed. The death sentence was given by an Iraqi court, by an Iraqi under an Iraqi government. He was not tried in any US Federal Court. While it is true that Iraq is under US occupation, it must be noted that Iraq is not treated as a colony of the US. Moreover, the various car bombings in Iraq have killed more Iraqis than American troops. It is mere sectarian violence and is not a 'freedom struggle' as some people make out of it.
Saddam was certainly a monster. The way he handled his political enemies and the way he crushed the Shia majority demonstrate that cruelty was a part of his personality. How can any sane person rever such a monster?? He was neither like the 'grown up' Akbar nor like Shivaji. He was neither a Gandhi nor a Martin Luther Jr. He was a mere iron fisted, stone hearted dictator who cared for nothing but his own power. So let us not grieve over such a person. What is happening in Iraq is not even one-hundredth of what happened in post-partition days in Pakistan. We should not grieve over sectarian violences in some foreign country and disturb peace HERE by holding 'dharnas'(public protests). Nor should we rever a monster who never cared for human rights.
Saddam was certainly a monster. The way he handled his political enemies and the way he crushed the Shia majority demonstrate that cruelty was a part of his personality. How can any sane person rever such a monster?? He was neither like the 'grown up' Akbar nor like Shivaji. He was neither a Gandhi nor a Martin Luther Jr. He was a mere iron fisted, stone hearted dictator who cared for nothing but his own power. So let us not grieve over such a person. What is happening in Iraq is not even one-hundredth of what happened in post-partition days in Pakistan. We should not grieve over sectarian violences in some foreign country and disturb peace HERE by holding 'dharnas'(public protests). Nor should we rever a monster who never cared for human rights.
Thursday, January 4, 2007
Unsuccessful Attempt
For once, I have failed in my endeavour. It appears to be very difficult to ascertain the period of Azhwars.
Some people try to identify Pandiya Vallabha Deva with Srimara Srivallabha and hence place Periazhwar and Andal in 9th century. But this is ridiculous. The entire Divya Prabandham was compiled in the mid-9th century. But there is no Pandiya Vallabha Deva as far as we know.
Next, there is a tendency to identify the Pallava King mentioned by Tirumangai Azhwar with Nandi Varman. But when I asked a Tamil historian, he said that the king mentioned could be Parameshwara Varman or Nandi Varman. Now, the reason why Nandi Varman is selected by many historians is that he was a Vaishnava. But then, Parameshwara Varman had built the Vaikuntanatha(Vishnu) Temple in Kanchi and the Azhwar calls the temple as 'Parameshwara Vinnagaram'. More research needs to be done in this regard.
The planetary positions described by Andal combined with the legends around Her Tiruppavai leads us to an inconclusive state. Though I would prefer 245 CE or 578 CE as the year of Tiruppavai.
I have not given up my hope. We might come across some evidence in the future which might help us.
Some people try to identify Pandiya Vallabha Deva with Srimara Srivallabha and hence place Periazhwar and Andal in 9th century. But this is ridiculous. The entire Divya Prabandham was compiled in the mid-9th century. But there is no Pandiya Vallabha Deva as far as we know.
Next, there is a tendency to identify the Pallava King mentioned by Tirumangai Azhwar with Nandi Varman. But when I asked a Tamil historian, he said that the king mentioned could be Parameshwara Varman or Nandi Varman. Now, the reason why Nandi Varman is selected by many historians is that he was a Vaishnava. But then, Parameshwara Varman had built the Vaikuntanatha(Vishnu) Temple in Kanchi and the Azhwar calls the temple as 'Parameshwara Vinnagaram'. More research needs to be done in this regard.
The planetary positions described by Andal combined with the legends around Her Tiruppavai leads us to an inconclusive state. Though I would prefer 245 CE or 578 CE as the year of Tiruppavai.
I have not given up my hope. We might come across some evidence in the future which might help us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)