Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c3: Preface

The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c3

Language
English

Preface

c3.1

SOME explanation may be necessary for the publication of an essay on the antiquity of the Vedas by one whose professional work lies in a different direction. About four years ago, as I was reading the Bhagavad Gītā, it occurred to me that we might derive important conclusions from the statement of Kṛiṣhṇa that "he was Mârgashîrṣha of the months." This led me to inquire into the primitive Vedic calendar, and the result of four years' labour is now placed before the public. The essay was originally written for the Ninth Oriental Congress held in London last year. But it was found too large to be inserted in the proceedings wherein its summary alone is now included. I have had therefore to publish it separately, and in doing so I have taken the opportunity of incorporating into it such additions, alterations and modifications, as were suggested by further thought and discussion.

c3.2

The chief result of my inquiry would be evident from the title of the essay. The high antiquity of the Egyptian civilization is now generally admitted. But scholars still hesitate to place the commencement of the Vedic civilization earlier than 2400 B. C. I have endeavoured to show in the following pages that the traditions recorded in the Rigveda unmistakably point to a period not later than 4000 B. C., when the vernal equinox was in Orion, or, in other words, when the Dog-star (or the Dog as we have it in the Rigveda) commenced the equinoctial year. Many of the Vedic texts and legends, quoted in support of this conclusion, have been cited in this connection and also rationally and intelligently explained for the first time, thus throwing a considerable light on the legends and rites in later Sanskrit works. I have further tried to show how these legends are strikingly corroborated by the legends and traditions of Iran and Greece. Perhaps some of this corroborative evidence may not be regarded as sufficiently conclusive by itself, but in that case I hope it will be borne in mind that my conclusions are not based merely upon mythological or philological coincidences, and if some of these are disputable, they do not in any way shake the validity of the conclusions based on the express texts and references scattered over the whole Vedic literature. I wanted to collect together all the facts that could possibly throw any light upon, or be shown to be connected with the question in issue, and if in so doing I have mentioned some, that are not as convincing as the others, I am sure that they will at least be found interesting, and that even after omitting them there will be ample evidence to establish the main point. I have, therefore, to request my critics not to be prejudiced by such facts, and to examine and weigh the whole evidence I have adduced in support of my theory before they give their judgment upon it.

c3.3

I have tried to make the book as little technical as possible; but I am afraid that those who are not acquainted with the Hindu method of computing time may still find it somewhat difficult to follow the argument in a few places. If my conclusions come to be accepted and the second edition of the book be called for, these defects may be removed by adding further explanations in such cases. At present I have only attempted to give the main argument on the assumption that the reader is already familiar with the method. I may further remark that though I have used the atronomical method, yet a comparison with Bentley's work will show that the present essay is more literary than astronomical in its character. In other words, it is the Sanskrit scholars who have first of all to decide if my interpretations of certain texts are correct, and when this judgment is once given it is not at all difficult to astronomically calculate the exact period of the traditions in the Rigveda. I do not mean to say that no knowledge of astronomy is necessary to discuss the subject, but on the whole it would be readily seen that the question is one more for Sanskrit scholars than for astronomers to decide.

c3.4

Some scholars may doubt the possibility of deriving so important and far-reaching conclusions from the data furnished by the hymns of the Rigveda, and some may think that I am taking the antiquity of the Vedas too far back. But fears like these are out of place in a historical or scientific inquiry, the sole object of which should be to search for and find out the truth. The method of investigation followed by me is the same as that adopted by Bentley, Colebrooke and other well-known writers on the subject, and, in my opinion, the only question that Sanskrit scholars have now to decide, is whether I am or am not justified in carrying it a step further than my predecessors, independently of any modifications that may be thereby made necessary in the existing hypothesis on the subject.

c3.5

I have omitted to mention in the essay that a few native scholars have tried to ascertain the date of the Mahâbhârata, and the Râmâyaṇa from certain positions of the sun, the moon and the planets given in those works. For instance, the horoscope of Râma and the positions of the planets at the time of the great civil war, as found in the Mahâbhârata, are said to point to a period of 5000 or 6000 B. C., and it is contended that the Vedas which preceded these works must be older still. Bentley relying on the same date has calculated 961 B. C. as the exact date of Râma's birth. This will show how unsafe it is to act upon calculations based upon such loose statements. Sometimes the accounts in the Purâṇas are themselves conflicting, but even where they are or can be made definite any conclusions based on them are not only doubtful, but well nigh useless for chronological purposes, for in the first instance they are open to the objection that these works may not have been written by eye-witnesses ( the mention Râshis in the Râmâyaṇa directly supporting such an assumption ) , and secondly, because it is still more difficult to prove that we now possess these books in the form in which they were originally written. With regard to the positions of the planets at the time of the war given in the Mahâbhârata, the statements are undoubtedly confused ; but apart from it, I think that it is almost a gratuitous assumption to hold that all of them really give us the positions of the planets in the ecliptic and that such positions again refer to the fixed and the moveable zodiacal portions of the Nakshatras. Perhaps the writers simply intend to mention all auspicious or inauspicious positions of the planets in such cases. I have therefore avoided all such debatable and doubtful points by confining myself solely to the Vedic works, about the genuineness of which there can be no doubt, and using the Purâṇic accounts only to corroborate the results deduced from the Vedic texts. According to this view the Mahâbhârata war must be placed in the Kṛittikâ period, inasmuch as we are told that Bhîshma was waiting for the turning of the sun from the winter solstice in the month of Mâgha. The poem, as we now have it, is evidently written a long time after this event.

c3.6

Lastly, I have to express my obligations to several friends for encouraging me to carry on the inquiry and helping me in one way or another to complete this essay. My special thanks are however due to Dr. Râmkrishna Gopâl Bhândârkar, who kindly undertook to explain to me the views of German scholars in regard to certain passages from the Rigveda, and to Khan Bahadur Dr. Dastur Hoshang Jamasp for the ready assistance he gave in supplying information contained in the original Parsi sacred books. I am also greatly indebted to Prof. Max Müller for some valuable suggestions and critical comments on the etymological evidence contained in the essay. I am, however, alone responsible for all the views, suggestions, and statements made in the following pages.

c3.7

With these remarks I leave the book in the hands of critics, fully relying upon the saying of the poet—

c3.8

हेम्रः संलक्ष्यते ह्यग्नौ विशुद्धिः श्यामिकाऽपि वा।

c3.9

"The fineness or the darkness of gold is best tested in fire." It is not likely that my other engagements will permit me to devote much time to this subject in future; and I shall consider myself well rewarded if the present essay does in any way contribute to a fuller and unprejudiced discussion of the high antiquity of the Aryan civilization, of which our sacred books are the oldest records in the world.

c3.10

B. G. TILAK.

c3.11

Poona, October, 1893.

c3.12

The first of these, the *Gospel of the Hebrews*, was used by the Jewish Christians of Palestine, and was probably a version of the Gospel of Matthew, though it contained some traditions not found in our canonical books. The *Gospel of the Egyptians* was used by the ascetic sects of Egypt, and was marked by a strong tendency towards mysticism and asceticism. The *Gospel of Peter* was used by the Docetists, and taught that Christ did not really suffer, but only appeared to do so.

c3.13

These gospels, and others like them, were not accepted by the Church as a whole, and were gradually lost or suppressed. The Church, however, felt the need for a standard collection of writings that would serve as a guide for faith and practice. This led to the formation of the New Testament canon, a process that took several centuries to complete.

c3.14

The first step in this process was the collection of the letters of Paul, which were widely circulated among the churches. Then came the four Gospels, which were accepted as the authoritative accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. The Acts of the Apostles and the other epistles were gradually added, and finally the Book of Revelation.

c3.15

By the end of the second century, the core of the New Testament was generally accepted by the Church. The process of canonization was not a formal act of a council, but rather a gradual recognition by the churches of the writings that were most valuable for their life and worship. It was only in the fourth century that the canon was formally closed by the councils of the Church.

c3.16

The formation of the New Testament canon was a crucial event in the history of the Church. It provided a standard of faith and practice that helped to unify the Church and to protect it from the influence of heretical sects. It also ensured that the teachings of Jesus and the apostles would be preserved for future generations.

Linked texts (5)