Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c5: Chapter I. Introduction

The Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas c5

Language
English

Contents

Chapter I. Introduction

c5.2

Importance of ascertaining the Age of the Vedas—Linguistic method—Its defects—Astronomical method—Its difficulties unduly magnified—Views of European and Native scholars examined.

c5.3

THE VEDA is the oldest of the books that we now possess, and it is generally admitted "that for a study of man, or if you like, for a study of Aryan humanity, there is nothing in the world equal in importance with it."* There is no other book which carries us so near the beginning of the Aryan civilization, if not the absolute beginning of all things, as maintained by the Hindu theologians; and the importance of ascertaining even approximately the age when the oldest of the Vedic Ṛiṣhis, like the classical Vālmīki, may have been inspired to unconsciously give utterance to a Vedic verse, cannot therefore be overrated. The birth of Gautama Buddha, the invasion of Alexander the Great, the inscriptions of Ashoka, the account of the Chinese travellers, and the overthrow of Buddhism and Jainism by Bhaṭṭa Kumārila and Shaṅkarāchārya, joined with several other less important events, have served to fix the chronology of the later periods of the Ancient Indian History. But the earlier periods of the same still defy all attempts to ascertain their chronology; and the earliest of them all, so important to the "true student of mankind," the period of the Rigveda, is still the subject of vague and uncertain speculations. Can we or can we not ascertain the age of the Vedas? This is a question which has baffled the ingenuity of many an ancient and a modern scholar, and though I have ventured to write on the subject I cannot claim to have finally solved this important problem in all its bearings. I only wish to place before the public the result of my researches in this direction and leave it to scholars to decide if it throws any additional light on the earliest periods of the Aryan civilization.

c5.4

∗ India : what it can teach us ? p. 112. The references throughout are to the first edition of this work.

c5.5

But before I proceed to state my views, it may be useful to briefly examine the methods by which Oriental scholars have hitherto attempted to solve the question as to the age and character of the Vedas. Prof. Max Müller divides the Vedic literature into four periods—the Chhandas, Mantra, Brâhmaṇa, and Sûtra; and as each period presupposes the preceding, while the last or the Sûtra period is prior, "if not to the origin, at least to the spreading and political ascendancy of Buddhism" in the fourth century before Christ, that learned scholar, by assigning two hundred years for each period arrives at about 1200 B. C., as the *latest date*, at which we may suppose the Vedic hymns to have been composed.[*] This, for convenience, may be called the literary or the linguistic method of ascertaining the age of the Vedas. A little consideration will, however, at once disclose the weak points in such arbitrary calculations. There are different opinions as to the division of the Vedic literature; some scholars holding that the Chhandas and Mantra is one period, though a long one. But granting that the Vedic literature admits of a four-fold division, the question of the duration of each period is still involved in uncertainty and, considering the fact that each period might run into and overlap the other to a certain extent, it becomes extremely difficult to assign even the minimum chronological limits to the different periods. The method may, indeed, be used with advantage to show that the Vedas could not have been composed later than a certain period; but it helps little in even approximately fixing the correct age of the Vedas. Prof. Max Müller himself admits* that the limit of 200 years can be assigned to each period only under the supposition that during the early periods of history the growth of the human mind was more luxuriant than in later times; while the late Dr. Haug, following the same method, fixed the very commencement of the Vedic literature between 2400—2000 B. C.,† by assigning about 500 years to each period, on the analogy of similar periods in the Chinese literature. It is therefore evident that this method of calculation, howsoever valuable it may be in checking the results arrived at by other methods, is, when taken by itself, most vague and uncertain. A further study of the different periods of the Vedic literature and its comparison with other ancient literatures might hereafter help us to ascertain the duration of each period a little more accurately.* But I think we cannot expect, by this method alone, to be ever in a position to fix with any approach to certainty the correct age of the Vedas. Prof. Max Müller considers 200 years to be the minimum duration of each period, while Dr. Haug and Prof. Wilson thought that a period of 500 years was not too long for the purpose ;† and I believe there is hardly any inherent improbability if a third scholar proposes to extend the duration of each of these periods up to something like 1000 years. In the face of this uncertainty we must try to find out other means for ascertaining the correct age of the Vedas.

c5.6

∗ See Max Müller's 1st Ed. of Rig. Vol. IV., Pref. pp. v., vii. This preface is also printed as a separate pamphlet under the title "Ancient Hindu Astronomy and Chronology." In the second edition of the Rigveda the prefaces in the first edition are reprinted all together at the beginning of the fourth Volume.

c5.7

∗ Pref. to Rig. Vol. IV., p vii.

c5.8

† Introduction to the Aitareya Brâhmaṇa, p 48. Prof. Whitney thinks that the hymns may have been sung as early as 2000 B. C. Vide Intro. to his Sanskrit Grammar, p. xiii. For a summary of the opinions of different scholars on this point see Kaegi's Rigveda translated by Arrowsmith, p. 110, note 39. The highest antiquity assigned is 2400 B. C.

c5.9

† See Ait. Br. Intr., p. 48; also Pref, to Rig. Vol. IV., p. viii.

c5.10

The Vedas, the Brâhmaṇas and the Sûtras contain numerous allusions and references to astronomical facts, and it was believed that we might be able to ascertain from them the age of the oldest literary relic of the Aryan race. But somehow or other the attempts of scholars to fix the age of the Vedas by what may be called the astronomical method, have not yet met with the expected success. Unfortunately for us, all the Sanskrit astronomical words that we now possess, except perhaps the Vedânga Jyotisha, belong to the later period of Sanskrit literature, when the Greek influence is perceptible in all its mathematical works. The different methods of astronomical calculations given in these works, the various eras that were established in India after Shâlivâhana or Vikrama, the introduction of the Bârhaspatya cycle, and the adoption of the Greek division of the Zodiac, make it extremely difficult to correctly interpret the astronomical references in the later works; while the confusion, caused by the supposed absence of any definite statement as to the character of the year and the cycle mentioned in the Vedic works, renders it a hard task to deduce a consistent theory out of the various but stray references to astronomical facts in the Vedic literature Take for instance the question of the commencement of the year in the Vedic calendar. There are grounds to hold that the ancient Aryas commenced their year either with spring or with autumn, at the equinoxes or at the solstices;* while the later astronomical works and systems furnish us with facts which go to prove that the year, in the different parts of India, commenced with almost all the different months of the year—Kârtika, Mârgashîrsha, † Âshâdha, Chaitra and Bhâdrapada. The discussion as to the number of the Nakshatras and different opinions as to their origin have further complicated the problem; while doubts have been raised as to the capacity of the Brâhmans in 1200 B. C. to make observations of solstitial points with astronomical accuracy.‡ I shall have to examine hereafter how far some of these objections are tenable. For the present it is sufficient to state that in consequence of such doubts and objections, definite observations or allusions to astronomical events in the earliest works have been looked upon with suspicion by a good many Oriental scholars, while some have even condemned the astronomical method as inaccurate and conjectural.[*] It is, however, admitted that "if the astronomical date on which conclusions as to the age of the Veda have been built implied all that they were represented to imply, the earliest periods of Vedic poetry will have to be rearranged."[†]

c5.11

∗ In a paper submitted to the Ninth Oriental Congress, Mr. Dhruvahas recently examined the whole Vedic literature with a view to ascertain its chronology, and he arrives at the conclusion that the duration assigned to the several periods of the Vedic literature by Prof. Max Müller is too short, and that " without making any guesses at numbers of years or centuries " we should at present be content with arranging the Vedic literature somewhat after the manner of the Geological strata or periods

c5.12

∗ See *infra* Chap. II.

c5.13

† Whitney's Sûrya Siddhânta xiv., 16, *n.*

c5.14

‡ Pref. to Rig. Vol. IV., p. xxix. It is very difficult to understand on what grounds this assertion is made. Ancient Vedic bards had no mathematical instruments, but still they could have easily marked when day and night became equal in length.

c5.15

† Pref. to Rig. Vol. IV., p. lxi.

c5.16.1

It appears to me that scholars have erred too much on the side of overcautiousness in condemning this method. I do not mean to say that there are no difficulties; but sufficient care does not appear to have been taken to always keep in view the main point of the inquiry, by separating it from the mass of irrelevant matter, with which, in some cases, it becomes unavoidably mixed up. Some of Bentley's speculations, for instance, are indeed ingenious and suggestive, but he relies too much upon Purāṇic traditions, mere etymological speculations and his own calculations based thereon, instead of trying to find out whether there is anything in the earlier works to corroborate or support these traditions. On the other hand, Prof. Weber's Essay, which, as a collection of astronomical allusions and references in the Vedic literature, is extremely valuable, is taken up by the controversy as to the origin of the Nakshatras raised by M. Biot; and the same thing may be said of Prof. Whitney's contributions on the subject.[‡] Various other questions, such as whether the Vedic cycle comprised five or six years, how and when the intercalary days or months were inserted to make the lunar correspond with the solar year, have also caused the attention of scholars to be diverted from the broad astronomical facts and observations to be found recorded in the Vedic literature;

c5.16.2

and as a consequence we find that while the questions as to the original number of the Nakshatras and as to whether the Chinese borrowed them from the Hindus or *vice versa*, are so ably discussed, no systematic attempt has been made to trace back the astronomical references in the later works to the Sanhitâs, and to fully examine their bearing on the question of the age and character of the Vedas. On the contrary, Prof. Weber asks us to reconcile ourselves to the fact that any such search will, as a general rule, be absolutely fruitless!* In the following pages I have endeavoured to shew that we need not be so much disappointed. In my opinion there is ample evidence—direct and circumstantial—in the earliest of the Sanhitâs, to fully establish the high antiquity assigned to the Indian literature on geographical and historical grounds.† I base my opinion mainly upon references to be found in the early Vedic works, the Sanhitâs and the Brâhmanas, and especially in the earliest of these, the Rigveda. For though later works may sometimes give the same traditions and references, yet any inference which is based upon them is likely to be regarded with more or less suspicion, unless we can show something in the earliest works themselves to justify that inference.

c5.16.3

Where the Sanhitâs and the Brâhmaṇas directly speak of the actual state of things in their time, there is, of course, no ground to disbelieve the same, but I think that even the traditions recorded in these works are more reliable than those in later works, for the simple reason that those traditions are there found in their purest form. Later works may indeed be used to supply confirmatory evidence, where such is available; but our conclusions must in the main be based on the internal evidence supplied by the Vedic works alone. Several Indian astronomers have worked more or less on the lines here indicated, but their labours in this direction have not unfortunately received the attention they deserve. The late Kṛiṣhṇa Shàstri Goḍbole published his views on the antiquity of the Vedas in the second and third Volumes of the *Theosophist*,* and though he has failed to correctly interpret some astronomical allusions in the Vedic works, yet there is much that is suggestive and valuable in his essay. The late Prof. K. L. Chhatre also appears to have held similar views on the subject, but he has not published them, so far as I know, in a systematic form. My friend Mr. Shankara Bâlkṛiṣhṇa Dikshit, who has written a prize essay in Marâṭhî on the history of Hindu Astronomy, and who has succeeded in correctly interpreting more verses in the Vedâṅga Jyotiṣhat than any other scholar has hitherto done, has also discussed this question in his essay, which I was allowed to read in MS.

c5.16.4

through his kindness. I am indebted to these scholars for some of the facts and arguments set forth in the following pages, and the present essay may, I think, be regarded as greatly developing, if not completing, the theory started by them.

c5.17

∗ See Weber's History of Indian Literature, p. 2, note.

c5.18

‡ See his essay on the Hindu and Chinese systems of Asterisms.

c5.19

∗ Weber's History of Indian Literature, p. 7.

c5.20

† It is on these grounds that Prof. Weber believes that the beginnings of the Indian Literature "may perhaps be traced back even to the time when the Indo Aryans still dwelt together with the Persa-Aryans," Hist. Ind Lit , p. 5.

c5.21

∗ Also published as a separate pamphlet.

c5.22

† Mr. Dikshit would do well to publish an English translation of at least the Chapter on Vedâṅga Jyotiṣha in his essay. He has undoubtedly made a great advance over Weber and Thebaut in the correct interpretation of the treatise.

Linked texts (4)