Brief History of the
Relation between the Vedic and Western World Views
by Sadaputa dasa
(Dr. Richard Thompson)
In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, European
scholars and scientists began to come in contact with the culture of India, and
many were impressed by the antiquity of Vedic civilization and the deep
spiritual and material knowledge contained in the Vedic literatures. However,
other European intellectuals were dismayed by these developments. For example,
in 1825, the British scholar John Bentley wrote as follows of his conflict with
the scientist John Playfair, who was an admirer of Indian culture:
"By his [Playfair's] attempt to uphold the antiquity
of Hindu books against absolute facts, he thereby supports all those horrid
abuses and impositions found in them, under the pretended sanction of
antiquity... Nay, his aim goes still deeper; for by the same means he endeavors
to overturn the Mosaic account, and sap the very foundation of our religion:
for if we are to believe in the antiquity of Hindu books, as he would wish us,
then the Mosaic account is all a fable, or a fiction."/1/
For Bentley, a devout Christian, the matter was very
simple. The Mosaic account in the Bible says that the earth was created in
about 4004 B.C., and it completely contradicts the Vedic shastras. Therefore,
either the Bible must be false or the shastras must be false. Bentley and
pioneer Indologists such as Sir William Jones and Max Muller worked hard to
show that the shastras are nothing but a mixture of fables and fiction, and
they were quite successful. They started a school of thought that is solidly
established in modern universities, both in Western countries and in India
itself.
One of the teachings of this school of thought is that
all the Vedic literatures, from the Rig Veda to the Puranas, are essentially
fraudulent concoctions written in relatively recent times. In the early days of
Indology, writers such as Bentley openly expressed the opinion that the authors
of the Vedic shastras were impostors, cheaters, and superstitious fools. At the
present time, scholars customarily express these conclusions in moderate
language, which often gives the impression that they are very favorably
disposed towards Vedic culture. But the conclusions are the same.
For example, Clifford Hospital teaches at Queen's
University at Kingston in Canada, and he has been Principal of the Theological
College since 1983. In a recent interview conducted by the Vaisnava scholar
Steven Rosen, he discusses the date of the Srimad Bhagavatam:
Steven Rosen: "And it [the Bhagavatam]
predates Vopadeva?"
Dr. Hospital: "Oh yes. Absolutely. On a separate
note, though, what's interesting about their [J.A.B. van Buitenen's and
Friedholm Hardy's] work is that they do a detailed analysis about the relation
between certain parts of the Bhagavata and the South Indian Alvar
tradition. I think they make a very good case for what people have long
suspected: that many of the ideas of the Bhagavata are coming out of the
South Indian tradition."/2/
The point here is that if many of the ideas of the Bhagavatam
are coming out the medieval South Indian Alvar tradition, then the Bhagavatam
was not composed 5000 years ago by Vyasadeva. Since the text of the Bhagavatam
says that it was composed by Vyasadeva, this is tantamount to saying that the
real author of the Bhagavatam was a fraud. But Dr. Hospital says it
nicely, without using harsh language.
All Indologists, historians, and archeologists in modern
universities agree that there was no civilization in the Ganges basin of India
5000 years ago. To say that there was such a civilization is considered utterly
indefensible. This means that no modern‑day scholar can say that the
pastimes of Krsna recounted in the Bhagavatam and the Mahabharata
really happened as described in those works. According to accepted scholarly
conclusions, the civilization in which those pastimes are said to have occurred
simply did not exist. The stories of that civilization are mythological, and
they were gradually invented over a period of centuries, beginning with early
versions of the Mahabharata in the 3rd century B.C., and culminating in
the Bhagavatam in perhaps the 9th century A.D.
Indologists often say that ancient Indians were content
with fables and had no interest in recording history. Yet there are some
traditional Vedic scholars who strongly disagree with this. For example, Pandit
Kota Vankatachela has written a book giving an unbroken sequence of kings of
Magadha from the time of the Mahabharata up to the invasion of India by
Muhammad Ghori in 1193 A.D./3/ He gives dates for the reigns of these kings
based on the Puranas and related Sanskrit texts. Table 1 lists these kings and
the dates of their reigns from Jarasandha to the dynasty of Chandragupta
Maurya.
According to Vankatachela's presentation, recorded
history in India extends all the way back from the Middle Ages to the time of
the battle of Kuruksetra. Note that the dates for the reign of Chandragupta
Maurya are 1534‑1500 B.C. According to the Indologists, Chandragupta
Maurya was a contemporary of Alexander the Great, who invaded India in 326 B.C.
They would reject the king list in Table 1 as largely fictitious.
What is the truth? To find out with reasonable certainty,
it is necessary to do extensive research. The Indologists have written hundreds
of books and scholarly articles expounding their views, and these will have to
be carefully studied. There are many Sanskrit texts containing historical
information, including major and minor Puranas, commentaries on Puranas, and related
works. There are also temple records, Jyotisha shastras, and calendrical
records. There are the works of traditional pandits such as Vankatachela.
Finally, there is archeological evidence and evidence based on records from
other ancient civilizations.
We cannot expect this research work to be done by
established scholars. Few will want to even consider the possibility that the
accepted conclusions of Indology might be wrong. If any established scholar
does seriously challenge these conclusions, then he is in danger of destroying
his reputation and losing his university position. Very few persons will be
willing to take this risk. To carry out research work that challenges
established views and introduces new ideas, a research institution is required in
which scholars are free to carry out independent investigations. Such an
institution cannot flourish if it is required to reciprocate harmoniously with
established academic institutions. It also cannot function under an advisory
board of established academicians. A setting is required in which alternatives
to established views can be vigorously pursued.
The needed research work requires the sustained efforts
of many dedicated persons, and therefore it requires a secure source of
funding. Funding is needed to support scholars and their families and to
provide office space, secretarial assistance, library facilities, computers,
and facilities for the publication of books and journals. Funding is also
needed for travel and for research expeditions.
We can expect that if a stable research institution is
founded that is free to operate under our own auspices, then in due course we
will be able to attract competent people who are eager to engage in research to
show the validity of the Vedic world view. We can expect that these prospective
scholars will mainly come from the younger sector (although there may be some
exceptions to this).
Returning to the history of Indology, one of the key
stratagems of the early Indologists was to use science as a weapon to show the
absurdity of Vedic shastras. They observed that it is hard to break people's
faith in the philosophical and metaphysical teachings of the shastras, since
these involve
subjects lying beyond the reach of our senses. But by
showing that the shastras give an unscientific account of observable natural
phenomena, people can be made to lose faith in all shastric teachings. Bentley
made this point in connection with the science of astronomy:
"It is by the investigation of truth, and the
exposure of Brahminical impositions, which can only be done through the means
of astronomy, that the labours of those who are laudably endeavoring to
introduce true religion and morality [i.e. Christianity] among the Hindus can
have their true and beneficial effect. So long as the impositions and
falsehoods contained in the Hindu books, which the common people are made to
believe are the productions of their ancient sages, are suffered to remain
unexposed, little progress can be expected to be made: but let the veil be
withdrawn, uncover the impositions by true and rational investigation, and the
cloud of error will of itself disappear; and then they will be not only more
ready, but willing to adopt and receive the word of truth."/4/
Since Bentley's time, Indologists have tried hard to show
that Indian astronomy consists of unscientific ideas originating in India plus
misrepresented scientific ideas borrowed from the Greeks and the
Babylonians./5/ However, we can argue that this is not correct. This is also an
area where much research is needed, and a beginning has been made with the
publication of the book Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy./6/
As it turned out, the strategy of using science to
discredit the Vedic shastras backfired. Science was also used to discredit
Christianity. As a result, many of today's Indologists tend to take a secular
stance, and reject the Vedic literatures as false, not because they disagree
with Christianity, but because they disagree with fundamental tenets of modern
science. Likewise, instead of becoming ready to receive the Christian
"word of truth," college educated people in India are now accepting
the mechanistic world view of modern science.
The impact of modern scientific thinking on people's
understanding of Vedic literature is shown by the following remarks by Dr. H.
Daniel Smith, a professor of religion at Syracuse University. He comments on
the Ramayana:
Dr. Smith: "Well, to get right down to basics, it
has to do with how one understands the word avatara, more specifically,
in what sense, if any, the avatara of Rama was historical. If so, when?
If so, where?"
Steven Rosen: "They say Treta yuga."
Dr. Smith: "That's the answer given. And the
literalists can even give a date, in July or something of such‑and‑such
a year. And that's fine for the believer‑‑but it's only one of
several possible perspectives. You see, it's that literalist commitment to the
historicity of it, just like Christians are absolutely committed to the
historicity of Jesus, that is at the crux of the matter."
Steven Rosen: "Right."
Dr. Smith: "Just as many Christians affirm that
Jesus really did exist in Jerusalem in the year One, also many Hindus say with
the Ramayana: Rama really did exist and he lived in Ayodhya, and when he went,
he went out to Lanka, and there he fought and defeated Ravana and laid low all
the Raksasa hosts. Now that's a real tight bind that people put themselves in.
Whereas on the other hand, another way of dealing with it, is to say that it is
all a myth. Now please don't understand me: this view doesn't necessarily hold
that the story is fictional; what it says is that the Ramayana is telling a
story that doesn't have to be taken literally on all counts, and that it is
basically a story, if nothing else, that tells us quite a bit about human
nature."
Steven Rosen: "And some believers take it like
that?"
Dr. Smith: "Oh, indeed. Quite a few Hindus share
that perspective‑‑not many but there are definitely those who do.
For example, how do college educated Hindus deal with it? Well some, to be
sure, just go back to their childhoods, saying, 'Oh Rama. Bless Rama.' Others,
however, do try to think in terms of mythic meaning, and try to probe
for deep, psychological references in their own experiences."/7/
Note the attempt to soften the blow: A myth is not necessarily
fictional, it's just a story that doesn't have to be taken literally and that
tells us something about human nature.
The reasons that Smith gives for calling the Ramayana
a myth are significant. First of all, there is the problem of saying that Lord
Ramacandra lived in Ayodhya in the Treta yuga. This is ruled out by the
Darwinian theory of evolution, which says that in that time period, over
864,000 years ago, there were no human beings of the modern type.
This too is an area where careful research can reveal
evidence that is contrary to the accepted scientific view and in agreement with
the Vedic picture. Michael Cremo (Drutakarma dasa) and I have just completed a
900 page book, Forbidden Archeology, which gives extensive evidence
showing that human beings of the modern type have been living on the earth for
many millions of years./8/ Much more research into natural history and the
origin of life is needed to show the validity of the Vedic world view. Based on
our experience, we feel that this research can definitely be done, but it will
require the dedicated efforts of many researchers.
Another problem raised by Smith is that if we take the Ramayana
literally, then we are obliged to accept the existence of beings such as
Rakshasas, which are endowed with remarkable mystical powers. Smith refers to
the world of the Ramayana as a "Walt Disney world" of fantasy‑‑a
world that scientifically educated people can hardly take seriously. This
problem applies to all the Vedic literatures. All of the shastras are based on
a view of reality that assumes the existence of mystic powers, beings with
subtle bodies, transmigration of souls, and avataras of the Supreme
Personality of Godhead.
It turns out that this, too, is an area where the
findings of careful research support the Vedic world view. There is a great
deal of evidence in the domain of the paranormal that supports the reality of
subtly embodied beings and mystic powers. This evidence tends to be rejected by
official science because it violates the accepted theories of science. However,
theoretical frameworks can change, and it is a fact that many eminent
scientists have seriously studied paranormal phenomena on an individual basis.
This still goes on today, and such scientists have formed organizations such as
the International Association for New Science and the International Society for
the Study of Subtle Energy and Energy Medicine.
We can show that research findings in the domain of the
paranormal fit consistently into the Vedic world view. They give empirical
support to the reality of the Vedic picture, and the Vedic literatures provide
a rational, scientific framework for understanding paranormal phenomena. Of
course, to thoroughly demonstrate this, much research will have to be done.
In closing, it is useful to remember the example of the
pioneer scientist Galileo. Jacques Vallee, a scientist and student of the
paranormal, wrote, "If the church had confiscated Galileo's telescope,
turning it over to a committee of so‑called unbiased cardinals appointed
by the pope, would the phases of Venus, the satellites of Jupiter, and the
reality of sunspots ever have been discovered?" Of course, Galileo made
his own observations. He was connected with a society of like‑minded,
independent researchers called the Academy of the Lynxes, and he received
funding from the powerful Medici family./9/ (The Lynxes were funded by another
powerful nobleman named Federico Cesi.)
If he had burdened himself with a board of people who
were hostile to his basic program of research, he never could have made any
scientific progress. As we all know, his researches eventually got him in
trouble with the accepted intellectual authorities of his day, and he was tried
for heresy by the Church. Science came into sharp conflict with the prevailing
world view of the Church, but by making a convincing case, science eventually
triumphed. The same thing can happen with our own research efforts.
=============================================================
Table 1.
Kings of Magadha from the time of the Mahabharata
to Chandragupta Maurya
king: reign in length dynasty:
years B.C.: of reign:
‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑
Jarasandha 3222‑3180 42 Barhadratha
Sahadeva3180‑3138
42
Somapi 3138‑3080 58
Srutasrava3080‑3016 64
Yutayu3016‑2980
36
Niramitra2980‑2940
40
Sunaksatra2940‑2882
58
Brhatsena2882‑2859
23
Karmajit2859‑2809
50
Sutanjaya2809‑2769
40
Vipra2769‑2734
35
Suci2734‑2676
58
Ksema2676‑2648
28
Suvrata2648‑2584
64
Dharmasutra2584‑2549
35
Sama2549‑2491
58
Suvrata 2491‑2453
38
Dyumatsena2453‑2395
58
Sumati2395‑2362
33
Subala2362‑2340
22
Sunitha2340‑2300
40
Satyajit2300‑2217
83
Visvajit2217‑2182
35
Ripunjaya2182‑2132
50
Pradyota 2132‑2109 23 Pradyotana
Palaka2109‑208524
Visakhayupa2085‑203550
Rajaka2035‑201421
Nandivardhana 2014‑199420
Shisunaga1994‑195440 Shisunaga
Kakavarna1954‑191836
Kshemadharma1918‑189226
Kshetrajya1892‑185240
Vidhisara1852‑181438
Ajatasatru1814‑178727
Darbhaka1787‑175235
Ajaya1752‑171933
Nandivardhana 1719‑167742
Mahanandi 1677‑163443
Nanda 1634‑154688 Nanda
Sumalya &
co. 1546‑153412 (jointly)
Chandragupta 1534‑150034 Maurya
Varisara1500‑147228 Ashoka1472‑143636
Suyasha1436‑1428
8
Dasharatha1428‑1420
8
Indrapalita1420‑135070
Harsha1350‑1342
8
Sangata1342‑1333
9
Shalishuka1333‑132013
Somasharma1320‑1313
7
Shatadhanva1313‑1305
8
Brihadratha1305‑121887
==========================================================
References:
1. Bentley, John, 1825, Historical View of the Hindu
Astronomy, Osnabruck: Biblio Verlag, reprinted in 1970, p. xxvii.
2. Rosen, Steven, 1992, Vaisnavism, Contemporary
Scholars Discuss the Gaudiya Tradition, New York: Folk Books, p. 71.
3. Vankatachela, Kota, 1957, Chronology of Ancient
Hindu History, Arya Vijnana Grandhamala.
4. Bentley, p. 213.
5. Pingree, David, 1976, "The Recovery of Early
Greek Astronomy from India," Jour. of the History of Astronomy, pp.
109‑23.
6. Thompson, Richard, 1989, Vedic Cosmography and
Astronomy, Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.
7. Rosen, p. 42.
8. Cremo, Michael and Thompson, Richard, 1992, Forbidden
Archeology, San Diego: Bhaktivedanta Institute.
9. Drake, Stillman, 1978, Galileo at Work,
Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.