Protected: K

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

varNAshrama-paryante?

varnashrama-paryante ya’pi nava-parampara asmabhih svayamkrta, sa parampara ativa-sthaula syat. manuvirachita-varnavibhajanam varsha-sahasradvayat prachalann asit, ata eva vayam tat vibhajanam ativa-sthaualm kathitum ashaknuma. parantu adhuna samayah agato’sti maha-parinamaya.

iti maya chintitam asmin vishaye upari. bhavatam sarvanam abhiprayah api atra rachaniyah, parantu kripaya devavanyam eva, na vanchami tat alpabuddhikah va dveshtarah va madiyam kujanam pathitum shaknuvanti.

varna-vibhajanasya bahu-upakarah asan. yatha anuvamshika-varge sarva-jatayah bhinnah manasika-kshamtayah samshlishtah santi. anena eva parantu asya vibhajanasya eva bahu-dushprayogah api santi. prathamam ganatantratayah samvaidhanika-niyaman ativa-durbalam karoti. sarva-jatayah svarthadrishtaya deshasya parimita-dravyan pashyanti. imani dravyani samanyataya vibhaktani syuh tu tritiyavishvasya dukhapurnakatha asti esha tat dravya-dushprayogena vikasakaryeshu bahu-badhah santi. parantu tathapi vayam angla-saksan-unmadatayah balih na bhavitum shaknumah asmin ranabhumau. tato pi kim karaniyam asmabhih.
kechana upayah santi atra.

1) bharataganarajyasya hindurashtrikaranam
2) ganarajasya samvaidhikaniyameshu parimita-adhikarah alpasankhyakanam krite.
3) namna ganarajyata svikritva api vastutah ekarajyatamargam anusaramah.
4) asmadiyau ubhayau mausala-antigrihadeshau purnataya nihantavyau stah.

antimalakshah sadhishtah asti. kutah yuddham ghoshitva hi ghoshyamananam prishte vishvena anusaritam sharavyam bhavishyati. arthika-nishedhaih khanditah bhavishyati asmakam deshah. idanim yathaiva rusiyah. ato eva prathamam asmadiya arthikasthitih bahu-sthaula syat.

Bhishma and Zeus

It’s long been theorized that Bhīṣma (“the terrible”, for the vow he had taken) Pitāmaha (patriarch) is an incarnation of the Vasu Dyaus; thus likely cognate to our ancestral PIE Sky Father (*Dyḗus ph₂tḗr). While we can look at many facets of this theorized relationship via the lens of comparative mythology – let us start with the circumstances of the Kuru patriarch’s birth itself. Then, let us compare this to the birth myth of Zeus Pater, King of the Olympians. If there are some similarities, then our hypothesis is reinforced: that the mighty Son of the Ganges is verily a reflux of the ancestral Sky Father. The word Zeus (Proto-Hellenic, *dzeus) is indeed a linguistic cognate of Dyaus (root: dyu) in Sanskrit; both are nominalizations and vriddhi derivatives of the PIE root (*dyeu) for the sky, heaven.

We shall assume that people reading this are familiar with the birth stories of both Bhīṣma and of Zeus. A short summary nonetheless: Bhishma is the Son of the River Goddess Ganga and the Kaurava Shantanu. He is born the last of eight male children born to the couple. However, Ganga drowns all of the previous seven ones. Then Shantanu has no more and asks her to stop when it is the turn of Bhishma, which she does. At that moment she reveals who she is and leaves him, as he had made the vow of never questioning what she does. The backstory is that the 8 children are the 8 vasus who were cursed for stealing the celestial cow, the Kamadhenu. The Seer Vasiṣṭha curses them to born as humans but says the 8th vasu will liberate them from the curse, though he himself will be cursed to spend a longer time on earth due to his primacy in the theft.

Similarly, Zeus is the son of the Titan Kronos and his sister Rhea. Kronos and Rhea themselves are the children of Ouranos (Uranus; Heaven) and Gaia (Earth). Kronos castrates his own father at the insistence of his mother. However, he is forewarned that just as he overthrew his father, his children will overthrow him. Because of this, he devours all his children the moment they are born; that is, except his last-born Zeus. Rhea gives birth to Zeus on Crete and tricks Kronos into thinking he has devoured him too. Eventually, Zeus grows up and gets Kronos to disgorge his 5 siblings. These 5 siblings:  Demeter, Hestia, Hera, Hades and Poseidon, defeat the Titans in the Titanomachy after which Zeus marries his sister Hera, just like his father.

Many similarities are visible, let’s list them out:

1. Many siblings are born (8 and 6 respectively), and are killed by one of their own parents (Ganga, Kronos). There is infanticide at birth itself.
2. All the victims are sequences of siblings
3. The last victim is the one that frees his siblings from the curse/doom that befell them.
4. The siblings are killed in the body of their parent (Ganga drowns them in her own waters, Kronos eats them and they are inside his stomach)
5. The other parent is extremley upset at this, but says nothing until the final sibling is about to be killed.
6. Temporary period where both surviving siblings are separated from their fathers (Ganga takes away Bhishma to educate him, while Rhea moves Zeus to Crete to protect him).

Thus, we find incredible homologies in the birth myths of the two celestial figures, which certainly cannot be purely coincidentary. There are a lot of other similarities in the life of Bhishma and Zeus (+Ouranos) as grown ups but we shall look at them in other posts, along with some of the differences. Conclusively, we show the case for Bhīṣma and Zeus Pater being homologous variants gains some reputable ground beyond mere linguistic association (Dyaus:Zeus)

Notes on Christianity

There are multiple internal contradictions in the gospels which cannot be resolved. Mark is the earliest (~70 CE) and John is the latest (~120-130 CE). Irreconcilable contradictions would lead to collapse of biblical inerrancy. The geographic accuracy portrayed in the gospels is irrelevant to the accuracy of their narrative. eg – if fig trees of rural Palestine are mentioned, doesn’t make the account about Jesus true. The people in the gospel accounts are rural Aramaic speakers in Palestine whilst urbanized Greek speakers are writing the Gospels. There was an oral tradition of Jesus and his life being carried forward and hence leading to changes in the story. eg- Judas Iscariot death story in Matthew vs Acts is totally different. The geneaology of Jesus is totally different as well.

We already know stories of Jesus were circulating orally and hence we have the non-canonical gospels (Timothy, Barnabes, Infancy gospel etc) and we know they’ve been changed. We know certain stories from the non-canonical gospels ended up in the Quran (eg- Jesus making clay birds come to life in the Quran is found in the Infancy gospel). Now the question is are the nicene gospels immune from errancy? do they preserve a perfect story? scholarly answer – firm no.

There is text fatigue in Matthew which shows he is copying Mark, sometimes he gets lazy and often omits key details.- eg Mark 6:14, King Herod but Matthew calls herod a “Tetrarch” and a king. These are different titles. This explains perfectly why Mark 13:30 said “this generation wont pass away until all these things have come to pass” while Matthew 24:36 says this about the parousia (But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.). Basically Matthew is writing later than Mark and has to come up with explanations as to why the end times have not come yet even though a generation has now passed.

The Gospel of John is the latest gospel. Matthew, Mark or Luke never talk about Jesus being god. The historical Jesus was an appocalyptic prophet. John is only gospel that calls him God and the only one in which Jesus makes bombastic claims such as John 8:48 (Before Abraham was, I am)

What did early Christians really believe in?

Well, it was saturated with dualistic appocalyptic thought. Jesus was an appocalyptic preacher. God vs Satan. Satan controlls demons and sin is literally a demonic force that is trying to enslave you and do its will. Now, Satan missing in the Old Testament of course.

These Jewish (Christians) thought that in the present age the forces of sin are in control, we have no control. They were pessimistic about their life, living under Roman yoke with periodic wars, famines, droughts etc. However, they thought God will make things right in an age to come. Then, God’s vindication will apply to those who died as well. Those who sided with God in this age will be rewarded. Those who sided with powers of sin will face eternal judgement. Powers of sin here are the ones with material wealth, political control etc. So the poor and pessimistic could feel “we aren’t wealthy but truly as we sided with Christ, the wealthy will be punished in the next age while we will be rewarded” – There will be judgement and reversal of fortunes. 

They felt the end is imminent. “Some of you standing here.. Mark 9:1” or Mark 13 “Truly i tell you, this generation will not pass before” Spitzer’s view. The son of man in the gospels is a cosmic judge different from Jesus.

The Messiah was the future annointed King of Israel, chosen by God. The Messiah was a human being. The historical Jesus thought he was the Messiah. He thought he was the future King to rule Israel. And herein lies the real reason why Jesus was crucified. He was killed not because he was an appocalyptic prophet (there were thousands of such Jews in that time in Palestine) but he was killed because he dared to claim to be the King of the Jews and of Israel, thus challenging Roman authority. He had 12 disciples who would rule the 12 tribes and Jesus will be the ruler. So, Jesus was exectued for calling himself King of the Jews. Pontius asks him “are you the king of the jews?” and on his cross, when he had been crucified it said “here lies the king of the jews”

Judas went to authorities and told them this, quite probably. Jesus was not planning to die, he thought the son of man would arrive and he’d be installed as King. The betrayal of Judas was the betrayal of Christ’s secret message to his disciples that he would be King of the Jews in the future. Judas told this to the Romans.

The earliest christians believed Jesus was born human and made divine at his resurrection. How do we know this? Well, Paul looks like occassionally he’s quoting something, a pre-literary tradition. We can use philological means to understand when Paul quotes this pre-literary oral tradition and then compare the accounts/descriptions of Jesus in the oral tradition vs. otherwise. The views in the oral tradition won’t be that of Paul personally unlike other parts of his gospel and letters. This gives us a chance to look at possible authentic statements of the earliest christians. Romans 1:3-4 says that Jesus became the son of god by his resurrection.

Jesus was the adopted son of god for early christians. Adopted children in the roman world had a high status unlike today. They had to have a good character, which is why they were adopted. So some early christians thought Jesus was adopted son of god. Here starts a backward movement of Christology- when did he become the son of god? early christians kept pushing back the date. First they say he became the son of god at his resurrection, then they say no he became the son of god when he was baptized. Then it finally changes to no, he the was son of god when he was already born. It finally changes to he was god himself and always has been god. We can notice how cultic devotion to Christ keeps upending his divine status and how early Christians keep attributing claims to him that he never made himself. A Jewish man who had simply claimed to be the Messiah (a human being) and the future King of the Jews had now been raised to the literal status of God himself, a claim that would’ve likely horrified the historical Jesus.

The stories of Jesus born of a virgin are not found in Paul or Mark, only in Matthew or Luke. (This is similar to a divine being, a Greek god, impregnating a human to produce an immortal). Early christians eventually started saying Christ was exalted even from before his birth. This leads to exaltation vs incarnation christology.

Paul thought Christ was an angelic being who become a human being. Once again we look at a pre-literary oral tradition with the Bible. The Phillipians Hymn. Christ became like a human, he became humbled and he died. Jesus has been exalted to status of god. He did not start out equal with god, he was in the “form of god” (divine being) and wanted a life of service but god had raised him to his level after seeing his sacrifice. The Christology of John is even higher, it is the most exalted theology. Exalted here means the status accorded to Christ. John says the word is with god, the word is christ. It is an independent entity like shabda brahman. This word of god became a human being for our sake. Thus, the resurrection is the key of christology, the resurrection leads to the claims of Jesus being exalted to becoming divine.

Part of the psychological reason why devotion to Christ necessarily meant you had to exalt him was that if you could just be a good person by following the jewish laws, then what is the point of following christ? this retrospective thinking makes early christians believe his death was substitutary atonement. 

In the gospel of john, there is a much harsher stance on jews probably because Johannians were a community of ex-jews kicked out of their synagogue because of believing in christ. (jews not children of abraham but of devil). closed community – johannians.

Some comparisons to Egyptian myths. The Osiris myth, cut into pieces. His wife Isis puts the pieces together and he becomes the ruler of the underworld. Similarly Christ is murdered and becomes lord of all? but Osiris never comes back to life, lives in underworld.

Is it perfectly acceptable to write books under other peoples names? no, – forgery. pseudoepigraphical books are just forgeries. (more on this later).

Modalism was a popular view in 3rd century Christianity. They said that God has 3 modes. Just like a man can be a husband, father and a son. However, Tertullian refuted this and said you cannot have something and be that thing. you cannot have a father and be the father. The Council of Nicea is chiefly Arian vs Alexander. Arian’s view that the son was created by the father is rejected. If God created the son it means god was not the father at one point of time, if he became the father it means he changed. If he changed, it means he’s not perfect. Hence god was always the son father and holy spirit all at the same time.

To conclude, we understand a few things quite well. Jesus Christ was a Jew, an appocalyptic prophet like thousands of others in 1st century Palestine. He never thought he was God, neither did the earliest Christians think he was God. He claimed to be the human Messiah of the Jewish bible and claimed to be the future King of Israel and the Jews. He was crucified by the Romans because he claimed to be the King of Israel. There were oral accounts of his life circulating for 40-50 years before someone decided to write them down (Mark did this the first around 70 CE). The Gospels are based off oral accounts and hence often contradictory. These deepset internal contradictions in Christian scripture, as simple as the geneaology of Jesus ensure they can never be “inerrant” as otherwise claimed. The Gospels are thus unreliable. Further, the Gospels are forgeries and have had multiple verses added on to them by later christians (Byzantine scribes) – More on these two points later. The Gospel that emphatically says Jesus is God is the Gospel of John, which is the latest one and was written approximately 100 years after Christ’s death. Christ was a man who eventually was deified by early Christians, no doubt due to Hellenic pagan influence. In fact, his earliest descriptions (beard, long hair, white robe) would all be taken from descriptions of say Zeus or Poseidon. No doubt, it was not that hard for Hellenic pagans to accept the worship of a man as God, as they’d been doing for so long. In this manner, the syncretization and deification of Christ helped spread Christianity much more easily in the Roman Empire than a purely Jewish and monotheistic faith would’ve spread. The trinity was created solely to justify the status of Christ as God.

Christianity thus is quite certainly euhemerism, or a religion in which the mythology is based of a historical figure who was made God by his devotees.

This answers the question C.S Lewis had asked us a while ago – Lewis says that Christ was either lunatic, liar or the lord. He had of course mistakenly assumed Christ ever thought he was God in the first place, or his earliest followers had thought the same.

We were only axes

न ध्यातं पदम् ईश्वरस्य विधिवत्संसारविच्छित्तये
स्वर्गद्वारकवाटपाटनपटुर्धर्मोऽपि नोपार्जितः ।
नारीपीनपयोधरोरुयुगलं स्वप्नेऽपि नालिङ्गितं
मातुः केवलमेव यौवनवनच्छेदे कुठारा वयम् ॥

We did not meditate on the feet of God
To cut away the cord of wordly existence
As had been required of us
We did not lead lives pious enough
To be worthy to walk through the gates of heaven,
Even in our dreams, we did not embrace those pair of wide breasts of damsels
We were only axes, cutting down the forests of our mothers youth.

(Bhratrhari, Vairagya Shataka 45)

_{Translation gloss–– na; no, dhyAtam; meditated, padam; feet, iishvarsya; of God, vidhivat; in accordance with our duty, saMsaaravichChittaye; to cut off worldly existence, svarga; heaven, dvaara; door, kavaaTa; gate, paaTana; asundering, paTuH; worthy, dharmo.api; even dharma, nopaarjitaH; not gathered, mAtuH; of mother, kevalameva; only even; yauvana; youth, vana; forest, Cheda; cutting, kuThaara; logs, vayam; we}

The Islamization of Kashmir

shriivara in his 16th century zainatara~Nginii describes how the hindus were converting to islam in the first few decades of the 1500s and adopting the customs of the mausala (musalman) and being embarassed of the religion of their forefathers.

तथाहि वणिजः केचित् स्वाचारं हिन्दुकोचितम्।
त्यक्त्वा पुरान्तरे चक्रुर् हत्वा गोमांसभक्षणम्॥

“In this manner even, some merchants abandoned their own customs. Customs which are fit for the hindu people and after having [killed some cows] in the city, they ate their meat”

येनैव पितरो याता येन याताः पितामहाः।
तद्दर्शने अत्र तत्पुत्रास् त्रपन्ते मौसुलप्रियाः॥

“Their children, who adore the mausala [mohammedans] are ashamed of the religion [hinduism] which had been practiced by their fathers and which had been practiced by their grand-fathers.

प्रत्यब्दं तिथिकार्याणि पुराणोक्तानि कानिचित्।
विस्मृतानि दुराचारात् कथं न स्युर् दुरापदः॥
मण्डलेऽस्मिन् दुराचारश् चातुर्वर्ण्ये विराजते।

“Every year, due to their wicked behavior, they forget some of the rituals & sacred dates that are uttered in the purANa-s. Why then will they not face misery? In this kingdom terrible customs are now dominant among the four castes.”

Ferghana Valley, Early Corded Ware and Slavic DNA in Greeks

A summary of some recent genetic research and some of my own speculations. We now know that the early Corded Ware (>2600 BCE) were essentially just Yamnaya with R1a. The fringe theory that the CWC spoke were Proto-Uralic speakers has been put to rest. The missing links connecting CWC and Yamnaya are closer to being solved with this paper. After Haak and Damgard et al, the elephant in the room was how did the predominantly R1b-Z2103 Yamnaya transmorg into the R1a-M417 Corded Ware? And what about the Bell-Beakers with their R1b-P312? Here are the key findings.

• Earliest CWC individuals till date, STD003 (northwestern Bohemia, 3010 to 2889 calibrated (cal) BCE), VLI076 (central Bohemia, 3018 to 2901 cal BCE), OBR003 (central Bohemia, 2911 to 2875 cal BCE), and PNL001 (eastern Bohemia, 2914 to 2879 cal BCE), showing that CW was widespread across Bohemia by 2900 BCE.

• The first genomic data from CW individuals without steppe ancestry, thereby elucidating the social processes of interaction between CW and pre-CW people. Observing only females (four of four) among early CW individuals without steppe ancestry (Figs. 2B and 3C) suggests that the process of assimilating pre-CW people into early CW society was female-biased. The CW non-steppe females were carrying significantly more HG ancestry than the Bohemian MNeolithic cluster.
  
• A sharp reduction in Y-chromosomal diversity going from five different lineages in early CW (mean age > 2600 BCE) to a dominant (single) lineage in late CW (Fig. 4A). R1a-M417 (xZ645) went from 27% of all lineages in early CWC to more than 91% of all lineages in late CWC. This was a nonrandom increase in frequency with these males having 16% more surviving offspring per generation relative to males of other Y-haplogroups. Population bottleneck is ruled out as change in Y-frequency is extreme compared to changes in autosomal frequencies within the same males. The Y-lineage in early CWC males was supplanted by a nonrandom process.

This suggests a few things. Yamnaya or a Yamnaya-like culture founded the CWC (VL1076 dated to 3018 BCE shows nearly 95% Yamnaya-like ancestry). The founding lineage was likely already higher in R1a (20%~) than standard Yamnaya Samara (from which I know of zero published R1a samples). R1a and R1b were likely carried by different sub-clans with strict patrilocal ancestry & patrilineal descent. There was a conflict or struggle which wiped out the R1b lines (which was by far the most dominant line in Yamnaya proper) and the R1a males with high reproductive fitness & exogamous marriage secured their dominance. Further, the victorious R1a clan must have also taken european neolithic farmer & hunter-gatherer women for wives (as evident by the 4 Corded Ware women with zero steppe ancestry). This may sound gruesome but keep in mind the chance that paternal lineages in a war-like and deeply patriarchal bronze age horizon switched peacefully is far-fetched fantasy that best not belong here. The alternative is R1a clans were more successful at getting mates (due to wealth possibly?) and just eventually outcompeted the R1b clans. To what extent this can be separated from violence between the two, I’m not sure.

David Anthony has suggested that R1a was present in Yamnaya all along but was not an elite lineage (hence not being buried in Kurgans). He seems to hint at some sort of social struggle perhaps to do with the relative inequality faced by the R1a plebians culminating in an “overthrown of the patricians” and supplantation of the lineages.

He says and I quote.

“Later Corded Ware populations, although derived from Yamnaya ancestry, were largely Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a, which had been present in the steppes during the Eneolithic and could have remained present but been excluded from kurgans through the Yamnaya era, re-emerging as a dominant male lineage in in the Corded Ware population. This shifting of male lineages within a broadly related set of steppe-derived populations could indicate a succession ofrestricted male-defined clans gaining access to political power and to memorialization under prominent burial mounds while excluding other males from such positions. The regionally suppressed patrilines such as those that inherited the R1a haplotype would in this case have become almost invisible archaeologically in the steppes because of their exclusion from Yamnaya kurgan graves, but then emerged as migrants in central Europe. Social and politicalcompetition between patrilines could have encouraged migration to new regions. But if burial under a kurgan was restricted in this way, then aDNA is sampling only the dominant elite, notthe whole population”

A counter to this argument may be that either Yamnaya lacked R1a completely (leading to another implication, discussed below) or they had it but it was a very small lineage that only gained steam during the CWC expansion of R1a lines. Hundreds of Yamnaya samples have been published and not all were in Kurgans but none have R1a. This would work against Anthony’s hypothesis.

We now look at the Bell-Beakers.

• Bohemia_earlyBB (>2400 BCE) and lateBB (<2400 BCE). Late BB carry 20% additional middle-eneolithic ancestry. R1b-L151 is the most common Y-lineage among early CW males (6 of 11, 55%) and one branch ancestral to R1b-P312 (Fig. 4A), the dominant Y-lineage in BB (5). Although it is not possible to determine whether the P312 mutation(s) occurred in one of the early CW R1b-L151 males from Bohemia, we note that most Bohemian BB males are further derived at R1b-L2/S116 (R1b1a1a2b1), in contrast to BB males from England whom are derived at R1b-L21(R1b1a1a2c1), showing that English and Bohemian BB males cannot be descendants of one another, but rather diversified in parallel.

The takeaway from this is that while we do not have R1b-P312 sampled in the CWC per se, the ancestral lineage to it is already found in the CWC. One of the late CWC samples has R1b-Z2103 which pretty much confirms relation with the Yamnaya (among whom this is the dominant Y-lineage).

There is only one open ended question left here, that is where did the CWC come from? Were they actually descendants of the Yamnaya or perhaps close cousins that descend from a related (but presently unsampled) group between the forest & arid steppe?

Coming to the Ferghana Valley now, two interesting individuals from Uzbekistan are spotted in Narasimhan et al 2018. Both of them (I4255, I4153) are carbon dated to 3050 ybp which puts them at around 1100 BCE. Both of them carry R1a but I4255 carries R1a-Z93. The Z93 clade is by far the most supradominant one in the Indian subcontinent accounting for nearly all R1a lineages there. I4153 has mtDNA U5b2b and I4255 has mtDNA N1a1a1a1, both of which are mtDNA found in the Yamnaya and other WSH populations. What is remarkable is just how close to India these two men were buried. The Ferghana Valley lies right above the Pamir and the Hindu Kush. It is also just next to, in fact a few miles away from Alexandria Eschate (Alexandria the furthest), the furthest Greek settlement in Asia.

I ran these Ferghana Valley samples up to check their putative admix and here are the results. Nearly 68% Yamnaya ancestry with a small bit of 2.2% Paniya (AASI-like) ancestry in I4255. I4153 has negligible Paniya ancestry.

Finally, I’d like to look at the Greeks. We’ve known for a long time modern Greeks have a substantial Slavic contribution in their DNA but just how much, we don’t know. I decided to model modern Greeks as a mix of GRC_Myceanean and Hun_Avar_Szolad (as proxy for Slavs who invaded Greece around the 6th century CE under the leadership of the Pannonian Avars). Here were the results.

Anatolian Greeks and Cypriots were very bad fits, this was expected as they had almost little no influence from the Slavic invasions. However, the rest of Greece, especially the Peloponnese saw a good chunk of Slavic intrusion rising up to the 40s in %

The Indian Tragedy

European literary critics and auteurs have considered the tragedy to be the sine qua non of drama inheriting some of the tradition of Greek and Shakespearean tragedy. As Oscar Wilde said, “There are times when sorrow seems to me to be the only truth. Other things may be illusions of the eye or the appetite, made to blind the one and cloy the other, but out of sorrow have the worlds been built, and at the birth of a child or a star there is pain.”

Even in the pre-Christian era, we had Aristotle saying “For Tragedy is an imitation, not of men, but of an action and of life, and life consists in action, and its end is a mode of action, not a quality“

Tragedy then for the western dramaturgist is the confrontation of the reality of the human condition on the stage. It is serious, sad and hapless. It is also then the gravest and hence the most philosophical expression of art there is. If the search is for a Hamlet or an Oedipus Rex in Indian kāvya, then it is not hard to see why westerners are so often disappointed with classical sanskrit kāvya. To them, the world of the kāvya is devoid of unhappy endings –– it is purely fantastical & magical. A fairy-tale in every play and every scene. A dance of the Gods. It catches the eye but it misses the mark as it isn’t real. There is no seriousness. There are no wellsprings of sorrow in kāvya, they say. A distinction is made between the Indian epics (itihāsa) and later classical kāvya. It is said that the former are much like the epics of Greece in content; they’re tipped to the rim with sorrow, blood, gore, violence and heartbreak. The myriad of emotions that make up the human condition. However, the latter (kāvya) is denigrated as the zenith of la-la-land. Judgement is laid down; grief is true confrontation with truth. As kāvya lacks tragedy, it lacks the means to use art as a medium to confront the truth of human nature.

This facile viewpoint, however, is flawed for some reasons. We must first understand what the tragedy really is seen from the western perspective. Western tragedy is understood with its design, the frame which is nihilistic. It has always the unhappy ending, with the debacle of death (lacking which it becomes a “tragicomedy”). Lofty characters with balanced emotional distributuons who with their own indelible hamartia (ἁμαρτία) or fatal flaw (or sometimes by pure chance) will unravel the whole narrative and end in a nadir of despair. There is one trope, which the characters will lead up to with suffering at the end of the play. There is existential anxiety and moral conflict, caused often by the tragic flaw of the protagonist.

Armed with this brief knowledge, we must ask ourselves how the ancient Indians viewed the tragic? In kāvya, tragedy is an inner process, an inner response to grief with its own telos. The human condition is tragic, (duḥkha the mark of life as the bauddhas say) and it is tragically subject to endless rebirth. Tragedy is not a structure or dramatic external trope, it is the inner failure that is experienced upon finding oneself in helpless circumstances. It is then the poet’s representation of the various states of consciousness as they confront and explain loss or failure. It’s a psychological perturbation that alters the spirit. We are dealing here with the phenomenology of grief. Tragedy is something that is a part of the narrative development and not the end of the drama in itself. The tragic middles of Kālidāsa are truly tragic for they deal with the character’s response to a tragic event, with the full kaleidoscope of experiences leading to a tragic breakage in the middle, which may lead to a structural resolution in the end. So, upon broadening our conception of what makes up the tragedy –– we think of it less as something structural defined by an ending and more as something experiential. As consciousness encountering & being readied by the world. The European conception of tragedy suggests that something is tragic not by virtue of how the character feels, however significant and altering, and how he or she may choose to learn from this feeling but by delimitation of the contextual structure that leaves them with no choice to respond but gives only one negative consequence: destruction. Western tragedy then makes the mistake of looking for suffering at the end of the play and not inside it.

It is fitting then that the traditional first-poet (ādikavi) of sanskrit kāvya, Vālmīki composed the first verse of classical sanskrit poetry (ādi-śloka) mired in grief upon seeing a hunter slay the male partner of a couple of krauñcha birds in the guileless act of lovemaking. Seeing the female bird heart-broken, her idyllic irreparably splintered – Vālmīki cursed the hunter.

mā niṣāda pratiṣṭhāṁ tvam agamaḥ śāśvatīḥ samāḥ
yat krauñcamithunād ekam avadhīḥ kāmamohitam

It was “grief that became poetry” (śokaḥ ślokatvam āgataḥ). Poetry then, arose from the tragic.

Maga Brahmins

The origin story of the Maga alias Shakadviipiya brAhmaNas is discussed in some detail in the saura saamba upapurANa, the bhaviShya purANa, bhUmi parva of the Mbh, brahma purANa & the viShNu purANa. The bR^ihat saMhita of varahamihira (likely a Maga Brahmin himself) also mentions that the Maga Brahmins are the solar priests premier, who install the idol of the sun (मगांश् च सवितुः). This statement from the 6th century work makes it certain the Magas were well established by end of classical anqituity in India. As for Varahamihira’s origins; a few things make it clear. He opens the bR^ihatsamhita with an invocation to the sun & closes it by stating his family are sun-worshippers (his father is called Adityadasa). If any other confirmation of this is needed, we find the commentator bhaTTa upala call Varahamihira as a “magadha-dvIja” (in the bhaviShya purANa the term magadha is used interchangebly with maga brAhmaNa). Having established this, we now jump 500 years into the future and find historical era corroboration of the presence of Maga Brahmins in the Govindapura inscription (Shaka Era 1059, 1137 AD) found in the Gaya district of vA~Nga desha.

Before we look at the inscription & samba purANa account, a prefatory note is necessary. It is without a doubt certain the Magas were Iranic solar priests (c.f Maga > Magi) who were assimilated into Hindu culture & even varNAshrama dharma, rising to the rank of brAhmaNas-s. Both purANa-s mention they used to wear an avyanga thread on their waist. This is nothing else except the Mazdayasna equivalent of the yaj~Nopavita (sacred thread). It is known as kushti in Pahlavi and aiwyAonghana in Avestan (lit. girded around. Notice the first prefix “aiwi” cognate with abhi of Skt). Interestingly, the Zoro have their own term for upavIta (with the thread) called hadha-aiwyanghanem (lit. with the girdle) and the negative in anaiwyasto (lit. ungirded) corresponding to Sanskrit anupavIta. It has 72 threads (representing 72 chapters of the yasna and is tied around 3 times representing the Mazdayasna concept of good thought, word & deed).

The saamba purANa story goes that saamba gets sick (kuShTharoga or leprosy) due to a curse given by his father kR^iShNa and is told to do sUryopAsana (sun worship) to get healed. He goes to chandrabhAgA river (modern day Chenab in Punjab) & does tapasyA. Now, sUrya cures him & tells him to install an idol of him on the Chenab. He also gives him a boon that this city will be renowned as sAmbapura.

ज्ञात्वा संतारयामास चन्द्रभागां महानदीम् ।। ततो मित्रवनं गत्वा तीर्थं त्रैलोक्य विश्रुतम् । उपवासकृशः साम्बः शुष्को धमनि सन्ततः ।आराधनार्थ सूर्यस्य गुह्यं स्तोत्रमिदं जगौ । तन्मुमोच मलं शाम्बो देहात्वचमिवोरगः । ततो लब्धवरः शाम्बो रूपवांश्चाभवत्पुनः ।। स्थापयस्व च मामास्मिंश्चन्द्रभागातटे शुभे । त्वत्समानमिंद चापि पुरं शाम्ब ! भविष्यति ।।

Not sure about the identity of mitravana here ( ततो मित्रवनं गत्वा), could be Multan? or some other place. Another clue lies here, leprosy was a disease the Persians thought to be a curse of the sun. So as to not get cursed, solar worship was necessary. We see Herodotus make a mention of this:

ὃς ἂν δὲ τῶν ἀστῶν λέπρην ἢ λεύκην ἔχῃ, ἐς πόλιν οὗτος οὐ κατέρχεται οὐδὲ συμμίσγεται τοῖσι ἄλλοισι Πέρσῃσι: φασὶ δέ μιν ἐς τὸν ἥλιον ἁμαρτόντα τι ταῦτα ἔχειν (Histories 1.138)

Regardless, The Mbh (vulgate text) reference to them and says that in the island of Shakadvipa, (likely Sistan in Iran or Sakastan – land of the Scythians) one of the four classes are Magas who are Brahmins.

तत्र पुण्या जनपदाश चत्वारॊ लॊकसंमताः
मगाश च मशकाश चैव मानसा मन्दगास तथा
मगा बराह्मणभूयिष्ठाः सवकर्मनिरता नृप

Interestingly enough, a nearly identical account exists in the brahma purANa (Chapter 18). The account tells us varNAshrama is well established in shakadvipa and also that the people live in peace, worship viShNu as the sun & are dharmic.

The sAmba purANa account now mentions that one day, an idol of sUrya turns up on the banks of the river that sAmba notices, picks up and installs it in mitravana. Then we are told vishwakarma made the mUrti from the wood of the kalpavR^ikSha. Finally, sUrya commands sAmba to bring his worshippers (magas) from shakadvipa & sAmba brings 18 families of magas.

सतु गृह्य ततस्तानि दश चाष्टौ कुलानि च । मम पूजाकश ह्येते प्रजानां शान्तिकारकाः । मम पूजाविधानोक्तां करिष्यन्ति मनोऽनुगाम ।। प्राप्य शाकद्वीपमनु संप्रहृष्टतनूरूहः । तत्रापश्यद्यथो द्दिष्टान् साम्बस्तेजस्विनोमगान् ।।

Finally, we take a look at the Govindapur inscription. The text is a bit broken but general meaning can be understood. Attached below will be an English translation from Epigraphica Indica.

देवो जोयात्रिलोकीमणिरयमरणो यन्निवासेन पुण्यः शाकद्वीप दुग्धाम्बु निधिवलयितो यत्र विग्रे मगाख्या । वंशस्तव ” द्विजानां भ्रमिलिखिततनो (र्ब्भा )स्वतः स्वाङ्ग

“Hail to that gem of the thre worlds, the divine Aruņa,” whose presence sanctifies the milk-ocean-encircled Shakadvipa where the Brahmans are named Magas! There a race of twice-born [sprang] from the sun’s own body, grazed by the lathe,“ whom Sâmba himself brought bither. Glorious are they, honoured in the world ! The first of them was an abode of all vedic lore and of the knowledge of the supreme soul, and wholly occupied in thoughts” familiar with every sacrificial rite, that sage Bharadvaja whose penance could both deliver and destroy the world, and in , like a garland of the great race of the Maga twice-born“

The author goes on to trace his descent from Bharadwaja (who he considers the first Maga Brahmin), thus confirming the author of the inscription himself was a Maga Brahmin living in Bengal at the time. Indeed, in modern times the descendants of these Maga Brahmins are found chiefly in Magadha only. They call themselves Shakadvipiya or Maga Brahmins & outwardly (ritually, physiognomically) resemble the local Brahmins of the region. Hence, we realize the Magi priests of the Medians had an incredibly successful capacity to assimilate into related cultures, all the while maintaining their status as priests in the new culture too. The Magis, who were initially likely Median priests first managed to assimilate into the Mazdayasna Persian hierarchy, becoming the chief priesthood of the Achaemenid & Sassanid Empires and then they managed to even convince the insular Hindu Brahmins to accept them as one of their own. No doubt, the close similarities of the Iranians and Indo-Aryans played a long role in this. The Magas seem to have served the specific function of teaching sUrya-pratimA construction to the Hindus. The sAmba purANa has an account of this:

न पुरा प्रतिमा ह्यासीत् पूज्यते मण्डले रविः
यथैतान् मण्डलं व्योम्नि स्थीयते सवितुस्तदा
एवमेव पुरा भक्तैः पूज्यते मण्डलाकृतिः
यतः प्रभृति चप्येषा निर्मिता विश्वकर्मणा
सर्वलोकहितार्थाय सूर्यस्य पुरुषाकृतिः

In the past, there was no pratimA (idol) of sUrya. Instead, his devotees worshipped him by drawing maNDala-s on the ground. This adds up and probably hints at the non-idolatrous nature of sun worship of vedic times where sUrya was worshipped in maNDala form, as an orb or discus. Then, vishwakarma constructed a pratimA for the usage of all sun-worshippers. Likely, this hints to the usage of the Maga forms of sUrya iconography in clothes as well anthropomorphy.

Twilight of Hindu Science

This post will provide some notes from the original works of one of the greatest mathematician-astronomers of the pre-Renaissance world; Achārya Nīlakaṇṭha Somayajī, the esteemed Namboodiri Brāhmaṇa of the Kerala School of Mathematics from South Malabar in Kerala. His illam was (house) was Keḷallūr and he was of the Gārgya lineage (Ashvalayana Rigvedi). He lived a fulfilling life, ripe enough to be a centenarian (1444-1550) when he attained sadgati. Enough with the introduction, alam vistarena; to brass talks. Before reading this post, read my earlier post on Somayajī.

Somayājī with absolute certainty disproves the idea that the Hindu did not utilize the scientific method to gather data, analyze it, prove or disprove a hypothesis and modify previous conclusions based on new data or that the Hindus’ were “superstitious” and believed their science literally came from a God and hence was infallible. He is extremley critical of this irrational view in his Jyotirmīmāṃsa and says:

ननु तपोभि : प्रसन्नो ब्रह्मा आर्यभटाय भगणपरिध्यादिकं ग्रहगणनसाधनभूतं संख्याविशेषमुपदिदेश । तदुपदिष्टं पुनरार्यभट: सर्वं यथोपदिष्टमेव दशभिर्गीतिभिः निबबन्ध इति केचिन्मन्यन्ते । तस्य कुत: परीक्षणम् ब्रह्मणः सर्वज्ञत्वात् रागद्वेषाद्य भावाच्च अवितथ्त्वनिश्चयात् इति चेत् -मन्द ! मैवम् । देवताप्रसादो मतिवैमल्यहेतुरेव । न च पुनः ब्रह्मा आदित्यो वा स्वय मेवागत्य उपदिशेत्। एवमेव वक्ष्यति चानन्तरसूत्रे – न पुनः ब्रह्मोपदिष्टं सदसज्ज्ञानसमुद्रनिमग्नम् । न च तत्र सङ्कीर्णता । सदसज्ज्ञानयोः असज्ज्ञानमनादाय स्वमतिनावा सज्ज्ञानस्यैव उत्तमरत्नस्योद्धरणमुपपद्यते । तस्माद् ब्रह्मणोपदिष्टमित्येतद् आर्यभटीपवाक्ये नैव विरुद्धम् ।

“Certainly some say that Brahma was pleased with Aryabhaṭa’s tapas and taught him math and specific calculations related to the planets. Then Aryabhaṭa simply passed down this knowledge. Some people believe this. Therefore, what is the need of testing those results? Brahman is omniscient, the results cannot be untrue. Thus, they rejoice. Wrong, this is not how it is! When the Gods are pleased, they give us pureness of thought [which is the cause for our success]. Brahma or Aditya do not come down [to earth] themelves and teach us [the sciences]. Aryabhaṭa himself says this in the Golapāda. Therefore, never again shall we sink into the ocean of confused knowledge. We reject false knowledge and with the power of our mind we create the the excellent gem of true knowledge”

Hence, Nīlakaṇṭha was of the view that the Gods inspire us to do research but knowledge is solely human, humanly acquired and prone to be wrong as time passes {if it isn’t tested}. Somayājī goes on to show how Aryabhaṭa himself had his calculations corrected over the centuries by other scientists in the tradition. He then gives a pramāṇa from the shruti (Taittiriya Araṇyaka 1.2.1) to show that anumāna (inference) and pratyakṣa (perception) are both to be used along with aitihya (tradition) in scientific study. Indeed, this is why Somayājī holds Aryabhaṭa in the highest regard (due to his emphasis on proper methods of experimentation and repeated observation of natural phenomenon like eclipses to arrive at conclusions). In fact, Somayājī goes one step further and says he disagrees with Rishi Parāśara and gives more authority to Aryabhaṭa’s work rather the Suryasiddhanta.

Somayājī says that contemporary experimentations are extremley necessary to reach a proper accuracy of calculating planetary motion. He goes on to say:

तस्मात् शिष्यप्रशिष्यपरम्परया सर्वैरपि परीक्षणं कार्यम् । शिष्याणां ग्रहगतिपरोक्षासामर्थ्यापादनमेव शास्त्रप्रयोजनम् करणानामेव हि व्यावहारिकत्वं सूक्ष्मत्वं च स्यात्

“Therefore, experimentation has to be done by each generation of researchers [disciples] and their grand-disciples. The foundation of science is teaching the students the ability to conduct proper experimentation [by which they can advance the relevant field of study, here being planetary motion]”

Somayājī goes on to say that he prefers the karaṇa-s (astronomical manuals) that contain uptodate accurate observations with contemporary data. This shows us the emphasis placed by Hindu scientists on proper experimentation, data collection and its constant updation from one generation to another if it has to have any validity at all.

Nīlakaṇtha’s greatest contribution to the world was his geoheliocentric cosmological model, which said the planets orbit the sun which in turn orbits the earth, one step ahead of the dominant geocentric view that had prevailed for millenia. The same model would be proposed by Tycho Brahe 200 years later, by whose name it is known now. Somayājī’s calculations on planetary orbit around the sun stayed the most accurate until Kepler published his work centuries later. It must be mentioned that his guru, Parameshvara was notable for providing 55 years worth of observed experimental data on eclipses which was made use of by Somayājī. Thus, the twilight of Hindu science sparkled before the eery silence of stagnation set in; not to be discovered again until the 19th century and not to be given its due till this one and counting.