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.

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.”

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.

Ibn Khaldun

Ibn Khaldun was a remarkable scholar, for many reasons. If you have used the term Asabiyyah or heard of it, then you have him to thank. His work is a glistening blade of reason tearing apart the shroud of darkness which covered the High Middle Ages. To us, he shows a unique ability to detach his own atomicity from the chaos around him & dissect his own culture with nothing else but the power of his rational mind. An ability perhaps only mirrored by the Ancient Greeks. He begins his magnum opus, Muqaddimah by making a prefactory statement on the importance of the authority of truth arrived at by logic, the spectre held by the logos of man;

Little effort is being made to get at the truth. The critical eye, as a rule, is not sharp. Errors and unfounded assumptions are closely allied and familiar elements in historical information. Blind trust in tradition is an inherited trait in human beings. Occupation with the (scholarly) disciplines on the part of those who have no genuine claim to them is widespread. But the pasture of stupidity is unwholesome for mankind. No one can stand up against the authority of truth, and the evil of falsehood is to be fought with enlightening speculation. The reporter merely dictates and passes on (the material). It takes critical insight to sort out the hidden truth; it takes knowledge to lay truth bare and polish it so that critical insight may be applied to it. Still, after all has been, said, I am conscious of imperfections when I look at the work of scholars past and present. I confess my inability to penetrate so difficult a subject. I wish that men of scholarly competence and wide knowledge would look at the book with a critical, rather than a complacent eye, and silently correct and overlook the mistakes they come upon. The capital of knowledge that an individual scholar has to offer is small. Admission (of one’s shortcomings) saves from censure. Kindness from colleagues is hoped for. It is God whom I ask to make our deeds acceptable in His sight. He is a good protector..

Khaldun’s self-reflective criticism was not unique to him but certainly tastes good to our modern tastebuds. We cherish thinkers who are capable of pressing pause, taking back a look at their own mistakes and telling us about it. Works filled with uncritical and senseless arrogance or those that privilege divine revelation over reason leave our mouths sour, longing for the rasa of more balanced thoughts. What made Khaldun truly one of a kind was he attempted to give us a Theory of Civilization using naturalistic epistemology.

In the work, I commented on civilization, on urbanization, and on the essential characteristics of human social organization, in a way that explains to the reader how and why things are as they are, and shows him how the men who constituted a dynasty first came upon the historical scene. As a result, he will wash his hands of any blind trust in tradition. Civilization may be either desert (Bedouin) civilization as found in outlying regions and mountains, in hamlets (near) pastures in waste regions, and on the fringes of sandy deserts; or it may be sedentary civilization as found in cities, villages, towns, and small communities that serve the purpose of protection and fortification by.

He goes on to explain why the polis is the natural outcome of man’s social nature and his need for relying upon community to consume all the goods that he cannot produce himself and for protection against the dangers of the natural world. He says that aggressiveness and injustice are the nature of man so every social order needs a restraining moral influence. A panacea is needed for the aggression of man against each other. This is where royal authority comes in. Authority therefore is necessary for the existence of the social order. Khaldun points out hierarchies exist even amongst bees and locusts. He now disagrees with the Islamic theologians who say a divinely revealed book and prophecy is necessary for moral order and says

This proposition of the philosophers is not logical, as one can see. Existence and human life can materialize without (the existence of prophecy) through injunctions a person in authority may devise on his own or with the help of a group feeling that enables him to force the others to follow him wherever he wants to go. People who have a (divinely revealed) book and who follow the prophets are few in number in comparison with the Magians who have none. The latter constitute the majority of the world’s inhabitants. Still, they have possessed dynasties and monuments, not to mention life itself. They still possess these things at this time in the intemperate zones to the north and the south. This is in contrast with human life in the state of anarchy, with no one to exercise a restraining influence. That would be impossible. 

To be continued.

I am Darius, an Aryan

Old Persian: baga vazraka auramazdā, hya imām būmim adā, hya avam asmānam adā, hya martiyam adā, hya šiyātim adā martiyahyā, hya dārayavaum xšāyaθiyam akunauš, aivam parūvnām xšāyaθiyam, aivam parūvnām framātāram, adam dārayavauš xšāyaθiya vazraka, xšāyaθiya xšāyaθiyānām, xšāyaθiya dahyūnām vispazanānām, xšāyaθiya ahyāyā būmiyā, vazrakāyā dūraiapiy vištāspahyā, puça haxāmanišiya pārsa pārsahyā, puça ariya ariyaciça 

This is the vulgate text of the DNa inscription (by Emperor Darius the First at Naqsh-e-Rostam, circa 490 BCE). I will attempt a rendering of this Old Persian (OPr) into Sanskrit [Skt]. Then we shall translate it into English. A thing to note is that I no knowledge of the OPr language. However, the striking intelligbility of the text caught me by surprise and motivated me to write this post. This post might serve to illustrate how much OPr someone who knows fluent Sanskrit (and some Indo-Iranian linguistics) can understand. I will attempt to place a cognate at every position rather than just translate meaning.

Sanskrit: bhagaḥ vājaḥ asuramedhaḥ, yat imām bhūmim adāt, yat amum aśmānam adāt, yat martyam adāt, yad ānandam adāt martyāya, yat dhāravasum kṣetāram akarot, ekam purūṇām kṣetāram, ekam purūṇām pramātāram, aham dhāravasuḥ kṣetā vājaḥ, kṣetā kṣetṝṇām (* kṣatriyaḥ kṣatriyāṇām) , kṣetā dasyūnām viśvajanānām, kṣetā asyām bhūmyām vājāyām, dūramapi viṣṭāśvasya putraḥ, sakhamanayaḥ pārasaḥ pārasasya, putraḥ āryaḥ āryacitraḥ

English: Great is the god Ahura Mazda, who gave [created] this earth, who gave that sky, who created mankind, who gave happiness to mankind,  who made Darius [lit. bearing good] the king,  one king of many,  one overlord of many.  I am Darius: great king,  king of kings, king of the lands of all men,  king on this great earth, far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenid, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan of Aryan descent.

Notes: A few things to note in the translation. I tried my best to literally reconstruct and reverse engineer each word back to its cognate root or noun. If none existed, I made my own nouns [like kṣetṛ from √kṣi “to rule”]. This caused some awkwardness, such as the word dasyu [enemy/slave in Skt] being used to denote “land” [cognate with dāhyu [land] in OPr]. I rendered the name “Darius” into Skt by calquing it. I did the same for Achaemenid. Darius in OPr is dārayavahu [lit. bearer of good]. This was easy to render into Skt as dhāravasu [m]. Achaemenid in OPr is haxamanishya [lit. companionship minded person] which I rendered as sakhamanaya in Skt. I also calqued ahurāmāzda [lit. god of wisdom] into asuramedha. I shifted the gender of medhā > medha using a bahuvrihi.

Coming to the ease or quirks of the reading. I understood maybe 50% on my first read and a lot more everytime I read a line closely trying to mentally reverse engineer words into Skt. The relative pronoun hya gave me trouble but I figured “great god ahura mazda, X gave this earth” was the perfect place for a relative clause which solved this mystery. The word šiyāti troubled me a lot though and I could not think of any cognate [either root or noun]. I don’t think any exists so I looked up the meaning in a dictionary and plugged in ānanda [bliss] for the Skt. Now, I wasn’t sure what role avam played. I went with a safe bet that it is related to asau/amu [that, yonder – Skt]. Asmāna of OPr did have a cognate which is aśman but this is used only for a stone in RV. A closer meaning is “cloud” but still not quite “sky” – But as it is a cognate, it will do in line with the scope of my translation being word-for-word. ariyaciça puzzled me for a while but the ingenuity struck me a lot once figured out! [āryacitra – in the image of an Aryan].

pagan science in christian rome – I

In the 400s CE, rome was divided into two halves:- the eastern half ruled by the emperor at constantinople covered anatolia, greece, thrace, syria, egypt, palestine. This half was administratively roman but culturally & linguistically greek. In this half of the mediterranean, koine greek had served as a lingua franca for centuries. In the western half in the areas of italy, north africa, gaul, hispania & britain – the lingua franca was latin. Educated roman aristocrats were educated in greek since birth. However, the layperson in the western half always had little to no knowledge of the greek language. Why is this important?

Natural philosophy & science in rome was almost entirely in ancient greek. the two main traditions of plato, aristotle and all their students wrote entirely in greek. Geometry – that of Euclid was entirely in greek. When the empire fell to the vandals & goths in the middle of the 5th century, with its fall the knowledge of greek in western rome vanished. Languages in these times were very hard to learn, especially ones like ancient greek. Native speakers were essential to help teach the language. There were no grammar books or structured courses in latin to learn greek. Another issue complicated things, the Greek language itself was changing & by the 700s Byzantine Greek had emerged which was radically different from the Koine spoken before. Koine itself was nearly 800 years removed from the language of Plato, Aristotle (Attic). Attic itself was removed another 400 years from the Greek of Homer & Hesiod. It was becoming very hard to read and understand the ancients for even native greek speakers, leave alone latins trying to learn the tongue.

One might ask, were not any famous greek works translated into latin? some. Half of the Timaeus of Plato (containing a cosmology with the demiurge as the creator, based on his theory of forms) was available in latin. This text was the only authentic platonic material the entire christian church had at its avail for nearly half a millenium. The church had more luck with Aristotle, the polymath founder of the Lyceum & possibly the most influential greek philosopher. A roman aristocrat named Anicus Boethius (480-520 CE) was fortunate enough to have received a proper education in Athens or Alexandria which rendered him fluent in Ancient Greek. Boethius allied himself with the germanic king Theodoric who was then ruling the now ravaged Rome. Taking on the rule of his prime minister; he had some short term success. Eventually, Boethius found himself imprisioned in Pavia due to being on the wrong side of a secret roman plot to depose of Theodoric & install a roman emperor. Boethius was innocent but took the side of the plotters who were his friends out of perhaps loyalty. Once in prison and sentenced to death, he found time for philosophy as his only companion. He likely realized the gravity of the situation (the fall of the classical world, along with it the disappearance of greek) and began on a mission to preserve classical knowledge by translating everything into latin.

Some scholars speculate that though born a christian, he probably reverted to paganism during his time in prison which further strengthened his resolve to preserve classical greek knowledge. While he died without completing his goal, he left behind 4 translated works of Aristotle (with original commentaries on them) 2 of mathematics (Ptolemy, Nichomachus) and around a dozen original works. His best known work, (De consolatione philosophiae) is in the form of a platonic dialogue with philosophy personified as a lady answering his questions. This work was so famous in europe, Alfred of Wessex (the champion of the Old English tongue) tried translating it on his own into OE. 800 years later, Queen Elizabeth the I would try the same thing.

On this paltry diet of timaeus of plato & the aristotelian corpus of boethius – the catholics fed their hunger for a pagan philosophy & science they had heard of but did not have direct access too for nearly 800 years before the 12th century renaissance brough back a lot of greek knowledge. On a side note, the 12th century renaissance happened when plato & aristotle were reliably brought back to latin europe when the spanish reconquered the moorish kingdoms, whose libraries housed arabic translations of virtually all of ancient hellenic philosophy. The arabs themselves only got this knowledge because they had conquered the greek speaking parts of byzantine in the 800s and had taken prompt efforts to translate all original works into arabic. The private library of the abbasid caliph harun al rashid was the bayt al hikmah or the baghdad house of wisdom that housed the creme de la creme of greek philosophy & science.

To highlight the absolute poverty of latin christian europe in the sciences in the middle ages, we can look at private correspondence letters from 1020 CE of two catholic scholars – Raoul of Liège and Ragimbold of Cologne. These two lacked basic knowledge of geometry and were unaware the angles of a triangle make up 180 degrees, unaware of what an exterior or interior angle was. The two were unaware of what the square root of two was, as it wasn’t a rational number.

In the next post, we will look at how pagan science influenced both western christian europe & the arab world. We also try to understand it’s importance in christianity & why the christians or arabs themselves were unable to come up with a philosophy and science of their own but relied on the system of our yavana cousins.

महाभारतकालानुक्रमण

Some notes on the mahabharata and its historicity for future reference.

• mention of chinas.(chin dynasty/qin that unified china around 200 BCE~)
• mention of antioch. (founded 300 BCE).
• mention of writing (do not write the vedas, vedAnaM lekhakAH te vai niryagaminaH)
• mention of scribes (ganakalekhkāḥ)
• the term nāstikya for heterodox philosophies. no specific mention of bauddha.
• overwhelmingly anusthup meter (90%), identified with shudras in the taittiriya samhita and explicitly even mentioned that itihasa and purana are for women and shudras in the bhagvatam. 
• some postulate the trishtup meters of the Mbh are a “core bharata” epic. trishtup is meter of kshatriyas. gayatri of brahmins. trishtup meter over-represented in karna parva.
• krishna devakiputra in the chhandogaya? (800-900 BCE). puraakaalasya viiraaryaH. 
• panini (4th century BCE, mention of panini as a friend of the nanda minister in MKK). mentions yuddhishthira, arjuna and vasudeva. strongest claims for a pre 3-4th century BCE bharata epic core. 
• explicit mention within the Mbh of a bharata core (24~k verses) and later expanded mahabharata when measured against the 4 vedas, it outweighed them (is this a reference to books?). 
• oral recitation in assemblies just like the greek epics. unquestionable oral recitation for a long time. 
• the word pustaka is a loan word from sogdian. sogdian indicates NW Gandhara contacts of writing and books.
• arjuna-krishna vs karna-salya has a direct parallel in the irish epic in cuchulainnn-laeg vs ferdiad. ferdiad is a lost foster brother of cuchulainn too. like karna. strong IE links across continents. 
• draupadi kidnapped by jayadratha is a direct comparison with helen of troy kidnapped and announcing her captors names to legitimize the “ kshatriya abduction vivaha”
• conscious evidence of syncretizing vedic lore with the bharata epic. arjuna is indra, krishna is vishnu, bhishma is dyaus. etc. possible 10 kings battle core as witzel says? is it a coincidence the kurus have 2 capitals? (cf- puru sub tribe tension). 
• what is the influence of greek epic? 
• ramayana calls itself a kavya, mahabharata as an itihasa. very conscious. 13 references to kavya in ramayana. none of itihasa
• ramopakhyana ends without the uttara kanda. 

On the origins of the Albanians

The Albanians are speakers of an isolate of the Indo-European family, the Albanian language. Surrounded by Slavs & Greeks, sharing a sea border with Romance speakers. We can be sure of a few things, namely that their language and presumably ethnic origin is from a Paleo-Balkan people autochonous to the peninsula, but certainly incorporating an Indo-European element on a layer of indigeneous farmer substratum.

By Paleo-Balkan, we refer to IE languages spoken in the region before the Slavic migrations of the 6-7th century replaced most of them linguistically. (Roman conquest also led to the creation of large chunks of Latin speakers in early and late antiquity). Some of these Romans still survive, in the form of the Moldovans and Romanians. Coming back to Paleo-Balkan – this category is chiefly made up of 3 candidates, Thracian, Illyrian or Dacian.

Now, there is indeed geographical continuity with modern-day Albanians and Illyrians. This might be able to explain some Illyrian toponyms through the laws of sound changes. (Durrachion (Illyr) > Durres (Alb) or Aulona (Illyr) > Vlone (Alb)). One can also look at the Greco-Roman loan words in Albanian, (all pre-christian) and trace their evolution. There are 33 Greek loan words in Alb (admittedly not a lot) but well over 600 from Latin. Namely, the Greek loans have to be from West-Greek or Doric due to no evience of the recorded ā>ē sound shift of Attic/Ionic.

mākhanā ‘millstone’ (doric) > moker (Alb)
drapanon ‘sickle’ (doric) > draper (Alb)

We can see that Albanians being on the SWest of the Balkans is a better explanation of receiving both Greek and Latin loans than in the East (Thracian). Not only that, but 600+ pre-christian Latin loan words must reflect a relatively early integration. This kind of adds up with the Illyrians being the earliest ones to be conquered by the Romans (3rd century BCE). Coming to the ethnonym, Albanian conclusively comes from a name for an Illyrian tribe called Albanoi (attested so by Ptolemy). Albanian was also the name used for the tongue when the language was first documented in the 13th century CE in a legal document from Raguza (cf – audivi unam vocem clamantem in monte in lingua albanesca). We do run into one issue here, namely that the modern ethnonym of the Albanians for themselves and their tongue is shqiptar (Albanian) from the root shqip-
This root forms a denominative verb, shqiptoj “to talk clearly” , similar but opposite to the saṃskṛtam verb mlecchati “to talk indistinctively” from √mlecch and hence the term mleccha “barbarian”

Admittedly, scholars think this was a recent shift in ethnonym as the same land has been called Albanoi in Byzantine and Roman sources since antiquity, is this shift possibly due to the Ottoman Invasion (more emphasis on people who talk clearly? speak Albanian without Turkish?). The saving grace for this comes from Albanian speakers who migrated to Italy right when the Ottoman Invasion happened who still call themselves arberesh from the root alb/arb. This indicates the original ethnonym which must have stood ground in all of Albania before the 1600s.

While the Greek loan words are few, they are certainly pre-Koine. This is indicative of the reconstructed loans having the aspirate /kʰ/ instead of the fricative /x/ of Koine. And the aspirate  /tʰ/ (cf – tha in saṃskṛta) instead of the dental fricative /th/ (as in ‘the’) of Koine.

lakhanon (Doric) > laker (Alb)
thaurakion (Doric) > targoze (Alb)

Stacking the evidence up, there seems to be a very strong case for Illyrian origins.
1) Linguistic isolate, (Paleo Balkan)
2) Explains Illyrian toponyms via sound change of Albanian
3) Ethnonym being of an Illyrian tribe (Albanian)
4) Geographical continuity
5) Pre Christian, Pre Koine West Greek + Latin loan words
6) Albanian ethnonym preserved in Arbershe (Italian Albanians)

I concurr, going by Occam’s Razor, Albanians are likely descendants of the Paleo-Balkan race of Illyrians that were pushed out of most of Illyria by modern Montenegrins, Bosno-Serbo-Croatians & Macedonians to their present geography. Sure, some arguments like lack of massive Greek loan words or lack of seafaring vocabulary could be made, but going as we are by uncertainties, the arguments in a pro are more.

Genetic studies on the Illyrians identified to a certain archaeological horizon and other Paleo-Balkan people with updated results on the Y-DNA haplogroups of Albanians would clear things up.