Tag Archives: History

Historical Literature of India

PKVCmottoWith the Real Sheet-Anchor of Indian History established, the time has come to move forward with an exegesis on Bharatiya Itihasas. After all, if foreign sources and foreign histories have been prioritised in order to impose a false chronology and false history on India, then the reassertion of the native Historical Literature of India becomes critical.

History is Itihasa (pronounced Ithihaasa), meaning “So indeed it happened”. Historical illiterates may pretend the term only applied to the epics, but it did not. There are a number of traditional histories in regional languages like Hindi, that use the term Itihasa. Charitra often translated to history, refers to Chronicles and Vamsavalis refers to Vamsa-avalis (Family Lineages or Geneologies).

At present, the modus operandi of our sepoy historians and fraudacharyas has been to prioritise colonial Christian chronologies, foreign histories, and inscriptions. We have already discussed the issues with the previous two. But in case the reader might wonder why epigraphy and numismatics offer problems, here is the logic:

ProbWithInscriptions
[1,24]
After all, data manipulation, even by much worshipped scientists is not unheard of–why should British colonialists who back-stabbed their way to colonising India, be free from suspicion when their descendants are not? When modern academics and greedy corporations can be credibly accused of this, why are greedy Imperialists (medieval or colonial) being absolved by Post-modernists? The fact remains that expedience, rather than consistency and character, has been the by word of science-celebrities and scientism advocates. That is the importance of tradition. It actually communicates the historical memory of a people. Science can’t construct historical memory…it can only validate it.

For all the glories sung of Herodotus, forget what Indian sepoys have to sing; here is what his fellow Europeans themselves wrote about him:

AulusGellius[9, 17]

Manetho, Egyptian Historian and High Priest of the Temple of Isis ate Sebennytus, about 300 B.C.), whose works are unfortunately [or conveniently?] lost, is said to have written a book on purpose to correct the errors of Herodotus, and by Greek and Roman authors alike the titles of ‘fabler’ and ‘legend-writer’ have been freely applied to ‘the father of history’.” [10, xxv] Woods, Henry George. Herodotus. Oxford.1873.p.xxv

G.F.Abbot: “Herodotus has been called the ‘Father of History’; in truth he is only the father of story-telling; the first and most lively of our special correspondents…21: his celebrated Logoi…further vitiated by careless inaccuracy, love of exaggeration, addiction to entertaining anecdote, and indiscriminate acceptance of ancient lore—all of which properly belongs to a rudimentary age” [10,2]

So lore is ok in History when the Greeks do it, but not so much when Indians do it. This is the much-vaunted “Father of History” in the west whose sources we must place unquestioned “scientific” faith in. The real question of course is whether he is the father of history or father of hearsay.

This is not to denigrate historical sources other than our own; but rather to show what it’s like to apply the same standards foreigners apply to Indic Civilization. Scientism advocates and sepoys, of course, have double-standards.

So Homer wrote of a Cyclops and a Scylla, Herodotus of the Sun God’s intervention in the life of the Croesus, but the Mahabharata’s history of a royal family, succession crisis, and war, must be balanced by Pollockian chicken droppings, because “Science”.  No wonder this same set became chelas of self-proclaimed cultural Christian Richard Dawkins. They too are almost there…culturally. Enough. Those with unjustifiable egos and sepoy sensibilities are welcome to wallow in their own ignorance, but those with more logical inclinations can understand why the same videshis who dictated false history cannot be credibly expected to construct another. Fool me once shame on you…

As such, upon what historical materials can sincere students of history and cultured members of Indic society rely?

SourcesHistoryChelamPlot
[3,xiv]
Therefore, per Historian of Indian Civilization (knowledgeable in World history) and Traditional Brahmin Pandit Kota Venkatalachalam, this is our…

Traditional Historical Literature of India (in order of importance).

1. Puranas

2. Itihasas & Charitras

3. Vamsavalis

4. Textual & Literary Historical references (in non-historical works such as literature & math)

Other sources

5. Tamrapatras, Prasastis, and other inscriptions/epigraphy

6. Coins (and other physical evidence)

7. Foreign Histories and Travelogues

Even an orthodox Brahmin Pandit like Kota Venkatachalam was willing to accept credible and well-written histories like the Chachnama, which, due to the terrible destruction inflicted on Sindh, fills the gap left in native records. But he mentions this only after critical analysis, rather than abject intellectual slavery to all records foreign.

StrayRefs
[6,6]
He (and we) have necessarily placed foreign sources at the lower end of importance (and after careful scrutiny) for reasons he had described.

What’s more, the famous and fantastical accounts of Dog-faced men who barked [all very scientific you see] from the “[Western] father of history” are proof of why in this topsy turvy Kali Yuga, we must take their order of precedence and turn it on its head. Foreign sources and foreign opinions are of the least important to us. The accounts, texts, and traditions of our traditional scholars are the most important.

People from all jatis (castes) should have access to our Itihasa-Purana, as they are our own people, and can be trained as traditional and “modern” scholars alike. Foreigners, necessarily, should no longer have such unlimited access or unlimited importance to our primary sources and primary texts given the havoc they have wreaked on Bharat from De Nobili and  William Jones down to Doniger and Sheldon Pollock. Only fools trust foreigners more than their own people (just as only casteists support AIT — as they are eager to be adopted by foreigners…).

SelfInterestHistory
[6,7]
There may be many good-hearted non-Indians, some even who are sincere…but the sins of others necessitate our need for reducing access at this time. This does not mean being rude or disrespectful to non-Indians…only being prudent and showing discretion. That is the real reason why we study Niti and the Panchatantra. And Niti is one of the main reasons we study Itihasa (History).

Sepoys, on the otherhand, have no time for Niti. They exist only to do their masters’ will so as to retain their (undeserved) emoluments.

AITSepoys
[6,12]
The time to consign such termites, catamites, and dust mites to the dustbin has come. These intellectual equivalents of dung beetles have spewed enough foreign manure. We must reconstruct our real history, our own history, on our own sources.

NativeLiteratureHistory
[4, 12-13]
As we scrap the foreign imposed history and restore our own, it becomes necessary to study the Native Sources of History. The Historical Literature of [Greater] India.

1. Puranas
Bhagavatapurana picture
Bhagavatha Purana

The Puranas may strike one as a surprising choice for an historical source, but there is a solid, logical basis for this. The Puranas consist of more than just “legendary” and “divine” aspects. There are in fact a number of distinguishing features (lakshanas) to them.

PuranaLakshanam
[5, APP 31]
There are 18 Mahapuranas (major) and 18 Upapuranas (minor). While not all of these are sources of history, many of them, such as the Vishnu Purana and the Bhavishya Purana provide credible historical accounts, with minor reference to the fantastical. Some may wonder what the reason is for this format. In contrast to the West, which sees the Secular and Sacred in conflict, the Indic tradition recognises the harmony of the material and spiritual. After recognising the limitations of the former, we understand the transcendental nature of the latter . Only limited minds cannot see this.

PurapiNavah-hhi57

Puranas, therefore, are highly useful not just for learning history, but understanding Niti contained in it.

2. Itihasas & Charitras

RajataranginiIssues

There are numerous histories and charitras composed by our ancients. For far too often, our modernists have insisted that only literature following foreign strictures can be classified as a “history”. But this is preposterous. Different civilizations evolve different styles and philosophies. Due to the dogmatic nature of some traditions, they require a violent separation of church and state to curtail further violence. For others, adherence to the truth was so strong, that no such separation was or is required to apprehend true history.

 

TrustNativeHistorians
[6,18]
Desh drohis promoting AIT may devalue the accounts of Kalhana as mere Poetry, but the author of the Rajatarangini is an historian par excellence. Funny how the same voices who take inspiration from the name of the Rajatarangini don’t seem to have properly read it.  Following the traditional asisha/mangala (benediction) in the beginning is the convention in Sanskrit Kavya. But that never stopped Kalhana from implementing the historical method in his work.

KalhanaMotive

For this reason, although Kalhana’s magnum opus is often classified as a Chronicle, it should not be reduced to the rank of its grecian and anglo-saxon counterparts. The Rajatarangini is a proper Itihasa of Kashmir.

Kalhana discusses his methodology, expresses hesitance at describing supernatural events, and presents his topic in an informative and poetic manner.  Works of history, which frequently analyse events and their significance, are Itihasas. Works that merely collect and present annals are chronicles, which are better referred to as Charitras. The word Charita, as seen in the Buddhacharita and the Harshacharita, is naturally related to Charitra. Jain and Buddhist literature (such as Ashvagosha’s work mentioned above) naturally take their place here as well. Charitras merely describe deeds in chronological order; Itihasas analyse their significance to teach Niti and Dharma.

3. Vamsavalis

NepalVamsavali

Vamsavalis are the Dynastic King lists. These are the Royal Chronologies of Provincial Histories. Nepal is a famous example. Other Provincial Royal Chronologies also exist..

Vamsavalis-hhii

As Pandit Chelam notes, there are Manuscript copies of various dynasties that are available to this day. These involve the traditional names of the ancient provinces (janapadas/desas) of Bharatavarsha, such as Kasi, Panchala, Kalinga, Sindhu, Ujjain, etc. Some are, true to name, dedicated purely to established families of note. The Velugoti Vamsavali in the Telugu region is one such example.

Nevertheless, the historical value of these genealogies are significant. Historical material and detail is available, but must be collected and disseminated.

Another important set of historical sources comes from the records of Traditional Mathas and Agraharas. While not traditional vamsavalis in the strict sense, they are useful to supplement King lists due the repository of information regarding the guru-sishya paramparas in Mathas and families that populated agraharas and their interactions with political authority. Every head of main mathas (and Buddhist/Jain monestaries as seen in the Jaina Pattavalis which record pontiffs) of India is recorded. These lineages are as reliable as king lists and provide a means of authenticating and verifying which king ruled when based on the corresponding spiritual leader.

4. Textual & Literary Evidence

*(historical references in non-historical works such as literature & math)

TraditionHistory
[6,40]
Textual & Literary evidence refers to non-historical sources that offer historical details. Examples include discussions or references to various kings or personalities, as the Mudrarakshasa by Visakhadatta famously does. Despite being a play, it is nevertheless based on the history of the Maurya Dynasty and its famed Chancellor Chanakya.

Others can be various treatises and texts such as Kalidasa’s Jyotirvidabharana.

Nevertheless, these four categories compose the essential historical literature of India. Foreign sources have already been discussed in detail, and the nature of prasastis and tamrasasanassilpasasanas, and numistmatics is better discussed elsewhere.

The main purpose was to establish that there were and are serious historical literatures within the Indic tradition that can be relied upon. Foreign sources can be used merely to supplement. But it should be obvious to all thinking persons that Bharatiyas need not wax eloquent over Herodotus and Thucydides, when they have ample historians of their own.

In fact, the much-celebrated Thucydides has himself been criticised over the years. First on grounds of style. It seems drab prose tends not to appeal to all scholars of history, which puts to favour Herodotus, and ironically, Kalhana as well. But more importantly, on other grounds as well:

his style is often very compressed and difficult to understand, so that any translation is necessarily an interpretation.”

There are big implications here for our modern admiration of Thucydides as a historian. First, the “good” translations of his History (those that are fluent and easy to read) give a very bad idea of the linguistic character of the original Greek. The “better” they are, the less likely they are to reflect the flavor of what Thucydides wrote—rather like Finnegans Wake rewritten in the clear idiom of Jane Austen. Second, many of our favorite “quotations” from Thucydides, those slogans that are taken to reveal his distinctive approach to history, bear a tenuous relationship to his original text. As a general rule, the catchier the slogans sound, the more likely they are to be largely the product of the translator rather than of Thucydides himself. He simply did not write many of the bons mots attributed to him.

But however we choose to excuse Thucydides, the fact remains that his History is sometimes made almost incomprehensible by neologisms, awkward abstractions, and linguistic idiosyncrasies of all kinds. These are not only a problem for the modern reader. They infuriated some ancient readers too. In the first century BC, in a long essay devoted to Thucydides’ work, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a literary critic and historian himself, complained—with ample supporting quotations—of the “forced expressions,” “non sequiturs,” “artificialities,” and “riddling obscurity.”

Real historians understand that they have a duty to communicate clearly and logically, and educate their audiences effectively, elite and mass alike. Historians engaging in non-sequiturs and abstractions are hucksters, more often than not . But then again as they say, if you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, the baffle them with…

Judging by bloviating blog ramblings popular on social media among some who think and seem like they’re smart, but not really , it is not surprising why some self-important sections think Thucydides is superior to Kalhana. No wonder they count Ayn Rand fans among their ranks…After all, these are the self-same cognitive defectives who think Indra is superior to Vishnu and believe AIT is the traditional view in India…poor souls.

The truth of the matter is, Kalhana managed to accomplish the best of both Herodotus and Thucydides. He wrote in an engaging and appealing literary style that respected tradition (like Herodotus) but also analysed history carefully using methodology (like Thucydides). He carefully reviewed the scholars that preceded him (Nilamuni, Helaraja, and Padmamihira, with 12 Kashmiri chroniclers in total), truthfully researched and recounted the history of Kashmir’s kings and queens,  and engagingly provided his analysis and useful niti for readers in a literary manner.

The Truly Learned write not to amuse themselves and dazzle and baffle their sycophants, but to educate people on the lessons of life and history. That is the true measure of an Acharya.

So let read what a real one had to say.

Here is what Bharata Charitra Bhaskara, Pandit Sri Kota Venkatachalam wrote on the matter [Emphasis and Proofing ours]

The following Post was originally published at True Indian History on August 15, 2009


Historical Literature of India

1. A.Stein writes in his introduction to Rajatarangini Westminister edition Vol. I. P. 3:— “It has often been said of the india of the_Hindus that it possessed no history. The remark is true if we apply it to history as a science and art, such as classical culture in its noblest prose-works has bequeathed it to us. But it is manifestly wrong if by history is meant either historical development or the materials for studying it. India has never known, amongst its Sastras, the study of history such as Greece and Rome cultivated or as modern Europe understands it. Yet the materials for such study are equally at our disposal in India. They are contained not only in such original sources of information as Inscriptions, Coins and Antiquarian remains, generally, advancing research has also proved that written records of events or of traditions concerning them have by no means been wanting in ancient India.”

2. H. Wilson in his admirable introduction to his translation of the Visnu Purana, while dealing with the contents of the Third book observes that a very large portion of the contents of the Itihasas and Puranas is genuine and old and writes:

“The arrangement of the Vedas and other writings considered by the Hindus–being, in fact, the authorities of their religious rites and beliefs–which is described in the beginning of the Third Book, is of much importance to the history of the Hindu Literature and of the Hindu religion. The sage Vyasa is here represented not as the author but the arranger or the compiler of the Vedas, the Itihasas and the Puranas. His name denotes his character meaning the ‘arranger’ or ‘distributor’; and the recurrence of many Vyasas, many individuals who remodelled the Hindu scriptures, has nothing in it, that is improbable. except the fabulous intervals by which the if labours are separated. The rearranging, the re-fashioning, of old materials is nothing more than the progress of time would be likely to render necessary. The last recognised compilation is that of Krishna Dvaipayana, assisted by Brahmans, who were already conversant with the subjects respectively assigned to them. They were the members of the college or school supposed by the Hindus to have flourished in a period more remote, no doubt, than the truth, but not at all unlikely to have been instituted at some time prior to the accounts of India which we owe to Greek writers and in which we see enough of the system to justify our inferring that it w as then entire.

That there have been other Vyasas and other schools since that date, that Brahmans unknown to fame have remodelled some of the Hindu scriptures, and especially the Puranas, cannot reasonably be counted, after dispassionately weighing the strong internal evidence, which all of them afford, of their intermixture of unauthorized and comparatively modern ingredients. But the same internal testimony furnishes proof equally decisive, of the anterior existence of ancient materials; and it is, therefore, as idle as it is irrational, to dispute the antiquity or the authenticity of the contents of the Puranas, in the face of abundant positive and circumstantial evidence of the prevalence of the doctrines, which they teach, the currency of the legends which they narrate, and the integrity of the institutions which they describe at least three centuries before the Christian Era. But the origin and development of their doctrines, traditions and institutions were not the work of a day; and the testimony that establishes their existence three centuries before Christianity, carries it back to a much more remote antiquity, to an antiquity, that is, probably, not surpassed by any of the prevailing fictions, institutions or beliefs of the ancient world.” (Willson’s Vishnu Purana, London Ed. P.P.LXII and LXIII.)

Again in dealing with the contents of the Fourth Amsa of the Visnu Purana, the Professor remarks:-
The Fourth Book contains all that the Hindus have of their ancient History. It is a tolerably comprehensive list Of dynasties and individuals; it is a barren record of events. It can scarcely be doubted, however, that much of it is a genuine chronicle of persons, if not of occurrences. That it is discredited by palpable absurdities in regard to the longevity of the princes of the earlier dynasties, must be granted; and the particulars preserved of some of them are trivial and fabulous. Still there is an artificial simplicity and consistency in the succession of persons, and a possibility and probability in some of the transactions, which give to these traditions the semblance of authenticity, and render it likely that these are      not altogether without foundation. At any rate,in the absence of all other sources of information the record, such as it is, deserves not to be altogether set aside. It is not essential to its celebrity or its usefulness, that any exact chronological adjustment of the different reigns should be attempted. Their distribution amongst the several Yugas, undertaken by Sir William Jones, or his Pandits, finds no countenance from the original texts, rather than an identical notice of the age in which a particular monarch ruled or the general fact that the dynasties prior to Krishna precede the time of the Great War and the beginning of the Kali Age, both which events are placed five thousand years ago…….This, may or may not, be too remote but it is sufficient, in a subject where precision is impossible, to be satisfied with the general impression, that, in the dynasties of Kings detailed in Puranas, we have a record, which, although it cannot fail to have suffered detriment from age, and may have been injured by careless or injudicious compilation, preserves an account not wholly undeserving of confidence, of the establishment and succession of regular monarchies, amongst the Hindus, from as early an era and for as continuous a duration, as any in the credible annals of mankind.” (Do. Book LXIV, LXV)

MahabharataManuscript
And lastly, in discussing the general nature of the Puranas , and of their values as historical records, he_says:-
“After the date of the Great War, the Vishnu Purana, in common with other Puranas, which contain similar lists, specifies Kings and Dynasties with greater precision; and offers political and chronological particulars to which, on the score of probability there is nothing to obiect. In truth, their general accuracy has been incontrovertibly established. Inscriptions on columns of stone, on rocks, on coins deciphered only of late years through the extraordinary ingenuity and perseverence of Mr. James Princep, have verified the names of races and titles of princes – the Gupta and the Andhra Rajas mentioned in the Puranas.” (Wilson’s Vishnu Purana Page LXX.)

3. In his Rajasthan. Col. Tod says :-

“Those who expect from a people like the Hindus a species of composition of precisely the same character as the historical works of Greece and Rome, commit the very egregious error of overlooking the peculiarities which distinguish the natives of india from all other races, and which strongly discriminate their intellectual productions of every kind from those of the West. Their philosophy, their poetry, their architecture are marked with traits of originality; and the same may be expected to pervade their history, which, like the arts enumerated, took a character from its intimate association with the religion of the people.

ln the absence of regular and legitimate historical records there are, however, other native works, (they may, indeed, be said to abound) which in the hands of a skilful and patient investigator, would afford no despicable materials for the history of India. The first of these are the Puranas and genealogical legends, of the princes which, obscured as they are by the mythological details, allegory, and improbable circumstances, contain, many facts that serve as beacons to direct, the research of the historian.”

“Another species of historical records is found in the accounts given by the Brahmins of the endowments of the temples their dilapidation and repairs which furnish occasions for the introduction of historical and chronological details In the legends respecting places of pilgrimage and religious resort, profane events are blended with superstitious rites and ordinances local ceremonies and customs. The controversies of the Jains furnish, also, much historical information, especially with reference to Guzerat and Nehrwala during the Chaulac Dynasty. From a close and attentive examination of the Jain records, which embody all that those ancient sectarians knew of science, many chasms in Hindu history might be filled up.”

Every MATHA or religious college of any importance preserves the succession of its heads. Among the Jains, we have the PATTAVALIS or successions of pontiffs, for a full and lucid notice of some of which we are indebted to Dr. Hoernle:  they purport to run back to even the death of the last TIRTHAMKARA Vardhamana-Mahavira.”(528 B. C.)

“The preservation of pedigrees and successions have evidently been a national characteristic for very many centuries. And we cannot doubt that considerable attention was paid to the matter in connection with the royal families and that Vamsavalis or Rajavalis, lists of the lineal successions of kings, were compiled and kept from very early times. We distinctly recognise the use of such VAMSAVALIS, giving the relationships and successions of kings, but no chronological details beyond the record of the total duration of each reign with occasionally a coronation date recorded in an era, in the copper-plate records. We trace them, for instance in the introductory passages, of the grants of the Eastern Chalukya Series ( See SII, I 35; EI, V. 131) which from the period A.D. 918 to 925 onwards, name the successive kings beginning with the founder of the line, who reigned three centuries before that time, but do not put forward more than the length of the reign of each of them; and, from certain differences in the figures for some of the reigns, we recognise that there were varying versions of those VAMSAVALIS. We trace the use of the VAMSAVALIS again in the similar records of the, Eastern Gangas of Kalinga, which, from A.D. 1058 onwards (EI, IV, 183), give the same deta ils about the kings of that line with effect from about A.D. 99O and one of which, issued A.D. 1296 ( JASB, L XV 229), includes a coronation date of A.D. 1141 or 1142. There has been brought to light from Nepal a long Vamsavali (by Pandit Bhagavan Lal Indraji P.H.D. Hon. and M.R.A.S.) which purports to give an_unbroken list of the rulers of that country, with the lengths of their reigns and an occasional landmark in the shape of the date of an accession stated in an era, back from A.D. 1768 to even so fabulous an antiquity as six or seven centuries before the commencement of the Kali age in B.C. 3102.”
(Quoted By M. Krishnamachariar in his History of Classical Sanskrit Literature, Introduction 38 ff.)

4. In his Rajatarangini KALHANA mentions certain previous writers.—”Suvrata, whose work, he says, was made difficult by misplaced learning; Kshemendra who drew up a list of kings, of which, however, he says, no part is free from mistakes; Nilamuni, who wrote the NILAMATAPURANA, Helaraja, who composed a list of kings in twelve thousand verses; and Srimihira or Padmamihira and the author SRI CHCHAVILLAKARA. His own work, he tells us, was based on eleven collections of RAJAKATHAS or stories about kings and on the work of Nilamuni.

Tamrasasana, or ‘Copper chapters‘ consist sometimes of a single plate but mare usually of_several plates strung together on a large signet—ring_ which bears generally the seal of the authority who issued the particular chapter. The stone records usually describe themselves by the name of Silasasana or ‘Stone-chapters’, Sila-lekha or ‘Stone-writings’,or Prasasti or “Eulogies’. They are found on rocks, on religious columns such as those which bear some of the edicts( inscription recording grants, chiefly of grants and allowances engrossed on copper plates) of Priyadasi and others which were set up in front of temples as “flagstaffs” of the Gods; on battle-columns of victory such as the two at Mandasor, on the walls and beams, sand pillars of caves and temples, on the pedestals of images, and on slabs built into the walls of temples or set up in the courtyards of temples or in conspicuous places in village sites or fields. And they are often accompanied by sculptures which give the seal of authority issuing the. record, or mark its sectarian nature, or illustrate some scene referred to in it.
_ The Chronology of Classical Sanskrit Literature starts with Mahabharata war and Kaliyuga. Kaliyuga commenced on 20th February 3102 B.C., just on the day on which Sri Krishna departed to his divine abode. The Kuru-Pandava war was fought 37 years before Kali, that is in 3139 B.C. Onwards from the commencement of Kaliyuga, Puranas contain accounts of various kingdoms that flourished from time to time and successive dynasties that ruled and fell during the course of about 35 centuries. To an impartial observer the tenor of these accounts warrants their accuracy and to the mind of the Hindu– the Hindus of those bygone ages when scepticism had not called tradition superstition—-life here is evanescent and life’s endeavour must be the attainment of beatitude eternal. Ancient sages (Rishis perceived the divine hymns of the Vedas and passed them on for the edification of posterity. Since the advent of Kali, a prospective crop of vice and folly was predicted and to wean the erring world from such sin and misery, Vyasa formulated Puranas with the object of Vedopabrinha, that is, supplemented the exposition of Vedic teachings, and that in the garb of a language and narrative that would be easily assimilated by the masses. To such philosophical minds, the rise and fall of kings and kingdoms was not worth remembrance, save as another realistic means of illustrating the tenets of philosophy, e.g., the truth of the divine essence, Brahman, the unreality at sensual pleasures, the liberation of individual soul and the attainment of eternity in beatitude or oneness with the Spirit Divine and above all the inevitable occurrence of God’s mandates shortly termed Destiny or otherwise called Kaala or Niyati.
If this is the object of Puranic literature, it is a sacrilege to charge the author or authors of them, whoever it was, with having fabricated scriptural testimony for attributing an antiquity to Indian literature and Indian civilization, which it did not possess; for even if they had been, as many orientalists have said, made up late after the Christian era, the authors would not have anticipated this method of political history of the 18th and 19th centuries A. D. The Puranic lists of dynasties of kings and kingdoms furnish details of dates to an extent that even in days of historical records may be surprising, for they mention even months and days in their computation. Whatever those ancient authors did or wrote, they did it with sincerity and accuracy, ‘truth’ being the basis of accuracy. Our educational institutions are saturated with the teachings of modern scholars on the untruth of these Puranic accounts, but it is still hoped that time will come when truth will triumph and display a real orientation of ancient Indian History.
(P. P. XXXVIII — XLIV History of Classical Sanskrit Lit. By_M,· Krishnnmachariar) (38 to -44 pages)
( F, E. Pargiter has given an admirable summary of Early Indian Traditional History, as recorded in Puranas in JRAS (1914) 267 et seq.) _


NoForeignHistory
[7,20]
It is unsurprising that the pedantic but puerile would think to give priority to the videshi on everything from civilizational origin to empiricism. This is why verbosity and complexity is not the measure of intelligence, but rather clear logic with actionable solutions. This is why pedantic parrots do not offer any of the latter.

Just at the time when Bharatiyas are reasserting ownership of their own heritage, this band of do-nothing dimwits proceeds to emphasise the need for foreign sources to make ours more “scientific”, which is code for secular. Funny how the same cabal  of casteists is quick to drop their gotras to assert authority, while doing everything possible to undermine the historical tradition maintained by real brahmanas like Pandit Chelam.

If science is the new religion, and every culture is considered “more scientific” than your own by sepoys and gyaanis,  is it any wonder that misguided youth seek to convert to every civilization but your own? Science cannot be religion. Science does not replace tradition.

Contrary to fraudacharyas who seek to undercut and supersede astika Brahmin Pandits like Kota Venkatachalam, traditional Bharat did have “real history”. But history is not science. How could it be?  The data is imperfect. Other than some epigragraphy and numismatics, it is not verifiable (unless you have a time-machine). And the results are never the same, but as Mark Twain asserted, they do “rhyme”.

HistoryNotScience
[3,xxi]
That is the danger of scientism. It seeks to impose the ramblings of scientifically credentialed propagandists, imagining credential in one area as credential to speak in another (Vedic tradition). It seeks to use the credibility of the profession of science to force eminently unscientific conclusions, as the Christian Historians who pushed the Biblical Chronology and the Hearsay using Herodotus’ fantastical views of India (dog-faced men who bark). And for all the glorification of Persian chroniclers of Turk invaders, the propaganda and fallacies of Ferishta et al are well known to those who actual analyse what they read…rather than read and regurgitate like parrots.

NoForeignHistory

Pandit Chelam himself criticised many of the conclusions of Hieun-tsang as unreliable and poorly informed. As such, foreign histories and observations of travel writers are useful to provide other perspectives and to fill in gaps. But the notion of using them to “balance” our own tradition is absurd as the theories these ahankari-shikandis push (“ait”, “Indra superior to Vishnu”, “Ramana maharishi had mental problems”). Like the vesya of yore, these academics-vaisya sold out to the highest bidder; all they have are sinecures, “sybaritic” nonsense, and (questionable) gotras to salve their egos. Real Brahmanas know better, and recognise the logic of actual Historian Pandit Chelam’s conclusions.

The time for rejecting the colonial histories and their sepoy enforced foreign sources has come. The time to reassert the primary and predominant place of our native historical sources is here.  It is time to prove worthy of our inheritance.

samudrahorse


References:

  1. True Indian History. [Various Blog Bosts]
  2. Kota, Venkatachalam Paakayaji (Pandit). The Age of the Mahabharata War. Vijayawada: Tirumala.1988 (posthumously)
  3. Kota, Venkatachalam Paakayaji (Pandit). The Plot in Indian Chronology.Vijayawada: Arya Vijnana. 1953
  4. Kota, Venkatachalam Paakayaji (Pandit). Chronology of Ancient Hindu History Part I. Vijayawada:AVG
  5. Kota, Venkatachalam Paakayaji (Pandit). The Age of Buddha, Milinda, and Amtiyoko. Guntur: Sri Ajanta Printers.1956
  6. Kota, Venkatachalam Paakayaji (Pandit). Chronology of Kashmir History Reconstructed. Guntur: Sri Ajanta. 1955
  7. Kota, Venkatachalam Paakayaji (Pandit). Chronology of Nepal History Reconstructed.Vijayawada: SahiniPress. 1953
  8. Kota, Venkatachalam Paakayaji (Pandit). Chronology of Ancient Hindu History Part II. Vijayawada:AVG
  9. Aulus Gellius: Young, Arthur Milton. Echoes of Two Cultures. University of Pittsburgh.1964.p.17
  10. Foster, Edith & Donald Lateiner. Thucydides and Herodotus. Oxford. 2012. p.2
  11. Dawkins: I’m a cultural Christian. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7136682.stm
Acknowledgment: Our sincere thanks to Sri G.D. Prasad garu, grandson of Pandit Kota Venkatachalam for his kind permission to reprint these articles and excerpts.

The Real Sheet Anchor of Indian History

File:Mahabharata BharatVarsh.jpg

From the mists of legend to the waters of memory called history, it is a long process, and to some, may indeed appear to be a long leap. But let it be stated upfront that history is indeed history. Just as Science requires reproducibility and verifiability, so too does history require evidence and documented proof, and above all adherence to the truth.

ChelamHistoricalDeterminePandit Kota Venkatachalam [2, 11]

As we have demonstrated through this Series of Posts…

  1. An appeal to Young Indologists
  2. Aryan Invasion Theory Violates Vedic Tradition
  3. Who were the Yavanas?
  4. Personalities: Sagara
  5. Vedic Cosmology—The Dharmic View of Time

…Indian history has been subjected to much intellectual violence, and the case of evidence such as the Kumbhalgarh inscription, outright physical violence. Selective interpretation, foreign racial glorification, colonial expedience, document fabrication, and evidence forgery have been the tools of the trade of history’s most dishonest cabal of “historians”.

The most skilled propagandists are not those who claim obvious falsehoods, but rather, state selective and half truths. What is credible and plausible is often the most incorrigible…of falsehoods. Unlike the True Brahmanas of yore who preserved and passed on our Tradition and History, these Racist-Imperialists have no religious injunction to speak the truth (or to feel shame…). Indeed, contrary to their self-apotheosis and perennial self-lionising, the British were able to take control of India not through some Gandhian described physical or martial superiority, or even technological marvelry, but rather, through deception.

As the Oxford Military History of the World would credit, it was British mastery of subcontinental politics (a.k.a. deception and back-stabbing) that ensured their control of 200 hundred million souls. It is also an abject lesson of what happens when you only consider “Rajniti” rather than Niti and Dharma. This parampara of foreign ‘intellectuals’ committed intellectual violence against our texts, tradition, and history. Their tradition continues today in its “post-modern” incarnation, wherein even the Ramayana date from the Colonial era has been brought down from BCE to CE, all by the supposedly secular poco-pomo gang. Even Chanakya-Kautilya has not been spared, and is now being denied, not on the basis of new evidence, but on the basis of new “interpretations” of evidence and ostensible tampering of evidence. Enough benefits of the doubt.

This is why Indian history, Indian culture, and Indian civilization must be logically and truthfully re-constructed from Indians, by Indians, and for Indians…real Indians rooted in the land and its tradition and culture. Others tamper with it in the name of expedience (previously British Empire, now Breaking India), real Indians tell it in the name of the truth. Therefore, if the colonial history we have been taught is not simply in need of correction, but root-and-branch re-construction, it becomes imperative to start at the beginning.

Students of history would already be familiar with that much bally-hooed “Sheet-anchor of History” (as so named by Max Muller and concocted by William Jones, et al) based Alexander’s Invasion of India in 326 B.C., and Chandra-gupta Maurya’s coronation at Pataliputra in 321 B.C.E. However, as seen, and as soon will be seen, Pandit Kota Venkatachalam, through painstaking and disciplined historical research—rather than the navel-gazing our gyaanis are notorious for—demonstrated why the former was an unimportant event and the latter, an utter falsehood.  If the wrong Chandra-Gupta were purposefully identified as the ruler of Magadha in 321 B.C.E (It was actually Chandra Gupta I), then what in fact is our true benchmark for asserting verifiable and recorded “history” from mere legend?

TrueAnchorSheetpng
[1, 183]
The Real Sheet Anchor of Indian History is the Mahabharata War of 3138 B.C.E. This is based not just upon astronomical calculation, but also hard historical evidence, via archaeologically-relevant inscriptions, documented chronologies, recorded Royal Lineages, and a Tradition of referencing dates beginning with the Kali Yuga (3102 B.C.E ) present even in the Rajatarangini, which is accepted by all parties (colonial, sepoy, or otherwise) as real history. This is no mere “hindutva history” hypothesis, but a legitimate and logical assertion conducted by Sri Kota Venkatachalam, who was uniquely qualified in having both a traditional and a Western Education. Unlike the fake “acharyas” in our midst today, he was an actual Acharya, as well, with the competence to understand our Vedic tradition and Puranic History, while providing responses to Western standards for documented proof, evidence, and “rationality”.

Furthermore, acceptance and assertion of this position as genuine History, is supported by our own independent study of history over decades. Many of the charges and allegations originally made by Pandit Chelam, were independently observed by us in a number of different topics under Indian history, routinely and repeatedly. Only, we do not claim the authority of an Acharya, which Pandit Chelam is most deserving of and eminently qualified as. The sole purpose of this point is to note that 3138 B.C.E was not cavalierly arrived at, nor do we treat Pandit Chelam’s word as the “gospel” (pardon the expression). The Itihaas of the Mahabharata is not merely the legend from an epic, but the Chronologically concrete Historical Past of the Indian Subcontinent & the true Sheet anchor of its History.

PKVCthePIIC

It was Sri Venkatachalam’s own exemplification of historical methodology, logical investigation, scholarly subject-matter-expertise, but above all, scrupulous adherence to the Truth throughout his publications on History, that established the credibility of this dating. It was only after properly surveying his original reference sources that we have put our weight behind this, and recognise not only the possibility or plausibility, but also the near-certainty that this is in fact the correct Sheet Anchor for Indian History.  Those who wish to contest this claim on whatever grounds, are advised to refer to not only our previous articles listed above, which establish the credibility of this historical foundation, but Pandit Chelam’s own large selection of works in English.

The next natural objection, of course, is whether Mahabharata Epic, which features not only weaponry beyond scientific verification (Divine missiles called astras), but also the supernatural or paranormal (Divine Beings, Incarnations of God, and even Demons) could be treated as History? The answer, of course, is that if both Homer and Herodotus (“Father of History” for Europeans), who both feature the Sun God and other divine beings (even a Cyclops), as part of their works can be considered “Sources of Authentic History”, then there is no reason the Mahabharata cannot be. Vyasa’s Epic may feature “mythological” aspects that are not believable in our own time, but if Homer and Herodotus’ Divine involvement in historical events can be explained away as “allegory/metaphor ” or “poetic license”, then there is no reason this same standard cannot be applied to the Mahabharata. Let these non-scientifically verifiable aspects be treated as allegory or atisayokti by our atheist friends, but let the basic sequence of events be treated as History: Dynasty, Succession Crisis, Subcontinetal War, Coronation.

And as for the age of many of the characters (between 120-200 years), well if Methusaleh (Grandsire of Noah) at ( 969 years) could have been accepted by William Jones’ and his Christian Chronology, which serves as the basis for the present “Post-Modern” Chronology, can be glossed over, then so can this.

WillyJChronos

When a real history by a real historian such as Kalhana can accept the historicity of the Kurukshetra War, than there is no reason we lesser mortals cannot.

ChronosConclusionThe Time has come to reclaim our True History of Bharatavarsha. Let there be no more confusion!

Here is what Bharata Charitra Bhaskara, Pandit Sri Kota Venkatachalam wrote on the matter [Emphasis and Proofing ours].

KRVChronosPandit Kota Venkatachalam [3, 39]

The following Post was originally published at True Indian History on June 26, 2009


The following Post was originally published at True Indian History on June 27, 2009


The following Post was originally published at True Indian History on June 28, 2009



battlefield-of-kurukshetra

The following Post was originally published at True Indian History on August 16, 2009


Gift Deed of Janamejaya — An Early Inscription of Kali Era

According to the Mahabharata (2nd Aswasa of Adiparva) Parikshit ruled for 60 years from the first year of the Kali (3101 B. C.) Era and died stricken by the curse of a Rishi(3041 B. C), when the coronation of Janamejaya his son, took place in Kali 61,(3041 B. C.).
An inscription (plate) of a gift deed by Emperor Janemejaya. (Indian Antiquary P. P. 333-334) runs thus:-This is the first inscription known which used the Jayabhyudaya Yudhistira Saka, which had its origin in Kali first year; (Both the Eras started in the same cycle year Pramadhi. This gift deed refers to a gift of land for the worship of Sri Sita and Rama on the bank of the Thungabhadra River, by Janamejaya (son of Parikshit) in the 89th year of Jayabhyudaya Yudhistira Saka i. e. Kali 89 i. e. B. C. 3012. The year Plavanga mentioned in the inscription tallies with the 89th year of Kali. Kali Era starts in the year 3102 B. C., the 20th Feb. at 2-27’-30″ hours. i.e. in the cycle year of Pramadhi the 1st day of the bright half of the month of Chaitram at 2-27-30 hours. Similar gift by the same Emperor Janamejaya was made on the same day to Sri Goswamy Anandalinga Jangama of Ushamutt through his disciple Jnanalinga Jangama for the worship of God Kedaranath in Kedara Kshetra situated in north Himalaya. The Inscription (plate) of the above gift which is preserved in the mutt even to this day runs thus:
……and so on.

In those times sacrifices were much in vogue and the Aswamedha and Sarpayaga performed by Janamejaya have become famous. Satanika, the eldest of the five sons of Janamejaya succeeded him to the throne. In his time in Naimisaranya the Satrayaga was performed by Saunaka and other Rishis, which is supposed to take one thousand years. The kings of this dynasty ruled till Kali 1468 (or 1634 B.C.), and in their time the Vedic religion was patronised and protected. In the several Yagnas performed in those days many animals were sacrificed and the common men were disgusted with the sacrifices of animals. Then in Kali 1215 or 1887 B.C. Buddha was born, to Suddhodana, the 23rd king of the Ikshvaku Royal dynasty of Kosala and preached a new religion in opposition to and in disregard of the Vedas.


There is no prominent event in the history of the Ikshvaku Royal dynasty except for the birth of Buddha in 1887 B.C. In Kali 1468(B.C. 1634) Kshemaka, the last Emperor of the royal dynasty of Hastinapura and Sumitra, the last king of the royal Ikshvaku dynasty of Kosala Kingdom both died childless. So the king of Magadha became Emperor and founder of the Imperial dynasty of Magadha.(Capital of Magadha was ‘Girivraja’)

The following Post was originally published at True Indian History on July 1, 2009


Pandit Kota Venkata Chelam wrote:

As researches progress this date (1887-1807 B. C.) of Buddha is bound to be accepted by scholars, if the scholars have not so far arrived at this date, it was because there was a common notion among them that the last word on the subject had been already said. If they had realised that the question was open for further investigation atleast some of them would certainly pursue enquiry in this direction and arrived at the date fixed by me.

It is highly refreshing to note that there is at least one scholar who could not superstitiously believe the existing theory about Buddha’s date, but thought it worthwhile to investigate into the question with an open mind. I refer to Sri V. Thiruvenkatachariyar M.A., L.T., (Formerly Head of Department of Mathematics, Govt. Arts College., Rajahmundry.) who arrived at the same date as myself (1807 B. C.) as the year of Buddha’s death and has fixed the actual day of the week and the month also. (Tuesday, Vaishakha Purnima).

His way of approach to the subject was astronomical. The fact that the same date 1807 B. C. was arrived at by two different ways of approach may induce the scholars to pause and try to revise the existing fictitious date of Buddha Nirvana. (483 B. C.). Having arrived at the same date independently we had occasion to compare notes at a stage when the present volume(1) was completely printed and was awaiting binding. I thought it worthwhile to incorporate the learned professor’s thesis in this volume. He has kindly permitted this and has sent a typed copy of his thesis, (on 18-1-55) which is herein incorporated. I am thankful to the professor for thus helping the cause of the true historical research which both of us have at heart.

(1) Age of Buddha,Milinda & Amtiyoka and Yuga-Purana by Pandit Kota Venkata Chelam (1956)


WillJsMisrepPandit Kota Venkatachalam [3, 29]

All this makes Rajiv Malhotra’s Battle for Sanskrit so relevant for our times. For if foreigners claim a monopoly not only on interpretation of our traditional texts (we have seen how self-serving and expedient they have been with shifting dates to serve changing needs), but on even training future scholars of Sanskrit in foreign universities, who will be left who understands the real value of our text and tradition?

Apropos for the times, a Sanskritist almost a century ago made the same complaint about foreign malfeasance with our texts for the purpose of their political expedience.

SanskritistonChelamJatavallabula Purushottam. Sanskrit Lecturer S.R.R., and C.V.R College Vijayawada (Andhra Pradesh) [3, xvii]

Many of you may ask “Have they no shame?”, but the question is, don’t we? The same social media whiners who carp and cavil about kings of yore failing to do the right thing, are now doing the same. Some have sold out, others are too scared, but some are simply spoiled, rotten brats who have no integrity to do the right thing and come together for a common cause. Unjustifiably arrogant, they, as Pandit Chelam complained of Rai Bahadurs past, simply hold on to the history they have been taught because it is comfortable and convenient for them. They are no different than the petty princelings who complained to Yashwant Holkar about what could have been…He replied contemptuously noting there was no point day-dreaming now. If only they had done their duty, their little part, when they had the chance…

It is not enough to merely claim the mantle of “Science and Reason”, but to actually test these “scientific” claims against empirical analysis and logic. The history we have been taught is wrong. Time to set it right. Not in the name of ego. Not in the name of self-glorification. But in the name of the truth…the real Truth.

Satyameva Jayate

Emblem_of_India.svg


References:

  1. True Indian History. [Various Blog Bosts]
  2. Kota, Venkatachalam Paakayaji (Pandit). The Mahabharata War. Vijayawada: Tirumala.1988 (posthumously)
  3. Kota, Venkatachalam Paakayaji (Pandit). The Plot in Indian Chronology.Vijayawada: Arya Vijnana. 1953
  4. Kota, Venkatachalam Paakayaji (Pandit). Chronology of Ancient Hindu History Part I. Vijayawada:AVG
  5. Kota, Venkatachalam Paakayaji (Pandit). The Age of Buddha, Milinda, and Amtiyoko. Guntur: Sri Ajanta Printers.1956
Acknowledgment: Our sincere thanks to Sri G.D. Prasad garu, grandson of Pandit Kota Venkatachalam for his kind permission to reprint these articles and excerpts.

Vedic Cosmology — The Dharmic View of Time

dhwanidotcom

“History became Legend, Legend became Myth”. This most famous of lines from a modern movie is emblematic of human attitudes towards civilizational memory. When timescales become incredulous, the story is called “Legend”, when they become mind-boggling the story is called “Myth”. Perhaps that is why since the time of William Jones to his brown successors, every effort has been made to reduce the antiquity of Indian history and Indic Civilization.

Most Hindus are naturally very (over) accommodative and in their (self-defeating) gullibility, assume all people must be on a similar journey of self-discovery of the Truth. Perhaps that is why Hindus are notorious for their stupidity in routinely anointing foreign or foreign-trained individuals as “saviours”–social media being exhibit A. The reality, however, is that expedience has been the byword of these ‘saviours’, and as even Kissinger remarked in his at least nominal analysis of the Arthasastra, even Cultural/Historical traditions can be subject to manipulation in order to exert political control and dominance [What’s sadder is that Indiots again need an outsider to remind them of this, but then again if only universities from phoreign can be good, same with experts]. But when your m.o. for “merit” is read and regurgitate for marks, no wonder you can’t apply theory in reality. Ironically, Chanakya himself has now become targeted by these self-same “breaking India” forces, with a most ridiculous time period suggestion and even arguing that Chanakya is not the same as Kautilya—in utter contradiction of our tradition. As such, the time has arrived for a concerted, and uncompromising pushback.

Much like the William Jones of yester-year, these modern Western Universalists (and their sub rosa cooperators) are attempting to force-fit Indian history and culture into their Christian or now “Post-Modern” chronology–which invariably suits their “narrative”.

manavadamchronosThe Ramayana has gone from a time-honoured tale of Righteousness, Nobility, and Self-Sacrifice to a political instrument for medieval use. Such is the insolence of this ilk. In light of that, since the hypocrisy of these “Ivory Tower Intellectuals” has been exposed, the time has come to assert certain realities: Let Science be Science and let Tradition be Tradition.

Perhaps that is why those in the realm of Western Humanities live in perpetual fear of the Hard Science empirical experts. As Shivoham has argued, their “closed logic” assumption based, selectively rational constructs fall apart in the face of close scrutiny and examination.

Therefore, let Science be Science, and be taught as Science,  let Tradition be Tradition, and be taught as Tradition, and let the prying hands of post-modern, aspiring “acharyas” of the sherry-swilling variety be kept out of the realm of tradition, where only true astika and adhyatmika Acharyas belong. One such realm is Cosmology.

vedicosmology

In our previous article, we recounted the life and achievement of the great Emperor,  Sagara of the Solar Dynasty. He was one such “legendary” king, and his relevance was not only due to the kingly example of sternness he demonstrated in the face of adversity, but also on account of how it disproves the Colonial and poco-pomo purposeful misinterpretation of the word “yavana” to mean Greek. How could a king from the Satya Yuga be fighting Greeks who did not exist till the first millennium BCE in the Kali Yuga?  If you do not know the difference between a Kalpa, a Manvantara, and a Yuga, and that we are in the 5118th year of the Kali Yuga, of the 28th Chatur Yuga, of the Vaivasvata Manvantara, of the Sveta Varaha Kalpa, what business do you have in interpreting and playing interpreter of our philosophical and historical texts?

Manvantare

That is why it is not enough to merely assert a “nationalist narrative” within the conventional history, but to tear down this Colonial Era Christian Cosmology-derived Chronology of 4004 BCE (courtesy William Jones) and actually assert what our Vedic Cosmology actually says. If any buffoon with a Sanskrit certificate from Sheldon Pollock University can cherry pick some words to posit an asinine theory, then the traditional understanding built on guardianship of truth will be lost. That was the traditional reason for varna vyavastha, because the truth would be passed down from father to son, with any deviation from the truth bringing shame on the family. Western “Indologists” have no such need for shame. Without properly understanding that Yavana did not mean Greek or that the Satya Yuga comes long before the present Kali Yuga, our children (and sickular seniors with the maturity of children…) will remain utterly clueless on the internal logic of our tradition and traditional systems. History is most assuredly history, but as the recent findings regarding the Xia Dynasty of China demonstrate, what foreigners derisively called “legend” is often found to be genuine history.

What’s more, there is a cliquish band of idiots that is forever navel-gazing over the alleged superiority of Indra over Vishnu. But this only demonstrates their ignorance of not only the Puranas but the Veda itself [Vishnu himself takes up the position of Indra in the first Manvantara as Yajna/Shatakratu. The present Indra is Purandara (in this current Shraddhadeva/Vaivasvata Manvantara). The next Indra is Bali, of Vamana avatara fame]. This is the danger of deconstruction of systems—you can learn more and more, about less and less. All this is why proper understanding of Vedic Cosmology and the traditional Dharmic method of time-keeping  is required.  However, for graduates of Witzel academy (and its rw acolytes), such a thought even becomes a question as they do not understand (or refuse to understand) the proper hermeneutics involved in interpreting our traditional texts—and they have the audacity to assert a monopoly over it. What a sad world we live in that degree-holders from phoreign are considered more credible interpreters of our sacred texts than our actual traditionally trained, spiritual Acharyas.

RigVedaBrahmaKalpaTherefore, whether in fact our “Legends” are Scientifically and Archaeologically confirmed “History” is for Scientists and Archaeologists, in particular, to verify. But the tradition is the tradition, and for traditional Acharyas alone to assert. Foreign and foreign-trained “academics” and “intellectuals” have no more credibility in this regard and only fools grant them this. Let there be no more confusion.

Per our previous remarks, we will remain true to our word and merely repeat what an actual Acharya, Pandit Sri Kota Venkatachalam wrote of our traditional Dharmic View of Time and our Traditional Vedic Cosmology. Here is what here wrote [Emphasis and Proofing ours].

8.1brahmakalpa

The following Post was originally published at True Indian History on June 23, 2009


The Age of the Present Creation

According to the Smritis,
18 winks of the eye= 1 Kastha
30 kastas………..=1 Kala
30 kalas ………..=1 Muhurta
30 muhurtas………=1 Day and night.(This Ahoratree is the human day.)

According to Jyotisha.
6 respirations………….= 1 Vighati
60 Vighatikas ………….= 1 Ghatika
60 Ghatikas ……………= 1 Day and night(This Ahoratree is the human day.)

15 days………..= 1 Paksha
2 pakshas………= 1 human month

1 human month = 1 day and night: of the Pitris(Manes),the Sukla Paksha being their day and the Krishna Paksha being their night.

12 Human months or one year = 1 The Ahoratree of the Devas

6 Human months = 1 Ayana, ( From Pushya to Jyesta is day of the Devas, from
Ashadha to Margasira is night of the Devatas.

30 human years = 1 Month of the Devatas.
360 human years or 12 Daiva months = 1 Year of the Devatas

12000 Daiva years or 43,20,000 Years = One Daiva yuga or ordinary Mahayuga

0.4 Mahayuga = 4800 Daiva years = 17,28,000 years = Kritayuga with yugasandi and Sandhyamsa.
0.3 Mahayuga = 3600 Daiva Years = 12,96,000 years = Tretayuga
0.2 Mahayuga = 2400 Daiva Years = 8,64,000 years = Dwaparayuga
0.1 Mahayuga = 1200 Daiva Years = 4,32,000 years = Kaliyuga

1 Mahayuga = Kritayuga + Tretayuga + Dwaparayuga + Kaliyuga

1000 Daiva Yugas or ordinary Maha Yugas or 432 crores of ordinary years = One day time for Brahma. This is Udayakalpa. = 30 Ghaticas for Brahma.

Another 1000 Daiva Yugas or 432 crores of ordinary years = Night for Brahma or Kshaya kalpa

2000 Daiva Yugas or ordinary Maha yugas i. e., 864 crores of ordinary years = One Ahoratree of Brahma.

30 Ahoratrees of Brahma or 6,000 ordinary Mahayugas= One Month of Brahma
12 such Brahma months = One Brahma year.
100 Brahmaic years = Life period of Brahma.

During the day time of Brahma(1000 Mahayugas) , 14 Manus look after this world. Each Manu reigns 71 Mahayugas . In the first day of the fifty first year of Brahma have rolled away the following periods:-
6 Manus = 6 x 71 = 426 Mahayugas = 184,03,20,000
27 Mahayugas of the period of Vivasvata, the seventh Manu = 11,66,40,000
The Kritayuga of the 28th Mahayuga = 0.4 Mahayuga = 17,28,000
The Tretayuga = 00.3 Mahayuga = 12,96,000
The Dwapara = 0.2 Mahayuga = 8,64,000
The Kaliyuga till (Kali 5056 or 1955 A. D.,) = 5,056
__________________
Total.= 426+27+0.9 Mahayugas + 5056 years = 196,08,53,056 years
___________________

Seven Jalapralayas each of duration of a Kritayuga
= 7*0.4 Mahayugas =2.8 Mahayugas = 7 * 17,28,000 = 1,20,96,000
_________________
Total. 197,29,49,056 years
_________________

and this is the time since Brahma
woke up on the first day of his
fifty first year and to get at the
age of this creation, DEDUCT from
this, 1,70,64,000 years being the
time of Brahma’s Dhyana or
contemplation before beginning to
issue life. .. … … … 1,70,64,000
_______________
Time since creation began upto 1955 A. D , —- … 195,58,85,056
________________
The time that has passed by in the
period of the present Manu (the 7th)
Vivasvata … … … 12,05,33,056
The Period of a Manu … … 30,67,20,000
This Manu will continue for … … 18,61,86,944

Thus we arrive at this conclusion :- Brahma has completed his fiftieth year; and in the first day of his fifty first year of life have gone by thirteen (Brahma)ghatikas, and forty-two vighatikas i. e., 195,58,85,056 years upto 1955 A. D. This is recorded in our Panchangas year by year.

This is Genuine Historical Data of the Vedas.
In conformity of the above Vedic Historical Data for the modern history of Bharat, we can safely adopt the Puranic data commencing from the Mahabharata war of 3138 B. C. or 36 years before the beginning of Kali Yuga 3102 B. C., or 62 years before the Saptarshi era of 3076 B.C.

Brahma

The following Post was originally published at True Indian History on May 22, 2009


Time and place always noted carefully by Orthodox Hindus

 

It is admitted on all hands nowadays that in the entire range of world’s literature the Vedas of the Hindus are the most ancient. And the Vedas form the basis for the various daily activities prescribed for and performed by the Bharatiyas from the time of their rising from bed…in the morning to the time of their going to bed in the night. From the procedure of brushing the teeth all the daily physical and intellectual activities of the human being are laid down in the form of sacred duties in the Vedas. Even to this day the conduct of the orthodox among the Indians is regulated by the Vedic injunctions.

For the due performance of these Vedic rites time and place are of importance and have to be carefully fixed and noted. The prescribed rites have to be performed at the times prescribed exactly without any discrepancy even to the very minute and second. Time is fixed accurately with reference to the movements and relative positions of the Sun, Moon, the Planets and Stars and the activities of the orthodox Hindus, who observe the traditional ritual are still regulated by the time thus determined, even to this day.

Almanacs are prepared every year for the purpose, on the basis of their highly developed and perfected astronomical science and these are available to the common people. It is the custom of the country to keep the almanac in every Hindu household. With its help every one knows the date (the phase of Moon), the day of the weeks, the star associated with the Moon, Yoga and karana and is enabled to perform the rites prescribed for him, his religious injunctions. Besides, these contain details of the movements of the different planets and their positions from time to time. the fixing of the present time in the flow of time from the beginning of the month. the year, the yuga, the Manvanthara, the kalpa, the beginning of creation itself. According to these almanacs, which show a remarkable uniformity in these matters from time to time and province to province throughout the country
1. the present time 1952 A.D. is the year 5053 of the kali Yuga.
2. the time elapsed since the beginning of the Manvanthara of Vaivaswatha Manu the seventh Manu is 12,05,33,053 years.
3. The time elapsed since the beginning of the 28th Mahayuga is 38,93,053 years,
4. In the 28th Mahayuga. of the present kaliyuga the time elapsed is 5053 years.

So 1952 A.D is equivalent to kali 5053. Hence the first year of the Kali Era comes in 3101 B. C. Even the scholars of the west (the orientalists) of modern times all recognise that the kali Era of the Hindu system of reckoning time began at 2-27’-30″ hours on the 20th of February 3102 B.C., the first year of the kali Era is 3101 B.C., that in the year Kali 26 on the first day of the year,i.e. in 3076 B.C., the victors in the Mahabharata war, the Pandavas, Yudhishtira and his brothers ascended to heaven. that on that day the constellation of stars familiarly known as Saptarshi Mandala left the region of Magha and entered the region of the next star and from that time commenced the Saptarshi Era or the Yudhishtira kala Era. This Era is known in Kashmir as the Kashmirabda even to this day and it figures in their almanacs from year to year, even according to Dr. Buhler. (Vide indian Eras ‘in English’ by this author(Pandit Kota Venkata Chelam) ).


brahmavishnulakshmi

The following Post was originally published at True Indian History on May 12, 2009


Max Muller-On relative reliability and regard for truth of oriental scholars

 

Of the relative reliability and regard for truth, so essential a qualification for purposes of history, of oriental scholars, the writers of our Puranas and ancient books, on
one hand and the western scholars engaged in historical research and controversy on the other hand, a fair estimate is available to us in the words of Prof. Max Muller, himself,
a well-known western scholar who interested himself in the ancient literature and religion of our country.

Prof. “Max Muller” in his book “‘India; what can it teach us” P. 63 writes thus:—

During the last twenty years however, I have had some excellent opportunities of watching a number of native scholars under circumstances where it is not difficult to detect a man‘s character, I mean in literary work, and, more particularly, in literary controversy. I have watched them carrying on such controversies both among themselves and with certain European scholars, and I feel bound to say that, with hardly one exception they have displayed a far greater respect for truth, and a far more manly and generous spirit than we are accustomed to even in Europe and America. They have shown strength, but no rudeness; nay, I know that nothing has surprised them as much as the coarse invective to which certain sanskrit scholars have condescended, rudeness of speech being, according to their view of human nature, a safe sign not only of bad breeding but of want of knowledge. When they were wrong they have readily admitted their mistake; when they were right they have never sneered at their European adversaries. There has been, with few exceptions, no quibbling, no special pleading, no untruthfulness on their part, and certainly none of that low cunning of the scholar who writes down and publishes what he knows perfectly well to be false, and snaps his fingers at those who still value truth and self respect more highly than victory or applause at any price,”
Let me add that I have been repeatedly told by English merchants that commercial honour stands higher in India than in any other country, and that a dishonoured bill is hardly known there.


 


As we can see, for all the criticism of our Traditional Pandits and our traditional concepts of Jyotisha and Itihasa, it is eminently clear that we were scrupulously in marking the date and time. Jyotisha is more than mere astrology, but is in fact, the study of time-keeping, with astronomical calculation intimitaley connected with daily passage of time. This has proven to be a far more accurate method due to Indic Perspective to Mathematics. Rather than creating an artificial “order” based on human models impervious to outside scrutiny, it attempts to accurately determine time based on the reality we perceive.

vishnugarbha

Moreover, there is a traditional mandate to tell the truth among our traditional astika acharyas, which even foreigners recognised. Whether this Vedic Cosmology, this Dharmic View of Time, this conception of time is scientifically validated or not, a number of scientists have already spoken on the similarity of these Hindu timescales to modern astronomy. Here is what one of the famous western astronomers of the last century is recorded to have said [and we will end with that].

The Hindu religion is the only one of the world’s great faiths dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite, number of deaths and rebirths. It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long. Longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang.”

shivacern

References:

  1. True Indian History. [Various Blog Posts]
  2. Kota, Venkatachalam Paakayaji (Pandit). The Age of Buddha, Milinda, and Amtiyoko. Guntur: Sri Ajanta Printers.1956
  3. Varaha Purana. http://gita-society.com/section3/HinduPuranas16.htm

Acknowledgment: Our sincere thanks to Sri G.D. Prasad garu, grandson of Pandit Kota Venkatachalam for his kind permission to reprint these articles and excerpts.

Personalities: Sagara

Sagara,_a_Vedic_King_and_ancestor_of_Rama

 As we’ve argued before and as we’ve seen from the last few articles, the time to put an end to this Colonial Narrative of the “Invasions Idea of India” has arrived. The history of the Pratiharas and the Paramaras and the Vijayanagara Rayas are all forgotten for those who wish to downplay notre histoire militaire. Can’t let those yindoos get uppity, n’est pas? Ironically, British history is itself the story of invasions, beginning with Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Brutus (legendary Exile of Troy), and on to the Romans, the Angles & Saxons, the Vikings, and the Normans (and apparently now, the Pakistanis…).

From the Chinese to the Persians to the Greeks to even the propaganda heavy Brits & continental Europeans, all major civilizations have faced invasions at one time or another. The question has been whether they went extinct like Zoroastrian Persia and Pagan Rome and Pre-Norman Britain, or whether they fought and lived for another day, like Dharmic India.

For all their complaints about the Puranas, the same British colonial propagandists, I mean, historians, had no problem using some apparently forged “Yuga Purana” as proof of some imagined Indo-Greek campaigns in Northern India (bolstered by possibly forged coins, no less). As we demonstrated in our previous article, the Yavanas of the Puranas didn’t refer to Greeks, but excommunicated Vedic Indians who lived in Afghanistan, and later spread West to Persia and beyond. The British colonial historians purposefully interpreted things in a way to ensure their purposes of self-glorification.

But since our anglicised Indians—and even a few odd man-children moonlighting as internet hindus— still operate within various colonial and neo-colonial boxes, let us give one Purana for another. Yavanas are in fact mentioned long before the Yuga Purana, in the Harivamsa Purana for example, and a mighty monarch of the Solar Dynasty, the Great King Sagara, is recorded to have defeated the Yavanas.

One wonders if western “Indologists” will insist that this Great, Great Grandfather of Bhagiratha (who brought down the Bhagirathi) and ancestor of Sri Rama, was in fact fighting these same Yavana/Indo-Greeks. “Of course not, dear boy, these ‘Yavanas’, were defeated by Indians…how the devil could that be possible?”. Umm,  Wadgaon? Chillianwala? There are, of course, more “historical” examples of Indian victories over invaders, not just temporary, but even permanent (i.e. Huns, Sakas, Battle of Rajasthan, etc). But the benchmark for all of these must necessarily begin at the beginning.

Now that foreign double-standards have been exposed, we may now start with the Story and Achievement of the Great King Sagara of the Suryavamsa: Repeller & Humiliator of Invaders.

Background

SuryaDev

Maharaja Sagara was more than a mere Emperor or legendary King. He was not just the ancestor of the noble Bhagiratha and the divine Sri Rama. Sagara was a Dharma-rakshaka in the true sense, and set an example as to how one must single-mindedly defeat, uproot, and punish those who dare set eyes upon our sacred lands, let alone invade them.

Previously we discussed Svayambhuva Manu of the Svayambhuva Manvantara, who is the progenitor of all mankind per our tradition. The present manvantara, however, is the Seventh, and is called Vaivasvata. It is named after Vivasvaan whose son Vaivasvata Manu, from Dravida desa, is the present Manu. His son Ikshvaku is the namesake for the illustrious Ikshvaku branch of the Solar Dynasty. From this lineage came many a mighty, noble, and truly Dharmic King. The names Harischandra, Ambarisha, Raghu, and above all, the towering Rama Dasarathi himself, dot the tree of this family. But one name has not received its due in the present time, and that is the name of Sagara.

Lineage

IkshvakuLineageIkshvakuSagara

It may often be wondered whether it is the Solar Dynasty that itself produces such illustrious kings or whether illustrious kings themselves naturally seek out the Sun. In any event, the son of King Bahu (a.k.a Bahuka) and Queen Madhuravani (also called Kalindi), is a towering figure in an already towering lineage. The dynasty which began with Ikshvaku and leaves off at Sumitra(at least officially…) , had yet another worthy in the Sagara of Sixty Thousand Sons. From Legend to History, it is Niti and Dharma which stand the test of time. These are the examples, the nidarsana katha, that educate us on proper conduct, both private and public. If adversity is the test of men (and women), then let the ambitious prove themselves on their own merit, like mighty Sagara. He, whose deeds earned him his place in this brilliant vamsa, had many worthy forebears and successors.

After his father was driven out of Ayodhya by the Haihayas and their Yavana, Saka, and Pahlava allies, he went into exile in the forest. There he eventually took to penance and passed away. His chief wife wished to join him on the funeral pyre, but was prevented by the Rishi Aurva, who stated she was pregnant. She was to give birth to a mighty Emperor who would avenge his father and restore his dynasty to greatness. He was named Sagara as he was ‘one who could absorb poison’. His jealous step-mother attempted to poison his mother Madhuravani when she was pregnant with him. Nevertheless, due to divine grace, poison was turned to nectar, and he was born healthy.

He was a gifted student and a talented prince, mastering the Vedas, Vedangas, Politics, Arts, and the Art of War. Appropriately for this dynasty, he was a master archer, perhaps a sign of greater things to come. A great bhakta of Lord Vishnu, he attained success at a young age, becoming virtually invincible in war, and a conqueror in his own right, ruling righteously. He married Princess Sukesini of Vidarbha and the lady Sumati, daughter of Maharishi Kashyapa. He would become the father of 60,001 sons.

SagaraSons

Nevertheless, while he remains celebrated for his descendants, he is worthy of remembrance and respect for his own righteous valour.

Invasion

Now that the motivated nature of “invasions of India” has been illustrated for neophyte readers, it is important give an example of exactly why we must not be so naïve and conventional in order to be thought of as “credible” in the present time. When the history of the Kings of Britain can begin with a Trojan Prince, when Rome begins with Romulus & Remus (reared by a wolf), when Homer himself made reference to Greek gods on the plains of Ilium, the time has come for the legendary history of Hisarlik to be matched and exceeded many times over by our own. That foreigners have long cast their eyes on the sona chidiya of India is not news; but it needs to be understood that many from the Yavanas of Yore onwards, were made to pay the price for their insolence and audacity. Sagara is the proverbial patron Pitr for that.

MaharajaSagara

Oath and Victory over the Yavanas

When Prince Sagara came of age and was crowned King of Kosala, he learnt of the invasion of the Haihayas and their Yavana allies, and swore an oath to defeat and drive them out.  With the blessings of his teacher, Rishi Aurva, he set out on campaign and was victorious.

But Sagara did not just defeat and forgive the Yavanas, like so many proverbial Prithiviraj Chauhans of the present age. He crushed them, utterly uprooted them, and taught them a lesson they would never forget. He sent a clear message that there is a price to pay for those who plan to try to take our territory. Read for yourself:

SagaraDefeatsYavanas

 

Achievements

Despite the fact that per the traditional Pauranic reckoning Sagara came from a very ancient period of Sacred History (the Satya Yuga), he nevertheless, provides a steely example of resolute opposition to invasion, castigating those who would dare transgress our lands and cast designs upon us. He also demonstrated fortitude in the face of formidable enemies.

But although the Haihayas received a set-back, they grew in power, and their dominions stretched from the gulf of Cambay to Ganga-Yamuna Doab, and thence to Banaras. They overthrew the kingdoms of Ayodhya and Kanyajubja, and many other kingdoms in the north-west, with the co-operation of various foreign tribes. The king of Ayodhya driven from his throne, took refuge in the forest, and died there, leaving a child Sagara. Sagara, on reaching manhood, defeated the Haihayas, and regained Ayodhya. He extended his campaign, crushed the Haihayas in their own territories, and subdued all the other enemies in North India. India was thus saved from age-long struggles and depredations, bringing ruin and carnage in their train.” [1,69]

War

He is said to have warred with and conquered the Saka, Yavana, the Kamboja, the Parada, and Pahlava [6]

In war, Sagara was a veritable Indra, so much so that Indra himself is said to have been concerned, and disturbed his Ashvamedha. He did so by tying the white horse beside Maharishi Kapila, resulting in the misunderstanding by the 60,000 sons of Sagara.

Skilled in archery and the other arts of War, the stern Sagara destroyed his enemies, drove them out of Ayodhya and restored the glory of his Dynasty. He conquered numerous kingdoms and became an Emperor.

Empire

Per R.C.Majumdar, Sagara ruled a vast empire across the Aryavarta:

When Sagara established his empire over Northern India, the only noticeable kingdoms that survived were the Videha, Vaisali and Anava (descendants of Anu) kingdoms in the east, Kasi in Madhyadesa, and the Yadava kingdoms in Vidarbha, and on the Chambal. After the death of Sagara, the overthrown dynasties seem to have extended their authority northward over the Haihaya territory.”[2, 69]

Jain sources refer to him as one of the Chakravartins (Universal Emperors).

Ashvamedha

SagaraAshvamedha

Despite his great accomplishments, Sagara is perhaps most famous for the Ashvamedha yagna, which raised to prominence his own descendants. The privilege and aim of every great Dharmic king is to assert his supremacy by guarding the sacred horse that travels as it pleases. Kingdoms which do not pay homage must face war against the army accompanying the ashva.

As previously mentioned, Sagara’s 60,000 sons were known to be quick-tempered, and so when Indra fooled them into thinking the venerable Sage Kapila was responsible for stealing the horse, they aggressively approached and berated him. The tapas and punya of this muni was so great, that by merely opening his eyes, these sons of Sagara were burnt to ashes. Sagara was initially devastated, but was told that one of his descendants would redeem his sons by bringing down the Ganga through penance. His heir apparent Asamanjas proved unworthy of the throne, and so he forced to abdicate in favour of his son Anshuman. Anshuman failed to bring down the Bhagirathi, as did his son Dileepa (the first one). Finally, the Great Great Grandson of Sagara succeeded, to eternal fame. Sagara himself therefore was the paramount sovereign, but also, the fountain of the family who changed the face of India itself.

Legacy

 SagaraDescendants

Standing tall among the tallest line of India’s illustrious kings of past, Maharaja Sagara is more than an epic ancestor or a literary reference, he is a great figure of our Pauranic history in his own right, and deserving of his rightful place in it.

He will forever be associated with the name Bhagiratha, and in the process, the Ganga itself. Legendary though these days are, they are intertwined with the story of India’s most sacred river and the Solar race that is eternally associated with her.

Bhagiratha

 Ramayana

return of rama

It is perhaps unsurprising that in a lineage consisting of such noble figures as Satya Harishchandra, Ambarisha, Bhagiratha, Raghu, and Dasaratha, that Sagara would feature so notably, so early on in the Ramayana. That Rama is the Ikshvaku-kula-thilaka is beyond a doubt, but that he represented the peak of an already majestic mountain of maharajas is oft-forgotten.

Beyond the Ramayana, Sagara is mentioned in other texts such as Harivamsa (attached to the Mahabharata) and the Vishnu Purana.

Exemplar

Sagara may not be considered an “historical personality” per our modern history, but is undoubtedly a figure worth of veneration from our Sacred History. When the British start with the legendary Trojans Aeneas & Brutus, the Romans with Romulus and Remus, and the Chinese with the legendary Xia Dynasty, there is no reason we cannot start with Sagara. Sagara may not be the first of our kings even in our Legendary history (that credit goes to Svayambhuva Manu), but he was arguably the first in the present age to provide an example on the attitude to have and how to deal with foreign invaders.

More than the grandsire of Bhagiratha, more than the ancestor of Rama, the great King Sagara is an example of stern, serious, and strategic defense of Dharma and its sacred lands, that is required in the present time. It has no time for boorish babbling, pedantic piffle, idle talk, self-righteous moralising, counter-productive caste obsession, cowardly silence, or childish infighting . It requires, instead, single-minded focus to root out those who would do us and our Vedic heritage harm.

It requires understanding how to work together and collaborate internally against those who cooperate externally against us. But above all, Sagara provides a shining example of how since even legendary times, we have tales of successfully defeating invaders. India is not a product of Invasion; India is a product of victory over Invasion…(no matter how long it takes). If those who control the past, control the future, let us take back control of our past, by taking control of our present. Reject those weaving colonial and neo-colonial memes by hook-or-by-crook, and do your duty to Dharma first. Otherwise,  you not only will have no seat at the table in the future, but you will have no legitimacy while  pontificating like paper-tigers now.

Let the Legacy of the Mighty Emperor Sagara be our example, and let us redeem ourselves, by vindicating our forebears, not through boastful claims, but great and dharmic deeds.

ShriRam

 

References:

  1. Kota, Venkatachalam Paakayaji (Pandit). The Age of Buddha, Milinda, and Amtiyoko. Guntur: Sri Ajanta Printers.1956
  2. Majumdar,R.C.Ancient India. MLBD: Dehli.2003
  3.  Ramayana. http://www.valmikiramayan.net/ayodhya/sarga110/ayodhya_110_prose.htm
  4. Srimad Bhagavatam. http://srimadbhagavatam.org/canto9/chapter8.html
  5. Wilson, Horace Hayman (Ed.).The Vishńu Puráńa: A System of Hindu Mythology and Tradition.
  6. Balfour, Edward. The Cyclopædia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia. London: Bernard Quarditch. 1885

Who were the Yavanas?

Yavanapatha

One of the great controversies in “Indology” has been the term “Yavana”. But our Itihasa-Purana long ago expressed itself clearly. As usual, rather than speaking in one voice, Bharatiyas, especially our two clever by half half-wits  in their philognostic navel gazing have made matters worse by further associating the term with Indo Greeks.

TarnTaran

Fortunately, our real Acharyas, such as Pandit Kota Venkatachalam, trenchantly established the truth. Whatever the later usage towards Persianised Turks and Arabs, “Yavana” (especially in the Puranas) refers to degraded Aryas who later became the Kambojas, Sakas, and Parasikas (Persians). Some of the Yavanas became Ionian-Greek, but the Yavanas referenced in the Puranas were not Greeks. “Yavanacharya” and “Yavaneshwara” were not Greek. Milinda from Milinda Panha was not Greek.

GoodbyeIndoGreeks

Pandit Chelam categorically denies that the Greeks had any kingdoms East of the Indus River. In his “Plot in the Indian Chronology” he wrote that the British fabricated much evidence and even forged coins. Indo-greek history constructed primarily on the basis of coins (numismatics). Were these forgeries?—worth scientifically investigating.

SagaraDefeatsYavanas

Per the Vishnu purana, Maharaja Sagara (ancestor of Sri Rama) of the Ikshvakus defeated and banished the Yavanas. He made them cut their hair and shave their beards, hence the fashion of the western-most variety. Of course, western “Indologists” are careful to omit this part, but happily use the Garga Samhita and its alleged attachment, the Yuga Purana, to advance the claim that the Indo-Greeks successfully campaigned in Northern India. Pandit Chelam has questioned the authenticity of this “Yuga Purana” saying that it does not appear to be the work of Vriddha-Garga.

YugaPuranaBS

That is the stupidity of our band of half-wits because what they find “fascinating” and gleefully promote in their half-knowledge is actually used by westerners, western wannabes, and mid-east wannabes to mock them. Milinda was not Menander, but was a Yavana-Kshatriya of Balhika (Transoxiana). As degraded kshatriyas they had been banished from India, but were promised by Ishvara that they would successfully invade Madhyadesa later in the Kaliyuga (see Medieval Period). Their time is now over.

While Astika Brahmanas abandoned them, as they had abandoned the Vedic rite and Sadachara, these Yavana-Kshatriyas nevertheless had their own Yavana-Brahmanas, Yavana-Vaishyas, and Yavana-Sudras. Per the Vedic Arya estimation of Madhyadesa (that is the Gangetic core), all these had the status of Mleccha only.

YavanacharyaTherefore, the “Yavanacharya” and “Yavaneshvara” of the Surya Siddhantha, are none other than these exiled vratya Indians, who later joined with the various borderland tribes and became their rulers. That is why Yavana Astronomy is praised. That is what Yavana actually means. And that is why “Silence is Golden”, because these self-same morons-archaeologist who just discovered the topic in their Wikipedia research, have gone so far as to bring this to the attention of troll magazine and its resident olog-hai. That is why knowledge is not wisdom.

The reality is, Western Indology knows damn little about the Indo-Greeks, and a recent European scholar admitted as much. It took the work of native Bharatiya historians, and many decades, to push back against the colonial narrative established by the British, which imagined Demetrios and Menander as an ancient Clive & Dalhousie. Luckily for us, our ahankari-shikhandis lost no time to bring a broken narrative to the attention of all the wrong people, and help them revive it. But hey, who cares when we can give gyaan to grow follower counts and engage in half-knowledged speculation!

So next time you come across something that could be misportrayed and misused against your own people, make use of that dm option, do further research, or simply remember the value of “shut up”.

As for the full account of the Yavanas, here is some of what Bharatiya Charitra Bhaskara, Sri Kota Venkatachalam, wrote on the matter [Emphasis and Proofing ours]:

The following Post was originally published at True Indian History on April 28, 2009


Uttarapatha

Reference to Yavana countries:

To the west of Kashmir there were five Yavana countries. Some of them are now part of Kashmir Empire. These Yavanas were not Greeks but they belonged to the Kshatriya race of India. As these disregarded and neglected the performance of vedic duties and rites they were called Mlechchas. In those Yavana regions lived four castes of people. As all these castes relinquished Vedic rites, their caste-names were merely nominal.

Among the people of the Yona kingdoms, Rajatarangini relates that there were castes called Yona Brahmins, Yona Kshatriyas, Yona Vaisyas and Yona Sudras.
Yona or Yavana Kingdoms:

1. Abhisara, 2. Uraga (Urasa), 3. SimhaPura (Singapura)
4, Divya Kataka (Deva Kataka or Kataka ), 5, Uttara
jyotisha.

(Vide the Map of western India in post ‘The Empire of Kashmir’).

“Abhisara” consisted of two regions namely “‘Darva” and “Abhisara.” The kings of these Yavana regions were Kshatriyas who became Mlechchas, were subordinate and paid tribute to Kashmir Kings. We find in Rajatarangini many instances, when these Yavana rulers revolted and became independent and the Kashmir monarchs subdued the rebels and brought them again under their sovereignty. Some of these five regions are part of Kashmir and others are on the western border. In the list of the Kashmir Kings, during the reign of 130th ruler, Kalasa Maha Raja, there was the description of Yona Brahmin as follows,

“There was a Brahmin born in the Yona Village who begged alms of paddy. His name was “Loshtaka” and he was considered to be an Astrologer of that village.” So says Rajatarangjni.

From this, it is evident that the Kshatriyas residing in the Yona regions, on the borders of Kashmir, though they were firstly Kshatriyas, were treated as Mlechchas, on account of their disregarding their vedic duties; the other caste people also were called Mlechchas. Therefore, Rajatarangini relates that there were caste differences even among the Mlechchas. The yona Brahmins were experts in Astrology. The ‘Yavana. Rishi’, the author of “Yavana Siddhanta”, was a ‘Bharatiya Yavana Brahmin’, but not a Greek. The territory “Ionia” which got that name, on account of its conquest by the Yavanas of india, was later called Greece from its contact with the savage Greek tribes.

The Bharata Yavanas were of a very ancient origin. They took the sciences of Astrology and others, on their migration to ‘Ionia’(modern Greece) from India, but India borrowed nothing from Greece. On the otherhand. the western writers turned matters topsy-turvy and proclaimed that all the arts and sciences flowed from Greece to India. The histories containing this inverted information were introduced as Text-Books and our children were taught these packs of lies in the schools and colleges.

As the students were manufactured to be disciples of the Greeks, as a result, they cultivated a love for Greek lore and learning and developed a hate for Bharatiya knowledge and wisdom. Until and unless correct and true history of Bharat is written and these authentic books are prescribed as Texts for study in the schools and Colleges, these wrong and baneful notions cannot be torpedoed and the minds of future generations of young men cannot be diverted from the tinsel glamour of west to the true glory of the East, the hearth and home of culture and civilisation from time immemorial.

The following Post was originally published at True Indian History on July 4, 2009


Pandit Chelam provides an excerpt from a correspondence. Following that, he responds to the questions with his answer on Yavanas.

The two questions: The learned Dr. Sirkar (Govt. Epigraphist for India,Ootacamund, South India) asked in a letter in February,1955 after receiving a copy of a booklet “The age of Buddha from Pandit Chelam) :-·
On the basis of your (Puranic) Chronology how do you account for
1. The Yavana king “Milinda” of Sakala mentioned in the “Milinda Panha” who flourished 500 years after the Buddha’s Parinirvana?
2. The Yavana Monarch “Amtiyoka” whose dominions bordered on the empire of Asoka, grandson of Chandragupta Maurya, according to Maurya inscriptions?
To answer the questions raised, we felt the need for further investigation of allied history and historical research and came upon an essay by the learned Dr. D.C.Sircar himself on ‘The Yavanas’ in Vol.II of “The History and Culture of the Indian People” published by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. We acknowledge that we found the essay also very useful for our purposes in this connection in furnishing our answers to his questions.

In Vol II of the “History and Culture of the Indian People” Dr. D.C. Sirkar writes about the Yavanas :-

“One of the factors that led to the extinction of the dynasty of the Imperial Mauryas was the advent of the Yavana invaders through the North—western gate of India. Indeed the most interesting feature of the post Maurya period of Indian history is the establishment of foreign supremacy in Uttarapatha, Aparanta Paschaddesa, and the adjoining region of Madhyadesa successively by alien powers, and the Yavanas were the first among them.
The word ‘Yavana’ was used in medieval Indian literature as a synonym of Mlechcha and indicated any foreigner. But as late as the early centuries of the Christian era it meant to an Indian, the Greeks only. The word was derived from the old Persian form ‘Yauna’ signifying originally the Indian Greeks and later, all people of Greek nationality. The Greeks of Ionia in Asia Minor, between the Aegean Sea and Lydia, and the people of North Western India, certainly came into contact with each other as subjects of the Achaemenion emperors of Persia since the time of Darius I (522-488 B.C.) Vide p. 101, Ch. VII of Vol. II of Dr.Sircar’s “History and Culture of the Indian people”, of the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan series.)”

PortraitChelam

[Pandit Chelam’s Response to Sirkar]

It is not a fact that foreigners established supremacy in ‘Uttarapatha’ in the post-Mauryan period. It is not correct to say the Sanskrit word “Yavana” is derived from the Persian form ‘Yauna’. 70% of the vocabulary of ancient Persian consists of Sanskrit words. The Persian language is itself a Prakrita(Vernacular dialect) derived from Sanskrit. The original Persians constituted a branch of Bharatiya Kshatriyas. Along with some others they were Kshatriyas excommunicated from the Kshatriya caste of Bharat on account of the non-observance by them of the regulations and rituals prescribed by the Vedas for the Kshatriya caste.

The regular Kshatriyas refrained from social and marital association with the excommunicated branches. One [o]f such excommunicated branches was known as the ‘Parasaka’ and they settled down in Eastern Persia. The region was named after them and came to be known as ‘Paarasika’. As they had originally belonged to the Aryan race, the country was also known by the more ancient name of Iran. Sanskrit was the parent language from which was derived the dialect known as Persian. The contention that the Sanskrit word ‘Yavana’ is derived from the Prakrit word ‘Youna’ of the derived Persian language is entirely baseless. The Sakas, Yavanas, Barbaras, Bahlikas and others were all branches of Kshatriya caste belonging originally to the Aryan race and the Hindu fold, but known generally as Mlechchas, having been excommunicated for their non observance of the prescribed caste regulations and duties, but they were severally referred to by their separate Kshatriya subsect names whenever necessary.

The Sakas, Yavanas, and others had their own Kingdoms in ‘Uttarapatha’ for thousands of years before the Mahabharata War (3138 B.C.). Thev were Hindus (excommunicated) and not at all foreigners.

The Mauryas were not emperors, sovereigns over an empire. From the time of Chandragupta Maurya. Chandragupta Maurya was able to establish himself on the throne of the Magadha kingdom, only with the help of the famous Chanakya. His son Bindusara also was only the king of M[a]gadha and not an emperor. In his time Magadha extended as far as ‘Taxila’ in the west. His son Asoka appears to have extended his dominion by conquest and got recognised as an emperor. Even for his empire the western boundary was only at Takshasila and there were the Yavana kingdoms and Gandhara to the north west and west of it, Kambhoja and Kashmir to the north. His descendants were not so formidable and so in a few generations after him the empire dwindled gradually and came to be confined once again to the Magadha kingdom only. In 1218 B.C. Pushya-mitra-Sunga murdered the last king of Magadha of the Maurya dynasty, himself became king of Magadha, conquered and brought under his suzerainty the neighbouring kingdoms and performed the Aswamedha to establish his claim to the status of an emperor.

The Maurya empire was disrupted on account of the weakness of the successors of Asoka which led to the independence of the feudatory kings and not on account of the invasions of foreign ‘Yavanas.’ Yavana kings were perhaps crossing the frontiers (river Indus) with small armies and indulging in marauding activities in the villages and towns across the border. But they were returning to their countries at the approach of the armies of Magadha. These Yavanas across the border of the Maurya empire were of Bharatiya Kshatriya descent and were neither Greeks nor foreigners. There were no Greeks at that time.

It is wrong to identify the word ‘Yavana’ with the ‘Greek.’ The ancient Yavana kingdoms now comprise modern Afghanistan. The Yavanas and the Yavana kingdoms were in the northwestern region of Bharat from times immemorial and not of foreign advent. There was only one (Bharatiya)Yavana invasion in the time of the Maurya emperors and then it was repelled. lt is erroneous to contend that the Maurya empire was disrupted by the Yavana invasions. It is not a fact. There is no historical evidence whatsoever in support of such a contention.

Sir william Jones, one of the most intellectual of the European critics of Sanskrit literature, pronounced the Sanskrit language to be ‘of a wonderful structure, more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either. (Vide Asiatic researches, Vol I, p, 422)

While thus innumerable reputed scholars unanimously declare that Sanskrit is the most ancient and the parent language of all the languages on the earth, from which all the other languages [w]ere derived, and in particular Zind, the ancient Persian language, is 70% Sanskrit and derived from Sanscrit it is surpriseing that Dr. Sirkar should suggest that the Sanskrit word “Yavana” is derived from the ancient persian word ‘Yauna’. The word ‘Yavana’ is frequently in use in Sanskrit literature, from times immemorial. To say that it has recently been imported into the Sanskrit language, argues little acquaintance with Sanskrit language and literature. There is a lot of information and innumerable references in Sanskrit literature to the Yavanas and other Bharatiya Kshatriya races which subsequently spread all over the world.

The following excerpts are from a Post at True Indian History on July 4, 2009


Question II of Dr, Sirkar:- About the age of ‘Amtiyoka’, the Yavanah monarch mentioned in the edicts of Asoka.

[Pandit Chelam’s Response to Sirkar]

The above mentioned ‘Amtiyoka’ belonged to a branch of Bharatitya Yavana Kshatriyas. He was the ruler of ‘Simhapura’ one of the five Yavana kingdoms 1. Abhisara. 2, Uraga 3. Simhapura 4. Divyakataka 5. Uttarajyotisha.

The other four rulers were subordinate to him. These five kingdoms were all beyond the borders of Asoka’s empire on the North-west and a group stretching in sequence from west to northeast. Now we find them included 1. in Kashmir, 2. in the North- west Frontier Province and 3, 4. 5, in Afghanistan. They were very small kingdoms. The people of these regions were Yavana Kshatriyas and martial people who lived on their arms i.e. served as mercenary soldiers under any ruler who paid them. Their women were very beautiful and they were employed as body-guards in the royal (harems) households of several Indian princes.

These mercenary soldiers were very loyal to the masters under whom they served and sacrificed their lives if necessary for the safety of their masters. They were Kshatriyas of Solar descent. But they were excommunicated from the Aryan Kshatriya fold on account of their disregarding and discarding the Vedic rituals and observances.(Manu 10-43, 45) They were regarded as Mlechchas. When they could not secure employment under wealthy masters who could maintain them, they used to live upon theft and banditry, raiding peaceful villages and carrying away loot to their mountain regions

So “Amtiyoka” was a Bharatiya Yavana prince, not an Iono-Greek or Greek prince. He was the contemporary of Ashoka. His age was from 1472-36 B.C. The “Yavana” of Northwest Bharat became Ionian in Asia minor and Greece and mixing with the Greek the Ionian became Iono-Greek and then by the order of the Government of Ionia or Greece, the Iono-Greek became “Greek” and the country became “Greece”.

The following excerpts are from a Post at True Indian History on August 1,2009


YugaPuranaFabThat Menander was a great Indo·Greek prince was recorded by the historian Strabo whose authority for the statement was a reference to him by the ancient writer Appolodorus. Periplus is another book assigned to 70-80 A.D., but of unknown authorship. But it is stated in this Periplus that coins with Greek letters and devices were current in the neighbourhood of Broach on the west coast of India in the first century A.D, ‘These coins resembled the insignia of Appolodorus and Menander, Greek Potentates who were in power after Alexander. Hence it is inferred that the neighbourhood of Broach might have been included in the Greek dominions in the times of Demetrius, Appolodorus and Menander. All this is entirely in the sphere of conjecture. It seems Appolodorus and Menander are mentioned in the list of Bharatiya Yavana princes in the writings of Justin, the historian. But his writings are now extinct and not available for verification.

It seems Plutarch also mentioned Menander as renowned for justice and that when he passed away the various cities in the neighbourhood contested for the privilege of holding his remains. This Menander is further identified with Milinda of the Milinda Panha (questions of Milinda), a Buddhist text containing the several questions raised by Milinda and the answers furnished to them by the Buddhist monk Nagasena at the end of which the prince, satisfied embraced Buddhism. This prince is spoken of as ‘Milindra’ in Avadana-Kalpa-lata by Kshemendra. In the Shinkot inscription the name is given as ‘Menadra‘ and so it may be identified as ‘Minendra’or ‘Menandra’. This name might be read into the devices on the coins, we are told.”

numisforge

The following excerpts are from a Post at True Indian History on August 1,2009


“In Hieun-Tsang’s writings there is scope for the current provisionally accepted date of 486 B.C, If we count 500 years from the provisionally accepted date of Buddha Nirvana we get 14 A,D. So Menander should belong to after 14 AD.,ie. Ist century A.D. But even this is pure conjecture and based on the assumption of the identity of Menander with the Milinda of Milinda panha, Even the provisionally accepted date of Buddha Nirvana is itself based on the wrong assumption of the contemporaneity of M[a]urya Chandragupta and Alexander of 324 B.C. How can we expect the superstructure to yield correct dates when the basic assumption is itself questionable and a mere conjecture? As soon as the hollowness of the original foundation of the entire structure is exposed and recognised the entire edifice topples down with a crash and the time for it is approaching.
It is wrong to identify Menander with Milinda. Menander even according to the author of the essay, Dr. Sirkar. belongs to the 2nd century B.C. It will he proved in the pages that follow that Milinda belongs to the end of the 14th century B.C.”EucratidesEumenedes



References:

  1. True Indian History. [Various Blog Posts]
  2. Kota, Venkatachalam Paakayaji (Pandit). The Age of Buddha, Milinda, and Amtiyoko. Guntur: Sri Ajanta Printers.1956
Acknowledgement to Sri G.D. Prasad garu, Grandson of Pandit Sri Kota Venkatachalam, for his kind permission to reprint these Excerpts and Blog Posts.

Aryan Invasion Theory Violates Vedic Tradition

AITAVAIDIKA

For writers, editors, and scholars alike, it is critical to be honest not only about what the tradition says, but what they are competent to do. Per our tradition, there is a sharp division between Adhyatmika and Laukika. Those of us from Andhra know the division between Vaidiki and Niyogi for example. As such, it is imperative that those of us from the Laukika sphere, whatever may be our birth varna/jati, refrain from interfering (let alone corrupting) the Adhyatmika sphere. For far too long have self-appointed armchair acharyas attempted to play the role of Vedic seer, pushing as Shivoham has written, concocted model-based theories based purely on imagination.

The Vedas are apaurusheya, and thus, not the realm for “original thinking”, statistical and cliometric analysis, leave aside creative interpretation or reinterpretation. Only traditional Brahmanas who specifically lead the traditional way of life in agraharas and mathas have the authority to interpret what the Vedas actually say. Increasingly, Bharatiya Sanaatanis of all Varnas (all castes) have been granted Veda Adyapana and some have become Brahmanas not by birth but by Guna and Dharma, and this too is accepted in our era, provided they follow the traditional lifestyle and guidelines laid before them.

But foreign “indologists” and their native sepoys and their sycophants do not have such authority. Merely bearing a yajnopavita and performing rituals robotically does not make a Brahmana.Those are mere accoutrements.Preservation of the truth makes a Brahmana.

Brahmin or not, Initiate or not, Indian or not, those earning their living in foreign employ do not have authority to assert let alone pervert what is in the Vedas. Only degree-factory fools seek them out as some sort of “rishi”. Therefore, rather than presenting myself as some sort of authority, I too will follow this rule and simply report what an actual and public Adhyatmika Brahmana, Pandit Sri Kota Venkatachalam, has himself written.

PortraitChelam

Pandit Chelam was uniquely qualified, not only being born and brought up in an agrahara, but being competent in both traditional Vedic learning and Western history—particularly Indology. Pandit Chelam has categorically rejected & refuted the Aryan Invasion Theory (AIT) and diligently catalogued all the high crimes and misdemeanors of British Colonial Indologists and their sepoys—many of those comprador lineages exist among our ranks today.

Over the course of a lifetime until his retirement at age 72, this true Brahmana did his Dharma by preserving the truth when Bharat itself was prostrate and powerless under foreign colonial rule. The time has now come for his life’s work to be vindicated, and the Vedic Truth in all our hearts to be asserted, not through my scholarship, but his. My pranams to him. Here is what he has written [Emphasis and Proofing Ours]:

The following Excerpts are from various Books by Pandit Chelam


§

In the beginning, there was only one race, the Aaryan race. In the ancient times, when the Aaryans were spreading all over the continent of Bharat, the different regions and parts were named after the Kings that ruled over them. The people too were named by the names of these regions and came to be considered different races.

In those remote times in Eastern Bharat was known as ‘Praachyaka Desa’ and ruled by a king named Bali. After his death, several of his sons divided his kingdom, and each named his part after himself, one of them being Aandhra. The kingdom of prince Aandhra being known as Aandhra Desa and the Aaryans (of the four castes) inhabiting the region were called Aandhras.  Thus only one group or division of the Aaryans came to be known as Aandhras. The Aandhras were not a separate race from the Aaryans.

It is all one race known as Aaryans in the beginning, some of them later coming to be known as Aandhras from the name of the region inhabited by them. It is the same case with the Aaryans inhabiting the other different parts of Bharat, all of them of the same Aaryan stock but developing into various branches and coming to be considered different peoples and named after the different regions occupied by them.

Andhra-Kerala-Chola-Bharata

But all of the Aaryans of Bharat from the Himalayas to Cape Comorin [Kanyakumari] belong to the same racial (Aaryan) stock. This axiom should be kept steadily in mind in the study of the history of the Aandhras from the beginning of creation, attempted in this volume.

The Process of Creation

In the beginning the five elements evolved naturally [f]rom primordial nature or Prakriti, and from earth, of the five, living matter and living beings of all kinds. The first among the living creatures was Prajapathi. He is the first Aaryan. Rigveda 4 26 2-2, 2-11-18. He resolved on the creation of the human race and first created the ten Praja-pathis (the Devarishis). Then he himself residing in the region enclosed by the rivers Saraswati and Drishadvati, and cohabiting with his wife Sataruupa gave birth to two sons ‘sons Priyavrata and Utaana paada and three daughters Aakuuti, Devahuuti and Prasuuti. The region he first lived in came to be known as “Brahmavarta“.

The human race first appeared in Bharat only. To the west of the present Jamuna in North India there flowed in ancient times Sara-swati and to its west a tributary by name of Dru-shadvati. The region between these rivers Saraswati and Dri-shadvati was known as ‘Brahmavarta’ from time immmo-rial [immemorial]. The name indicates that the Swayambhuva Prajapati named Brahma resided there in gross physical form to cre-ate the human race on the earth.

At the beginning of every cycle of creation, this place where Swayambhuva Prajapati, the first man resides on the earth in his gross physical body, to create the human race is known as Brahmavartam’. In Rigveda-3-33-4 we hear ‘Yonim Deva Kritam’ and ‘Tam Deva Nirmitam Desam’ in Manu 2-17. This region is bound by the river Sara-swati on the east the junction of Sarasvati and Drushad-vati on the South, Drishadvati on the West and the Hima-layas on the North.

dakshinapatha

The First MigrationBrahmarshi Desa.

The Aaryans thus born in Brahmavarta left the place of their origin and inhabiting the region to the west of it gave it the name ‘Brahmarshi Desa’ (Manu 2-19). These migrations and colonisations were led by Brahmarshis of established spiritual eminence who settled down in the new regions with their disciples and hence it was called ‘Brahmarshi Desa.’In later times this region came to comprise the kingdoms of Kuru, Matsya, Panchala, Surasena & Uttara Madhura.

The Second MigrationMadhya Desa.

According to Manu, the region bounded by the Vindhyas in the South the Himalayas in the north, Allahabad [Prayag] in the east and the river Saraswathi in the West, was called Madhya Desa. (Manu 2-21). This was the region colonised by the second migration of Aaryans after the Brahmarishi Desa was fully occupied.

Aryavarta (The Third Migration)

Thereafter the Aryans, on the advice of the sages and under the leadership of the kings, started on the third migration and spread all over the plains between the Hima-layas and the Vindhyas and settled down in permanent homelands. At that time almost  all the surface of the earth was uninhabited and even in Bharat there were no people  other than the Aryans.

Fourth and Fifth Migrations.

Thereafter, a king by name of Videha Madhava, on the advice of his teacher Gautama Rahuguna, accompanied by the Aaryans who were rapidly increasing in numbers, orga-nised a great migration from the Brahmavarta and neigh-bouring regions and proceeded “to the east of Saraswati upto the river Ganges and established Aaryans settlements at several places. But confronted by the river Sadanira, the progress was halted and villages and towns were constructed all along the march up to the river Kubha or Kabul, and extended their settlements so far. These details of the migration are available  in the Satapatha Brahmana, the Rigveda and in the Manu Smriti

The land in which the Aaryans are born, grow and die  and are  born again is known as ‘Aaryavarta’. Thus it is clear the Aaryans were living in this region from the beginning of creation, according to the Manu Smriti.

The sixth migration “Dakshinapatha”

In those days this part of the country was uninhabited. After rendering habitable and fit for colonisation, the neighbourhood of the river Sadanira and proceeding through the regions to the east of it, Viz. Vanga, etc, they spread to the south along the coast. The south eastern coast lands of Bharat, which were thus occupied by the Aaryans gradually  down to modern Madras and below, were then known as ‘Prachyaka Desa’ and this region beyond further south to the sea ‘Dakshina Desa’ and the west coast and adjoining tracts ‘Paschima Desa’. Thus the Aaryans spread in course of time over the whole of the Southern peninsula and the Aryans who came  to occupy the whole of Bharat from the Himalayas in the north to the Indian ocean in the south were the followers of the Vedic culture and the social order of the fourfold division of society) which formed an integral part of it.

 

§

Many, may naturally, aver that while the Vedic Tradition asserts that humanity was born in the Brahmavarta (Sarasvati-Indus Valley) modern Science states that Africa is the origin. My response to that would be, that is fine. Let Science be Science and let Tradition be Tradition, rather than mix and mess up the two. The problem is when Science becomes Traditional Culture and Traditional Culture becomes Sciencethe result is Scientism.

Traditional culture provides values & historical memory that give guidance to a people. Science helps humanity understand the material world. Current Scientific Evidence does show the preponderant weight behind The Theory of Evolution, and the origin of humanity in Africa. But Science cannot dictate what our Tradition actually said.  There was only Aryan. Dravida was a subgroup of Arya.

Dravida

In fact, the Genetic Evidence for AIT is severely questioned, the Archaeological evidence for AIT non-existent, and the Vedic Tradition outright contradictory. Pandit Chelam’s own charges against the British for fabricating evidence to concoct the current Chronology (including outright destruction of evidence) only injure AIT even more. In fact, other than the compromised Academy, only a clique of casteists and their clueless sycophants (as well as a few naive, but well-meaning people) seek to preserve it. On what basis? Some blog ramblings? This article is not based on my work, but the scholarship of an actual and authentic Brahmin Pandit, Sri Kota Venkatachalam, who is also a western educated historian. His word on the Vedic Corpus of Texts, and the Puranas in particular, carries preponderantly more weight than social media personalities and cliques. Enough!

Aryan Invasion Theory is AVAIDIKA. The Aryan Invasion Theory violates Vedic Tradition. Those asking “what if”, the answer is “it’s not”. Those saying, “but I learned from such and such”, the answer is guru-moha is still moha. And those fools with a smattering of Vedic Sanskrit attempting to engage in “original thinking” putting forth noxious nonsense theories, and all and sundry, should be well-advised of the severe, multi-lifetime penalties of Smriti-vibhrama. Certainly, all true Brahmanas are apprised. No ritual will protect you from this paap.

That it has gained any credence at all is testament to the sad state of what passes for “intelligence” in ‘modern’ Hindus, who are spoiled Brats. As we’ve written before, the highest form of material intelligence is not some asinine, poodle pedantry or analysis-to-paralysis that offers no viable solutions. The highest form of material intelligence is strategic intelligence, because it understands how to efficiently and effectively deploy all other intelligences, even the over-emphasised quantitative intelligence. Quantitative intelligence and even good memory are important and have their applications, but memory tricks and math problems do not save civilizations, strategic intelligence and societal coherence does. The Vedic Tradition gave us such coherence through Dharma—do not violate it. All this is why time and again we have given example after example of why  Wisdom is more Important than mere Knowledge. But some are children in adult bodies, so they childishly and stubbornly refuse to get the message, because for all their book clippings, they are in fact like the very masses they condescend to, following only what is “popular”. Principle comes before Popularity.

Sanaatana Dharmikas have enough to deal with regarding foreign disinformation, misinformation, and inculturation. It is bad enough ridiculous things are said about Brahma and Sarasvati. Any real Hindu familiar with Ardha-Nareeshvara knows that that just as Shiva-Shakti are equal halves of Para-Brahman so too are Brahma and Sarasvati equal halves of the same soul. Thus Svaymbhuva Manu’s wife Satarupa is not his daughter but his other half, just as each human husband refers to his wife as his ‘other half’. This is not just an expression, but a statement of Dharmik philosophical reality. Monogamy is advocated for this precise reason.  But rather than making themselves useful, these fake acharyas and dushta brahmanas specialise in pedantry, which fools only rascals or rubes. The latter can be forgiven for foolishness, but the former must be punished. Murkha-panditas can be forgiven, dushta-brahmanas must be punished. If bahishkar (outcasting) existed, it is because of these dushta-brahmanas and their chamchas.

“Aryan Invasion Theory”, “Beef in Vedas”, “Dharmasastra is ok with Same-gender love”, “Rna determines Dharma” all these are the work of genuine casteists (courtesy their videshi paymasters to whom they are “rnis”), as these nincom poops are prepared to pay any price to fulfill their adharmic ambitions and assume videshi “rna”. True Brahmanas know that whatever their personal rivalries (inter-caste or intra-caste), it is mahapaapa to corrupt the Vedas, and therefore, they keep their Egos in check, in order to preserve the integrity of the inheritance bestowed upon them by their forefathers for intellectual guardianship.

Materialistic  fools and casteist frauds who defile sacred threads, do some ritual as show, and haughtily drop their gotras at the first opportunity, cannot hide behind their janeus when real adhyatmika Brahmin Pandits of authentic lineage have asserted what is actually in the Vedas.  Here is what one wrote about AIT, directly:

AITshahmat-hhi

Pandit Kota Venkatachalam, is an actual Acharya, and has spoken. Let there be no more confusion. AIT RIP…

Aryan Invasion Theory violates Vedic Tradition.

References:

  1. Kota, Venkatachalam Paakayaaji (Pandit). Chronology of Ancient Hindu History Part I. Vijayawada: AVG.  p.121-133

“An appeal to Young Indologists”

PKVCthePIIC

As we wrote previously, the Importance of History cannot be minimised in this era, let alone any other. A person, a people, a culture, a civilization, all derive their identity from history, sacred or otherwise. The critical lessons of history help politicians and military thinkers alike shape the course of their country’s destiny. But with a topic as powerful and as crucial as history, objectivity and dispassionate thinking are required. Scientific temper does not mean scientism. Ours is a spiritual civilization and our Vedas, a spiritual tradition. Therefore, before beginning to catalogue and disseminate True History, it is important to understand “True Indology”.

Instead today, mere regurgitations from social media and blog trivia are what pass for serious research and serious thinking. But serious people are driven by strategic thinking, not serial sycophancy and regurgitation of knowledge from self-appointed “acharyas”. They recognise that any nation that has been colonised must carefully review whether and how their society was tampered with. This is because…

What greater proof was there of this than British-colonised India?

Those wedded to scientism forget the true place of tradition, and how science exists to confirm tradition, rather than define or even pre-determine tradition. Fortunately, the modern and traditional are not always antipodal. There was one such true Pandit, indeed, a veritable “Bharata Charitra Bhaskara” who was learned not only in “western learning”, but our traditional Vedic and Pauranic learning as well. For those [b]raying for “true pandityam”, fine, let us then learn from a real Pandit, Sri Kota Venkatachalam.

Traditionally trained, but modern educated, he is the precise antidote to sage-imitating sepoys selling their knowledge to the highest bidder, while hiding behind sacred threads. Here is one actual Acharya of authentic lineage who actually deserved his yagnopavitham. And my pranams to him.

He wrote in the very era when Bharat’s history was being tampered with and painstakingly catalogued how our history was purposefully misrepresented, and archaeological evidenced destroyed. Here is what he had to say [emphasis ours]:

The following Post appeared on True Indian History on April 21, 2009


 

The history of India, particularly of the ancient period, as it is found in the Text Books of schools and colleges and in the writings of research scholars of Indology, requires thorough revision. European scholars, who attempted to construct our history, seriously erred in chronology.

  1. The false assumption that the Aryans came from outside India and the wrong identification of Chandra-Gupta-Maurya of 1534 B.C, with another Chandra-Gupta, the contemporary of Alexander(326 B.C.), led to several errors in chronology and other aspects of our history.
  2. The Puranas, which are a storehouse of historical information, were discredited as mere fiction. Several facts from the Puranas that do credit to our history and culture are entirely omitted in the historical writings of Europeans and their Indian followers.
  3. Some Indologists went to the length of interpolating in and otherwise tampering with the writings of ancient foreign visitors of India and with the Buddhist literature
  4. Many ancient inscriptions like the Kumbhalghar Inscription (V.S.1537) were destroyed.
  5. The genuine Inscription of Janamejaya ( Indian Antiquity pp333,334) dated Kali 89 or 3012 B.C. has been rejected as being spurious. Several other important ancient inscriptions between 4148 B>C. And 300 B.C., were destroyed.
  6. Some coins and inscriptions have been misread, mis-interpreted, misapplied and misrepresented and some are forged so as to be used for supporting the modern theories.
  7. The Aihole inscription and others that establish correctly the date of the Mahabharata War, 3138 B.C., have been neglected.
  8. Some important dates which are supposed to be the Anchor Sheets of Ancient Indian chronology have been arbitrarily determined, with no regard for or reference to ancient literature.

All this was to show that the historical literature of Bharat was unreliable as a document of history.

Although later researches by Indian Savants have brought to light several facts, the writings of these savants are not accepted by prominent Indologists for the simple reason that these writings do not fall in line with their modern theories. It is strange to expect that scholars that are bent upon showing the errors in the modern historians in the field should fall in line with the same writers. The interests of truth will heavily suffer if this attitude towards fresh research scholars of Indian history continues.

For about forty years I have been working in the field of historical research studying both Indigenous and modern histories and inscriptions etc., and during the last 9 years I have published genuine Historical facts in 24 books, some in Telugu and some in English running into 3000 pages. I have been sending my publications to research scholars and other prominent persons interested in the subject. Although the bulk of the scholars are too conservative even to examine my writings, some of them have accepted that my writings give a lead to the attempts for constructing a genuine history of Bharat. I am happy to note that there is a wide-spread desire in our country today, that our history should be rewritten so as to be nearer the truth.

I have done, through my writings, what I could towards the achievement of the legitimate wish of our people. I appeal to the younger generation to pursue the subject and do justice to the great culture and history of our country.

I have labored, long enough and am retiring in my 72nd year. I assure my young friends that as they proceed with the subject they will find in our ancient literature, inscriptions and coins, wonderful material that will enable them to construct history of our mother-land from 3138 B.C.. Beware of forged inscriptions etc.

This Ancient Hindu History consisting of two parts is the last of my works. In the first part of this book I have traced the dynasties of kings from 3138 B.C., the date of the Mahabharata War, to 1193 A.D., and I have also given historical accounts of these dynasties. This information is quite in accordance with the puranic accounts and genuine inscriptions. In this second part, I have proved that the genuine history of Bharat is to be found in the vast Sanscrit literature, that the so-called archaeological evidence cited by modern historians is full of misleadings, misrepresentations and misapplications and that this evidence besides being so very faulty has failed to help a correct reconstruction of ancient Hindu Chronology and has always tended to horribly curtail it.

My good wishes to all those interested in bringing the genuine history of our Bharat.

Kota Venkata Chelam

Author,

1-1-1957


Rajiv Malhotra has been shedding light on exactly how Western Indology is being used to Break India. Pandit Chelam showed precisely how history was and is still being used by Colonialists to confuse and disorient India. That is the danger of scientism–it fails to ask, cui bono?

bono

In the coming days and weeks, we will examine closely Pandit Chelam’s work. Many have heard of him, some are familiar with him, but it is time we study him. But study him we shall in his own example, and critically examine his statements to see exactly why the essential story, the core chronology, the true sheet anchor of history is in fact correct. Details here and there may be lost to time or uncertainty or require verification, but determining the correct chronology and place of origin properly defines the place of history and a people’s place in it.

Above all, someone of his calibre with knowledge of both realms clarifies precisely what our Vedic tradition actually says.

Emblem_of_India.svg


Our sincere thanks to G.D. Prasad garu, who is the grandson of Pandit Chelam for graciously granting permission to reprint this article, which reprints sections from Sri Venkatachalam’s work.

An Indic Perspective to Mathematics — 3

mahaviracharya

(This is the concluding part of the sequel to ‘Introduction to Ganita’)

Part 1 (Introduction) 

Part 2 (Ganita – Math Encounters)

Part 3 (below): Ganita prevailed over Math in their encounters, but what did it really win? While Ganita’s results were absorbed into Mathematics, the underlying pramana and upapattis were rejected. We explain why this happened, and its implications.

Digestion Of Ganita, the Needham Question, and the Road Ahead
Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less - Marie Curie.
The Digestion of Ganita

It appears the ancient Babylonians had something in common with the Indians: they were pattern-seekers. As far as trying to understand how the world around us works, Richard Feynman rejected (Greek) Mathematics in favor of what he recognized as a Babylonian method, as discussed in this lecture below. Despite this endorsement, it is the Greek approach that drives Mathematics today, while the Babylonian culture can be found only in famous museums today. Why?

It would not be a problem for any civilization to view and benefit from imported knowledge by employing a native lens, without denigrating and destroying the external source tradition, and based on mutual respect. However, when knowledge from another culture is deliberately cannibalized and appropriated as a predator, it is a serious problem. It turns into a process known as’digestion‘. We now describe how Ganita was digested into Mathematics after their encounters.

The Digestion of Ganita into Mathematics

This process of digestion has been laid out by Rajiv Malhotra in [4]. We apply this description step-by-step to see how Ganita was digested into Mathematics.

Step 1.The less powerful culture is assimilated into the dominant one in such a way that: the dominant civilization dismembers the weaker one into parts from which it picks and chooses which pieces it wants to appropriate“.  During their encounter, all the important results of Ganita, starting from the place value system with zero, to algebra, trigonometry, algorithms, combinatorics, … to calculus were accepted by Europe to obtain real-life benefits. However, the underlying epistemology and approach of Ganita that has worked so well for 2000+ years, and could be used to generate such astonishing results in the future were amputated from Ganita. Only the results were retained within Mathematics.

Step 2.appropriated elements get mapped onto the language and social structures of the dominant civilization’s own history and paradigms, leaving little if any trace of the links to the source tradition“. The formal Math rooted in the Greek tradition was enhanced and expanded so that the Ganita results could be systematically re-derived and reinterpreted in a compatible manner. Later, the beneficial features of the native Encuvati system of pedagogy was appropriated into the British teaching approach, and ‘undesirable’ features were deleted to ensure compatibility with ‘Christian values’ [15]. Once this process was complete, the source tradition of Ganita was expendable.

Step 3.the civilization that was thus mined gets depleted of its cultural and social capital because the appropriated elements are modified to fit the dominant civilization’s own history, and these elements are shown to be disconnected from, and even in conflict with, the source civilization“.

A. The credit for a re-engineered calculus was given to Newton/Leibniz and not Madhava and the Kerala School. We are taught the Pythagoras theorem and proof, not Baudhayana’s result and validation procedure. Fibonacci numbers, not Gopala-Hemachandra series. The IEEE journals recognize Arab numerals, not Hindu numbers, and so on. The list is long. In almost all these cases, the standard reason is that the Indians had not proved their results using the formal system devised by the west, even though each of these results were generated first by Ganita and also satisfactorily validated within the source tradition, often centuries earlier. The Ganita tradition was erased from the history of Mathematics.

B. On the other hand, the following types of claims are created:

  • Vedanga Jyotisha was full of astrology and religious mumbo-jumbo
  • Ganita was some kind of elite “Vedic Mathematics”
  • Hindu tradition was backward, caste-ridden, superstitious and incapable of producing such advanced scientific results.

Whereas, the exact opposite is true.

  • Vedanga Jyotisha is the science of time-keeping, and “the entire Jyotisa does not have a single sentence relating to astrology or prophecy” [1], whereas the main goal of European calendar reform was to advance the cause of organized religion [1]
  • Ganita was pragmatic and accessible to ordinary Indians including vegetable vendors who taught the greatest Arab scholar of their time [14], while today’s formal Mathematics is indeed the preserve of an elite few [1].
  • Hinduphobia is rampant in the Humanities departments of Western universities, which is subsequently exported to Indian universities, even as the digestion of Hindu science and technology results continues unabated [16].

Step 4. The final result is catastrophic for the source civilization: “the depleted civilization enters the proverbial museum as yet another dead culture, ceasing to pose a threat to the dominant one. After being digested, what is left of a civilization is waste material to be removed and destroyed.”  A mathematical monoculture was imposed on India during the colonial era after uprooting the ‘beautiful tree‘, India’s indigenous decentralized education system whose Ganita curriculum was sensitive to local requirements. Few students and teachers in Indian schools and universities today are aware of the source Ganita tradition. Among those who recognize the word,  few realize it is not an Indian neologism for Mathematics. Is this not an instance of cultural genocide?

How can we protect and revive the authentic and practical Ganita tradition that was the head of all the Indian sciences? To do this, we must identify the nature of the civilizational ‘Poison Pills’ within Ganita.

Civilizational Poison Pills

Rajiv Malhotra introduced the idea of civilizational poison pills from an Indian perspective in ‘Indra’s Net’. [13]. “Poison pills are those elements or tenets that cannot be digested into the DNA of a predator, because consuming them would lead to the destruction of the predator’s constitution. If a predator absorbs such an element, it will mutate so profoundly that it will lose its original identity and qualities.”  We now try to identify the poison pill in Ganita that needs to be preserved.

Ganita’s Poison Pill

The Indians achieved a smart reduction in uncertainty in calculations to a contextually admissible level, instead of beating themselves up trying to attain complete certainty. Ganita and Vedic thought recognizes that human understanding of the cosmos is never fully complete. In [4], the Indian and western mindset is compared thus: “Indians indeed find it natural to engage in non-linear thinking, juxtaposing opposites and tackling complexities that cannot be reduced to simple concepts or terms. They may be said even to thrive on ambiguity, doubt, uncertainty, multitasking, and in the absence of centralized authority and normative codes. Westerners, by contrast, tend by and large to be fearful of unpredictable or decentralized situations. They regard these situations as problems to be fixed. As we shall see, there is in fact some scholarly evidence that demonstrates this view of Western attitudes.” For a mindset that revels in perfection, this element of uncertainty that was acceptable within Ganita is a poison pill. This anxiety was evident in all stakeholders in Europe during the Ganita-Math encounters.

Western Fear of Uncertainty

Practically every Western point of view from the ultra-secular, to the religious during the Ganita-Math encounters was in conflict with Ganita’s poison pill:

  • In the abacus-algorismus battle, Ganita’s idea of ‘one manifesting as many’ in its place value system and the way it managed non-representability was suspect, given the scope for ‘chaos’ and ‘fraud’.
  • For a reasoning mind like Descartes, measuring the ratio of curved to straight lines involved an irreducible uncertainty, an understanding of which was beyond the human mind. This gave rise to the term ‘irrational numbers’ [1]. Not surprisingly, he rejected the idea of infinitesimals too.
  • Philosopher Thomas Hobbes was no friend of the Jesuits. But he too found the absolute, perfect order found in Euclidean geometry was its most appealing aspect and reflected his own perspective. As noted in [12] “in their deep structure, the Jesuit papal kingdom and the Hobbesian commonwealth are strikingly similar. Both are hierarchical, absolutist states where the will of the ruler, whether Pope or Leviathan, is the law.”
  • The Jesuits, Protestants, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anglicans, and a vast majority of Christian sects may have disagreed on some theological points, but all subscribed to the history-centric truth claims of the Nicene Creed [4]. At least three aspects of Mathematics would’ve appealed to them:
    • Calendar and time-keeping helped preserve history centric dogma and reestablish the importance of clergy.
    • The top-down, hierarchical perfect Eucliean order.
    • Proving theorems without need for empirical demonstration. History-centric Christianity treats the body as a vessel of original sin. Embodied knowing is problematic for this mindset.
  • Pioneer Jesuat monk Cavalieri underwent an inner struggle [12] after ingesting this poison pill, and all but disowned his Ganita-based idea of ‘indivisibles’.
  • Scientists who championed the cause of the infinitesimals, and their successors could never come to grips either. The Tagore-Einstein conversation is a good example. As mentioned in [4] “Not even Einstein was able to reconcile himself to the uncertainty inherent in quantum mechanics, prompting him to remark: ‘God does not play dice with the universe.’ But Shiva and Parvati, the Hindu cosmic couple, do happily play dice. Indian philosophy is receptive to the uncertainty theories of physics.

See Article 

However this poison pill does not negatively impact the Indian mindset. Why? Our Ganita Post discusses in detail, but we briefly summarize here for the sake of completion.

Ganita’s Comfort in Dealing with Uncertainty

The Indians were comfortable working with contextually accurate estimates for non-quantities like √2 and π, recognizing that the result could be improved upon.  Hindu society has no central authority that could ban innovation or the exploration of the realms of uncertainty. Its decentralized structure produced independent thinkers and innovators in every era. Dharma systems have built-in safeguards against Hobbesian/Church absolutism. As Rajiv Malhotra explains in [4] “Chaos is entrenched in the Vedas, the Puranas and Hinduism in general for a reason: its role is to counterbalance and dilute any absolutist tendencies as well as provide creative dynamism through ambiguity and uncertainty.” Ganita inherits all these features, and must retain all these properties for best results.

The inevitability of uncertainty was no cause for panic. It even opened up a degree of freedom for (dharmic, ethical) optimization using Yukti.  This comfort with uncertainty is visible right through Ganita’s storied history from Paanini‘s Ashtadhyayi before the common era, to the Aryabhatiya in the 5th century C.E, within the calculus results of Madhava in the 14th century, to Ramanujan in the 20th century. This perspective placed the Indian creation of all its algorithms, interpolations, calculus, etc. on solid epistemological ground. Let’s look at the Aryabhatiya, as an example.

Aryabhata‘s R-sine difference table shown below required an algorithmic package that managed uncertainty every step of the way in a transparent manner: one method for estimating square-roots, another for interpolation, and yet another non-mechanical exception step to generate an optimal final estimate for each value in the table. The Kerala Ganita experts extended such prior work to infinite series, including their own innovative exception terms [1].

Source: Indian lecture series on Mathematics [14]

Western mathematicians who reviewed Ramanujan’s notes found that he often used the terms “nearly” and “very nearly”[10]. Ramanujan came up with clever, non-mechanical approximations for specific quantities like π. Some of his approximations eventually lead to exact results. His exact infinite series for π triggered the most dramatic leap in accuracy since Madhava [14]. Some examples of his approximations are shown below [10].

ramanujan-1

ramanujan-1

The Indian approach seeks balance between chaos and order [4] and represents a dharmic optimization under uncertainty.

Eliminating uncertainty and deleting Yukti, Upapatti, and Pramana from Ganita to digest it, drains it of key features that make it a powerful and reliable approach for solving real-life problems. Furthermore, lack of Pramana can lead to pseudo-science and fraud, as we will see shortly. Preserving these features within an Indian approach to Mathematics has the twin benefits of recovering pragmatism and making the subject understandable and usable by everyone. It protects against further digestion and denigration of the source tradition.

Finally, How can Ganita preserve this poison pill while continuing to retain its open architecture [13] and confidently exchange knowledge with other cultures?

The need of the hour is a thorough and systematic purva paksha of Mathematics and Modern Science, employing an Indian lens.

We don’t have to be a Manjul Bhargava to experience some differences between Ganita and Math.  We can simply try out the basic instruments employed within each subject.

Indian Rope vs Euclidean Geometry Box

One of C.K. Raju’s most important contributions is his cogent argument for a fundamental change in the way math is taught in Indian schools and colleges.

Source: fastudent.com

The rope is a key entity in Ganita and the Darshanas. A fundamental feature of the rope is its flexibility, reflecting the idea of ‘one manifesting as many’. The night-time confusion between a rope and a snake is an example that has been used Dharmic seekers to communicate the deep ideas about the nature of ultimate reality.

Source: Library of Congress

The knotted rope is a critical component of the ancient Indian navigational instrument known as the rapalagai  or kamal [1]. The ‘Sulba’ in the Sulba Sutras means ‘cord/string/rope’, and the rope served as a measuring tool since ancient times. Consequently, as C.K. Raju notes, the circumference can be the independent quantity measured quite naturally using a rope, with the straight line radius derived from this. A mathematical mind measures the straight line (Euclidean distance) first. A geometry box consists of an assortment of rigid straight-edged tools, and each one is used for a specific operation.

source: Indian Mathematics Lecture Series [14]
A knotted string can measured curved lines. When it is stretched taut between pins, it becomes a straight line, and with one of the pins freed, it behaves like a compass. This strings-and-pins set can be used to construct squares, rectangles, circles, etc, i.e., its flexibility reproduces the functionality of an expensive geometry box at a fraction of the cost. It unlocks the creativity of Ganita and is available even to the poorest student.

Indian Nyaya versus Aristotelian Logic

From the Indian point of view, two-valued (Aristotelian) logic can play a supporting role (e.g. like tarka [22]) but does not enable a person to attain a higher level of consciousness [4]. Note that such reductive logic is different from the holistic logic of Nyaya, which accepts multiple pramanas. In fact, no major school of Indian thought directly mentions deductive logic as pramana [22]. On the other hand, all major Indian schools of thought accept pratyaksha pramana, which in rejected by Mathematics [1]. Misusing two-valued logic (that has no place for uncertainty) as pramana negates Ganita’s poison pill.

Mathematics in India Today

The  current approach to teaching mathematics in India appears to be a stressful  and boring mixture of bits-and-pieces of Ganita mashed up with partially understood formal Mathematics imported from the west. This digested teaching approach has been successful in confounding multiple generations of Indian students. The modern rote/mechanical mode is a distortion of the original approach of recollective memory, which was a distinct mode of learning that cultivated the amazing computational (Ganita) abilities of the Indians [15].

Repeat after me:

“An acre is the area of a rectangle

whose length is one furlong

and whose width is one chain” – Pink Floyd, The Wall.

The 2016 Hindi movie ‘Nil Battey Sannata’ (~ 0/0) dramatizes this state of confusion. The movie claims that Math is a natural enemy of girls (“Ladkiyon ko Maths se purani dushmani hain“). While this may or may not be true,  the daughters of Lilavati  should not experience any difficulty with Ganita. For the great Shakuntala Devi, Ganita was a bandhu, not an enemy. The sophisticated Ganita within Kolam designs attests to the embodied learning capability within women. Let us also not forget the women engineers of ISRO who mastered the Ganita of rockets and spacecraft (yes, Ganita’s calculus without limits can do this well [1]).

ISRO staff celebrating ‘Mangalyaan’ success. credit: www.aniruddhafriend-samirsinh.com

The intrepid mother in the movie tells her daughter that “maths yaad karne ki nahi, samajne ki cheez hai“, while the maths-savvy classmate advises: “ek baar maths se dosti karke dekho, usse majhedaar aur kuch nahi“. A key scene in the movie shows everyday, familiar objects from real life being used to convey this ‘samaj’ – clearly a Ganita rather than an Euclidean solution to an Indian problem [15].

In formal math, even something as simple as a point (Bindu) gets hairy. (Euclid: A point is that which has no part, then graduate to this).  A blind import of western approaches into the Indian classroom without subjecting it to a thorough purva paksha,  is a folly not just restricted to Ganita, but one that been repeated in different areas of study including social sciences, economics, religion, art, etc. The net result is years of misery for most Indian students followed by a trip to the west to get it straight from the horse’s mouth. S. Gurumurthy has repeatedly noted the negative impact and the poor track record of such a reductive mathematics in solving practical problems in the Indian economic context.  We close with a discussion on contemporary mathematics and the way forward.

The Needham Question
"With the appearance on the scene of intensive studies of mathematics, science,  technology and medicine in the great non-European civilisations, debate is likely to sharpen, for the failure of China and India to give rise to distinctively modern science while being ahead of Europe for fourteen previous centuries is going to take some explaining” - Joseph Needham.

Many Indian scholars have attempted to answer this complex question. However, virtually all of these responses that try to provide social/religious explanations offer little insight due to a shallow understanding of dharma and Ganita traditions, and the inability to do a systematic Purva Paksha of the western approach using an Indian lens. We quickly summarize three perspectives below noting that we are only scratching the surface here.

A. Several centuries of foreign occupation

This occupation of India ranked among the worst and longest-running genocides in history and was characterized by violence that specifically the Indian intellectuals. Such a strategy is likely to have taken a heavy toll on Indian R&D output and institutions. When there was a sustained break from this violence, e.g., the time period of  the Vijayanagara empire,  we observe that Ganita, Ayurveda, astronomy, and other sciences achieved significant progress.

B. Civilizational inertia: complacency or weariness?

The sharpest debates in India occurred internally, between the various darshanas, which may have shifted the focus away from the study of external cultures entering India. There appears to be no evidence of a thorough study of the axiomatic approach from a native perspective. The Indians may have identified the lack of integral unity in the western approach and rejected it without any further examination of possible useful features.  CK Raju notes in [1] that it was only in the 18th century that India got the Elements translated from Persian into Sanskrit (by Jai Singh). This lack of a systematic Purva Paksha is not limited to Ganita alone but is also seen in many other areas, as pointed out by Rajiv Malhotra [16], suggesting an overly inward focus, careless disunity against an external threat, and a lack of strategic thinking.

C. The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics

Roddam Narasimha’s analysis examines a question complementary to Needham’s: what are the reasons for a sudden European resurgence after 1400+ years of backwardness in science and technology? He cites a key reason for their resurgence in the 17th century: the mathematization of science. Galileo is his study of the motion of falling bodies, used the calculus (via Cavalieri) to came up with the ‘law of the parabolic fall’. This is considered the first ever quantitative representation of motion using mathematical equations [12].  Scientists thereafter began to develop effective quantitative models relating different physical quantities like velocity, momentum, etc. using abstract models and calculus.Newton titled his famous scientific work as ‘Principia Mathematica‘. These mathematical models, however ‘wrong’ they may be, helped in new discoveries.

Indian Ganita experts too may not have anticipated this unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics when they rejected it for centuries. Narasimha summarizes this in [17]:  “Modern science seems to have acquired, perhaps by fortunate accident, the property that the great Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna called prapakatva: i.e., it delivers what it promises; it may not be the Truth, but it is honest“.

The Road Ahead

Ganita, in the more recent interactions with modern science and math has made positive contributions, e.g., Satyendranath Bose and Narendra Karmarkar. The Bose-Einstein statistics comes out of counting exercise and is a significant contribution to Quantum Mechanics[17]. Karmarkar is famous for inventing the first practically effective algorithm for solving linear programs that is also theoretically efficient. Karmarkar’s proof of convergence demonstrates Yukti in gradually reducing the level of uncertainty in the solution quality in way that is both practically viable, and theoretically rigorous (a teeny bit of uncertainty remains in the end but it can be safely ignored).  Clearly, interacting with and exchanging ideas with other cultures can be beneficial, provided it is done with eyes wide open.  Scientists and applied mathematicians today employ a variety of different methods, including deduction, induction, inference, etc., along with empirical validation, etc., to come up with new findings and inventions.

Per Roddam Narasimha, the Indians paid a price for rejecting the axiomatic approach, but their stance was vindicated later by the 20th century developments in Quantum/Classical Mechanics and Logic [17].  Furthermore, modern science is being increasingly plagued by a variety of harmful ‘viruses’ that would not affect a ‘Ganita OS’.

Unreasonable expectations from Mathematics

The mathematization of science has succeeded, but only when the order it brings is honestly balanced by the reality check of an unpredictable nature.  The unbalanced mathematization of economics has resulted in a series of spectacular failures when applied in real life. Indian thinkers like S. Gurumurthy have studied these economic models in depth, and opted for a balanced Ganita-like method, bringing in empirical validation and Yukti to determine practical solutions anchored in Indian reality. Western social science, which mimics the axiomatic approach is degenerating into a self-serving pseudo-science that offers little insight. A sizable proportion of results published in modern scientific journals are not reproducibleThis highly cited 2005 article discusses the implications.  And then there is the issue of fraud that is peculiar to the western modeling approach based on Aristotelian logic.

Falling for Supermodels
Without+photoshop+_305e904f954ae7c6b82bd7893278408d
Source: funnyjunk.com

Supermodels sell an advertising pitch, not reality. Yet the temptation of falling for the perfection of abstract math models and ignoring the uncertainty of the real world can be too strong. As [17] notes: “The history of Western science is shot through with the idea of theories and models and of fraud. Ptolemy himself has been accused of fraud; so in more recent times have Galileo, Newton, Mendel, Millikan and a great variety of other less well-known figures. I believe the reason for this can be traced to faith in two-valued logic.” All models approximate reality. When this gap gets too wide, it makes sense to reject that model. However, it is tempting to reject reality in favor of a pet model or preferred hypothesis by cherry-picking data, fudging results, or tweaking the model in ‘creative’ ways to ‘make’ it work (e.g. some ‘AIT’ models in the Indian context).

Ganita does not suffer from this issue. Why? As noted in [17] that when “observation is the starting point and one has no great faith in any particular physical model, which was the prevailing norm of Indian scientific thought, the question of fraud does not arise. Indian scientists, even classical ones, do not appear to have accused each other of fraud. This could not have been mere politeness, as they did make charges of ignorance or even stupidity against each other (as Brahmagupta did on Aryabhata, for example). We could say that fraud is the besetting sin of a model-making scientific culture“.

Synthetic unity has its advantages and has revolutionized modern science, but progress based on Integral unity is more sustainable.

Some western scientists and mathematicians may have sensed this lack of Pramana. Poincare explored the role of intuition and inference in his candid 1905 essay [18]. We even get a hint of integral unity here. Albert Einstein was aware of the limitations of Math when he noted “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” Contemporary mathematician Terrence Tao recognizes that there is more to mathematics than just rigor and proof [19]. Thus, we see a limited move by Math toward the Ganita position while remaining firmly grounded in its native western tradition. Ganita can reciprocate in mutual respect, anchored in its own epistemology. We conclude with an informal discussion on emerging technologies.

Digestion by Machine: Math versus Ganita

Ganita is well-suited for this era of decentralized internet, analytics, big data, and digital computing which is algorithm driven. The emerging world of Artificial Intelligence is also very interesting. We touched upon AI citing an important observation of Subhash Kak [20] in our post on Ganita. As AI becomes highly sophisticated, it will be able to automate many human capabilities. It may eventually master the axiomatic approach and digest the Euclidean mathematician.

On the other hand the Indian approach to knowledge is rooted in the correspondence principle of Bandhu. Potential fallibility is acknowledged. Machines cannot replicate embodied knowing since they lack Bandhus, and they will not have the ability to attain a higher state of consciousness. For example, machines cannot chant mantras. Next, this ‘Euclidean’ robot will be able to master scriptures, and emulate all text-prescribed functionality of a cleric. It can function as a virtual holy establishment by delivering impeccable discourses. It will become an expert of theology by encoding history-centric truth claims as axioms and applying two-valued logic. However, it cannot become a Yogi.  Learning Ganita and internalizing the Dharmic worldview offers job security in the world of robots!  India can lead the way forward by carefully reintegrating useful features of modern science and math into its Vedic framework [21].

References:
  1. Cultural foundations of mathematics: the nature of mathematical proof and the transmission of the calculus from India to Europe in the 16th c. CE, C. K. Raju. Pearson Longman, 2007.
  2. Plato on Mathematics. MacTutor History of Mathematics archive. 2007.
  3. Plato’s Theory of Recollection. Uploaded by Lorenzo Colombani. Academia.edu. 2013.
  4. Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism. Rajiv Malhotra. Harper Collins. 2011.
  5. Axiomatism and Computational Positivism: Two Mathematical Cultures in Pursuit of Exact Sciences. Roddam Narasimha. Reprinted from Economic and Political Weekly, 2003.
  6. Use and Misues of Logic. Donald Simanek. 1997.
  7. Computers, mathematics education, and the alternative epistemology of the calculus in the Yuktibhasa. C. K. Raju. 2001.
  8.  American Veda: From Emerson and the Beatles to Yoga and Meditation How Indian Spirituality Changed the West. Phil Goldberg. Random House LLC. 2010.
  9. Logic in Indian Thought. Subhash Kak.
  10. Ramanujan’s Notebooks. Bruce Berndt. Mathematics Magazine (51). 1978.
  11. C. K. Raju. Teaching mathematics with a different philosophy. Part 2: Calculus without Limits. 2013.
  12. Infinitesimal: How a Dangerous Mathematical Theory Shaped the Modern World. Amir Alexander. Farrar, Straus and Giroux reprint / Scientific American. 2014.
  13. Indra’s Net: Defending Hinduism’s Philosophical Unity. Rajiv Malhotra. Harper Collins. 2011
  14. Mathematics in India – From Vedic Period to Modern Times: Video Lecture Series, by M. D. Srinivas. K. Ramasubramaniam, M. S. Sriram. 2013.
  15. Mathematics Education in India: Status and Outlook. Editors: R. Ramanujam, K. Subramaniam. Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, TIFR. 2012.
  16. The Battle For Sanskrit. Rajiv Malhotra. Harper Collins. 2016.
  17. Some thoughts on the Indian half of Needham question: Axioms, models and algorithms. Roddam Narasimha. Infinity Foundation. 2002.
  18. Intuition and Logic in Mathematics. English Translation of Essay by Henri Poincaré. 1905.
  19. The Pragnya Sutra: Aphorisms of Intuition. Subhash Kak. Baton Rouge, 2006.
  20. There’s more to mathematics than rigour and proofs. Terence Tao. 2009.
  21. Vedic Framework And Modern Science. Rajiv Malhotra. Swarajya Magazine. 2015.
  22. Epistemology and Language in Indian Astronomy and Mathematics. Roddam Narasimha. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 2007.
  23. The Math Page. Plane Geometry: An Adventure in Language and Logic based on
    Euclid’s Elements. Lawrence Spector, 2016.
  24. Continuity and Infinitesimals. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2005, substantive revision 2013.
  25. The Indian Origins of the Calculus and its Transmission to Europe Prior to Newton and Leibniz. Part II: Lessons for Mathematics Education. C. K. Raju, 2005.
  26. Why Write: Legos, Power, and Control.  F. D. Poston. Johns Hopkins School of Education.
  27. Indo-Portuguese Encounters: Journeys in Science, Technology, and Culture. Edited by Lokita Varadarajan. Indian National Science Academy. 2006.
  28. The Kerala School, European Mathematics and Navigation. D. P. Agarwal. Infinity Foundation Mandala website.
Acknowledgments: I'm deeply grateful to the ICP blogger and editor for their constructive comments, review, and feedback.

An Indic Perspective to Mathematics — 2

This is the Second in a Set of Posts as a follow up to our ‘Introduction to Ganita’.


AlgorithmGanita
Source: IIT Lecture Series on Indian Mathematics [14]
This Set of Posts on the Indic Perspective to Mathematics is the third installment of our continuing Series on Ganita.  Our first article in the Series celebrated Srinivasa Ramanujan. The Second provided an Introduction to Ganita. Emphases within quotes are ours.

Topic Outline

Part 1: (Introduction) 

In Part 1 of this Set of Posts on the Indic Perspective to Mathematics, we provided a background on the historical paradigms that drive the engines of Ganita and Western Mathematics respectively.

Part 2: (below) Ganita-Math Encounters. Ganita and Math came face-to-face when Indian Algorithms and Calculus traveled to Europe to help solve two critical problems: calculating with big numbers and managing the infinitely small. In a tense battle, Ganita’s balance of order and chaos prevails over the top-down Euclidean order backed by the church. We become aware of the massive contribution of the Vijayanagara empire to modern science.

Part 3: We adopt an Indic civilizational perspective of the Math-Ganita encounters. This gives rise to  interesting questions like ‘What was lost when Mathematics digested Ganita?’. We also look ahead, exploring the importance of Ganita and its Indian approach in a futuristic world.

Ganita-Mathematics Encounters
Experts have their expert fun
ex cathedra 
telling one 
just how nothing can be done. - Piet Hein.

In the Introduction to this Set of Posts, we studied the Greek origins of ‘Mathematics’. The abstract nature of Mathematics resulted in a drastically reduced practical output and Europe plunged into a 1000+ year dark era. During this period, Ganita contributions from Dharma thought systems helped keep math practically relevant in other parts of the world, right up to the 17-18th century CE. In particular, this injection of Ganita helped resolve two Math crises in Europe [1]. For the purpose of this post, we oversimplify and classify these problems as the ‘big’, and ‘small’ number’ crises. By helping resolve these crises, Ganita played a leading role in the birth and progress of modern science.

Big Number Crisis (Abacus vs Algorismus)

Here is example of a 10-digit Hindu number and its Roman numeral representation.

large numbers
credit: http://forbrains.co.uk/free_online_tools/convert_to_roman_numerals

There are several such websites that allow us to perform this conversion and three aspects stand out. First is the reference to ‘Arab numbers‘ in many sites. Second, is a maximum limit on the input. Third, ‘0’ or negative numbers are not valid input. The idea of ‘Arab numbers’ is of course, deep-rooted in the western STEM community to this day (IEEE journal publication guidelines still refer erroneously to ‘Arabic numerals’) since a large body of Ganita knowledge made it to the west via Arab translations of Sanskrit works. As can be gauged from the conversion tool, the Roman system is cumbersome for doing actual calculations. Its representation is additive in nature and there is no place value for zero, and the idea that placing a ‘0’ after a number would increase its value was befuddling. The west relied on the abacus / counting board, which was adequate for simple arithmetic calculations (the Indians did most of their routine arithmetic mentally). The introduction of ‘algorismus’ from India via Arab sources  around the 11th-12th century CE provided the merchants of Florence with an incredibly advanced way of quickly and accurately performing all kinds of numerical calculations [1].

Although traders found it to be practically useful, resistance to the alien method was stiff and it was several centuries (16th century) before the Hindu system gained unanimous acceptance. Well, almost. The British treasury preferred to place their money in the ‘secure’ hands of the abacus and held out until the 17th century [1].  By that time, the second math crisis in Europe was well underway.

Source: wikimedia.org.

Smiling Boetius‘ works with Hindu numerals to prevail over his opponent, Pythagoras, who is sadly stuck with a counting board abacus. This depiction of the victory of ‘algorismus’ is on the cover of Gregor Reisch’s Margarita Philosophica (1508) [1].

Aside from the suspicion of an Arab source in a crusading world, a technical reason for the distrust appears to be Ganita’s approximation techniques combined with the fear of zeroes being added to make sums bigger. To a mind accustomed to the perfection of Euclidean math, not even the tiniest quantity could be discarded. Such unacceptable imperfections could open the door to fraud and chaos [1]. The Indian approach, since the Sulba Sutras, recognized the non-representability of certain quantities (e.g. √2) and employed pragmatic and epistemologically secure approximation methods without anxiety, in order to reduce uncertainty (round-off error) to within an acceptable level [1]. ‘Algorismus’ was absorbed into European practice in order to resolve real-life calculations, but not the underlying pramana and empirical rationale (e.g. upapatti).  Why?

Small Number crisis (Infinitesimals and the Indian Origin of Calculus)

The Indian Background Story

Source: HaindavaKeralam| Zenith of Vijayanagara Empire
Brothers Harihara and Bukka, with the blessings of Rishi Vidyaranya, laid the foundation for one of the most important empires in Indian and world history in 1336 CE. In particular, the global scientific community owes the Vijayanagara empire a debt of gratitude.

While most regions of 14th century India reeled from the attack of fundamentalist invaders who had already destroyed India’s top universities and institutions, the Vijayanagara Empire became an oasis that protected and nurtured the Dharma. In particular, a school of Ganita was etablished in Kerala thanks to the prosperity and security enjoyed by the region during the Vijayanagara period, between the 14th and 16th century CE. An important member of this Ganita tradition was Madhava of Sangamagrama (~1350-1425 CE). This school produced a illustrious line of scholars who were the genuine adhyatmic and intellectual successors of Aryabhata, Bhaskara, and other great seekers. A major part of the foundation for modern science was laid by the Kerala school and the Ganita tradition they carried forward.

Recall that Aryabhata had already come up with finite difference equations for interpolation by 499 CE to generate fine-grained sine values. His practical approach essentially translates into Euler’s  18th century method for solving ordinary differential equations (ODEs). These results were subsequently improved upon by Brahmagupta (his second order interpolation result is known as ‘Stirling’s Interpolation Formula‘ today),  Bhaskara-2, and others [1]. Today, Indians are familiar with the phrase ‘Tatkal booking’ of train tickets. The ancient Ganita experts had developed algorithms  to calculate the Tatkalika gati of planets, their instantaneous velocity (an important quantity in Newtonian physics), as shown below.

Source: Lecture Series on Indian Mathematics [14]

We can observe a continual progress in India toward calculus, right from Aryabhata [1]. For all practical purposes, the Ganita school in Kerala during the Vijayanagara period can rightfully claim to be the developers of Calculus (from a formal mathematics perspective, western historians credit them for ‘pre calculus’). C.K. Raju has demonstrated the all-around practical viability of this epistemologically secure calculus without the use of ‘limits’ [11].

Madhava gave the world some beautiful and important results in infinite series by 1375 CE, centuries before Newton/Leibniz/Gregory/Taylor/McLaurin & Co.

madhava_collage
Source: Indian Mathematics, An Overview (https://youtu.be/p2WankcGP3Q)

In the derivation of these calculus results we can observe a smart management of the non-representability of infinitesimals based on order counting, along with a judiciously chosen exceptional / end-correction term (right side of the picture above). This is a really cool and important innovation that serves twin purposes, as explained by C. K. Raju below [1].

correction_term

There are many other novel ideas and instances of such Yukti within the Indian approach.  The interested reader can refer to [1] for a detailed description of the techniques employed.

It is worth comparing the meaningful Sanskrit non-translatable abhiyukti (expressing, or translating one’s Yukti in action) to its nearest English counterpart ‘algorithm’. The latter from the Latin ‘algorismus’, which in turn came from Al-khwarizmi who had translated Sanskrit texts of Ganita (see the picture at the top of this post). Jyesthadeva published the Ganita Yuktibhasa around 1530 CE in Malayalam, which provides the detailed mathematical rationale validating the Calculus results[1].

Why was Calculus Important to India?

Madhava’s infinite series with end-correction terms, allowed him to quickly calculate estimates for trigonometric values and π (pi) to very high levels of accuracy. For example, Madhava was able to calculate π to 11 decimal places, which represents both a quantitative, and methodological leap over prior brute-force type approaches (the next such dramatic leap was also due to Ganita, via Ramanujan) [14].  A natural follow-up question is: why were precise trigonometric values useful? Isn’t calculating π to many decimal places purely an academic exercise?  We summarize the reasons below, referring the interested reader to [1] for a detailed description.

Agriculture and Trade were key contributors to an Indian economy that played a dominant role on the world stage from 0 CE (and earlier) through 1750 CE.

Agriculture
  1. Krishi was and is a dominant component of the Indian economy. It was (and still is) dependent on a successful rainy season, which means that accurately calculating the arrival time of monsoons is important. A couple of weeks ago, the Indian government announced a $60M supercomputer project to better predict monsoons.
  2. Vedanga Jyotisha is primarily a science of time keeping that has numerous applications and has been recognized by researchers as a key source of knowledge in the ancient world [1]. It enabled the Indians to maintain an accurate calendar. Thus, from a Krishi perspective, the Ganita of Jyotisha acted as a decision support system for planning and scheduling key agricultural activities.
  3. The Indian calendar date and time was calculated with respect to the prime meridian at Ujjain (long before Greenwich), which was then re-calibrated to obtain local times at locations all over Bharatvarsha that covered a vast area (ancient India was united by time too!). This local re-calibration:
    • ⇒ required the calculation of the local latitude and longitude (lat-long)
    • ⇒ which (in the Indian approach) used the size of Earth as input
    • ⇒ this required a value for π
    • ⇒ trigonometric values were also needed for lat-long calculations
    • Precise numerical values were required since tiny errors get magnified after multiplication by big numbers (in the order of the Earth’s radius). Thanks to the Ganita tradition, the Indians had access to good estimates that were continuously improved upon.
ujjainmeridian
Source: builtheritageconservation| The Ujjain Meridian
Overseas Trade

India has a culture of calculation and embodied knowing that goes back thousands of years. Many ordinary Indians even today take pride in their ability to think and calculate on their feet, or pull off some Jugaad without the aid of electronic devices. The pattern-seeking Indian nature is visible in their traditional approach to navigation, reflecting an ability to discover sufficient order even within an ocean of chaos. The metaphor of the Samudra Manthana truly comes alive here.

  1. India, thanks to its manufacturing and technological prowess, had established lucrative trading relationships as a net exporter with several countries, from ancient Rome to the far east. Much was this was done through open sea routes, and not just sailing close to the coast [1].
  2. Prior to the 11th century CE, accumulated navigational knowledge included seasonal wind patterns (‘wind lore’), nature of ocean currents (‘current lore’), etc., and the empirical wisdom of sea-craft. The ancient Tamizh seafarers made use of the Saptharishi mandalam (Ursa Majorin the southern hemisphere. This database of seafaring wisdom and best practices were preserved, improved upon, and transmitted from generation to generation via the oral traditions of the seafaring Jatis [27].
  3. Thus, the Indian sailors had already established a tradition of navigation and deep sea voyage without written charts (they rejected the method of dead reckoning‘ in order to stay alive). Their approach included an empirical understanding of ocean patterns, Ganita, and instrumentation like the rapalagai (kamal) for celestial observations. Tamizh navigators deciphered currents using a simple device known as mitappu palagai [27].
  4. Such historical data further debunks the theory that oral traditions were ‘pre-rational’ and the sole preserve of Vedic scholars. Hinduphobic Indologists like Sheldon Pollock are dismissive of such priceless oral traditions [16]. The western universal idea of history begins with written text and it is tough for this mindset to imagine open-sea navigation without written charts.
  5. Accurately determining the local lat-long using celestial observations (solar altitude at noon, pole star at night, etc.) was part of this approach.
  6. More reliable navigation in the open seas is possible if the 3L: latitude, longitude, and loxodrome can be accurately obtained for any given location. These were indeed calculated in multiple ways by the Indians using trigonometric values [1].
chola sea route pic
Source: Indo-Portuguese Encounters [27] | Chola Sea Route
Continual Progress in Calculating Accurate Trigonometric Values
  1. Aryabhata’s astounding publication of his R-sine difference table along with an interpolation method stepped away from the geometrical approach that was employed until then [1]. The Aryabhatiya was a prized intellectual property of its time. It significantly improved the accuracy of trigonometric values (given the sine value of an angle, one can use elementary identities to calculate all other trig values).
  2. Aryabhata’s work paved the way for Calculus. Over the next 1000 years, the Indians steadily improved upon prior estimates.
  3. Calculus was a natural outcome of this process of deriving ever more accurate trigonometric values. The Kerala school’s calculus extended the finite series based trigonometric results to a highly accurate infinite series based approach.

We refer the reader to this essay [28] by D.P. Agarwal for his summary of the Kerala School, European Mathematics, and Navigation. It is highly likely that this Ganita knowledge traveled to Europe via European missionaries in Kerala and played a key part in revolutionizing physics and mechanics via Newton’s Principia Mathematica and other works.  This story serves as background for the question: why did the idea of ‘infinitesimals’ which was a non-issue in the Ganita world, spark a crisis in Europe?

The European Background Story

Ancient Greek math hit a roadblock after encountering paradoxes tied to infinitely small quantities. Mathematics could not deal with the irritating uncertainty around infinitesimals and the problem of non-representability: For example, an infinite number of threads of minuscule but nonzero length, joined end-to-end should yield an infinitely long thread. On the other hand, combining even an infinite number of threads of ‘zero’ length would only yield zero. Aristotle believed that continuum could be divided endlessly and could not be made up of ‘indivisibles’.

A famous paradox (which used to be popular among those preparing for engineering school entrance exams in India) is that of Achilles and the Tortoise. Around 500 BCE,  Zeno of Elea came up with several such paradoxes that exposed the gaps in a seemingly perfect mathematics and two-valued logic. Unable to satisfactorily resolve such contradictions and deal with non-representability of certain quantities (a fundamental requirement for numerical calculations), Greek progress halted. The dark ages robbed the west of native expertise and appears to have hurt them in key areas including, but not limited to [1, 27]:

  • Astronomy, Navigation, Instrumentation
  • Calendrical Systems, Ship Building
  • Medicine and Botany

After more than a thousand years, between the 12th-16th century, we can observe the emergence of a new kind of Mathematics in Europe, which was fundamentally different in its epistemology from the Euclidean approach. This knowledge first arrived via Arab/Persian translations of Ganita works in Sanskrit, and later through Missionaries who had direct access to Ganita’s latest results in Sanskrit and local Indian languages. We kick off this discussion using the European calendar as a case study.

Trick question: What came after Thursday, October 4th, 1582 in Europe?

The answer is Friday, October 15th. The European (Julian) calendar was slow by about 11  minutes per year for about 1200 years across their dark age. Church and Biblical dogma reigned supreme from the time the Nicene creed was formalized in 325 CE. This dogma can be best understood as an instance of history-centrism [4], and a key to preserving the credibility of this ‘history’ of unique divine intervention is proper time keeping and dating of these events. This was a key motivation behind the European quest for a better calendar.

The Indians had maintained accurate calendars since ancient times thanks to Vedanga Jyotisha for use within multiple applications, and Buddhists even helped with calendars in China [1] (helping the Chinese is an old Indian habit…). The Roman Church realized in 1582 that their calendar was trailing the correct date by 11 whole days. This key project of calendar reform was taken up by Christopher Clavius (1538-1612 CE), a Jesuit priest. Thanks to his painstaking work, Pope Gregory was able to press the fast-forward button on the calendar (thereafter named after him), recommend a leap year correction, and the rest is history.

Milanese artist Camillo Rusconi’s sclupture, 18th century. Pope Gregory is on top of an urn depicting the 1582 promulgation of the Gregorian calendar. Source: http://vminko.org/ under GNU Free Documentation License 1.3.

C.K. Raju has uncovered the Indian source of this calendar bug fix [24, 1]: “Jesuits, like Matteo Ricci, who trained in mathematics and astronomy, under Clavius’ new syllabus [Ricci also visited Coimbra and learnt navigation], were sent to India. In a 1581 letter, Ricci explicitly acknowledged that he was trying to understand local methods of timekeeping from “an intelligent Brahmin or an honest Moor”, in the vicinity of Cochin, which was, then, the key centre for mathematics and astronomy, since the Vijaynagar empire had sheltered it from the continuous onslaughts of raiders from the north. Language was hardly a problem, for the Jesuits had established a substantial presence in India, had a college in Cochin, and had even started  printing presses in local languages, like Malayalam and Tamil by the 1570’s.“. The Jesuits have continued to exercise their influence on the Indian education system to this day. They also played a key role in the second Math-Ganita tussle.

Jesuit (Euclidean) Order versus Indian (Ganita) Chaos

The Jesuits are members of the Society of Jesus, an organization founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556) and rooted in Roman Catholicism. Per [12] “In the broadest sense, imposing order on chaos was the Society’s core mission, both in its internal arrangements and in its engagement with the world.

Sir Peter Paul’s ‘The Miracles of Saint Ignatius of Loyola’ (Source: wikimedia.org)

This painting of Ignatius of Loyola is richly symbolic. It depicts the victory of a perfect top-down hierarchical order over chaos. Loyola and his back-robed Jesuits are in the middle, watched over by angels at the top. Loyola is calmly performing an exorcism, expelling the chaotic evil spirits possessing the bodies of terrified people at the bottom of the picture. [12] provides an insightful description of this picture, noting the role of the black robed Jesuits of Loyola’s Society of Jesus: “They are Ignatius’s army, there to learn from their master, follow his directions, and ultimately take over his mission of turning chaos into order and bringing peace to the afflicted. For that was indeed the “miracle” of St. Ignatius and his followers. Like no one else, they managed to restore peace and order in a land torn apart by the challenge of the Reformation.“.

The Church gained immensely via this decisive mathematical triumph of calendar reform, and Clavius who played an instrumental role, realized the benefits obtainable by investing in mathematics. This was a time period characterized by fissures and dissent in Christianity, with several alternatives and reformations (e.g., led by Calvin) cropping up that challenged the exclusive authority of the catholic church. In this climate, Clavius felt that the top-down hierarchical perfection within Euclidean geometry would be a great fit for the Jesuit curriculum, and in sync with the primary goal of their founder St. Ignatius of Loyola.

As mentioned in [12] “It was clear to Clavius that Euclid’s method had succeeded in doing precisely what the Jesuits were struggling so hard to accomplish: imposing a true, eternal, and unchallengeable order upon a seemingly chaotic reality. Just as Ganita was recognized as the foremost of the sciences in India since ancient times, Euclidean Mathematics became a most important subject in Europe after the calendar reform. The Society of Jesus embraced Math and all was well for a while. The focus had shifted to other pressing topics. For example, navigational challenges had to be overcome in order to ‘discover‘ reliable sea routes to new lands.

The Indivisibles

Calculus created a rather sudden splash into Europe within 50 years of the calendar reform [1]. By that time, the calculus, which was rooted in Indian epistemology had already been developed and studied for two centuries.  Bonaventura Cavilieri (1598-1647), a Milanese Jesuat monk and a student of Galileo was an early adopter. While the Jesuits were more like a MNC, the Jesuats were a local group of Italian monks lower in the pecking order. However, Galileo’s endorsement boosted Cavalieri’s profile significantly. Cavalieri introduced the ‘method of indivisibles’, in which “planes and solids had an indeterminate number of indivisibles” and authored the book Geometria indivisibilibus (Geometry by Way of Indivisibles) in 1635 [12].

While the idea of indivisibles was embraced by the Galileans, the Jesuits were not as welcoming. Those who worked with infinitesimal quantities did so for its practical value in generating realistic new results and could not really establish any logical consistency needed to prove infallible theorems. Unlike Euclid’s Elements which used top-down deductive logic to prove specific theorems from axioms, the use of infinitesimals required the ground-up Ganita approach: to start from physical reality and work toward generalized results, which could lead to innovation and potentially unpredictable discoveries. Clearly, Yukti was not welcomed by the church whereas Galileo’s methods were more compatible with Ganita.

Galileo Galilei (1564 – 1642 CE)

Galileo had become a formidable opponent by that time. He had earlier discovered the moons around Jupiter, and as a prashasthi [16] to a rich grand duke who ruled Florence, named the moons after him and his family. In return, he was rewarded with benefits that included the post of ‘Chief Mathematician’ to the Duke in 1611, which also freed him up to pursue his work as an independent researcher. As [12] notes, “The Galileans also sought truth, but their approach was the reverse of that of the Jesuits: instead of imposing a unified order upon the world, they attempted to study the world as given, and to find the order within.” This started a conflict between the Galileans and the Jesuits.

For the church, the idea that matter could be broken down into infinitely small indivisible atoms was unacceptable. The archives of the Society of Jesus in Rome records for posterity the ruling of their leaders in 1632 on infinitesimals [12]:” Judgment on the Composition of the Continuum by Indivisibles”. …The permanent continuum can be constituted of only physical indivisibles or atomic corpuscles having mathematical parts identified with them. Therefore the said corpuscles can be actually distinguished from each other.” The church basically ducked the question of non-representability and banned the idea and the mathematical study of ‘indivisibles’.

Among the critics of these indivisibles was Thomas Hobbes, the philosopher author of the Leviathan, who deeply influenced Western thought. Hobbes was also an excellent mathematician and a devotee of the Euclidean approach. He was bitterly opposed in this battle of the infinitesimals by John Wallis of England, one of the founders of the Royal Society, the new science academy [12]. Wallis had little time for eternal proofs, and was firmly rooted in what we can unmistakably recognize as the pragmatic Ganita approach for solving real-life problems. Hobbes had tried in vain for several years to prove that he could ‘square the circle‘, and each attempt in this futile exercise was eagerly demolished by Wallis and exploited to the hilt in their public feud [12]. Eventually, Wallis’ team ‘won’ the contest (possibly in terms of cultural and scientific acceptance) and Newton came up with his famous work Principia Mathematica that relies heavily on calculus. Interested readers can refer to [12, 1] for a detailed discussion.

The Ghosts of Departed Quantities

It is worth noting some logical inconsistencies in the positions of both sides in this battle. The church was fighting to save their dogmatic belief in an infallible and orderly Euclidean math against a group injecting a practically useful but poorly-understood imported concept into this math. Every researcher seemed to have his own pet model showing how the math of the infinitely small worked.  In an important and devastating piece of satirical writing, Anglican church bishop Berkeley ridiculed the questionable fluxions of Newton, and Leibniz’s ‘infinitesimal change’ as “the ghosts of departed quantities”. CK Raju concludes (as do others) that this calculus was not on firm epistemological ground.

The European approach appeared to be mechanical and did not, for example, employ the end-correction terms that had helped keep Indian derivation transparent and anchored in a valid pramana [1]. Mathematicians could not accept, understand, or were unaware of the Ganita rationale behind the amazing calculus results derived by the Kerala School. For example, it is known that “Newton later became discontented with the undeniable presence of infinitesimals in his calculus, and dissatisfied with the dubious procedure of “neglecting” them” [24].  Mathematics was enhanced so that calculus was eventually placed on a firm formal foundation in the 20th century [1].

Transmission of Calculus from India to Europe

The etymology of ‘calculus‘ (17th century CE, Latin) relates to ‘reckoning’ and ‘accounting’. This focus is entirely empirical and on calculation, far away from the Euclidean world of theorems and proofs. On the other hand, it is directly corresponds in meaning, intent, and usage to Ganita. So far, research has uncovered three kinds of evidence linking Indian Calculus transmission to Europe: documentary, circumstantial, and epistemological. The interested reader is referred to [24, 1] for details. A primary, initial motivation for appropriating Ganita’s calculus results appears to be the practical problem of navigation: to obtain accurate trigonometric values required to calculate the 3L mentioned earlier [1].

A note in [24] on the circumstantial evidence is worth stating: “Unlike India, where the series expansions developed over a thousand-year period 499-1501 CE, they appear suddenly in fully developed form in a Europe still adjusting to grasp arithmetic and decimal fractions“. The 1400+ year discontinuity in the study of infinitesimals  in Europe was followed by a sudden upsurge in results in the 16th-17th century [12], right after Ganita’s documented achievements in Kerala and the establishment of European missions along the west coast. In fact, this was also a period when results from Ayurveda and Siddha began traveling to Europe giving birth to modern Botany, and similarly revolutionizing western medicine, health-care, and sanitation.

Epistemological Evidence

The epistemological evidence is fascinating to read [1]. A barrier in the western mindset as far as dealing with uncertainty manifests itself clearly in both the first and second math crises. As noted in [24]: “The European difficulty with zero did not concern merely the numeral zero, but related also to the process of discarding or zeroing a “non-representable” during the course of a calculation—similar to the process of rounding. Though the Indian method of summing the infinite series constituted valid pramana, it was not understood in Europe; the earlier difficulty with non-representables zeroed during a calculation reappeared in a new form. This was now seen as a new difficulty—the problem of discarding infinitesimals… In both cases of algorismus and calculus, Europeans were unable to reject the new mathematical techniques because of the tremendous practical value for calculations (required for commerce, navigation etc.), and unable also to accept them because they did not fit in the metaphysical frame of what Europeans then regarded as valid“.

Another instructive story (see page 3 of this essay), highlighting the outcome and unintentional humor caused by a borrow-copy-paste of Ganita without fully understanding its epistemology, is about how ‘sine’ and ‘cosine’ entered Europe. These mistranslated terms destroy the insight behind the original Sanskrit terms jya and kojya [1], baffling generations of Indian students studying Trigonometry.

To this day, neither organized religion and its theology, nor secular mathematicians, have been able to fully embrace the epistemology and validation procedure of Ganita. Why is this? And examining this question from the other direction, why did the Indians not take Euclidean math seriously for two thousand years? What is the future of Ganita? We study these civilizational perspectives in the third and concluding Post of this Set.

Selected References
  1. Cultural foundations of mathematics: the nature of mathematical proof and the transmission of the calculus from India to Europe in the 16th c. CE, C. K. Raju. Pearson Longman, 2007.
  2. Plato on Mathematics. MacTutor History of Mathematics archive. 2007.
  3. Plato’s Theory of Recollection. Uploaded by Lorenzo Colombani. Academia.edu. 2013.
  4. Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism. Rajiv Malhotra. Harper Collins. 2011.
  5. Axiomatism and Computational Positivism: Two Mathematical Cultures in Pursuit of Exact Sciences. Roddam Narasimha. Reprinted from Economic and Political Weekly, 2003.
  6. Use and Misues of Logic. Donald Simanek. 1997.
  7. Computers, mathematics education, and the alternative epistemology of the calculus in the Yuktibhasa. C. K. Raju. 2001.
  8.  American Veda: From Emerson and the Beatles to Yoga and Meditation How Indian Spirituality Changed the West. Phil Goldberg. Random House LLC. 2010.
  9. Logic in Indian Thought. Subhash Kak.
  10. Ramanujan’s Notebooks. Bruce Berndt. Mathematics Magazine (51). 1978.
  11. C. K. Raju. Teaching mathematics with a different philosophy. Part 2: Calculus without Limits. 2013.
  12. Infinitesimal: How a Dangerous Mathematical Theory Shaped the Modern World. Amir Alexander. Farrar, Straus and Giroux reprint / Scientific American. 2014.
  13. Indra’s Net: Defending Hinduism’s Philosophical Unity. Rajiv Malhotra. Harper Collins. 2011
  14. Mathematics in India – From Vedic Period to Modern Times: Video Lecture Series, by M. D. Srinivas. K. Ramasubramaniam, M. S. Sriram. 2013.
  15. Mathematics Education in India: Status and Outlook. Editors: R. Ramanujam, K. Subramaniam. Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, TIFR. 2012.
  16. The Battle For Sanskrit. Rajiv Malhotra. Harper Collins. 2016.

(A full list of references will be published along with Part-3).

Acknowledgment: Big thanks to the ICP blogger and the editor for their constructive feedback, patience, and comments that helped shape and improve this post.

An Indic Perspective to Mathematics — 1

This is the first of a 3-part set of Posts that follows our ‘Introduction to Ganita’


baudhayanatheorem
Pythagorean or Baudhayana Theorem? (from Bhaskara’s Lilavati)
Topic Outline

This Post studies from an Indic perspective, the path taken by Mathematics from ancient Greece to reach its present form. We compare and contrast Math with Ganita (introduced in our previous post) and in this process, also gain a better appreciation for Ganita. In some places, oversimplifications are employed for ease of understanding, and to bring into focus certain latent aspects of the discourse. All emphases within quotes are ours.

For convenience, this Post has been divided into a set of three, to be published consecutively. The first part is presented today, but the entire set is previewed below:

Part 1: We study the origins and motivations of Math and the pivotal roles of Plato, Aristotle, and Euclid (via Elements) in shaping the initial course of Mathematics. We compare the Indian and Greek logic, noting the non-universality of logic. To each civilization and culture, their own: Pramana versus Proof. A fundamentally different understanding of the nature of ultimate reality guides the Math and Ganita approaches: The integral unity underlying Ganita versus a synthetic unity in which Math lives as a separately independent component.

Part 2: We observe and learn what happens when Ganita encountered Math. Sparks fly in a tussle between order and chaos when two sharply different approaches clash.

Part 3: We adopt an Indic civilizational perspective of the Math-Ganita encounters. This gives rise to  interesting questions like ‘What was lost when Mathematics digested Ganita?’. We also look ahead, exploring the importance of Ganita and its Indian approach in a futuristic world.

Part 1:Introduction
Dolores Umbridge: It is the view of the Ministry that a theoretical knowledge will be sufficient to get you through your examinations, which after all, is what school is all about.

Harry Potter: And how is theory supposed to prepare us for what's out there?

(Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, by J. K. Rowling).

Mathematics is the ‘science of learning’ that originated in ancient Greece, and comes from the Greek root mathesiz, or learning [1]. Plato’s Republic (~375 BCE) mentions the five specific disciplines of mathematics as: Arithmetic, Astronomy, Plane and Solid Geometry, and Harmonics [2]. Plato founded the Academy in Athens and gave Western (Greek) philosophy to the world.  ‘Learning’ had a specific meaning in this philosophy. His ‘theory of recollection’ indicates that ‘mathesiz’ is all about a soul recollecting the knowledge it has forgotten. We cannot learn anything new, and only recall what we forgot [3]. His teacher was Socrates, and Aristotle was his famous pupil.  Plato took as ideal that which was perfect, unchanging, abstract, even spiritual, and regarded the phenomenal world riddled with uncertainty as inferior. He favored the rational over the empirical, and the goal of uplifting the soul as superior to the task of performing mundane calculations. For example, when it came to arithmetic, his views as the narrator in the Republic were pretty clear [2]:

I must add how charming the science of arithmetic is! and in how many ways it is a subtle and useful tool to achieve our purposes, if pursued in the spirit of a philosopher, and not of a shopkeeper!’

‘How do you mean?’, he asked.

‘I mean, as I was saying, that arithmetic has a very great and elevating effect, compelling the mind to reason about abstract number, and rebelling against the introduction of visible or tangible objects into the argument.”

Several elegant results came out this Greek approach which can be broadly viewed as a sequence of axiom/model followed by the use of deductive logic to prove an infallible theorem [5]. The exemplar for this approach is Elements, the treatise on geometry attributed to Euclid (~300 BCE), and this ancient work played a very powerful role in shaping the course of Mathematics. The impact of Euclidean geometry is visible to this day. However, progress in the realm of practical application and calculation was curtailed by the downgrading or even the elimination of the empirical.  While logic and deductive reasoning are indispensable in detecting inconsistencies in arguments and help in viewing existing ideas more clearly, scholars have recognized the limitations of logic when it comes to understanding the nature of ultimate reality:

  1. Logic can be misused when it is employed to find Truth. About Aristotle [6]: “it was, for him, a tool for finding truth, but it didn’t keep him from making the most profound errors of thought. Nearly every argument and conclusion he made about physical science was wrong and misguided. Any tool can be misused, and in these pre-scientific days logic was misused repeatedly“.
  2. Deductive reasoning can help us analyze existing ideas better and lead us to a different way of tackling a problem, but in itself cannot lead us to new knowledge.  “deduced conclusions are just restatements and repackaging of the content contained in the premises. The conclusions may look new to us, because we hadn’t thought through the logic, but they contain no more than the information contained in the premises. They are just cast in new form, a form that may seem to give us new insight and suggest new applications, but in fact no new information or truths are generated. This is especially noticeable in mathematics…“[6].

This Mathematics lived in an abstract infallible world divorced from reality.  One cannot also overemphasize the impact of Aristotle’s ‘law of the excluded middle’ on western thought – a law that leaves no room for uncertainty. The intellectual ideas of Greece were eventually digested [4] into Christianity via the so-called ‘Hellenic-Hebraic’ synthesis. This should come as no surprise given the motivation for the studying mathematics included ideas of absolute perfection and ‘uplifting of the soul’. Mathematics thus became intertwined with the theology of an organized religion. A comparative study of the Indian and the Greek approach bring out the sharp differences between the Ganita and the Mathesiz approaches. Ganita, the integral science of computing, is not the same as mathematics. Unlike the five categories of Mathematics laid out by Plato, Ganita is all pervasive.

via @Calvinn_Hobbes

In [4], Rajiv Malhotra comments on the influence of Aristotle on western thought: “The Law of the Excluded Middle dictates that the principle ‘P or not-P’ separates one thing from another in an absolute sense. All physical and logical entities are invariant units, mutually exclusive of each other. This is not just a pragmatic criterion for distinguishing one thing from another; it is the very nature of reality in both concrete and abstract realms. The law eliminates the possibility of things being mutually dependent, interrelated and interpenetrated. It is diametrically opposed to the intertwined and fluid relationships characteristic of integral unity…”.

There appears to have existed a state of tension between the fallible-and-real and the infallible-and-perfect domain in the western thought since the time of Plato, which manifests itself today as the anxiety-filled binary of ‘religion versus science’. Since this gap was never breached, only a synthetic unity was ever possible [4], and the resultant western approach is reductionist. The independent parts have to be subsequently synthesized to achieve unity. For example, we read in  [25] that “much of Western civilization is based on separating the parts. One date is separate from another, history separate from math which is separate from biology. It’s a world view we inherited from Newton and Descartes, so useful in many ways and disastrous in others. However, there has always been an alternative view of the universe as a single, totally interconnected system. You’ll find that in Eastern traditions.“. To this day, Mathematics and Science are treated and taught as two different school subjects. A key tussle here is between the ‘lower’ empirical world we can experience, and the ‘higher’ abstract-theoretical domain, with the latter being considered superior. This western view is even being taken as the universal approach to knowledge.

Western Universalism

Today, we can observe the promotion of the notion of a western universalism that traces its origin to the intellectual tradition of ancient Europe. For example, the choice of the logo for UNESCO, a world body, reflects a desire to preserve the memory of Parthenon in ancient Greece, which was damaged in wars eons ago. Key buildings in several prominent universities in the United States are designed to remind viewers of the glory of ancient Rome and Greece.

The UNESCO logo (Credit: wikimedia.org)

The belief in the dominance of Euclidean Mathematics is reflected in the argument between the ancient Greeks and Epicureans.

The Epicurean Ass

The Epicureans opposed the followers of Euclid who, from their perspective, appeared to be proving obvious results. For example, consider the following proposition in Elements as discussed in [23]:

Any two sides of a triangle are together greater than the remaining side.

In other words, a straight line is the shortest distance between two points!

If anyone wanted to ridicule mathematics for its insistence on the axiomatic method of orderly proof, this theorem offers a wide target. In fact, the Epicureans (those Athenian free-thinkers, who defined philosophy as the art of making life happy) did exactly that. They said that this theorem required no proof, and was known even to an ass. For if hay were placed at one vertex, they argued, and an ass at another, the poor dumb animal would not travel two sides of the triangle to get his food, but only the one side which separated them.”

C. K. Raju explains both sides of the argument [7]: “Proclus replied that the ass only knew that the theorem was true, he did not know why it was true. The Epicurean response to Proclus has, unfortunately, not been well documented. The Epicureans presumably objected that mathematics could not hope to explain why the theorem was true, since mathematics was ignorant of its own principles..” In the end, the Greek response cites the authority of Plato that mathematics “takes its principles from the highest sciences and, holding them without demonstration, demonstrates their consequences. [7].

Let us now introduce an Indic perspective.

In contrast with this Greek view, all Indian schools of thought accept empirical means of verification (e.g., pratyaksha pramana [1, 22]) while acknowledging the potential fallibility. All darshanas would reject any axiomatic approach that lacked valid pramana. The use of empirical rationale has existed in India since ancient times, including the Sulba Sutras (800 BCE or earlier) and is different from the axiom-theorem approach. C. K. Raju puts this in perspective: “Because no proof was stated it does not, of course, follow that the authors of the sulba sutras did not know why the result was true. But the method of proof that convinced them may well have  differed from the current definition of proof. Thus, it is incorrect to assert that the constructional methods used in the sulba-sutras implicitly lead to a proof in a formalistic sense. It is incorrect because the rationale for the formula for a right-angled triangle, from the constructional methods of the sulba-sutras right down to the 16th century Yuktibhasa, explicitly appeals to the empirical“. [7]

The Epicurean Ass argument has been kept alive in some form or the other to this day in a western worldview. From an Indian point of view, a Ganita expert like Srinivasa Ramanujan too was deemed a ‘wizard’ [14, Lecture 1] who did not know why his results were true, despite his point that he employed his own valid method, which produced so many astounding new and true results. He had to move from Kumbakonam to work in the U.K. to prove his results to the satisfaction of the formal math community in order to gain acceptance.

Indian Gurus, Yogis, Siddhas, and Tantriks who, through years of practice and sadhana, demonstrated amazing results in transcendental meditation, mind sciences, and medical sciences are sometimes labeled pre-rational Indian ‘mystics’ [4] as opposed to western ‘scientists’ who came up with sophisticated instrumentation that subsequently confirmed these results. Universities like Harvard periodically comes out with a research report ‘proving‘ prior findings in Yoga and Ayurveda from the Dharma traditions, which have been practically employed for centuries.

Public intellectuals like Rajiv Malhotra also ask: How often are these Hindu and Buddhist monks, who are the primary producers of this knowledge, credited as co-authors in the journal papers? This bias is propagated subtly by western scholars who study Hinduism. For example, Phil Goldberg who teaches at Loyola Marmount University, an institution rooted in the Jesuit Catholic tradition, compares ‘Indian philosophy and Western science’ in [8]. He also endorses the rejection of the ‘orange’ [saffron] robe of Dharma in favor of the authoritative western scientific garb of a ‘white lab coat’ in order to increase the credibility of Yoga and meditation techniques in the minds of westerners. Note the approach is one of extracting the benefits, and then rejecting/denigrating the Dharma source. Such biased attitudes have also helped feed an increasing Hinduphobia within western academia.

Two-valued logic is not universal. India had not one but several different schools of thought that also studied logic [22], including Nyaya and Navya Nyaya, as well the Buddhist Catuskoti, and Jaina Syadavada. In fact, the Buddhist understanding of integral unity as encapsulated in Nagarjuna’s brilliant arguments has been recognized as nothing short of a “death-blow to all synthetic unities that start with different essences and then look for unity” [4].

Indian Logic vs Greek Logic

There are several papers available that discuss the Indian approach to logic. For example see this work of Subhash Kak [9] and this discussion of Indian and Greek logic. In the popular textbook example for Indian syllogism versus that of Aristotelian logic, the first thing we notice are the ‘five steps’ in the Indian approach versus three in the Greek template [22]. The steps in the Indian rules of inference are not redundant and serve as a reality-check based on the correspondence principle of Bandhu [9], whereas the Greek argument is restricted to the infallible abstract domain. As Roddam Narasimha notes in [5] where he compares Greek Axiomatism and Indian Computational Positivism, the Indian distrust of deduction-based logic “appears to have been based on the conviction that the process of finding good axioms was a dubious enterprise. Note that logic in itself was not something that was shunned in India; without going into a detailed discussion of Indian systems of logic, it is enough to note here that time and again Indians use deductive logic to demonstrate inconsistencies or to refute the positions of an adversary in debate, rather than to derive what western cultures have long sought through that method – namely, certain truth.“.

The intellectual prowess of the ‘deductive logician’ has been promoted in popular western culture. For example, Sherlock Holmes is recognized foremost for his superb deductive reasoning, and is considered the most portrayed literary human character in history. However, an analysis of his stories show that Holmes relied a lot on anumana (inference) including the so-called abductive and inductive methods, and Conan Doyle did consider Holmes’ methods to be fallible, which resembles a Ganita approach to sleuthing!

Sherlock Holmes Portrait Paget.jpg
‘Sherlock Holmes’ By Sidney Paget (1860-1908) , Public Domain. Credit: Wiki Commons

CK Raju [1] calls out some flaws in the claim to universality of two-valued logic. First, the Hindu darshanas, Buddhist Catuskoti, and Jaina Syadavada offer solid alternatives from a different culture. These alternatives have always been compatible with the latest developments in science at every point in time, including Quantum Mechanics. We do not find any serious ‘religion vs science’ problem in India [4]. Even the materialist Charvaka school would reject this reductive logic for not accepting a Pratyaksha Pramana [1, 22]. Finally, it is tough to justify two-valued logic citing empirical evidence if its claim to dominance lies in its empiricism-free perfection [1].

A remaining argument in favor of a universality of two-valued logic and axiomatism is the endorsement by ‘higher authority’, representing a distorted version of Sabda pramana [22]. Indeed some proofs published in journals today are so abstract and technical that they can only be decoded by top formal mathematicians. The remainder of the global math community take it as truth based on the verbal authority of an elite few.

Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true - Bertrand Russell.
Vignette: Demotion of a Theorem

In middle school geometry, we learn about the congruence of triangles and come across the side-angle-side (SAS) postulate [23]:

“The fundamental condition for congruence is that two sides and the included angle of one triangle be equal to two sides and the included angle of the other.”

This result can be easily verified using empirical rationale (proof-by-superposition, as Euclid himself did), and would be perfectly acceptable in Ganita, but not in mathematics. This is because superposition involves moving one triangle and placing it on top of the other, which is considered a ‘fallible’ process. The SAS result is difficult to prove using logic alone and thus the SAS theorem was demoted to the status of an unproven postulate.

We conclude Part 1 by delineating a key, irreconcilable difference between Ganita and Mathematics. This difference also manifests in virtually every other field of study.

Summary: Fundamental Difference between Ganita & Mathematics

The ancient Indians recognized Nyaya (logic) and employed Tarka (reasoning) and even mastered it, but did not put it on a pedestal because of certain limitations. Results in Ganita, like all other Indian disciplines, are tied to a valid Pramana and rooted in reality, rather than an axiom-based proof operating in a separate abstract domain. The empirical approach can elevate the practitioner to a higher state of consciousness (The Bhagavad Gita recognizes it as a valid way to transcendental knowledge [4]).

Subhash Kak summarizes the Indian approach to acquiring knowledge based on bandhus [9]: “The universe is viewed as three regions of earth, space, and sky which in the human being are mirrored in the physical body, the breath, and mind. The processes in the sky, on earth, and within the mind are taken to be connected. The  universe is mirrored in the cognitive system, leading to the idea that introspection can yield knowledge“.  It is worth repeating what has been said before: In nature, the western civilization is intellectual, the Chinese civilization is philosophical, and the Indian civilization is spiritual (adhyatmic).

Ganita is rooted in an integral unity whereas Mathematics exists as a separately independent part of a synthetic unity.

This integral approach produced some of the most important contributions, from Hindu numerals, place value system with zero, to symbolic language for managing equations [5]  and calculus. On the other hand, the abstract nature of Mathematics resulted in a drastically reduced practical output while Europe drifted into a 1000+ year Dark Age. During this entire period, Ganita contributions from all Dharma thought systems proved to be crucial in keeping mathematics practically relevant in other parts of the world, up to the 17-18th century CE. We discuss these Ganita-Math encounters in the upcoming second part of this set of Posts.

Selected References
  1. Cultural foundations of mathematics: the nature of mathematical proof and the transmission of the calculus from India to Europe in the 16th c. CE, C. K. Raju. Pearson Longman, 2007.
  2. Plato on Mathematics. MacTutor History of Mathematics archive. 2007.
  3. Plato’s Theory of Recollection. Uploaded by Lorenzo Colombani. Academia.edu. 2013.
  4. Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism. Rajiv Malhotra. Harper Collins. 2011.
  5. Axiomatism and Computational Positivism: Two Mathematical Cultures in Pursuit of Exact Sciences. Roddam Narasimha. Reprinted from Economic and Political Weekly, 2003.
  6. Use and Misues of Logic. Donald Simanek. 1997.
  7. Computers, mathematics education, and the alternative epistemology of the calculus in the Yuktibhasa. C. K. Raju. 2001.
  8.  American Veda: From Emerson and the Beatles to Yoga and Meditation How Indian Spirituality Changed the West. Phil Goldberg. Random House LLC. 2010.
  9. Logic in Indian Thought. Subhash Kak.

(The complete list of references will be published along with part 3).

Acknowledgments: I would like to thank the ICP bloggers for their constructive feedback and the editor for his incisive comments and ideas.