*The Use of “Astronomical” Evidence in Dating The Rigveda and The Vedic
Period. By Talageri*
[This article was written and put somewhere on the internet, I think with
the help of Dr S Kalyanaraman, sometime in 2009, in reply to a criticism of
my chronology by Prof. B.N. Narahari Achar in an article printed in 2009. I
just realized it is important that I upload it on my blogspot for the
record]
At the very outset, Achar makes it clear that his article is a
response to the internal and absolute chronology of the Rigveda postulated
in my recent book “The Rigveda and the Avesta ― the Final Evidence” (Aditya
Prakashan, November 2008, New Delhi): “Recently Talageri has published an
absolute chronology of ṚgVeda based on his analysis of ṚgVeda and Avesta.
He has also established a relative chronology for different maṇḍala-s
(Books) of the ṚgVeda. It will be interesting to examine this chronology in
the light of the chronology based on astronomical methods using Planetarium
software”. [Following this, Achar notes that I have dated the Early books
VI, III, VII at 3400-2600 BCE, the Middle books IV, II at 2600-2200 BCE,
and the Late books V, I, VIII, IX, X at 2200-1400 BCE].
After this introduction, Achar proceeds to present his chronology based on
astronomical methods, and finally concludes his article as follows:
“The dates derived from astronomical references span a range from 7000
BCE-2200 BCE. The references are derived from almost all the books of
ṚgVeda. These dates are consistent with the dates of Mahabharata war
derived on the basis of astronomical references and Planetarium software by
this author. However, the range of dates for ṚgVeda based on astronomical
references and verified by Planetarium software does not agree with either
the relative or absolute chronology proposed by Talageri”. In short: both,
my relative chronology as well as my absolute chronology for the Rigveda,
are disproved by the evidence of the astronomical references in the Rigveda
verified by Planetarium software.
The use of “astronomical” evidence in the dating of the Vedic period
has always been very popular in Hindu and Indian circles, and although I
have my views on this matter, I have refrained from expressing them since I
have a genuine respect for many of the writers, including Achar, who use
astronomy in their analyses. However, this article by Achar directly refers
to my own chronology and it becomes necessary for me to make my views
clear. Achar’s article represents just the tip of the iceberg so far as
this “astronomical” dating goes. There is, for example, an active Hindu
scholar in Pune who claims to have accurately dated to the exact day no
fewer than 68 events in the Mahābhārata by astronomical methods: his date
for the actual Mahābhārata war is more than two thousand years earlier than
the date proposed by most other Hindu scholars (including Achar) ― he
places it in the sixth millennium BCE. As another rational Indian writer
wryly put to me in a private mail, these scholars are able to accurately
date, to the year, month and day, the exact moment when Rāma crossed his
garden, bent down towards a rose bush (assuming rose bushes enter into the
Rāmāyaṇa scenario), plucked a rose, and smelt it. I have no doubt at all
that Achar is a more serious scholar than this extreme example would
suggest, but this “astronomy” business has gone very far in derailing other
more serious and rational methods of chronological analysis, and I think it
is time one takes a hard look at the whole subject.
I. Achar’s Examination of the Astronomical References in the Rigveda and
His Conclusions Thereof.
Achar examines five main astronomical references in the Rigveda: the legend
of the ṛbhus, the legend of vrṣākapi, the legend of maṇḍūkas, the legend of
Yama and his dogs, and the solar eclipse associated with the sage Atri. He
also presents nine different diagrams (or sky-map figures) depicting the
map of the sky on different dates associated with these five legends as
well as with the occurrence of the vernal equinox in kṛttikā, ārdrā and
punarvasu.
The legend of the ṛbhus: Achar points out that the ṛbhus occur in 11 hymns.
According to him, the three ṛbhus represent the three seasons (of the lunar
year of 354 days) at the end of which they take rest for 12 days in the
house of the sun. And they are awakened from their sleep by the hound.
Tilak interprets this legend as referring to the time when the year
commenced with the equinox in Canis Major. Achar (using Planetarium
software) depicts the sky-map of this position (Figure 9: occurrence of
autumnal equinox at Canis Major in 7240 BCE). Sengupta, however, interprets
this as referring to the heliacal rising of Canis Major after the summer
solstice. Achar depicts the sky-map of this position (Figure 5: heliacal
rising of Canis Major after the summer solstice in 2770 BCE).
The legend of vrṣākapi: Tilak concludes that the legend of vrṣākapi in hymn
X.86 of the Rigveda represents the sun at vernal equinox when the Dog Star
started the equinoctial year. It is not clear which Figure depicts the
sky-map of this position (Is it Figure 9, which I have connected above with
Tilak’s interpretation of the ṛbhus?).
The legend of maṇḍūkas: The frog-hymn, VII.103, is interpreted by Jacobi as
referring to the beginning of the year in the rainy season, which starts
after the summer solstice. The first month was bhādrapada, the full moon
near the nakṣatra proṣṭhapada, with summer solstice occurring in the
uttaraphālguṇī nakṣatra. Achar further informs us that Law says the summer
solstice in uttaraphālguṇī corresponds to vernal equinox in mṛgaśiras.
Achar depicts the sky-map of this position (Figure 1: equinox at mṛgaśiras
in 4240 BCE, if mṛgaśiras is identified as zeta tau; and Figure 2: equinox
at mṛgaśiras in 3820 BCE, if mṛgaśiras is identified as beta tau).
The legend of Yama and his two dogs: The reference in X.14, which refers to
the spirit passing between the two-spotted, four-eyed, dogs of Yama, is,
according to Sengupta, actually a reference to the two stars α-Canis
Minoris and α-Canis Majoris, and the hymn refers to a time when the two
stars crossed the meridian at the same time. Achar depicts the sky-map of
this position (Figure 6: two dog-stars point to south pole in 4350 BCE).
The legend of the solar eclipse observed by Atri: A solar eclipse is
associated with Atri, and described in hymn V.40. Sengupta determines the
date of this eclipse to be July 26, 3928 BCE. Achar depicts the sky-map of
the position of the stars at this time (Figure 7: solar eclipse at
uttaraphālguṇī, 3928 BCE).
Other positions of the stars referred to in the Rigveda: Achar depicts some
more sky-maps of other positions referred to in the Rigveda (Figure 3:
equinox at punarvasu in 5700 BCE; Figure 4: equinox at ārdrā on May 4, 5440
BCE; Figure 8: equinox at kṛttikā in 2220 BCE).
Thus, as Achar points out in his conclusion, the range of dates derived by
him range from 7000 BCE-2200 BCE.
II. An Examination of Achar’s Conclusions.
Achar examines the hymns of the Rigveda, pinpoints various astronomical
references in these hymns “derived from almost all the books of Ṛgveda”,
derives a range of dates (cutting across the different books) for these
references ranging from 7000 BCE-2200 BCE, and “verifies” these dates using
Planetarium software. In the process, he claims to have disproved both the
relative (internal) and absolute chronology given in my book.
An examination of his article, however, does not seem to substantiate this
claim:
1. The very first fact is that the Rigveda does not contain a single
definite reference, to the positions of the stars in the sky at any
particular point of time, which could be useful in deriving any absolute
date: not only is there no actual reference whatsoever to any equinox at
any of the stars or constellations named by Achar, but even the very stars
and constellations or nakṣatras named by him (kṛttikā, ārdrā, proṣṭhapada,
uttaraphālguṇī, mṛgaśiras and punarvasu) are not mentioned even once not
only in the hymns cited by him but anywhere at all in the whole of the
Rigveda (though the last named word, in its literal sense, occurs as an
epithet of Indra and Soma in one verse). Nor does the word bhādrapada occur
even once in the whole of the Rigveda. How then does Achar (or, for that
matter, do any of his predecessors, Tilak, Jacobi, Law or Sengupta) derive
such definite and concrete dates from specific astronomical positions?
An examination of the references given by him would illustrate their
methodology. We can first take up, for example, the solar eclipse referred
to in hymn V.40, so accurately dated by Sengupta to July 28, 3928 BCE. An
examination of this nine-verse hymn shows that it is indeed a reference to
an eclipse: after four verses in praise of Indra (which make no mention of
this eclipse), the fifth verse informs us that a demon named Svarbhānu
pierced the sun and plunged a bewildered world into darkness. The next four
verses are in praise of Atri who is said to have discovered the sun
concealed in gloom and, with the power of his prayers, restored it back in
the sky, a feat that none but he had the power to do.
The reference is certainly to an eclipse; but there is not a single word in
the entire hymn which gives even the faintest clue of any kind which could
enable anyone to pinpoint the exact date of this eclipse, whether it took
place in 5000 BCE or 4000 BCE or 3000 BCE or 2000 BCE or 1000 BCE; later
dates can be safely excluded only because even the most skeptical western
scholar would not date this hymn later than 1000 BCE. It is just a poetic
(and family-biased) description of an eclipse, period!
And yet Sengupta not only manages to pinpoint the exact date to July 28,
3928 BCE, but Achar even “verifies” this date with that most infallible of
modern testing equipment: computer software! It would have been helpful if
Achar had explained to less knowledgeable readers (a) the particular
distinguishing characteristics of the eclipse which took place on July 28,
3928 BCE, which immediately set out this eclipse as distinct and different
from the thousands of other eclipses before and since, and (b) the
particular words and phrases in hymn V.40 which describe these
characteristics in clear and unambiguous terms so that there can be no
doubt that the hymn refers to this particular eclipse. However, no such
information is given.
Likewise, hymn VII.103 is only a description of the frogs greeting the
first arrival of the monsoons after the blazing heat of a pre-monsoon
summer. The hymn is generally treated as a good-humoured (see the last
verse which praises the frogs, or the Brahmins that the frogs represent in
the hymn) satire on the priests, but it could have deeper philosophical
meanings or ritual significance. However, this hymn also provides no clue
whatsoever to indicate that it refers to the first-monsoon-shower of a
particular year rather than to a first-monsoon-shower in general. Yet,
scholars like Jacobi and Law, on the basis of serious discussions,
involving astronomical terms nowhere used or hinted at in the actual hymn
under discussion, manage to pinpoint the exact year or astronomical era to
which the hymn “refers”.
Similarly, the interpretation of the ṛbhus as the three seasons (of the
lunar year of 354 days) is perfectly plausible. But, again, there is
nothing, in the different hymns which refer to the ṛbhus, which can tell us
that it refers to the lunar year of a particular year or astronomical era.
Nevertheless, Tilak interprets this legend as referring to the time when
the year commenced with the equinox in Canis Major. The arbitrariness of
the interpretation is shown by the fact that Sengupta interprets this same
“astronomical reference” as referring to the heliacal rising of Canis Major
after the summer solstice.
The other two references given by Achar do not represent references to
simple natural phenomena like the three earlier references above (which
refer to an eclipse, a first-shower of the monsoons, and the three main
Indian seasons of a lunar year). But they are as “astronomically” ambiguous
as the earlier ones:
The vrṣākapi hymn X.86, as Achar admits, is difficult to interpret. It
contains so many cryptic phrases that a determined interpreter could give
it any meaning he desired with the help of all kinds of “symbolic”
interpretations; but, even so, it is extremely difficult to interpret it as
a reference to a particular configuration of the stars at a particular
point of time. But this does not prevent Tilak from giving it a definite
chronological twist, and concluding definitely (on the basis of a reference
in X.86.4 to a dog chasing a boar and seizing it by the ear) that vrṣākapi
in the hymn represents the sun at vernal equinox when the Dog Star started
the equinoctial year.
The reference, in hymn X.14, to the departed soul moving across the pathway
towards the land of the Fathers in the company of the two dogs of Yama (the
Sārameyas), is interpreted by Sengupta as a reference to the two stars
α-Canis Minoris and α-Canis Majoris, and the hymn is therefore interpreted
as a reference to a time when the two stars crossed the meridian at the
same time.
The key to both these interpretations is the interpretation of any
reference to a dog in the Rigveda as a reference to the Dog Star Canis
Majoris, and any reference to two dogs as a reference to the two stars
Canis Majoris and Canis Minoris. These interpretations fail to note that
the identification of these stars as dogs is a feature of western astronomy
(Latin canis = dog). Did ancient Indian astronomers also identify these
stars as dogs; and, if so, what is the evidence that they did so as far
back as the Rigvedic period? Even assuming, for the purpose of argument,
that they did do so, these interpretations involve a chain of assumptions:
first, that the composers of the Rigveda identified these stars as dogs;
second, that any reference to a dog or dogs in the hymns is automatically a
reference to these stars; and third, that any assumed reference to these
stars, or to any other star, is automatically an astronomical statement to
the effect that that star started the equinoctial year or something of a
similar nature. On this basis, Achar presents us with a number of diagrams
or sky-maps “verifying” the chronological conclusions of these scholars
arrived at on the basis of “analyses” of such “astronomical” references in
the Rigveda.
The western scholars obsessively see “non-Aryans”, and conflicts between
“Aryan” invaders and “non-Aryan” natives, symbolically represented in every
word and phrase in the Rigveda (see TALAGERI 2000:338-362). In the process,
one of the many important things (which prove their interpretations wrong)
that they ignore is that many of the native Indian “non-Aryans”, that they
identify in the mythology of the Rigveda, are found, with similar names and
functions, in the Indo-European mythologies of distant Europe, and many of
the “conflicts” between the “Aryan” invaders and the “non-Aryan” natives
within India, so identified by them, are similarly represented in those
distant mythologies.
In a similar manner, the “astronomical” interpretations of these Indian
scholars ignore the presence of the same “astronomical” features in the
mythologies of other nations: a) In the Avesta (Vendidad 13.9, 19.30), two
dogs guard the bridge over which the dead must go to reach paradise. This
is almost identical to the Rigvedic myth. b) In Greek mythology, Hermes
(identified as a name cognate to Saramā and Sārameya), who was depicted by
the ancient Greeks in the form of a dog, is in charge of conducting the
souls of the dead to the Underworld (Hades), and the gates of Hades are
guarded by a three-headed dog Kerberus or Cerberus (identified as a name
cognate to Śarvara, the name of one of the two dogs of Yama, the
Sārameyas). c) In Nordic mythology (Baldrsdraumar 2.7-3.4), a dog stands
guard on the road to Hel (the Underworld). d) In Egyptian mythology,
Anubis, the God of the dead, is depicted as having the head of a canine
species (the jackal), and is accompanied by a fleet of dogs who conduct the
soul of the dead to the Underworld. e) In the Aztec mythology of Mexico and
Central America, the soul of the dead, on its way to the Underworld, has to
cross a river guarded by a yellow dog. Are all these myths also related to
astronomical positions of the Dog Star at specific points of time in the
remote past? Obviously, what we have here is the diffusion of mythological
ideas, or perhaps a natural universal association of the dog, and of canine
species in general, with the phenomenon of death (note the common belief
that dogs start howling when they sense the approach of Death), and nothing
more. It is only the obsession with discovering “astronomical” references
in the ancient texts which gives these ordinary references such special
meanings.
Such obsessions result in an inability to see anything otherwise than
through the particular glasses worn by the interpreting scholar. In my
second book, I have shown (TALAGERI 2000:420-424), with one Rigvedic event
as an illustration, how the historical Dāśarājña battle is converted by the
western scholars into a battle between Aryan invaders and non-Aryan
natives, by Dr. Ambedkar into a battle between Shudra kings and Kshatriya
kings, by Bhagwan Singh into a skirmish between a Harappan merchant and
river pirates, by Sethna into a battle between the good and the bad
spiritual forces in man’s inner self, by Arya Samaj scholars actually into
a sermon on the qualities and duties of an ideal king, and by Tilak into a
symbolic representation of “the annual fight between light and darkness as
conceived by the inhabitants of a place [in the arctic region] where a
summer of ten months was followed by a long winter night of two months” (
TILAK 1903:346).
In a sense, Lokmanya Tilak must be regarded as the pioneer of this school
of “astronomical” interpretations of innocent phrases in the Vedic texts.
He was also the pioneer of a similar and related school of “arctic”
interpretations of similar innocent phrases in the ancient Indian texts.
The utter inanity and preposterousness of his “arctic” interpretations have
been brought out in my second book (TALAGERI 2000:379-382). But, while the
enthusiastic votaries of his “astronomical” school today are not at all
enthusiastic about his “arctic” interpretations, it appears that the same
kind of logic is behind both the schools of interpretation pioneered by
him: general phenomena are picked up and transformed into area-specific or
time-specific phenomena, and momentous conclusions reached on their basis.
Thus, Tilak first interprets Mitra and Varuna as representations of the two
sides (day and night) of the solar day, then he takes a giant leap into the
dark and rhetorically “proves” that they actually refer not to the two
halves of the solar day of 24 hours but to the two halves of the solar
year. Likewise, he discusses Vedic verses which refer to long nights or
which refer to the arrival of the dawn, and then rhetorically “proves” that
they refer not to the ordinary night and dawn known to us but to the
months-long night and the days-long dawn of the arctic; and all this, in
turn, then “proves” that the hymns and verses in question were either
composed in the arctic areas or else represent arctic “memories”. In a
similar way, his “astronomical” interpretations (and those of other
astronomers of his school) largely depend on transforming general natural
events of everyday or periodic occurence into special natural events
relating to specific points of time in the remote past.
2. An important aspect of this “astronomical” evidence presented for the
antiquity of the ancient Indian texts is its claims or pretensions to its
scientific-ness. This is not astrology, which has at least as many skeptics
as it has adherents, this is astronomy: a precise science! And now, in
recent times, particularly in the writings of Achar, this astronomy is
represented by the latest and most modern, sophisticated and scientific
means of investigation and analysis: computer software! The title of
Achar’s article tells us that this is “An Examination …. using Planetarium
Software”, and the article starts out by telling us that he will be
examining my chronology “in the light of the chronology based on
astronomical methods using Planetarium software” and ends by assuring us
that what he has presented us with is “the range of dates for ṚgVeda based
on astronomical references and verified by Planetarium software”. Little
wonder that it gives the impression of rock-solid credibility.
However, what are these dates “verified” by this Planetarium software?
Achar tells us that the “dates derived from astronomical references span a
range from 7000 BCE-2200 BCE”, and that it is these dates which are
“verified by Planetarium software”. But a date can be “verified” only when
you already have that date in front of you. In the case of all the
references given by Achar, the dates in front of us are not dates mentioned
or found in the Rigveda itself: they are dates proposed by earlier scholars
such as Tilak, Jacobi, Law and Sengupta, based on astronomical calculations
of certain specific positions of the stars and constellations and of
certain equinoctial positions. As Planetarium Software is based on those
same scientific rules of astronomical calculations on which those scholars
based their calculations, naturally this software can only “verify” their
dates. If we manually add a row of figures correctly on a piece of paper
using ordinary arithmetical laws of addition, and then verify the total on
a calculator or computer, naturally the calculator or computer will
“verify” the total figure arrived at manually. But this does not “verify”
that the individual figures totaled together were genuine or factual
figures.
In this case, no one need doubt that the sky-map diagrams shown by Achar
genuinely represent the positions of the stars and constellations, and the
celestial phenomena, that they claim to represent: thus Figure 7 perhaps
“verifies” what Sengupta had shown by astronomical calculations made
without necessarily using computer software ― that an eclipse took place in
3928 BCE. But how does it verify the genuineness of Sengupta’s claim that
this eclipse is referred to in the Rigvedic hymn V.40? Likewise Figure 6
may “verify” what Sengupta had shown by his astronomical calculations ―
that the two Dog Stars crossed the meridian at the same time in 4350 BCE.
But how does it verify that the Rigvedic hymn X.14 refers to this position
of the stars?
As we saw, not one of the “astronomical” references given by Achar is
actually found in the Rigveda. All the references given are references to
ordinary periodic phenomena which are given extraordinary “astronomical”
significance not warranted by the actual hymns themselves. Achar, in the
text of his article, does not specify as to which of the nine sky-map
diagrams or Figures given by him refers to which of the Rigvedic references
given by him; and the reader is often left groping in the dark as to which
verses of the Rigveda, according to Achar, are represented in his Figures
3, 4 and 8 (which refer to the occurrence of the vernal equinox in
punarvasu, ārdrā and kṛttikā).
Achar is also impartial in his “verification” of the “astronomical”
references, found by himself and his predecessors, in the Rigveda. Having
concluded that the “legend” of the maṇḍūkas in the Rigveda VII.103 refers
to a period of time when there was vernal equinox in mṛgaśiras, Achar
“verifies” the date with his Planetarium Software. But two different dates
have been proposed for the same “event”: 4240 BCE if mṛgaśiras is zeta tau
(Figure 1), and 3820 BCE if mṛgaśiras is beta tau (Figure 2). Achar’s
software “verifies” both these dates as equally valid!
Likewise, when two scholars interpret an “astronomical” reference in the
Rigveda differently, and the two interpretations naturally yield two
different dates, the software “verifies” both the dates as correct for the
same reference: Figure 9 shows the occurrence of autumnal equinox at Canis
Major in 7240 BCE (in accordance with Tilak’s interpretation of the legend
of the ṛbhus as referring to the time when the year commenced with the
equinox in Canis Major ― unless I am wrong in correlating Figure 9 with
Tilak’s interpretation) and Figure 5 shows the heliacal rising of Canis
Major after the summer solstice in 2770 BCE (in accordance with Sengupta’s
interpretation of the legend)!
3. Does this mean that astronomy has no role to play in the dating of
ancient Indian texts and events? Obviously not: astronomy is a science, and
any genuine astronomical evidence can always play a definitive ― perhaps
even a conclusive ― role in solving certain chronological problems. But the
key word here is genuine evidence: phrases and verses picked up selectively
from the texts and given a special “astronomical” meaning (which, in the
process would also attribute certain specific astronomical knowledge, as
well as the usage of certain cryptic terminology, to the ancient composers
of those phrases or verses) cannot be used to arrive at momentous
chronological conclusions. If the ancients had things of astronomical
significance to say, surely they would have expressed them in reasonably
straight terms, and not left only cryptic phrases for future generations to
decipher!
And the dates yielded by the “astronomical” analyses of different verses
should reveal a consistent chronological pattern. But it does not seem to
trouble Achar that the dates as “verified” by him, for these “astronomical”
references in the Rigveda, fall into a chaotic jumble with no fixed or
logical order or pattern for the different books of the Rigveda. As he
tells us, the dates cut across the different books of the Rigveda: “These
dates are derived from almost all the books of Ṛgveda”. Apparently, it does
not matter which verse in which book yields which date, as long as all the
dates yielded go back into the remote past.
Nevertheless, he actually claims to find some consistency in his dates:
“These dates are consistent with date of Mahabharata war derived on the
basis of astronomical references and planetarium software by the author”.
His dates for the Rigvedic references range “from 7000 BCE-2200 BCE”, and
his date for the Mahābhārata war falls in the late fourth millennium BCE.
In what way are these dates “consistent” with each other: did the
Mahābhārata war take place right in the middle of the period of composition
of the Rigveda? Again, it is clear that here we have once more the
principle that all dates going back into the remote past (which includes
any and every date between 2000 or 2500 BCE to 10000 BCE), for ancient
Indian texts and events, are “consistent” with each other, regardless of
whether or not they show a logical order or pattern.
Achar finds that the chronology for the Rigvedic references, with dates
ranging “from 7000 BCE-2200 BCE”, derived by him with the help of the most
sophisticated and scientific computer software, “does not agree with either
the relative or absolute chronology proposed by Talageri” ― and, therefore
that my chronology for the Rigveda is wrong. K RAJARAM IRS PART 3 28526
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoo1HV-eQUHD44M20XpRfjb-kufCA46yk3skRfzo9K8L1g%40mail.gmail.com.
