Contents
- Importance of ascertaining the Age of the Vedas
- Linguistic method, Its defects
- Astronomical method - Its difficulties unduly magnified -Views of European and Native scholars examined.
Importance of ascertaining the Age of the Vedas
THE VEDA is the oldest of the books that we now possess, and it is generally admitted “that for a study of man, or if you like, for a study of Aryan humanity, there is aothing in the world equal in importance with it.”* (• India : what it can teach us ? p. 112. The references through. out are to the Arst edition of this work.) There is no other book which carries us so near the beginning of the Aryan civilization, if not the absolute beginning of all things, as maintained by the Hindu theologians; and the importance of ascertaining even approximately the age when the oldest of the Vedic R̥ṣis, like the classical Valmiki, may have been inspired to unconsciously give utterance to a Vedic verse, cannot therefore be overrated.
The birth of Gautama Buddha, the invasion of Alexander the Great, the inscriptions of Ashoka, the account of the Chinese travellers, and the overthrow of Buddhism and Jainism by Bhaṭṭa Kumārila and Shankaracharya, joined with several other less important events, have served to fix the chronology of the later periods of the Ancient Indian History. But the earlier periods of the same still defy all attempts to ascertain their chronology; and the earliest of them all, so important to the “true student of mankind,” the period of the R̥gveda, is still the subject of vague and uncertain speculations. Can we or can we not ascertain the age of the Vedas? This is a question which has baffled the ingenuity of many an ancient and a modern scholar, and though I have ventured to write on the subject I cannot claim to have finally solved this important problem in all its bearings. I only wish to place before the pu blic the result of my researches in this direction and leave it to scholars to decide if it throws any additional light on the earliest periods of the Aryan civilization.
Linguistic method
But before I proceed to state my views, it may be useful to briefly examine the methods by which Oriental scholars have hitherto attempted to solve the question as to the age and character of the Vedas. Prof. Max Mūller divides the Vedic literature into four periods–the Chandas, Mantra, Brāhmaṇa, and Sūtra; and as each period presupposes the preceding, while the last or the Sūtra period is prior, “if not to the origin, at least to the spreading and political ascendancy of Buddhism” in the fourth century before Christ, that learned scholar, by assigning two hundred years for each period arrives at about 1200 B.C., as the latest date, at which we may suppose the Vedic hymns to have been composed.* (See Max Mūller’s 1st Ed. of Rig. Vol. IV., Pref. pp. V., vii. This preface is also printed as a separate pamphlet under the title “* Ancient Hindu Astronomy and Chronology." In the second edition of the Rig veda the prefaces in the first edition are reprinted all together at the beginning of the fourth Volume.)
Arbitrariness and limited use
This, for convenience, may be called the literary or the linguistic method of ascertaining the age of the Vedas. A little consideration will, however, at once disclose the weak points in such arbitrary calculations. There are different opinions as to the division of the Vedic literature ; some scholars holding that the Chandas and Mantra is one period, though a long one. But granting that the Vedic literature admits of a four-fold division, the question of the duration of each period is still involved in uncertainty and, considering the fact that each period might run into and overlap the other to a certain extent, it becomes extremely difficult to assiga even the minimum chronological limits to the different periods. The method may, indeed, be used with advantage to show that the Vedas could not have been composed later than a certain period ; but it helps little in even approximately fixing the correct age of the Vedas. Prof. Max Mūller himself admits (• Prel. to Rig. Vol. IV., p. vii.) that the limit of 200 years can be assigned to each period only under the supposition that during the early periods of history the growth of the human mind was more luxuriant than in later times; while the late Dr. Haug, following the same method, fixed the very commencement of the Vedic literature between 2400-2000 B. C. by assigning about 500 years to each period, on the analogy of similar periods in the Chinese literature. (+ Introduction to the Aitareyn Brāhmaṇa, p. 48. Prof. Whitney thinks that the hyons may have been sung as early as 2000 B. C, Vide lntro. to his Sanskrit Grammar, p. xiii. For a summary of the opinions of difterent scholars on this point see Kaegi’s R̥gveda translated by Arrowsmith, p. 110, pote 39. The highest antiquity assigned is 2400 B. C.)
It is therefore evident that this method of calculation, howsoever valuable it may be in checking the results arrived at by other methods, is, when taken by itself, most vague and uncertain. A further study of the different periods of the Vedic literature and its comparison with other ancient literatures might hereafter help us to ascertain the duration of each period a little more accurately. (* In a paper submitted to the Ninth Oriental Congress, Mr. Dhruvahas recently examined the whole Vedic literature with a view to ascertain its chronology, and he arrives at the conclusion that the duration assigned to the several periods of the Vedic literature by Prof. Max Mūller is too short, and that " without making any guesses at numbers of years or centuries " we should at present be content with arranging the Vedic literature somewhat after the manner of the Geological strata or periods) But I think we cannot expect, by this method alone, to be ever in a position to fix with any approach to certainty the correct age of the Vedas. Prof. Max Mūller considers 200 years to be the minimum daration of each period, while Dr. Haug and Prof. Wilson (See Ait, Br, Intr., p. 48; also Pref, to Rig. Vol. IV., p. viii.) thought that a period of 500 years was not too long for the purpose it and I believe there is hardly any inherent improbability if a third scholar proposes to extend the duration of each of these periods up to something like 1000 years. In the face of this uncertainty we must try to find out other means for ascertaining the correct age of the Vedas.
Astronomical method
The Vedas, the Brāhmaṇas and the Sūtras contain numerous allusions and references to astronomical facts, and it was believed that we might be able to ascertain from them the age of the oldest literary relic of the Aryan race. But somehow or other the attempts of scholars to fix the age of the Vedas by what may be called the astronomical method, have not yet met with the expected success. Unfortunately for us, all the Sanskrit astronomical words that we now possess, except perhaps the Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa, belong to the later period of Sanskrit literature, when the Greek influence is perceptible in all its mathematical works. The different methods of astronomical calculations given in these works the various eras that were established ia India after śālivāhana or Vikrama, the introduction of the Bārhaspatya cycle, and the adoption of the Greek division of the Zodiac make it extremely difficult to correctly interpret the astronomical references in the later works; while the confusion, caused by the supposed absence of any definite statement as to the character of the year and the cycle mentioned in the Vedic works, renders it a hard task to deduce a consistent theory out of the various but stray references to astronomical facts in the Vedic literature.
Take for instance the question of the commencement of the year in the Vedic calendar. There are grounds to hold that the ancient Arya commenced their year either with spring or with autumn, at the equinoxes or at the solstices ; * (* See infra Chap. II.) while the later astrono mical works and systems furnish us with facts which go to prove that the year, in the different parts of India, commenced with almost all the different moaths of the year Kārtika, Mārgashirṣa, (Whitney’s Sūrya Siddhānta xiv., 16, n.) āṣadha, Caitra and Bhādrapada.
The discussion as to the number of the Nakṣatras and different opinions as to their origin have further complicated the problem ; while doubts have been raised as to the capacity of the Brāhmaṇs in 1200 B.C. to make observations of solstitial points with astronomical accuracy. (Pref. to Rig. Vol. IV., p. xxix. It is very difficult to understand on what grounds this assertion is made, Ancient Vedic bards had no mathematical instruments, but still they could have easily marked when day and night became equal in length.) I shall have to examine hereafter how far some of these objections are tenable. For the present it is sufficient to state that in consequence of such doubts and objections, definite observations or allusions to astronomical events in the earliest works have been looked upon with suspicion by a good many Oriental scholars, while some have even condemned the astronomical method as inaccurate and conjectural. (* See Weber’s History of Indian Literature, p. 2, note. ) It is, however, admitted that " if the astronomical date on which conclusions as to the age of the Veda have been built implied all that they were represented to imply, the earliest periods of Vedic poetry will have to be rearranged."+ († Pref. to Rig. Vol. IV., p. 1xxi.)
Difficulty
It appears to me that scholars have erred too much on the side of overcautiousness in condemning this method. I do not mean to say that there are no difficulties ; but sufficient care does not appear to have been taken to always keep in view the main point of the inquiry, by separating it from the mass of irrelevant matter, with which, in some cases, it becomes unavoidably mixed up. Some of Bentley’s speculations, for instance, are indeed ingenious and suggestive, but he relies too much upon Purāṇic traditions, mere etymological speculations and his own calculations based thereon, instead of trying to find out whether there is anything in the earlier works to corroborate or support these traditions. On the other hand, Prof. Weber’s Essay, which, as a collection of astronomical allusions and references in the Vedic literature, is extremely valuable, is taken op by the controversy as to the origin of the Nakṣatras raised by M. Biot; and the same thing may be said of Prof. Whitney’s contributions on the subject. (See his essay on the Hindu and Chinese systems of Asterisms.)
Various other questions, such as whether the Vedic cycle comprised five or six years, how and when the intercalary days or months were inserted to make the lunar correspond with the solar year, have also caused the attention of scholars to be diverted from the broad astronomical facts and observations to be found recorded in the Vedic literature; and as a consequence we find that while the questions as to the original number of the Nakṣatras and as to whether the Chinese borrowed them from the Hindus or vice versa, are so ably discussed, no systematic attempt has yet been made to trace back the astronomical references in the later works to the Saṁhitās, and to fully examine their bearing on the question of the age and character of the Vedas.
On the contrary, Prof. Weber asks us to reconcile ourselves to the fact that any such search will, as a general rule, be absolutely fruitless! (* Weber’s History of Indian Literature, p. 7. ) In the following pages I have endeavoured to shew that we need not be so much disappointed. In my opinion there is ample evidence- direct and circumstantial in the earliest of the saṁhitās, to fully establish the high antiquity assigned to the Indian literature on geographical and historical grounds. (It is on these grounds that Prol. Weber believes that the beginnings of the Indian Literature - may perhaps be traced back even to the time when the Indo Aryans still dwelt together with the Persa Aryans." Hist. Ind Lit., p.)
I base my opinion mainly upon references to be found in the early Vedic works, the saṁhitās and the Brāhmaṇas, and especially in the earliest of these, tha R̥gveda. For though later works may sometimes give the same traditions and references, yet any inference which is based upon them is likely to be regarded with more or less suspicion, unless we can show something in the earliest works themselves to justify that inference. Where the Saṁhitās and the Brāhmaṇas directly speak of the actual state of things in their time, there is, of course, no ground to disbelieve the same, but I think that even the traditions recorded in these works are more reliable than those in later works, for the simple reason that those traditions are there found in their purest form. Later works may indeed be used to supply confirmatory evidence, where such is available; but our conclusions must in the main be based on the internal evidence supplied by the Vedic works alone.
Several Indian astronomers have worked more or less on the lines here indicated, but their labours in this direction have not unfortunately received the attention they deserve. The late Krishṇa Shastri Godbole published his views on the antiquity of the Vedas in the second and third Volumes of the Theosophist,* (* Also published as a separate pamphlet.) and though he has failed to correctly interpret some astronomical allusions in the Vedic works, yet there is much that is suggestive and valuable in his essay. The late Prof. K. L. Chhatre also appears to have held similar views on the subject, but he has not published them, so far as I know, in a systematic form. My friend Mr. Shankara Balkrishna Dikshit, who has written a prize essay in Marathi on the history of Hindu Astronomy, and who has succeeded in correctly interpreting more verses in the Veđānga Jyotiṣa than any other scholar has hitherto done, has also discussed this question in his essay, which I was allowed to read in MS. through his kindness. († Mr. Dikshit would do well to publish an English translation of at least the Chapter on Vedānga Jyotiṣa in bis essay. He has undoubtedly made a great advance over Weber and Thebaut in the correct interpretation of the treatise.) I am indebted to these scholars for some of the facts and arguments set forth in the following pages, and the present essay may, I think, be regarded as greatly developing, if not completing, the theory started by them.