It is always difficult to determine with precision the date of any
particular event in the ancient history of India; and this difficulty
is considerably enhanced by the speculations of European Orientalists,
whose labours in this direction have but tended to thicken the confusion
already existing in popular legends and traditions, which were often
altered or modified to suit the necessities of sectarian controversy.
The causes that have produced this result will be fully ascertained on
examining the assumptions on which these speculations are based. The
writings of many of these Orientalists are often characterized by an
imperfect knowledge of Indian literature, philosophy and religion, and
of Hindu traditions, and a contemptuous disregard for the opinions of
Hindu writers and pundits. Very often, facts and dates are taken by
these writers from the writings of their predecessors or contemporaries
on the assumption that they are correct without any further
investigation by themselves. Even when a writer gives a date with an
expression of doubt as to its accuracy, his follower frequently quotes
the same date as if it were absolutely correct. One wrong date is made
to depend upon another wrong date, and one bad inference is often
deduced from another inference equally unwarranted and illogical. And
consequently, if the correctness of any particular date given by these
writers is to be ascertained, the whole structure of Indian Chronology
constructed by them will have to be carefully examined. It will be
convenient to enumerate some of the assumptions above referred to before
proceeding to examine their opinions concerning the date of
Sankaracharya.
I. Many of these writers are not altogether free from the prejudices
engendered by the pernicious doctrine, deduced from the Bible, whether
rightly or wrongly, that this world is only six thousand years old. We
do not mean to say that any one of these writers would now seriously
think of defending the said doctrine. Nevertheless, it had exercised a
considerable influence on the minds of Christian writers when they began
to investigate the claims of Asiatic Chronology. If an antiquity of
five or six thousand years is assigned to any particular event connected
with the ancient history of Egypt, India or China, it is certain to be
rejected at once by these writers without any inquiry whatever regarding
the truth of the statement.
II. They are extremely unwilling to admit that any portion of the Veda
can be traced to a period anterior to the date of the Pentateuch, even
when the arguments brought forward to establish the priority of the
Vedas are such as would be convincing to the mind of an impartial
investigator untainted by Christian prejudices. The maximum limit of
Indian antiquity is, therefore, fixed for them by the Old Testament;
and it is virtually assumed by them that a period between the date of
the Old Testament on the one side, and the present time on the other,
should necessarily be assigned to every book in the whole range of Vedic
and Sanskrit literature, and to almost every event of Indian history.
III. It is often assumed without reason that every passage in the Vedas
containing philosophical or metaphysical ideas must be looked upon as a
subsequent interpolation, and that every book treating of a
philosophical subject must be considered as having been written after
the time of Buddha or after the commencement of the Christian era.
Civilization, philosophy and scientific investigation had their origin,
in the opinion of these writers, within the six or seven centuries
preceding the Christian era, and mankind slowly emerged, for the first
time, from "the depths of animal brutality" within the last four or five
thousand years.
IV. It is also assumed that Buddhism was brought into existence by
Gautama Buddha. The previous existence of Buddhism, Jainism and Arhat
philosophy is rejected as an absurd and ridiculous invention of the
Buddhists and others, who attempted thereby to assign a very high
antiquity to their own religion. In consequence of this erroneous
impression every Hindu book referring to the doctrines of Buddhists is
declared to have been written subsequent to the time of Gautama Buddha.
For instance, Mr. Weber is of opinion that Vyasa, the author of the
Brahma Sutras, wrote them in the fifth century after Christ. This is
indeed a startling revelation to the majority of Hindus.
V. Whenever several works treating of various subjects are attributed to
one and the same author by Hindu writings or traditions, it is often
assumed, and apparently without any reason whatever in the majority of
cases, that the said works should be considered as the productions of
different writers. By this process of reasoning they have discovered
two Badarayanas (Vyasas), two Patanjalis, and three Vararuchis. We do
not mean to say that in every case identity of name is equivalent to
identity of personality. But we cannot but protest against such
assumptions when they are made without any evidence to support them,
merely for the purpose of supporting a foregone conclusion or
establishing a favourite hypothesis.
VI. An attempt is often made by these writers to establish the
chronological order of the events of ancient Indian history by means of
the various stages in the growth or development of the Sanskrit language
and Indian literature. The time required for this growth is often
estimated in the same manner in which a geologist endeavours to fix the
time required for the gradual development of the various strata
composing the earth's crust. But we fail to perceive anything like a
proper method in making these calculations. It will be wrong to assume
that the growth of one language will require the same time as that of
another within the same limits. The peculiar characteristics of the
nation to whom the language belongs must be carefully taken into
consideration in attempting to make any such calculation. The history
of the said nation is equally important. Any one who examines Max
Muller's estimate of the so-called Sutra, Brahmana, Mantra and Khanda
periods, will be able to perceive that no attention has been paid to
these considerations. The time allotted to the growth of these four
"strata" of Vedic literature is purely arbitrary.
We have enumerated these defects in the writings of European
Orientalists for the purpose of showing to our readers that it is not
always safe to rely upon the conclusions arrived at by these writers
regarding the dates of ancient Indian history.
In examining the various quotations and traditions selected by European
Orientalists for the purpose of fixing Sankaracharya's date, special
care must be taken to see whether the person referred to was the very
first Sankaracharya who established the Adwaitee doctrine, or one of his
followers who became the Adhipathis (heads) of the various Mathams
(temples) established by him and his successors. Many of the Adwaitee
Mathadhipatis who succeeded him (especially of the Sringeri Matham) were
men of considerable renown and were well known throughout India during
their time. They are often referred to under the general name of
Sankaracharya. Consequently, any reference made to any one of these
Mathadhipatis is apt to be mistaken for a reference to the first
Sankaracharya himself.
Mr. Barth, whose opinion regarding Sankara's date is quoted by "An
English F.T.S." against the date assigned to that teacher in Mr.
Sinnett's book on Esoteric Buddhism, does not appear to have carefully
examined the subject himself. He assigns no reasons for the date given,
and does not even allude to the existence of other authorities and
traditions which conflict with the date adopted by him. The date which
he assigns to Sankara appears in an unimportant foot-note on page 89 of
his book on "The Religions of India," which reads thus: "Sankaracharya
is generally placed in the eighth century; perhaps we must accept the
ninth rather. The best accredited tradition represents him as born on
the 10th of the month 'Madhava' in 788 A.D. Other traditions, it is
true, place him in the second and fifth centuries. The author of the
Dabistan, on the other hand, brings him as far down as the commencement
of the fourteenth." Mr. Barth is clearly wrong in saying that Sankara
is generally placed in the eight century. There are as many traditions
for placing him in some century before the Christian era as for placing
him in some century after the said era, and it will also be seen from
what follows that in fact evidence preponderates in favour of the former
statement. It cannot be contended that the generality of Orientalists
have any definite opinions of their own on the subject under
consideration. Max Muller does not appear to have ever directed his
attention to this subject. Monier Williams merely copies the date given
by Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Weber seems to rely upon the same authority
without troubling himself with any further inquiry about the matter.
Mr. Wilson is probably the only Orientalist who investigated the subject
with some care and attention; and he frankly confesses that the exact
period at which "he (Sankara) flourished can by no means be determined"
(p. 201 of vol. I. of his "Essays on the Religion of the Hindoos").
Under such circumstances the foot-note above quoted is certainly very
misleading. Mr. Barth does not inform his readers where he obtained the
tradition referred to, and what reasons he has for supposing that it
refers to the first Sankaracharya, and that it is "the best accredited
tradition." When the matter is still open to discussion, Mr. Barth
should not have adopted any particular date if he is not prepared to
support it and establish it by proper arguments. The other traditions
alluded to are not intended, of course, to strengthen the authority of
the tradition relied upon. But the wording of the foot-note in question
seems to show that all the authorities and traditions relating to the
subject are comprised therein, when in fact the most important of them
are left out of consideration, as will be shown hereafter. No arguments
are to be found in support of the date assigned to Sankara in the other
portions of Mr. Barth's book, but there are a few isolated passages
which may be taken either as inferences from the statement in question
or arguments in its support, which it will be necessary to examine in
this connection.
Mr. Barth has discovered some connection between the appearance of
Sankara in India and the commencement of the persecution of the
Buddhists, which he seems to place in the seventh and eighth centuries.
In page 89 of his book he speaks of "the great reaction on the offensive
against Buddhism which was begun in the Deccan in the seventh and eighth
centuries by the schools of Kumarila and Sankara;" and in page 135 he
states that the "disciples of Kumarila and Sankara, organized into
military bands, constituted themselves the rabid defenders of
orthodoxy." The force of these statements is, however, considerably
weakened by the author's observations on pages 89 and 134, regarding the
absence of any traces of Buddhist persecution by Sankara in the
authentic documents hitherto examined, and the absurdity of legends
which represent him as exterminating Buddhists from the Himalaya to Cape
Comorin.
The association of Sankara with Kumarila in the passages above cited is
highly ridiculous. It is well known to almost every Hindu that the
followers of Purva Mimamsa (Kumarila commented on the Sutras) were the
greatest and the bitterest opponents of Sankara and his doctrine, and
Mr. Barth seems to be altogether ignorant of the nature of Kumarila's
views and Purva Mimamsa, and the scope and aim of Sankara's Vedantic
philosophy. It is impossible to say what evidence the author has for
asserting that the great reaction against the Buddhists commenced in the
seventh and eighth centuries, and that Sankara was instrumental in
originating it. There are some passages in his book which tend to show
that this date cannot be considered as quite correct. In page 135 he
says that Buddhist persecution began even in the time of Asoka.
Such being the case, it is indeed very surprising that the orthodox
Hindus should have kept quiet for nearly ten centuries without
retaliating on their enemies. The political ascendency gained by the
Buddhists during the reign of Asoka did not last very long; and the
Hindus had the support of very powerful kings before and after the
commencement of the Christian era. Moreover, the author says, in p. 132
of his book, that Buddhism was in a state of decay in the seventh
century. It is hardly to be expected that the reaction against the
Buddhists would commence when their religion was already in a state of
decay. No great religious teacher or reformer would waste his time and
energy in demolishing a religion already in ruins. But what evidence is
there to show that Sankara was ever engaged in this task? If the main
object of his preaching was to evoke a reaction against Buddhism, he
would no doubt have left us some writings specially intended to
criticize its doctrines and expose its defects. On the other hand, he
does not even allude to Buddhism in his independent works.
Though he was a voluminous writer, with the exception of a few remarks
on the theory advocated by some Buddhists regarding the nature of
perception, contained in his Commentary on the Brahma-Sutras, there is
not a single passage in the whole range of his writings regarding the
Buddhists or their doctrines; and the insertion of even these few
remarks in his Commentary was rendered necessary by the allusions
contained in the Sutras which he was interpreting. As, in our humble
opinion, these Brahma-Sutras were composed by Vyasa himself (and not by
an imaginary Vyasa of the fifth century after Christ, evolved by Mr.
Weber's fancy), the allusions therein contained relate to the Buddhism
which existed to the date of Gautama Buddha. From these few remarks it
will be clear to our readers that Sankaracharya had nothing to do with
Buddhist persecution. We may here quote a few passages from Mr.
Wilson's Preface to the first edition of his Sanskrit Dictionary in
support of our remarks. He writes as follows regarding Sankara's
connection with the persecution of the Buddhists:--"Although the popular
belief attributes the origin of the Bauddha persecution to
Sankaracharya, yet in this case we have some reason to distrust its
accuracy. Opposed to it we have the mild character of the reformer, who
is described as uniformly gentle and tolerant; and, speaking from my
own limited reading in Vedanta works, and the more satisfactory
testimony of Ram Mohun Roy, which he permits me to adduce, it does not
appear that any traces of his being instrumental to any persecution are
to be found in his own writings, all which are extant, and the object of
which is by no means the correction of the Bauddha or any other schism,
but the refutation of all other doctrines besides his own, and the
reformation or re-establishment of the fourth religious order." Further
on he observes that "it is a popular error to ascribe to him the work of
persecution; he does not appear at all occupied in that odious task,
nor is he engaged in particular controversy with any of the Bauddhas."
From the foregoing observations it will be seen that Sankara's date
cannot be determined by the time of the commencement of the Buddhist
persecution, even if it were possible to ascertain the said period.
Mr. Barth seems to have discovered some connection between the
philosophical systems of Sankara, Ramanuja and Anandathirtha, and the
Arabian merchants who came to India in the first centuries of the
Hejira, and he is no doubt fully entitled to any credit that may be
given him for the originality of his discovery. This mysterious and
occult connection between Adwaita philosophy and Arabian commerce is
pointed out in p. 212 of his book, and it may have some bearing on the
present question, if it is anything more than a figment of his fancy.
The only reason given by him in support of his theory is, however, in my
humble opinion, worthless. The Hindus had a Prominent example of a
grand religious movement under the guidance of a single teacher in the
life of Buddha, and it was not necessary for them to imitate the
adventures of the Arabian prophet. There is but one other passage in
Mr. Barth's book which has some reference to Sankara's date. In page
207 he writes as follows:--"The Siva, for instance, who is invoked at
the commencement of the drama of Sakuntala, who is at once God, priest
and offering, and whose body is the universe, is a Vedantic idea. This
testimony appears to be forgotten when it is maintained, as is sometimes
done, that the whole sectarian Vedantism commences with Sankara." But
this testimony appears to be equally forgotten when it is maintained, as
is sometimes done by Orientalists like Mr. Barth, that Sankara lived in
some century after the author of Sakuntala.
From the foregoing remarks it will be apparent that Mr. Barth's opinion
regarding Sankara's date is very unsatisfactory. As Mr. Wilson seems to
have examined the subject with some care and attention, we must now
advert to his opinion and see how far it is based on proper evidence.
In attempting to fix Amara Sinha's date (which attempt ultimately ended
in a miserable failure), he had to ascertain the period when Sankara
lived. Consequently his remarks concerning the said period appear in
his preface to the first edition of his Sanskrit Dictionary. We shall
now reproduce here such passages from this preface as are connected with
the subject under consideration and comment upon them. Mr. Wilson
writes as follows:--
"The birth of Sankara presents the same discordance as every other
remarkable incident amongst the Hindus. The Kadali (it ought to be
Koodali) Brahmins, who form an establishment following and teaching his
system, assert his appearance about 2,000 years since; some accounts
place him about the beginning of the Christian era, others in the third
or fourth century after; a manuscript history of the kings of Konga, in
Colonel Mackenzie's Collection, makes him contemporary with Tiru Vikrama
Deva Chakravarti, sovereign of Skandapura in the Dekkan, AD. 178; at
Sringeri, on the edge of the Western Ghauts, and now in the Mysore
Territory, at which place he is said to have founded a College that
still exists, and assumes the supreme control of the Smarta Brahmins of
the Peninsula, an antiquity of 1,600 years is attributed to him, and
common tradition makes him about 1,200 years old. The Bhoja Prabandha
enumerates Sankara among its worthies, and as contemporary with that
prince; his antiquity will then be between eight and nine centuries.
The followers of Madhwacharya in Tuluva seem to have attempted to
reconcile these contradictory accounts by supposing him to have been
born three times; first at Sivuli in Tuluva about 1,500 years ago,
again in Malabar some centuries later, and finally at Padukachaytra in
Tuluva, no more than 600 years since; the latter assertion being
intended evidently to do honour to their own founder, whose date that
was, by enabling him to triumph over Sankara in a supposititious
controversy. The Vaishnava Brahmins of Madura say that Sankara appeared
in the ninth century of Salivahana, or tenth of our era. Dr. Taylor
thinks that, if we allow him about 900 years, we shall not be far from
the truth, and Mr. Colebroke is inclined to give him an antiquity of
about 1,000 years. This last is the age which my friend Ram Mohun Roy,
a diligent student of Sankara's works, and philosophical teacher of his
doctrines, is disposed to concur in, and he infers that 'from a
calculation of the spiritual generations of the followers of Sankara
Swami from his time up to this date, he seems to have lived between the
seventh and eighth centuries of the Christian era,' a distance of time
agreeing with the statements made to Dr. Buchanan in his journey through
Sankara's native country, Malabar, and in union with the assertion of
the Kerala Utpatti, a work giving art historical and statistical account
of the same province, and which, according to Mr. Duncan's citation of
it, mentions the regulations of the castes of Malabar by this
philosopher to have been effected about 1,000 years before 1798. At the
same time, it must be observed, that a manuscript translation of the
same work in Colonel Mackenzie's possession, states Sankaracharya to
have been born about the middle of the fifth century, or between
thirteen or fourteen hundred years ago, differing in this respect from
Mr. Duncan's statement--a difference of the less importance, as the
manuscript in question, either from defects in the original or
translation, presents many palpable errors, and cannot consequently be
depended upon. The weight of authority therefore is altogether in
favour of an antiquity of about ten centuries, and I am disposed to
adopt this estimate of Sankara's date, and to place him in the end of
the eighth and beginning of the ninth century of the Christian era."
We will add a few more authorities to Mr. Wilson's list before
proceeding to comment on the foregoing passage.
In a work called "The Biographical Sketches of Eminent Hindu Authors,"
published at Bombay in 1860 by Janardan Ramchenderjee, it is stated that
Sankara lived 2,500 years ago, and that, in the opinion of some people,
2,200 years ago. The records of the Combaconum Matham give a list of
nearly 66 Mathadhipatis from Sankara down to the present time, and show
that he lived more than 2,000 years ago.
The Kudali Matham referred to by Mr. Wilson, which is a branch of the
Sringeri Matham, gives the same date as the latter Matham, their
traditions being identical. Their calculation can safely be relied upon
as far as it is supported by the dates given on the places of Samadhi
(something like a tomb) of the successive Gurus of the Sringeri Matham;
and it leads us to the commencement of the Christian era.
No definite information is given by Mr. Wilson regarding the nature,
origin, or reliability of the accounts which place Sankara in the third
or fourth century of the Christian era or at its commencement; nor does
it clearly appear that the history of the kings of Konga referred to
unmistakably alludes to the very first Sancharacharya. These traditions
are evidently opposed to the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Wilson, and it
does not appear on what grounds their testimony is discredited by him.
Mr. Wilson is clearly wrong in stating that an antiquity of 1,600 years
is attributed to Sankara by the Sringeri Matham. We have already
referred to the account of the Sringeri Matham, and it is precisely
similar to the account given by the Kudali Brahmins. We have ascertained
that it is so from the agent of the Sringeri Matham at Madras, who has
recently published the list of teachers preserved at the said Matham
with the dates assigned to them. And further, we are unable to see which
"common tradition" makes Sankara "about 1,200 years old." As far as our
knowledge goes there is no such common tradition in India. The majority
of people in Southern India have, up to this time, been relying on the
Sringeri account, and in Northern India there seems to be no common
tradition. We have but a mass of contradictory accounts.
It is indeed surprising that an Orientalist of Mr. Wilson's pretensions
should confound the poet named Sankara and mentioned in Bhoja Prabandha
with the great Adwaitee teacher. No Hindu would ever commit such a
ridiculous mistake. We are astonished to find some of these European
Orientalists quoting now and then some of the statements contained in
such books as Bhoja Prabandha, Katha Sarit Sagara, Raja-tarangini and
Panchatantra, as if they were historical works. In some other part of
his preface Mr. Wilson himself says that this Bhoja Prabandha is
altogether untrustworthy, as some of the statements contained therein
did not harmonize with his theory about Amarasimha's date; but now he
misquotes its statements for the purpose of supporting his conclusion
regarding Sankara's date. Surely, consistency is not one of the
prominent characteristics of the writings of the majority of European
Orientalists. The person mentioned in Bhoja Prabandha is always spoken
of under the name of Sankara Kavi (poet), and he is nowhere called
Sankaracharya (teacher), and the Adwaitee teacher is never mentioned in
any Hindu work under the appellation of Sankara Kavi.
It is unnecessary for us to say anything about the Madhwa traditions or
the opinion of the Vaishnava Brahmins of Madurah regarding Sankara's
date. It is, in our humble opinion, hopeless to expect anything but
falsehood regarding Sankara's history and his philosophy from the
Madhwas and the Vaishnavas. They are always very anxious to show to the
world at large that their doctrines existed before the time of Sankara,
and that the Adwaitee doctrine was a deviation from their preexisting
orthodox Hinduism. And consequently they have assigned to him an
antiquity of less than 1,500 years.
It does not appear why Dr. Taylor thinks that he can allow Sankara about
900 years, or on what grounds Mr. Colebrooke is inclined to give him an
antiquity of about 1,000 years. No reliance can be placed on such
statements before the reasons assigned therefore are thoroughly sifted.
Fortunately, Mr. Wilson gives us the reason for Ram Mohun Roy's opinion.
We are inclined to believe that Ram Mohun Roy's calculation was made
with reference to the Sringeri list of Teachers or Gurus, as that was
the only list published up to this time; and as no other Matham, except
perhaps the Cumbaconum Matham, has a list of Gurus coming up to the
present time in uninterrupted succession. There is no necessity for
depending upon his calculation (which from its very nature cannot be
anything more than mere guesswork) when the old list preserved at
Sringeri contains the dates assigned to the various teachers. As these
dates have not been published up to the present time, and as Ram Mohun
Roy had merely a string of names before him, he was obliged to ascertain
Sankara's date by assigning a certain number of years on the average to
every teacher. Consequently, his opinion is of no importance whatever
when we have the statement of the Sringeri Matham which, as we have
already said, places Sankara some centuries before the Christian era.
The same remarks will apply to the calculation in question even if it
were made on the basis of the number of teachers contained in the list
preserved in the Cumbaconum Matham.
Very little importance can be attached to the oral evidence adduced by
some unknown persons before Dr. Buchanan in his travels through Malabar;
and we have only to consider the inferences that may be drawn from the
accounts contained in Kerala Utpatti. The various manuscript copies of
this work seem to differ in the date they assign to Sankaracharya; even
if the ease were otherwise, we cannot place any reliance upon this work,
for the following among other reasons:--
I. It is a well-known fact that the customs of Malabar are very
peculiar. Their defenders have been, consequently, pointing to some
great Rishi or some great philosopher of ancient India as their
legislator. Some of them affirm (probably the majority) that Parasurama
brought into existence some of these customs and left a special Smriti
for the guidance of the people of Malabar; others say that it was
Sankaracharya who sanctioned these peculiar customs. It is not very
difficult to perceive why these two persons were selected by them.
According to the Hindu Puranas, Parasurama lived in Malabar for some
time, and according to Hindu traditions Sankara was born in that
country. But it is extremely doubtful whether either of them had
anything to do with the peculiar customs of the said country. There is
no allusion whatever to any of these customs in Sankara's works. He
seems to have devoted his whole attention to religious reform, and it is
very improbable that he should have ever directed his attention to the
local customs of Malabar. While attempting to revive the philosophy of
the ancient Rishis, it is not likely that he should have sanctioned the
customs of Malabar, which are at variance with the rules laid down in
the Smritis of those very Rishis; and as far as our knowledge goes, he
left no written regulations regarding to the castes of Malabar.
II. The statements contained in Kerala Utpatti are opposed to the
account of Sankara's life given in almost all the Sankara Vijayams
(Biographies of Sankara) examined up to this time--viz., Vidyaranya's
Sankara Vijayam, Chitsukhachary's Sankara Vijayavilasam, Brihat Sankara
Vijayam, &c. According to the account contained in these works, Sankara
left Malabar in his eighth year, and returned to his native village when
his mother was on her death-bed, and on that occasion he remained there
only for a few days. It is difficult to see at what period of his
lifetime he was engaged in making regulations for the castes of Malabar.
III. The work under consideration represents Malabar as the seat of
Bhattapada's triumphs over the Buddhists, and says that this teacher
established himself in Malabar and expelled the Buddhists from that
country. This statement alone will be sufficient to show to our readers
the fictitious character of the account contained in this book.
According to every other Hindu work, this great teacher of Purva Mimamsa
was born in Northern India; almost all his famous disciples and
followers were living in that part of the country, and according to
Vidyaranya's account he died at Allahabad.
For the foregoing reasons we cannot place any reliance upon this account
of Malabar.
From an examination of the traditions and other accounts referred to
above, Mr. Wilson comes to the conclusion that Sankaracharya lived in
the end of the eighth and the beginning of the ninth century of the
Christian era. The accounts of the Sringeri, Kudali and Cumbaconum
Mathams, and the traditions current in the Bombay Presidency, as shown
in the biographical sketches published at Bombay, place Sankara in some
century before the Christian era. On the other hand, Kerala Utpatti,
the information obtained by Dr. Buchanan in his travels through Malabar,
and the opinions expressed by Dr. Taylor and Mr. Colebrooke, concur in
assigning to him an antiquity of about 1,000 years. The remaining
traditions referred to by Mr. Wilson are as much opposed to his opinion
as to the conclusion that Sankara lived before Christ. We shall now
leave it to our readers to say whether, under such circumstances, Mr.
Wilson is justified in asserting that "the weight of authority is
altogether in favour" of his theory.
We have already referred to the writings of almost all the European
Orientalists who expressed an opinion upon the subject under discussion;
and we need hardly say that Sankara's date is yet to be ascertained.
We are obliged to comment at length on the opinions of European
Orientalists regarding Sankara's date, as there will be no probability
of any attention being paid to the opinion of Indian and Tibetan
initiates when it is generally believed that the question has been
finally settled by European Sanskritists. The Adepts referred to by "An
English F.T.S." are certainly in a position to clear up some of the
problems in Indian religious history. But there is very little chance
of their opinions being accepted by the general public under present
circumstances, unless they are supported by such evidence as is within
the reach of the outside world. As it is not always possible to procure
such evidence, there is very little use in publishing the information
which is in their possession until the public are willing to recognize
and admit the antiquity and trustworthiness of their traditions, the
extent of their powers, and the vastness of their knowledge. In the
absence of such proof as is above indicated, there is every likelihood
of their opinions being rejected as absurd and untenable; their motives
will no doubt be questioned, and some people may be tempted to deny even
the fact of their existence. It is often asked by Hindus as well as by
English men why these Adepts are so very unwilling to publish some
portion at least of the information they possess regarding the truths of
physical science. But, in doing so, they do not seem to perceive the
difference between the method by which they obtain their knowledge and
the process of modern scientific investigation by which the facts of
Nature are ascertained and its laws are discovered. Unless an Adept can
prove his conclusions by the same kind of reasoning as is adopted by the
modern scientist they remain undemonstrated to the outside world. It is
of course impossible for him to develop in a considerable number of
human beings such faculties as would enable them to perceive their
truth; and it is not always practicable to establish them by the
ordinary scientific method unless all the facts and laws on which his
demonstration is to be based have already been ascertained by modern
science. No Adept can be expected to anticipate the discoveries of the
next four or five centuries, and prove some grand scientific truth to
the entire satisfaction of the educated public after having discovered
every fact and law of Nature required for the said purpose by such
process of reasoning as would be accepted by them. They have to
encounter similar difficulties in giving any information regarding the
events of the ancient history of India.
However, before giving the exact date assigned to Sankaracharya by the
Indian and Tibetan initiates, we shall indicate a few circumstances by
which his date may be approximately determined. It is our humble opinion
that the Sankara Vijayams hitherto published can be relied upon as far
as they are consistent with each other regarding the general outlines of
Sankara's life. We cannot, however, place any reliance whatever upon
Anandagiri's Sankara Vijaya published at Calcutta. The Calcutta edition
not only differs in some very material points from the manuscript copies
of the same work found in Southern India, but is opposed to every other
Sankara Vijayam hitherto examined. It is quite clear from its style and
some of the statements contained therein, that it was not the production
of Anandagiri, one of the four chief disciples of Sankara and the
commentator on his Upanishad Bhashyam. For instance, it represents
Sankara as the author of a certain verse which is to be found in
Vidyaranya's Adhikaranaratnamala, written in the fourteenth century. It
represents Sankara as giving orders to two of his disciples to preach
the Visishtadwaitee and the Dwaitee doctrines, which are directly
opposed to his own doctrine. The book under consideration says that
Sankara went to conquer Mandanamisra in debate, followed by
Sureswaracharya, though Mandanamisra assumed the latter name at the time
of initiation. It is unnecessary for us here to point out all the
blunders and absurdities of this book. It will be sufficient to say
that in our opinion it was not written by Anandagiri, and that it was
the introduction of an unknown author who does not appear to have been
even tolerably well acquainted with the history of the Adwaitee
doctrine. Vidyaranya's (otherwise Sayanachary, the great commentator of
the Vedas) Sankara Vijaya is decidedly the most reliable source of
information as regards the main features of Sankara's biography. Its
authorship has been universally accepted, and the information contained
therein was derived by its author, as may be seen from his own
statements, from certain old biographies of Sankara existing at the time
of its composition. Taking into consideration the author's vast
knowledge and information, and the opportunities he had for collecting
materials for his work when he was the head of the Sringeri Matham,
there is every reason to believe that he had embodied in his work the
most reliable information he could obtain. Mr. Wilson, however, says
that the book in question is "much too poetical and legendary" to be
acknowledged as a great authority. We admit that the style is highly
poetical, but we deny that the work is legendary. Mr. Wilson is not
justified in characterizing it as such on account of its description of
some of the wonderful phenomena shown by Sankara. Probably the learned
Orientalist would not be inclined to consider the Biblical account of
Christ in the same light. It is not the peculiar privilege of
Christianity to have a miracle-worker for its first propagator. In the
following observations we shall take such facts as are required from
this work.
It is generally believed that a person named Govinda Yogi was Sankara's
Guru, but it is not generally known that this Yogi was in fact
Patanjali--the great author of the Mahabhashya and the Yoga Sutras--
under a new name. A tradition current in Southern India represents him
as one of the Chelas of Patanjali; but it is very doubtful if this
tradition has anything like a proper foundation. But it is quite clear
from the 94th, 95th, 96th, and 97th verses of the 5th chapter of
Vidyaranya's Sankara Vijayam that Govinda Yogi and Patanjali were
identical. According to the immemorial custom observed amongst
initiates, Patanjali assumed the name of Govinda Yogi at the time of his
initiation by Goudapada. It cannot be contended that Vidyaranya
represented Patanjali as Sankara's Guru merely for the purpose of
assigning some importance to Sankara and his teaching. Sankara is
looked upon as a far greater man than Patanjali by the Adwaitees, and
nothing can be added to Sankara's reputation by Vidyaranya's assertion.
Moreover, Patanjali's views are not altogether identical with Sankara's
views; it may be seen from Sankara's writings that he attached no
importance whatever to the practices of Hatha Yog regarding which
Patanjali composed his Yoga Sutras. Under such circumstances, if
Vidyaranya had the option of selecting a Guru for Sankara, he would no
doubt have represented Vyasa himself (who is supposed to be still
living) as his Guru. We see no reason therefore to doubt the correctness
of the statement under examination. Therefore, as Sankara was
Patanjali's Chela, and as Goudapada was his Guru, his date will enable
us to fix the dates of Sankara and Goudapada. We may here point out to
our readers a mistake that appears in p. 148 of Mr. Sinnett's book on
Esoteric Buddhism as regards the latter personage. He is there
represented as Sankara's Guru; Mr. Sinnett was informed, we believe,
that he was Sankara's Paramaguru, and not having properly understood the
meaning of this expression, Mr. Sinnett wrote that he was Sankara's
Guru.
It is generally admitted by Orientalists that Patanjali lived before the
commencement of the Christian era. Mr. Barth places him in the second
century before the Christian era, accepting Goldstucker's opinion, and
Monier Williams does the same thing. Weber, who seems to have carefully
examined the opinions of all the other Orientalists who have written
upon the subject, comes to the conclusion that "we must for the present
rest satisfied with placing the date of the composition of the Bhashya
between B.C. 140 and A.D. 60, a result which considering the wretched
state of the chronology of Indian Liturgy generally is, despite its
indefiniteness, of no mean importance." And yet even this date rests
upon inferences drawn from one or two unimportant expressions contained
in Patanjali's Mahabhashya. It is always dangerous to draw such
inferences, and especially so when it is known that, according to the
tradition current amongst Hindu grammarians, some portions of
Mahabhashya were lost, the gaps being filled up by subsequent writers.
Even supposing that we should consider the expression quoted as written
by Patanjali himself, there is nothing in those expressions which would
enable us to fix the writer's date. For instance, the connection
between the expression "Arunad Yavanah Saketam" and the expedition of
Menander against Ayodhya between B.C. 144 and 120, relied upon by
Goldstucker is merely imaginary. There is nothing in the expression to
show that the allusion contained therein points necessarily to
Menander's expedition. We believe that Patanjali is referring to the
expedition of Yavanas against Ayodhya during the lifetime of Sagara's
father described in Harivamsa. This expedition occurred long before
Rama's time, and there is nothing to connect it with Menander.
Goldstucker's inference is based upon the assumption that there was no
other Yavana expedition against Ayodhya known to Patanjali, and it will
be easily seen from Harivamsa (written by Vyasa) that the said
assumption is unwarranted. Consequently the whole theory constructed by
Goldstucker on this weak foundation falls to the ground. No valid
inferences can be drawn from the mere names of kings contained in
Mahabhashya, even if they are traced to Patanjali himself, as there
would be several kings in the same dynasty bearing the same name. From
the foregoing remarks it will be clear that we cannot fix, as Weber has
done, B.C. 140 as the maximum limit of antiquity that can be assigned to
Patanjali. It is now necessary to see whether any other such limit has
been ascertained by Orientalists. As Panini's date still remains
undetermined, the limit cannot be fixed with reference to his date. But
it is assumed by some Orientalists that Panini must have lived at some
time subsequent to Alexander's invasion, from the fact that Panini
explains in his Grammar the formation of the word Yavanani. We are very
sorry that European Orientalists have taken the pains to construct
theories upon this basis without ascertaining the meaning assigned to
the word Yavana, and the time when the Hindus first became acquainted
with the Greeks. It is unreasonable to assume without proof that this
acquaintance commenced at the time of Alexander's invasion. On the
other hand, there are very good reasons for believing that the Greeks
were known to the Hindus long before this event. Pythagoras visited
India, according to the traditions current amongst Indian initiates, and
he is alluded to in Indian astrological works under the name of
Yavanacharya. Moreover, it is not quite certain that the word Yavana
was strictly confined to the Greeks by the ancient Hindu writers.
Probably it was originally applied to the Egyptians and the Ethiopians;
it was probably extended first to the Alexandrian Greeks, and
subsequently to the Greeks, Persians, and Arabians. Besides the Yavana
invasion of Ayodhya described in Harivamsa, there was another subsequent
expedition to India by Kala Yavana (Black Yavana) during Krishna's
lifetime described in the same work. This expedition was probably
undertaken by the Ethiopians. Anyhow, there are no reasons whatever, as
far as we can see, for asserting that Hindu writers began to use the
word Yavana after Alexander's invasion. We can attach no importance
whatever to any inferences that may be drawn regarding the dates of
Panini and Katyayana (both of them lived before Patanjali) from the
statements contained in Katha Sarit Sayara, which is nothing more than a
mere collection of fables. It is now seen by Orientalists that no proper
conclusions can be drawn regarding the dates of Panini and Katyayana
from the statements made by Hiuan Thsang, and we need not therefore say
anything here regarding the said statements. Consequently the dates of
Panini and Katyayana still remain undetermined by European Orientalists.
Goldstucker is probably correct in his conclusion that Panini lived
before Buddha, and the Buddhists' accounts agree with the traditions of
the initiates in asserting that Katyayana was a contemporary of Buddha.
From the fact that Patanjali must have composed his Mahabhashyam after
the composition of Panini's Sutras and Katyayana's Vartika, we can only
infer that it was written after Buddha's birth. But there are a few
considerations which may help us in coming to the conclusion that
Patanjali must have lived about the year 500 B.C.; Max Muller fixed the
Sutra period between 500 B.C. and 600 B.C. We agree with him in
supposing that the period probably ended with B.C. 500, though it is
uncertain how far it extended into the depths of Indian antiquity.
Patanjali was the author of the Yoga Sutras, and this fact has not been
doubted by any Hindu writer up to this time. Mr. Weber thinks, however,
that the author of the Yoga Sutras might be a different man from the
author of the Mahabhashya, though he does not venture to assign any
reason for his supposition. We very much doubt if any European
Orientalist can ever find out the connection between the first Anhika of
the Mahabhashya and the real secrets of Hatha Yoga contained in the Yoga
Sutras. No one but an initiate can understand the full significance of
the said Anhika; and the "eternity of the Logos" or Sabda is one of the
principal doctrines of the Gymnosophists of India, who were generally
Hatha Yogis. In the opinion of Hindu writers and pundits Patanjali was
the author of three works, viz., Mahabhashya, Yoga Sutras, and a book on
Medicine and Anatomy; and there is not the slightest reason for
questioning the correctness of this opinion. We must, therefore, place
Patanjali in the Sutra period, and this conclusion is confirmed by the
traditions of the Indian initiates. As Sankaracharya was a contemporary
of Patanjali (being his Chela) he must have lived about the same time.
We have thus shown that there are no reasons for placing Sankara in the
eighth or ninth century after Christ, as some of the European
Orientalists have done. We have further shown that Sankara was
Patanjali's Chela, and that his date should be ascertained with
reference to Patanjali's date. We have also shown that neither the year
B.C. 140 nor the date of Alexander's invasion can be accepted as the
maximum limit of antiquity that can be assigned to him, and we have
lastly pointed out a few circumstances which will justify us in
expressing an opinion that Patanjali and his Chela Sankara belonged to
the Sutra period. We may, perhaps, now venture to place before the
public the exact date assigned to Sankaracharya by Tibetan and Indian
initiates. According to the historical information in their possession
he was born in the year B.C. 510 (fifty-one years and two months after
the date of Buddha's Nirvana), and we believe that satisfactory evidence
in support of this date can be obtained in India if the inscriptions at
Conjeveram, Sringeri, Jaggurnath, Benares, Cashmere, and various other
places visited by Sankara, are properly deciphered. Sankara built
Conjeveram, which is considered as one of the most ancient towns in
Southern India; and it may be possible to ascertain the time of its
construction if proper inquiries are made. But even the evidence now
brought before the public supports the opinion of the Initiates above
indicated. As Goudapada was Sankaracharya's Guru's guru, his date
entirely depends on Sankara's date; and there is every reason to
suppose that he lived before Buddha.
Question VI.--"Historical Difficulty"--Why?
It is asked whether there may not be "some confusion" in the letter
quoted on p. 62 of "Esoteric Buddhism" regarding "old Greeks and Romans
said to have been Atlanteans." The answer is--None whatever. The word
"Atlantean" was a generic name. The objection to have it applied to the
old Greeks and Romans on the ground that they were Aryans, "their
language being intermediate between Sanskrit and modern European
dialects," is worthless. With equal reason might a future 6th Race
scholar, who had never heard of the (possible) submergence of a portion
of European Turkey, object to Turks from the Bosphorus being referred to
as a remnant of the Europeans. "The Turks are surely Semites," he might
say 12,000 years hence, and "their language is intermediate between
Arabic and our modern 6th Race dialects." *
--------
* This is not to be construed to mean that 12,000 years hence there will
be yet any man of the 6th Race, or that the 5th will be submerged. The
figures are given simply for the sake of a better comparison with the
present objection in the case of the Greeks and Atlantis.
---------
The "historical difficulty" arises from a certain authoritative
statement made by Orientalists on philological grounds. Professor Max
Muller has brilliantly demonstrated that Sanskrit was the "elder
sister"--by no means the mother--of all the modern languages. As to
that "mother," it is conjectured by himself and colleagues to be a "now
extinct tongue, spoken probably by the nascent Aryan race." When asked
what was this language, the Western voice answers: "Who can tell?"
When, "during what geological periods did this nascent race flourish?"
the same impressive voice replies: "In prehistoric ages, the duration
of which no one can now determine." Yet it must have been Sanskrit,
however barbarous and unpolished, since "the ancestors of the Greeks,
the Italians, Slavonians, Germans and Kelts" were living within "the
same precincts" with that nascent race, and the testimony borne by
language has enabled the philologist to trace the "language of the gods"
in the speech of every Aryan nation. Meanwhile it is affirmed by these
same Orientalists that classical Sanskrit has its origin at the very
threshold of the Christian era; while Vedic Sanskrit is allowed an
antiquity of hardly 3,000 years (if so much) before that time.
Now, Atlantis, on the statement of the "Adepts," sank over 9,000 years
before the Christian era.* How then can one maintain that the "old
Greeks and Romans" were Atlanteans? How can that be, since both nations
are Aryans, and the genesis of their languages is Sanskrit? Moreover,
the Western scholars know that the Greek and Latin languages were formed
within historical periods, the Greeks and Latins themselves having no
existence as nations 11,000 B.C.. Surely they who advance such a
proposition do not realize how very unscientific is their statement!
----------
* The position recently taken up by Mr. Gerald Massey in Light that the
story of Atlantis is not a geological event but an ancient astronomical
myth, is rather imprudent. Mr. Massey, notwithstanding his rare
intuitional faculties and great learning, is one of those writers in
whom the intensity of research bent into one direction has biased his
otherwise clear understanding. Because Hercules is now a constellation
it does not follow that there never was a hero of this name. Because
the Noachian Universal Deluge is now proved a fiction based upon
geological and geographical ignorance, it does not, therefore, appear
that there were not many local deluges in prehistoric ages. The
ancients connected every terrestrial event with the celestial bodies.
They traced the history of their great deified heroes and memorialized
it in stellar configurations as often as they personified pure myths,
anthropomorphizing objects in Nature. One has to learn the difference
between the two modes before attempting to classify them under one
nomenclature. An earthquake has just engulfed over 80,000 people
(87,903) in Sunda Straits. These were mostly Malays, savages with whom
but few had relations, and the dire event will be soon forgotten. Had a
portion of Great Britain been thus swept away instead, the whole world
would have been in commotion, and yet, a few thousand years hence, even
such an event would have passed out of man's memory; and a future Gerald
Massey might be found speculating upon the astronomical character and
signification of the Isles of Wight, Jersey, or Man, arguing, perhaps,
that this latter island had not contained a real living race of men but
"belonged to astronomical mythology," was a "Man submerged in celestial
waters." If the legend of the lost Atlantis is only "like those of
Airyana-Vaejo and Jambu-dvipa," it is terrestrial enough, and therefore
"the mythological origin of the Deluge legend" is so far an open
question. We claim that it is not "indubitably demonstrated," however
clever the theoretical demonstration.
---------
Such are the criticisms passed, such the "historical difficulty." The
culprits arraigned are fully alive to their perilous situation;
nevertheless, they maintain the statement. The only thing which may
perhaps here be objected to is, that the names of the two nations are
incorrectly used. It may be argued that to refer to the remote
ancestors and their descendants equally as "Greeks and Romans," is an
anachronism as marked as would be the calling of the ancient Keltic
Gauls, or the Insubres, Frenchmen. As a matter of fact this is true.
But, besides the very plausible excuse that the names used were embodied
in a private letter, written as usual in great haste, and which was
hardly worthy of the honour of being quoted verbatim with all its
imperfections, there may perhaps exist still weightier objections to
calling the said people by any other name. One misnomer is as good as
another; and to refer to old Greeks and Romans in a private letter as
the old Hellenes from Hellas or Magna Graecia, and the Latins as from
Latium, would have been, besides looking pedantic, just as incorrect as
the use of the appellation noted, though it may have sounded, perchance,
more "historical." The truth is that, like the ancestors of nearly all
the Indo-Europeans (or shall we say Indo-Germanic Japhetidae?), the
Greek and Roman sub-races mentioned have to be traced much farther back.
Their origin must be carried far into the mists of that "prehistoric"
period, that mythical age which inspires the modern historian with such
a feeling of squeamishness that anything creeping out of its abysmal
depths is sure to be instantly dismissed as a deceptive phantom, the
mythos of an idle tale, or a later fable unworthy of serious notice.
The Atlantean "old Greeks" could not be designated even as the
Autochthones--a convenient term used to dispose of the origin of any
people whose ancestry cannot be traced, and which, at any rate with the
Hellenes, meant certainly more than simply "soil-born," or primitive
aborigines; and yet the so-called fable of Deukalion and Pyrrha is
surely no more incredible or marvelous than that of Adam and Eve--a
fable that hardly a hundred years ago no one would have dared or even
thought to question. And in its esoteric significance the Greek
tradition is possibly more truly historical than many a so-called
historical event during the period of the Olympiades, though both Hesiod
and Homer may have failed to record the former in their epics. Nor
could the Romans be referred to as the Umbro-Sabbellians, nor even as
the Itali. Peradventure, had the historians learnt something more than
they have of the Italian "Autochthones"--the Iapygians--one might have
given the "old Romans" the latter name. But then there would be again
that other difficulty: history knows that the Latin invaders drove
before them, and finally cooped up, this mysterious and miserable race
among the clefts of the Calabrian rocks, thus showing the absence of any
race affinity between the two. Moreover, Western archeologists keep to
their own counsel, and will accept of no other but their own
conjectures. And since they have failed to make anything out of the
undecipherable inscriptions in an unknown tongue and mysterious
characters on the Iapygian monuments, and so for years have pronounced
them unguessable, he who would presume to meddle where the doctors
muddle would be likely to be reminded of the Arab proverb about
proffered advice. Thus, it seems hardly possible to designate "the old
Greeks and Romans" by their legitimate, true name, so as to at once
satisfy the "historians" and keep on the fair side of truth and fact.
However, since in the Replies that precede Science had to be repeatedly
shocked by most unscientific propositions, and that before this series
is closed many a difficulty, philological and archeological as well as
historical, will have to be unavoidably created--it may be just as wise
to uncover the occult batteries at once and have it over with.
Well, then, the "Adepts" deny most emphatically to Western science any
knowledge whatever of the growth and development of the Indo-Aryan race
which, "at the very dawn of history," they have espied in its
"patriarchal simplicity" on the banks of the Oxus. Before our
proposition concerning "the old Greeks and Romans" can be repudiated or
even controverted, Western Orientalists will have to know more than they
do about the antiquity of that race and the Aryan language; and they
will have to account for those numberless gaps in history which no
hypotheses of theirs seem able to fill up. Notwithstanding their
present profound ignorance with regard to the early ancestry of the
Indo-European nations, and though no historian has yet ventured to
assign even a remotely approximate date to the separation of the Aryan
nations and the origins of the Sanskrit language, they hardly show the
modesty that might, under these circumstances, be expected from them.
Placing as they do that great separation of the races at the first "dawn
of traditional history," with the Vedic age as "the background of the
whole Indian world" (of which confessedly they know nothing), they will,
nevertheless, calmly assign a modern date to any of the Rik-vedic oldest
songs, on its "internal evidence;" and in doing this, they show as
little hesitation as Mr. Fergusson when ascribing a post-Christian age
to the most ancient rockcut temple in India, merely on its "external
form." As for their unseemly quarrels, mutual recriminations, and
personalities over questions of scholarship, the less said the better.
"The evidence of language is irrefragable," as the great Oxford
Sanskritist says. To which he is answered--"provided it does not clash
with historical facts and ethnology." It may be--no doubt it is, as far
as his knowledge goes--"the only evidence worth listening to with regard
to ante-historical periods;" but when something of these alleged
"prehistorical periods" comes to be known, and when what we think we
know of certain supposed prehistoric nations is found diametrically
opposed to his "evidence of language," the "Adepts" may be, perhaps,
permitted to keep to their own views and opinions, even though they
differ with those of the greatest living philologist. The study of
language is but a part--though, we admit, a fundamental part--of true
philology. To be complete, the latter has, as correctly argued by
Bockt, to be almost synonymous with history. We gladly concede the
right to the Western philologist, who has to work in the total absence
of any historical data, to rely upon comparative grammar, and take the
identification of roots lying at the foundation of words of those
languages he is familiar with, or may know of, and put it forward as the
result of his study, and the only available evidence. But we would like
to see the same right conceded by him to the student of other races;
even though these be inferior to the European races, in the opinion of
the paramount West: for it is barely possible that, proceeding on other
lines, and having reduced his knowledge to a system which precludes
hypothesis and simple affirmation, the Eastern student has preserved a
perfectly authentic record (for him) of those periods which his opponent
regards as ante-historical. The bare fact that, while Western men of
science are referred to as "scholars" and scholiasts--native
Sanskritists and archeologists are often spoken of as "Calcutta" and
"Indian sciolists"--affords no proof of their real inferiority, but
rather of the wisdom of the Chinese proverb that "self-conceit is rarely
companion to politeness."
The "Adept" therefore has little, if anything, to do with difficulties
presented by Western history. To his knowledge--based on documentary
records from which, as said, hypothesis is excluded, and as regards
which even psychology is called to play a very secondary part--the
history of his and other nations extends immeasurably beyond that hardly
discernible point that stands on the far-away horizon of the Western
world as a landmark of the commencement of its history. Records made
throughout a series of ages, based on astronomical chronology and
zodiacal calculations, cannot err. (This new "difficulty"--
palaeographical, t his time--that may be possibly suggested by the
mention of the Zodiac in India and Central Asia before the Christian
era, is disposed of in a subsequent article.)
Hence, the main question at issue is to decide which--the Orientalist or
the "Oriental"--is most likely to err. The "English F.T.S." has choice
of two sources of information, two groups of teachers. One group is
composed of Western historians with their suite of learned Ethnologists,
Philologists, Anthropologists, Archeologists and Orientalists in
general. The other consists of unknown Asiatics belonging to a race
which, notwithstanding Mr. Max Muller's assertion that the same "blood
is running in the veins (of the English soldier) and in the veins of the
dark Bengalese," is generally regarded by many a cultured Western as
"inferior." A handful of men can hardly hope to be listened to,
specially when their history, religion, language, origin and sciences,
having been seized upon by the conqueror, are now disfigured and
mutilated beyond recognition, and who have lived to see the Western
scholar claim a monopoly beyond appeal or protest of deciding the
correct meaning, chronological date, and historical value of the
monumental and palaeographic relics of his motherland. It has little,
if ever, entered the mind of the Western public that their scholars
have, until very lately, worked in a narrow pathway obstructed with the
ruins of an ecclesiastical, dogmatic Past; that they have been cramped
on all sides by limitations of "revealed" events coming from God, "with
whom a thousand years are but as one day," and who have thus felt bound
to cram millenniums into centuries and hundreds into units, giving at
the utmost an age of 1,000 to what is 10,000 years old. All this to
save the threatened authority of their religion and their own
respectability and good name in cultured society. And even that, when
free themselves from preconceptions, they have had to protect the honour
of the Jewish divine chronology assailed by stubborn facts; and thus
have become (often unconsciously) the slaves of an artificial history
made to fit into the narrow frame of a dogmatic religion. No proper
thought has been given to this purely psychological but very significant
trifle. Yet we all know how, rather than admit any relation between
Sanskrit and the Gothic, Keltic, Greek, Latin and old Persian, facts
have been tampered with, old texts purloined from libraries, and
philological discoveries vehemently denied. And we have also heard from
our retreats, how Dugald Stewart and his colleagues, upon seeing that
the discovery would also involve ethnological affinities, and damage the
prestige of those sires of the world races--Shem, Ham and Japhet--denied
in the face of fact that "Sanskrit had ever been a living, spoken
language," supporting the theory that "it was an invention of the
Brahmins, who had constructed their Sanskrit on the model of the Greek
and Latin." And again we know, holding the proof of the same, how the
majority of Orientalists are prone to go out of their way to prevent any
Indian antiquity (whether MSS. or inscribed monument, whether art or
science) from being declared pre-Christian. As the origin and history
of the Gentile world is made to move in the narrow circuit of a few
centuries "B.C.," within that fecund epoch when mother earth,
recuperated from her arduous labours of the Stone age, begat, it seems
without transition, so many highly civilized nations and false
pretenses, so the enchanted circle of Indian archeology lies between the
(to them unknown) year of the Samvat era, and the tenth century of the
Western chronology.
Having to dispose of an "historical difficulty" of such a serious
character, the defendants charged with it can but repeat what they have
already stated; all depends upon the past history and antiquity allowed
to the Indo-Aryan nation. The first step to take is to ascertain how
much History herself knows of that almost prehistoric period when the
soil of Europe had not been trodden yet by the primitive Aryan tribes.
From the latest Encyclopedia down to Professor Max Muller and other
Orientalists, we gather what follows; they acknowledge that at some
immensely remote period, before the Aryan nations got divided from the
parent stock (with the germs of Indo-Germanic languages in them); and
before they rushed asunder to scatter over Europe and Asia in search of
new homes, there stood a "single barbaric (?) people as physical and
political representative of the nascent Aryan race." This people spoke
"a now extinct Aryan language," from which by a series of modifications
(surely requiring more thousands of years than our difficulty-makers are
willing to concede) there arose gradually all the subsequent languages
now spoken by the Caucasian races.
That is about all Western history knows of its genesis. Like Ravana's
brother, Kumbhakarna,--the Hindu Rip van Winkle--it slept for a long
series of ages a dreamless, heavy sleep. And when at last it awoke to
consciousness, it was but to find the "nascent Aryan race" grown into
scores of nations, peoples and races, most of them effete and crippled
with age, many irretrievably extinct, while the true origin of the
younger ones it was utterly unable to account for. So much for the
"youngest brother." As for "the eldest brother, the Hindu," who,
Professor Max Muller tells us, "was the last to leave the central home
of the Aryan family," and whose history this eminent philologist has now
kindly undertaken to impart to him,--he, the Hindu, claims that while
his Indo-European relative was soundly sleeping under the protecting
shadow of Noah's ark, he kept watch and did not miss seeing one event
from his high Himalayan fastnesses; and that he has recorded the
history thereof, in a language which, though as incomprehensible as the
Iapygian inscriptions to the Indo-European immigrant, is quite clear to
the writers. For this crime he now stands condemned as a falsifier of
the records of his forefathers. A place has been hitherto purposely
left open for India "to be filled up when the pure metal of history
should have been extracted from the ore of Brahmanic exaggeration and
superstition." Unable, however, to meet this programme, the Orientalist
has since persuaded himself that there was nothing in that "ore" but
dross. He did more. He applied himself to contrast Brahmanic
"superstition" and "exaggeration" with Mosaic revelation and its
chronology. The Veda was confronted with Genesis. Its absurd claims to
antiquity were forthwith dwarfed to their proper dimensions by the 4,004
years B.C. measure of the world's age; and the Brahmanic "superstition
and fables" about the longevity of the Aryan Rishis, were belittled and
exposed by the sober historical evidence furnished in "The genealogy and
age of the Patriarchs from Adam to Noah," whose respective days were 930
and 950 years; without mentioning Methuselah, who died at the premature
age of nine hundred and sixty-nine.
In view of such experience, the Hindu has a certain right to decline the
offers made to correct his annals by Western history and chronology. On
the contrary, he would respectfully advise the Western scholar, before
he denies point-blank any statement made by the Asiatics with reference
to what is prehistoric ages to Europeans, to show that the latter have
themselves anything like trustworthy data as regards their own racial
history. And that settled, he may have the leisure and capacity to help
his ethnic neighbours to prune their genealogical trees. Our Rajputs,
among others, have perfectly trustworthy family records of an unbroken
lineal descent through 2,000 years "B.C." and more, as proved by Colonel
Tod; records which are accepted by the British Government in its
official dealings with them. It is not enough to have studied stray
fragments of Sanskrit literature--even though their number should amount
to 10,000 texts, as boasted of--allowed to fall into foreign hands, to
speak so confidently of the "Aryan first settlers in India," and assert
that, "left to themselves, in a world of their own, without a past and
without a future (!) before them, they had nothing but themselves to
ponder upon," and therefore could know absolutely nothing of other
nations. To comprehend correctly and make out the inner meaning of most
of them, one has to read these texts with the help of the esoteric
light, and after having mastered the language of the Brahmanic Secret
Code--branded generally as "theological twaddle." Nor is it
sufficient--if one would judge correctly of what the archaic Aryans did
or did not know; whether or not they cultivated the social and
political virtues; cared or not for history--to claim proficiency in
both Vedic and classical Sanskrit, as well as in Prakrit and Arya
Bhasha. To comprehend the esoteric meaning of ancient Brahmanical
literature, one has, as just remarked, to be in possession of the key to
the Brahmanical Code. To master the conventional terms used in the
Puranas, the Aranyakas and Upanishads is a science in itself, and one
far more difficult than even the study of the 3,996 aphoristical rules
of Panini, or his algebraical symbols. Very true, most of the Brahmans
themselves have now forgotten the correct interpretations of their
sacred texts. Yet they know enough of the dual meaning in their
scriptures to be justified in feeling amused at the strenuous efforts of
the European Orientalist to protect the supremacy of his own national
records and the dignity of his science by interpreting the Hindu
hieratic text after a peremptory fashion quite unique. Disrespectful
though it may seem, we call on the philologist to prove in some more
convincing manner than usual, that he is better qualified than even the
average Hindu Sanskrit pundit to judge of the antiquity of the "language
of the gods;" that he has been really in a position to trace unerringly
along the lines of countless generations the course of the "now extinct
Aryan tongue" in its many and various transformations in the West, and
its primitive evolution into first the Vedic, and then the classical
Sanskrit in the East, and that from the moment when the mother-stream
began deviating into its new ethnographical beds, he has followed it up.
Finally that, while he, the Orientalist, can, owing to speculative
interpretations of what he thinks he has learnt from fragments of
Sanskrit literature, judge of the nature of all that he knows nothing
about--i.e., to speculate upon the past history of a great nation he has
lost sight of from its "nascent state," and caught up again but at the
period of its last degeneration--the native student never knew, nor can
ever know, anything of that history. Until the Orientalist has proved
all this, he can be accorded but small justification for assuming that
air of authority and supreme contempt which is found in almost every
work upon India and its Past. Having no knowledge himself whatever of
those incalculable ages that lie between the Aryan Brahman in Central
Asia, and the Brahman at the threshold of Buddhism, he has no right to
maintain that the initiated Indo-Aryan can never know as much of them
as the foreigner. Those periods being an utter blank to him, he is
little qualified to declare that the Aryan, having had no political
history "of his own...." his only sphere was "religion and
philosophy.... in solitude and contemplation." A happy thought
suggested, no doubt, by the active life, incessant wars, triumphs, and
defeats portrayed in the oldest songs of the Rik-Veda. Nor can he with
the smallest show of logic affirm that "India had no place in the
political history of the world," or that "there are no synchronisms
between the history of the Brahmans and that of other nations before the
date of the origin of Buddhism in India;" for he knows no more of the
prehistoric history of those "other nations" than of that of the
Brahman. All his inferences, conjectures and systematic arrangements of
hypotheses begin very little earlier than 200 "B.C.," if even so much,
on anything like really historical grounds. He has to prove all this
before he can command our attention. Otherwise, however "irrefragable
the evidence of language," the presence of Sanskrit roots in all the
European languages will be insufficient to prove, either that (a) before
the Aryan invaders descended toward the seven rivers they had never left
their northern regions; or (b) why the "eldest brother, the Hindu,"
should have been "the last to leave the central home of the Aryan
family." To the philologist such a supposition may seem "quite
natural." Yet the Brahman is no less justified in his ever-growing
suspicion that there may be at the bottom some occult reason for such a
programme. That in the interest of his theory the Orientalist was
forced to make "the eldest brother" tarry so suspiciously long on the
Oxus, or wherever "the youngest" may have placed him in his "nascent
state" after the latter "saw his brothers all depart towards the setting
sun." We find reasons to believe that the chief motive for alleging
such a procrastination is the necessity to bring the race closer to the
Christian era. To show the "brother" inactive and unconcerned, "with
nothing but himself to ponder on," lest his antiquity and "fables of
empty idolatry," and perhaps his traditions of other people's doings,
should interfere with the chronology by which it is determined to try
him. The suspicion is strengthened when one finds in the book from
which we have been so largely quoting--a work of a purely scientific and
philological character--such frequent remarks and even prophecies as:
"History seems to teach that the whole human race required a gradual
education before, in the fulness of time, it could be admitted to the
truths of Christianity." Or, again "The ancient religions of the world
were but the milk of Nature, which was in due time to be succeeded by
the bread of life;" and such broad sentiments expressed as that "there
is some truth in Buddhism, as there is in every one of the false
religions of the world, but...." *
-----------
* Max Muller's "History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature."
-----------
The atmosphere of Cambridge and Oxford seems decidedly unpropitious to
the recognition of either Indian antiquity, or the merit of the
philosophies sprung from its soil!*
---------
* And how one-sided and biased most of the Western Orientalists are may
be seen by reading carefully "The History of Indian Literature," by
Albrecht Weber--a Sanskrit scholiast classed with the highest
authorities. The incessant harping upon the one special string of
Christianity, and the ill-concealed efforts to pass it off as the
keynote of all other religions, is painfully pre-eminent in his work.
Christian influences are shown to have affected not only the growth of
Buddhism and Krishna worship, but even that of the Siva-cult and its
legends; it is openly stated that "it is not at all a far-fetched
hypothesis that they have reference to scattered Christian
missionaries!" The eminent Orientalist evidently forgets that,
notwithstanding his efforts, none of the Vedic, Sutra or Buddhist
periods can be possibly crammed into this Christian period--their
universal tank of all ancient creeds, and of which some Orientalists
would fain make a poor-house for all decayed archaic religions and
philosophy. Even Tibet, in his opinion, has not escaped "Western
influence." Let us hope to the contrary. It can be proved that Buddhist
missionaries were as numerous in Palestine, Alexandria, Persia, and even
Greece, two centuries before the Christian era, as the Padris are now in
Asia. That the Gnostic doctrines (as he is obliged to confess) are
permeated with Buddhism. Basilides, Valentinian, Bardesanes, and
especially Manes were simply heretical Buddhists, "the formula of
abjuration of these doctrines in the case of the latter, specifying
expressly Buddha (Bodda) by name."
----------