

Brief History of the Relation between the Vedic and Western World Views
by Sadaputa dasa (Dr. Richard Thompson)


In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, European scholars and scientists
began to come in contact with the culture of India, and many were impressed by
the antiquity of Vedic civilization and the deep spiritual and material
knowledge contained in the Vedic literatures. However, other European
intellectuals were dismayed by these developments. For example, in 1825, the
British scholar John Bentley wrote as follows of his conflict with the
scientist John Playfair, who was an admirer of Indian culture:

"By his [Playfair's] attempt to uphold the antiquity of Hindu books against
absolute facts, he thereby supports all those horrid abuses and impositions
found in them, under the pretended sanction of antiquity... Nay, his aim goes
still deeper; for by the same means he endeavors to overturn the Mosaic
account, and sap the very foundation of our religion: for if we are to believe
in the antiquity of Hindu books, as he would wish us, then the Mosaic account
is all a fable, or a fiction."/1/

For Bentley, a devout Christian, the matter was very simple. The Mosaic
account in the Bible says that the earth was created in about 4004 B.C., and
it completely contradicts the Vedic shastras. Therefore, either the Bible must
be false or the shastras must be false. Bentley and pioneer Indologists such
as Sir William Jones and Max Muller worked hard to show that the shastras are
nothing but a mixture of fables and fiction, and they were quite successful.
They started a school of thought that is solidly established in modern
universities, both in Western countries and in India itself.

One of the teachings of this school of thought is that all the Vedic
literatures, from the Rig Veda to the Puranas, are essentially fraudulent
concoctions written in relatively recent times. In the early days of Indology,
writers such as Bentley openly expressed the opinion that the authors of the
Vedic shastras were impostors, cheaters, and superstitious fools. At the
present time, scholars customarily express these conclusions in moderate
language, which often gives the impression that they are very favorably
disposed towards Vedic culture. But the conclusions are the same.

For example, Clifford Hospital teaches at Queen's University at Kingston in
Canada, and he has been Principal of the Theological College since 1983. In a
recent interview conducted by the Vaisnava scholar Steven Rosen, he discusses
the date of the Srimad Bhagavatam:

Steven Rosen: "And it [the Bhagavatam] predates Vopadeva?"

Dr. Hospital: "Oh yes. Absolutely. On a separate note, though, what's
interesting about their [J.A.B. van Buitenen's and Friedholm Hardy's] work is
that they do a detailed analysis about the relation between certain parts of
the Bhagavata and the South Indian Alvar tradition. I think they make a very
good case for what people have long suspected: that many of the ideas of the
Bhagavata are coming out of the South Indian tradition."/2/

The point here is that if many of the ideas of the Bhagavatam are coming out
the medieval South Indian Alvar tradition, then the Bhagavatam was not
composed 5000 years ago by Vyasadeva. Since the text of the Bhagavatam says
that it was composed by Vyasadeva, this is tantamount to saying that the real
author of the Bhagavatam was a fraud. But Dr. Hospital says it nicely, without
using harsh language.

All Indologists, historians, and archeologists in modern universities agree
that there was no civilization in the Ganges basin of India 5000 years ago. To
say that there was such a civilization is considered utterly indefensible.
This means that no modern-day scholar can say that the pastimes of Krsna
recounted in the Bhagavatam and the Mahabharata really happened as described
in those works. According to accepted scholarly conclusions, the civilization
in which those pastimes are said to have occurred simply did not exist. The
stories of that civilization are mythological, and they were gradually
invented over a period of centuries, beginning with early versions of the
Mahabharata in the 3rd century B.C., and culminating in the Bhagavatam in
perhaps the 9th century A.D.

Indologists often say that ancient Indians were content with fables and had no
interest in recording history. Yet there are some traditional Vedic scholars
who strongly disagree with this. For example, Pandit Kota Vankatachela has
written a book giving an unbroken sequence of kings of Magadha from the time
of the Mahabharata up to the invasion of India by Muhammad Ghori in 1193
A.D./3/ He gives dates for the reigns of these kings based on the Puranas and
related Sanskrit texts. Table 1 lists these kings and the dates of their
reigns from Jarasandha to the dynasty of Chandragupta Maurya.

According to Vankatachela's presentation, recorded history in India extends
all the way back from the Middle Ages to the time of the battle of Kuruksetra.
Note that the dates for the reign of Chandragupta Maurya are 1534-1500 B.C.
According to the Indologists, Chandragupta Maurya was a contemporary of
Alexander the Great, who invaded India in 326 B.C. They would reject the king
list in Table 1 as largely fictitious.

What is the truth? To find out with reasonable certainty, it is necessary to
do extensive research. The Indologists have written hundreds of books and
scholarly articles expounding their views, and these will have to be carefully
studied. There are many Sanskrit texts containing historical information,
including major and minor Puranas, commentaries on Puranas, and related works.
There are also temple records, Jyotisha shastras, and calendrical records.
There are the works of traditional pandits such as Vankatachela. Finally,
there is archeological evidence and evidence based on records from other
ancient civilizations.

We cannot expect this research work to be done by established scholars. Few
will want to even consider the possibility that the accepted conclusions of
Indology might be wrong. If any established scholar does seriously challenge
these conclusions, then he is in danger of destroying his reputation and
losing his university position. Very few persons will be willing to take this
risk.

To carry out research work that challenges established views and introduces
new ideas, a research institution is required in which scholars are free to
carry out independent investigations. Such an institution cannot flourish if
it is required to reciprocate harmoniously with established academic
institutions. It also cannot function under an advisory board of established
academicians. A setting is required in which alternatives to established views
can be vigorously pursued.

The needed research work requires the sustained efforts of many dedicated
persons, and therefore it requires a secure source of funding. Funding is
needed to support scholars and their families and to provide office space,
secretarial assistance, library facilities, computers, and facilities for the
publication of books and journals. Funding is also needed for travel and for
research expeditions.

We can expect that if a stable research institution is founded that is free to
operate under our own auspices, then in due course we will be able to attract
competent people who are eager to engage in research to show the validity of
the Vedic world view. We can expect that these prospective scholars will
mainly come from the younger sector (although there may be some exceptions to
this).

Returning to the history of Indology, one of the key stratagems of the early
Indologists was to use science as a weapon to show the absurdity of Vedic
shastras. They observed that it is hard to break people's faith in the
philosophical and metaphysical teachings of the shastras, since these involve
subjects lying beyond the reach of our senses. But by showing that the
shastras give an unscientific account of observable natural phenomena, people
can be made to lose faith in all shastric teachings. Bentley made this point
in connection with the science of astronomy:

"It is by the investigation of truth, and the exposure of Brahminical
impositions, which can only be done through the means of astronomy, that the
labours of those who are laudably endeavoring to introduce true religion and
morality [i.e. Christianity] among the Hindus can have their true and
beneficial effect. So long as the impositions and falsehoods contained in the
Hindu books, which the common people are made to believe are the productions
of their ancient sages, are suffered to remain unexposed, little progress can
be expected to be made: but let the veil be withdrawn, uncover the impositions
by true and rational investigation, and the cloud of error will of itself
disappear; and then they will be not only more ready, but willing to adopt and
receive the word of truth."/4/

Since Bentley's time, Indologists have tried hard to show that Indian
astronomy consists of unscientific ideas originating in India plus
misrepresented scientific ideas borrowed from the Greeks and the
Babylonians./5/ However, we can argue that this is not correct. This is also
an area where much research is needed, and a beginning has been made with the
publication of the book Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy./6/

As it turned out, the strategy of using science to discredit the Vedic
shastras backfired. Science was also used to discredit Christianity. As a
result, many of today's Indologists tend to take a secular stance, and reject
the Vedic literatures as false, not because they disagree with Christianity,
but because they disagree with fundamental tenets of modern science. Likewise,
instead of becoming ready to receive the Christian "word of truth," college
educated people in India are now accepting the mechanistic world view of
modern science.

The impact of modern scientific thinking on people's understanding of Vedic
literature is shown by the following remarks by Dr. H. Daniel Smith, a
professor of religion at Syracuse University. He comments on the Ramayana:

Dr. Smith: "Well, to get right down to basics, it has to do with how one
understands the word avatara, more specifically, in what sense, if any, the
avatara of Rama was historical. If so, when? If so, where?"

Steven Rosen: "They say Treta yuga."

Dr. Smith: "That's the answer given. And the literalists can even give a date,
in July or something of such-and-such a year. And that's fine for the believer
- but it's only one of several possible perspectives. You see, it's that
literalist commitment to the historicity of it, just like Christians are
absolutely committed to the historicity of Jesus, that is at the crux of the
matter."

Steven Rosen: "Right."

Dr. Smith: "Just as many Christians affirm that Jesus really did exist in
Jerusalem in the year One, also many Hindus say with the Ramayana: Rama really
did exist and he lived in Ayodhya, and when he went, he went out to Lanka, and
there he fought and defeated Ravana and laid low all the Raksasa hosts. Now
that's a real tight bind that people put themselves in. Whereas on the other
hand, another way of dealing with it, is to say that it is all a myth. Now
please don't understand me: this view doesn't necessarily hold that the story
is fictional; what it says is that the Ramayana is telling a story that
doesn't have to be taken literally on all counts, and that it is basically a
story, if nothing else, that tells us quite a bit about human nature."

Steven Rosen: "And some believers take it like that?"

Dr. Smith: "Oh, indeed. Quite a few Hindus share that perspective - not many
but there are definitely those who do. For example, how do college educated
Hindus deal with it? Well some, to be sure, just go back to their childhoods,
saying, 'Oh Rama. Bless Rama.' Others, however, do try to think in terms of
mythic meaning, and try to probe for deep, psychological references in their
own experiences."/7/

Note the attempt to soften the blow: A myth is not necessarily fictional, it's
just a story that doesn't have to be taken literally and that tells us
something about human nature. The reasons that Smith gives for calling the
Ramayana a myth are significant. First of all, there is the problem of saying
that Lord Ramacandra lived in Ayodhya in the Treta yuga. This is ruled out by
the Darwinian theory of evolution, which says that in that time period, over
864,000 years ago, there were no human beings of the modern type.

This too is an area where careful research can reveal evidence that is
contrary to the accepted scientific view and in agreement with the Vedic
picture. Michael Cremo (Drutakarma dasa) and I have just completed a 900 page
book, Forbidden Archeology, which gives extensive evidence showing that human
beings of the modern type have been living on the earth for many millions of
years./8/

Much more research into natural history and the origin of life is needed to
show the validity of the Vedic world view. Based on our experience, we feel
that this research can definitely be done, but it will require the dedicated
efforts of many researchers.

Another problem raised by Smith is that if we take the Ramayana literally,
then we are obliged to accept the existence of beings such as Rakshasas, which
are endowed with remarkable mystical powers. Smith refers to the world of the
Ramayana as a "Walt Disney world" of fantasy - a world that scientifically
educated people can hardly take seriously. This problem applies to all the
Vedic literatures. All of the shastras are based on a view of reality that
assumes the existence of mystic powers, beings with subtle bodies,
transmigration of souls, and avataras of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

It turns out that this, too, is an area where the findings of careful research
support the Vedic world view. There is a great deal of evidence in the domain
of the paranormal that supports the reality of subtly embodied beings and
mystic powers. This evidence tends to be rejected by official science because
it violates the accepted theories of science. However, theoretical frameworks
can change, and it is a fact that many eminent scientists have seriously
studied paranormal phenomena on an individual basis. This still goes on today,
and such scientists have formed organizations such as the International
Association for New Science and the International Society for the Study of
Subtle Energy and Energy Medicine.

We can show that research findings in the domain of the paranormal fit
consistently into the Vedic world view. They give empirical support to the
reality of the Vedic picture, and the Vedic literatures provide a rational,
scientific framework for understanding paranormal phenomena. Of course, to
thoroughly demonstrate this, much research will have to be done.

In closing, it is useful to remember the example of the pioneer scientist,
Galileo. Jacques Vallee, a scientist and student of the paranormal, wrote, "If
the church had confiscated Galileo's telescope, turning it over to a committee
of so-called unbiased cardinals appointed by the pope, would the phases of
Venus, the satellites of Jupiter, and the reality of sunspots ever have been
discovered?" Of course, Galileo made his own observations. He was connected
with a society of like-minded, independent researchers called the Academy of
the Lynxes, and he received funding from the powerful Medici family./9/ (The
Lynxes were funded by another powerful nobleman named Federico Cesi.)

If he had burdened himself with a board of people who were hostile to his
basic program of research, he never could have made any scientific progress.
As we all know, his researches eventually got him in trouble with the accepted
intellectual authorities of his day, and he was tried for heresy by the
Church. Science came into sharp conflict with the prevailing world view of the
Church, but by making a convincing case, science eventually triumphed. The
same thing can happen with our own research efforts.

=============================================================
Table 1.

Kings of Magadha from the time of the Mahabharata
to Chandragupta Maurya

 king:          reign in      length         dynasty:
                years B.C.:   of reign:
----------------------------------------------------------
 Jarasandha     3222-3180     42             Barhadratha
 Sahadeva       3180-3138     42
 Somapi         3138-3080     58
 Srutasrava     3080-3016     64
 Yutayu         3016-2980     36
 Niramitra      2980-2940     40
 Sunaksatra     2940-2882     58
 Brhatsena      2882-2859     23
 Karmajit       2859-2809     50
 Sutanjaya      2809-2769     40
 Vipra          2769-2734     35
 Suci           2734-2676     58
 Ksema          2676-2648     28
 Suvrata        2648-2584     64
 Dharmasutra    2584-2549     35
 Sama           2549-2491     58
 Suvrata        2491-2453     38
 Dyumatsena     2453-2395     58
 Sumati         2395-2362     33
 Subala         2362-2340     22
 Sunitha        2340-2300     40
 Satyajit       2300-2217     83
 Visvajit       2217-2182     35
 Ripunjaya      2182-2132     50
 Pradyota       2132-2109     23             Pradyotana
 Palaka         2109-2085     24
 Visakhayupa    2085-2035     50
 Rajaka         2035-2014     21
 Nandivardhana  2014-1994     20
 Shisunaga      1994-1954     40             Shisunaga
 Kakavarna      1954-1918     36
 Kshemadharma   1918-1892     26
 Kshetrajya     1892-1852     40
 Vidhisara      1852-1814     38
 Ajatasatru     1814-1787     27
 Darbhaka       1787-1752     35
 Ajaya          1752-1719     33
 Nandivardhana  1719-1677     42
 Mahanandi      1677-1634     43
 Nanda          1634-1546     88             Nanda
 Sumalya & co.  1546-1534     12             (jointly)
 Chandragupta   1534-1500     34             Maurya
 Varisara       1500-1472     28
 Ashoka         1472-1436     36
 Suyasha        1436-1428      8
 Dasharatha     1428-1420      8
 Indrapalita    1420-1350     70
 Harsha         1350-1342      8
 Sangata        1342-1333      9
 Shalishuka     1333-1320     13
 Somasharma     1320-1313      7
 Shatadhanva    1313-1305      8
 Brihadratha    1305-1218     87
==========================================================

References:

1. Bentley, John, 1825, Historical View of the Hindu Astronomy,
   Osnabruck: Biblio Verlag, reprinted in 1970, p. xxvii.
2. Rosen, Steven, 1992, Vaisnavism, Contemporary Scholars Discuss the Gaudiya
   Tradition, New York: Folk Books, p. 71.
3. Vankatachela, Kota, 1957, Chronology of Ancient Hindu History, Arya Vijnana
   Grandhamala.
4. Bentley, p. 213.
5. Pingree, David, 1976, "The Recovery of Early Greek Astronomy from India,"
   Jour. of the History of Astronomy, pp. 109-23.
6. Thompson, Richard, 1989, Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy,
   Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.
7. Rosen, p. 42.
8. Cremo, Michael and Thompson, Richard, 1992, Forbidden Archeology,
   San Diego: Bhaktivedanta Institute.
9. Drake, Stillman, 1978, Galileo at Work, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
   page 1
 
