Subject: Re: [HM] Indian astronomy and mathematics
From: Dinesh Maheshwari (dsm@cypress.com)
Date: Mon Jan 31 2000 - 23:24:53 EST
Dear Kim and fellow HM listmembers,
First of all, let me just say that about until a year ago I was a fierce
proponent of the "MaxMueller school" of chronology for the Vedic literature
based on my "assumption/ignorance" about "MaxMueller-school"'s
"scholarly" (read un-scholarly, I can show proof if you should want ) work.
However, my opponents in the polemics on the issue aroused my curiosity to
further research the claims of the "MaxMueller school" and that of the
opponents. And now I stand converted in the ex-opponents' camp.
Perhaps you did not have enough time to read through Elst's article
carefully and/or deliberate on the contents within it. May I discuss some
your concerns mentioned in your post.
Vis-a-vis a high degree of precision assumed :
--------------------------------------------
The equinox moves 1degrees in 71 years - 14 degrees in 1000 years
- 35degrees in 2500 years. Yes, being accurate to 1 degree is high precision
but being accurate to within 14 degrees (corresponding to a millennium) is not.
Certainly, 39degrees or more of a difference that a MaxMuller chronology
(RigVeda in 1200BC) demands is too much of a difference.
As to Tilak's and Jacobi's interpretation of "Pleidas does not swerve from
the east" : First it is not the same as being "in the east"; the original
description implies that the Pleidas is in the east for a considerable time
(1 degree/71 years). For the Vedic people who observed positions (as opposed
to calculated) within a minute (as observed by French astronomer
Jean-Sylvain), Pleiadas being 28 degrees (corresponding to 2000 yrs) off of
the east would certainly not be as if not "swerving from east".
Second, if you are familiar with the current day Hindu astronomy/astrology,
you would find that the same "phrase"("does not swerve from east") is used
to qualify observations exactly due east.
Third, this ("Pleiadas does not swerve from the east") is being used only
for dating Sapthatha_Brahamana_. If this is not exactly precise for one then
one can ignore this data point. However, the same thing cannot be said of
observations in the in the Hindu_astrologers_table, conjunction of "seven
planets" event for dating start of KaliYuga, position of Orion used for
RigVeda and many other dates used in the archaeoastronomy for dating the
Vedic literature.
Fourth, the astronomical dates for the observations in the Vedic literature
have not been refuted to be wrong or incorrect by the opponents for more
than two centuries now. In fact, opponents theorise that given the "other"
(read linguistic ) evidence for the chronology the observations must have
been back-calculated. There-in lies the origin of the back-calculation
argument - it is as if to say that the Vedic people purposefully
back-calculated to mislead about the antiquity of their literature. But
could they really back calculate accurately ?
BTW, I will expound on the "other so-called larger-?/linguistic evidence"
later in the post.
Vis-a-vis your concern about circular argument in the redating :
--------------------------------------------------------------
Being accurate at observing astronomical events does not imply being
accurate at calculating future or past astronomical events. [Calculations
of the astronomical events, as we all know, requires use of Newtonian laws
of physics with heliocentric model of the solar system ]. So we see that
the two arcs "observations" and "calculations" of astronomical events are
not the same and therefore the argument is not circular.
The astronomical observations recorded within Hindu astrologers table are
just that - observations. Else you will have to concede that the Vedic people
knew Newtonian laws of physics with the capability to solve differential
equations.
We know that they did not know the Newtonian laws, even though they had
a concept of "gravitational force" - but no formulation for it.
Vis-a-vis Vedic astronomy :
-------------------------
Perhaps you are unaware that there has been a spurt in the studies on Vedic
astronomy since 1990s that prove that Al-Beruni's statement about the state
of Indian ancient astronomy were ill-founded. (Al-Beruni's biased remarks
about almost all aspects of Indian history makes one wonder about his
"motives" ). Unfortunately, many scholars took Al-Beruni's word and did not
delve into texts like Vedanga Jyotisha. However, off late researchers like
S. Kak, Richard Thompson, H. Thurston, van Der Waerden, E. Burgess, W.M.
O'Neil , Kuppanna Shastry, Warapande etc. have done enough work to understand
the texts in the Vedic (not-an-easy-read) literature . In fact as early as
1971 there were researchers that had raised dissenting views about the
interpretation of the Vedic astronomy - please refer to "Roger Billard, 1971,
L'astronomie Indienne" . The new information even shows that even with the
Max-Mueller chronology, the Zodiac signs in Rigveda predates the Babylonian
Zodiac system. And that the notion of dividing a circle into 360 degrees may
come from Vedic times where-in the sun-wheel was divided into 360 pairs of
day-night corresponding to the 360 days assumed in an ideal year.
In fact, I have even seen a reference to simultaneous use of a hexagecimal
system, and I will publish the source document that claims it, as soon as
I can find it again. (Until then you can consider it to be myth :-) )
The point is - the "the history of Indian astronomy" (as is the history of
Indus civilization) is changing faster than it can be compiled into
"biographies".
Vis-a-vis achievements of Indian mathematicians after 1000 AD :
-------------------------------------------------------------
All the Hindu/Jain mathematicians I know of since 900AD were patronised by
Hindu/Jain kings - and yes there were pockets of Hindu kingdoms (in Rajasthan,
Madhya Pradesh, Maharastra, Kerala, Karanatka etc.), even through the heyday
of Muslim empire, that survived till the British empire (mid-1800s).
I know only of the Muslim mathematicians from Persia that studied in India
but none that collaborated with the Hindu mathematicians, perhaps you can
tell me of the one's who did.
As to the damage done by the Muslim invaders to the intellectual institutions
& elite, you only have to pick up a book on Muslim invasions of India. The
remaining elite class were not even allowed to ride a horse unless they
converted to Islam. If you consider the British to be any better, then
consider the fact that they chopped of the fingers of all the master-weavers
from Bengal who weaved better cloth than the British factories could produce.
I can relate other incidents but this perhaps is not the right forum. Yes,
Ramanujan was ultimately helped by Hardy, but Hardy was the 7-8th of the list
of the then-prominent British mathematicians that Ramanujan approached and by
that time he was so poor that the first thing he asked Hardy was for a
scholarship so that he could feed himself properly.
Vis-a-vis Binary system in the "chandashastra" :
----------------------------------------------
I doubt that B. van Nooten would concoct the addition subtraction method to
fit his theory. I know that some (to be just, a few) over-zealous Indian
pseudo-scholars tend to extend the claims, but pray, what motive B. van
Nooten has in publishing the afore-said work. In any case, I would still
like the original article by B van Nooten if someone has copy of it so that
I can make my own decision.
And now to the so-called larger evidence put forth by the "MaxMueller school"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mueller first proposed this hypothesis to fit his understanding of the
Mosaic history of the world with the biblical floods etc. .And because Buddha
had by then been accepted to be born around 600BC the Vedic literature had
to be prior to it. And he conjectured RigVeda to have been written around
1200BC, the iron age,- because RigVeda uses a term "ayas" which he inferred
to mean iron and it also uses "asva" which he inferred to mean horse. He did
not read all of the Vedas to realise that "ayas" was used to connote any
metal or ore and not necessarily iron. And similarly that "asva" was used in
an generic way where it could also mean an ass. BTW, the ass had a special
significance in the Vedic rituals because it has a gestation period of 365
days - closest to the then understanding of a year. Max Mueller also
interpreted parts of RigVeda to mean that there was an Aryan race and a
Dravidiian race, without reading all of the Veda, where-in even the so-called
Dravidians used the term Aryan for the noble people amongst them.
A careful analysis shows that the term Arya was used merely to connote being
noble. Later Max Mueller himself recanted his hypothesis on the chronology
but in the heady days of Super-Race concept the hypothesis stuck.
After the early excavations of the Indus Valley civilization in 1920, the Max
Mueller school claimed archeological evidence of having un-covered the
DRavidian civilization that the Aryans were supposed to have eliminated.
However, later excavations showed no sign of an invasion in the Indus valley
civilization sites and the most recent excavations[1990s] show that in fact
the so-called Dravidian Indus valley civilization sites flourished without
break in continuity until 300BC. Anthropologists have concluded from the bones
found on the sites that the Indus people are closely aligned with the current
day Indians with all the structural diversity seen in current India.
Meanwhile it was also discovered by the geologists that the grandest of the
then-seven (5 today) rivers saraswati described in the RigVeda had dried up
1900BC and was only a "monsoon-season" river by 2600BC. Which meant that the
RigVeda had to be written prior to that.
The most recent mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) [1998-99] analysis show again that
there was no Aryan invasion and interestingly it also showed that there is a
possibility that the human migrations out of Africa first happened to India
(through the "pre-flood era" exposed land bridges) and thence to every where
else.
So now the "MaxMueller school" is left with only the so-called "larger"? -
evidence - "linguistic" evidence of "ayas" and "asva" with everything else
against them. [In fact the "asva" support is fading fast because the horse
bones were discovered in the plains north of himalaya and dated to 4000BC.]
Now anyone who knows the etymology of the words like "witch" [from generic
"wit"], wife [ from generic "waif"] oxygen [from the generic term for "acid
producer"], cylinder [from generic term for "roller" and many words like
these knows that there are enough instances of words in languages that evolve
from generic connotations to specific connotations. Besides linguistics -
probably the most in exact science - is a poor substitute
for other evidence from other fields.
So, in any case, the "MaxMueller school" today has a very tenuous
hypothesis that does not hold any water against the other evidence that
is emerging. But the implications of fall of Max-Mueller chronology is so
large for the Indo-European people's Urheimat that there will be some who
may never bring themselves to accept it.
Enough for today,
Best regards,
Dinesh
--
Dinesh Maheshwari
Advanced Design Methods
Cypress Semiconductor
San Jose, CA, USA
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 05:23:00 EST