The Vedic Heredity
Reflections over TRUTHS that have been systematically covered
Most people on the earth know little about the Vedic heredity. It is not their negligence. They are systematically maintained into ignorance. The inquisitive minds are fed with wrong, false and fake-information by the Might, Media and Manipulation industrial-complex. Details of the process, how it is done, are narrated in my blog:
World Wide Mind Management.
Are we far from being Pavlov’s Dog?
People of Bharatavarsa (India) an Example.
These narrations are based on facts in coherence, not based on “information” or on “alternative information”. The Vedic heredity comes from the Vedas. The Vedas are “books” of knowledge on the universe, the human societies inclusive, as perceived and accumulated since time immemorial by the five human senses. These books of knowledge were compiled in a geo-politically privileged vast area called Bharatavarsa. In the north is the Himalayan massive. The only entry to Bharatavarsa on a land-route is a pass from north-west. The rest of Bharatavarsa is surrounded by seas. The human history of Bharatavarsa defines the Vedic heredity. The Vedic heredity is valid for the humankind.
The ancient history of Bharatavarsa has been handed down to future generations documented in many “books”. These ancient “books” are in oral-tradition and in written-mode. These well documented “books” both in oral and written modes are available in our days too. These are the Vedas, there are four of them, the Upanishads, there are 183 of them, the many Brahmanas, Sutras and Puranas, the Itihasa, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Panchatantra and innumerable alike books. These “books” in oral and written modes add up to the rich heredity of Bharatavarsa.
The Vedas are compiled in the Vedic language in oral-mode. A language is always a combination of sounds and of gestures. Reliable interpersonal exchanges are guaranteed only in face-to-face, in the oral-mode. The Vedic language is a combination and permutation of 97 different sounds (characters, alphabets) and many gestures. The Vedic language is stored in human memory. It is not on records how ultimately the 97 different sounds were created. It may also be just under-searched and under-researched.
It is on record that two main languages had existed in Bharatavarsa before written-characters were created: “Bhoota Bhasha” and “Chhando Bhasha”. “Bhasha” means language. “Bhoota Bhasha” has 42 characters and “Chhando Bhasha”, the language of the Vedas, has 97 characters.-“Bhoota Bhasha” has vanished with the passage of time. It was not employed in the Vedas.
A long time had elapsed and many ways had been gone before characters for the written-mode were invented as a device to storing “books” in a language. The written-mode of a language is by its nature an inferior storage of knowledge. The written-mode of a language cannot communicate sounds and gestures. The written-mode of a language is a support for the human memory, a secondary storage of knowledge. It is on record that the “Chhando Bhasha” had invented first the “Brahmi” written- characters and later on the “Devanagari” characters.
Devanagari is also the type of characters of “Laukika Bhasha”, a post-Vedic language, the Sanskrit language using 63/64 sound characters. The Upanishads, the many Brahmanas, Sutras and Puranas, the Itihasa, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Panchatantra and innumerable alike books are composed in the “Laukika Bhasha” in Oral and Written modes. Another language had emerged thereafter called “Devanagari Bhasha” using 51 characters. The then following languages use 43 characters. The “Prakrit” language uses the Devanagari script as well, but the “Pali” language does not. Quite a few “vernacular” languages have created their own scripts. From “Pali” downwards several types of script have been created.
The first three languages using the Devanagari characters have one aspect in common. Even the shortest sound, the syllables, follows strict rules and carries different weights. The main syllables, the roots so to say, evolve to words by prefixes and suffixes, i. e. adding other syllables before or after them; or in both ways. In that process also the meaning of those “roots” changes following strict rules. Without acquiring thorough knowledge of every single syllable and its different connotations in different contexts the exact meaning of the words cannot be understood. In addition, the same words have different meanings depending on how they are placed in a sentence and on the meaning of the whole sentence. The meaning of a sentence depends on the meaning carried by the whole paragraph, the meaning of the paragraph depending on the whole chapter. There is no short cut to these languages.
The Vedas has been handed down for generations to come in the “Chhando Bhasha” (the Vedic language) having 97 sound-characters. The whole knowledge stored in the Vedas can only be accessed by the oral-tradition of the Vedic texts. There is no short cut. It is significant to note that the oral-tradition of the Vedic texts persists to our day. This is unique.
No other language needed more sound-characters for expressions, for interpersonal understanding, for “communications”. All post-Vedic languages in Bharatavarsa needed less. It follows logically that the knowledge stored in the Vedic language is diluted when it is translated into any post-Vedic language. In other words, the whole of the Vedic knowledge cannot be translated into any inferior languages. At best, it can be tried to describe the whole with no guarantee of an undistorted description.
A long time had elapsed when the Vedic people nonetheless felt the need of additional storages as supports of the human memory. But how to transfer sounds and gestures and store them outside of human memory? It must have been a toilsome process of experiments with signs on durable materials. After quite a few experiments to storing the Vedas (knowledge) for future generations the Vedic societies finally succeeded to create signs for articulated sounds of the Vedic language to be stored on secondary media. No solution could be found for gestures. Nothing is handed down on this process.
The fact, however, is that additional storages for the Vedic language were created with “readable” signs (scripts) on durable materials. Finally the Vedic people succeeded to convert the “readable” signs to the Devanagari script for a secondary storage for accumulated knowledge. The “books” in oral-mode were transferred also in the “written-mode”, but without gestures and diluted sounds. The “phonetics” are surrogate of real sounds. Thus the primary storage in the human memory (the oral tradition) was additionally supported. The written-mode of the “Chhando Bhasha” (the Vedic language) is nothing more.
When the Vedic-knowledge was transferred to the written-mode, i.e. to a secondary storage, there was a loss in correct and comprehensive understanding due to the most of the missing sounds and the totality of gestures. This loss was reduced when the “readers” were familiar with the oral-tradition and could reconstruct the missing sounds and gestures in memory. These reconstructions could individually differ. This is the malice of all secondary storages.
The “Chhando Bhasha” (the Vedic language) needed, in whatever modes, as languages in general need, rules for correct and comprehensive understanding (grammar books) how articulated sounds evolved to words, words to sentences, sentences to paragraphs, paragraphs to chapters, the chapters to books, the subjects of books to the whole of knowledge. The growth of knowledge leads to the growth of the language and not the other way round. The growth of the language leads to rules for correct and comprehensive understanding (grammar books) and not the other way round.
As mentioned earlier, the Vedas are “books” on knowledge. These “books” deal with all aspects of micro and macro cosmos that can be perceived by the five senses of the human beings. These are descriptions of the universe, the human societies inclusive. These descriptions had a beginning and a history of its growth. The history from the first discoveries of universal forces and energies determining life on the earth up to the lofty peak of accumulated knowledge compiled in the Four Vedas, as it is handed down, seems to be lost. It is a futile exercise to trying a chronological reconstruction of this achievement. There would not be any benefit either. The handed down knowledge is important. Why dating-acrobatics at all?
The Four Vedas - Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda and Atharva Veda - store in dense formulations knowledge on the universe and all that goes with it. This handed down knowledge in the Vedic language has not been questioned or challenged by the future generations. This peak manifests, however, the wide range of highly developed knowledge, culture and civilisation. It can be assumed that the growth of Vedic knowledge had come to a standstill. Along with it also the growth of the Vedic language, of the Vedic culture and of the Vedic civilisation came to a standstill.
Between the beginning of human societies and to reaching this paramount of human knowledge and culture, the Four Vedas, lies almost an eternity. Absolutely nothing is known about the toiling process from the beginning of human societies in general and from the beginning of human societies in Bharatavarsa in particular. Dating acrobatics starting with the “books of Moses” or bean-counting along with scattered archaeological findings will not be fruitful looking back to the early days of human society in general or within a geo-physically privileged area like Bharatavarsa in particular.
The power of human imaginations is needed to comprehend the Vedic civilisations. The Vedic civilisations were results of dissemination of Vedic knowledge in the Vedic societies and its practical application to organise, to mould human societies. People living in Bharatavarsa had stored their perceptions in memory, mutually exchanged their perceptions via languages to gain insights, to gather knowledge and to store the accumulated knowledge in human memory. It is imaginable that all human societies have passed through this process. There are differences in width and depth conditioned by different natural and social factors. Any exercise of comparisons is futile.
All kinds on the earth, not only the human-beings, had to find out space for existence and co-existence on the earth under identical circumstances set by the nature. Whether a kind knew or not, all kinds are interrelated and interdependent. Many external forces, energies, rays and waves determine living on the earth. These rules are just set by the nature.
All beings are equipped by the nature with specific sound-producers, sense organs, memory and sorter (calculator). There would be no communications without sense organs and sound-producers. There would be no knowledge without mutual communications. It seems that sounds play a major role in communications. There are specific ranges in sound-producing abilities of each and every being. Within the specific ranges different sounds can be produced. Differences in sounds carry different massages. Sounds are base-elements of languages.
Human beings are equipped with a high quality sound-generator for communications, five sense organs for comprehensive perceptions, unlimited memory-storage for perceptions and high quality calculators for evaluations within the memory-storage. It seems that no other kind than the human-beings have used these equipments more efficiently to gather perceptions, to evaluate the perceptions drawing conclusions, to generate explanatory knowledge and to store knowledge in memory for future utilisations.
It cannot be mentioned often enough that the societies in Bharatavarsa at its peak needed 97 different sounds and their permutations and combinations for mutual communications of differentiated knowledge, i.e. the “Chhando Bhasha”, the Vedic language. It would be waste of time to speculate on the toiling process of this development. The processes of this development seem to be lost forever. The Four Vedas, however, mark the peak of this development. The Vedas are available in our days both in oral and written modes, though it is doubtful whether the comprehensive meanings of the texts are saved. Later more on this issue.
The existence of all beings on the earth is determined by the laws of the nature. The laws of the nature on the earth are determined by the laws set by the sun, the moon and the “stars”. Human beings all over the earth were curious to know about the laws and why the laws were so as they perceive. It is not known whether any other beings on the earth were as curious as the human-beings. This curiosity might have been the reason why human-beings have developed a wider range of sounds than needed just to ensure physical existence. Human-beings have developed languages as carrier for exchanges of observations, experiences, feelings and thoughts on and about the laws of the nature. Without this curiosity to know and without the ability of creating languages a human society and/or a human culture would not have come into existence.
In all probability the initial questions were determined by different survival conditions set by the immediate environment and surrounding “world”. The earth is rich in diversity. No wonder that human societies have raised different questions and accumulated different facets of knowledge leading to different human cultures. It would be waste of time and energy to explore, to try to reconstruct the paths to differences, to compare the differences, to create correlations, to invent explanations and “theories”, to make a ranking of human societies and culture.
We get back to languages, to texts, to words, to alphabets and to rules for proper understanding, the “grammar-books”. In all languages in which literature has been created must have experienced these phases of development. All languages have passed through the phase of oral-mode. The accumulated knowledge in a culture was stored in the human memory. The language was the main medium of transport for exchange of different perceptions, leading to common conclusions.
At a later phase the need of additional support for human memory as the primary storage and for inter-generational transport was felt. Search for media and materials were commenced. Thus the written-modes for languages were invented. It cannot be repeated often enough that secondary storages of knowledge are inferior to the primary storage, i.e. to the human memory. The secondary storages are unable to store the wholeness of a “face-to-face” communications. A second aspect is more important. All secondary storages can be manipulated rather at ease. In Bharatavarsa the oral-mode has been maintained as the original.
It is not known whether the deficiencies of secondary storages had been conscientiously considered. In all probability the malice of secondary storages were not felt in the beginning. The spread of secondary storages were slow. There were no social needs for media-mediated communications. Reading ability was not needed in general. Learning does not depend on the ability of reading. Interpersonal communications are superior either.
The minority users of secondary storages could make up the malice in the beginning as they were able to reconstruct in memory the gestures and the sounds while reading. The ability of reconstructions diminishes in course of time when “face-to-face” communications are more and more substituted by media-mediated communications. The history of this process is universally almost lost. This issue is under researched.
We get back to the Vedic language, to the Vedic knowledge, to the Vedic culture and to the Vedic civilisation. Absolutely nothing is known about the toiling process reaching a unique peak of human developments in culture. Yet it is needed to mobilise the power of human imaginations trying to comprehend all aspects of the Vedic culture and to appreciate the heredity of Bharatavarsa. Dating acrobatics and “bean counting” will not be fruitful looking back to the early days of human society in a geo-physically privileged area like Bharatavarsa.
The early days of societies in Bharatavarsa were marked, as elsewhere too, with increasing curiosity about the natural forces determining the physical existence. This curiosity is the beginning of human culture in general. Whatever might have been the reasons, the societies in Bharatavarsa were able to produce affluently all means for living (Lebensmittel) and thus set their people free for other pursuits. The societies in Bharatavarsa were able to develop “division of work” in harmony within the society, in harmony with all other beings around and in harmony with the nature. This “division of work” was not determined by external natural factors. This “division of work” was an achievement of human culture developed in Bharatavarsa.
No power of human imaginations can reconstruct the developmental processes in ancient cultures without reliable records. Many cultural achievements, however, are on record. Inferences are called for. The Vedic society had felt the necessity of four basic interdependent functions to be fulfilled by four interdependent broad sections of individuals in the society to organise a human society in harmony and happiness.
These are four different functions for any human society. All four sections are equally important and interwoven. There are no indications of hierarchies within these four sections in the Vedic societies. There are no indications in the Four Vedas that there were ever hierarchies in the Vedic societies. There was no need of hierarchies. There was no dearth of anything for anybody to live. Divisions in sections and/or further divisions of works are not inherently hierarchical.
There are two additional indications that characterise the culture of the Vedic societies. As mentioned elsewhere, the Vedas are books on knowledge explaining how the universe functions as a whole from the perspective of the human-kind. In none of the Four Vedas there are individual claims of authorship of toilsome discoveries. Those delegated persons mainly working at the knowledge-front were called Rishis (seer-scientists).
Our denomination of “Rishis ((seer-scientists)” calls for explanatory remarks. The people in Bharatavarsa created the Vedas and the Vedic language. We call them, as a matter of convenience, the Vedic-people. Also as a matter of convenience, we differentiate pre-Vedic-people and post-Vedic-people. The history of the pre-Vedic-people is lost. But they have given to the humanity the Vedas and sanatana dharma (determination of man in the universe). Individuals amidst the pre-Vedic-people contributed through ages to complete the Vedas. Those individuals being part and parcel of the society were called Rishis whenever they were in search for truths in the universe. In our comprehension the Rishis were “scientists” of the highest order. They practically saw the cosmic matrix and described. The “Vedic Rishis” made way to the “Vedic Scholars” in the post-Veda-phase because no works were left for them.
The duty of the Rishis was to discover, to gather knowledge and to disseminate knowledge in the society for all practical purposes. This was the dharma of the Rishis. The Rishis were not competing with or against each other. There are no indications of individual competitions in the Vedic culture. The Rishis did not sell their knowledge and wisdom. It was the duty of the Rishis to accumulate and disseminate knowledge so that once acquired knowledge is permanently stored for the benefit of the whole society.
The second indication is equally remarkable. The Rishis were diligent workers. The Rishis worked on discoveries, worked as “teachers” and they worked on dissemination of knowledge to the whole society. They were Gurus as well. They were assisted by many Learners (Shishyas). There are mentions about the necessity of dedicative, close and truthful relationship between the Gurus and the Shishyas (Learners). There are no mentions of special centres for learning, or “seats” of learning. The Gurus had their simple places to live, were well integrated within the society, holding an open household. The Gurus were known as knowing and reflecting persons. These places were called Ashrams. The Ashrams were open for Learners. The Learners seeking knowledge could stay and work in the Ashrams. The Gurus were not “professionals”. The interactions in the Ashrams helped Gurus and Learners to grow together while searching for truths.
As far as the Vedic civilisation is concerned there is no need to depend on the power of human imaginations only. As mentioned elsewhere, the Rishis had discovered that all entities in the universe has a Beginning and has an End. In all probability this assertion of the Vedic Rishis is valid for geographical features on the earth and for “individuals” of all beings. It might be doubtful whether this assertion is valid for all beings in general, for human societies in general and for human cultures and human knowledge in general. Civilisations definitely rise and civilisations definitely fall. But what was before the rise of a civilisation begins and what happens after a civilisation has fallen? Such questions are viable but in the current context might not be functional.
The Four Vedas do not describe the history of the Vedic language, of the Vedic culture and of the Vedic civilisations. The Four Vedas are rather “knowledge Banks”. The knowledge is preserved in “formulas” (Mantras). Thus the Vedic language and the Vedic culture are also preserved. The achievements of the Vedic civilisations have disappeared from the surface.
A few of the achievements of the Vedic civilisations are rediscovered by excavations. There is no need to deal with “archaeology” to comprehend that the nature has covered in the course of time many visible material achievements of the Vedic civilisation by layers of earth. It will be pointless, idle and futile effort to determine how visible material achievements of the Vedic civilisations have been covered and/or in how many human-years the nature needed to cover them and/or whether more than one Vedic civilisation is buried in one location. The fact is, wherever a visible mould in a little “deserted” landscape in the vast area of Bharatavarsa can be identified, it is certain that excavation will rediscover material achievements of past civilisations.
There is indeed a need to deal with “archaeology” as a “modern science discipline”. It seems to be enlightening to review the history of so many “modern science disciplines” in general and the history of “archaeology” in particular. The creation of the “modern science disciplines” had begun around some three hundred years ago, from the “18th century” onwards. Who created them? Who marketed these creations? What was the purpose of these creations? What was happening in the world in the “18th century”? Who were winning, who were losing? These and similar questions have not been raised yet.
The history of “archaeology” is exemplary. The “modern science discipline” archaeology was created as archaeology in the 1”8th century”, in 1798. The name of the subject is as deceptive as the most names (terms) being created by “modern science disciplines”. These names carry a mask in Greek or in Latin languages. Less than 1 % of the European Christians are familiar with these two old European languages. What is the function of these Greek or Latin Masks? Making believe of something that is not real? The meaning of “archaeo” is in old Greek just “old objects”. Old? What is Old? How old is old? It is time to make “academically trained” talkers accountable and it is time to ask them. The meaning of “logy” in old Greek is simply talks, speeches, and the like. The name “archaeology” has been designated to excavations of signs of “old” civilisations. The credit of creating the name goes to the Anglo-Saxons.
Who doesn’t know that “nothing can be created out of nothing”? It is needed to look back to facts, draw conclusions and just not believe in tales told later or read books “blindly”. The archaeologists agree that William Cunnington (1754 – 1810) was the father of archaeological excavation. Excavation is another name uncovering unusual moulds in a landscape or digging in moulds in a landscape. It is said that William Cunnington was the initiator to uncovering “Stonehenge” in Wiltshire, England.
William Cunnington was an uneducated Merchant. Why should he have started the exercise of uncovering “Stonehenge” in Wiltshire, England? Whatsoever. The excavation was completed in the last decade of the “18th century”. “Stonehenge” goes to William Cunnington’s credit. So it is handed down. The fact is that the whole project was funded by Sir Richard Colt Hoare (1754 – 1838). He belonged to the Anglo-Saxons. Richard Colt Hoare was a scion of a rich “noble” family. His father Sir Richard Hoare (1648 - 1719) was “Lord Mayor of London” and the founder of C. Hoare & Co, one of the oldest private banks. Why did Sir Richard Colt Hoare fund the exercise of uncovering “Stonehenge” in Wiltshire, England?
It is a riddle how William Cunnington could become the “Father” of archaeological excavations. It is known that excavation of Herculaneum, a wealthy town covered by eruptions of Mount Vesuvius 2000 years ago, during the “1st century AD”, started much earlier than that of in Stonehenge. Herculaneum was rediscovered in 1738 while digging for the foundations of a palace for the Bourbon King of Naples. Pompeii was rediscovered by the Spanish military engineer Rocque Joaquin de Alcubierre in 1748. Well, I leave this riddle for “dating acrobatics” of “modern scholars”.
None of the “modern scholars” has been interested to illuminate the history of the creation of many “science subjects” like the archaeology in the “18th century”. We all know that “nothing comes out of nothing”. The “18th century” was preceded by a few centuries. These centuries are accounted by European Christians as Christian centuries. The Christianity was not born in Europe. The history of dissemination of Christianity in Europe is a history of wars. A war is never a purpose in itself. The purpose of a war is always robbery of physical and human resources. Murder, genocide, occupation and exploitation are inherent and never “collateral damages” in wars.
None of the “scholars”, modern or not modern has ever been interested to illuminate the history of the many “pre-requisites” of a war. The handed down history of Wars since Alexander the Macedonian ruffian reveal that “military leaders” or “Kings” or “Emperors” raided foreign territories and robbed. How do the “military leaders” or the “Kings” or the “Emperors” become “military leaders” or “Kings” or “Emperors”? This is a non-question for “scholars”. None of the “scholars” is willing to know who were ultimately benefitted and who had lost in the past wars. It has remained a non-issue for them. It is known that “military leaders” or “Kings” or “Emperors” do not generally die in wars, only the “soldiers”. The Roman “Emperors” had followed the example set by Alexander the Macedonian ruffian and robbed in foreign territories. Pre-Christian Europe was not “peaceful”.
In the ”4th century”, i.e. some 17 hundred years ago, the spread of Christianity in Europe was ensured and it was the “10th century”, i.e. some 11 hundred years ago,- by converting the northern Europe successfully to Christianity. The means of success were Wars between the existing European Kingdoms. The Christianised Kingdoms of Europe won the wars.
In the “7th century”, i.e. some 14 hundred years ago, The “Islam” had emerged in West Asia. The forays of European Christians towards the East disguised as “crusades” with Christian Cross began in the “11th century”, i.e. some one thousand years ago,-sanctioned by the Vatican. These “crusades” did not bring enough booties, thus were only partly successful. In the last years of the “14th century”, i.e. some 700 years ago the Ottomans were able to block the land route from Europe to Asia. The main consequence was to put on the agenda to seeking a Sea-route to “India” as an alternative. The kingdoms of Portugal and Spain were the forerunners.
By the end of the “15th century”, i.e. some 600 years ago, a Sea-route westwards to a rather accidentally found new hunting-ground and a Sea-route south-eastwards to “India” were found. The Kingdoms of Portugal and Spain practiced in this process inhuman murdering, robbing, occupying and exploiting on three continents. All other European Christian Kingdoms followed the Kingdoms of Portugal and Spain.
The “16th century”, i.e. some 500 years ago, is marked by continuous wars instigated by European Christian Kingdoms on European soil, on Seas and on their new hunting-grounds. The Kingdom of the Britons destroyed the Spanish Armada in 1588 AD and then ultimately won the race of inhuman murdering, robbing, occupying and exploiting on three continents.
The “17th century”, i.e. some 400 years ago, is marked by innumerable wars, murder, genocide, occupation and exploitation. The hunting-grounds were many and rich. All European Kingdoms were on limits in making rich booties. A new pecking order was somehow “arranged” among the robbing European Kingdoms. Extension of hunting-grounds was on a low tide.
Nothing changed in the “18th century”, i.e. some 400 years ago. In the pecking order of the robbing European Kingdoms the Britons consolidated their top ranking. Most remarkable historical events are mentioned here for specific reflections:
The disproportional distribution of resources could no longer been exclusively explained as the “Will of God” by the “clerus”. New justifiers were to be created. This was the beginning of “western philosophy”, the birth hour of the “intellectual prostitutes”. The social background of them was either clerical or low-feudal.
Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626), Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642), Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679), René Descartes (1596 – 1650), John Locke (1632 – 1704), Baruch Spinoza (1632 – 1677), Sir Isaac Newton (1642 – 1726/27), Gottfried Wilhelm (von) Leibniz (1646 - 1716) are examples. None, absolutely none, of the celebrated European Christian “intellectuals” did ever criticise murdering, robbing, occupying and exploiting by their clients, not to talk about moral condemnation. Their main thrust was to cover the simple fact that all hunting-grounds were rich and their riches were robbed. The people living there were victims of robbery, of atrocities and of exploitations. Those who survived were impoverished. The collaborators were less affected than the direct victims.
None of the European Christian “intellectuals” have discovered any new phenomenon; they robbed already discovered phenomena from the cultures of the “hunting-grounds”. The European Christian” intellectuals” just took the credit and mixed those “discoveries” with fakes and propaganda for their clients. The concept of “copyright” was implemented in 1710 as already mentioned. The concept of plagiarism was created later.
The foundation of human inhumanity was completely built up by the end of the “18th century”.-The beginning of this inhuman practice was the papal sanction of the first crusade to the “Eastern Mediterranean” region. The crusades continued and were extended to the northern Europe. The “Reconquista” movement in the Iberian Peninsula was also a crusade to bring back the lost “hunting ground”. The aggressive Arab Muslims came via North Africa and had occupied parts of the Iberian Peninsula. They were ultimately ousted.-All campaigns to spreading or re-establishing Christianity were accompanied with robbery and murder. Only the Christianity counted. Nothing else. The cultures and civilisations that prevailed earlier were almost eradicated.
The Arab Muslim occupants were conversant with Greek and Asian cultural achievements. The Christian Europe was not familiar with these achievements. The Arab Muslim occupants brought also the news to Christian Europe that Africa was large and rich. The Arab Muslim occupants were ousted from Europe (the Reconquista ended in 1492) but the knowledge and the news they brought remained. During the Reconquista, in 1139 AD, Alfonso Henriques was proclaimed “King of Portugal”. This poor Kingdom remembered the news that Africa was large and rich. The robbing mentality of the European Christians was well internalized in Portugal as well. And Portugal was poor.
All Portuguese Kings mobilised and invested the maximum of resources in the production of weapons and in construction of “vessels” to reach the Western coast of Africa. The route to nearby Morocco was known. Ultimately King John I (1357 –1433) was able to assemble a fleet of 200 “Caravelle” in Porto. These “Caravelle” had a tonnage of 50 to 160 and were able to carry 45,000 ruffians. In 1415 AD, i.e. around 600 years ago this fleet sailed out from Porto to “conquest” of the city of Ceuta, across the Straits of Gibraltar. His third son Infante Henrique of Portugal, Duke of Viseu (1394 –1460), better known as Prince Henry the Navigator, was the organizer of this crusade.
Ceuta was taken in surprise by nightfall. The looting of the city was less profitable than expected, but not in terms of future undertakings. Ceuta served as the first “stronghold” for the crusades that followed. This predatory assault was preceded by numerous smaller assaults. One or two vessels sailed following the coast, to tie up some shore at night and then assault to rob and to get hold of slaves.-Porto was already a market-place for slaves. Such forays were sponsored by the King collecting 20 % taxes on the booties.
After capturing Ceuta the King of Portugal sought papal recognition of the assaults as Crusades. The King got “recognition”. Pope Martin V issued the Papal bull Sane charissimus of 4th April 1418 AD, which confirmed to the King of Portugal that all of the lands he might occupy from the Moors will be his own. Henry the Navigator organized further assaults along the African coast.
The European Christian “intellectuals” welcomed and hailed these “crusades” taking personal benefits out of them. Subsequently they have slyly created quite a few virtual conceptions like “discoveries” and “enlightment” to sing songs on them. They have marketed their skills covering all the events of inhuman assaults, wars, robberies, murders and lootings elaborately and eloquently. They have fared well as “intellectual prostitutes” as prostitutes mostly do. In this process a lot of justifications has been propagated and many false tracks has been generated, trimming them as new “science subjects” like History, Biology, Astronomy, Natural Sciences, Linguistics, Economics, Anthropology, Ethnology, Indology and also Archaeology.
In contrary to the other continents the strategy of “kill and rob” was difficult to practice in Bharatavarsa. The winds and the currents compelled the Portuguese ruffians to land in “Calicut” (Kozhikode) in 1498 AD. Calicut was a natural port, a densely populated busy city where the Arabs and the Chinese had their seats for trade-business. The Portuguese ruffian Vasco da Gama with his fleet of four vessels was in a mess in Calicut. These primitive Portuguese ruffians were overwhelmed by the riches in Calicut and that they were too weak to start “killing and robbing”. They sailed away along the coast towards the north practicing the same “kill and rob” strategy for food and drink during the whole “crusade” and hoping to find a less populated coastal area for anchorage. They were not in hurry to sail back to Porto. During that period the winds and the currents permitted sailing in a yearly rhythm only.
Vasco da Gama could ultimately anchor at the solitary southern edge of Mormugao Bay, where the river Zuari flows into the sea, more than 800 kilometres away from Calicut. From there he undertook small predatory attacks with unexpected brutality.-There was enough time left for spying out. Vasco da Gama sailed back to Portugal leaving behind the ruffians with their weapons and their clergymen. The vessels were fully loaded with robbed goods and slaves. Henceforth the Portuguese ruffians sailed to that solitary southern edge of Mormugao Bay with larger fleets with as many troopers, weapons and clergymen as possible, then homewards with a full booty. Vasco da Gama “discovered” the sea route thrice. After eleven years of careful preparation of a “stronghold”, the ruffian called Alfonso de Albuquerque on his second trip took the capital city, now known as Old Goa, from its Muslim ruler Adil Adil Shah.
The annihilation was so thorough, that nowadays nothing reminiscent of the earlier time can be found, not even in the archaeological museum of Old Goa. Churches, cathedrals and the basilica, all richly decorated in gold, characterize the townscape today. The building materials were not imported. Churches, cathedrals and the basilica were built on old building foundations after demolishing the upper building parts. The city became 1510 AD the "capital" of "Portuguese India.
This is how the occupation of Bharatavarsa by the European Christians had begun. The Franciscans settled in Goa already 1518, followed by the Jesuits, the Dominicans, the Augustinians and other orders as support for the “soldiers”. The Portuguese ruffians acted inhumanly violent in the whole south of Bharatavarsa for more than a hundred years. After the “arrival” of the Anglo-Saxons” the Portuguese were reduced to a few small enclaves, in Goa for 450 years. Modern historians and “Indologists” have marketed the fairytale that Vasco da Gama had been the great discoverer of the seaway to India. This assertion is a thoroughly primitive fake. There had been a lively trade by seaways even before the Portuguese and other Europeans knew that the earth is by no means a disc, but a planet.
This abuse of history by the European Christians is immoral and shameless. There had never been an age of “discoveries and enlightment”. The papal bulls, especially the two in the “15th century”, were declarations of war, the only declared World War. This was the beginning of robbery, genocide, occupation, deprivation of rights and continuous exploitation. All facts since the papal bulls are documented.
The whole historical process was then minced by calling it “colonialism”, which consequently made capitalism possible in the first place. The thorough abuse of history was done with fraudulent labelling by courtesy of European courtesans decorated as “scholars”. At the time of Vasco da Gama the Christian cross was brought into the hunting grounds as wilful deception; in the Era of Vasco da Gama it is done bringing the “liberty” granting democracy and humanism as wilful deception. Both are fig leafs for continued robbery, murder, occupation, deprivation of rights and the continuous exploitation of alien territories.
The abuse of history by the European Christians has been narrated in cohesion based on still available historical documents in: LIES ON LONG LEGS (2004) and TRUTHS. 500 YEARS EUROPEAN CHRISTIANS IN HISTORY (2015).
Bharatavarsa has become a special case in this World War. In spite of robbery, murder, occupation, deprivation of rights and the continuous exploitation the Vedic cultural heredity could not be eradicated. All those Christian Orders stationed in Bharatavarsa under the military protection of the Portuguese ruffians failed to spread Christianity and were frustrated. A “deputy” of the Christian God, Roberto de Nobili (1577 – 1656), 28 years old, arrived in Goa in May 1605, which was “snatched away” in 1510 by Alonso de Albuquerque from “the sultan of Bijāpur”. Roberto de Nobili was impressed by the riches in the city, but also shocked by the highhandedness and the evil deeds of the Portuguese Christians. He had, however, a mission.
Roberto de Nobili, a scion of a “noble family”, was an extraordinary Jesuit. His family-tree goes back to Otto III (983 - 1002), Emperor of the “Holy Roman Empire of German Nation”. His great-grandfather was married to a sister of Pope Julius III (1487 - 1556), whose son Vincenzo, Earl of Civitella, became a commander of the papal troops. His uncle was a cardinal. He was determined to go any way to establish Christianity in Bharatavarsa. He had no knowledge of local languages.
Roberto de Nobili started in November 1606 his campaign claiming to be a Roman “Sannyasin”, a descendent of the migrants from the Vedic society to the Mediterranean in the time immemorial, and to be “the teacher of wisdom”. The cunning Jesuit Roberto de Nobili tried to sell the Gospel as the more advanced scripture than the Vedas in Bharatavarsa. It may not be elaborated more in the present context. Many revealing details are narrated in “LIES WITH LONG LEGS” (2004). The Vatican and the Roman Catholics failed in that undertaking, but bestowed the people of Bharatavarsa their sick conceptual obsession of race and caste, terms created in the 15th century on the Iberian Peninsula.
On “caste” later more in due course. As mentioned the Anglo-Saxons had won the inhuman race of robbery, murder, occupation, deprivation of rights and the continuous exploitation in Bharatavarsa. They were equally dumbfounded being confronted with the Vedic culture. And they were not less cunning in compensating than their catholic fellow Christians. They propagated that they belonged to the family of the “Indo-Europeans” like the people of Bharatavarsa whilst they were thoroughly busy exploiting Bharatavarsa shamelessly. Sir William Jones (1746 – 1794) was the “Roberto de Nobili”, to put this history in a nutshell. All details are narrated in “LIES WITH LONG LEGS”as well.
The Anglo-Saxons were forerunner to creating the many “science subjects” abusing the Vedic culture, and trying to cover the Vedic knowledge. It is just not accidental that the “science subject” Archaeology was created in the 18th century. Archaeology was required to rediscover past civilisations on European soil that they had destroyed indiscriminately and had eradicated almost all social practices a millennium earlier. The list of abuses of the Vedic culture in Bharatavarsa by the Anglo-Saxons will be too lengthy in the present context.
It goes without saying that the Anglo-Saxons had planted the “science subject Archaeology” in Bharatavarsa as well. Its systematic growth has lead to the Archaeological Survey of India. In today’s presentation (highlighted by us):
“The-Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), under the Ministry of Culture, is the premier organization for the archaeological researches and protection of the cultural heritage of the nation. Maintenance of ancient monuments and archaeological sites and remains of national importance is the prime concern of the ASI. Besides it regulate all archaeological activities in the country as per the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. It also regulates Antiquities and Art Treasure Act, 1972.”
“The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958” does indicate that there are no differences between ancient monuments, archaeological sites and Antiquities and Art. In the mind of the contemporary rulers they seem to belong to the same category. Do they not?
According to the self-presentation of this Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) the Father of this institution is Sir William Jones. This Central-governmental Institution refers back even today to a history, which is an abuse of the History of Bharatavarsa.
All excavated Sites showing Remains of ancient civilisations in Bharatavarsa are seen and described through the glasses of the Anglo-Saxon ruffians of the “18th century”. The excavated Site – Dholavira in the salt-waste of the Great Rann of Kachchh belongs to the State Gujarat - is an example. http://asi.nic.in/asi_exca_2007_dholavira.asp
While reading the elaborate description of excavated remains of an ancient civilization I (the senior author Prodosh Aich) had to take a deep breath. I have seen the excavated remains of Dholavira as well and a few other excavated remains in the States Gujarat, Haryana and Rajasthan. It was quite tiresome to get governmental permissions. Whatsoever. I have not seen any signs of a Harappan city, or of Indus civilization anywhere. Not to talk about a Harappan culture. Who were the Harappans? Did they develop a culture based on knowledge and a language? The development of culture presupposes knowledge, language, and literature. Where are they?
What I have seen, what anyone will see, in the excavated remains in Dholavira is a highly developed well planed centre of human dwelling, a large hall at the centre, an efficient system of drainage, water supply and irrigation device, residential quartieres, well guarded against floods and open spaces for collective gatherings and activities.
I knew a little about the Vedic knowledge, about the Vedic language, about the Vedic culture that has been handed down in the Four Vedas, but I had never seen before any remains of Vedic civilizations. I could relate the excavated remains in Dholavira to a Vedic civilization that had fallen in course of natural calamities. In Dholavira I saw remains of a Vedic civilization. I saw also signs of highly developed technology based on the laws of the nature, and not at the cost of the nature destroying the natural surroundings. The highly developed water management was not implemented by “mechanical engineering devices”. At Lothal I saw a dry dock that was constructed in lines conditioned by the nature.
The excavated remains in Bharatavarsa are evidences of a highly developed human civilization that has been buried by nature in course of time. A human civilization is created by human beings. A civilization has a beginning. It presupposes human societies acquiring and accumulating knowledge on interacting natural forces, knowledge of natural materials and creative endeavours to survive comfortably. A civilization can be destroyed by human hands. It can also be deserted by calamities of nature. But the human beings survive and with them their knowledge, language and culture. Dating acrobatics or ranking exercises of cultures do not make sense. The human knowledge and human culture count.
The following quotation is what the younglings of Sir William Jones try to make us believe that the excavated remains in the salt-waste of the Great Rann of Kachchh in the State Gujarat, Dholavira, display achievements of the “Harappan civilization”. These younglings of Sir William Jones have not realised that a civilisation is always founded on knowledge, language and culture. They were moreover not aware of the ancient literature of Bharatavarsa. Thus they could not know that there is no mention of anything like “Harappan” in the ancient literature of Bharatavarsa. The quotation is highlighted by us.
The city of Dholavira in its fullest form was a precisely proportionate whole and proportionality resolved configuration following a resolute set of principles of planning and architecture with mathematical precision and, perhaps, with astronomically established orientation. Of the city, at present, three corners with partially eroded towers but fully intact inner corners have been confirmed by excavation. When measured between the inner corners, the E- W length of the city area along the northern defensive wall and N-S one along the western one worked out to 771.10 m and 616.87 m, respectively - thus giving the precise ratio of 5 : 4. Similarly, the other divisions of the city also revealed amazing ratios and proportions.
The following table provides revealing information:
All these details sound very „British“. It reveals the extent of mind-management of the top Archaeologists by “researches” of the Asiatick Society founded by William Jones in 1784, by Thomas Babington Macaulay with his educational system for British India in 1835 and the continuation of Macaulay’s conception of cultural cloning after the handover of British India to the “children of Macaulay” in 1947. As mentioned, the “science-subject archaeology” is exemplary for “modern education”. The primitiveness is painful.
This extent of primitive mind-management of the top Archaeologists has blinded them also. They just do not see that in none of the excavated ancient remains in Bharatavarsa there are remains of palaces or temples. These Archaeologists are alienated from their cultural heredity. They are unable to “decipher” the Vedas. They have no knowledge of the Vedas because they are illiterate and ignorant. They learn European languages and trust European literature. Whatever they perceive, they perceive through the glasses of European Christians. Thus they cut off themselves from their own roots. Archaeologists are exemplary for the “children of Macaulay”.
But the malice is that the “Macaulays” like other European Christian writers never have learnt any of the ancient languages of Bharatavarsa. On the basis of hearsay they have produced Christian versions of the cultural heredity of Bharatavarsa. And these Christian versions of the cultural heredity of Bharatavarsa have nothing to do with the cultural heredity of Bharatavarsa.
After this aside we revert to the Vedic heredity. The history of the Vedic culture, how a human society created the Vedic culture, is lost. But the Four Vedas preserving human knowledge in “formulas” (Mantras) are not lost. These are like a “treasure box of human knowledge on the universe”, as the “light house” of human knowledge.
Knowledge and language are closely related. Knowledge is the result of individual perceptions, experiences, reflections communicated to other individuals. The principal means of communication is the language. With the growth of knowledge the language has to grow as well. The accumulation of knowledge is a continuous process of mutual interactions in all walks of the society. These interactions mean disseminations of knowledge as well.
Before the Four Vedas were compiled the Vedic societies were able to disseminate knowledge in all walks of the society. The dissemination of knowledge in all walks of the society meant application of knowledge in the social practice and the implemented changes of the social practice contributed to the growth of knowledge. The whole interdependent process of communication was in the face-to-face-mode of communications by means of the Vedic language, and thus establishing the oral-tradition. The knowledge, its diverse applications and the language thus became one entity stored and saved in human memory.
The Vedic people, the Vedic societies have accumulated human knowledge and have handed over knowledge to generations to come. It will be pointless, idle and futile effort to trying to reconstruct or to rediscover the whole process, how, in how many ten-millenniums of human-years, the peak was achieved. The “archaeology-exercise” exemplarily reveals that scattered “cultural-remains” can never reconstruct the history of a culture. None of the “science-subjects” created in the “18th century” has added anything substantial to the human knowledge. All these subjects like the archaeology rather set tracks to non-questions, to keep human beings away from knowledge. The very existence of the Vedas proves that the Vedic civilisations have been covered by nature in the course of time. Does it matter in how many layers?
It is remarkable that the Vedas are not complied as “prose”. They are composed in metrics and in rhythms. The composer did not compose for their own satisfaction as poets do in our time, they were asked to find ways to preserving the knowledge for the whole society in the oral-mode and to disseminating the knowledge through various media. The knowledge packed in metrics and in rhythms can better be saved in memory and can comfortably be recovered if some parts are forgotten. In course of time as mentioned earlier the Vedic societies had successfully created signs for the sounds of the language to be additionally stored as support of human memory (the written-mode of the language). The written-mode of a language is always inferior to the oral-mode by its nature. The written-mode was created for the “Chhando Bhasha” having 97 different “signs” for as comprehensive expressions as possible.
The peak of the Vedic culture is marked by the Four Vedas. In none of the Vedas there is an indication of authorships for any part or for the whole. What does it mean? Obviously there was no need for anybody to claim ownership for anything in the Vedic societies. Does it mean that those members of the Vedic societies engaged in compiling the Four Books of knowledge were socially permitted to work on the knowledge-front as others were working on many other fronts of social productions and reproductions? In all probability they were not “fulltime worker” on the knowledge-front. The Vedic “scientists”, the Rishis, the “seer-scientists” were not specially trained “professionals”. They were just part and parcel of the society who had acquired affinities to work on the knowledge front.
The Vedic societies needed four interdependent major sections of work. Within these major sections there were many socially meaningful divisions of work. The “workers” were not specially trained “professionals”. The Vedic people learnt their skills in practice, in smaller organisational units, the smallest being the “family” of two immediate generations. The Vedic people learnt in practice their duties towards the society and towards the nature. There is no indication in the Vedas that the Vedic people practiced anything like special mentions, special respect or special rewards. The Vedic societies were harmonious and happy entities.
Any chronological reconstruction even of the transitional phase from the peak of Vedic culture to the post-Vedic period will be speculative. A chronological history of the transitional phase will not promote human knowledge of the universe. The fact is that the post Vedic period is marked by the Upanishads composed in the “Laukika Bhasha” (the Sanskrit language). The Sanskrit language used 63 or 64 different signs (characters, alphabets) also in the Devanagari script like the “Chhando Bhasha” for 63 or 64 different sounds in oral-mode. In all probability the Upanishad-people could articulate the Four Vedas in the “Chhando Bhasha” having 97 different “sounds” for comprehensive expressions. But differences in understanding of meanings of parts of the Vedic knowledge had crept in.
The Upanishad-people, for whatever reasons, had decided to reduce the number of alphabets, at least for the written-mode. They have not handed down the reasons for the reduction of the sounds of the Vedic knowledge from 97 to 63/64. They must have done it conscientiously. One probability cannot be ruled out. The Vedic knowledge was disseminated in the society to an extent that the whole range of the sophisticated Vedic language was not needed for works on the Upanishads. The Vedic knowledge has not been questioned in any of the Upanishads. The Upanishads are rather auxiliaries and commentaries to understanding the whole range of Vedic wisdom. It seems that the Upanishad-people were keen to preserve the Vedas in oral-mode and never indicated that the Vedic knowledge was incomplete for them in one or in the other areas.
The Upanishads are “philosophical” discourses on the meanings of knowledge stored in the Vedas for the Vedic societies. The Rishis (seer-scientists) were part and parcel of the society. They just belonged to the society. The knowledge acquired by the Rishis (seer-scientists) in ancient Bharatavarsa was disseminated in the society in an instant continuous process. The “authors” of the Upanishads were engaged in the quality of disseminations of the knowledge acquired by the Rishis (seer-scientists). The “authors” of the Upanishads were conversant with the Vedas both in oral and written modes. They were accepted in the society as “translators” of the Vedic knowledge into the Sanskrit language and as such were part and parcel of the society as well. These “translators” were rather Vedic “scholars” and not Rishis (Seer-scientists). In all probability the Rishis (Seer-scientists) were gradually disappearing after completing the Four Vedas.
It is significant to note that baring a few exceptions there are no claims of authorships for the Upanishads also. These few exceptions do indicate that within the Upanishad-societies “hierarchies” were creeping in. This is another indicator besides the dilution of the Vedic language showing signs of decline of the Vedic culture in the Upanishad-societies.
The literatures from the Upanishads downwards, the many Brahmanas, Sutras and Puranas, the Itihasa, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Panchatantra and innumerable alike books have been created out of the rich heredity of Bharatavarsa. These are different storages for the Vedic knowledge at many different walks of the Vedic societies. Many of them are commentaries on various Upanishads; many of them were narrated episodes exposing glimpses of social conditions and of social realities. The Ramayana and the Mahabharata are “epics”. All post-Upanishad literature does mention authorships. There are no indications to judge whether these authors were specially rewarded for their contributions at the knowledge front. There was no need. The Upanishad-societies were not less affluent than in the Vedic societies.
In all probability these authors were specially respected for their “scholarship” creating additional attractively for works on the knowledge front. Alike in the other “section” the workers of the knowledge front were rooted in the smallest social unit of a two-generation “family”. In all probability the children of these authors experienced “first hand” dissemination of knowledge and thus were privileged by the nature of smallest social unit in the society. The Upanishad-societies must have known this mechanism and approved it. The door towards the beginning of special trainings for particular works was slightly opened. This was a dilution of the Vedic culture.
In my personal judgement these authors were “scholars” and not Vedic “scientists”, not Rishis, the “seer-scientists”. The Vedic Rishis were not fulltime workers of the knowledge front. They were integral parts of the societal production and reproduction processes. Acquiring knowledge and its dissemination in the society was a harmoniously integrated process avoiding lags. The social practice was the motor for growth of knowledge and the growth of knowledge led to the growth of social practice.
All post-Upanishad literature before the emergence of the Prakrit language is in the Sanskrit language. The emergence of the Sanskrit language is a clear indication that the growth of the Vedic knowledge had ceased, and in all probability the depth of once achieved meanings was getting diminished. Innumerable “books” are handed down in the Prakrit language, in the Pali language and in many in other “vernacular” languages. Quite a few post-Sanskrit languages right up to our days use the Devanagari characters. Whoever learns the Devanagari characters will of course be able to “decipher” the Veda-texts, but he will neither be able to articulate the sounds, nor understand the meanings. We recall the essentials of the Vedas once more.
The Vedas are, as mentioned elsewhere, the most comprehensive and most compacted storage of human knowledge of the universe in all perceivable facets. The content of this storage is handed down in metrical formulas (Veda Mantras). The whole meaning of the Mantras are revealed in oral-mode only. The Teacher (Guru) articulates and the learner (Shishya) listen to begin with. The learner repeats with lips first. No sounds, no vibrations yet. When the Mantra is repeated with tongues as well, the power of sound is perceived in vibrations. Then the sound arises, reaches the throat and ultimately the gross tongue to reveal the comprehensive meaning of the articulated Mantra. In written-modes a learner may read loudly and listen to it. He will never know what he eventually misses without the help of a Guru.
The Vedas do not describe human societies or human civilisations, the material achievements of individual human societies. The Vedas do describe the role and the duties (Dharma) of the human beings individually and collectively in the universe. The Vedas do not discriminate human beings in the society. The Vedas do identify four major functions (Varnas) of activities in the society individually and collectively to live Dharma. The word “Varna” does not refer to the types of activities (professions). The word “Varna” characterise the major sections of a society. The word “Varna” also means colour and phonemes. Vedic societies were based on social practices that initiated the growth of knowledge and the growth of knowledge led to the growth of social practices. There is no room for a hierarchy in the Vedic societies to practicing and to live Dharma individually and collectively.
The need of reinforcement from the social practice towards the growth of knowledge had obviously diminished in the post-Vedic phase of the Upanishads. There are two indicators leading to this conclusion.
The “Itihas” (history) of the human societies prior to the peak of the Vedic culture are lost. Speculations about this “Itihas” (history) are just waste of human time and energy. There are no indications that the Upanishad-people ever thought in this direction. In all probability the handed down “Itihas” (history) begun during this post-Vedic phase. It is mentioned that the Upanishads were “books” on the Vedic knowledge and its application in the societies maintaining the Dharma of the human beings.
Specific mentions of authors in a few Upanishads do indicate changes in the post-Vedic societies in Bharatavarsa. In the Vedic society all performances were considered as interdependent and equivalent. It is not recorded what it meant for the authors specifically mentioned. Were they specially rewarded or were they specially respected for their contribution? We do not know. In both instances the direction of change remained the same: singling out individuals from the community of the society. This changed direction continued. This was the post-Upanishad phase. It is recorded that a lot of commentaries on the Upanishads followed. All these commentaries are authored by individual names. All “literature” created in the post-Upanishad phase are authored by individual names.
What does it mean? In all probability these individuals did not get opportunities to learn the Vedic language and to acquire the knowledge stored in the Vedas. How? From whom? The social practice at this stage was no longer focused to the growth of knowledge. The social practice at this phase was focused on developing human civilisations guided by the Vedic culture. The social practice at this stage didn’t have contributions from Vedic Rishis as, in all probability, there were none. The function of the Vedic Rishis was no longer there. The social practice at this phase had to ensure that the storage of the Vedas in human memory and in secondary storages functioned, that the Upanishads were not forgotten and that the social practice continued maintaining the Vedic culture in whatever diluted form.
The productions and the reproductions were growing. The Vedic societies at this phase had to diversify the division of work defining new areas. There was a demand for persons who knew the Vedic language, who were able to articulate the Vedas and who were able to communicate the comprehensive meanings of the whole. In all probability such persons were freed from other activities of social productions and reproductions as they had to fulfil the function of “Gurus” as well. It does not make a difference whether these “Gurus” or their “learners” were specially rewarded or specially respected. The fact is that the social practice in Bharatavarsa at this phase had introduced a few areas within the division of work that could develop a momentum of its own. Later more on this development in due course of this narration.
The Upanishads and the commentaries on the Upanishads do not refer to literatures like the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, nor to the many Puranas and to the Itihasa. In all probability the Puranas are historical reports on the “state of affairs” in the regional parts of the Vedic societies. The Puranas are also narrations on the past social conditions, social relationships and societal circumstances. The “epics” Ramayana and Mahabharata are comprehensive Puranas. The Puranas are parts of Itihasa (history). The Mahabharata is also history and it claims to be much more than any other post-Upanishad literature.
All post- Upanishad literatures lead ultimately to get to the Vedic knowledge following different paths. These are primary documents on social conditions, social relationships and societal circumstances. They carry information on diverse “routes and paths” of disseminating the Vedic knowledge in all walks of the Vedic societies. As mentioned elsewhere, the Upanishads, the commentaries of Upanishads, the Brahmanas and Shutras inclusive, the Puranas, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Panchatantra and innumerable alike “books” together constitute the rich heredity of Bharatavarsa.
All these “books” are in the Sanskrit language. All these “books” were compiled for listening to. Not alike the “Audio-books” of our time. These “books” were compiled and composed to serve the only reliable communications in oral-mode. The books were also transferred to the inferior written-mode later. This procedure was practiced during the whole period between the peak of the Vedic language and its dilution manifested by the emergence of the Sanskrit language. The Sanskrit language lost the meanings of 34 articulated sounds of the Vedic language. The malice of this fact is that the Vedas can never be translated as all post-Vedic languages were inferior and inadequate. It is not possible to pour five litters in a pot having the capacity of one litter. The Vedas in original are preserved exclusively in the oral-tradition.
The authors of the Upanishads knew the Vedic language, knew the Vedas in the oral-mode and did their best transferring the Vedic knowledge in the Sanskrit language. The Upanishad-people maintained the tradition of primary oral-mode and secondary written-mode. The most authors of the Upanishads have not claimed “authorship”. A few exceptions are there. This fact manifests that these authors lived the Vedic tradition.
The oral-mode remained prevalent during the post-Sanskrit period characterised by the emergence of languages like the “Devanagari Bhasha” using 51 characters and later the “Prakrit”, Pali and quite a few “vernacular” languages using 43 characters. Uniquely for Bharatavarsa all handed down “books” composed in the Vedic and in the Sanskrit languages are available in our days both in oral and written traditions.
The living oral-tradition is also manifested in the living contemporary practice of learning the vernacular languages. They are acquired in oral-mode. A child learns after the birth to communicate with its five senses and starts gaining command over the prevailing “vernacular” language gradually. A child grows and becomes in course of time a full-fledged member of the society. It does not matter for intellectual growth whether he learns to read and write.
The written-mode is not only inferior to the oral-mode. The written-mode is by its nature only a support to the oral-mode. A support is always secondary. In the oral-mode, i.e. in face-to-face communications, a listener cannot be arbitrarily manipulated. The written-mode opens doors and gates for corruptions and manipulations.
After this little aside we get back to the claims of the Mahabharata. The Mahabharata claims to be a comprehensive “history” of the human-kind. Yes, a comprehensive “history” of the human-kind. This history of the human-kind does not require a chronological narration.
The Mahabharata is composed in the “Laukika Bhasha” (the Sanskrit language) in oral-mode as well as in written-mode. The author(s) of the Mahabharata has selected brilliantly an ingenious design to tell a story of a large exemplary kinship-group in Bharatavarsa. The kinship is divided in two distinct “parties” represented as the “Kauravas” and the “Pandavas” on the central issue of human life: the right path to live as human being in the universe.
The scions of the “Kauravas” had done massive injustice to the scions of the “Pandavas” depriving them of their “lands” and all that goes with it. After long sufferings the “Pandavas” want to set things right. At the surface this is the background of the “great battle” in the Mahabharata. Before this “great battle” took place the listeners and the readers are informed about the societal backgrounds comprehensively.
Each and every person of the Kinship, their friends, their acquaintances have been dealt in detailed side stories, where they live, how they live, their interpersonal relationships and so on. All stories are related to the main story. All stories are realistic. All stories contain allegories, metaphors and parables. All facets of human society have been described in the chapters of Mahabharata. All facets of life in human societies have been described. All facets of dissonance within the human societies have been described. All patterns of smaller groups in human societies and their interrelationship have been described. All patterns of relationships between the human-kind have been described. All types of individual feelings have been described. These are integrated into the nature in its whole range of diversities. In other words, what is found in the epic Mahabharata can be found elsewhere. What cannot be found in the epic Mahabharata cannot be found elsewhere.
The “great battle” was set on a battlefield. The battlefield was in front of the residence of the “Head” of the “Kauravas”. The combating parties were positioned like on a chase-board. They could see the faces and recognise the combatants individually. The “Pandavas” were led by Arjuna. The “Head” of the “Kauravas” is blind and is unable to follow the battle on the field. He gets a running commentary on all happenings on the battlefield.
Standing on his chariot Arjuna expresses his hesitance and his depression to his charioteer and friend Krishna being set to battle against his cousins, eventually to killing them, only to fight back their deprived “properties”. A discussion began between Krishna and Arjuna on the duty (dharma) of human individuals in the society, in the micro cosmos and in the universe. In a long and thoughtful discussion Krishna convinced Arjuna to fight.
The running commentary of the complete discussion between Arjuna and Krishna is the “pearl” abode of knowledge and wisdom preserved in the Mahabharata. This “pearl” is known as Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta. At the surface Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta is a running report on a discussion between a combatant and his friend just before the beginning of the “final battle” between two parties belonging to the same extended family.
The “Pandavas” win. The complete Mahabharata and this discourse Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta have been manifold “translated” from the Sanskrit original into all vernacular languages of Bharatavarsa. Later numerical “translations” from “translations” have followed in the most living languages of our time. It is evident that even the knowledge-abusing WiKis are engaged adding up their “translations” and assessments of Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta.
The complete discussion between Krishna and Arjuna is recorded in the Sanskrit language in both traditions – oral and written. Whoever in Bharatavarsa or elsewhere encounters Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta once, even in its most abused form, he does not forget; his mind works and raises questions for self and for others. Even in the shallowest version of Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta the Vedic culture lives, though the Vedic civilisation does not exist anymore. Civilisations rise and civilisations decline like all entities perceivable by human beings in the universe. But the ancient culture and knowledge accumulated in Bharatavarsa have remained. Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta is a “key” and a road-map to the knowledge stored in the Vedas. Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta is exemplary for quite a few handed down literature in the Sanskrit language too.
At first encounter the narrations in the Mahabharata may appear to be simple and closely related to daily life. But they remain unforgettable and work in the mind of the listeners and readers leading to contemplations opening up panoramas of wisdom behind the simplicity of the narrations. They lead to queries to know more about self, society, nature and universe. The Mahabharata is an evidence of comprehensive dissemination of Vedic knowledge in the Vedic societies. The Mahabharata is living Vedic culture with a downward trend from its peak. The emergence of the Jain and Buddha movements in the Vedic societies manifest this downwards trend.
Apart from the malice of reaching a peak that is inevitably followed by a downward momentum it might be fruitful to discern the indicators of the downward trend. For contemporary searchers and researchers of the history of Bharatavarsa it is apparently a mission impossible to look back beyond the existence of the Four Vedas. In search for the Vedic heredity it might not be an essential to looking back beyond the existence of the Four Vedas. The Vedas are the absolute peak of human knowledge and culture. It is unique that this absolute peak of human knowledge has been preserved and saved so far. The original version of the Four Vedas compiled in the Vedic language is alive in the oral-tradition, i.e. with sounds. There are quite a few places in Bharatavarsa where this oral-tradition continues. In all probability the reproductions of the sounds will differ. But there is no other alternative that could have been better.
The Vedas composed in the Vedic language has been saved in the second best version as well, i.e. the original version in the written-mode in the Devanagari characters which was created by the Vedic Rishis as an additional support for their memory. In all probability the original written-mode version was manifold copied. The probability cannot be excluded that the copied versions were corrupted. This is the malice “copying”. It does not make a difference whether they “copies” are deliberately or (un)deliberately corrupted. It is a fact that the written mode opens up all doors for manipulations.
As mentioned earlier that the Vedic Rishis were part and parcel of the Vedic societies. As the best carrier of the knowledge stored in the Vedas the Vedic Rishis cared to disseminate their knowledge in all walks of the Vedic societies. Thus the Vedic knowledge was assimilated into the daily practice of the Vedic societies building up the Vedic culture. These were and are additional storages for Vedic knowledge that have been handed down since time immemorial. These additional storages keep the Vedic heredity alive. A seeking mind finds many tracks to get to the “treasure box”, to the Vedas. A seeking mind thus learns to see.
The Upanishads are auxiliaries or commentaries of the Vedas. None of them are composed in the Vedic language. The authors of the Upanishads were conversant with the Vedic language. The Upanishads were composed for the Upanishad-people. Most probably the “mainstream” of the Upanishad-people were no longer conversant with the Vedic language. The authors of the Upanishads had “translated” parts of the Vedic knowledge into the Sanskrit language being conscious about the malice of “translations” into an inferior language.
All post-Vedic-Texts are composed in the Sanskrit language. There are no indications available why the Upanishads were composed in the Sanskrit Language using at least 33 sound-characters less than the Vedic language. The written-versions in the Sanskrit language used the same Devanagari characters. The Upanishad-people could have read the Vedas without being able to articulate and comprehend the whole wisdom stored in the Vedas. No written-tradition will ever open the doors to the whole of meanings of the Vedas. It is not known whether the Upanishad-people had realised the loss of the primary source of their Vedic heredity. This phase in the history of Bharatavarsa is the first unmistakable mark of a downward trend in the Vedic societies and in the Vedic culture from the peak of the Four Vedas. This was evident when the Upanishad-phase had to depend on the Sanskrit language.
The second unmistakable evidence of this downward trend was the claims of individual authorships in a few Upanishads. The Vedic people were not aware of a category “authorship”. There was no need for a category like “authorship”. The division of works, the division of functions, and the division of people in sections within the Vedic societies did not require “rankings”. The Vedic people were performing their duty (dharma) as equals. The Vedic Rishis (seer Scientists) included. When all are rewarded, when all are respected, categories like “authorship” and “rankings” do not arise. All post-Upanishad-literatures carry the claim of authorship. The purpose of claims, by its nature, is to claim for more in whatsoever categories. A claim for more at whatsoever level is the beginning of inequalities in a society.
The comprehensive accounts given in the Mahabharata on the diversities manifested in the Vedic societies were the third unmistakable evidence of the continuity of the downward trend. The reality within the Vedic societies manifests the shift of focus more on the human society than on the whole of the universe. Not the role of the human-kind in the universe was the centre of all activities, but the societal organisations. The Mahabharata tells a lot about diverse realities in the Vedic societies. During the post-Upanishad phase hierarchies within the societies were created and established. The Vedic culture was on further decline in the Mahabharata phase.
The Mahabharata describes the unequal distribution of resources as a rule, and not as exceptions. These societies were divided in “rulers” and “ruled”. It goes without saying that the “rulers” were in minority, and were wealthier than the majority. Apart from this fundamental division there was another section of minority that was respected by both “rulers” and “ruled”. This minority was working on the knowledge front preserving the Vedic knowledge, the Vedic language and the Vedic culture alive while the organisational designs in the societies were changing. This minority was not specially rewarded. This minority did not claim for anything special. This minority led a simple life within the society and did not care for wealth.
The four equally important and interdependent different functions (varnas) needed to organise a human society in harmony and happiness, was reduced to interdependent different functions and thus introducing hierarchies in the society. This was a remarkable abuse of a Vedic society and of the Vedic culture. The Mahabharata provides a vivid account of a process of dilution of the Vedic culture and marks also the extent of dilution. The section of the “rulers” was equipped with arms for combats, though the extent of the use of arms was remarkably limited.
As mentioned earlier, the cause of the “great battle” was the gross injustice done by the “Kauravas” against the “Pandavas”. The “Kauravas” and the “Pandavas” belonged to a wealthy “extended”-family. Where did the wealth come from? The Mahabharata does not provide an answer to this question. The Mahabharata does not deal with questions like this.
There were negotiations for twelve years to settle the matter peacefully between the “Kauravas” and the “Pandavas”. All negotiations failed. The “great battle” began. That this “final battle” was designated as the “great battle” in the Mahabharata indicate the limit of exercising force to resolving controversies in the then Vedic culture. The “great battle” ended in a few days. The “Pandavas” won. All Kaurava-Commanders and the eldest son of the “Head” of the “Kauravas” were killed. There were no indiscriminate killings.
The “great battle” referred to in the Mahabharata could have also been a parable or a metaphor. But Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta in the Mahabharata is real. Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta describes elaborately the practice of sanatana dharma in the Vedic culture, though the Vedic culture by then was continuously diluting in course of time. It is not known how much of the Sanskrit language was lost in the aftermath of the “great battle”.
It is also not known how much time had passed in the history of Bharatavarsa between the aftermath of the “great battle” and the emergence of the “Jain” movement some 2700 years ago. It is also not relevant to define this period of time. The “Jain” movement is the fifth unmistakable evidence of the continuous downward trend of the Vedic culture in many Vedic societies. A minority section in the north-eastern part of Bharatavarsa had begun a movement of social segregation from the whole of the society. This had never happened before. This minority section claimed to be different from the society as a whole. This minority section belonged predominantly to the section of “organisers” which had assumed power as “rulers” over the whole of the society. The section of “organisers” was differentiated in “rulers” and “distributers”. This section of “organisers” had ensured a “lion’s share” of the common wealth. This section of “organisers” proclaimed the “Jain Dharma” as its new special cultural identity within the Vedic societies as a whole in Bharatavarsa.
This fifth unmistakable evidence of the continuous downward trend of the Vedic culture reveals that the downward trend was accelerating. The Vedic culture defines the human-kind as one amidst all other kinds in the universe. The Vedic culture does not classify the human-kind in parts, in different categories. The “Jains” had elevated themselves from the rest of the society as a whole. Why did they feel this need? Was it because that this section had “managed” to accumulate “wealth”? Whatsoever.
The “Jains” proclaimed the “Jain Dharma”. It might have sounded close to sanatana dharma. It was not so. The accumulation of wealth in a society always means exploitation of the majority in the society. This majority 2700 years ago was living its dharma and producing and reproducing affluently for the society as a whole. The tiny minority preserving the Vedas, the Vedic language in the oral-tradition and the Upanishad-tradition continued to perform sanatana dharma. This majority had not been able to prevent being robbed by a section of “organisers” proclaiming the “Jain Dharma”.
The “Jain Dharma” focused on individual duties towards their sub-societies and towards their immediate surroundings. This deviated from the “great battle” in the Mahabharata defining the duty of human individuals in the society, in the micro cosmos and in the universe as manifested in the Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta. The segregated section proclaiming the “Jain Dharma” did not “battle” to find a solution for the whole. This section created a closed society in the midst of the whole society as an abode of retreat from all controversies between them and all others aiming for the growth of human societies and culture and making their best to preserve human knowledge. This section did not contribute to the growth of human knowledge stored in the Vedas. This segregating section did not contribute to preserve the Vedic and the Sanskrit languages as carrier to the Vedic knowledge. Even the Sanskrit language was further diluted to 43 sound characters for their communications calling it the “Prakrit language” using the same Devanagari characters in the written-mode.
The “Jain Dharma” seemed to prefer defining their identity as a special section of the Vedic culture picking up parts of the Vedic knowledge. Thus the “Jain Dharma” created a “Jain storage” of knowledge relevant for them. They needed new “symbols” for their exclusive identification. One of their remarkable creations was to build massive structures with natural materials that were alien to the Vedic societies and to the Vedic culture. These structures were not needed for human dwellings or for protection against adversities caused by the nature. Many of these massive structures are known as “Jain Temples”. These new structures were financed by the emerging new “rulers”, “traders” and “distributors”. Were these symbols created for their identification only?
Along with the new “symbols” for exclusive identification new social institutions were created; “teaching” centres and centres for board and lodging of the “teachers” propagating the “Jain Dharma”. The maintenance of these non-productive social institutions had to be financed too. The “teachers” were trained to make others follow the “Jain Dharma”. These new social institutions were in all probability the beginning of “missionary” activities deviating distinctly from the Vedic culture. The Vedic culture is never taught. The Vedic culture does not make others follow. The Vedic culture is learnt in the practice of the society as a whole.
The emergence of this new “section” manifested the inequality of distribution of the produced wealth in the society as a whole. The inequality of distribution means, in clear diction, robbery and exploitation of the majority by a minority. The “exploiters” have to invent techniques and means to maintain, to consolidate and to make them future-proof. The “exploiters” must recruit collaborators to safeguarding their interests because the “families” of this segregated section do not supply enough “manpower”. The social category “inheritance” was born in this process at all levels. At the level of the “ruler families” this social category of “inheritance” was called “dynasty”. The social category of “inheritance” and the acceptance of “dynasty” cut off social mobility by its nature. There is no mention of dynasties in the Mahabharata. There are no indications of “a dynasty of a ruler” in Bharatavarsa prior to the emergence of the “Jain Dharma”.
Not much is known about what was happening in the Vedic societies after the “great battle” in the Mahabharata till a phase of cultural segregation begun in certain regions in Bharatavarsa.-The “gulf” between Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta and the “Jain Dharma” is unbridgeable.
The general prosperity and affluence had grown. The inequality of distribution of wealth was on increase in favour of the “organiser-section” resulting in local, regional and supra-regional “rulers”. The “section” at the knowledge-front might have neglected this trend of development.-There are no indications that this “section” at the knowledge-front had tried to revert this trend of distributional inequalities at the cost of the vast majority.
The “Jain Dharma” could have been a reflex to this development of inequality. The direction of thrust of the “Jain Dharma”, however, was not against inequality. The cultural segregation movement of the “Jain Dharma” propagated more austerity in life, more devotion to discovering the meaning of human existence and to achieve absolute nonviolence towards all living beings. Was it propagated for the segregated section or for the vast majority in the society?
The “Jain Dharma” propagated to organise the societies in four sections dividing in genders: 1. Sadhus, 2. Sadhvis, 3. Shravaks and 4. Shravikas. The first two groups were supposed to work at the knowledge front to give guidance to the last two groups engaged in social productions and reproductions. The first two groups were supposed not to possess material values. It was the duty of the last two groups to look after the existential requirements of the first two groups. It is not specified to which of the four categories those “rulers”, “traders” and “distributors” were to be included. The spread of “Jain Dharma” has remained limited. The Jain-“societies” (communities) were wealthy and have remained wealthy.
The fact is that the Jain-movement was coined and carried by scions of “rulers” like Vardhamana Mahavira who were well positioned to mobilize resources for building those massive structures as its symbols for separate identification, structures that were alien to the Vedic societies. Mahavira means “the great hero”. Vardhamana is supposed to be the 24th and last great hero in the Jain genealogy. The first great hero in the Jain genealogy, Rishabha, was also a scion of a “Ruler”. The “Jain Dharma” was favoured and promoted by quite a few “Rulers” in the then Bharatavarsa.
When Vardhamana was thirty he renounced his “royal life” seeking enlightment in discovering the meaning of human existence. So it is said. His language was Prakrit in Devanagari characters. In all probability the Vedic societies at this phase attained a large spread in division of work and the individuals did not get opportunities to learn the languages to get a glimpse of the knowledge stored in the Vedas. How? From whom?
Most probably the individuals did not get opportunities to grow beyond the “world” of their work. This vast majority continued to fulfil their dharma and living more or less comfortably. There are no indications of “battles” between the four major sections as referred to in the Vedas. There are indications of battles amongst the “the local, regional and supra-regional “rulers” in which the other sections of the society had to suffer. These battles differed fundamentally to the spirit of the “great battle” of the Mahabharata-people.
The sixth unmistakable evidence of the continuous decline of the Vedic culture was revealed a few decades later in the same north-eastern region. Another segregation movement was commenced by a scion of a “ruler” called Siddhartha Gautama.-He left all comforts of his home when he was twenty-nine after seeing poverty, misery, and illness of many individuals for the first time in his life, so it is said. It is also said that he questioned, why there were poverty, misery and illness and what could be done about. He did not question where poverty, misery, and illness came from. As a consequence he desired and dedicated his life to attain the ultimate knowledge about the meaning and purpose of human existence at the individual level first. So it is said.
Siddhartha Gautama claimed to have attained the ultimate enlightment after wandering, contemplating and meditating for six years. This, his ultimate enlightment made him known in his immediate surroundings as “Buddha”, the "Awakened One." He was then probably in his mid-thirties. Whatever knowledge he had gathered, whatever enlightment he had attained, he considered his path of acquiring knowledge and his experiences would help those individuals in poverty, misery, and illness to overcome their “sorrow”.
In all probability Siddhartha Gautama Buddha’s horizon of the “world” was determined by the knowledge that could be stored in the “vernacular” language called Pali. In all probability he did not have access to the Sanskrit language and was only exposed to the then practiced Vedic Culture in his surroundings. There might have been “battles” between the local “ruling” clans and the rest in the society as a consequence of comprehensive unequal distributions. He belonged to the “ruling” clans and yet he was overwhelmed by the sight individuals in poverty, misery, and illness. In all probability he did not get opportunities of “intellectual exchanges”.
So, when Siddhartha Gautama was twenty-nine, as it has been handed down, he decided to leave his “cage” in search of a solution to overcome the misery and “sorrow”. He took up travelling and meeting others and talking with them. After a period of time, after about six years, so it is said, he returned to his home-area and started contemplating over his experiences. He had discovered a way to evade miseries and “sorrow” of individuals at individual levels. This, his discovery was called the teachings of “Buddha”, of the "Awakened One."
It is not handed down how Siddhartha Gautama maintained himself during those years of wandering. As “Buddha”, the "Awakened One", he began to propagate his “discovery” of a path to overcome “sorrow” and all that went with it more or less successfully. He was able to build up centres called “sangha(s)” meaning assembly of likeminded who were ready to follow the same path of enlightment as practiced by Siddhartha Gautama later becoming “Buddha”, the "Awakened One". The “sanghas” were the beginning of “strongholds” for spreading the “Buddha”-teachings. Female and male followers of “Buddha” started living in simple shelters practicing the “path” of Siddhartha Gautama. The issue of their maintenance is under-researched.
The female members of “sanghas” were called bhikkhunis and the male-members bhikkuhs. The designation of both of these two separate “sanghas” indicates that they did not work for their maintenance and depended solely on alms from sections of the society. The members of “sanghas” were factually “missionaries” of the teachings of “Buddha” that was patronized by the regional “ruler” of Magadha. In his region the “sanghas” were elevated to “Viharas” as noticeable buildings, as symbols of the teachings of “Buddha”. The “trader”-community welcomed the “Viaharas” as shelters on their trade routes. The Viharas were strongholds for missionary activities as well.
Siddhartha Gautama Buddha lived many years propagating his teachings focusing on individual enlightment. Quite a few supra-regional “Rulers” had made use of his teachings to exercising power and in large battles, in “wars”. During his life time the “Viaharas” were enriched with “Stupas” as symbols of might. Soon thereafter temples were also built. The word “dharma” was used by him, but never designated his teachings as “Buddha-dharma”. He or his followers did never find out the roots of poverty, misery, and illness. He or his followers did maintain that the “sorrows” caused by poverty, misery, and illness could be evaded living the life as bhikkhunis or as bhikkuhs to achieve individual enlightment. No wonder that the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama Buddha was favoured and propagated by “rulers” at all levels.
At this post-Mahabharata phase in Bharatavarsa the “political power” was exercised by “rulers” of all kinds, at various levels and in variable geographical areas. The “rulers” were “ruling families”. The “ruling heads” tried to inherit “political power” by creating a social institution named “Dynasty”. The institution was established. But, there were many “rise” and “decline” of ruling dynasties in Bharatavarsa. The spread of both segregation movements depended on the “political power” of those “ruling dynasties”. These “ruling dynasties” were nothing else than robbers and exploiters favouring the segregation movements. Very little is known about the “sections” being ruled by these diverse “ruling dynasties”.
It is not worth going into the accounts produced by so called chroniclers who made out a living of their being “chroniclers”. The majority-section living the Vedic culture during these segregation movements did not have a “lobby” to engage “professional” chroniclers. The majority living the Vedic culture during these segregation periods did not require “professional” chroniclers. This majority had reacted to these movements in their own way. Bharatavarsa remained an affluently producing area. This majority continued to perform its dharma and lived outliving these segregation movements.
The assertion of Siddhartha Gautama that there was a need of a movement in the society to eradicate poverty, misery, and illness was not convincing. The “Jain Dharma” did not refer to poverty, misery, and illness. The cultural segregation movement of the “Jain Dharma” had proclaimed a need of more austerity in life, more devotion to discovering the meaning of human existence and to achieve absolute nonviolence towards all living beings. The “Jain Dharma” was supported by the section of the same “rulers”, “distributers” and “merchants” as the propagators of the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama Buddha. What do these facts indicate? We recall.
A few decades after the emergence of “Jain Dharma” in the same area under the “same ruler” Siddhartha Gautama was moved by the existence of poverty, misery, and illness. As Siddhartha Gautama Buddha he taught those individuals in “sorrow” to follow the path lived by Siddhartha Gautama attaining enlightment to overcome their “sorrow”. Individuals following this path and living the life as bhikkhunis or as bhikkuhs were no longer to suffer under poverty, misery, and illness.
The community of “professional” chroniclers tell us that Pradyota was the first of a “ruling” dynasty established around 2700 year ago in the same north-eastern region called Magadha where the “Jain Dharma” and later the ”Buddhist teachings” had emerged. Both segregation movements deviating from the Vedic culture were predominantly supported by the sections of “rulers”, distributors” and “merchants”. The ruling dynasties were engaged in wars, not in battles or in “great battle” as handed down in the Mahabharata.
It cannot be repeated enough that also ruling dynasties rise and fall. After the fall of four Magadha dynasties having twenty-eight individual “rulers” Magadha expanded and established the Maurya dynasty around 2400 years ago and continued sponsoring both “Jain Dharma” and ”Buddhist teachings”. By then the accumulated riches in Bharatavarsa were legendary elsewhere attracting robbers like Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian some 2300 years ago as new hunting ground.
The third “ruler” of the Maurya dynasty Ashoka around 2300 years ago had occupied almost the whole of Bharatavarsa. Ashoka was an ardent propagators of ”Buddhist teachings”. So it is told by the community of “professional” chroniclers.
Surprisingly they do not tell the story why these two segregation movements failed to seize the mind of the majority section living the Vedic culture. The “Jain Dharma” and the missionaries of Siddhartha Gautama Buddha have for all practical purposes disappeared from Bharatavarsa. The vanishingly tiny minority of these two segregated communities living in Bharatavarsa has remained wealthy.
The history of this period in Bharatavarsa has not been written yet. There are questions to be raised. Here are a few questions as examples. Is it not remarkable that neither the “Jain Dharma” nor the ”Buddha-teachings” have ever-contradicted to any aspect of the Vedic culture? Were or are they ignorant about the heredity of the Vedic culture? Did they take notice of the then diluted Vedic culture? Or did they take notice only of the “state of affairs” of their Vedic societies only?
The fact is that they segregated explicitly referring to certain practices in the Vedic societies in their region. The fact is also that they belonged to the section of organisers, i.e. “distributers”, “merchants” and “rulers”. The fact is all the more that this section were engaged in exploitations since the Mahabharata-phase. Both movements have “defined” the relationship between “the society and individuals” and the duties (dharma) of individuals towards the society. It goes without saying that they did it in their particular interest. In the ”Buddhist teachings” the individual interest has gained extra importance. It is remarkable as well that neither the “Jain Dharma” nor the ”Buddhist teachings” have ever propagated Belief in their missionary activities, but taught them to follow exemplary paths to attain individual enlightment, to attain their personal dharma.
The community of “professional” chroniclers have not dealt with the vast exploited majority. The community of “professional” chroniclers do not deal with exploited majority. Is it imaginable that the dominance of diverse dynasties and of those two segregation movements were just ignored by the vast exploited majority? It is a fact that this majority did not get involved in battles against the deviating section of organisers. This majority had seemingly other strategies to tackle with the deviators.-This majority kept their resistance below battles, not to talk of a “great battle”. What did this majority do?
It is not imaginable that the major sections of the Vedic societies were blind or dumb. During the Mahabharata-phase many of the Vedic and Sanskrit literatures were transferred or to be precise carried over to the spoken languages in oral and in written modes. The Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Panchatantra and the likes were extensively disseminated in the Vedic societies. Therefore it is not imaginable that the major sections of the Vedic societies did not react to the segregation movements.
We get back for a little while to the claims of the Mahabharata: What is found in the Mahabharata can be found elsewhere. What cannot be found in the Mahabharata cannot be found elsewhere. This claim has not been refuted yet. Thus the Mahabharata becomes a yardstick to “see” social changes in the post-Mahabharata-phase.
The Mahabharata narrates on diversities of the Vedic societies, but there are no mentions of “rulers” and “ruled”, of “dynasties” in any sections, or of “wars”. The Vedic societies during the Mahabharata-phase must have been familiar with “battles”. Otherwise the “great battle” would not have taken place. The “great battle” was within a “kinship-group. There are no indications in the Mahabharata that there were “battles” for any other cause than to maintain the right path to live as human being in the universe as it was in the “great battle”.
The “great battle”, however, limited exemplarily the legitimate cause for battles and the extent of the use of forces. The “Kauravas” and the “Pandavas” were not “rulers”. They were privileged. There are no indications in the Mahabharata that any section of the whole had claimed a larger share of the affluence produced in the society as a whole. There are no indications in the Mahabharata that individuals attaining excellence in their ability had claimed “extra” rewards.
The sections in the Vedic societies or the individuals within the sections were all equals. Nonetheless, the Mahabharata narrates about distributional disparities amongst the equals. During the Mahabharata-phase the Vedic culture was diluted to the extent of distributional disparities.
It seems to be unanimously agreed that some 2700 years ago the “Jain” movement had emerged. It is not relevant for a social history of Bharatavarsa whether it was a few decades or even a century earlier or later. The Vedic societies in this phase were distinctly in a bad state. The distributional disparities during the Mahabharata-phase had immeasurably erupted. The minority section of “organisers” had assumed power and had accumulated wealth as “distributers”, as “merchants” and as “rulers”. This minority needed justifications to “appease” the vast majority belonging to the other “sections”. The “Jain Dharma” and later the ”Buddha-teachings” have corrupted sanatana dharma emphasising the dharma at the level individuals by neglecting the whole of the society to legitimate the “rule” and dominance of this minority “section”.
The “Jain Dharma” and later the ”Buddha-teachings” did not care to preserve the Vedic heredity. These two segregation movements were maintained by the “distributers”, “merchants” and “rulers”. This hard fact could not be concealed. The community of “professional” chroniclers are dumb about the mind-dispositions of the majority. Instead the community of “professional” chroniclers tell us that Pradyota was the first “ruling” dynasty established around 2700 year ago in the same north-eastern region called Magadha where the “Jain Dharma” and later the ”Buddha- teachings” had emerged. The community of “professional” chroniclers tell us the tale of many dynasties. They do not tell us why dynasties fell.
We shall be back in a little while to untold “reactions” of the majority sections of the Vedic societies towards the segregation movements. Bharatavarsa continued to remain rich. This was generally known elsewhere. Alexander the Macedonian ruffian knew about the legendary riches in Bharatavarsa before he had started preparing his logistics. This is a general rule. Robbery presupposes riches that can be robbed. Similarly, exploitation presupposes affluence. A poor person has to be killed. A poor person cannot be robbed.
Alexander the Macedonian ruffian did rob elsewhere, but not in Bharatavarsa. His attempt was not successful. His successors had preferred to establish friendly relationship and participated in the Vedic knowledge. The Vedic societies were excellent in sciences like “Astronomy”, “Cosmology”, Mathematics, Physics, Biology, “Life sciences”, Metaphysics, Philosophy, engineering, technologies in harmony with the nature, Arts, handicrafts, just to mention a few examples. It is remarkable that these “Helens” did not bring “news” about or from “Moses”. These Helens knew about Egypt. In all probability “Moses” “happened” in the human history after Alexander the Macedonian ruffian.
The first attempt to rob Bharatavarsa was executed by Alexander the Macedonian ruffian some 2400 years ago. Thereafter for more than a millennium there had been no foreign attacks on Bharatavarsa. During this period three “movements” had emerged in the West of Bharatavarsa. These “movements” were not based on knowledge. No. These “movements” were based on a social category that was not known in Bharatavarsa. In all probability, this social category was not known elsewhere. The belief in a “God” was first propagated by Moses.
Moses claimed to “his people” that “God” revealed to him how he and his people must live. This God of Moses is ever indescribable, indiscernible and invisible for all others. This God of Moses is almightily determining and setting everything on the earth, in heaven and in hell. So it has been handed down. Accordingly, whatever happens on the earth, it is the will of “God”. Thus the social category called human responsibility was eliminated.
These three “movements” were and are Jewish founded by “Moses”, Christian fronded by Jesus Christ and Muslim founded by Mohammed. These “movements” emerged in the same geographical area from the same roots. Whoever was not ready to accept the “God” was to be topped. These “movements” were aggressive and violent by its nature.
Muslim ruffians were attracted by riches in Bharatavarsa and begun robbing in the north-west of Bharatavarsa some 1100 years ago. One of these ruffians called Mahmud of Ghazni is said to have invaded the western region of Bharatavarsa seventeen times before he could lay foundation of a Muslim Rule in Bharatavarsa about 990 years ago. This first foreign occupation of Bharatavarsa was a caesura in the Vedic heredity.
What had happened during the period between the emergence of the segregation movement around some 2700 years ago and the beginning of the Muslim Rule in Bharatavarsa 990 years ago? It is yet under-researched. But there are certain historical facts which have to be looked into to get a glimpse into the history of the Vedic culture.
During the post-Mahabharata phase the oral-tradition of the Vedas must had been going through a low-tide, at least in the north-east regions. It must have needed extra energy and efforts that the Vedas in the oral-mode, the only original version, was not lost in spite of wars between the “sections” of the organisers. It is also a fact that within a few centuries the “Jain Dharma” and the ”Buddhist teachings” outlived in Bharatavarsa. Why did it happen? How did it happen? The “professional” storytellers are just dumb on this issue. Whatsoever. It is a fact that those two movements failed to capture the mind of the majority section in Bharatavarsa.
It is known that the oral-tradition of the Vedas has prevailed. Whenever I get time to think over what it meant to preserve the original version of such comprehensive compilation like the Vedas, I am overwhelmed. I must restrain myself from imaginations and fantasies. I reduce my imaginations and fantasies to the level of simple comprehension. It was an unimaginable difficult exercise to learn a text from listening in a language that was no more spoken and to acquire the ability to transfer this ability from generations to generations. Exactly this has been performed. The Vedic Rishis (seer-scientists) had created this method and the method has been practiced by innumerable individuals since time immemorial. It is overwhelming to realise what it meant for this section to live the Vedic culture and to fulfil their dharma as part of sanatana dharma!
The majority section of the Vedic societies responsible for productions and reproductions continued to fulfilling its dharma as well. Bharatavarsa remained rich. In addition the Vedic societies had begun founding new “meeting points” all over Bharatavarsa where Vedic texts were recited and cultured. These “meeting points” were self-organised and self-sufficient units. The section at the knowledge front of the Vedic societies was obviously asked by the majority section to take up this additional duty.
The “manpower” at the knowledge front was necessarily increased to meet this demand. These “meeting points” evolved to new centres for preservation and dissemination of the Vedic knowledge and of the Vedic and of the Sanskrit language in the Vedic societies during the segregation movements. This revival of the Vedic culture consolidated the oral-tradition and created a similar cultural atmosphere as it was in the post-Upanishad phase of Vedic “scholarship”, when the commentaries on the Upanishads had begun.
The Upanishads were and are “Vedanta”. “Vedanta” means: “After the Vedas”, supplementary to the Vedas, all that follows the Vedas. The authors of the “Vedanta(s)” were not Vedic-Rishis (seer scientists). The authors of the “Vedantas” were the Vedic “scholars”. These Vedic “scholars” were more Gurus and Acharyas, i.e. persons knowing the Vedas. Those “meeting points” were one of the outcomes of all efforts of resistance of the majority-section in the Vedic societies being confronted with the Jain and Buddha segregation movements. The “meeting points” were sustainable response of the vast majority rather than “battling” against the segregation movements with weapons that they did not possess.
These “meeting points” evolved to large “Ashrams” (dissemination-places of Vedic knowledge and for the practice of the oral-tradition)”, to “Muthas” (centres for mutual exchanges between Vedic Acharyas)” and “Mandirs” (Temples, places for individual and collective contemplation). These “meeting points” were not arbitrarily selected. The sites and the buildings followed the Vedic knowledge like Vastu Shastra (the science of architecture), a branch of the Vedic sciences to avoid rays and waves intervening negatively the life in harmony and happiness.
All over Bharatavarsa there are innumerable “Temples”. Most of these “Temples” are neither “Jain Dharma”-Temples, nor ”Buddha”-“Temples”. Many of these “Temples” are ancient. But none of these “Temples” was built before 2300 years ago. These non- “Jain Dharma”-Temples, non-”Buddha”-“Temples” were never designated as Vedic-Temples. These Temples were designated to different “names”. Where did these “names” come from? How and why these names were generated?
As mentioned earlier, the Vedas are books on knowledge. These books deal with all aspects of macro and micro cosmos that can be perceived by the five senses of the human beings. The life on the earth is also determined by the many physical and supra-physical energies in the universe and their interactions. These energies had different qualities, effects and impacts. The Vedic-Rishis (seer-scientists) did identify their diversities and had given them names for differentiations. These names characterised their kind and quality. Many of the names representing important supra-physical energies were further diversified according to their different phases of manifestation like “Indra” for example. “Indra” has many other names indicating fine differences within the main energy. “Indra” is also “Shiva” or “Sundareswarar“ or „Shankar”.
This branch of knowledge was correlated with another branch of knowledge. The human-being as an individual and as a part of the “collective” possesses potentials for growth in diverse directions as well as with the differentiations within the directions. The directions could be defined, determined, followed and attained. The result of this correlation is that the names of energies were also designated to persons as guidance of their growth. Similarly the “meeting points” got their names indicating the main area of their activities for human growth. The rather “abstract” knowledge on cosmic energies and their matrix was disseminated comprehensively by means stories, metaphors, parables personifying different characters, giving different artistic forms by means of parables and metaphors.
After this little aside we are back to the post-Mhabharata phase, to the phase of “segregations” and of “meeting points”. Individual Names were not important for the Vedic-Rishis (seer scientists), not for the most Vedic “scholars”. But thereafter names differentiating individuals became more and more important. The Mahabharata is full of names and of their individual history. These names were adopted from the “Vedic figures” like Vishnu and Indra with their “thousand other names”. Names in this category are not comparing individuals, but for differentiations.
In the phase of “segregations” and of “meeting points” the Vedic Gurus and the Vedic Acharyas were required, not the Vedic Rishis or the Vedic scholars. The Gurus and the Acharyas knew all about the names of the Vedic-figures. All non- “Jain” -Temples, non-”Budda”-“Temples” in Bharatavarsa were designated to names of Vedic-figures. Many Gurus and Acharyas assumed also names of Vedic-figures. The network of physical and supraphysical energies and their impact on human societies were disseminated along with Vedic-figures carring aspects of Vedic knowledge applied in daily activities in the Vedic societies.
This systematic approach of the Vedic Gurus and of the Vedic Acharyas to revive the Vedic culture worked. It was a toilsome task to turn around the downtrend and to elevate the Vedic culture to the level of the Mahabharata phase. It had begun some 2600 years ago. In around 300 years the level of Vedic culture was elevated to an extent that no other segregation movement in the Vedic societies have occurred. Quite a few Gurus and Acharyas had even traced back to the level of post-Upanishad phase when many Upanishads were commented in the original Sanskrit language to reaching the Vedic knowledge stored in the Vedas. In the midst of many Acharyas and “Shankaracharyas” Adi Shankaracharya has left behind strong marks elevating the Vedic culture. Shankar is one of the “thousand” names of the “Vedic figure” Shiva or Indra.
The large “section” responsible for productions and reproductions continued to fulfilling its dharma. In addition the Vedic societies had, as mentioned earlier, autonomously founded many “meeting points” all over Bharatavarsa where Vedic texts were recited. These “meeting points” evolved to new centres for preservation and dissemination of the sounds of the Vedic language and of the Vedic knowledge. This revival of the Vedic culture consolidated de-centrally the oral-tradition and created a similar social atmosphere as it was in the post-Upanishad phase of Vedic “scholarship”.
Another institutional outcome was the social practice of “calling” Vedic Gurus and Acharyas for recitation of Vedic texts in all important social events. Thus the familiarity with the sounds of the Vedic and of the Sanskrit language has been maintained. The Vedic culture has produced diversities in the Vedic societies as documented in the Mahabharata. There had been battles between the Vedic societies as well as battles within the Vedic societies. The battles are never a purpose for itself. The battles are always another name of robbing and of exploitation. None of the Vedic societies have ever robbed in foreign territories. But yet there had been a significant spread of the Vedic culture beyond Bharatavarsa in whatsoever diluted form.