Parinama-A Vedic concept of evolution?

One cannot deny the fact of evolution which is scientifically tested, abundantly evidenced and even demonstrable by documentation . Not without sounding silly, living in a well of dogmas and dying an ignorant man.

Yet why does it face such strong opposition? Because naturally, it throws all kinds of creationist ideas to their death kneels, challenging the vast majority of belief systems on the most fundamental of beliefs- of creation itself.  The tug of war between the two sides rages on in the west, not really for victory(because as already said, there's really no scope for debate about the fact of it but perhaps only in the details) but rather for public space, adequacy or absence of textbook representation and the like.

However there are some extant belief systems which are not at such complete, ireeconcilable odds with evolutionary biology. Namely the Dharmika systems of south Asia, and specifically, the Vedic philosophical system which forms the elite core of what is today the 'religion' Hinduism.

The reason for it's uniqueness no doubt was because the Vedic philosophy was not the result of any one man's dictats or personal predilections, nor was it codified with dogmatic effect in one single text for all eternity. It had hundreds of contributing philosophers whose work spans many thousands of years. Many of these men(rishis as the modern Hindu calls them fondly) were devoted to more ritualistic aspects of their tradition but some of them were given to varying extents and depths of rationalism, observation, philosophy and some the seminal discoveries in mathematics and astronomy.

One of them was Mahidasa Aitareya, to whose authorship tradition ascribes all the Aitareya texts- Brahmana, Aranyaka and Upanishad- which is too vast a corpus for any one man to have composed, but let us not go there now. He was named after his mother Itara. Not much more is known about his life other than what later commentators no doubt cooked up.

What is special about this rishi is that he is probably one of the earliest on whom we may confer the title 'philosopher'. Indeed passages in the texts ascribed to him are possibly the first to ponder over phenomenal things. While earlier Rig Veda devotes itself to the awe and extolling of the forces of nature, it is in the Aitareya that the outward tendencies of Vedic thought is begun to be reined in, tempered and whetted into a mighty philosophical tradition of the later Vedic age. And Mahidasa, no doubt, stands apart as one of the fathers of Vedic philosophy, if not the father.

When did he live? As cursorily explained here , and as will be dealt with in later posts, the Aitareya Brahmana belongs to a conservative date of 2500-2000 BCE. That could mean, he may one day be recognized as one of the world's oldest philosophers. But that hinges on a fresh, detailed and rigorous reappraisal of the Vedic literature, which as of now, is mired inescapably in the colonial dating scheme formulated by Max Mueller.

So let us read what he has to say in Aitareya Aranyaka II.2.5, amongst many other beautiful passages in the Aitareya texts..

Mahidasa sees something fishy going on in nature. And he explains it as best as that primitive bronze age would permit him.

So there! This early teleological outlook on the progression in nature from Mahidasa along with the  Sankhya philosophy wherein the entire phenomenal universe is posited to have evolved from the Pradhana, the sum total of all matter, we get Parinama, the Vedic opinion on the origin of species.

Of course, this is still at considerable odds with evolutionary biology. Evolution is directionless. There is no aim or goal in the intricate deltas of speciation. It proceeds by random mutations that get naturally selected.  Consciousness or higher intelligence is none of it's concern. Man gained self consciousness by dumb luck that piled up over millions of years. He is not the product of any grand scheme. He is still only a cog in the wheel.

 But still, it is interesting to know the brilliant mind of such an ancient man, whose fault was that he belonged in the wrong millennium.

On ethics.

                                                       

                                   “What is it, man,” asks Vivekananda in one of his discourses, “that forces you to be ethical?” Is it the fear of god? Or hellfire? Is it the fear of man and his laws? Of punishment and prison? Or is it perhaps the looming pall of conscience? Will we run dry of nobler reasons should we set out to choose a foundation, a motive for morality? We are a sorry and miserable species if the above choices limit us. Egalitarian objectives would be without fair footing.

But is there such a thing as a rational reason for ethical behavior? Since empathy is often said to be a prerequisite, we need to look for the source of that. In our search we will be disappointingly met with precious few examples in the animal kingdom. While our empathy may be safely assumed to be bestowed at some point by evolution upon our prehistoric ancestors, perhaps molded by the unseen forces of social constraints on the instinct to survive, we are still not in sight of a proper understanding. Why must ‘survival of the fittest’ bend in our case and in such formidable magnitude? Does it somehow help in our survival as a whole?

For long has questions such as this assailed the best of my reasoning, without respite has it bested my efforts to ignore it for they have practical bearing on life. And they are not aimless, nor simple. Their import is for us to decipher. They can prove drowning even before one finds the valid questions, one will be disheartened even before the menacing inquisition can be faced. Before long, one might question its very utility, the worth of such an effort.  

My pensive ponderings have not been in vain however.  Upon joining med school, I have been exposed to a variety of enlightening and thought provoking situations, most of them taking me by surprise. They have revealed to me many other aspects not yet considered. While they have in a way muddled my already confounded comprehension, they have also yielded a rich array of experiences from which I may, should time force me one day to choose, mold out my own stand.

My entry into clinical life at the hospital was right away into surgical oncology, my first posting. Here, at the barren outset, I had my first sampling taste of the insurmountable ethical challenges dotting the life of a doctor. A female patient whose many successive consultations had failed to yield a diagnosis, let alone an attenuation of her suffering. Finally, as I watched, the doctor who must remain anonymous, read the reports of a few tests and breaks to her the identity of her tormentor, the name of the tyranny whose clutches she cannot escape from. 

“Ma’am, you have cancer. It has spread. I am sorry” I saw fear gripping her face and the flooding in her eyes start to spill over. Soon she could not hold back her sobs. The doctor took her into his room for a longer session to convince her it was alright or not the end of it or so.

I did not pick up any expression in the doctor’s face as he spoke his words. His voice was clear and unrestrained. His tone determined and stern. Was he sad? Must he be? Must he at least pretend to share her inestimable sorrow? Or must he merely state facts and move on? Is giving false hope condemnable? Must the interlude till death be subdued by fear or replete with hope? These questions battered my already clueless heart.

My most lasting impression was about the doctor. How courageous he was! How strong and battle hardened a medical veteran one must be to face a patient of bleak hopes and reveal the truth! How many such patients must he have had to face so far! How many such battles will I have to face in my own life! The same me who already has more questions than answers.

I am of the opinion now that being ethical is often to oppose very many innate instincts that propel our subconscious. The instinct to survive, to preserve oneself, to prosper, to avoid injury or shame to oneself, to be acknowledged by society and so on. In a very general sense it could be said that pure ethics kills the self for the good of all. The one must sacrifice for the other. The veracity of such ideals cannot be established by utilitarian arguments. But humanity will prosper and see glory if individual, then the family, then the society, then the country and then countries among themselves conform to “one for all, all for one”.

As a doctor in the making, I realize that these ethical conundrums will ceaselessly present themselves and test my integrity. How much of the pressure of circumstance can I withstand before I compromise on my principles, which I hope not too far away in the future I would have formed, I hope to not find out. I am ever in the eager lookout for more such experiences to help me one day contribute to the world of my aspiration. I rest my case.

The above essay was among the selected and published by St Johns Medical college, Bangalore, under the 'silk routes' project of Iowa university, USA. 

https://iwp.uiowa.edu/silkroutes/bangalore-india?type=all

Andhras- The world's oldest(surviving) tribe?

The Aitareya Brahmana is special. On many counts. For one, it is pretty old. In fact it is the oldest brahmana and it belongs to the Rig Veda. Secondly, it contains a profusion of curious historical information about bronze age Indian society, contemporary kings and sages, kingdoms as well as quite a few obscure and named tribes who are yet to plunge into the Vedic pale. The 'Vedic pale', we know from several other indicators, was in the earliest Rig Vedic times and before it restricted to what is now Haryana and it's thereabouts.

One such reference is to be found in verse VII.18 of the text.

Visvāmitra had a hundred and one sons, fifty older than Madhuchandas, fifty younger. Those that were older did not think this right..Them he cursed (saying) “Your offspring shall inherit the ends" (of the earth). These are the (people), the Andhras, Pundras, Sabaras, Pulindas, and Mütibas,” who live in large numbers beyond the borders; most of the Dasyus are the descendants of Visvāmitra.

Very little is known about the identity or eventual fate of these highlighted tribes(except one of course). But what we can safely affirm with this crucial reference is that this is the very first time the Vedic literature gives evidence of contact with non-Indo European tribes or even of awareness of the existence of such tribes. We know that they were probably non-Indo European(by speech) because one of them survives to this day and another one(Mütibas) has a clearly non-Sanskrit/non-Sanskritised name. In fact the Sankhyayana Srauta Sutra mentions these tribes again, but there, the Pulindas are omitted and Mütibas becomes/reverts to Mücipáh, again non-Sanskrit.

                                       The location of the Andhras from post Vedic texts.

The Aitareya Brahmana is younger to the Rig Veda Samhita. In the whole of the ten books of the Samhita, there is not a single evidence, by way of reference, loan words or allusion, of the Vedic people having made any contact with any non-Indo European tribe(Austroasatic or Dravidian). The literary evidence of the Rig Veda leaves little doubt that the territories of Sapta Sindhu, Vara Prithvya(in Haryana) and the Gangetic plains were entirely an IE Zone. Even the enemy tribes mentioned in the Rig Veda are clearly IE, on closer examination.

So arguably, the Aitareya represents an era when the Vedic culture had well begun to spread out of Vara Prithvya and into peninsular India. Encountering new tribes of distinct tongues and practices, the rishis and hotris no doubt were forced to make an explanation for their existence- banished sons of Vishvamitra! 

They must all have been powerful enough during the bronze age and must have had ritual traditions adequately distinct from the Vedic to warrant such a mention in the brahmana. Of the other tribes, the name 'Pundra/Paundra' etc continue to appear in the later epic literature as a kingdom in East India contemporary to the Vedic Kuru-Pancalas. The territory of the Pundras at least, if not the original tribe, survived into the medieval times. It is epigraphically attested even during the Pala-Sena period, vanishing sometime in the Islamic era.

Dating the Aitareya-  As already mentioned, the Aitareya is the oldest brahmana. And the Shatapatha is the youngest. There is an amazing concomitance of the technology, units of measurements, pottery, territory, astronomical references and other details in the Shatapatha with the mature and late phases of the Indus-Saraswathy civilization. It even contains vivid descriptions of kingdoms(Videha, Kosala etc) relocating from the Indus valley to their historical locations in the Gangetic plains. Such a large scale migration is imprinted in the archaeological record only once; During and following the collapse of ISC. 

Such being the case, for the sake of conservatism, for now as we await further evidence,we may propose ~2000 BCE as the lower limit for the composition of the Aitareya and by extension, the antiquity of the Andhra people.

Coming back to the purpose of this post, this reference confers on the people of Andhra Pradesh a rare honor- The honor of being the world's oldest surviving ethno-political identity. The world's oldest recorded and preserved identity of a people and their territory.

What a cute irony that Andhra Pradesh was the first state of independent India under the reorganization act, 1956...

By the Mahajanapada age when references are finally more detailed, the Andhras are fully Vedicized, if not already by the brahmana age. Their capital was Amaravati. 
                             
Do you disagree? Look at some of the other close contenders-
1. 'Egypt'- Really? Thats a Greek name, nowhere near as old as the Aitareya.That's not what the Egyptians called themselves! And Egypt today has absolutely nothing to do with the Pharaonic civilization.
2. The Assyrian people of the middle east- Hmm...I don't see them on a map!
4. Sindh and Kandahar- The former is just a name adapted from the river and the latter from the name of a very ancient king (Gandhar). Apart from the names, neither has any preserved connections to their pasts.

To all the Andhra people out there- It is amazing how you preserved your ancient identity for so many thousands of years. You truly bring pride to Bharatavarsh.

And your new capital coming up-- Amaravati---named after the old one, there is no doubt it will be magnificent.(But please do try and finish it in maybe 10 years, okay?)  'Abode of the immortals' it means!
What a fitting name...

India- The country that isn't.

These are times like never before when many parts of the world, swept over by liberal ideals and the all-blending torrents of globalization question the very founding premises of intangible things like 'State', 'nation', 'people', 'patriotism' and so on. They were intangible but they were at the same time immutable, for thousands of years. Now, they seem to make a journey into the abstract and non-existent in people's reasoning.

By no means are these changes wrong or without merit. Nationalist feelings can be accused of historically and presently sprouting all kinds of nastiness in collective human behavior. But we are not going to discuss the merits and demerits of any line of political thought. We are going to examine the curious case of one particular 'country'- India.

India, or south Asia to be historically accurate, is an entity whose true nature cannot be adequately encompassed by any modern political equation, borders, laws, standards or definitions. Anyone who is acquainted well enough with its history and has become familiar to its long, unbroken line of uttered and written word, it's hoary yet cogent instances of self  recognition and textual self-attestation will quickly come to the inevitable conclusion that there are serious inaccuracies in comparing and equating it with any other post world war or Westphalian 'country'. 

In fact, the name 'India' itself fails to do justice to the phenomena lying underneath it. But let us not digress, let us understand why it is unique. And the best way to do that is to understand the rise and fall of some of the most iconic nations in history. 

1. Mesopotamia- Without a doubt, the many city states of Mesopotamia and the empires that some of them carved out in the middle east are the cynosure of all eyes in scholarly circles. Such diverse and path-breaking things as agriculture, the invention of writing, astronomy, technology, mathematics etc are readily ascribed to them by most historians.They are also considered as the worlds first empire builders. Starting with the Sumerians who spoke a language isolate and founded the cities such as Ur, Uruk and Eridu in the 4th millennium BCE, succeeded and peaked by Akkadians, and finally with the neo-Babylonian empire of the 6th century BCE. Though it had linguistic breaks and major incursions by Indo European Hittites and their cousins the Sanskrit speaking Mittani, the cultural and political entity lasted for a good 3000 years. 

But the end for Mesopotamia came in 539 BC when Cyrus the great conquered the neo-Babylonian empire from the last king Nabonidus. The culture and the Akkadian language lingered for a few more centuries, but they too inevitably died out. 

2. Egypt- There is no need to elaborate about the iconic Egypt whose pyramids are the first things that come to most people's minds when they hear the word 'ancient'. It's clout and course of history and was nearly contemporaneous and coeval with Mesopotamia. 

But just like Mesopotamia, Egypt fell to the Achaemenid Persians at the battle of Pelusium in 525 BCE; a battle which they lost in their inability to fight the Persians throwing cats at them- for cats were sacred to the Egyptians. Some Pharaohs managed to stage revolts against the Persians. Nectanebo II was the most successful of them but he too was defeated by Ataxerxes in 343 BC. Pharaonic Egypt never rose again after this defeat. It was passed hands successively from Achaemenids to Macedonians to Romans to Sassanians and finally to the invading Arabs. Between them, to know where the last vestige of ancient Egyptian culture flickered out would be nigh impossible. 

                         Paul-Marie Lenoir's paintwork, 1872, depicting the use of cats by Achaemenids against Egyptians

 3.Iranian Civilization- From the Medians were instrumental in overthrowing the neo-Assyrian empire to the Achaemenid Persians who established the largest empire the world has yet seem, to the Sassanians of the common era who were the greatest rivals of Rome, Iran has many a glorious tale to tell. But in the 7^th century, the Arabs made short, irreparable work of the once mighty superpower. It was wiped from the world map and condemned to the pages of history. Its last prince exiled and forced to live out his days as a refugee of the Chinese emperor, we hear no more of the great Parsava, Parthava and the Madra(Parthians, Persians and Medes as they are commonly known). Today the ancient culture founded by Zoroaster and proudly upheld by heroes like Vistaspa, Cyrus and Shapur survives only through the small numbers of Zoroastrians living mainly in other countries, especially India.

   US soldiers at Ctesiphon, once the capital of the Parthian and Sassanian empires

4.Greece and Rome- While there is lack of consensus about when exactly the Indo-European Proto-Greeks entered the mainland of what is now 'Greece', and while we could assume for purpose of convenience alone that it happened towards the close of the second millenium BCE, the fact that the 'Proto-Romans' or the 'Latins' usurped much what is now Italy from the Etruscans, a native European nation is knowledge common. The rise of Rome was so inescapable that even the iconic Greek city states submitted to the Roman eagle one after the other. Athens, Corinth, Thebes, the Sparta of Leonidas and even the Macedon of Alexander, all of them, sparing none. Rome played them masterfully against each other and finally in one fell swoop consumed the glory that was Greece. 

But of course, it was only a political change. Greece continued to thrive and even conquered Rome culturally. Zeus and Athena did not see the counts of their votaries wane but indeed saw them swell and the Homeric epics, Plato's philosophy and the tales and wisdom of the olden Greeks came to be the most prized by the intellectuals in and beyond the borders of Rome....

Irony indeed, that all it took for the two most deep rooted, refined and prolific cradles of ancient European identity to be rendered into mere passages in a book and pieces in a museum were a few eccentric monarchs starting with Constantine the 'great' who became the first christian emperor to Theodosius I. Between them, they razed down temples, abolished Roman and Greek cultural practices, derecognized festivals and holidays, uprooted centuries old institutions, disbanded the Vestal virgins and soon, outright banned the culture of ancient Rome and Greece.Between 430 and 450 AD, iconoclastic christian mobs personally led by 'saints' and patronised by the church and Rome laid waste to the temples of all the Greek city states and gutted even the Parthenon of Athena herself in 435 AD. Slowly and steadily, their theocratic successors all over Europe, over the next few centuries, proscribed and expunged with relentless violence all traces of the pagan cultures of the Celts, Hellenes, Slavs, Balts, Teutons and whatever other tradition that had passed by under Rome's shadow.

So there! We have seen how, one by one, the great nations of old, empires that at their peak boasted of invincibility and immortality,perished under the pitiless torrents of time. But there is one, and only one, that has defied all odds and defeated all adversity to survive even into this new millennium.

She was contemporary to the bronze age Mesopotamian states and Pharaonic Egypt. She was contemporary again to the Achaemenids, Greeks and the Macedonian Empire.Contemporary, yet again, to Rome and the Sassanians. Contemporary, mightily yet, to the Arabs and Turks at their peaks. Contemporary, even still, to the Europe of Renaissance and colonialism. And she is contemporary, even now, to this very day.

This 'awe' is not to be demeaned by calling it 'nationalism'. Indeed, only those who truly understand it will be able to aid in its defence and preservation. The challenges of this modern world are very different from that of the ancient and medieval times. But the challenges exist. And they cannot be met as long as the wider public is kept in the dark about many forgotten, yet amazing, most archaic and critical aspects about their history.

But few, even within this 'Bharatavarsh',as we fondly call it,seem to realize the significance of this. Worse, there are those who actively work to subvert the dissemination of these realizations among the general public; those who are in control of academic institutions and yet find it proper to ignore the overwhelming evidence of this cultural continuity and propagate starkly contradicting conclusions and opinions. Is it the stubbornness of the orthodoxy to change and loosen grips? Or is it agenda? It matters not.

Devasura is an attempt to contribute at least a meager part in the great effort at an 'Indian renaissance'- an effort no doubt is already beginning from multiple fronts.