Jana Gana Mana the full song in Bengali

Uploaded on Aug 14, 2011

Jana Gana Mana the full song comprising all the five stanzas sung in Bengali by Swagatalakshmi Dasgupta.

Stanza 1 (National Anthem of India):-
Jano Gano Mano Adhinaayako Jayo Hey,Bhaarato Bhaagyo Bidhaataa
Panjaabo Sindhu Gujaraato Maraathaa,Draabiro Utkalo Bango
Bindhyo Himaachalo Jamunaa Gangaa, Uchchhalo Jalodhi Tarango
Tabo Shubho Naamey Jaagey, Tabo Shubho Aashisho Maagey
Gaahey Tabo Jayogaathaa
Jano Gano Mangalo Daayako, Jayo Hey Bhaarato Bhaagyo Bidhaataa
Jayo Hey, Jayo Hey, Jayo Hey,Jayo Jayo Jayo, Jayo Hey


Stanza 2:-
Ohoroho Tobo Aahbaano Prachaarito,Shuni Tabo Udaaro Baani
Hindu Bauddho Shikho Jaino,Parashiko Musholmaano Christaani
Purabo Pashchimo Aashey,Tabo Singhaasano Paashey
Premohaaro Hawye Gaanthaa
Jano Gano Oikyo Bidhaayako Jayo Hey,Bhaarato Bhaagyo Bidhaataa
Jayo Hey, Jayo Hey, Jayo Hey,Jayo Jayo Jayo, Jayo Hey


Stanza 3:-
Potono Abhbhudoy Bandhuro Ponthaa,Jugo Jugo Dhaabito Jaatri
Hey Chiro Saarothi, Tabo Ratha Chakrey Mukhorito Potho Dino Raatri
Daaruno Biplabo Maajhey,Tabo Shankhodhwoni Bajey
Sankato Dukkho Traataa
Jano Gano Potho Parichaayako,Jayo Hey Bhaarato Bhaagyo Bidhaataa
Jayo Hey, Jayo Hey, Jayo Hey,Jayo Jayo Jayo, Jayo Hey


Stanza 4:-
Ghoro Timiro Ghono Nibiro,Nishithey Peerito Murchhito Deshey
Jagrato Chhilo Tabo Abicholo Mangalo,Noto Nayoney Animeshey
Duhswapney Aatankey,Rokkhaa Koriley Ankey
Snehamoyi Tumi Maataaa
Jano Gano Duhkho Trayako,Jayo Hey Bhaarato Bhaagyo Bidhaataa
Jayo Hey, Jayo Hey, Jayo Hey,Jayo Jayo Jayo, Jayo Hey


Stanza 5:-
Raatri Prabhatilo Udilo Rabichhabi, Purbo Udayo Giri Bhaaley
Gaahey Bihangamo Punyo Samirano, Nabo Jibano Rasho Dhaley
Tabo Karunaaruno Ragey,Nidrito Bhaarato Jagey
Tabo Chorone Noto Maatha
Jayo Jayo Jayo Hey, Jayo Rajeshwaro, Bhaarato Bhaagyo Bidhaataa
Jayo Hey, Jayo Hey, Jayo Hey,Jayo Jayo Jayo, Jayo Hey

User Actions

 Following

কাঞ্চন গুপ্ত‏@KanchanGupta

Full version of Tagore's Brahmo Psalm of Awakening, 'Morning Song of India'. First para adopted as National Anthem. https://youtu.be/fUK0ki0bL80 

কাঞ্চন গুপ্ত ‏@KanchanGupta  Mar 5

Nation, National Identity, Nationalism: Why small-minded Leftlibs will never get Tagore. My #CoffeeBreakhttp://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/coffee-break/small-minded-leftlibs-cant-imagine-tagores-vastness.html …

SMALL-MINDED LEFTLIBS CAN'T IMAGINE TAGORE'S VASTNESS

Sunday, 06 March 2016 | Kanchan Gupta | 

1

2

3

4

5

\

Tagore’s idea of India was coloured by the horrors of the Great War, resulting from Europe's ruinous experiment with creating nations. It was also in conflict with the views of the other Tagore who militated against the partition of Bengal

Much has been written and said over the unedifying events at Delhi’s island of Left-liberal activism, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Intellectuals, the ‘useful idiots and silly enthusiasts’ (we can debate who said that, Stalin or Lenin, later), nursing an increasing sense of deprivation and denial ever since Prime Minister Narendra Modi stormed Lutyens’s Delhi in the summer of 2014, have used the occasion to claw their way back into relevance.

The Commentariat, India’s thought mafia by another name, having run out of steam on the spurious debate over intolerance, needed to manufacture a new controversy to keep their loyalty points rolling in. This proved an excellent opportunity for them. Then there are politicians, rejected by the people along with their dated ideology, who have no compunction to fish in the troubled waters of student politics. We need not elaborate on that.

In the cacophony of raucous voices emanating from the many Towers of Babel that our news telly studios are now reduced to, we have heard the mention of two words —nation and nationalism. There were voices that rejected all constructs of nation and nationhood, and hence repudiated all notions of nationalism. If India is not a nation, then how can Indians subscribe to the idea of nationalism, leave alone attach a certain sacredness to it?

There were voices that did not question India’s identity as a nation, but nonetheless rejected nationalism, unmindful of the fact that the foundational structure of the construct of nationalism is the nation. A variant of these voices questioned the authority of any individual or organisation, or even the state for that matter, to determine the contours of what defines nationalism.

Then there were voices not only reaffirming the identity of India as a nation, reiterating the received wisdom, often told in simple and perhaps simplistic terms, that defines popular notions of Indian nationhood. Nationalism, they argued, is a constant with set nationalist values. Whether one is a nationalist or an anti-nationalist is determined on the basis of that matrix of nationalist values.

In the cacophonous din we heard the mention of Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore, how he rejected the commonly perceived ideas of nation and nationalism. Stray sentences, out of context and irrelevant in today’s India, if not world, were used as slogans and counter-slogans. An eminent historian, once chided, rather rudely, by me for pretending that the cliched phrase ‘idea of India’ was of recent vintage and coined by Sunil Khilnani, used the JNU brouhaha to set the record straight, slyly and with the unwholesome purpose of using Tagore to further his dubious politics.

So let’s begin with what Tagore said, or, rather, wrote in a letter to a friend: “The idea of India is against the intense consciousness of the separateness of one’s own people from others, which inevitably leads to ceaseless conflicts.” This and Tagore’s ambivalent, some would say dim, views on nationalism have a context that is never mentioned by those quoting him, largely because their knowledge of Gurudev is derived from Google Guru.

Tagore’s “idea of India”, mentioned for the first time in 1921, was largely coloured by the horrors of the Great War, resulting from Europe’s catastrophic experiment with creating nations and national identities based on race, religion and language. Like others who drew sustenance from the Bengal Renaissance and the Great Awakening, Tagore had a Eurocentric worldview. But that worldview was also in conflict with the views of the other Tagore, the one who militated against Curzon’s partition of Bengal.

The many soul-stirring songs that Tagore penned and composed to bolster the resistance to Bengal’s partition, announced in 1905, were collectively an ode to the land, the soil, of Bengal. There was no Indian nation state at that time. The intensity of attachment was to your cultural identity which, in turn, was rooted in your people, your language and your land — in this case, Bengalis, Bengali and Bengal. One of the songs is now the National Anthem of Bangladesh. Tagore used the rakhi as a political tool to unify people against the partition of Bengal at a time when Bengal was unlikely to have known of a north Indian, Hindi heartland custom, Rakshabandhan.

The partition of Bengal was rolled back in 1911. Five years later, in The Home and The World, we find Tagore questioning the swadeshi movement and the politics of rejection not untinged by violence. 1916 onward Tagore increasingly sought to untangle the complex layers of nation, national identity and nationalism through rejection and repudiation. The European experience over-ruled the lived India experience.

Cynics say Tagore was carried away by the adulation showered on him by European liberals, that he was overwhelmed by the praise for him in fashionable salons. The ‘Light of Asia’ would not want to be limited to India. It was ‘Visva Kavi’ Rabindranath Tagore who was honoured with the Nobel Prize and founded Visva-Bharati. It took a popular and populist leader of the unwashed masses, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, to call Tagore what he was to Indians (as opposed to the world): Gurudev.

Tagore responded in full measure. He was the first to call Gandhi a Mahatma and that became the honorific for him, replacing his first and second name. Gandhi would often seek to engage Tagore in nationalist politics; Tagore would refuse to be drawn in. The twain never met. Yet, it was Tagore, despite his disdain for Gandhi’s charkha and little patience for the Mahatma’s anti-modernism, who set up Sriniketan to conserve and celebrate ideas and identities rooted in the Indian nation.

There are no constants in life. The idea of a nation, one land with one people, that motivated the revolutionaries of India’s struggle for freedom was vastly different from the idea of nation which the Congress finally accepted — a divided land with a divided people. By then Tagore was dead for six years. The legitimisation of an India split three ways, its people uprooted and forced into rootlessness, validated the sub-nationalism that surfaced in the following years and decades.

From Tamil separatism in the south to ethnic secessionism in the North-East, from States adopting domicile laws defining the ‘separateness of one’s own people from others’ to the rabid nativism of Assam’s ‘Ali-Kuli-Bangali’ agitation that morphed into ‘Bongal kheda’, from the Shiv Sena’s ‘Maharashtra for Maharashtrians’ slogan to the chasing out of Kashmiri Pandits from Kashmir, their ancestral land, by Islamists, India has seen its national identity under stress since independence.

Sub-nationalism was never addressed and fitted into the mosaic of India’s national identity. It was papered over. The paper is now brittle. Unity in diversity, truth be told, is so much bunk and no more. It is an elusive unity, the diversity is real. The silken thread Nehru spoke of is long frayed.

Let me conclude with what Tagore wrote in Sadhana — The Realisation of Life in 1915: “To the man who lives for an idea, for his country, for the good of humanity, life has an extensive meaning.” Perhaps that offers a more resilient idea of nationalism. Idea, country and humanity are interconnected, interlinked. Together they define nation, nationhood, nationality and nationalism. This definition is not restrictive or reductionist. It has, as Tagore said, an extensive meaning. The small minds of our Left-liberals are incapable of imaging what that extensive meaning is.

(The writer is a current affairs analyst based in NCR)

See: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=897689116962829&id=445871388811273

Kanchan Gupta added 2 new photos.

July 12, 2015 · 

Jana Gana Mana...

The Morning Song Of India

What is now the National Anthem of the Republic of India is the first stanza of a five-stanza Brahmo Sangeet or psalm. It was composed by Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore on December 11, 1911, in adulation of Param Brahma -- He who is the True, the Good, the Infinite; the Eternal Lord of the Universe; the Omniscient, the Omnipresent, the Omnipotent; the Formless, Changeless, Selfcontained and Perfect Almighty.

For the Brahmo Samaj, whose members adhere to Adhi Dharma, anchored in the dazzling enlightenment of the Upanishads, Param Brahma is the only Ishwar, the One Supreme Spirit, the Author and Preserver of our existence, the Eternal Light that shows us the path when darkness descends, the Lighthouse that guides us through the stormy sea of life. He presides over the destiny of our wondrous universe, hence also the destiny of Bharat.

This brief background is necessary to understand the context of the song composed by Tagore, its spirit and its lofty ideals. In veneration of Him, the splendours of Bharat are celebrated. The message transcends region and border; it unites us in a universal psalm in praise of He who bestows us with life and everything that is Righteous, Virtuous and Illuminating in life. The indiminishable principles of Equality, Fraternity and Justice, the three pillars on which the majestic Republic of India stands today, flow from the core of the song composed by Tagore.

The first time 'Jana Gana Mana' was sung before an audience was in Calcutta on December 28, 1911, during the 27th session of the Indian National Congress which had a tradition of beginning its proceedings with a song. (Tagore sang Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay's 'Vande Mataram' at the 1896 session of the Indian National Congress.) subsequently, 'Jana Gana Mana' became one of the anthems of the freedom movement, the other being 'Vande Mataram' which was both a soul-stirring call to action and a hymnal ode to our motherland.

Next year 'Jana Gana Mana' was sung during Maghotsab. There are records which tell us it was the opening hymn at the Foundation Day of Adi Brahma Samaj of which Tagore was the mentor and guiding spirit. Such was the response to the song that it was formally included in the list of Brahmo Sangeet sung as part of Brahmo liturgy.

In 1919 Tagore went on a tour of the southern provinces of Bharat. He spent some days at Theosophical College in Madanapalle as a guest of its principal James Cousins. Tagore sung 'Jana Gana Mana' at the college Assembly and explained its philosophical meaning to the students and teachers. An ecstatic Cousins adopted it as the college prayer.

Tagore knew the limitations of a liturgical psalm composed in classical Sanskritised Bengali in a land as linguistically diverse as Bharat. He spent the next few days translating 'Jana Gana Mana' and writing down the notations of its tune, a task in which he was helped by Margaret, wife of James Cousins, trained in Western classical music. He called the translated version in English 'The Morning Song Of India'.

After Bharat's independence when a National Anthem had to be chosen for the Republic of India, the choice was between Tagore's 'Jana Gana Mana' and Bankim's 'Vande Mataram', both of which had by then become symbols of the freedom movement, inextricably woven into the soaring spirit of Bharat. What weighed in favour of 'Jana Gana Mana' is that it had already been set to a martial tune by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose who had used a Hindustani version of Tagore's song, 'Subh Sukh Chain' (see text at end of this post) as the Anthem of his Provisional Government and INA. On august 15, 1947, when Jawaharlal Nehru unfurled the Tricolour on the ramparts of the Red Fort, Capt Ram Singh Thakur and his orchestra played 'Subh Sukh Chain' to the INA's tune. 'Vande Mataram', on the other hand, was, and continues to be, sung as a hymn to our Motherland. Setting it to a martial tune would rob it off its spirit and denude its soul.

On January 24, 1950, President Babu Rajendra Prasad made the following statement in the Constituent Assembly:
" There is one matter which has been pending for discussion, namely the question of the National Anthem. At one time it was thought that the matter might be brought up before the House and a decision taken by the House by way of a resolution. But it has been felt that, instead of taking a formal decision by means of a resolution, it is better if I make a statement with regard to the National Anthem. Accordingly I make this statement. The composition consisting of the words and music known as Jana Gana Mana is the National Anthem of India, subject to such alterations in the words as the Government may authorise as occasion arises; and the song Vande Mataram, which has played a historic part in the struggle for Indian freedom, shall be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana and shall have equal status with it."

Thus did Tagore's 'Jana Gana Mana' become the National Anthem and Bankim's 'Vande Mataram' the National Song of the Republic of India.

(Apart from some minor elaboration of the guiding faith of Brahmos to make the language more contemporary and comprehensible, all of this post is based on published material available in the public domain. I have merely put it together to present a comprehensive and brief comment. I wish stalwarts of Bharat's politics and commentariat, the intelligentsia and the naive who are easily persuaded by bunk like 'Jana Gana Mana was composed in veneration of King George V', would care to check facts before parroting bogus allegations. Google Guru is always there to teach them in a few minutes what should have been a lifetime lesson taught in schools. Unfortunately, when children are taught to venerate the Nehru Dynasty and worship dynasts as the custodians of Bharat's destiny, it is not surprising that little or no popular knowledge exists of all that is sacred, among them the National Anthem and National Song of the glorious Republic of India.)

Rabindranath Tagore's original composition of 'Jana Gana Mana' in Bengali:

জনগণমন-অধিনায়ক জয় হে ভারতভাগ্যবিধাতা!
পঞ্জাব সিন্ধু গুজরাট মরাঠা দ্রাবিড় উৎকল বঙ্গ
বিন্ধ্য হিমাচল যমুনা গঙ্গা উচ্ছলজলধিতরঙ্গ
তব শুভ নামে জাগে, তব শুভ আশিষ মাগে,
গাহে তব জয়গাথা।
জনগণমঙ্গলদায়ক জয় হে ভারতভাগ্যবিধাতা!
জয় হে, জয় হে, জয় হে, জয় জয় জয় জয় হে।।

অহরহ তব আহ্বান প্রচারিত, শুনি তব উদার বাণী
হিন্দু বৌদ্ধ শিখ জৈন পারসিক মুসলমান খৃস্টানী
পূরব পশ্চিম আসে তব সিংহাসন-পাশে
প্রেমহার হয় গাঁথা।
জনগণ-ঐক্য-বিধায়ক জয় হে ভারতভাগ্যবিধাতা!
জয় হে, জয় হে, জয় হে, জয় জয় জয় জয় হে।।

পতন-অভ্যুদয়-বন্ধুর পন্থা, যুগ যুগ ধাবিত যাত্রী।
হে চিরসারথি, তব রথচক্রে মুখরিত পথ দিনরাত্রি।
দারুণ বিপ্লব-মাঝে তব শঙ্খধ্বনি বাজে
সঙ্কটদুঃখত্রাতা।
জনগণপথপরিচায়ক জয় হে ভারতভাগ্যবিধাতা!
জয় হে, জয় হে, জয় হে, জয় জয় জয় জয় হে।।

ঘোরতিমিরঘন নিবিড় নিশীথে পীড়িত মূর্ছিত দেশে
জাগ্রত ছিল তব অবিচল মঙ্গল নতনয়নে অনিমেষে।
দুঃস্বপ্নে আতঙ্কে রক্ষা করিলে অঙ্কে
স্নেহময়ী তুমি মাতা।
জনগণদুঃখত্রায়ক জয় হে ভারতভাগ্যবিধাতা!
জয় হে, জয় হে, জয় হে, জয় জয় জয় জয় হে।।

রাত্রি প্রভাতিল, উদিল রবিচ্ছবি পূর্ব-উদয়গিরিভালে –
গাহে বিহঙ্গম, পূণ্য সমীরণ নবজীবনরস ঢালে।
তব করুণারুণরাগে নিদ্রিত ভারত জাগে
তব চরণে নত মাথা।
জয় জয় জয় হে জয় রাজেশ্বর ভারতভাগ্যবিধাতা!
জয় হে, জয় হে, জয় হে, জয় জয় জয় জয় হে।।

Original Bengali text in English, retaining Bangla pronunciation:

Jano Gano Mano Adhinaayako Jayo Hey,Bhaarato Bhaagyo Bidhaataa
Panjaabo Sindhu Gujaraato Maraathaa,Draabiro Utkalo Bango
Bindhyo Himaachalo Jamunaa Gangaa, Uchchhalo Jalodhi Tarango
Tabo Shubho Naamey Jaagey, Tabo Shubho Aashisho Maagey
Gaahey Tabo Jayogaathaa
Jano Gano Mangalo Daayako, Jayo Hey Bhaarato Bhaagyo Bidhaataa
Jayo Hey, Jayo Hey, Jayo Hey,Jayo Jayo Jayo, Jayo Hey

Ohoroho Tobo Aahbaano Prachaarito,Shuni Tabo Udaaro Baani
Hindu Bauddho Shikho Jaino,Parashiko Musholmaano Christaani
Purabo Pashchimo Aashey,Tabo Singhaasano Paashey
Premohaaro Hawye Gaanthaa
Jano Gano Oikyo Bidhaayako Jayo Hey,Bhaarato Bhaagyo Bidhaataa
Jayo Hey, Jayo Hey, Jayo Hey,Jayo Jayo Jayo, Jayo Hey

Potono Abhbhudoy Bandhuro Ponthaa,Jugo Jugo Dhaabito Jaatri
Hey Chiro Saarothi, Tabo Ratha Chakrey Mukhorito Potho Dino Raatri
Daaruno Biplabo Maajhey,Tabo Shankhodhwoni Bajey
Sankato Dukkho Traataa
Jano Gano Potho Parichaayako,Jayo Hey Bhaarato Bhaagyo Bidhaataa
Jayo Hey, Jayo Hey, Jayo Hey,Jayo Jayo Jayo, Jayo Hey

Ghoro Timiro Ghono Nibiro,Nishithey Peerito Murchhito Deshey
Jagrato Chhilo Tabo Abicholo Mangalo,Noto Nayoney Animeshey
Duhswapney Aatankey,Rokkhaa Koriley Ankey
Snehamoyi Tumi Maataaa
Jano Gano Duhkho Trayako,Jayo Hey Bhaarato Bhaagyo Bidhaataa
Jayo Hey, Jayo Hey, Jayo Hey,Jayo Jayo Jayo, Jayo Hey

Raatri Prabhatilo Udilo Rabichhabi, Purbo Udayo Giri Bhaaley
Gaahey Bihangamo Punyo Samirano, Nabo Jibano Rasho Dhaley
Tabo Karunaaruno Ragey,Nidrito Bhaarato Jagey
Tabo Chorone Noto Maatha
Jayo Jayo Jayo Hey, Jayo Rajeshwaro, Bhaarato Bhaagyo Bidhaataa
Jayo Hey, Jayo Hey, Jayo Hey,Jayo Jayo Jayo, Jayo Hey.

Rabindranath Tagore's translation of his original Bengali text into English:

Thou art the ruler of the minds of all people,Dispenser of India's destiny,
Thy name rouses the hearts of Punjab, Sindh, Gujarat & Maratha,of the Dravida and Orissa and Bengal,
It echoes in the hills of the Vindhyas and Himalayas,mingles in the music of Jamuna and Ganges,
And is chanted by the waves of the Indian Sea. They pray for thy blessings and sing thy praise,
The saving of all people waits in thy hands,
Thou dispenser of India's destiny,
Victory, Victory, Victory to thee.

Day and night, thy voice goes out from land to land,
calling the Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains round thy throne and the Parsees, Mussalmans and Christians.
Offerings are brought to thy shrine by the East and the West
To be woven in a garland of love.
Thou bringest the hearts of all peoples into the harmony of one life,Thou Dispenser of India's destiny,
Victory, Victory, Victory to thee."

The procession of pilgrims passes over the endless road, rugged with the rise and fall of nations;
and it resounds with the thunder of thy wheel.Eternal Charioteer!
Through the dire days of doom thy trumpet sounds, and men are led by thee across death.
Thy finger points the path to all people.
Oh dispenser of India's destiny!
Victory, victory, victory to thee.

The darkness was dense and deep was the night; my country lay in a deathlike silence of swoon.
But thy mother arms were round her and thine eyes gazed upon her troubled face
in sleepless love through her hours of ghastly dreams.
Thou art the companion and the saviour of the people in their sorrows,
thou dispenser of India's destiny!
Victory, victory, victory to thee.

The night fades;the light breaks over the peaks of the Eastern hills,
the birds begin to sing and the morning breeze carries the breath of new life.
The rays of the mercy have touched the waking land with their blessings.
Victory to the King of Kings,
victory to thee, dispenser of India's destiny.
Victory, victory, victory to thee.

Official text of the National Anthem of the Republic of India:

Jana gana mana adhinAyaka jaya he
BhArata bhAgya vidhAta
PunjAba Sindhu GujArata MarAthA
DrAvida Utkala Banga
Vindhya HimAchala YamunA GangA
uchchala jaladhi taranga
Tava shubha nAme jAgE, tava shubha Asisa mAngE,
gAhE tava jaya gAthA.
Jana gana mangala dAyaka jaya hE
BhArata bhAgya VidhAtA.
Jaya hE, Jaya hE, Jaya hE,
Jaya jaya jaya, jaya hE.

'Subh Sukh Chain' of INA, Subhas Chandra Bose's Hindustani version of 'Jana Gana Mana':

Subh sukh chain ki barkha barse, Bharat bhaag hai jaaga.
Punjab, Sindh, Gujarat, Maratha, Dravid, Utkal, Banga,
Chanchal sagar, Vindhya, Himalaya, Neela Jamuna, Ganga.
Tere nit gun gaayen, Tujh se jivan paayen,
Har tan paaye asha.
Suraj ban kar jag par chamke, Bharat naam subhaga,
Jai Ho! Jai Ho! Jai Ho! Jai, Jai, Jai, Jai Ho!

Sab ke dil mein preet basaaey, Teri meethi baani.
Har sube ke rahne waale, Har mazhab ke praani,
Sab bhed aur farak mita ke, Sab gaud mein teri aake,
Goondhe prem ki mala.
Suraj ban kar jag par chamke, Bharat naam subhaga,
Jai Ho! Jai Ho! Jai Ho! Jai, Jai, Jai, Jai Ho!

Subh savere pankh pakheru, Tere hi gun gayen,
Baas bhari bharpur hawaaen, Jeevan men rut laayen,
Sab mil kar Hind pukare, Jai Azad Hind ke nare.
Pyaara desh hamara.
Suraj ban kar jag par chamke, Bharat naam subhaga,
Jai Ho! Jai Ho! Jai Ho! Jai, Jai, Jai, Jai Ho!

Rabindranath Tagore's translation of his 'Jana Gana Mana' in his own hand:

LikeShow more reactions

CommentShare

Chronological

179Vaijayanthi Chakravarthy and 178 others

24 comments

223 shares

Comments

View 1 more comment

Sunil Kumar Sharma Thanks

Like · Reply · July 12, 2015 at 4:44pm

Jayanta Mohapatra For the first time, I actually get to know the Full Song. I never knew that it was so long. Just wondering, how it was not part of our course curriculum to know the story behind the "National Anthem".

Like · Reply · 6 · July 12, 2015 at 4:58pm

Vidhyadhar Kulkarni pl also read debates in our Constituent Assembly 1946 to 1949. u will get some info on National Anthem, National Flag etc.

Like · Reply · July 12, 2015 at 6:34pm

Nidhi Bahuguna Thanks dada! This is true journalism! The true picture to the readers instead of confusions,lies spins

Like · Reply · 2 · July 12, 2015 at 5:30pm

Azra Ansari That is a wonderful bit of knowledge uv imparted,something every one of us Indians ought to be knowing,but don't know sadly! Thank you for the enlightment!

Like · Reply · 1 · July 12, 2015 at 6:01pm

Mukund Abhyankar Thanks Kanchanda
For clearing once for all false propoganda by vested interests on our great national treasures

Like · Reply · 1 · July 12, 2015 at 6:08pm

Lalit Khamkar Beautiful!....but why critical reference to Nehru in history of national anthem?Wrong to play dirty politics on national anthem and national song

Like · Reply · July 12, 2015 at 6:24pm

Piyush Bakshi And my comment deleted. Answers the questions I had raised. smile emoticon

Like · Reply · July 12, 2015 at 6:47pm

Piyush Bakshi Anthem to the nation, but addressed to God. Odd. Don't delete this.

Like · Reply · July 12, 2015 at 6:51pm

Amitava Ghosh I know people certain walks of life and especially northern region of India , they say it was sung to welcome a British viceroy or something like that , they should real it without any anti communal feeling

Like · Reply · July 12, 2015 at 6:56pm

Himadri Banerji A true perspective in answer to a futile debate

Like · Reply · July 12, 2015 at 8:28pm

Tarun Goel Aayush Kumar Sharma-Kullut Desh अरूण शर्मा कम्युनल करप्ट

Like · Reply · 1 · July 12, 2015 at 8:54pm

Mohit S Jain Prashant Mishra remember our discussion on this topic

Like · Reply · 1 · July 12, 2015 at 9:54pm

Satya Saraswat After reading this informative piece, one wonders why such hue & cry over the word 'adhinayaak'?

Like · Reply · July 12, 2015 at 10:21pm

Biswarup Banerjee Thank you.

Like · Reply · July 13, 2015 at 4:09pm

Sandeep Aiyar Here is the complete song with its interpretation.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypm1ifY7HJo

Jaya Hey : Jana Gana Mana Video Song by 39 Artists

YOUTUBE.COM

Like · Reply · 3 · July 13, 2015 at 4:59pm

Nisheeth Kumar Undoubtedly, Kanchanda, your facts can bring all noises to silence. Can't even blame those who have raised this issue as none of them would be aware of so much history behind our anthem. Great work Kanchanda......

Like · Reply · July 13, 2015 at 5:38pm

Rajiv Pathak "Snehamoyi Tumi Maataaa" - does Brahmo Samaj have female deity ? just curious ?

Like · Reply · 2 · July 13, 2015 at 6:01pm

Kamlesh Bhatt Great work Sir.irrefutable facts.Thank you 

Like · Reply · July 13, 2015 at 8:52pm

Manish Kinhikar Great read sir. thankful to you

Like · Reply · July 14, 2015 at 9:36am

Utpal Chattopadhyay I am confused as to whether this ParamBrahma is a He as mentioned in the poem because one of the stanzas refers to a Mother as well; to wit "ঘোরতিমিরঘন নিবিড় নিশীথে পীড়িত মূর্ছিত দেশে
জাগ্রত ছিল তব অবিচল মঙ্গল নতনয়নে অনিমেষে।
দুঃস্বপ্নে আতঙ্কে রক্ষা করিলে অঙ্কে...See More

Like · Reply · July 15, 2015 at 12:38am · Edited

Abraham Koshy If this was part of school curriculam a lot of negative brain washing by vested interest would not have prevailed.

Like · Reply · July 15, 2015 at 6:44am

Devendra Sharma If it is written in Bangla, what is the meaning of "Adhinayaka" in Bangla ?

Like · Reply · September 26, 2015 at 6:00pm

Amar Cheema Very enlightening. Thank you sir.

Tagore's translation of the song in his own hand:

2015/07/12

Those who say Jana Gana Mana was composed in veneration of King George V are parroting bogus allegations

Rajasthan governor Kalyan Singh recently created a huge flutter by demanding that the national anthem's wordings "Jana Gana Mana Adhinayaka Jaya He" be replaced by "Jana Gana Mana Mangala Jaya He", because Adhinayaka stands for King George V. Well-known commentatorKanchan Gupta traces the origin of Jana Gana Mana to refute the argument*:

What is now the National Anthem of the Republic of India is the first stanza of a five-stanza Brahmo Sangeet or psalm. 

It was composed by Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore on December 11, 1911, in adulation of Param Brahma -- He who is the True, the Good, the Infinite; the Eternal Lord of the Universe; the Omniscient, the Omnipresent, the Omnipotent; the Formless, Changeless, Selfcontained and Perfect Almighty.
For the Brahmo Samaj, whose members adhere to Adhi Dharma, anchored in the dazzling enlightenment of the Upanishads, Param Brahma is the only Ishwar, the One Supreme Spirit, the Author and Preserver of our existence, the Eternal Light that guides us when darkness descends, the Lighthouse that guides us through the stormy sea of life. He presides over the destiny of our wondrous universe, hence also the destiny of Bharat.
This brief background is necessary to understand the context of the song composed by Tagore, its spirit and its lofty ideals. In veneration of Him, the splendours of Bharat are celebrated. The message transcends region and border; it unites us in a universal psalm in praise of He who bestows us with life and everything that is Righteous, Virtuous and Illuminating in life. The indiminishable principles of Equality, Fraternity and Justice, the three pillars on which the majestic Republic of India stands today, flow from the core of the song composed by Tagore.
The first time 'Jana Gana Mana' was sung before an audience was in Calcutta on December 28, 1911, during the 27th session of the Indian National Congress which had a tradition of beginning its proceedings with a song. (Tagore sang Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay's 'Vande Mataram' at the 1896 session of the Indian National Congress.) Subsequently, 'Jana Gana Mana' became one of the anthems of the freedom movement, the other being 'Vande Mataram' which was both a soul-stirring call and song.
Next year 'Jana Gana Mana' was sung during Maghotsab. There are records which tell us it was the opening hymn at the Foundation Day of Adi Brahma Samaj of which Tagore was the mentor and guiding spirit. Such was the response to the song that it was formally included in the list of Brahmo Sangeet sung as part of Brahmo liturgy.
In 1919 Tagore went on a tour of the southern provinces of Bharat. He spent some days at Theosophical College in Madanapalle as a guest of its principal James Cousins. Tagore sung 'Jana Gana Mana' at the college Assembly and explained its philosophical meaning to the students and teachers. An ecstatic Cousins adopted it as the college prayer.
Tagore knew the limitations of a liturgical psalm composed in Classical Sanskitised Bengali in a land as linguistically diverse as Bharat. He spent the next few days translating 'Jana Gana Mana' and writing down the notations of its tune, a task in which he was helped by Margaret, wife of James Cousins, trained in Western classical music. He called the translated version in English 'The Morning Song Of India'. 

Tagore's translation of Jana Gana Mana in English

After Bharat's independence when a National Anthem had to be chosen for the Republic of India, the choice was between Tagore's 'Jana Gana Mana' and Bankim's 'Vande Mataram', both of which had by then become symbols of the freedom movement, inextricably woven into the soaring spirit of Bharat.

What weighed in favour of 'Jana Gana Mana' is that it had already been set to a martial tune by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose who had used a Hindustani version of Tagore's song, 'Subh Sukh Chain' as the Anthem of his Provisional Government and INA. On august 15, 1947, when Jawaharlal Nehru unfurled the Tricolour on the ramparts of the Red Fort, Capt Ram Singh Thakur and his orchestra played 'Subh Sukh Chain' to the INA's tune. 

'Vande Mataram', on the other hand, was, and continues to be sung, as a hymn to the Motherland. Setting it to a martial tune would rob it off its spirit and denude its soul.
On January 24, 1950, President Babu Rajendra Prasad made the following statement in the Constituent Assembly:

"There is one matter which has been pending for discussion, namely the question of the National Anthem. At one time it was thought that the matter might be brought up before the House and a decision taken by the House by way of a resolution. But it has been felt that, instead of taking a formal decision by means of a resolution, it is better if I make a statement with regard to the National Anthem. Accordingly I make this statement. The composition consisting of the words and music known as Jana Gana Mana is the National Anthem of India, subject to such alterations in the words as the Government may authorise as occasion arises; and the song Vande Mataram, which has played a historic part in the struggle for Indian freedom, shall be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana and shall have equal status with it."

Thus did Tagore's 'Jana Gana Mana' become the National Anthem and Bankim's 'Vande Mataram' the National Song of the Republic of India.
***
Apart from some minor elaboration of the guiding faith of Brahmos to make the language more contemporary and comprehensible, all of this is based on published material available in the public domain. I have merely put it together to present a comprehensive and brief comment. 

I wish stalwarts of Bharat's politics and commentariat, the intelligentsia and the naive who are easily persuaded by bunk like 'Jana Gana Mana was composed in veneration of King George V', would care to check facts before parroting bogus allegations. Google Guru is always there to teach them in a few minutes what should have been a lifetime lesson taught in schools. 

Unfortunately, when children are taught to venerate the Nehru Dynasty and worship dynasts as the custodians of Bharat's destiny, it is not surprising that little or no popular knowledge exists of all that is sacred, among them the National Anthem and National Song of the glorious Republic of India.

---

*Excerpts. Courtesy: https://www.facebook.com/Coffee.Break

http://gujaratlive.blogspot.in/2015/07/those-who-say-jana-gana-mana-was.html

• Bhujbal Arm-strong: Once a vegetable seller, now charged in a Rs 800 cr scam
• March 20, 2016

Former Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray and Chhagan Bhujbal (in black coat). Archive/Express Photo

Chhagan Bhujbal and Bal Thackeray. Archive/Express Photo

Chhagan Bhujbal during a 2012 NCP state meeting in Mumbai.  Archive/Express Photo/Prashant Nadkar

Former Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray, Vamrao Mahadhik, Chhagan Bhujbal, Promod Navalkar and Manohar Joshi. Archive/Express Photo

Chhagan Bhujbal, former Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray and Sharad Pawar. Archive/Express Photo

Chhagan Bhujbal with Bal Thackeray. Archive/Express Photo

NCP chief Sharad Pawar with party leader Chhagan Bhujbal during a meeting with party workers of Thane district in Mumbai. PTI Photo

Inside Bhujbal Farm: The 5 acre premise houses several bungalows – with a recently added ‘palace’ and an office is on Agra Road, Nashik. Express Photo/Pavan Khengre

• INDIRA JAISING FACES CBI PROBE FOR FUND MISUSE

  Monday, 21 March 2016 | Rakesh K Singh | New Delhi

  The Centre is likely to order a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the fund misuse by an NGO, Lawyers Collective, run by former Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Indira Jaising. The Union Home Ministry has already served a notice on the NGO for allegedly receiving foreign funds of over Rs11 crore when she held the post of ASG between 2009 and 2012.

  In its notice, the Ministry said Jaisingh received foreign funds while holding a Government post, which is violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 (FCRA). Sources said that while no decision has been taken on the nature of probe to be ordered against the former ASG, there is enough evidence to engage the CBI in this matter.

  They pointed out several instances of FCRA violations were noticed in the account books of the Mumbai-based NGO during a recent scrutiny of documents carried out in January. On the receipt of a complaint from one Raj Kumar Sharma on the misutilisation of foreign contribution by Lawyers Collective, the Ministry inspected the books of account of the NGO for the period from 2009-10 to 2014-15.

  In contravention of the FCRA norms, the NGO allegedly participated in political activities and allegedly diverted and misutilised foreign contribution. The enquiry also revealed that significant amount of foreign contributions were spent on air travel, boarding and lodging, local travel of trustee Anand Grover, husband of Indira Jaising, and various contractual employees and representatives from different parts of the country for drafting legislations, dharnas and advocacy with MPs.

  At a seminar on “Future Plan-2010” and in the Annual Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the association held on August 28, 2010, Lawyers Collective decided to draft legislation on the HIV/AIDS Bill and spent money for Advocacy with Members of Parliament and Media. HIV/AIDS however does not come under the aims/objectives of the NGO. An amount of Rs88,978 was paid to Delhi Network of Positive People on October 21, 2009 after entering into an agreement for the arrangement of up to 250 people at the rate of Rs200 per person to hold Dharna for HIV/AIDS Bill outside office of the Law Ministry.

  The association too organised rallies against Free Trade Agreement. To hold “paid” dharnas by utilisation of foreign contribution is a violation of Section 8 of FCRA 2010, sources said. 

  Foreign Currency worth nearly Rs3 crore was received by Lawyers Collective for purposes other than the stated Objectives of Association filed with the Registrar like women empowerment, is a violation of Section 8 of FCRA, 2010, the enquiry has revealed.

  Likewise, foreign contribution worth nearly Rs12.5 crore was received by Lawyers Collective for the purpose other than its stated objectives i.e. HIV/AIDS awareness. Receiving funds for activities not listed as objectives is also a violation of FCRA.

  The enquiry has also revealed that the NGO acted as a conduit for receipt and transfer of foreign contribution meant for UNSR (United Nations Special Rapporteur). During 2008 to 2014, one of the foreign donors donated $95,000, $97,000, $93,896 and $89,599 to the NGO, specifically to assist Anand Grover to carry on his work as UN Special Rapporteur.

  Grover availed the foreign contribution for various purposes, including visit to foreign countries (though as UNSR he is entitled for travelling expenses per diem). This was not an activity listed in the Objectives of the Association of the NGO and therefore the Association violated the provisions of Section 7 of FCRA, 2010 (read with Rule 24 of FCRR, 2011) by working as a conduit to receive foreign contribution on behalf of Anand Grover and transferring the same to him, the sources said.

  Anand Grover has also violated the provisions of Section 11 of the FCRA, 2010 by accepting and utilising the foreign contribution without obtaining registration or prior permission of the Centre. Grover also used the foreign contribution for personal benefits and spent it outside India, thereby violating Section 8 of the FCRA, 2010.

  Grover also appeared in Novartis case in the Supreme Court by spending foreign contribution, which was clearly not meant for that purpose. Funds were misappropriated to meet such purposes. In one instance, the air ticket of Indira Jaising was also booked out of foreign contribution received for Novartis Case, along with him, though she was not officially attached with the case (2011) nor it was any Association-related activity.

  Receipt of foreign contribution by her while functioning as Public Servant (in her capacity as ASG from July 2009 to May 5, 2014) is also violation of FCRA norms. She received remuneration of Rs 96.60 lakh from Lawyers Collective out of foreign contribution and as an ASG travelled to foreign countries like Nepal and USA. The travelling expenses were borne by Lawyers Collective from foreign contribution without prior approval from the Union Home Ministry. The ASG being a Public Servant of a high stature who used to handle sensitive matters, thus receipt of foreign contribution violated the thrust of the FCRA, 2010 and consequently Section 3 and Section 11 thereof by not seeking clearances from the Centre for receiving foreign contribution as remuneration from the NGO.

  Receipt of foreign contribution in non-designated foreign contribution account is yet another violation of the FCRA. The NGO has received foreign contribution from donors directly in its Utilization account instead of designated bank account for foreign contribution thereby violating provisions contained in Section 17 and Section 18 of FCRA, 2010 and Rule 9 (1)(e) of FCRR, 2011, the sources said. 

  The receipt of foreign contribution amounting to Rs 29.33 lakh, Rs 16.18 lakh and Rs 7.54 lakh during the year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 which was credited to the Utilization bank account instead of foreign currency designated bank account has not been reflected in FC-6 annual returns, in violation of provisions contained in Section 18 of the FCRA, 2010, Rule 17 of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011 and is covered under Section 33 of the FCRA, 2010 for suppression of facts.

  Discrepancy between the return filed with Union Home Ministry and that with Income Tax authorities - a comparative analysis of the foreign contribution received during FY 2009-10 to FY 2011-12 by Lawyers Collective as per Foreign Contribution return filed with MHA and the return filed with Income Tax authorities revealed discrepancies of about Rs 3 crores.

  Non-reporting of opening of utilisation account is also a violation of Section 18 of FCRA, 2010 and Rule 9(1) (e) of FCRR, 2011. Frequent inter-transfer of Foreign Contribution from one utilization account to another utilization account is yet another contravention of the provisions contained in Section 17 of FCRA, 2010 and Rule 9(1) (e) of FCRR, 2011.Likewise, transfer of Foreign Contribution from FC Designated bank account and FC Utilization bank accounts to local fund accounts and transfer of Local Fund into FC account, leading to mixing of foreign contribution with local/ domestic funds is also a violation of Section 17 of FCRA, 2010 and Rule 9(1)(e) of FCRR, 2011.

  Foreign Contribution was spent for air travel and other expenses for contractual employees/workers of other organisations, foreigners and Anand Grover to attend Conferences in foreign countries, a clear violation of Section 7 of FCRA, 2010, the sources added.  
• Inidna  Anand Grover must be very tolerant if he is tolerating this pig mouth IJ.
• 420

  9 minutes ago

   (0) ·  (0)

   

  reply (0) 
• HH.Balakrishnan  

  During the UPA it was 'JO MARZI' for the well connected !! I shudder to think waht sort of a Govt. we had between 2004 - 2014. I am also certain that Indira Jaising must have been an advisor to the SUPER CABINET - THE NAC. Cry the Beloved Country.

  1970

  about an hour ago

   (1) ·  (0)

   

  reply (0) 

  Bharati Up Voted
• BBharati  

  Excellent reporting!

The problem with Pollock

Sheldon Pollock

User Actions

Subramanian SwamyThe Last Tasty Morsel of Official Bias in the American Melting Pot: Academic Hinduphobia http://wp.me/p5E6v3-8  via @wordpressdotcom

Nagendra S. Rao

Shared publicly  -  4:14 AM

There is nothing new . Ot says what has been stated many times before, but still bears repeating since misrepresentation of what is Hinduism is so endemic and pervasive in American academia.

The Last Tasty Morsel of Official Bias in the American Melting Pot: Academic Hinduphobia

Homer, Hesiod andthe Mahābhārata Nicholas Kazanas (2016)

Introduction

In this paper I examine some legends of archaic Greek literature (texts ascribed to Homer and Hesiod) and their relationship to the Indian epicMahābhārata(MB, hereafter). One is the parallel of Penelope’s archery contest, set for her suitors (Odyssey19, 171ff) and Draupadī’ssvayaṃvara‘choiceof husband’,which also entailsan archerycontest (MBI, 175-180)[1];the parallels of Damayantī’ssvayaṃvaras in the storyof Nala (MBIII,50-55 and 68) will also be discussed. Asecond parallel will be the Peleus-Thetis marriage in theIliadand subsequent sources and that ofŚantanu-Gaṅgā(MBI, 91-3). Athird parallel is the Five Races in Hesiod’sWorks and Days109-201 and the Four Ages or Yugas inMBIII, 148 and 186-9. Another parallel will also be examined, that of Dionysusbeing born out of Zeus’s thigh (GM 1: 56) and of Aurva springing out of his mother’s thigh (MBI, 169-71).

These parallels have been noted and discussed in the past from different viewpoints. I believe they deserve another close look which reveals two things. First, a consideration of the probable dates of composition of the Greek poems and of the Indian epic shows that these tales are independent, involving no borrowing by one culture from the other; they are therefore of common IE origin. Second, such considerations highlight the need for revision of the chronology of ancient Indian texts and the fact that theMBcontains considerable early material; this material consists of myths current in the Vedic period but only briefly or sporadically referred to by the Vedic texts. Much, if not most, of theMBseems to be much older than is generally thought, even though, in its present form it waswritten downperhaps in the third or second century BCE – and some sections even later.

1. Penelope, Draupadī and Chronology

The termsvayaṃvara‘self-choice’, denoting the mode whereby a maiden of thekṣatriya (=royal or baronial) class chooses her husband from among many worthy candidates, does not occur according to the OxfordSanskrit Dictionary (=MSD)before the epics and the Manusmṛti or the Dharmasūtras (Keith, 2: 373), i.e. not before the fifth century BCE (in accordance with the hitherto mainstream academic view of Indian chronology). Two instances of svayaṃvara appear in theMB: in Book I, chs 175-80 is the importantincident in the main story where Arjuna wins Draupadī(who had to choose him after he had won the contest) and in BkIII, chs 50-5, where, in the well-known upakhyāna‘secondarytale’ ofNala, princess Damayantīchooses herbeloved Nala. (Athird svayaṃvarawill bementioned below inn 2.) Damayantī’ssvayaṃvara wasmadedifficult by the advent of four gods(Agni, Indra, Varuṇa, Yama) whoalso wanted herand at the ceremonyall appearedin Nala’s form; but Damayantīrecalledcertain features thegodsretain even when in disguise – eg not sweating and not quite touching the ground but floating just above it –and so she wasable to discern andchoose the real Nala.Draupadī’ssvayaṃvara wasalso not a simple affair: the noble warriors had to compete in archery by stringing a very tough bow and then hitting a very difficult target. Of course, Arjuna won the contest and Draupadīherself.

Ithas beennoted (eg Arora,157-9) that Draupadī’ssvayaṃvara resembles thesituation in Od19, 171-8, where Penelope divulges to Odysseus(unrecognised by her in his old- beggar disguise) her intention to set an archery contest for her suitors and then marry the winner. There are many important differences between the two situations but also important similarities. First, the obvious differences. In the Indian epic the prospective bride is a maiden, a king’s daughter, whohas just reached marriageable age, and the chief suitor, the protagonist, is a young prince, the mightiest of archers, noble-spirited Arjuna, whosimply wants to marry the princess. In the Greek epic, the prospective bride is a married queen, believed by all to be widowed[2], and the suitors whovie for her are rather vile, idle and pleasure-loving princelings while the protagonist, Odysseushimself, the long-lost husband and father nowreturned, will use the archery contest to wreak vengeance on the suitors. The Indian narrative moves quickly to its forgone conclusion without incidents of much suspense or doubts about the outcome, while the Greek plot unfolds slowly with several moments of suspense,even though here too the outcome is predictable. In the Greek epic the godsAthena and Zeus are constantly intervening but no deity intervenes in the Indian incident. Onthe other hand, both narratives agree in that a lady will choose a husband, that a difficult archery contest is set, the protagonist is disguised (Arjuna as a poor brahmin and Odysseusas an aged, wandering beggar warrior), fighting ensues and the hero emerges victorious. Such close similarities indicate that the two tales are related in some way.

Many scholars have adduced, or at any rate thought they found, many additional parallels between theOdysseynarrative and epics in other cultures. First let usexamine the Greek epic and the proposed parallels with NE texts, chieflyGilgamesh(cf Burkert 1991 and 1992; West 1997, which will be West and page number hereafter). There can be little doubt that Homer and Hesiod (and subsequent Greek texts) show influences, even borrowings,from NE sources. Dietrich shows quite adequately that there wasa broad common horizon in religion in the Eastern Mediterranean from Mycenaean and even Minoan times (1974: chs 1-2). But it is not knownand at present cannot be determined exactly what the Greeks borrowed from their NE neighbours and exactly when. What is much more important, these scholars do not take into account three simple facts. (a) The waves of Greek immigrants or invaders might have brought their own traditional lore, preserved through oral transmission – as is easily discernible in the Mycenaean and then the archaic documents (Kazanas 2001b). (b) Some of this lore (cult, or whatever other religious practices, social customs, legendry and poetry) might just be similar to NE lore. (c) Some of the parallels between Greek myths and/or social practices and NE ones may not be borrowingsat all (as scholars think) but Greek indigenous developments. Unlessit is clearly determined what it wasthe Greeks brought with them (and this can be done only by establishing firm parallels with other IE traditions and chiefly the Vedic one) this whole matter of influences and borrowing will remain in misty speculation.

From among the many claims adduced it is easy to accept as a parallel (or even straight borrowing) Penelope’s little ritual (Od 4, 759ff) of bathing and going to her room to pray for the safety of her sonTelemachus, whohas just left on a dangerous journey and the similar behaviour of Ninsun,Gilgamesh’s mother, in similar circumstances, after Gilgamesh’s departure, as pointed out by Burkert (1992: 92ff; West 421). Equally acceptable parallels or connections could be the 17-18 days’ journey to Humbaba’s forest (MM67) and to “the lethal waters” (MM105) and of Odysseus’s voyage from Calypso’s island to that of the Phaeacians (West, 406, 411-2), the name of Circe’s island ‘Aiaia’ and that of the Babylonian Sungod’s wife ‘Aya’ (p 407; the Egyptian and Hebrew‘falcon’ onp 408 seems too complicated and far-fetched) and the stock line of the (rosy-fingered) dawn(MM 91, 100, 130 n 84). But most of West’s other claims are not merely far-fetched but border on the absurd. Circe and Calypso do not“both correspond”, as West writes (pp 405, 408, 411), “in nature and function to the divine alewife Siduri”: unlike Gilgamesh, Odysseussought neither Circe nor Calypso but wascast onto their shores,had a love-affair with both and Circe turned his companions to animals while Calypso offered him immortality, which he refused (but which Gilgamesh ardently searched for); then West shifts ground and suggeststhat Nausica also “is a Siduri figure” (p 412) only to shift again and liken her to Ishtar (p 413) because Nausica had the notion she might marry Odysseus(Od6, 240ff) and Ishtar actually proposed to Gilgamesh (MM77)– even though chaste Nausicain no way whatever resembles the explosive and lascivious NE goddess. It would be too laborious and tedious to discussall West’s “parallels”. In fact some are no parallels at all, like the magic or intelligent, self-steering ship given to Odysseusby the Phaeacians (Od 8, 557ff) and Ur- shanabi’s vessel which had some (undetermined) “things of stone” (MM102, 104, 151) that helped him go safely across “the lethal waters” (West, 415). Others are obviously incidents that a Greek poet could very easily think of for himself, like Menelaus’s affair with a slave- woman, or Penelope’s not taking food and drink because of her distress, or Calypso offering to Odysseus food and drink that “no mortal men consume” (Od5, 197), or the dogs Hephaistos fashioned on either side of the entrance to Alcinous’s palace, or the effective concealment of Odysseus by the gods(Od14, 357), and so on, without the heavy barrage of NE sources that West provides (pp 419, 422, 424, 428). Furthermore, to utilize all these NE sources, the redactor(s) or compiler(s) of the Homeric poems would have to know Egyptian, Akkadian (or Assyrian),Hittite, Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic and Persian and to consult documents written well after their ownperiod; for if we give 550 as an absolute final date for the Homeric epics, the Behistun inscription of Darius (West, 430) cannot be earlier than 522, while the Hebrew writings of Ezekéel (West, 420, 422, 430), Hosea (West, 423) and Malachi (West, 429) belong to a later period (Gordon 1965: 300-1; Dunstan 1998: 231-3). Westseems sointent on piling up all these instances of pointless erudition that he completely disregards the possibility that some of them, like the plant Hermes gives to Odysseusas protection against Circe’s magic (West, 425) or the theme of just and righteous kings in Odyssey, 19, 109ff (West 431) or the archery contest (West 432-3), which we shall examine shortly, may be inherited motifs which the Greeks brought with them, since similar motifs are found in the Vedic tradition too (Kazanas 2001b passim).

Other scholars again find too many resemblances between the Homeric and the Indian epics. Following Dumézil, C. S.Littleton suspects similar themes in theIliadand the Mahābhārataand attempts to convince usthat, among other putative parallels, Hector and Paris correspond to the two younger Pāṇḍavas, the twins Nakula and Sahadeva whoare projections of the Aśvins (1970: 235-6). J.Baldick on his part thinks the Divine Twins (ie the Aśvins) are represented by Achilles and Patroclus (1994: 68). He finds many parallels between theIliadand theRāmāyaṇa(1994: ch 2) and between theOdysseyand theMB (1994: ch 3). He finds many resemblances between Odysseus and Arjuna and many incidents in the two tales. I shall disregard all these (hypothetical) affinities because most seem insignificant, many are quite strained and others seem wholly fortuitous. Asin the case of West’s parallels, many of these are incidents and motifs that any good story-teller anywhere could think out for himself. Forinstance, Baldick thinks Hanuman (MBIII, 146ff) correspondsto Nestor (Od 3)since both are outside themain plot and the firstadvises Bhīma howto proceed while the second tells Telemachus where to go next (1994: 103); or, he finds correspondence between the baldness of Odysseusand the hairlessness of Arjuna when the prince is disguised as an eunuch (pp 133, 167n 49). But isis obvious that Bhīma and Telemachus have no affinities except such as are wholly circumstantial; then, the baldness is quite natural to Odysseussince he begins to age and the hairlessness is quite appropriate to Arjuna in his eunuch-disguise. Such parallels are not convincing because all other attendant circumstances, including the main features of the actors and the action, do not correspond. They are, like those of West, of little value and attempts to make something significant out of them degrade comparative studies.

Not very different is N.J.Allen’s brief study (1993) which, following the tripartite model of Dumézil (and expanding it by adding a fourth function), seeks to establish correspondences between Arjuna’s separation from his brothers, which is in fact one year’s self-exile and wandering around India (MBI, 200-211), and the adventurous return-journeyof Odysseus.He does admit there are many differences, nevertheless he thinks that some 25 similarities are sufficient to showthat the two narratives are related (1993: 41). Hismain parallels are the five females with whom Arjuna and Odysseusget associated in the course of theirwanderings. Hepresents five pairsof correspondingfemales: Draupadīstaying in Indraprastha and Penelope remaining in Ithaca; Ulūpī, theSnake-princess withsome supernatural powers,and Circe; Citraṅgadāand Calypso; Vargāand her four sisters, all nymphs in crocodile-form, corresponding to the Sirens and Scylla and Charybdis; and Subhadrāand Nausica. Allen has to stretch these parallels considerably and juggle with the incidents since the sequence differs in the two narratives. Arjuna meets Citraṅgadābefore Vargāand she has no resemblance to goddessCalypso in that she is an ordinary princess who, moreover, bears a son to Arjuna. Vargāand her sisters are in reality nymphs transformed into crocodiles by an ascetic’s curse and Arjuna deliberately helps them recover their former condition; they have eaten some people but otherwise have little to do with Scylla and Charybdis and even less with the Sirens. Finally, Arjuna marries Subhadrāwhile Odysseushas no love-affairwith Nausica – andsoAllen dragsin UrvaśīfromMBBook III (p 41), disregarding the fact that the Poona Critical Edition of theMBand van Buitenen in his translation exclude Arjuna’s encounter with and rejection of the celestial nymph from the main text as a later addition. Allen thinks that both narratives derive from a common IE original and that the Indian tale is more conservative (p 42), but all this is highly dubious and we shall not pursue it any further.

To return to ourPenelope-Draupadī parallel,the archerycontest is obviouslyan important element – and we shall see later that it is not isolated to theOdysseyin the Greek tradition nor to theMBin the Vedic tradition. Yet West’s position on this is very curious (1998: 431-3). He quotes two Egyptian inscriptions of c 1420 that praise Amenophis II for his prowessin archery. He then mentions iconographic material that showspharaohs Ay (c 1320) and Rameses II (c 1350) shooting with their bowsat targets that “might at a casual glance be taken for double axes” and (following W. Burkert and P. Walcot) finds it very plausible thatmisrepresentations of such scenes “mayhave given rise to the idea of shooting througha line of axes” (p 432: my emphasis). All this, of course, is just as possible as so many other things in daily life are possible – misreading something, being witness to a murder, being struck by lightning and similar accidents or coincidences – but no more. Then West, in his passion for piling up parallels even if they are irrelevant, mentions a Hittite narrative about an archery contest for which there is no prize whatever but only the king’s satisfaction in winning. Not one of these citations has the slightest affinity with Penelope’s situation –a queen thought to be a widow who is pressingly courted bya bunch of repugnant idlers and manages, with Athena’s help, to think out various devices to protect herself and her young son and keep the vile suitors at a distance while hoping for her husband’s return. One can’t help wondering why West mentions them. One’s wonderment increases when Westrefers to theRāmāyaṇaand Mahābhārata andthe epic ofAlpamysh, admits the existence of parallels but states “it is something that we cannot pursue here” (p 433)![3] One can only suppose that (along with Burkert, Walcot and other scholars cited, p 432) West decided that archaic Greek literature must derive only from NE sources. Why the Greeks,a people obviously fond of fighting, piracy, pillage and conquest, who obviously used bows and axes in their fighting as well as swordsand spears, could not think for themselves of archery contests and needed diverse NE sources (some misrepresented), is a mystery none of these scholars bothers to consider. In any case, as all these NE texts are too palpably irrelevant to Penelope’s situation, I shall ignore them in the subsequent discussion.

Many Greek legends must have arrived with the Greeks in North-Western India and no doubt spread about, some of them finding their way into different genres of Indian literature, perhaps even the epics (Arora 1981: 177-81). T. Brekke examined the possibility of the Daidalos-Ikaros story entering the Vinaya texts of the Mūlasarvāstivādins (1998). However, the Damayantī-Penelopeparallel, the Four/Five-Ageslegend and othermotifs common to the Greek and Vedic traditions seem to be of IE descent, as Arora admits (p 177). Now,some late Greek writers like Sikeliotis, Plutarch and D.Laertius, report that Greeks travelled as far as India in the eighth or sixth or other centuries before Alexander’ scrossing of the river Indusin 326. Such travels would have been extremely difficult if one considers the distance and the dangers involved. The same would apply to Indians travelling to Greece and back. Consequently, it is very unlikely that any significant or detailed lore got transferred from one country to the other from Mycenaean times to Alexander’s thrust into Asia. Thus any similarities in the two cultures, when not fortuitous because of independent development and innovation, or when not shown to be a borrowing in the post-Alexander period after Greeks settled in Bactria and thereabout, would be due to a common origin in the PIE phase before the dispersal of the various branches. What should be ruled out is very significant direct influence, contact and exchange between Greeks and Indians up to c 320 BCE. (Possible insignificant contacts between Greeks and Indians from ancient to post-Alexander times are examined extensively by J.W. Sedlar; for this particular period see her study, 1980: 73-9.)

Some writers, mentioned byS. Kak (2000 b), suggest that there may have been diffusionand exchange of mythological and philosophical ideas and motifs through intermediaries in theNE. This ispossible, of course,but neither thePenelope-Draupadī incident northe second nor the fourth, examined below, appear in any form in the NE cultures. Sothis avenue must be precluded.

Some scholars like Arora and Baldick believe that since “Iranians and Indians had translated Homer into their ownlanguages”, it would be quite possible that “those parts of the Indian epics which most resemble Homer represent borrowingsand additions” (Baldick, p 151) on the part of the Indians. Such borrowings could not, of course, have taken place much before 300, because even if Alexander himself had ordered the production of such translations, it would have taken some decades before these spread among the Indians and their literature, if at all. Nevertheless, Baldick thinks also that “a transmission of Indo-Iranian epics to the Greeks” soundsquite convincing (ibid, 150). Baldick gives no reasons for his beliefs that Homer borrowed from Indo-Iranians, say in the eighth century (the Iranians have no narrative similar to theOdyssey) or that the Indians borrowed from the “translated” Homer. Arora too doesnot explain whyhe thinks the Draupadī-Penelope parallel isof common PIE origin and not Indian borrowing, say, in the third century. Let us therefore examine the texts and dates involved.

Let ustake it for granted that Homer’sOdyssey reached its present form by 550; 700 or 600 would do just as well and would make no difference in relation to the Indian epic. It is notsoeasy with theMahābhārata, even if we take it as completed in its present form by 300 CE. Two questions arise naturally: a) when wasit began? b) at what approximate dates did it acquire its various accretions?…

The second question is easier to answer. There are some very few verses that can be dated – so it is thought – with reasonable certainty. Such isMBIII, 186, 30, which speaks of Scythians and Greeks(śakasandyavanas=Ionians) being kings in India. Here it is thought that since Greeks came c300 and Scythians in the second century BCE, this and similar verses cannot be earlier than this period. But even this is not really socertain as it looks at first sight. The Indians could have known of both peoples long before, though to foresee that they would come to India and establish their own kingdoms in the North is stretching considerably the boundsof credibility. Nonetheless, all one can say with certainty is that these ślokas were interpolated – as many others suspected by various scholars – at this period, ie second century. Apart from these instances it is impossible to say when such a story as that of Nala, for example, wasinserted into the epic (Bk III) and howmuch of it at one or another date.

Regarding the start of the epic, J.A.B. van Buitenen placed its origins “somewhere in the eighth or ninth century” but finds a “general agreement that the oldest portions preserved are hardly older than 400” (1980: xxiv-xxv). Now whenscholars refer to “general agreement” or “consensus”, they usually imply that there is no clear decisive evidence – in this case definite historical data to fix the chronology. Indeed, these dates are wholly conjectural and will not stand even on van Buitenen’s own reasoning.

He arrives at his conclusions by considering (ibid) that king Janamejaya is mentioned in ŚatapathaBrāhmaṇaXIII,5,4,1,whilehisfatherParikṣitislaudedinAtharvavedaXX, 12, 7-10 and the descendants ofParikṣit are mentioned as a vanished dynasty inBṛhadāraṇyakaUpaniṣad XIV, 9, 7. Van Buitenen givesc 600 for the Upaniṣad(1980/1973:XXV) while W. O’Flaherty gives 700 (1975:17) – the disparity showingthat both dates are conjectural. Even if we accept van Buitenen’s date, even so the oldest portions ofMBshould be assigned toc 700 and not 400. Hecites alsoĀśvalāyanaGṛhyasūtraIII, 4,ŚaṅkhāyanaŚrautasūtraXV, 16, and Pāṇini IV, 2, 56 all of which mention a Bhārata text[4] (ibid, XXV).Here Pāṇini is perhaps more important because his grammar putsa brake on the unchecked change of Sanskrit. Unfortunately, no certain date can be given for Pāṇini either: some eminent scholars have placed him in the eighth (Bhandarkar and Goldstücker) and others in the fourth (Renou) century (soWinternitz 3: 461-2). If for convenience we place Pāṇini and the Sūtras c 500, we can still obtain the date 700 for the oldest portions. Then, van Buitenen thinks that the brahmins wanted to preserve the records of the epic dynasties and therefore did not alter, as they could easily have done, the unique polyandrous marriage of Draupadīwhich musthave been repugnant tothem. Sowecan safely assume thatmuch more original material (far less offensive) wasretained – even if not with the fidelity showntothe sacredṚgveda. Somescholars believethat Draupadī’smarriage and Vāyu’s prominence (in being embodied in Bhīma) indicate “an older stage even than Vedic mythology” (Polomé1989: 99)[5]: this implies that some material, although cast in the post-Vedicidiom, is older than theṚgveda–which implication is an ill-judged conjecture. Undoubtedly the wondering or stationary bards added to this material as years passed, and undoubtedly language changes over the centuries produced further alterations, but it is not possible to assign even approximate dates to all these changes.

SimilarconsiderationsarefoundinBrockington(1998).TheoriginsoftheMBfall somewherebetweenthe9thand8thcenturiesbuttheoldestpartspreservedarec400BC (p25-6).Insubsequentpagesareexaminedtheopinionsandmethodsofotherscholars (p43ff).HeconcludesthatthestyleoftheMBsuggeststheperiod1st-3rdcenturyAD(147- 8).HethenrejectsB.B.Lal’sidentificationofthePGWinNorth-IndiansiteswiththeAryans intheMBacceptingA.Parpola’sviews,whichseemtosuithisown(p159ff).Itiscurious that he does not examine any further archaeological nor astronomical evidence.

I wonder again about the date 300 (or 400) CE given as consensusfor the completion of the extantMB. This too is based on conjecture. In fact in the MBthere is no overt material fromafter the late part of the first century BCE. Therelation of theMB to the Rāmāyaṇa and the Manusmṛtiis undetermined. The influence could run and probably did run either way. Then there is the much discussed matter of the “Pahlavas” whoare generally thought to be the (Persian) Parthians who established an independent Kingdom c 250 by the Arsacides. At about 150 they conquered Bactria after the Scythians (śakas) and in the latter part of the first century BCE occupied regions of N-WIndia (Basham 1961: 57-61). This is probably very significant – but in the opposite way from that adopted by scholars whopostulate a date in the 3rd or 4th century CE (see Winternitz 1: 444-6). Aswasmentioned earlier,MBIII, 186, 30 speaks of the foreign Yavanas and Śakas (and others) whoruled (N-W) parts of India, butit does not mention the Pahlavas. A passage inManusmṛti (X,44)has a similar list (Kāmbojas, Yavanas, Śakas) but also the Pahlavas. I would have thought that the epic bard would have included the Pahlavas if he were writing after their invasion as this would have lent more support to his argument/prophecy (that foreigners rule India because the world deteriorates in the Kali Yuga, the last and worstof the four Ages).The Pahlavas are mentioned in other parts of theMB, but Indians could have knowledge of them asa people from earlier periods, as they knew of the Ionians (through the Persians, at least, if not directly). E W Hopkins, who perhaps more than any other Western scholar studied theMB in a series of articles and a monumental work(1901), settled eventually for a lower limit100 BC as“the most probable date” (1915:1). J.N. Farquhar too places the date sometime “after the fall of the Maurya empire” at “the time of the Śuṅgas” (1920: 83-4), ie c middle of 2nd century BCE. I don’t doubt that many verses, if not whole sections, were interpolated in subsequent centuries but I think the bulk of the MBwas fixed c 150 BCE.

Thuseven in the light of the preceding considerations the Draupadīsvayaṃvara, which certainly belongs to the older strata of theMB, could without the least strain be placed in the fifth or sixth century and therefore well out of any influence from translations of Homer, that might have existed after 300 BCE.

However, the preceding discussion takes as actual the chronology adopted byvan Buitenen, Brockington and the mainstream academic scholars. This chronology is of course entirely conjectural. AsAklujkar cogently observed “onlyrelative chronology has been well argued for” (1996: 66). These “absolute” dates –RV c 1000, Brāhmaṇas c 800, Upanishadsc 600 and so on– seem now utterly preposterous and based on the purest of misconceptions and prejudices. It will be noticed that in this chronological framework there is no provision for any secular literature, animal fables, fairytales, historical narratives, battle-sagas and the like. Equally important, Archaeology has not produced one shard of evidence that Aryans entered into Saptasindhu c 1500; in fact no foreign people entered prior to c 550 BCE. This being so, the conventional chronology that has tyrannised Indology for some 200 years has not a leg to stand on– other than the momentum of mechanical repetition.

There is now abundant evidence that the bulk of theRVwas composed in pre-Harappan times, ie in the 4^th millennium, if not earlier (Kazanas 1999, 2001, 2003; Levitt 2003). The dominant native tradition, albeit late, (ie Āryabhatta; for different ideas see Kak 2000:66), saysthat the Vedas were arranged on the eve of the great Bhārata war which is 35 years before onset of the Kali Yugac 3102[6]. If the Vedas, or the bulk of them, were arranged at that time, then we can envision the completion of the Brāhmaṇas and early Upanishads in the next 500 years or so and the formulation of some Sūtra-texts c 600-2500 (eg Śulbasūtras ascribed to Āpastambha and Baudhāyana). The core of theMBmust have appeared shortly before and it is likely that other secular literature, probably not without some didactic message, wasinterwoven with such narratives as the exile of the Pāṇḍavas and Arjuna’s winningof the archery contest and Draupadī:there is nothingreligious or cultic inthese tales. There must have been many others: (grand-) parents everywhere have always told tales to their (grand-) children. Ofcourse we don’t knowand, with the available evidence, cannot knowexactly what that “core” and other tales were like. Mostprobably there were several such “cores” early on in different parts of North India: these subsequently developed into cycles of poems or longer narratives and eventually into the different versions of the epic. But all this is conjecture.

One certain fact, very relevant to our discussion, is the final desiccation of the river Sarasvatīfrom c 2100 to1900 (Rao 1991: 77-9).It would be afterthis period, ie c1900, that would follow the massive movement of different tribes eastward into the Gaṅgetic plain. The archaeological evidence of the 1940’s cited by van Buitenen (1980: 9,n 12) is now well superseded. The accretions of the second and especially the third perimeter, as van Buitenen calls them, and the politics concerning alliances and predominance between the Kurus, Pāñcālas, Vṛṣṇis, et al (1980: xix-xxii and 10-11) may well belong to the shifts of population and the establishment of new power-balances in the Yamuna-Ganges Mesopotamia at this period, ie 1900-1500. But all this is sheer conjecture. We don’t know.

What is not conjecture is the evidence of Archaeoastronomy, in particular BNNAchar’s finds given in a talk in Montreal in 2001. Professorin Memphis (USA),Achar has through a combination of computer programmes reconstructed the star positions in the ancient sky above North India (back to several millennia BC). He examined some astronomical references in BksIII, Vand XIIIof theMB. Hisskymap showedthat of all calculations by Westerners and Indians only that of K.S.Raghavan (1969) wascorrect: the exact year for the great war of the Bharatas on the basis of all these data seems to be 3067. In Bk V,to take someexamples, Kṛṣṇa leavesfor Hastināpura onthe day oftheRevatīnakṣatrain the monthKaumuda(=Kātrika,ie Oct-Nov)and arrives thereon theday ofBharaṇī(81, 6ff); on the day ofPuṣya Duryodhana rejects all offers of peace; Kṛṣṇa departs on the day ofuttaraphālguni and saystoKarṇa that theamāvāsyā(day of the New Moon) will come after 7 days then Karṇa describes the positions of some planets at that time (141, 7-10). All these data converge in agreement with the skyformation only in the year 3067. Whatever other data are contained in theMBand whatever other dates are suggested thereby, the passages with the astronomical facts for the year 3067 remain unaffected. The ancient Indian tradition of the Purāṇas and astronomers wasfairly correct in placing the onset of the Kali Yuga at 3102 and the Bharata war 35 years earlier: the disparity is only 70 years. The medieval historian Kalhana (and his tradition), of course, seems to agree fully with Achar’s finds, since he had set the beginnings ofa new cycle at 3076 (Elst 1999: 104). Consequently, the core of theMBmust go back to the very early 3rd millennium. (See also last section, Conclusion, for additional astronomical data.) However, I would opt for the traditional date 3137 for the war itself. The date 3067 is not of the war but of the start of the poems and songsabout the war. It is but natural that bards would start singing about that even about three generations later and would use the star-formations of their owndate.

What does the internal evidence of parallels tell us? Isit likely that the Greek material from Odyssey, 19, onwardscould have influenced the corresponding incident in Bk I of MB?…It is possible, ofcourse, but most unlikely.Draupadī’smarriage to thefive Paṇḍava brothers is too important an element in the story – not least the Kauravas’ insulting behaviour towards her (MB, II, 60-3) – to be regarded as a late accretion of the third or second century BCE. Aswassaid earlier, the brahmins would have had no reason to insert this irregular polyandrous marriage into their Fifth Veda, as theMBcame to be known: if the marriage had no venerable historical tradition behind it, it would not have been introduced, or, if already inserted (for what reason?), it would have been extirpated. Norcan this incident be claimed to be an earlier motif than, say, the archery contest. Besides, some scholars discern many more parallels in theOdysseyand MB(Odysseusand Arjuna), as I have indicated – which implies much more borrowing. We must, further, take into account that the motif of stringing alarge bow– adifficult task for theordinary warriors – isnot isolated in theDraupadī svayaṃvara: apart from Rāma whoperforms a similar task at Janaka’s court breaking Śiva’s mighty bow and so winning Sītā(Ra I, 67) the theme is found in some BuddhistJatakastories (Arora 1981: 157-8). Rāma himself has to face another test in archery when Sugriva prepares on the Malaya hills a series of seven trees through which Rāma’s arrow must pass (Ra IV,8). Then the svayaṃvara itself (without the archery contest) has a repeat in thetale of Nala when Damayantī,in order to get back herlosthusband,announcesa(second) svayaṃvara (MBIII, 68), which is in effect a test for a fast chariot-driver like Nala. Thus the Draupadīsvayaṃvara with itsarchery contest canbe regarded assecurely indigenous tothe Indian tradition. The Penelope parallel in theOdysseyis also not isolated. In one legend king Eurutos of Oichalia promises his daughter Iole to the man who would vanquish him in an archery contest – and although Herakles won, the king did not honour his promise (Odyssey8, 223-8; GM2: 158-9; Kerényi 1974: 187-9 and plate 41 with reproduction of one of several vases showingHerakles and others with bowsat Oichalia). Yet another chariot-race test occurs in the legend of Marpessa: her father Euenus would give her to the winner whereas the loser(s) would forfeit their head; indeed, many lost their heads in this way but Idas, Poseidon’s son, carried Marpessa away ona winged chariot given him by his father (Iliad9, 555ff,GM 1: 246-7). Penelope’s plan is also not an isolated instance in the Greek culture.

We can safely assume nowthat, since both Greek and Indian tales seem to be independent indigenous motifs, they have a common origin in the PIE stock of legendry.

2. Peleus - Thetis and Śantanu - Gaṅgā

In the Iliadwe learn from different passages in different booksthat Achilles is the sonof Nereid Thetis and of mortal King Peleus (Il1, 357-420; 16, 11-6, 33-5, 138-44; 18, 35-62, 432-49; 23, 84-90; 24, 83-6). To have the myth complete, however, Homer’s fragments need to be supplemented by accounts from later mythographers and writerslike Pindar and Herodotus, but mainly Lycophron’s Alexandra(orCassandra, 178, with Tjetzesscholia),and Apollonius Rhodius (ArgonautsI, 224, 558, 582; IV, 790, 816) and Apollodorus (BibliothēkēIII, 13, 5-7). The core of this myth is that Zeus contrived to have Thetis marry Peleus, who nonetheless had to win her by force; she bore him seven sons, Achilles being the seventh; the six were nearly made immortal by Thetis whocast them into the fire (or boiling water) but in fact perished swiftly; Peleus snatched Achilles from her before the rite wascompleted sothat Achilles remained mortal and vulnerable at his ankle only; angry at Peleus’s interference, Thetis left him and returned to her father’s home and her friends in the sea. (According to scholiast Servius on Virgil’s AeneidVI,57, Thetis wasmaking Achilles invulnerable by dipping him into the waters of the river Styx: this version is significant in that it links up better with the Indian myth.)

Very similar is the legend of the marriage of the mortal King Śantanu and rivergoddess Gaṅgā(MBI, 92-3). Here, Gaṅgāmarried king Śantanu on condition that he would not interfere with any of her actions, even if he found them disagreeable. She bore him seven sons and threw every one into the Ganges saying “I do youa favour”. Śantanu restrained himself all seven times but when the eighth son was born, he stopped her. She acquiesced but explaining that the sonswere in fact incarnations of the divine Vasus(the eighth one being Dyaus)whom she had undertaken to release from their mortal frame as soonas born, she left him and went to her divine condition; she took the baby-boy with her but some years later gave him to his father and the boy grewup to be the mighty warrior Bhīṣma (MBI, 94).

The affinities between the two legends are obvious. In both a goddessof the waters (sea in the Greek tale, the river Ganges in the Indian) marries a mortal king. Here we must note also that there is involved an element of transformation: in the Greek tale Thetis resists Peleus and changes into fire, water and beast, before she surrenders (Apollodorus III, 13, 5); inthe Indian narrative Gaṅgāasa lovely maiden meets first kingPratīpa, Śantanu’s father, who does not take her but promises to have a son who will do so and Gaṅgāreturns to the watery element and awaits Śantanu’s arrival to re-appear as a beautiful maiden (MBI, 91- 92). They both marry, compelled more or less, within a larger frame of events that involves other deities (Zeus in the one, Brahmāand the Vasusin the other). Then each gives birth to several baby-boys (seven in the Greek, eight in the Indian) and leaves her husband when he intervenes to save, as he thinks, the last one; they both give immortality to the youngsters, but in a way that appears as murder to the father and to any ordinary mortal. Only the last one is saved in each tale, and both boysgrowinto very mighty warriors. The parallel here has an additional feature in that both warriors knowthat they are to die in the war and both more or less choose the time of their death.

Since the similarities are close, the two myths must be related somehow. Doesone tradition borrow from the other? Do they both borrow from a third source? Or are they, like the Draupadī-Penelope parallel,independent and indigenoustales that havetheir origin inthe older common PIE stock?

We must at the outset rule out any borrowing on the part of the Greeks. Aswassaid earlier, it would have been almost impossible for the two traditions to have had significant cultural exchanges prior to Alexander’s invasion late in the 4th century. Since the Peleus- Thetis marriage and Achilles are present in theIliadand this epic in its extant form cannot be later than 550, that is 250 years earlier at least, the Greeks did no borrowing. It may be argued that since Homer, Pindar and Herodotus do not mention many boys nor their baptism in fire or water, the later Greek sources may have borrowed this motif. This is possible, of course, but these sources mention fire as the means for immortality not water and this we find also in theHymn to Demeterwhere the goddess would have made prince Demophoön “unaging and undying” (l 242) by holding him over the fire if his mother Metaneira had not intervered. Furthermore, it is not very likely that Lycophron, writing in the middle of the 3rd century, would have heard the Śantanu-Gaṅgātale and introduced six brothers to Achilles; for Lycophron alone mentions the seven baby-boys (Scheer 1958: vol 2, p 84). We must rule out also a third source that could have provided an origin for both because no such tale appears anywhere else in the NEand the Greek environs.

We are now left with the possibility that Indians borrowed from the Greeks from the reported translations. However, this is most unlikely for several reasons. First Homer’s epics say nothing about the number of children and their baptism in fire (or water). The Indian narrative in theMBis told in some 55 couplets. The Greek tale is not found in any single Greek text and it is unlikely that all would have been translated or that Indians would have been able to consult them all. We could speculate that the Greek tale reached India complete by word of mouth and the 7 boys became 8 to fit with the Vasus. But here we meet with other difficulties. The most important consideration is that Śantanu is mentioned inRVX, 98, where his kingdom suffers from drought and Devāpi prays for rain;NiruktaII, 10-11, and BṛhaddevatāVII,155, state that Śantanu and Devāpi are brothers, whothen appear as Pratīpa’s sonsin theMBI 90, 46, where Devāpi is said to enter the forest while still a child. There are additional considerations. Unlike Thetis (and the Vasus)whomust act under compulsion from higher forces, Gaṅgāassumes a woman’s form and marries Śantanu out of friendship with the Vasus.Then we note that the Greek fire-ritual is changed into a plain drowning in the river whereas it would have been just as simple to retain the fire-ritual since several hymns in the RVstate that Agni gives to man immortality (eg I, 31,7). Alsothe Śantanu-Gaṅgāpair isnot in itsessentials verydifferent from thePurūravas-Urvaśī pair (RV X, 95; ŚB XI,5, 1)[7]: in this tale too we have awater-nymph uniting with a mortal king; she subsequently leaves him because (in the Brāhmaṇatext) of an unkept promise and reunites with him later helping him to rise through a fire-sacrifice to the divine condition and immortality. In the Peleus-Thetis and Śantanu-Gaṅgātales it is not the kings whobecomeimmortal but theirboys.Furthermore, Bhīṣma isa very important figure,whosepart in the main story spansthe action from Bk I to Bk XIII,when he dies. Even if we excludethe lengthy discoursesin Bks XII and XIII,Bhīṣma’s role andinvolvement remain very considerable. While he knows and himself can determine the exact hour of his death, which can be regarded as a trait he shares with Achilles, he does not otherwise resemble the Greek hero in the slightest.

Consequently is is safe to assume that the Greek and Indian tales developed independently of each other having at a more remote past branched out from a common PIE stem.

3.  Hesiod’s Five Races and the Indian Four Yugas.

The legend of the Five Races in Hesiod’sWorks and Days, 109-201, and the Four Yugas (=Ages) in India (MBIII, 14-8, 1866-9) has parallels in NE cultures and must therefore be discussed with reference to the NE sources as well.

In his edition ofWorks and Days (hereafter, W and page-number), ML West examines four “striking oriental parallels” – from the Zoroastrians, the Judaic Book of Daniel, the Indian tradition and the Mesopotamian culture (1978: 174-7). He concludes: “Mesopotamia is a likelier place of origin. It waswell situated to disseminate ideas to the Persians, the Indians, the Jewsand the Greeks … Greece’s oriental contacts in the eighth century were primarily Semitic; [this] is the most probable time for the myth to have come … Nineveh- Karkemish-Posideion-Chalcis-Boeotia would be a plausible enough route”. He rests with this plausibility (p 177).

WestgivesagooddetailedanalysisoftheHesiodicaccount(WD109-201)but overlooksonenoteworthyfact,namelythatthereisnocleardescriptionofexactlyhowand whytheseraceswerecreated.FirstwascreatedthegoldenracebytheOlympianimmortals atthetimeofKronos(109ff)–butwearenottoldwhotheseOlympianswereandhowthey wererelatedtoKronosnorinwhatmannertheycreatedthegoldenraceofmortals.Thenthe Olympianscreatedthesilverrace(127ff).ThethirdraceofbronzewascreatednotbytheOlympiansbutbyZeus(142ff):herewearenottoldwhyZeustookoverthecreationof mortalsbutwearetold(orsoismostlybelieved)thatthebronzeracesprangoutofashtreesekmelian;thuswewonderwhyZeusshouldatthispointtakeoverandwhythepoetshould givetheoriginofthisracealone.Afterwards,againZeuscreatedthefourthraceofgodlike heroes(157-9).Finallycamethe“iron”generation(176)–but,here,alsonooriginormode ofcreationisgiven,notevenZeus.Theoriginofthebronzeracefrommeliaislinkedwith meliēisi‘raceofmortalssprangfromash-trees’inTheogony563;anotherinterpretationhas “Meliannymphs”connectingthiswithnumphasmeliasinTheogony187(W179)[8].Both interpretationsoriginateintwoancientcommentators,EustathiusandProclus(White:13,n1; 93, n 2; 121 n 1); but also Hesychius with melias karpos to tōn anthrōpōn genos (GEL suppl).Somescholarscombinethetwoandhaveashtree-nymphsengenderhumansin general(GM38n4;Kerényi209).Othersseeinekmelianonlyareference(asinHomer)to ashwood-spears(White,13n1),thatisanadverbialphrasequalifyingdeinonandobrimon: ‘a race terrible and mighty because of their ashwood-spears’.

Ifwelookatthebaretextwithouttheinterpretationsofancientandmodern commentators,weseethatthetextnarratesasuccessionofhumangenerationsincreasingly deteriorating;thisdeteriorationisanadditionalorparallelreasonwhyatthepoet’stime mankindisinasorrystate–apartfromZeusgivingtothemPandorawithherjarofills.The textisnotreallyconcernedwithanthropogony.Ifitwere,itwouldhavegivendetailsofthe genesisofeachraceandnotonlyofthethirdone–ifthat.Infactthearchaictextscontainno anthropogonicaccounts.TheadhoccreationofPandora(WD60ff)cannotbetakenassuch, sincemankindalreadyexisted.Accountsofanthropogonycomelater,withAnaximander where,accordingtotheextantfragments,menemergefromfishorsimilarcreaturesoutof slime(KRS140-1),theOrphicswhereZeuscreatesmortalsfromthesootoftheTitanshe hadblastedbutonlyafterProtogonosandPhaneshadcreatedtheirowndistinctraces(West 1998:75,98,107,139,164,212),andsoon.IfsuchaccountswerecurrentbeforeHesiod,as somesourcessay(West1998:39ff),thenitbecomesevenclearerthatHesiodisnotdealing herewithanthropogony,otherwisehewouldhaveusedthem;ontheotherhand,theymight havebeencurrent,butnotknowntoHesiod.Penelope’swords“Tellmeyourraceand whenceyoucome,foryoudon’tcome,assaidofold,outoftheoakorthestone”(Odyssey19,162-3)implythatsomemencameoutoftheoak(s)orstone(s)andsomefromelsewhere; althroughhereweseepossiblereferencestothelegendofDeucalionandPyrrha(stone)and Theogony 563 (ash-tree), a third source is implied also but left unexplained.

AfurtherproblemliesinHesiod’sstatementsthatthefirsttworaceswerecreatedbythe Olympianimmortals(notKronosorOuranos)andtheotherthreebyZeus.Whowerethe OlympiansthatcreatedthegoldengenerationatthetimeofKronos?…Accordingto Theogony114-20and543ff,ZeusandtheotherOlympians–exceptAphrodite–didnot existthen,noristhereinthesepassagesanymentionofthecreationofmortals.Westthinks theyarethe Titans(whichones?)andthatHesiodisnotcarefulinhisuseofOlumpiadōmat’echontes‘thosewhodwellonOlympus’(W179).Thismayberightbutapartfromthefact thattheTitansdidnotdwellonOlympus,they(ormanyofthem)were  certainlynot athanatoinorweretheysaidinanytexttocreateothercreatures.So whowerethese immortal Olympians?

Thesituationisverypeculiar.IcanonlysupposethatHesiod(orwhoever)hadbefore himseveralthreadsoflegendsandwovethemtogetherasbesthecould.Somewerebrought bytheGreeksthemselvesintheirIEheritage,nodoubtalteredbythepassageofmany centuriesandperhapsdyedwithcontactswithothercultures.Others,ofanewerandbrighter make, came from the Near East, perhaps via the route suggested by West.

Westopted,asmentionedearlier,forMesopotamiaastheoriginalsourceofthese legends.Thisispossible,ofcourse,butnotborneoutbytheavailabledata,anditisapity thatWestdidnotpursuetheseingreaterdetail.Ithasbeenfashionablesincethe1960’sto findaffinitiesandcontactswith,andborrowingsandinfluencesfromNEcultures–justasin theearlynineteenthcenturyscholarshadtheirmindonIndiaandinthelatenineteenthon Egypt.Nodoubtsatietywillcome,orsomeothereventwilloccur,andthependulumof interestwillswinginadifferentdirection.Hesiod’smythdoesnotseemtoderiveasawhole fromNEsources.Itisanamalgamofdisparateelementsandsomeofthesearenotfoundin theNearEast,onlyintheVedictradition.Aconsiderationofthechronologyofthetexts involvedwouldpointtothesamedirection.Westisquitewrongtolistalltheparallelshehas collectedtogetherasofthesamechronologicalvalueandnotdistinguishbetweenthem accordingtoapproximatedatesofcomposition(seealsoWest1971:37-46,withmotifsfrom Indian,Judaic,Egyptian,ZoroastrianandNorsetraditions;andp218,n2,withanother collection).

WecaneasilyfirstputasidetheJudaicBookofDaniel.Itistruethatinchapter2ofthis textDanielrecapturesthedreamwhichKingNebuchadnezzarhadseenbutforgotten,then relatesandexplainsittohim.Thedreamisofalargeimagewithheadofgold,breastand armsofsilver,bellyandthighsofbrass,legsofironandfeetofironmixedwithclay:the headsymbolizesNebuchadnezzar’sownkingdom,andtheotherfourpartsfoursuccessive kingdoms,oneinferiortotheformer;afterthefifthone,whichhasnounity,Godwillsetup anewkingdom“whichshallneverbedestroyed”(Daniel,II,1-44).Themetalsandthefive kingdomsdoprovideadistantparallelbutnomore.TheBookofDanielintheOld Testament was according to West written c 166 BC (W 175); being some 500 years later than Hesiod it could hardly have influenced him and sowe can discard it as a possible source.

However,theJudaictraditionhas,intheearlierbooksthatcomprisetheTorah,and specificallyinGenesis,anelementthatisalsopresentintheHesiodicmyth,namelythe shorteningofmen’slifespanfromtheepochbeforetheFloodandafter.Inthefirstperiodthe descendantsofAdamlivemanycenturies,Methuselahreaching969years(Genesis,ch5) whereasinthesecondthedescendantsofNoahreachscarcely400years(ch12)andlater patriarchslikeAbrahamliveonly175years(ch25).Butthesepeopledonotliveless becausetheirmodeoflifebecomeslessvirtuousasisthecasewithHesiod’sraces;evenin theJudaicParadiselifewasnotentirelyfreeofevilsinceAdamandEvedisobeyedGod, their Lord. This motif of shorter life may derive from Persian or Mesopotamian sources.

AlthoughMesopotamianliteraturealsocontainsthisbeliefintheprogressiveshortening ofman’slife,asisevidencedintheirking-lists(W176),thistoocannotberegardedasa probablesource.Apartfromtheante-andpost-deluvianperiods,wefindnoAgesorracesof menwithdistinctivefeatures,diminutionofvirtueandmetallicquality.Consequentlyapart fromthelocationofMesopotamiaandtheearlydateoftheking-lists,itisdifficulttosee whyWest chooses this as the “likelier place of origin” for the Hesiodic legend[9].

AmuchmorelikelysourceistheIraniantradition.Thesurvivingtextsherealsoare muchlaterthanHesiod.Infact,thePahlevitextsmentionedbyWestarefromtheChristian era,butsince,asBoycewrites,theyderivefromtheZendAvesta,theZoroastrianScriptures (1991:379ff),theymaybelongtothesixthcenturyBC“andpossiblymanycenturiesearlier” (Dunstan1998:284).Inthesetheprophethasthevisionofatreewithfourbranches–of gold,ofsilver,ofsteelandofironalloy;theserepresentthefoursuccessiveagesintowhich thereligionofZoroasterwillpassaswickednessincreases,earth’sfertilitydiminishesand menbecomesmallerinstature.Asecondversionwithanimageofsevenbranchesofseven metalsandsevenperiodshasnothingmoreofrelevancetotheHesiodiclegendandneednot thereforeconcernus,northefactthatsomeoftheseperiodsareidentifiedwithspecific historicaltimes.(NowtheHebrewswerereleasedfromtheirBabylonianexile-captivityby CyrustheGreatin537andJudeaitselfbecameavassalstateofthePersianEmpireuntil332 whenAlexanderabsorbedallPalestine;therefore,itisquitepossibleandlikelythatthe dreamofthefive-metalstatueinDanielisanadaptationoftheZoroastriantree.)The Zoroastriandetailsofincreasingwickedness,lossofearth’sfertilityanddiminutionofmen, agreeinlargepartwithfeaturesinHesiod’sdescriptionofthefivegenerations.Wecan safelyassumethenthatthePersiantraditionisonesourceforHesiod’slegendor,atleast,for some elements in it.

However,theIranianswereIEandtheirearlyculturehasmanypointsofsimilaritywith theVediconeinIndia.Totakethelanguagealone,AvestanandVedicaresoclosethatoften passagesfromtheonelanguagecanberenderedintotheotherbysound-changesonly:Indo- IranianisgenerallyregardedasadistinctbranchofIE.[10]  Soitshouldcausenosurprisethat asimilarlegendabouttheAgesorgenerationsofmanappearsintheVedictraditionalso. However,herethelegendhasnometalsbuthastheelementofheroeswhichispresentinWorks and Daysbut absent from the Iranian legend.

AtthispointIshouldstatethatIdon’tthinktheGreeksborrowedthislegend(ormuch else)fromIndiaduringthearchaicperiod.Ithinkratherthattheybroughtsomeversion(s)of itwiththem.AsIarguedabove(section1),therewerenoverysignificantcontactsbetween Greeks and Indians prior to 326 BC.

IsympathisewithWest(andanyotherscholar)whowrites,“Oneoftheannoyingthings aboutIndianliteratureisthatitschronologyissouncertain”(1971:34).Weneednotgointo thecausesofuncertainty;sufficeittosaythatsanskritistsandindologistsingeneralhave learnt to live with this. The doctrine of the four Ages appears in detail in the epic Mahābhārata,BkIIIĀraṇyaka-orVana-parvan(=BookoftheForest),chapters148and 186-9,(thoughshorterorlongerreferencesarefoundinotherBooks,egVIandXII).The PoonacriticaleditionoftheepicandJ.A.B.vanBuitenen’stranslation(1981)acceptthese passagesintheVanaparvanasbelongingtothemainstreamnarrativeoftheepic.Thisby itselfdoesnotmeanverymuch,ofcourse(vanBuitenengivesc400fortheoldestpreserved portions,pxxv).ThenativeIndiantraditionplacesthegreatwaroftheBhārataswhichforms themainthemeoftheepic(henceitsname)c3100,butatpresentthisisdisputedbymost academics and, in any case, many of the incidents, tales and doctrines in it are certainly much laterproducts.SotheperiodgivenbyWestas500-100BC(1978:176)isnotunreasonable intheconventionalchronology.TheManusmṛtiwhichalludestothefouragesinch  I, stanzas81-6,can,intheformwehaveit,  beplaced  withinthe  sameperiod.[11]    The ManusmṛtigivesonlythebareessentialsofthedoctrineofthefourAgesandthisimpliesthattheknowledgeofitswideraspectswascurrentthen.Thisknowledgewascurrentearlier also since the four Agesare mentioned sporadically in the Upanishads and the Brāhmaṇas.

Westwaswrongtowritethat“thetheory[ofthe4Ages]isabsentfromtheVedasand Brāhmaṇas”(W176).TheVedic  IndexbyA.A.MacdonellandA.B.Keith,upon  which subsequentstudiesanddiscussionsofthisdoctrinearebased,doesindeeddoubtthepresence ofthefourAgesintheVedasandBrāhmaṇas(vol2,pp192-3,underYuga).Butthetwoscholarsgivenosubstantialreasonsfortheirdoubtotherthantheirownchoiceofaparticular interpretationofcertainpassageswherethewordyugaoccurs.Sanskrityugameans‘team, pair,generation,race,epoch’.Inthesense‘Age’thewordoccursvery  frequentlyintheṚgvedaandwereadof‘formerages’(pūrvāṇiyugāniVII,70,4),of‘futureages’(uttarāyugāniIII,33,8)and‘fromoneagetoanother’(yugeyuge‘ineveryage’:I,139,8),butthe ‘FourAges’(catvāriyugāni)arenotmentioned.In  AtharvavedaVIII,2,21,whichisa hymn-prayer“forexemptionfromthedangersofdeath”(Bloomfield2000:55),weread“Ahundredyears,tenthousandyears,two,three,fouragesallotwetothee…”.Nowthisversecanbeinterpretedinmanywaysaccordingtoone’spredilections.OneIndianscholarfor instancetranslates“Oman,thineistheageofahundredyears,withtwointervalsofdayand nightandthreeseasonsofsummer,winterandrains,andfourstagesofchildhood,youth, middleageandoldage…”(Chand1982:  341)omittingthetermayuta‘tenthousand’, arbitrarilyinsertingthethreeseasonsand  ignoringthatdveyugemeans simply‘two yugas/ages’(andnot‘intervalsofdayand  night’,whichwerementionedintheprevious stanzaasahne…rātraye)andalsothatthecatvāri‘four’doesnotofitselfautomatically denote the four stages of man’s life as stated. There is no real reason why the ‘four ages’ here shouldnotrefertotheFourAgesor  Yugas.True,theFourYugasarenotmentionedbyname,butthenwhyshouldthey?  …(TheVedicIndexwrites:“theinferencefromthis [sequence]seemstobethataYugameansmorethananayuta,butisnotverycertain”.This is very lame, because it is undoubtedly more certain that a Yuga in this sequence means more yearsthanthatitdoes  not.)ThatareferencetotheFourYugasmaybeintendedcanbe supportedbythecontext:subsequentstanzasimploreforimmortality(eg26:“Deathlessbe, immortal[…amṛta]…”)andthisimpliessupercedingtheFourYugaswhichareforthis reason  perhapsallottedinstanza21.SomeofthenamesoftheYugasoccurintwo Brāhmaṇas(VedicIndexibid)andallfourofthemoccurinAitareya,VIII,2,21.Hereagain theVedicIndexdoubtsthemeaningandcitesonescholarwhothoughtthatdice-throwswere meant(aquitelegitimatethought)againstfiveotherswhothoughttheFourYugas  were meant.Formypart,IdothinkthatthedoctrineoftheFourYugaswasknownfullyinthe earlierperiodoftheVedasbecausemuchthatisnotstated(oronlypartlystated),notdefined andnotexplained,insomanycasesintheVedichymnsappearsmorefullyinlatertexts, eventhoughtheremaybeinnovationordeparturefromtheoriginalconcepts.Inmany hymnstherearetantalizinghints,allusions,briefincidentsandsoon,thatsuggesttherewas current a much wider web of mythological knowledge.

Now,thepreceedingparagraphdoesnotaimtoshowthat,aswasmentionedearlier, HesiodborrowedthismythfromIndiansources,butonlythatthedoctrinewaspresentin IndiaaswellasinPersiaandGreece,andisthereforepartoftheinheritedIElore.Some scholars,likeWest(W.177)andA.Arora(1981:183-4,citingothers)thinkthattheIndian version originated in, or was influenced by, NE legends. This is totally improbable. Mesopotamiahadnosuchlegend–atleastintheextantdocuments;ifearlytabletswitha similarlegendareunearthed,thenthesituationwill,ofcourse,needtobere-appraised.The Judaiclegendismuchtoolate.WeareleftonlywiththeIranianmyth,which,again,istoo late, since this is later than the Vedas even if these are placed by the most conservative dating c1000-800.Apartfromallsuchconsiderations,theanalysisthatfollowsofaffinitiesand differencesshowsthatsuchaborrowingbytheIndiansisextremelyunlikely.TheIndian textsnowherealludetothemetallicframeworkpresentintheIranianandGreeklegends.In the discussion that follows the Judaic legend in the Book of Daniel is excluded.

CommontotheGreek,PersianandIndiantraditionsaretheFourAges,althoughthe Greekonehasinadditiontheheroicrace(andPersiatwomoreagesandmetalsinthelater version).Thediminishmentofvirtue,ofman’slifespanandofearth’sfertilityisalso commontoallthreetraditions.Commonalsoisthenoteofprophecythatsoundsinthe description of the final Age (W. 198). However, the series of metals is common to Greece and Persiaonly.TheVedictradition(atleastintheMahābhārata)givesinsteadachangeinthe colourofViṣṇu,thegodwhoembodiestheworld:whitecorrespondstoKṛta,theyugaof harmonyandperfection;redtoTretā,theyugaofknowledge;yellowtoDvāpara,theyugaof passion,fragmentationandmultitudinousritual;blacktoKali,theyugaof  ignorance,selfishnessandlawlessness.ItisworthmentioningherethattheManusmṛti(I,86)prescribes onevirtueorpracticeasappropriateorremedialforeveryyuga:forKṛtaisrecommended tapas‘austerity,innerconcentration’,forTretājñana‘knowledge’,for  Dvāparayajña‘sacrifice’andforKalidāna‘generosity’.TheGreekandtheIndiansourcespresenttheAges assuccessiveperiodswithoutanyvisionsorsymbols,whereastheIranianversiongivesthe visionofatreewithfourbranchesthatrepresenttheAges.TheIndianversionaloneseestheFourAgeswithinalargercycleofuniversalrecurrence[12],which isfirstmentionedinṚgveda X,190, 3, whereas the Greektale alone introduces the generation of heroes.

West thinks that the Greek poet(s) inserted the heroic generation into the NE legend with itsmetallicframesoas“todojusticeto‘folkmemory’”whichharpedbackontheheroesof theThebanandTrojanwars(W.174).Thismaywellbeso.Ifweconsiderthesubtle contradictionsanddifficultiesofHesiod’snarrativementionedatthebeginningofthispaper, wemusttakeitthatthepoethadbeforehimmorethanoneversionofthesuccessionof Ages.Whenweaddthetalesofgodsanddemigods,titansandgiants,centaursandother monstrouscreatures,wecansurmisethatapoet(orcompiler)wouldnothavefounditeasy toaccommodatethemallintoaneatframework.Asfor“thegeneralGreekideaofhistory” whichWestinvokesasfittingforHesiod’slastthreegenerations(leavingoutthegoldenand silverraces),wedon’treallyknowwhatthatwasbeforeHomer’sandHesiod’sworks,butI am inclined to agree with this idea, as I showbelow.

Iproposeadifferentexplanation,basedonseveralindicationsthatthebasicideaofthe successionofthegenerationswastheprimaryelement,anIEinheritedone,suitably transformed with Greek innovations, and that the metallic scheme waswelded onto it.

Tobeginwith,therearesomeverbalandconceptualparallelsbetweentheGreekandthe Vedic–which,however,Iadmit,maybewhollyfortuitous.InHesiod’ssilverage,people failtoservethegods(athanatoustherapeuein)andtooffersacrifices.IntheIndianversion[13] thisfailureoccursinthethirdyuga,correspondingtoHesiod’sbronzerace;theIndian secondyugahasasitsmainfeaturetheperformanceofsacrifice(andManu,aswenoted above,recommendsthisasaremedyforthethirdyuga).Theinconsistencybetweenthetwo versionsisnotsoimportant(whenthetimeinvolvedafterthedispersalistakeninto account);moresignificantisperhapstheactualmentionofsacrifice.Asecondinteresting correspondenceisfoundinthelastAgeofbothversions(Hesiod’sironraceandIndianKali- yuga)whereisstressedtheenmitybetweenfathersandsonsandthefailuretokeepone’s vowastwoofthemultifariousmanifestationsofsinfulness;anothercorrespondentdetailis thegreyhairwithwhichinHesiod’sdescriptionnewbornbabieswillappearandwhich,in theIndianversion,youthswillhaveatsixteen:thesecorrespondencesmaybefortuitous.[14] Then,Hesiod’sbronzepeoplehavegreatstrengthbutalsoahardheartwhileinthe correspondingIndianDvāparayugapeoplearefulloflustsandpursueselfishendsevenin religiousmatters:thesetoomaybecoincidental.Thebronzeracearealsosaidnottoeatgrain(oudetisitonēsthion),whileintheIndianKaliyugathepeople“willliveonfishand bad meat”:heresome commentatorsof theGreek textsee a turningaway from vegetarianism (W.188).AnotherpointisthatastheGreekheroicraceisdestroyedandfollowedbytheiron generation,sotheIndiankṣatriyaclassofwarriorsandheroesgetsannihilatedinthegreat Bhārata war on the eve of the Kali yuga (=Hesiodic Iron Age).

Twomorepointsneedtobemade.a)Hesiod’sheroicraceseemsinfacttobean extensionofthebronzerace:hereWestseemsquiterightinseeing“anunwillingnessto couple”theheroicwiththebronzerace(W.174)–butwronginthinkingthatthebronzerace mightbe“bellicosegigantes”(ibid).Thebronzeracealsoconsistsofwarriors,strongand hard-hearted,wholovefightingandindulgeinhubreis(liketheboldheroeswhooften challengethegodsintheepics)andwhofinallydestroythemselvesinwars(againlikethe heroes).b)TheMahābhārataspeaksalsoofaTwilightperiod(sandhi/sandhyā‘conjuction, transition’)comprisingthecloseofoneyugaandthestartofthenext(BkV,186,17ff).The Bhāratawartookplacepreciselyinthesandhi-periodjustbeforetheKaliyuga,whichperiod could easily be taken as a separate era.

InthelightoftheprecedingconsiderationsIsuggestthattheimmigrantGreeksbrought withthemsomeversion(s)ofthelegendofsuccessiveAges.Reshapedwithappropriate innovations,thisknowledgewasmixedwithsimilarnotionsfromtheNearEastand particularlytheattractiveschemeofmetals.Hesiod’sversionin WorksandDays givesusthe one surviving fusion of these elements.

4. The thigh-born child.

ArorareferstosomeOldFrenchpoemswhichrepresentSaintAnne,HolyVirgin Mary’s mother, as born from her father Phanue’s thigh (1981: 79).

ThislegendprobablyderivesfromaGreekmythaboutthebirthofDionysus.This legendisneitherinHomernorHesiodbutmeritsconsiderationsinceitisverysimilartoan incidentintheMahābhārata.Thereareseveralversionsofthis,thefatherbeinginvariably ZeusbutthemothergivenvariouslyasDemeter,Io,Dioneor,inanOrphic  fragment, Persephone(GM1:56,Kerényi1982:250-5).However,anothermythsaysthemotherwas Semele.WhilepregnantsheaskedasafavourtoseeZeusinallhisbrilliantgloryandashe appearedblazingawaywithhislightning,Semelewasburntup.Hermesrushedandsavedhersix-montholdbabyandstitcheditwithinthethighofZeus.Whenthenormalgestation wascomplete,Dionysus  was  born  out  of  Zeus’s  thigh.  The  earliest  attestation  is  in Euripides’s Bacchai 88-100 (kata mērōi de kalupsas‘having covered him in the thigh’, 97); itisfoundalsoinApolloniusRhodius(ArgonautsIV,1137)andApollodorus(BibliothēkēIII,4,3).TheBacchaipassageindicatesthatthismythwasincirculationatleastc420;that it goes much further back cannot be doubted.

Thetaleofathigh-bornbrahmininthelineoftheBhṛgusistoldinMBI,  169-71. Briefly,somekṣatriyasheardthattheBhṛgushadwealth,attackedthemandputthemtothe sword,evenwomenandbabesinthewomb.Somebrahmin-ladiesfledtothemountainsfor safetyandoneofthem,whoshonewithherownradiance,carriedherchildinherthigh.The warriorsfoundherbutthen,miraculously,herthighopenedandthechildappearedblazing likethesunandblindedthecruelwarriors.Thenameofthechild  wasAurva(‘thigh- born’ aurva<ūru).Hebecameagreatasceticbutdecidedinrevengeforthemassacreofthe Bhṛgustodestroytheworldswiththeintensefireofhiswrathandhisasceticism.However, hewasdissuadedby(thespiritsof)hisancestorsand,ontheiradvice,directedhisfireintothedepthsoftheoceanwhereitburnsintheformofahorse’shead.Aurvaor Ūrvaisthe nameofthesubmarinefireinmanyancientIndiantexts,includingBuddhist.Thewordūrva insomeplacesintheṚgvedameans‘ocean’,intowhichriversorstreamsflow(II,35,3;III, 30, 19), but also ‘sky-water’ from which lightning flashes (IV,50, 2).)

Theideaofanembryogestatinginathigh,whetherthatofamaleorafemale,isstrange andthereforethetwotalesmustberelated.TheobservablereversalinthatZeusappears blazingintheGreekmythandthebrahmin-ladybeingrefulgentthenherboyglowing blindinglyintheIndianisanadditionalelementthatindicatescloserelationship.Howthen are the two related?

OnthetestimonyoftheEuripidespassage,theantiquityofthemythinGreece(priorto thefifthcentury)precludesanyborrowingonthepartoftheGreeks.GiventhatmanyGreek sourcesfromEuripidestoDiodorusSikeliotisinsistonDionysushavingtravelledtoIndia,it islikelythattheIndiansborrowedandtransformedthemythrecastingitintotheirown moulds.ApartfromgivingsomesortofexplanationfortheoriginofthesubmarineAurva (mare-)fire(O’Flaherty1982:226-7),whichisprevalentinmanyIndiantexts,Aurva’stale hasnoorganicconnectionatallwiththemainstoryintheepic.Thuswecansay,yes,some IndianbardweavedintotheepicnarrativethemythwhichtheGreekshadbroughtwiththem oncetheysettledinBactriaintheearlythirdcentury.ThefactthatthePoonaCriticalEdition andvanBuitenen’stranslationaccepttheAurvataleaspartofthegenuinenarrativeshould provide no objection to our conclusion.

Thereis,however,adifficultyfromadifferentquarter:theVedictraditionhasanother tale of birth from a thigh. In the Jaiminīya BrāhmaṇaKutsaisbornfromIndra’sthigh(III, 199);nodetailsaregivenandnofemale(likeSemeleintheGreekmyth)isinvolved,but Indrawas,likeZeus,thestorm-and-lightninggod.This  Brāhmaṇaevenbyconservative reckoningwouldbelongtotheseventh(oratmost,sixth)centurysothatwecanmost certainlyprecluleanyIndianborrowing.Thetaleaddsthatduetosome(unspecified)faultof Kutsa’s,hewaspunishedbyIndrawithbaldness–andonescholarlinksthisdetailwiththe RVhymnIV,16,10whichsaysthatKutsaappearedbeforeŚacī(or Indrāṇī,ieIndra’s consort)inIndra’sshape(Bhattacharji1988:272-3).Indeed,theRVmentionsKutsamany timesbutgivesnoinformationabouthimexceptgenerallythatsometimesheisafriendof Indra’sandsometimesanenemy–totheextentthatsomescholarsthoughttheremightbe twoKutsas(VedicIndexunder‘Kutsa’).RVIV,16,10praysforIndra’svisitinorderto destroysomedemonbutalsoaddsthatKutsalongstowinIndra’sfriendshipandthatthey arebothsoalikeinformthattheWoman(nārī,Indra’sorKutsa’swife?)could  hardly distinguish them.

WefindafurtherlinkintheRVandtheBrāhmaṇaswhichmentionAurvain  close connectionwiththeBhṛgus.RVVIII,101,4mentionsAurvaBhṛguandalsofiregodAgni“clothedwiththeocean”–apossiblereferencetothesubmarinefire(whichcanconnotethe aerialwatersorclouds,containingthelightningorthesunlight).Aurvaisalsosaidinthe TattirīyaSaṃhitāVII,1,8,1,tohavereceivedoffspringfromAtri.  ThenKauṣitakīBr(XXX,5)saysthattheAurvasaretheworstBhṛguswhilethePañcaviṃśaBr(XXI,10,6) mentionstwoAurvasasauthorities.ThusthroughtheBhṛgus,themeritoriousasceticismofAurva  (and  the  two  Aurvas  who  are  authorities),theoffspring(fromAtri)andthe juxtapositionofAurvaBhṛguandAgni“clothedwiththeocean”,theMBtaleofAurvahas stronglinkswiththeVeda.ThesearefurtherstrengthenedbythementionofaKutsaAurava (=Aurva‘descendantofUruorŪrva’)inPañcaviṃśaBrXIV,6,8,asthelineoflegends aboutKutsaandthataboutAurva-Bhṛguscometogetherandindicateaveryoldcomplexmythorclusterofmyths,anaspectofwhichfindsexpressioninMBI,167-171.Inaddition, theIndian-Greekparallelcontains,apartfromtheextra-ordinaryelementofthe‘thigh-birth’, thefeatureofthestorm-and-lightninggod–ZeusinGreeceandIndrainIndia(intheKutsa myth).

Aswiththethreepreviousparallels,herealsowemustconcludethatbothtalesare independentandgobackintimetothePIEperiodwheretheyhaveacommonorigin.The refulgenceandthepreservationofthechildinthethighareobviouslyelementsthatbelonged tothePIEversionofthelegendbutIwouldnotattempttodecidewhethertheblazing appearanceofZeusorthatofmotherandchildistheoriginalelement,eventhoughthe thunder and lightning of Zeus seems more natural.

Conclusion.

Withregardtothefourlegendsthereislittlemoretosay.Inallfourcasesweseethat theIndicandGreeklegendsdevelopedindigenously.Thereisnoevidenceforsubstantial Greek-Indiancontactsfrombeforethelate4thcenturythatwouldenableborrowingor influenceeitherway.Onthecontrary,distanceanddangerswouldprecludedirectcontacts betweenGreeceandIndia–exceptforthecasesofIndiansoldiersinthePersianarmiesorof theoddmerchant.TheNEculturesthatmighthaveservedasbridgesbetweenIndiaand Greece do not have legends similar to the four we have examined (other than the NE versions ofthe4Ages):consequentlythisavenuemustalsobeprecluded.Weareleftwithcontacts andexchangesafter320,whenGreeksfirstsettledinN-WIndia,but,aswesaw,theGreek andIndiclegendswerefairlywellfixedbythattime.Consequently,wemustconcludethat thecloseparallelsofthearcherycontestconnectedwithPenelopeandDraupadī,ofthe couplesPeleus-Thetisand  Śantanu-GaṅgāoftheAgesorYugas,andofthethigh-born childrenDionysusandAurva,derivefromlegendsthatwerecommonamongtheIEpeoples before their dispersal.

However,thereisanothersidetothisdiscussion,whichconfirmsthewell-knownfact thatatoneremotetime(5th,6thmillenniumorearlier?)theIndoAryansandtheGreeks togetherwiththeIranians,Hittites,SlavsandtheotherIEnations,wereveryclose neighboursandmembersofthesamefamily,ifnotoneunitedpeople,withacommon languageand culture.It is naturalthenthatthesebrancheshaveretained,apartfrom language similarities,alsoculturalaffinitieslikethemythologicalmotifswehaveexamined.Ofthe fourcasesexaminedonlyoneappearsintheIraniantraditionandthisinverylatetexts(not intheAvesta).Curiously,moreover,theIraniansdonothaveacorrespondencefortheIE deitiesDyaus/Zeus/Tiwaz-andUṣas/Ēōs/Eos-tre-(althoughtheydohavethenoun/us̆as- fordawn).Ontheotherhand,manymythologicalelementscommontotheAvestaandthe RVdonotappearintheGreektradition:egVedicYama,Vivasvat,Indra,theepithet‘Vṛtra-slayer’vṛtrahánandthewaterdeityApāṃNápāt(IranianYima,Vivanhant,Indrawhoisademon,VereΘ_raghna‘godofVictory’andApāmNapāt).

NoteworthyisthefactthatthearchaicGreekandtheIraniantraditionsdonotcommonly preserve anything from the PIE phase exclusively of theRV.

Noteworthyisalsothefactthatthefourlegendsexaminedareabsentfromalltheother IEbranches.Then,toconsidersomemoreexamples,theVedicnameofthefiregodAgni appearsonlyintheSlavicappellativeOgon (adjective for the son of god Svarog, name of a king, possibly but not certainly name of a god),andHittiteAgnis,althoughcognatesforfireappearin Latinignis,Lithuanian ugnisandLettishuguns–andtheIraniannamedās̆tāγni-. Again,the Vedicnameoftherain-and-storm-godParjanyaappearsasSlavicPerun,BalticPerkunasandScandinavianFjörgyntotheexclusionoftheotherGermanic,theCeltic,Roman,Greek, HittiteandIranianbranches.[15] Although,furthermore,theVedicstemvas-‘dwelling’has cognatesinseveralIEbranches(includingTocharianBost‘house’),thenameoftheVedicVāstoṣ-pati‘housedeity’appearsonlyinGreekHestiaandRomanVestatotheexclusionof allotherbranches.Similarly,althoughtheVedicstemaśva‘horse’hascognatesinmostIElanguages(Latinequus,OldEnglishandCelticeoh,etc),theVedicnameofthetwinhorse- deitiesAśvin-auappearsonlyintheMycenaeanIqejaandtheCelticEponaandnowhere else. (Fuller discussion in Kazanas 2001c)

Thelistofcasesmentionedaboveisbynomeansexhaustivebutitisobviousthatthe RVretainsamuchgreaterproportionofthecommonIEmythologicalinheritance.Fromour exampleswecansafelyconcludethatnomajormotifcommontotwoormoreIEbranchesis not found in theRV also (Kazanas 2001c).

How so?

Itisoddthatindologistsandcomparativistshavenotbotheredtoelucidatethisstrange phenomenon.Now,itisawell-knownprinciple–andaveryreasonableone–thatthe languageandcultureofapeopleonthemovefromoneplacetoanotherwillsuffermany morechangesthanoneatrestinonelocation,ceterisparibus;andthefurtherandlongerthe movementthegreaterthechanges(Lockwood1969:43;Hock1991:467-9).Thereverse maybeequallytrue:wherethelanguageandcultureofapeopleshowslesserchanges,the peoplehas,probably,movedlessornotatall.Here,now,sincetheRVhaspreservedavastly greaterproportionofthePIEheritagewemust,bytheapplicationofthisprinciple,conclude thattheVedicpeoplemovedverylittleornotatallfromtheiroriginalhomeland,whereas theotherIEbranchesmovedconsiderably.Wecancallthisthe“preservationprinciple”.And wecanaddtothisthatinconquest,theconquerorsaremorelikelytoimpose(elementsof) theirownculturewhereasthesubjectpeoplearemorelikelytoloseelementsoftheirown one. An examination of the language supports this conclusion. T. Burrow, whoseThe Sanskrit Language(reved1973,Faber,London)isstilltheauthoritativedescriptivework,writes: “Vedicisalanguagewhichinmostrespectsismorearchaicandlessalteredfromoriginal Indo-Europeanthananyothermemberofthefamily”(p34,emphasisadded);healsostates that root nouns, “very much in decline in the earliest recorded Indo-European languages”, are preservedbetterinSanskrit(p123)andlaternotes,“Chieflyowingtoits antiquitythe Sanskritlanguageismorereadilyanalysable,anditsrootsmoreeasilyseparablefrom accretionaryelementsthan…anyotherIElanguage”(p289,myemphasis).Nobodyhas ever disagreed with this view. Here again must have operated the preservation principle.

Achar’s archaeoastronomical evidence (above, sect 1, end) adds its considerable support. Acharhaspublishedtwootherpapersthusestablishingnewdatesforastronomicaldatain ancientIndictexts(1999and2000).Inthefirst,hiscomputersimulationoftheancientsky aboveNorthIndiashowedthattheKṛttikās/Pleiades,beingfixedinandnotswervingfrom theeast(asstatedinŚBII,1,2,2-3),relatenottoc800,thatistheusualdate  givenby mainstreamopinion,buttoeventsthatcouldhavebeenobservedonlyc3000oralittlelater (1999).[16]  In the second paper, Achar provides evidence that the date of the Jyotiṣa Vedāṅga (orthatoftheastronomicalfactsdescribedtherein)isnot400BCassomeWesternscholars claim,norc1200asotherswouldhaveit(identifyingDhaniṣṭhawithβDelphini),butc1800 whenDhaniṣṭha,nowidentifiedasδCapricorn,receivessunandmoon  togetherforthe winter solstice (2000:177).

The lastdate1800forVedāṅgaJyotiṣa,issignificantalsobecause,since thestyleofthis Vedāṅgaisthoughttobelateepic(Witzel2001:§30),wehaveaddedconfirmationthattheMBisinfactmuchearlierthanisusuallyconsideredbymainstreamIndologists(eg Brockington1998,passim).WeshouldregardtheMahābhārataratherasstartingwithits corepassagesearlyinthe3rdmillenniuminthelanguageoftheBrāhmaṇasandearlyUpanishads,thenreachingitsconsiderableepiclengthandnewgeneralstyle1900-1700andhavingadditionalaccretionsthereafterrightdowntotheearlycenturiesoftheCommonEra. ThemodernmyththattheIndoAryansinvadedorimmigratedintoIndiafromtheNearEast (Renfrew1999;Sarianidi1999)orfromtheUrals(Witzel2001,passim)shouldbegivenno secondthought.Apartfromtheevidenceprovidedinthispaper,Archaeology,Anthropology and Palaeontology leave no doubt,  in  Kenoyer’s  words,  about  the  continuity  of  theindigenousIndoAryanculture:“Thereisno  archaeologicalorbiologicalevidencefor invasionsormassmigrationsintotheIndusValleybetweentheendoftheHarappanphase, about1900BCandthebeginningoftheEarlyHistoricPeriodaround600BC”(1998:174). EvenM.Witzel,themostfervent  anti-indigenist,admits:“Sofararchaeologyand palaeontology,basedonmultivariate  analysisofskeletalfeatures,havenotfoundanew waveofimmigrationintothe  subcontinentafter4500BCE(aseparationbetweenthe Neolithic and Chalcolithic population of Mehrgarh), and up to 800 BCE” (2001:§7).[17]

Consequently,thedatesshouldbeasgiven.TheRVwascomposedinthe4th millennium(someofitperhapsbefore),or,atanyrate,thehymnswerecollectedbyc3150. TheMBappearedinshortpoemsatthebeginningofthe3rdmillenniumc3060and developedthereafterasIoutlinedearlier.ItistobehopedthatmoreIndiansanskritistswill adoptsomesuchchronologyandwithpatientresearchwillplacetheotherkindsofancient Indic literature within this framework.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

For Greek texts the Loeb editions are useful but, of course, there are many good translations in many languages.

Achar B.N.N.  1999 ‘On exploring the Vedic sky with modern computer software’ EJVS 5·2; http://www1.shore.net/-india/ejvs/ejvs0502.exc .

2000 ‘A case for revising the date of Veāṅga Jyotiṣa’  in Indian Journal of History of Sciences, 35·3 (173-83).

2001 ‘Planetarium Software and the date of the Mahābhārata War’ paper given in Montreal and sent privately to the auhor.

2001 ‘Planetarium Software and the date of the Mahābhārata War’ paper given in Montreal and sent privately to the auhor.

Aitareya Brāhmaṇa    transl by A. B. Keith in Rigveda Brāhmaṇas(1920), HOS reprint 1998, Motilal Banarsidas, Delhi.

Aklujkar A.      1996 ‘The Early History of Sanskrit as Supreme Language’ in E.M. Houben (ed) Ideology and Status of Sanskrit… Brill, Leiden (59-85).

Allen N.J.        1993 ‘Arjuna and Odysseus…’ SALG Newsletter No 40.

Arora U.P.       1981 Motifs in Indian Mythology Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi.

Atharvaveda     see Bloomfield and Chand.

Basham A.L.   1961 The Wonder that was India Sidgwick & Jackson, London.

Baldi P.            1983 An Introduction to the Indo-European Languages Southern Illinois Univ Press, Carbondale & Edwardsville.

Baldick J.         1994 Homer and the Indo-Europeans Tauris Publs, London, NY.

Bhattacharji S. 1988 The Indian Theogony (CUP 1970), American Ed, Anima Publications, PA.

Bloomfield M. 2000 (transl of) Atharvaveda(1897 SBE, OUP) reprint, Motilal Banarsidas, Delhi.

Bottéro J.         1992  Mesopotamia(1987) transl by Z. Bahrani & M. van de Mieroop Univ Chicago Press, Chicago.

Boyce M. & Grenet F.  1991 A History of Zoroastrianism Vol III, Brill, Leiden.

Brekke T.         1998 ‘Note on Possible Reference to Ikaros in the Vinaya of the Mūlasarvāstivādins’ JIES vol 26 (435-46).

Bryant E.         2001 The Quest for the Origins of the Vedic Culture OUP, Oxford.

Chand D.         1982 The Atharvaveda text & transl, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi. Crossley-Holand K 1993  Norse Myths (1980), Penguin, London, NY.

Davidson H.R.E.  1981 Gods and Myths of Northern Europe, Pelican , Hammondsworth.

Dillon M.         1975 Celts & Aryans Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Simla.

Dustan W.E.    1998 The Ancient Near East Harcourt Brace, Orlando-Florida.

Edda                1996 by S. Sturluson, transl and ed A. Faulkes, Everyman (1987), London.

Farquhar J.N.   1920 Outline of the Religious Literature of India OUP.

GEL = Greek-English Lexicon   by Liddel & Scott, Jones & McKenzie, 1996, OUP.

GM = The Greek Myths  by R. Graves (1995 rev ed) 2 vols, Pelican, Hammondsworth.

Hock H.H.       1991 Principles of Historical Linguistics 2nd ed, Mouton de Gruyter.

Hopkins E.W.  1901  The Great Epic of India…, New York.

1915

1915 Epic Mythology, Strassburg, reprint 1987, Motilal Banarsidas, Delhi.

Hughes R. & Rowe M. 1982 The Colouring, Bronzing and Patination of Metals Arts Council, Oxford.

T. Jacobsen      1976 The Treasures of Darkness Yale Univ Press, New Haven.

Kazanas N.      1999 ‘The Ṛgveda and Indo-Europeans’ ABORI vol 80, (pp15-42), Poona.

2001a ‘A New Date for the

2001a ‘A New Date for the Ṛgveda’ in the G. C. Pande (ed) Chronology and Indian Philosophy special issue of the JICPR.

2001b ‘Archaic Greece and the Veda’ in vol 82

2001b ‘Archaic Greece and the Veda’ in vol 82 ABORI, Poona, India.

2001c ‘IndoEuropean Deities and the RV’

2001c ‘IndoEuropean Deities and the RV’ JIES vol 29, Fall-Winter.

2003 ‘Final Reply’

2003 ‘Final Reply’ JIES vol 31, Spring-Summer (187-240).

Kak S.              2000a The Astronomical Code of the Ṛgveda, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi.

2000b ‘Indic Ideas in the Graeco-Roman World’ in

2000b ‘Indic Ideas in the Graeco-Roman World’ in Indian Historical Review, paper sent to author before publication.

Keith A.B.       1989 (1925) The Religion and Philosophy of the Vedas, 2 vols, HOS, reprint Motilal Banarsidas, Delhi.

Kerényi C.       1974  The Heroes of the Greeks (1954) Thames & Hudson, London.

1982

1982 The Gods of the Greeks(1951) Thames & Hudson, London.

Kingsley P.      1995 Ancient Philosophy, Mystery & Magic OUP.

K R S               = Kirk G.R., Raven J.E., Schofield M. 1999 The Presocratic Philosophers

(1983 rev ed, 1995 additional bibliogr), CUP.

Levitt S.H.       ‘The Dating of the Indian Tradition’ Anthropos vol 98 (341-359).

 Lockwood W. B. 1969  IndoEuropean Philology… Hutchinson’s Univ Press, London.

MacCanna P.   1996 Celtic Mythology (1968) Chancellor Press, London.

MacCulloch J. A.  1948 The Celtic and Scandinavian Religions Hutchinson’s Univ Library, London.

Mahābhārata   see van Buitenen.

Manusmṛti (or Mānava Dharmaśāstra), transl by Bühler G. (1896 SBE, OUP) reprint 1982 Motilal Banarsidas, Delhi.

MB = Mahābhārata, critical ed Poona 1970; transl J.A.B. van Buitenen, 3 vols, (Bks I-V) 1973-, Univ Chicago Press, Phoenix Edition (1980-).

MM = Dalley S. 1991 Myths from Mesopotamia(1989) OUP.

O’ Flaherty W.D.  1982  Women, Androgynes… (1980) Univ Chicago Press, Chicago, London.

Polomé E.C.    1989 ‘Draupadī and her Dumézilian Interpretation’ in JIES vol 17 (99-111).

Possehl G.L. & Gullapalli P.  1999 ‘The Early Iron Age in South Asia’ in V.C. Pigott (ed) The Archaeometallurgy of the Asian Old World, The University Museum, Univ of Pennsylvania (153-75).

Puhvel J.          1991 ‘Whence the Hittite...’ in M. Lamb & E .Douglas Mitchell (eds) Sprung from a Common Source Stanford Univ Press, California.

1994 ‘Anatolian: autochthon or interloper?’

1994 ‘Anatolian: autochthon or interloper?’ JIES, vol 22.

Rao S.R.          1991 Dawn and Devolution of the Indus Civilization, Aditya, Delhi.

Rees A. and B. 1995 Celtic Heritage (1961) Thames & Hudson, London & NY.

Renfrew C.      1999 ‘Time, Depth, Convergence Theory...’ JIES vol 27 (257-93).

Sarianidi V.     1999 ‘Near Eastern Aryans in Central Asia’ JIES vol 27 (295-326).

Scheer E          1958 Lycophronis Alexandra 2vols, Weidmannsche Verlag, Berlin.

Sedlar J.W.      1980 India and the Greek World, Rowman & Littlefield, New Jersey.

Simonov P.      1997 Essential Russian Mythology Thorsons, Harper-Collins, London.

van Buitenen J.A.B.  1981 transl of Mahābhārata(1975) 3 vols, Univ Chicago Press, Phoenix ed.

Vedic Index      1995 Mac Donell A.A. & Keith A.B. (1912), Motilal Banarsidas, Delhi.

Werner K.        1989 ‘From Polytheism to Monism…’ in Polytheistic Systems ed G. Davies, Cosmos vol 5.

West M.L.        1971  Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient OUP, Oxford.

1978  (ed)

1978  (ed) Hesiod’s Works and Days OUP.

1997 

1997  The East Face of Helicon, OUP.

1998

1998 The Orphic Hymns  (1983) OUP.

White H.G.E.   1935 (ed & transl) Hesiod and the Homeric Hymns, Loeb, HUP.

Winternitz M.  1981-5  History of Indian Literaturetransl by V.S. Sharma & S. Jha, Motilal, Delhi.

Witzel M.         2001 Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence… EJVS 7-3.

Zhirmunsky V.   1966 ‘The Epic of “Alpamysh” and the Return of Odysseus’, in Proceedings of British Academy vol 56 (267-86).

---

[1]. MB I, 175-180: the Roman numeral gives the Book, and the normal numerals the chapter(s). For Odyssey we shall have Od, then number of book and number of line(s) or verse(s); For Iliad, Il and the same. For Hesiod’s Works and Days, WD and line(s) or verse(s). RV, AV, Ra and ŚB and Br stand for Ṛgveda, Atharvaveda, Rāmāyaṇa, Śatapatha Brahmaṇa and Brāhmaṇa respectively. Abbreviations IE for IndoEuropean, PIE for ProtoIndoEuropean and NE for Near Eastern. Abbreviations for books (eg GM) are given in the Bibliography with their full title and author.

[2]. In the Nala tale, Damayantī finds herself in a similar condition when she declares a second svayaṃvara, as she is regarded a widow whose husband has been irretrievably lost (MB, III, 68). Here, there is no contest, as with Penelope, but there is a kind of chariot-driving test since very short notice is given for the svayaṃvara and prospective suitors (including Nala himself) must travel very fast to reach in time.

[3]. The epic of Alpamysh, current in much of Central Asia and as far west as Turkey, was written down from its best known oral version in Uzbek Turkic only in the twentieth century; it was reduced to 8000 verses and is thought to have existed in Central Asia from about the seventh century CE (Zhirmunsky 1966). This epic has many similarities with the Odyssey, as it has many differences. Its basic plot of usurpation (not in the Odyssey) and exile of the hero resembles the main story of the Mahābhārata. V. Zhirmunsky does not bring in the Mahābhārata and does not think that the Odyssey influenced Alpamysh but that both had a common source (1966: 281). This may be so, or Alpamysh may have been produced from a fusion of the core of the MB story and some translated version of the Odyssey current perhaps in Bactria c 300 BCE and after.

[4]. We should note here also Pāṇini’s sūtra IV, 3, 99 vāsudevārjunābhyāṃ vun which refers to Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna and thus shows knowledge of the Bhagavat Gītā or of the MB as a whole. Pāṇini’s description of Sanskrit is closer to the Brāhmaṇas and Upaniṣads than to classical Sanskrit described later by Kātyāyana (Winternitz 3:461).

[5]. There is no convincing rationale for the notion that Vāyū’s prominence is an older stage than the RV – apart from the fact that Vāyū and Bhīma are certainly not more prominent in the MB than Arjuna (who embodies Indra). It is based on the general view of linear evolution, namely that the mythology of the RV has evolved from a more primitive stage and that its own polytheism is itself primitive in comparison to monism, or forms of henotheism, that evolved from it later. This widespread view ignores the simple fact that monism and polytheism are present simultaneously in all ten Maṇḍalas of the RV (see Werner 1989).

[6]. It is yet another curious phenomenon in Western scholarship that the most incredible late rumours about events in archaic Greece are accorded the status of “tradition” and are then discussed as though they are firmly proven facts. One such example is Porphyry writing (latter half of 3rd century CE) that Pythagoras “showed his golden thigh to Abaris the Hyperboreian who thought that he [ie Pythagoras] was Apollo” (Life of Pythagoras, 28) and that Abaris himself travelled on air “riding on an arrow given to him by Apollo” (ibid 29): despite the obvious contradictions and absurdities in this tale, it is taken seriously by classicists (eg Kingsley 1995: 247-8, 291ff). Yet much more credible Indian traditions are dismissed without discussion even though indologists know perfectly well that the Indians had the strongest and most retentive system of oral transmission among all IE branches. I am not advocating that everything should be accepted as true but I am advocating that everything should not be rejected as untrue simply because it does not coincide with our own pet theories.

[7].  The theme of the divine female, a fairy or nymph giving herself for various reasons (sometimes unexplained) to a mortal man is common to Celtic (Rees 1961: 58 and 259 ff), Teutonic (Davidson 1981: 115) and Slavic (Simonov 1997: 33 ff) as well as to Greek tradition.

[8]. W.andnumberstandsthroughoutforWest1978andpagenumber.West’ssubsequentstudy TheEastFaceofHelicondiscussesagainthissubjectbutadducesnofreshmaterialandseemseven less convincing (1997: 312-9).

[9]. Aroracites(p16)twosecondaryworkssayingtheMesopotamianshad“aprimordialparadise” and,perhaps,sevenCreations,butnoprimarytextorsecondaryauthoritymentionsanythinglikethe idea of 4-5 Ages (Jacobsen 1976; Bottero 1992; Dalley 1991).

[10]. The Irish Celts form another IE branch and affinities between them and Indo-Aryans are noted extensivelybyM.Dillon(1975,passim).Thefour,fiveorsixracesandinvasions(MacCulloch1948: 10-11;MacCana1996:54ff)mentionedinsomeearlysources(alllateintheChristianEra)may concealtheideaofFourorFiveAgesaswell(Arora1981:16),but“evenintheoldestdocumentsthat havesurvived,theBiblicalAdamandEvehavealreadybeenacceptedasthefirstparentsofmankind” (Rees1995:95)andtheinnovationsaresoprolificthatthistraditioncannotprovidereliablegrounds for comparison.

[11]. IthasbeenarguedthatsinceinManusmṛtiX,44,arementionedGreeks,Scythiansand Pahlavas,thisstanzaatleastisofthesecondcenturyCE(Büller,ppcxiv-cxvii).Asimilarargument isusedbyFarquhar(1920:83)fortheMB.Twopointshere:(a)Thealienpeoplecouldhavebeen knownlongbeforetheirarrival(astheGreeksyavanacertainlywere).(b)The“prophecy”offoreign kingsrulingNWIndiaintheKaliYuga(MBIII,186,30)hasGreeksandScythiansbutnotPahlavas. IfPahlavas(=Parthians)hadalreadybeeninoccupation,thentheymostprobablywouldhavebeen mentioned in the relevant passage (see paragraph in the text after n 5 in section 1).

[12]. The NorseEddaspeaks of the recurrence or regeneration of the Cosmos after its destruction at Ragnarok(1996:56),butasthesetextsareverylateandshowinfluencesfromGreeceandRome (ibid,64-6)thismotifmayderivefromStoicor(Neo-)Pythagoreannotionsofrecurrence.Crossley- HollandmentionsalsoChristianinfluences(1993:235-6)andalthoughheconcludesthatthemotifis preChristian, we must exercise caution.

[13]. AllreferencestotheIndianversionwillbefoundinvanBuitenen’stranslation(1981:volII, 504-6 and 593-8).

[14]. ItmaybearguedthatthesecorrespondencesmaybeduetoIndiansborrowingfromGreeks

sincethereisevidence(Arora1981:179-81)thatsomeIndiansintheNorthknewGreek.However,if theIndiansknewof,andborrowedfrom,Hesiod,weshouldexpectmoreandcloseraffinitiesandalso perhapsthemetallicscheme;foritseemstomemostunlikelythatonlythebaresuccessionoftheages andfewdetailswouldreachtheIndians.Besides,allYugaswerementionedintheBrāhmaṇaand Upanishadictexts,aswesaw,andthecertaintywithwhichtheIndianepicspeaksofthesuccessionof theFourYugas,thesandhi-periodsandthedistinctivetraitsofeachYuga,indicatesanolder,long tradition.

[15]. IignoreAlbanian,Armenian,PhrygianandotherminorIEbranchesthatcontainnegligible material.

[16]. MWitzelobjects(2001:§29)thatsincetheBrāhmaṇasmention‘iron’theycannotbedatedbefore1100.Thisiseitherprevaricationofthegrossestkindordefectivethinking,since,asiswell knowntoWitzel,ironobjectswerefoundintheareafrom2600(Possehl&Gullapalli1999:159-61) andnopassageinthesetextsmentionsanyiron-smelting.Moreover,whocanassureusthatśyāmaandKṛṣṇāyasa‘swarthymetal’denote‘iron’?Itiswellknownthattohardencopper,themetalis heatedup(butwellbelowmeltingpoint)andthenlefttocoolwithouttheuseofwater:thishasthe effectofalsomakingthecopperblack!(Hughes&Row,1982).Inanycase,ŚatapathaBṛdoesnot mention anywhereśyāma orkṛṣṇāyasa!

[17]. Witzelinthesamestudyadducesmuch(irrelevant)linguisticevidenceclaimingthatin Sanskrittherearesubstrata(loan-words)fromDravidianandMundaorsomeunknownandlost(!!) tongue.First,Idoubtwhetherweknowwhatproto-Dravidianor,muchmoreso,proto-Mundawas likec1500.Second,evenifweassumethattheselinguisticspeculationsareright,theyarenoteven remotelydecisive,since,asEBryantshows,theDravidiansandtheMundas(oranyotherpeople) could well be the immigrants (2001:102-5).

Source:
ISBN-13: 978-8177421378