From: mvishnu@morse.uwaterloo.ca (m vishnu)
Subject: Re: Contra M. Vishnu
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 17:27:03 GMT

In article <16v8mvINNdvq@function.mps.ohio-state.edu> vidynath@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyarath K Rao) writes:
>Reading some of the articles in soc.culture.tamil, I saw M. Vishnu repeating
>certain assertions that he had made in soc.culture.india, that I had countered.
>He still has not answered my objections. So I will repeat myself too, but
>will be brief (and I hope not cryptic).
>
>He claims that Purusha Sukta or parts of it were interpolated, possibly in
>8th century AD. Earlier, he claimed that Wendy O'Flaherty (or Doniger) has
>given this date. He promised to give a reference, but has not. A book edited

Please do not distort what I wrote.  The Original article by Arun Gupta
'Forgeries in Hindu Scriptures' is the one first mentioned the fact that
Purusha-Suktha is an interpolation.  I am including the entire article
of Arun here.

Sri Arun Gupta uvaca...
------------------------------------------------------------------ 
This `communalist liberal' is happy to present to you some more
food for thought:

The following is from Benjamin Walker: The Hindu World: An Encyclopedic
Survey of Hinduism, 1968.

FORGERIES: The fact that the Hindu Scriptures bear evidence of consider-
able tampering need come as no surprise to anyone acquainted with the his-
tory of priestcraft the world over. The scientific criticism of ancient
writings has brought to light many forgeries among the works of the Church
Fathers, to take Christian literature, and the texts of the other great
faiths are not exempt from this imputation.

That this mass of Sanskrit texts that had been subjected to interpolations,
tendentious redactions or plain fabrication, should have escaped detection
before European scholarship directed its attention to them, was largely due
to the reverence in which they were held, and the danger that attended any
attempt to undermine their authority. More than expert knowledge is required
to detect a forgery. What is more important is the secular approach, which
implies a refusal to regard the sacred text with the eye of faith, and there-
fore to see in it a document of human origin subject to the limitations of
human scribes, copyists, commentators and zealots.
The onus of responsibility for the greater part of the tampering can be laid
at the door of the brahmin priesthood who in order to support their claims to
superiority and preserve their privileges are known to have suppressed facts,
changed names, and confused places and periods; who have interlarded fact with
fiction in accordance with their own religious ends. It is to the period known
as the Brahminical Revival [1-400 AD] that we can trace most of the counter-
feiting of scriptures that has characterized the Period of Priests throughout
recorded history. To this period belong the accumulations of spurious data and
the creation of fictitious dynastic pedigrees, that have so inextricably inter-
woven fact with fancy in Indian historical annals. In short, it was a time for
the wholesale re-casting of Indian life and culture into the mould shaped by
the brahmins.

The whole vast heritage of Vedic and native material was exploited to buttress
up the brahminical edifice. To the Revival is due the sanskritization of Indian
thought and the brahmanization of Indian social codes by the scribes.

In the words of Dharma Theerta,

`There is hardly any Sanskrit composition which has not been tampered with,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
altered or added to by them. There is no famous rishi or teacher in whose
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
name they have not concocted scriptures. There is no sacred book into which
fiction and legend and imaginary history, have not been interpolated.'

Among the scores of forgeries that have been brought to light a few of a
particular heinous character deserve to be mentioned. Thus, there is evidence
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to show that the famous "Purusha-sukta" of the Rig-Veda, on which the whole
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
issue of Hindu caste is based and from which the lucubrations of the comment-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ators on caste separation commence, is of very questionable authenticity.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is suspected that in spite of their reverence for the sacred hymns, the
priestly scribes like their counterparts of other faiths, were not above a
little textual manipulation if it served to enhance their prestige. In all
likelihood the Purusha-sukta and certain other verses were interpolated into
the text long after the canon of the Rig-Veda was finally closed.

According to Colebrooke, `That remarkable hymn, is in language, meter and
style, very different from the rest of the prayers with which it is associated.
It has a decidedly more modern tone.'

To this Max Muller adds, ` There is little doubt that it is modern both in its
character and its diction.'

It is remarkable that the term "sudra" (servile caste) occurs only once in the
Rig-Veda and that is in the section of the Purusha-sukta.

Tinkering with the texts of the Mahabharata is also evident from scientific
scrutiny. In this case the conversion of the original heroic adventures into
a sort of brahminical bible was not always cleverly done, for in the pandit
redactions the religious and the priestly interest overshadows the heroic,
and the legends related are often distorted to suit the brahminical viewpoint.

`Everything', says Sidhanta, ` is viewed from the angle of the priest, and
instead of a straightforward narrative, we have didactic digression on the
sanctity of the priestly class.' As Pargiter points out, ` The brahminical
versions are a farrago of absurdities and impossibilities, utterly distorting
all the incidents.'

The Ramayana similarly betrays signs of priestly editing. It is generally
agreed that the pronounced brahminical tone did not characterize the original
work, but was given to it at the time of the Revival, when much additional
material was also introduced.

It should be borne in mind that Sanskrit was not originally the medium for
profane literature, for which the vernacular Prakrits were generally employed.
The Epics were long current in the Prakrits before they were rendered into
Sanskrit. We have the opinion quoted by Keith that the Epics were first written
in Sanskrit in the early years before and after the beginning of the Christian
era, and that they were in fact translations and elaborations from Prakrit

originals. And not only the Epics, but Sanskrit secular poetry, lyric poetry,
the beast fable and the fairy tale are all indebted to translations from
Prakrit originals. The Katha-Sarit-Sagar, a Sanskrit collection of stories,
is believed to have been based on an earlier work composed in Prakrit.

The period of Brahminical revival was the age that fixed the criterion for
every subsequent interpretation of Hindu life and culture. It was the time
when the ancient Indian traditions as they existed in the regional languages
were taken over, adapted to the priestly bias and hammered into the new mould
of Sanskrit. Into the sacred tongue the earlier tomes wer transcribed for the
deification of brahmins and the damnation of sudras. Under heavy pressure of
brahmin orthodoxy the indigenous writings were first sanskritized and then the
whole of Sanskrit literature brahminized.

It was in many ways a calamitous substitute. Local nomenclature was altered to
fit the Sanskrit alphabet; native sentiments were put through the mill of
Sanskrit syntax, and a great deal of indigenous material irretrievably lost.

Interpretations of pre-Sanskrit and what might be called `un-Sanskrit' life
were further distorted by wilful tendentiousness that shaped into orthodox
form the mythology, history and even the geography of ancient India. Its
corruptions crept into the regional languages by its insistence on its own
sanctity and stilted rules.

And in most cases it debased what it influenced. The noble early poetry of
Tamil, characterized by simplicity and realism, never recovered its freshness
after contact with Sanskrit, and Tamil literature was thereafter subjected to
the artificialities of the northern tongue. Practically every vernacular
literature has suffered in like manner as long as it lay under the influence
of Sanskrit influence.

An analysis of epigraphic inscriptions prior to the Gupta age reveals that
more than ninety-five percent are written in Prakrit and concern non-brahmin-
ical sects, mainly Jain and Buddhist, and only five percent in Sanskrit concern
brahminism. The position is almost entirely reversed in the favor of Sanskrit
and brahminism in the post-Gupta age. The power of the priesthood must have
been tremendous, almost tyrannical, to have achieved this phenomenal reversal.
The number and nature of spurious inscriptions after the seventh century AD
confirm the continuance of this tendency.

The full story of forged texts in Hinduism has yet to be written. It would
make a decided contribution to the lengthy chronicle of misplaced piety the
world over. The Purusha-sukta is only the most conspicuous of a long list of
fictitious texts purporting to be genuine. Max Muller has shown how the
brahmins `mangled, mistranslated and misapplied' the original word `agre'
[dwelling] to read `agneh' [fire] in order to provide Rig-Vedic support for
the burning of widows. As already stated, the Epics were drastically overhauled,
while the corruption of the Puranas and Dharma-sastras continued till after the
Muhammadan conquest. Dr. Ambedkar refers to the well-known case in the time of
the East India Company, where an entire smriti was concocted to support a
particular lawsuit. And K.M. Pannikar refers to the fabrication of a Sankara
text by the brahmins of Malabar to sanction the inhuman custom of unapproach-
ability.

Books:
Ambedkar,B.R., Who were the Shudras ? , Bombay, 1946.
Bhandarkar, D.R., Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture, Madras, 1940.
Keith, A.B., A History of Sanskrit Literature, Oxford 1928.
Panikkar, K.M., Hinduism & the Modern World, Allahabad, 1938.
Pargiter, F.E., Ancient Indian Historical Tradition, 1922.
Theertha, Swami Dharma, The Menace of Hindu Imperialism, 2nd Ed., Lahore,1946
***

My comments:

(i) if the RigVeda was composed in India (rather than brought in by
migrating `Aryan' tribes) in 1500 B.C. or so; and the `Purusha Sukta'
dates to ~0 A.D. then, that the caste system began as enslavement of
`Dravidians', etc., is a bit of a myth. (That is, whatever caste system
existed did not have `Vedic' support.)

(ii) Even the Kamasutra was tampered with, in my opinion. For example,
on methods of increasing the size of the male `lingam', several herbal
and other presciptions are given -- about twenty or so. Then, the last
line reads: The blessings of venerable Brahmins, well propitiated, have
the same effect.    !!!!!!!!

(iii)It is a well-known fact [ well known enough that the Britannica, for
example, says so without citation], that the first Kanda of the Ramayana
dates from ~ A.D. 200 (while the subsequent ones are much more ancient.)
It is also known that it contains geographical absurdities (for example
Bharata's dash back to Ayodhya after Dasaratha's death begins in the
west, goes to Assam before coming to Ayodhya !)
Its also interesting that the town of Ayodhya, (which is barely mentioned
in the Mahabharata -- certainly not in the main story ) seems to vanish
from all literature in the several hundred B.C. period.
The town of Saketa is increasingly addressed as Ayodhya during the Gupta
era, and eventually becomes Ayodhya, and Saketa vanishes. The local
tradition is that a Vikramaditya discovered and re-established the long-
abandoned (Ayodhya having been abandoned two or three generations after
Rama) town of `Ayodhya' -- however it was most likely Saketa !!!!

The transmutation of Saketa -> Ayodhya is certainly of relevance today !

(iv) while Sati was a very ancient custom, the Vedic support for it was
forged in the same (few hundred A.D.) period.

The original RigVedic hymn is that after a wife lays down beside her
deceased husband, (and is done mourning), she is to be led back to her
dwelling. This has been changed to `led to the fire'. That it is a
forgery is apparent because subsequent verses deal with the widow's
remarriage (which she can hardly do if she's been barbecued.)

***

Anyway, I leave the reader to ponder on all this.
-arun gupta
ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Arun Gupta's article.

Regarding the date 8th century AD date, I think you are confused.  
Phulgenda Sinha, the author of 'Gita as it was' claims that the
present version of Bhagavaad Gita is interpolated in 8th century AD.
He also mentions the fact that Purusha-suktha is an interpolation
but I don't think he gives a date.  Wendy O'Flaherty in her Penguin book
'Rig Veda' also mention the fact the 'Purusha Suktha' hymn is a much
later origin but I don't remember any dates being mentioned. 

One can refer to the books mentioned at the end of Arun Gupta's 
article for more information on the dates.  (I am no Indologist,
I merely copied stuff off few books which convinces (at least partially)
to be true)

>Vidhyanth Rao			It is the man, not the method, that solves
>nathrao+@osu.edu		the problem. - Henri Poincare
>(614)-366-9341			[as paraphrased by E. T. Bell]


Meenan Vishnu