Book: Five Years Of Theosophy

V >> Various >> Five Years Of Theosophy




However, before giving the exact date assigned to Sankaracharya by the
Indian and Tibetan initiates, we shall indicate a few circumstances by
which his date may be approximately determined. It is our humble opinion
that the Sankara Vijayams hitherto published can be relied upon as far
as they are consistent with each other regarding the general outlines of
Sankara's life. We cannot, however, place any reliance whatever upon
Anandagiri's Sankara Vijaya published at Calcutta. The Calcutta edition
not only differs in some very material points from the manuscript copies
of the same work found in Southern India, but is opposed to every other
Sankara Vijayam hitherto examined. It is quite clear from its style and
some of the statements contained therein, that it was not the production
of Anandagiri, one of the four chief disciples of Sankara and the
commentator on his Upanishad Bhashyam. For instance, it represents
Sankara as the author of a certain verse which is to be found in
Vidyaranya's Adhikaranaratnamala, written in the fourteenth century. It
represents Sankara as giving orders to two of his disciples to preach
the Visishtadwaitee and the Dwaitee doctrines, which are directly
opposed to his own doctrine. The book under consideration says that
Sankara went to conquer Mandanamisra in debate, followed by
Sureswaracharya, though Mandanamisra assumed the latter name at the time
of initiation. It is unnecessary for us here to point out all the
blunders and absurdities of this book. It will be sufficient to say
that in our opinion it was not written by Anandagiri, and that it was
the introduction of an unknown author who does not appear to have been
even tolerably well acquainted with the history of the Adwaitee
doctrine. Vidyaranya's (otherwise Sayanachary, the great commentator of
the Vedas) Sankara Vijaya is decidedly the most reliable source of
information as regards the main features of Sankara's biography. Its
authorship has been universally accepted, and the information contained
therein was derived by its author, as may be seen from his own
statements, from certain old biographies of Sankara existing at the time
of its composition. Taking into consideration the author's vast
knowledge and information, and the opportunities he had for collecting
materials for his work when he was the head of the Sringeri Matham,
there is every reason to believe that he had embodied in his work the
most reliable information he could obtain. Mr. Wilson, however, says
that the book in question is "much too poetical and legendary" to be
acknowledged as a great authority. We admit that the style is highly
poetical, but we deny that the work is legendary. Mr. Wilson is not
justified in characterizing it as such on account of its description of
some of the wonderful phenomena shown by Sankara. Probably the learned
Orientalist would not be inclined to consider the Biblical account of
Christ in the same light. It is not the peculiar privilege of
Christianity to have a miracle-worker for its first propagator. In the
following observations we shall take such facts as are required from
this work.

It is generally believed that a person named Govinda Yogi was Sankara's
Guru, but it is not generally known that this Yogi was in fact
Patanjali--the great author of the Mahabhashya and the Yoga Sutras--
under a new name. A tradition current in Southern India represents him
as one of the Chelas of Patanjali; but it is very doubtful if this
tradition has anything like a proper foundation. But it is quite clear
from the 94th, 95th, 96th, and 97th verses of the 5th chapter of
Vidyaranya's Sankara Vijayam that Govinda Yogi and Patanjali were
identical. According to the immemorial custom observed amongst
initiates, Patanjali assumed the name of Govinda Yogi at the time of his
initiation by Goudapada. It cannot be contended that Vidyaranya
represented Patanjali as Sankara's Guru merely for the purpose of
assigning some importance to Sankara and his teaching. Sankara is
looked upon as a far greater man than Patanjali by the Adwaitees, and
nothing can be added to Sankara's reputation by Vidyaranya's assertion.
Moreover, Patanjali's views are not altogether identical with Sankara's
views; it may be seen from Sankara's writings that he attached no
importance whatever to the practices of Hatha Yog regarding which
Patanjali composed his Yoga Sutras. Under such circumstances, if
Vidyaranya had the option of selecting a Guru for Sankara, he would no
doubt have represented Vyasa himself (who is supposed to be still
living) as his Guru. We see no reason therefore to doubt the correctness
of the statement under examination. Therefore, as Sankara was
Patanjali's Chela, and as Goudapada was his Guru, his date will enable
us to fix the dates of Sankara and Goudapada. We may here point out to
our readers a mistake that appears in p. 148 of Mr. Sinnett's book on
Esoteric Buddhism as regards the latter personage. He is there
represented as Sankara's Guru; Mr. Sinnett was informed, we believe,
that he was Sankara's Paramaguru, and not having properly understood the
meaning of this expression, Mr. Sinnett wrote that he was Sankara's
Guru.

It is generally admitted by Orientalists that Patanjali lived before the
commencement of the Christian era. Mr. Barth places him in the second
century before the Christian era, accepting Goldstucker's opinion, and
Monier Williams does the same thing. Weber, who seems to have carefully
examined the opinions of all the other Orientalists who have written
upon the subject, comes to the conclusion that "we must for the present
rest satisfied with placing the date of the composition of the Bhashya
between B.C. 140 and A.D. 60, a result which considering the wretched
state of the chronology of Indian Liturgy generally is, despite its
indefiniteness, of no mean importance." And yet even this date rests
upon inferences drawn from one or two unimportant expressions contained
in Patanjali's Mahabhashya. It is always dangerous to draw such
inferences, and especially so when it is known that, according to the
tradition current amongst Hindu grammarians, some portions of
Mahabhashya were lost, the gaps being filled up by subsequent writers.
Even supposing that we should consider the expression quoted as written
by Patanjali himself, there is nothing in those expressions which would
enable us to fix the writer's date. For instance, the connection
between the expression "Arunad Yavanah Saketam" and the expedition of
Menander against Ayodhya between B.C. 144 and 120, relied upon by
Goldstucker is merely imaginary. There is nothing in the expression to
show that the allusion contained therein points necessarily to
Menander's expedition. We believe that Patanjali is referring to the
expedition of Yavanas against Ayodhya during the lifetime of Sagara's
father described in Harivamsa. This expedition occurred long before
Rama's time, and there is nothing to connect it with Menander.
Goldstucker's inference is based upon the assumption that there was no
other Yavana expedition against Ayodhya known to Patanjali, and it will
be easily seen from Harivamsa (written by Vyasa) that the said
assumption is unwarranted. Consequently the whole theory constructed by
Goldstucker on this weak foundation falls to the ground. No valid
inferences can be drawn from the mere names of kings contained in
Mahabhashya, even if they are traced to Patanjali himself, as there
would be several kings in the same dynasty bearing the same name. From
the foregoing remarks it will be clear that we cannot fix, as Weber has
done, B.C. 140 as the maximum limit of antiquity that can be assigned to
Patanjali. It is now necessary to see whether any other such limit has
been ascertained by Orientalists. As Panini's date still remains
undetermined, the limit cannot be fixed with reference to his date. But
it is assumed by some Orientalists that Panini must have lived at some
time subsequent to Alexander's invasion, from the fact that Panini
explains in his Grammar the formation of the word Yavanani. We are very
sorry that European Orientalists have taken the pains to construct
theories upon this basis without ascertaining the meaning assigned to
the word Yavana, and the time when the Hindus first became acquainted
with the Greeks. It is unreasonable to assume without proof that this
acquaintance commenced at the time of Alexander's invasion. On the
other hand, there are very good reasons for believing that the Greeks
were known to the Hindus long before this event. Pythagoras visited
India, according to the traditions current amongst Indian initiates, and
he is alluded to in Indian astrological works under the name of
Yavanacharya. Moreover, it is not quite certain that the word Yavana
was strictly confined to the Greeks by the ancient Hindu writers.
Probably it was originally applied to the Egyptians and the Ethiopians;
it was probably extended first to the Alexandrian Greeks, and
subsequently to the Greeks, Persians, and Arabians. Besides the Yavana
invasion of Ayodhya described in Harivamsa, there was another subsequent
expedition to India by Kala Yavana (Black Yavana) during Krishna's
lifetime described in the same work. This expedition was probably
undertaken by the Ethiopians. Anyhow, there are no reasons whatever, as
far as we can see, for asserting that Hindu writers began to use the
word Yavana after Alexander's invasion. We can attach no importance
whatever to any inferences that may be drawn regarding the dates of
Panini and Katyayana (both of them lived before Patanjali) from the
statements contained in Katha Sarit Sayara, which is nothing more than a
mere collection of fables. It is now seen by Orientalists that no proper
conclusions can be drawn regarding the dates of Panini and Katyayana
from the statements made by Hiuan Thsang, and we need not therefore say
anything here regarding the said statements. Consequently the dates of
Panini and Katyayana still remain undetermined by European Orientalists.
Goldstucker is probably correct in his conclusion that Panini lived
before Buddha, and the Buddhists' accounts agree with the traditions of
the initiates in asserting that Katyayana was a contemporary of Buddha.
From the fact that Patanjali must have composed his Mahabhashyam after
the composition of Panini's Sutras and Katyayana's Vartika, we can only
infer that it was written after Buddha's birth. But there are a few
considerations which may help us in coming to the conclusion that
Patanjali must have lived about the year 500 B.C.; Max Muller fixed the
Sutra period between 500 B.C. and 600 B.C. We agree with him in
supposing that the period probably ended with B.C. 500, though it is
uncertain how far it extended into the depths of Indian antiquity.
Patanjali was the author of the Yoga Sutras, and this fact has not been
doubted by any Hindu writer up to this time. Mr. Weber thinks, however,
that the author of the Yoga Sutras might be a different man from the
author of the Mahabhashya, though he does not venture to assign any
reason for his supposition. We very much doubt if any European
Orientalist can ever find out the connection between the first Anhika of
the Mahabhashya and the real secrets of Hatha Yoga contained in the Yoga
Sutras. No one but an initiate can understand the full significance of
the said Anhika; and the "eternity of the Logos" or Sabda is one of the
principal doctrines of the Gymnosophists of India, who were generally
Hatha Yogis. In the opinion of Hindu writers and pundits Patanjali was
the author of three works, viz., Mahabhashya, Yoga Sutras, and a book on
Medicine and Anatomy; and there is not the slightest reason for
questioning the correctness of this opinion. We must, therefore, place
Patanjali in the Sutra period, and this conclusion is confirmed by the
traditions of the Indian initiates. As Sankaracharya was a contemporary
of Patanjali (being his Chela) he must have lived about the same time.
We have thus shown that there are no reasons for placing Sankara in the
eighth or ninth century after Christ, as some of the European
Orientalists have done. We have further shown that Sankara was
Patanjali's Chela, and that his date should be ascertained with
reference to Patanjali's date. We have also shown that neither the year
B.C. 140 nor the date of Alexander's invasion can be accepted as the
maximum limit of antiquity that can be assigned to him, and we have
lastly pointed out a few circumstances which will justify us in
expressing an opinion that Patanjali and his Chela Sankara belonged to
the Sutra period. We may, perhaps, now venture to place before the
public the exact date assigned to Sankaracharya by Tibetan and Indian
initiates. According to the historical information in their possession
he was born in the year B.C. 510 (fifty-one years and two months after
the date of Buddha's Nirvana), and we believe that satisfactory evidence
in support of this date can be obtained in India if the inscriptions at
Conjeveram, Sringeri, Jaggurnath, Benares, Cashmere, and various other
places visited by Sankara, are properly deciphered. Sankara built
Conjeveram, which is considered as one of the most ancient towns in
Southern India; and it may be possible to ascertain the time of its
construction if proper inquiries are made. But even the evidence now
brought before the public supports the opinion of the Initiates above
indicated. As Goudapada was Sankaracharya's Guru's guru, his date
entirely depends on Sankara's date; and there is every reason to
suppose that he lived before Buddha.



Question VI.--"Historical Difficulty"--Why?


It is asked whether there may not be "some confusion" in the letter
quoted on p. 62 of "Esoteric Buddhism" regarding "old Greeks and Romans
said to have been Atlanteans." The answer is--None whatever. The word
"Atlantean" was a generic name. The objection to have it applied to the
old Greeks and Romans on the ground that they were Aryans, "their
language being intermediate between Sanskrit and modern European
dialects," is worthless. With equal reason might a future 6th Race
scholar, who had never heard of the (possible) submergence of a portion
of European Turkey, object to Turks from the Bosphorus being referred to
as a remnant of the Europeans. "The Turks are surely Semites," he might
say 12,000 years hence, and "their language is intermediate between
Arabic and our modern 6th Race dialects." *

--------
* This is not to be construed to mean that 12,000 years hence there will
be yet any man of the 6th Race, or that the 5th will be submerged. The
figures are given simply for the sake of a better comparison with the
present objection in the case of the Greeks and Atlantis.
---------

The "historical difficulty" arises from a certain authoritative
statement made by Orientalists on philological grounds. Professor Max
Muller has brilliantly demonstrated that Sanskrit was the "elder
sister"--by no means the mother--of all the modern languages. As to
that "mother," it is conjectured by himself and colleagues to be a "now
extinct tongue, spoken probably by the nascent Aryan race." When asked
what was this language, the Western voice answers: "Who can tell?"
When, "during what geological periods did this nascent race flourish?"
the same impressive voice replies: "In prehistoric ages, the duration
of which no one can now determine." Yet it must have been Sanskrit,
however barbarous and unpolished, since "the ancestors of the Greeks,
the Italians, Slavonians, Germans and Kelts" were living within "the
same precincts" with that nascent race, and the testimony borne by
language has enabled the philologist to trace the "language of the gods"
in the speech of every Aryan nation. Meanwhile it is affirmed by these
same Orientalists that classical Sanskrit has its origin at the very
threshold of the Christian era; while Vedic Sanskrit is allowed an
antiquity of hardly 3,000 years (if so much) before that time.

Now, Atlantis, on the statement of the "Adepts," sank over 9,000 years
before the Christian era.* How then can one maintain that the "old
Greeks and Romans" were Atlanteans? How can that be, since both nations
are Aryans, and the genesis of their languages is Sanskrit? Moreover,
the Western scholars know that the Greek and Latin languages were formed
within historical periods, the Greeks and Latins themselves having no
existence as nations 11,000 B.C.. Surely they who advance such a
proposition do not realize how very unscientific is their statement!

----------
* The position recently taken up by Mr. Gerald Massey in Light that the
story of Atlantis is not a geological event but an ancient astronomical
myth, is rather imprudent. Mr. Massey, notwithstanding his rare
intuitional faculties and great learning, is one of those writers in
whom the intensity of research bent into one direction has biased his
otherwise clear understanding. Because Hercules is now a constellation
it does not follow that there never was a hero of this name. Because
the Noachian Universal Deluge is now proved a fiction based upon
geological and geographical ignorance, it does not, therefore, appear
that there were not many local deluges in prehistoric ages. The
ancients connected every terrestrial event with the celestial bodies.
They traced the history of their great deified heroes and memorialized
it in stellar configurations as often as they personified pure myths,
anthropomorphizing objects in Nature. One has to learn the difference
between the two modes before attempting to classify them under one
nomenclature. An earthquake has just engulfed over 80,000 people
(87,903) in Sunda Straits. These were mostly Malays, savages with whom
but few had relations, and the dire event will be soon forgotten. Had a
portion of Great Britain been thus swept away instead, the whole world
would have been in commotion, and yet, a few thousand years hence, even
such an event would have passed out of man's memory; and a future Gerald
Massey might be found speculating upon the astronomical character and
signification of the Isles of Wight, Jersey, or Man, arguing, perhaps,
that this latter island had not contained a real living race of men but
"belonged to astronomical mythology," was a "Man submerged in celestial
waters." If the legend of the lost Atlantis is only "like those of
Airyana-Vaejo and Jambu-dvipa," it is terrestrial enough, and therefore
"the mythological origin of the Deluge legend" is so far an open
question. We claim that it is not "indubitably demonstrated," however
clever the theoretical demonstration.
---------

Such are the criticisms passed, such the "historical difficulty." The
culprits arraigned are fully alive to their perilous situation;
nevertheless, they maintain the statement. The only thing which may
perhaps here be objected to is, that the names of the two nations are
incorrectly used. It may be argued that to refer to the remote
ancestors and their descendants equally as "Greeks and Romans," is an
anachronism as marked as would be the calling of the ancient Keltic
Gauls, or the Insubres, Frenchmen. As a matter of fact this is true.
But, besides the very plausible excuse that the names used were embodied
in a private letter, written as usual in great haste, and which was
hardly worthy of the honour of being quoted verbatim with all its
imperfections, there may perhaps exist still weightier objections to
calling the said people by any other name. One misnomer is as good as
another; and to refer to old Greeks and Romans in a private letter as
the old Hellenes from Hellas or Magna Graecia, and the Latins as from
Latium, would have been, besides looking pedantic, just as incorrect as
the use of the appellation noted, though it may have sounded, perchance,
more "historical." The truth is that, like the ancestors of nearly all
the Indo-Europeans (or shall we say Indo-Germanic Japhetidae?), the
Greek and Roman sub-races mentioned have to be traced much farther back.
Their origin must be carried far into the mists of that "prehistoric"
period, that mythical age which inspires the modern historian with such
a feeling of squeamishness that anything creeping out of its abysmal
depths is sure to be instantly dismissed as a deceptive phantom, the
mythos of an idle tale, or a later fable unworthy of serious notice.
The Atlantean "old Greeks" could not be designated even as the
Autochthones--a convenient term used to dispose of the origin of any
people whose ancestry cannot be traced, and which, at any rate with the
Hellenes, meant certainly more than simply "soil-born," or primitive
aborigines; and yet the so-called fable of Deukalion and Pyrrha is
surely no more incredible or marvelous than that of Adam and Eve--a
fable that hardly a hundred years ago no one would have dared or even
thought to question. And in its esoteric significance the Greek
tradition is possibly more truly historical than many a so-called
historical event during the period of the Olympiades, though both Hesiod
and Homer may have failed to record the former in their epics. Nor
could the Romans be referred to as the Umbro-Sabbellians, nor even as
the Itali. Peradventure, had the historians learnt something more than
they have of the Italian "Autochthones"--the Iapygians--one might have
given the "old Romans" the latter name. But then there would be again
that other difficulty: history knows that the Latin invaders drove
before them, and finally cooped up, this mysterious and miserable race
among the clefts of the Calabrian rocks, thus showing the absence of any
race affinity between the two. Moreover, Western archeologists keep to
their own counsel, and will accept of no other but their own
conjectures. And since they have failed to make anything out of the
undecipherable inscriptions in an unknown tongue and mysterious
characters on the Iapygian monuments, and so for years have pronounced
them unguessable, he who would presume to meddle where the doctors
muddle would be likely to be reminded of the Arab proverb about
proffered advice. Thus, it seems hardly possible to designate "the old
Greeks and Romans" by their legitimate, true name, so as to at once
satisfy the "historians" and keep on the fair side of truth and fact.
However, since in the Replies that precede Science had to be repeatedly
shocked by most unscientific propositions, and that before this series
is closed many a difficulty, philological and archeological as well as
historical, will have to be unavoidably created--it may be just as wise
to uncover the occult batteries at once and have it over with.

Well, then, the "Adepts" deny most emphatically to Western science any
knowledge whatever of the growth and development of the Indo-Aryan race
which, "at the very dawn of history," they have espied in its
"patriarchal simplicity" on the banks of the Oxus. Before our
proposition concerning "the old Greeks and Romans" can be repudiated or
even controverted, Western Orientalists will have to know more than they
do about the antiquity of that race and the Aryan language; and they
will have to account for those numberless gaps in history which no
hypotheses of theirs seem able to fill up. Notwithstanding their
present profound ignorance with regard to the early ancestry of the
Indo-European nations, and though no historian has yet ventured to
assign even a remotely approximate date to the separation of the Aryan
nations and the origins of the Sanskrit language, they hardly show the
modesty that might, under these circumstances, be expected from them.
Placing as they do that great separation of the races at the first "dawn
of traditional history," with the Vedic age as "the background of the
whole Indian world" (of which confessedly they know nothing), they will,
nevertheless, calmly assign a modern date to any of the Rik-vedic oldest
songs, on its "internal evidence;" and in doing this, they show as
little hesitation as Mr. Fergusson when ascribing a post-Christian age
to the most ancient rockcut temple in India, merely on its "external
form." As for their unseemly quarrels, mutual recriminations, and
personalities over questions of scholarship, the less said the better.

"The evidence of language is irrefragable," as the great Oxford
Sanskritist says. To which he is answered--"provided it does not clash
with historical facts and ethnology." It may be--no doubt it is, as far
as his knowledge goes--"the only evidence worth listening to with regard
to ante-historical periods;" but when something of these alleged
"prehistorical periods" comes to be known, and when what we think we
know of certain supposed prehistoric nations is found diametrically
opposed to his "evidence of language," the "Adepts" may be, perhaps,
permitted to keep to their own views and opinions, even though they
differ with those of the greatest living philologist. The study of
language is but a part--though, we admit, a fundamental part--of true
philology. To be complete, the latter has, as correctly argued by
Bockt, to be almost synonymous with history. We gladly concede the
right to the Western philologist, who has to work in the total absence
of any historical data, to rely upon comparative grammar, and take the
identification of roots lying at the foundation of words of those
languages he is familiar with, or may know of, and put it forward as the
result of his study, and the only available evidence. But we would like
to see the same right conceded by him to the student of other races;
even though these be inferior to the European races, in the opinion of
the paramount West: for it is barely possible that, proceeding on other
lines, and having reduced his knowledge to a system which precludes
hypothesis and simple affirmation, the Eastern student has preserved a
perfectly authentic record (for him) of those periods which his opponent
regards as ante-historical. The bare fact that, while Western men of
science are referred to as "scholars" and scholiasts--native
Sanskritists and archeologists are often spoken of as "Calcutta" and
"Indian sciolists"--affords no proof of their real inferiority, but
rather of the wisdom of the Chinese proverb that "self-conceit is rarely
companion to politeness."

Copyright (c) 2007. knowncrafts.net. All rights reserved.