THIRD PILLAR - Portal για την Φιλοσοφία

Athena's Temple

Athena's Temple
ΑΕΙΦΩΤΟΣ ΛΥΧΝΟΣ

Search This Blog

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

The Astronomical Code of the Rigveda

The Astronomical Code of the Rigveda (New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan, 1994; revised and enlarged edition, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 2000) claims regularities in the organization of the Rigveda, connecting the structure to certain numbers in the astronomy-based ritual of the five-layered brick altars of the Vedic times.

Kak's archaeoastronomical claims have the effect of significantly extending the Vedic period, postulating the arrival of ethnic Indo-Aryans to the 7th millennium BC. This claim is in contradiction with mainstream Indology and historical linguistics and science historians
Kak arranges the number of hymns in each book of the Rigveda as follows, and compares the arrangement to a Vedic fire altar:

RV 10:191 RV 9:114
RV 7 :104 RV 8: 92
RV 5 : 87 RV 6: 75
RV 3 : 62 RV 4: 58
RV 2 : 43 RV 1:191

He then computes various sums and subtractions within the diagram, finding numbers related to the distance between the Earth and the Sun, and the sidereal periods of various planets.
Kak's method depends on the structure of the Rigveda as redacted by Shakalya in the late Brahmana period as opposed to the intrinsic content in the oldest portions of the text. Specifically, Witzel (2001) believes that Kak's approach relates to the organizations of the Rigveda into mandalas ("books"), a process of redaction undertaken by the shakhas long after the composition of the individual hymns (the samhita prose period, dating to well within the Indian Iron Age), rendering the attempt to date the text in this flawed[citation needed]. Other scholars have discredited Kak's claims and methods. Nanda has said that Kak's "method is breathtakingly ad hoc and reads like numerology 101."

Mr Bachmann's Revisions

Mr Bachmann has done much good work for Wikipedia, but he is way out of line on the insistence that his view should prevail. Here's why:
1 Witzel's essay appeared in EJVS, which is not a peer-reviewed journal; it is list serve that is controlled by him. This article is a rant, and not a scholarly assessment of the evidence. Further, Mr Witzel is not an expert on astronomy.
2 Kim Plofker was a post-doc (not a professor) when she wrote her review; she is still a post-doc (hardly an authority). Also, her review was on the first edition, and the second edition appeared 5 years after this review.
3 Assuming these opinions to be sound in themselves, we must realize that there are other scholars both in the West and India who don't agree with them, and Mr Bachmann should have the courtesy to let their views also be represented.
4 Mr Kak's work in the book appeared first in peer-reviewed journal in the West and in India. Checking his chapter in Selin's book (that in on arXiv.org), I see papers that appeared in Vistas in Astronomy (UK), Mankind Quarterly (USA), Proc. of the Royal Astronomical Society (UK), Indian J. of History of Science, Puratattva (Indological j. from India0, and the many favourable reviews in journals.
5 His analysis has been incorporated in essays in the Kluwer Encylopedia of Non-Western Science, Kluwer Encyclopedia of Non-Western Astronomy, and Stanley Wolpert's Encyclpedia of India (2006). The implication of this is that Western scholars generally support Kak's work on Rig Vedic astronomy.
6This work forms several chapters in the 85 volume History of Science and Civilization in India that is being currently edited by Professor D.P. Chattopadhyaya.
It appears to me that the previous edits that let the Witzel reference (Plofker's should not even be there since it concerns an older, obsolete edition) in together with a couple of representative pro-Kak references is a more reasonable thing.
Also Bachmann is wrong in claiming that Kak supports the influx of Aryans into India in 7000 BC or pre-3000 BC. He is silent on this. His lone argument from his side is that the Rig Veda should be prior to 2000 BC or so.

No comments: