Sang Nabi besar kita memilih cara2 ibadah dari seluruh agama besar di jamannya sehingga semua Muslim dapat menerima anugrah dari Tuhan masing2 agama. Karena dia lahir sebagai pagan (Hindu), maka sudah jelas agama Hindulah yang terdekat di hatinya. Karena itulah dia tidak dapat tidak memilih Dewa Bulan Allah agama Hindu sebagai Tuhan dalam Islam dan bulan sebagai simbol Islam.
“Umat Hindu menyebut Dewi Bulan Durga sebagai “Allah” bagil lafal ibadah dalam bahasa Sankrit sejak jaman awal Hinduisme.”; referensi: Kaaba adalah Kuil Hindu.
http://www.hinduism.co.za/kaabaa.htm
Baca dulu info tentang penulisnya kawan,
Purushottam Nagesh Oak (March 2, 1917 - December 4, 2007), commonly referred to as P. N. Oak, was an Indian writer, notable for his historical revisionism. Oak's "Institute for Rewriting Indian History" issued a quarterly periodical called Itihas Patrika in the 1980s.
Oak's claims, e.g. that Christianity and Islam are both derivatives of Hinduism, or that the Kaaba and the Taj Mahal were once Hindu temples to Shiva,[1] and their reception in Indian popular culture have been noted by observers of contemporary Indian society, who variously characterized Oak as a "mythistorian"[2] or more directly as a "crackpot".[3].
P. N. Oak (1917-2007): The lone fighter, etymologist, and historian
Shrinivas Tilak
Introduction
I landed in Mumbai in the night of Tuesday, Dec 4, 2007. When I opened the papers on Wednesday morning (Dec 5) there were reports of passing away of Purushottam Nagesh Oak on Tuesday at the age of 91. I was looking forward to meet with Mr Oak (hereafter Oak) to discuss a write-up I had prepared about him in response to a number of messages about him and his writings that had recently appeared on one Yahoo-based discussion group. I had known Oak for many decades and had last met him in February 2007 at his residence in Goodwill Society (an upscale neighborhood of metro Pune) to present him my latest book Understanding karma in light of Paul Ricoeur’s philosophical anthropology and hermeneutics. He then looked as he always did: tall, trim, and ramrod straight (thanks to his daily performance of several dozen Suryanamaskaras, see photo at the end of blog). He was sharp, alert, and moved his ninety-year old frame gracefully with the agility of a leopard. As usual, he alternated between etymologies of proper names and place names from all over the world and their Sanskrit equivalents and the history of India. After an hour or so I got up to say adieu and told him I would be back in December. The granddaughter of my sister had accompanied me. She requested Oak to pose with me for a photo which he did gladly (see photo at the end of blog).
My first memories of meeting Oak go back fifty years to May 1957. I had just graduated from a high school in Pune and had gone to Delhi with my three sisters to spend the summer with our father who worked in the Railway Board. Our mother had passed away in 1946 and we therefore attended a boarding school for boys and girls in Pune. A lonely widower, my father took to studying astrology as a hobby when he met Oak who used to supplement his income by writing astrology columns for a variety of magazines and newspapers. Since he had no secure government job (the dream of most middle-class Maharashtrians in those days) and a large family to feed, Oak was forced to try his hand at a variety of jobs including that as a reporter for the Statesman and the Hindustan Times (1947-74). For many years he was employed as information officer with the United States Information Service (USIS) at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi. I remember my meeting with Oak on May 10, 1957 particularly because that evening Veer Vinayak D. Savarkar, a legendary hero and freedom fighter, was to address a public meeting in Delhi to mark one hundred years of India’s first “war of independence” in 1857. I remember my father introducing me to Oak then. During the 1960s Oak often used to come to meet my father to discuss issues in astrology over a morning cup of tea. We used to take that opportunity to pump him about another legendary war hero Subhas Chandra Bose and the exploits of his Indian National Army (INA).
Making of the lone fighter
Born in 1917 in Indore (Madhya Pradesh, India), Purushottam Nagesh Oak was second of the three sons who all grew up becoming fluent in four languages: Their father spoke to them only in Sanskrit, mother in English, other close relations in Marathi, and the medium of instruction at school was Hindi. Young Purushottam went to college in Indore (BA. Holkar College, 1937) and Pune (M.A. Fergusson College, 1939, LL B., Indian Law Society College, 1940). For a short while he worked as a tutor in Fergusson College but soon found a job as a trainee storekeeper in the government ordinance factory at Khadaki near Pune. World War II began just as Oak completed the eight-month training period after which he was posted first in Madras (now Chennai) and then in Malaya.
In 1941 when Subhas Chandra Bose gave a call to rise against the British raj, Oak threw himself (body and soul) into the Azad Hind Sena (Indian National Army) started by Bose. For some time he acted as a private assistant (PA) to Bose and then as an ADC to General Jagannath Bhosale, the chief of the INA. Later he was stationed in Saigon where he worked on the Azad Hind Radio as a commentator. When Japan surrendered on August 15, 1945 Bose left Singapore immediately for Taipei via Saigon (according to Oak when the Assam initiative began to falter, Bose and his group (it included Oak) decided to return to Singapore making their way on foot in the night to avoid the frequent allied raids during the day). On August 18, Bose flew out of Taipei (it is not clear where he was headed) but the plane crashed upon take-off killing Bose and other occupants of the plane. The stranded INA soldiers were left to their own devices all across South-East Asia. To avoid being arrested for desertion and the subsequent court martial and a possible prison term, Oak walked back to India alone across the hostile and inaccessible mountainous terrain between Burma (Myanmar) and India.
When India became free in 1947, all charges against the INA personnel were dropped. But the lone fighter in Oak, however, was soon to get involved in a much more sinister and deadly fight. Having done his part in the struggle for India's political independence, he was to became a one-man brigade of an independent historian who had taken upon himself the thankless task of rescuing India's history which, he insisted, was hijacked by invaders from medieval times on. Oak began his historical odyssey with the hypothesis that there are no final answers to our questions about humanity's past. In world history, all ‘conclusions’ must be tentative. Yet, accounts of the past construed by Western historians usually come neatly packed in western religious, cultural and sociological paradigms. Consider the following ‘gem’ from Friedrich Max Műller, the Germany born professor of philology at Oxford, who is said to be the father of comparative religion [and Indology]:
History seems to teach that the whole human race required a gradual education before, in the fullness of time, it could be admitted to the truths of Christianity. All the fallacies of human reason had to be exhausted, before the light of a high truth could meet with ready acceptance. The ancient religions of the world were but the milk of nature, which was in due time to be succeeded by the bread of life.... 'The religion of Buddha has spread far beyond the limits of the Aryan world, and to our limited vision, it may seem to have retarded the advent of Christianity among a large portion of the human race. But in the sight of Him with whom a thousand years are but as one day, that religion, like the ancient religions of the world, may have but served to prepare the way of Christ, by helping through its very errors to strengthen and to deepen the ineradicable yearning of the human heart after the truth of God (Max Műller 1860: 32).
Notwithstanding Max Műller’s chauvinistic claim on behalf of Christianity, the nagging question diligent seekers of truth about the past ask remained, “Is world history written from a Christian or Islamic perspective alone credible?” The fact is; world's distant past is pre-Christian and pre-Islamic. Though it may remain unfathomable there was sufficient evidence available (according to Oak) of an older world (that is periodically reported in world media) whose origins go back to the Vedic heritage. Oak’s thesis accordingly was (1) India's [and the world’s] Vedic heritage and history has been thoroughly distorted by invaders to such an extent that Indians today suffer from cultural amnesia; (2) Indians have forgotten their own glorious tradition preserved in the epics and purāņas which are as good a source of history as modern historical documents; (3) In post-independence India missionary, Muslim, and Marxist historians have drained Indian history of its Aryan and Vedic content and context; (4) The emphasis in today’s historiography is on secularism and on appeasement of minorities of all sorts: cultural, linguistic, regional or religious; (5) In producing "idealized versions" of the past, India's Vedic heritage has been distorted beyond recognition; and (6) In fabricating history to serve contemporary goals of a secular society, historians of modern India have robbed India of its authentic past.
Unified field theory of Sanskrit language
Oak understood the Veda to be a compendium of knowledge: mundane and transcendent. He compared the entire Vedic canon to an encyclopedia, a guidebook or a manual that explains the working of the cosmic order and how humanity should live in harmony with that order. The Veda therefore is a world heritage that is not India’s alone. “The Veda is infinite and endless” says the tradition (anantā vai vedāh) containing the strands of the sixteen types of knowledge and sixty-four types of arts and technologies. Hinduism, for Oak, is a modern residual, territorial synonym of primeval, ancient worldwide Vedic culture implying the people of India whose goal is to lead a life of world peace and harmony. Hinduism therefore should not be regarded as being coeval with other world religions: Buddhism, Christianity or Islam, which are individual-centred faiths. Hinduism (alias Vedic culture), on the other hand, is a primordial mother-faith uniting all creeds in a common bond of cultural fraternity and in a common language, Sanskrit. It governed all human social relations and spiritual development from the beginning of time until the rise of ‘missionary’ religions of Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam.
Religionists agree that despite diverse manifestations the immanent divinity is one. Likewise physicists agree that the seemingly diverse elements of the physical world emanate from a single source. For Oak, this indicated a certain common starting point for everything. Naturally, history is no exception and it too had a single source and a one- point beginning. Oak located his unified field theory of language and history in this fact, which he applied in order to reunite humanity once again in Vedic culture and in the universal teaching, speaking, and learning of Sanskrit. In this Oak was following the lead provided by Friedrich Schlegel (father of Indo-Germanic or Indo-European thesis) in the 19th century. In his On the Language and the Wisdom of the Indians (1808) Schlegel made more than 150 comparisons of noun and verb roots, prepositions, pronouns, numbers, and names of animals in five European (German, French, Latin, Greek, and English) and two Asian (Persian and Sanskrit) languages. After comparing the grammar of these languages, he concluded that the similarity among these languages is not accidental and the essential agreement among them indicates a common descent from Sanskrit. The ‘inner structure’ of these languages attested to their common genetic origin in Sanskrit. Like William Jones, Schlegel believed that a unitary human race originated somewhere in Asia. Before his fall, this primordial man was a creature who knew God perfectly, for he spoke God’s language, quite possibly Sanskrit. Sanskrit is a living, organic language because its grammatical structure is based on the inflection of roots. Indian civilization spread to all corners of the world through emigration and colonization—to the Germans, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans and even to China and Japan (see Tzoref-Ashkenazi 2004: 119-126). Once people recognize their common Vedic heritage, the world will then abandon (he hoped) all religious and ideological labels and treat the whole globe as one realm where people may move across continents without inhibitions.
A world history of histories
Oak was concerned to provide an altogether new framework for the study, comprehension, and research in Sanskrit and in Vedic culture as the fountain of world history. After many years of reflection and research Oak put his thoughts in a work that was later published as World Vedic Heritage: A History of Histories (New Delhi: Hindi Sahitya Sadan 2003; 3rd edition) (hereafter WVH). A huge tome comprised of 1394 pages with more than 150 pictures and illustrations, Oak's magnum opus is now available in a paper back edition in two volumes. In 1964 Oak established an Institute for Rewriting Indian History in Delhi to provide corrections to what he insisted were the biased versions of India's history commissioned or written by its invaders, colonizers, and modern secular historians. It also publishes The Annual Research Journal, which includes articles by Oak and others as well as a compilation in each issue of items of Indological interest culled from all over the world. The institute made no pretence at writing history in the sense implied in the works of western (or westernized) historians of India. The academic historian and the professional scholar claim to be bound by firm rules of evidence. Assertions must be supported by verifiable facts. Speculation can go only so far. Though historical writing may be a part of literature, its professional practitioners avoid anything that might be exposed as mere fiction.
Oak therefore presented WVH as a ‘history of histories’ and the ‘ultimate in world history’ by positing a unitary start for humanity and by concluding that Sanskrit was the first language to humanity. Vedic culture and Sanskrit constituted the eternal thread that ran through all human life, speech, and activity (WVH 19). But after the cataclysmic Mahābhārata war that took place in 5561 BCE administrative, social, cultural, political, and linguistic unity of the world was shattered and humanity got divided into different regional units such as Scythia, Parthia, Syria, Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, and China. As centuries rolled by, there were more subdivisions and estrangement as people began speaking different varieties of broken Sanskrit, adopting different and competing deities, professing strange ideologies and swearing allegiances to strange creeds (WVH 20). Every world language, religion, cult, creed or country finds itself related to the Veda and to Sanskrit in the ultimate analysis. Since that twin heritage is India’s preserve in modern times, every country and culture feels the need of Indological research for a deeper understanding of its own socio-cultural and ethical background.
Oak, the etymologist
Oak claimed that the mother civilization, from which all world civilizations grew, was centred in Bhāratavarşa (ancient name for metropolitan India). When Europe converted to Christianity Bhāratavarşa came to signify the non-Christian regions of the world. With the rise of Islam, Bhāratavarşa came to be recognized as the non-Muslim and non-Christian areas of the world i.e. modern India. Oak compares this process of attrition to the Japanese Bonsai technique whereby even a giant banyan tree is stunted into a miniature, bottled exhibit. With such a shrinking theatre the scene of ancient Vedic legends too has been getting progressively confined in the public mind to the territory of contemporary India. The field of action of heroes like Rāma and Kŗşņa is restricted to space between Amritsar and Rameshwar. Whereas in ancient times they were worshipped as Bhagawan all across the world ((WVH 1323-1324, see below). If in our times communities like the Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, and Parsees appear different that is because in the ups and downs of history they have been cut off by time and distance from Vedic culture. Therefore, more we delve into the remote past we see those differences narrowing down and pointing to the common Vedic culture (WVH 917).
In support of his claim Oak cited the works of Orientalist Horatio H. Wilson (Boden Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford) who observed, “the affinities of the Sanskrit language prove the common origin of the now widely scattered nations amongst whose dialects they are traceable, and render it unquestionable that they must all have spread abroad from some central spot in that part of the globe first inhabited by mankind according to the inspired record” (preface to Vişņupurāņa Oxford ciii) (WVH 146). Oak also pointed out that the people of Poland, too, consider Sanskrit as the mother of the Polish language and India as their cultural mother. This comes out in a Polish expression, “Kto poznal India, poznal coly Swiat” (He who sees India has seen the whole world) (WVH 771). Music is the soul of most civilizations and the Vedic culture was no exception. Oak pointed out that in his The Indian Empire Sir William Hunter remarked that a regular system of notation had been worked out in India before the age of Pāņini and the seven notes were designated by their initial letters. This mode of notation was passed on to the Persians who transmitted to the Arabs and through them into the European music by Guido d’Arezzo at the beginning of the 11th century (WVH 27).
Today, ask any Christian or Muslim about the culture of his/her pre-Christian or pre-Muslim forefathers and he/she will look perplexed not knowing anything about their respective past. In fact, Christians and Muslims have never imagined that they should have had some family history and heritage in the pre-Christian or pre-Islamic millennia too. Not surprisingly, their concept and notion of culture go back only two thousand years. Since the Christians and Muslims dominated the world history through military or missionary conquests over the last two millennia, they have nothing coherent to say about the world’s Vedic heritage before the arrival of Christianity and Islam on the world stage. WVH seeks to fill that void by making all humanity, especially those who segregate and barricade themselves as Christians and Muslims, aware of their common pre-historic link with their Vedic cultural and spiritual past.
Oak pointed out that describing the pre-Christian worlds, the Bible admits (Genesis 11:1): “And the whole earth was of one language and one speech. And it came to pass as they journeyed from the East…And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one and they have all one language…The Lord scattered them abroad from thence…” (WVH 107). The world today needs to realize and recognize that the ancestry of all humans is neither Christian nor Muslim but Vedic. Suppressing or stamping out that truth is an act of theological and academic tyranny. To correct all such aberrations that bedevil human history through deliberate design, negligence, and ignorance and present a cogent, continuous, and convincing account so that humanity reawakens to its pristine Vedic heritage was mission of Oak’s life.
At the end of the Mahābhārata war, humanity came to be divided into two major groups: devas (progeny of Aditi, wife of Kaśyapa) and dānavas/daityas (progeny of Diti, another wife of Kaśyapa). While Indians trace their origin to Aditi and devas, populations of Europe and Egypt are the descendants of Diti and therefore are called daityas. The Greeks accordingly were known as Danao in Latin. Denmark, Danube, and Don are clearly derivatives of dānava. Iranians and Mesopotamians, too, are daityas. Russia is derived from ŗşīya (Rushiya = land of the ŗşīs--sages). The Mayas of Central and South America are the followers of demon Maya who escaped to Pātāla (the land beneath India) by the western seas. The Caspian Sea takes its name from the sage Kaśyapa and the Samarkanda region from the sage Śrī Mārkaņdeya. Palestine is derived from Pulastin, another Vedic sage. Cyprus is a mal pronunciation of the Sanskrit term Śivaprastha signifying a centre of Śaiva worship.
Yāska's Nirukta: The science of etymology
Oak argued that the so-called Indo-European groups of languages are local variations and/or mal pronunciations of Sanskrit. In support of the claim he advanced, Oak made liberal use of the discipline of etymology, which goes back to Yāska’s Nirukta, (ca.500 BCE) a compilation of etymological and biographical data. The origin of the method of the Nairukta school of Vedic interpretation (etymology) is to be found in the Brāhmaņa texts which attempt derivation of a number of Vedic words. Nighaņţu, a later and more systematic work of etymology, is in three Kāņdas: the first Naighaņţukakāņda, lists the synonyms (ekārthapadas) with some words having more than one hundred synonyms. Naigamakāņda, the second, lists the words that act as homonyms (bhinnārthakāni samānapadāni). The third, Daivatakāņda, lists the various deities that are worshipped, praised, or invoked in the Veda. Yāska’s Nirukta is a commentary on the Nighaņţu explaining the words from the Veda in terms of similar words from classical Sanskrit. Yāska explains nearly six hundred verses from the Ŗgveda providing etymology of nearly 1300 words. In the process he also undertakes a theoretical discussion of etymology, phonetics, origin of language, parts of speech, semantics, and the five major theories of interpretation of key Vedic words. Professor Lakshman Swarup (Department of Sanskrit, Punjab University), critically edited the text from original Sanskrit manuscripts and translated it into English providing a detailed introduction, exegetical and critical notes, and appendices (1967).
The Nirukta represents the very early (possibly pre-Pāņini) basis of the tradition of semantic analysis (nirvacana), which is an intellectual practice omnipresent throughout Sanskrit systematic thought. Unfortunately, it has often been denigrated by contemporary scholarship as merely a form of naïve folk etymology. The classic example of Yāska’s approach to semantic analysis, which can shed some light on Oak’s preoccupation with etymology, is the Vedic etymology of the noun ‘water’: “then Indra got hold [āpnod] of you as you flowed, hence you are Waters [āpo] thereafter” (Atharvaveda 3:13.2). A key concern in the Vedic texts (including the Upanişads) is to uncover the hidden correspondences that obtain among the sacrificial ritual (yajña), the cosmos, the social world, and the microcosm of the human body. These correspondences (also known as counterparts = bandhu; equivalences = sampad or secret connections = upanişads) have cognitive value: they reveal knowledge that is not directly evident. A striking example of the knowledge that one can recover through meditation is to be found in the bandhus stated directly in propositional form in the five great statements (mahāvākyas) in the Upanişads: I am brahman (creating a bond [bandhu] between I and brahman); that thou are (creating a bond [bandhu] between that and thou) etc.
Yāska outlines five ways of doing etymology arguing that one should etymologize on the basis of a similarity of common usage, a syllable, or even a letter if the need be. One must never give up the attempt to etymologize taking into account (as required) syncope, metathesis, anaptyxis, haplology, and assimilation. However, Yāska’s insistence that each and every word must be made meaningful by etymology often led to preposterous etymologies (Ram Gopal 1983: 70-73). (1) Varņāgama: the proper meaning of a word may be explained by adding one or more letters to the word. In the expression tattvāyāmi, for instance, the component yāmi can be better explained by adding the letter ‘ca.’ Yācāmi then is explained as ‘I praise or plead’ (2) Varņaviparyaya: letters in a word may be interchanged to make a word more meaningful. Thus gabhe is changed to bhage and then explained as a vocative form of Bhaga (praise); (3) Varņavikāra: a letter in a word under study may be substituted by another to make the word more meaningful. For instance, sthūra is explained as sthūla (big, great) by substituting the ‘ra’ with ‘la’; (4) Varņalopa: a letter from a word may be dropped to render it meaningful. Thus, pāyanāya is explained as pānāya (for drinking) after dropping the letter ‘ya;’ (5) Dhātorarthānugama: The meaning of a word may be made more explicit by referring to its root or core meaning. The literal meaning of a statement giro juhomi (I offer speech to fire) is not sensible because speech cannot be offered in sacrifice. A more sensible meaning is ‘I utter speech.’
It is not clear if Oak was consciously aware of the five-fold method of etymology developed by Yāska. Yet, one finds in WVH Oak closely following Yāska. Oak finds fault, for example, with the etymology of the English word ‘widower’ which is explained as widow + er. If labour + er signifies a person doing labour, the widower would be a person who makes a woman ‘widow.’ Carried to its logical etymological meaning, argues Oak, widower would be a murderer of a woman’s husband. The correct etymology of widower, claims Oak, is from the Sanskrit word ‘vidhavā,’ i.e. one who is without (vi) her husband ‘dhava’ i.e. husband (WVH 926). This is an instance of varņaviparyaya. Oak traces the words truth and untruth to Sanskrit ŗta and anŗta by dropping the letter ‘t’ from the English word following Yāska’s principle of varņalopa (WVH 926). Africa is known in Sanskrit as Śankhadvīpa, i.e. the Conch-shell land because its shape resembles that of a conch. Oak argues that the English word conch is derived from śankha. This can be shown if the letter ‘c’ is allowed to retain its alphabetical pronunciation ‘si.’ Conch then could be written as ‘sonch,’ i.e. śankha. Oak derives the word baptism (the ritual of confirmation to Christianity by sprinkling holy water) from the Sanskrit bāşpitasma (sprinkled upon) by the process of varņaviparyaya whereby the positions of ‘sa’ and ‘pa’ are interchanged (WVH 1019).
In WVH Oak supplies hundreds of instances of tracing a given non-Sanskrit term or word to its presumed Sanskrit origin. Take for instance the terms genesis and nemesis signifying respectively the beginning and end of the cosmos. Standard European languages dictionaries, he argued, offer a haphazard, roundabout etymology ending in the verb gen meaning ‘to become.’ But it is the Sanskrit word janma (meaning birth) that provides a more satisfactory etymological explanation. Nemesis is routinely explained from the Greek verb ‘nemo’ meaning ‘to give what is due’ (as per the Oxford Dictionary). But the Sanskrit expression nāmaśeşa (becoming so thoroughly extinct that only the name remains) provides a more meaningful and satisfactory explanation (WVH 33).
Oak based his etymologies on the phonetic similarities or resemblance (bandhu) between Sanskrit words and the things they designate. Resemblances between words are evidence of a direct connection between the ‘word’ and the ‘world’ it represents. Sanskritist Patrick Olivelle cautions us in this context that Yāska, Sāyaņa, and others in that long line should not be dismissed as 'folk' etymologists. They were sophisticated enough to know the true etymologies of the words they explain (1998: 25). Like Yāska and Sāyaņa Oak proceeded on the assumption that the surface forms of words or names provide clues to the ‘deeper and hidden connections’ between Sanskrit and non-Sanskrit words and worlds they represent. For instance, he argued that English ‘anger’ is based on Sanskrit ‘angāra’ i.e. burning coal. The expression ‘Burning with anger’ correctly carries over into English the sense of anger provided by the equivalent Sanskrit term. The word ‘underling’ in English language is traceable to the Sanskrit ‘antaralinga’ meaning smaller, junior. A typical Śiva temple has two lingas installed in it. The bigger one is prominently displayed on the main floor. The smaller one is less conspicuous and is located in the inner sanctum (garbhagŗha)(WVH 873). ‘Prophylactic’ is the Sanskrit equivalent of 'pra-phalaktika’ i.e. that which induces expected or beneficial results (WVH 945).
Following Swiss Sanskritist Johannes Bronkhorst (2001: 147-203) it is possible to argue that though etymologies supplied by Oak may not be historical or truly etymological, like poetry (which does not necessarily expresses reality but rhetoric and builds on appearances of similarities or resemblances between words), Oak’s ‘fictitious’ etymologies nevertheless substitute for what Oak believed now lost connections between Sanskrit, other world languages, and reality. Victor Turner's discussion of fictitious etymologies used by Ndembu to explain their rituals as an important part of the 'inside view' or 'emic explanation' would also be relevant in trying to understand Oak’s heavy reliance on etymology. Following Turner I would like to counsel non-Indian Indologists to pause and reflect before using their etic (from outside the Indian/Hindu tradition) arguments to dismiss Oak’s etymological use that is developed and deployed emically (from within the Hindu tradition).
It was K. L. Pike who coined the terms etic and emic in his Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior (1954). While etic refers to a detached, trained observer's perception of the un-interpreted ‘raw’ data; emic refers to how that data is interpreted by an "insider" to the system. The detached observer's view is one window on the world. The view of the local scene through the eyes of a native participant in that scene is a different window. Either view by itself is restricted in scope and may lead to distortion. The first ignores the concept of relevance, purpose, and meaning. The second may distort or mould vision or experience so that one interprets what one sees or hears or understands, only through the colored glasses of one's own experiential structure. Both etic and emic views therefore must be brought to the fore if Oak’s etymological work is to be understood and appreciated. One can get a deeper appreciation of the universe of his researches by consciously approaching his etymologies [and historiography] from these two directions.
Like homonymy, etymology (whether true or even fictitious), argued Turner, acts as a device whereby the semantic wealth of a word or symbol may be augmented (Turner 1975). It seems that Oak was also concerned to maximize the similarities between the Vedic heritage and its metamorphosis expressed differently (linguistically and culturally) throughout the world and minimize the differences between them (see above reference to WVH 917). Consider, for instance, his analysis of the relationship between the Vatican centred institution of papacy and the Vedic understanding of sin (pāpa). He begins by arguing that the office of the Pope is similar to the ancient Vedic pontiff. The French term for the Pope, le pape (Spanish papa) is significantly closer to the Sanskrit term ‘pāpa meaning sin. When the suffix ‘ha’ is added to it, we get pāpaha i.e. the remover of sin. Christianity revolves around the concept of sin, namely that we all are born out of sin and everybody’s sole concern in life should be to atone for one’s sins with the help of divine grace mediated through Jesus and his representative on the earth, the Pope. This formulation is to be found already, argued Oak, in the Vedic tradition. Every orthodox Hindu begins the day with the acknowledgment: I am sin incarnate; I was born of sin (pāpo’ham, pāpa sambhavah)(WVH 1003). Pāpaha, according to Oak, was the title as well as a function (removing of sin) of the supreme pontiff attached to the Vedic administration of Europe. Over the centuries, the original term ‘Pāpaha’ was modified and turned into ‘Pope’ or ‘Papa’ in various European languages (WVH 1003).
The semantic wealth that Oak was interested in making explicit through etymological and historical analysis pertained to the civilization and the language (Sanskrit) of India that (he believed) were the soul of the world. By making explicit the close nexus between etymology and history he thought he could recapitulate the lost, forgotten, or suppressed common heritage and history of the world (WVH 33). Accordingly, WVH is conceived as an informal etymology and history-based discourse (more like a fire-side chat really) that is devoid of technical jargon, on matters pertaining to world history and culture addressed both to the layperson and professionals. Occasionally, there is discussion pertaining only to Indian history (e.g. the Taj Mahal) to illustrate how methods of historical analysis can be applied to specific situations. Even though many of the etymologies suggested by Oak will not stand academic scrutiny, each must be examined carefully before rejecting it. Those ‘whole ones’ who called him a ‘cracked pot’ should heed E.B. White’s admonition: Genius is more often found in a cracked pot than in a whole one. Oak’s etymological effort therefore should not be summarily dismissed as ‘Oakisms’ as many scholars tend to do.
Oak, the historian
In writing WVH Oak was concerned with recreating (what he strongly believed) the vanished history of the world, which began with the Aryans: their successes, failures, and ultimate fate. It is a spellbinding history of the world narrated by a master storyteller. Though general Indian reader will be enchanted by it, most professional historians will be greatly annoyed. True, physical evidence of Aryan origins in India and their migration beyond India is scarce but relevant archaeological finds uncovered in India, Pakistan, and elsewhere have baffled historians and archaeologists. In the course of more than fifty years of research and on-site inspections Oak connected them to existing structures and constructions usually associated with (and restricted to) the Indus Valley Civilization. WVH relies on this germ of ancient history that most academics and scholars will not touch with a ten-foot pole because they dread being laughed at by their peers. Oak could not prove his thesis with a body of solid evidence, but he did tell his fascinating tale persuasively. He cleverly made logical use of the scraps of evidence that do exist, such that the reader begins to feel that something like what Oak described could have happened (consider, for instance, his argument that the Rāmāyaņa, the ancient Hindu epic, was sung, studied, and revered in ancient Europe also in much the same way it is reverently quoted and recited in contemporary India WVH 446-475). In this, Oak drew on a living tradition of speculative and imaginative historiography going back to Vyāsa and Vālmiki where myth, fact, and fiction imperceptibly flow together. Yet he was graceful enough to acknowledge that some of his conclusions or accounts were founded on conjecture and analogy. Like Vyāsa and other purāņa writers he often deviated from the conditional into the indicative mood when hard evidence was lacking.
Muharram’s Vedic/Hindu connection
Oak’s account of the Vedic connection with pre-Islamic Arabia is generally dismissed as conjecture. But now evidence is mounting to suggest that it may not be all conjecture. On the tenth day of Muharram, the first month of Islamic calendar, Shia Muslims across the world spend the day in mourning to commemorate the martyrdom of Hazrat Imam Hussain, his family, and followers. In an article “Hindus participate in Moharram here” Times of India, January 22, 2008; Pune edition ) correspondent Falzan Ahmad wrote that on Sunday, January 19, 2007 in Muzaffarpur in the state of Uttar Pradesh, a group of Hindus participated in the Muharram procession with equal veneration. Claiming their lineage to Hussaini Brahmin sect, this year they revived the centuries-old tradition of shedding of tears in the memory of the martyrs of Karbala, which their ancestors used to do. Mostly Bhumihars, the group marched barefoot from Bara Imambara in Brahmapur locality of Muzafarpur beating the chest and chanting “Ya Hussain.” “Our ancestors also fought in support of Imam Hussain and sacrificed their lives in Karbala and we are equally pained at the historical martyrdom,” said Arun Kumar Sharma, convener of the Bhumihar-Brahmin Mahasabha.
Ahmad further notes that references in several books and records confirm that some Hindus did join Imam Hussain, the grandson of Prophet Muhammad, when he was through a bloody battle with Yezid at Karbala (in Irak) on October 10, 680. The members of the sect, also known as the Hussaini Brahmin, had settled near river Euphrates. Subsequently, they returned to India and assumed family names like Datts, Mohiyals, Tyagis, and many others. They also practiced an intriguing blend of Islamic and Hindu traditions. The late Sunil Dutt, who belonged to the Husaini Samaj sect, used to attend Muharram processions. Marching in the procession ahead of the band of young Shia youths, Upendra Prasad Shahi said, “The battle of Karbala was a war to save humanity and faith and we are proud that our ancestors, too, sacrificed their lives.
Legend has it that Rahab Sidh Datt had fought on behalf of Imam Hussain in the battle of Karbala, sacrificing his seven sons in the process. Rahab was the leader of a small band of career-soldiers living near Baghdad at the time of the battle of Karbala. In his novel “Karbala,” Munshi Prem Chand mentions about Hindus fighting for Imam Hussain and referred to them as descendants of Ashwastthama, son of Dronacharya. Today, the Hussain Brahmin sect is a rapidly vanishing community in India. Younger generation is abandoning its ancestral heritage. “We should, rather, feel proud of this tradition,” said Sharma. “Before the advent of Islam, we had blood relations with the people of the Arab world,” Sharma claimed (“Hindus participate in Moharram here” Falzan Ahmad, Pune, Times of India, January 22, 2008).
Ahmad’s report goes some way in providing credibility to Oak’s claims that (1) since very ancient times Indians had found work abroad in the military and administrative services and (2) until about two thousand years ago Vedic culture had prevailed all over the world (WVH 637-640). Ancient Africa and Arabia formed part of the empire of Kuśa, the son of Śrī Rāma. Subsequently, King Vasumitra Śunga ruled over that region (WVH 500). Like other regions of the ancient world, Arabia was previously known by its Sanskrit name: Arvasthāna (i.e. land of horses). Several Brahmins and Jats held important posts in Arab lands from pre-Islamic times (cf Arun Sharma’s claim above that before the advent of Islam, “we had blood relations with the people of the Arab world”). Ali, the fourth Caliph, had entrusted the treasury to a Hindu jat on the eve of the battle of Jabal (WVH 640,649). With the rise of Islam in Arabia and its rapid spread through West Asia and parts of Europe within one hundred years of the founding of Islam, however, the Vedic past from these parts of the world was blotted out. During the same period, Islam as a faith split into two contesting streams: the dominant Sunni and the minority Shia.
Hungary born Arminicus Vambery extensively traveled through several Muslim countries in the nineteenth century, provided a compact account of the traditional Iranian understanding of the rise of its Shi’a faith and its differences with the dominant Sunni stream. When Muhammad died without formally designating any one as his successor, his faithful followers broke into two rival camps. The larger group considered Abubaker (the oldest companion of the prophet) to be most worthy as Muhammad’s successor, while the minority group backed Ali, Muhammad’s son-in-law. In the struggle that ensued, Ali’s party was vanquished. After Abubaker, Usman became the Caliph who was succeeded by Umar. But Ali’s partisans did not despair of their cause and after several attempts managed to install Ali on the throne as Caliph. Ali had two sons Hassan and Hussain from Fatima, the prophet’s daughter. When Ali was assassinated, Hussain claimed the right of succession. On one occasion when Hussain was going from Mecca to Kufa his group was attacked by the men of Yezid and everyone was killed in the ambush. This catastrophe is commemorated in Iran and elsewhere where the Shias are in sizeable numbers by mournful and plaintive songs and theatrical exhibitions called Tazias
Oak subjected this traditional account of the genesis of Muharram to historical scrutiny and analysis. The first point he noted in the received account is that the succession to Muhammad as the head of the burgeoning Islamic faith was an all-Arab affair. The choice was between Abubaker and Ali. How should Iranians as a nation be interested in taking sides one way or another? If it was a matter of personal/group preference, Iranians should have been split (perhaps equally) in opting for Abubaker or Ali as the Caliph. Only if Ali or Hussain had been an Iranian would they side with one of them as a leader of the fledgling Muslim faith (it was only a hundred years old then) rather than with Abubaker.
The real reason for Iranian dissent, suggests Oak, therefore must be found elsewhere. Iranians were still chafed by their conquest at the hands of the Arabs. The memory of their military loss to an alien culture and political philosophy just a hundred years previously must have weighed heavily on the collective Iranian psyche. When the Arab majority strongly supported the claim of Abubaker, the Iranians therefore went with Ali (cf. Munshi Prem Chand’s remark above that some Hindus [descendants of Aśvatthāmā] fought for Imam Hussain). Had the Arabs opted for Ali, the Iranians would have gone for Abubaker. The main point was that the Iranians had needed an issue to register a protest against their recent defeat and domination by the Arabs (cf the intriguing comment above of young Upendra Prasad Shahi, “The battle of Karbala was a war to save humanity and faith and we are proud that our ancestors, too, sacrificed their lives”).
Vambery’s description of the Muharram ceremony he witnessed during his journey through Iran supports Oak and Shahi. Just before the Tazia commenced (observed Vambery) a ragged and rickety looking dervish stepped upon the platform lauding the perfection and brave deeds of some great Shias and mentioning the names of some distinguished Sunni, he exclaimed with a fury, “Brethren, ought we not to curse them, ought we not to call down damnation upon their heads?” There he paused, waiting for the effect of his words on the assembled multitude, which expressed their approval of his curses by loud cries of “Bishbad, bishbad” (more even than that, more even than that).
Why do Iranians call their protest, funeral-rally Muharram? Why do they carry in that rally seven or ten-storied replicas of huge decorated mansions? Why those towering structures are called Tazias or Tabuts? Oak found the standard explanation that the Tazias represented the bodies or biers of Hussain and his followers not convincing. A bier cannot be seven or ten storied embellished structure capped with a dome. Moreover, there is no effigy either of Hussain or his followers on display in the bier. Nobody seemed to have inquired why. Oak rather speculated that the Tazias or Tabuts represented towering structures of the ancient temples erected in honour of Śiva. After converting Iranians to Islam, the invading Arabs forced them to make a clean break with their past by destroying the temples and to carry and dump the debris away from their villages. A Muharram procession is, argued Oak, a ritual re-enactment of that dreadful event from the past (WVH 608-609). That the structures that the Shi’as carry in the procession are not biers but replicas of temples is apparent from the size, shape, and the structure of a Tazia. It is a multi-storied edifice with arched windows, doorways, and domes decorated with variegated silver and gold tinsel. They are known as Tazias because Śiva is known as Tejaji, i.e. the lustrous one. They are called a Tabut (i.e. a structure sheltering a divine image) because ‘but’ signifies a divine image (WVH 610). The term Muharram, too, has no direct connection with the Abubaker vs Ali dispute. In support Oak draws our attention to the standard Islamic dictionary, which explains Muharram as “literally that which is forbidden and anything that is sacred.” According to Oak, this meaning indicates that Muharram commemorates the sorrowful forbidding of ancient Vedic worship that Iranians had engaged in and had held sacred. It is a poignant funeral ritual commemorating the end of Vedic culture in Iran and elsewhere (WVH 610-611).
Oak surmised that Vedic culture and Sanskrit (its medium of expression) were spread over vast areas of the ancient world--particularly Europe and Asia. Vedic culture only insisted that every person be a good, peaceful, and helpful member of society. It did not interfere in the personal belief system of individuals whether theist or atheist. A theist was free to choose whatever mode and form of worship. Religions of Egypt, Israel, and Iran, therefore, have several points of resemblance to the rites, beliefs, and mythology of the Vedic people (i.e. Aryans). European archaeologists and historians begin their theories with an untested and childlike hypothesis (based principally on Biblical accounts of genesis) that human habitation began only a few thousands years ago. Modern archaeological finds are forcing them to push back their estimates of the antiquity of human habitation by millions of years.
With this founding presupposition Oak built what he believed to be an alternative and more credible account of genesis of the ancient world using etymology and history. In an article published in his institute's Annual Research Journal (1997) he referred to the Scandinavian scholar Sten Konow who had argued (citing the famous French Indologist Sylvain Lévi) that in the remote past there existed a widespread civilization comprising India and other continents and islands bordering on the seas around India's coasts. This may explain the existence of parallels in Europe to the Durgā Pūjā, which "takes us back to the times when Indian and European tribes were one people with a common language and common religious conceptions" (Oak 1997: 25). Yayāti was one of the mightiest kings of ancient India whose progeny eventually peopled many western regions. Pharaohs of Egypt, for instance, are the Pauravas, i.e. descendants of Puru, the youngest son of Yayāti. Jews are Yudus, the progeny of Yadu who was Yayāti's eldest son. Modern Druids are descendants of Yayāti's third son--Druhyu. Yayāti's two other sons--Anu and Turvasu, respectively settled Anatolia and the area north of the Black Sea (this is also stated in the Mahābhārata).
According to Oak, India served as the nucleus of the Vedic culture from where it spread across the world. This would not be possible unless Indians were good navigators and had the necessary resources to travel across the oceans. In his Indian shipping: A history of the sea-borne trade and maritime activity of the Indians from the earliest times (Bombay: Orient Longman, 1957) by the well known cultural historian Radha Kumud Mookerji affirmed that Indians initiated the art of navigation on the Sindhu River six thousand years ago. The very word navigation is derived from Sanskrit navagati (speed of a boat or ship). Yuktikalpataru of King Bhoja is a renowned treatise on the art and science of shipbuilding. Bhoja refers to two classes of ships: river-going (sāmānya) and ocean-going (viśeşa) each subdivided into ten sub-classes. With cabin as the criterion, ships were divided into three types: the Sarvamandirā type had the largest cabin and was used to transport royal treasury, women, and horses; the Madhyamandirā type had cabins specially fitted for the rainy season; the Agramandirā type had cabins equipped for the dry seasons used for long voyages and naval warfare. Classical Sanskrit literature, Jain scriptures, Buddhist Jātaka and Avadāna texts abound in references to sea voyages undertaken by all kinds of Indians. They inform us with many interesting details as to the sizes, shapes, furniture and decorations, articles destined for export and import, names of seaports and islands from different parts of India and elsewhere in the world. In Rājavaliya, the ship in which King Simhala of Bengal sent Prince Vijaya and his retinue was large enough to accommodate seven hundred passengers (Mookerji 1957).
Oak quotes G. Phillips who wrote: The maritime intercourse of India and China dates from a much earlier period, from about 600 B.C. when the sea-traders of the Indian ocean whose chiefs were Hindus founded a colony called Lang-ga, after the Indian name Lanka of Ceylon about the present gulf of Kias-Tehoa. They arrived there in vessels built after the patterns specified in Yukti Kalpataru (an ancient Indian technological text) (WVH 559, G. Phillips, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1895: 525, see also Mookerji 1957). In medieval times Indians were cautioned against venturing abroad because country after country was falling to the resurgent power of Islam. Oak argues that misguided scholars misinterpreted this temporary warning (comparable to the warning issued to citizens to keep off riot-torn areas) to spread the belief that Hindus were not seafarers (WVH 295). Pending more credible and corroborating evidence, Oak's thesis of the global existence of the Vedic culture and his books based on it may be construed as a hypothesis, but it is a hypothesis with a ring of truth. John Hobson, a Cambridge historian, for instance, has gathered more solid evidence to suggest that ancient Indians were excellent seafarers and traveled far more widely than European and Muslim historians of India had led us to believe (see Hobson 2004).
Oak's work is comparable in many respects to Canadian writer Farley Mowat who has put forth a theory (developed in his latest book The Farfarers) that Albans (ancient inhabitants of northern British Isles) explored and even settled North America fifteen centuries ago. Formidable seafarers and traders in walrus tusks and hides, Albans reached, according to Mowat, western Newfoundland in search of their hunt centuries ago. Some of them settled there and were eventually absorbed by the indigenous people of North America. Like Mowat, Oak made good and sensible use of the odd clues and the evidence that fifty years of personal investigation and study gave him. His World Vedic Heritage will no doubt provoke controversy (Oak's works always do) but academic historians must not simply ignore him. They must take up his challenge and engage him [his writings now] in a scholarly debate.
(1/2)