One thing that strikes me is that ancient Indian literature is considerably less extensive than their contemporary Greek or Chinese counterparts. Many events of Indian have survived, so it seems, exclusively in foreign records. I have just surfed a bit on Indian history at Wikipedia and the majority of sources on a multitude of aspects about India are actually drawn from the observations of foreigners! Pataliputra, the capital, is descibed by the Greek Megasthenes, ambassador of Seleucos, and much later by the Chinese buddhist monk Faxian. The treaty between Chandragupta and Seleucos is recorded by the Greco-Roman Appian and Strabo. Descriptions of Chandragupta's personality are offered by Justin and Plutarch. The only indigenous sources I stumbled over was Chandragupta's adviser, Chanakya.

As far as I can see, this relative meagerness of ancient Indian literature has been a major feature throughout most of Indian history.  I know that India has a very old oral tradition, but where are the written sources, the extant works of the historians, philosophers, mathematicians and statesmen? India was not only late at reestablishing literacy after the demise of the Indus culture (850 BC, 750 BC, 500 BC?), the extant works of later periods up the early modern time are less and more patchy than elsewhere.

So chess was invented in India, but we just do not know for sure, because nobody wrote about it. Were catapults used in ancient India? We have relatively detailed technical Greek and Chinese treatises, let alone their frequent mentioning  by war historians, but for India we only have vague  references. What do we have on the early history of Hindu numerals? Only the invention of the zero seems to be well recorded.

Our knowledge of Indian political history is even more unsatisfying. It seems that with every demise of a grand Indian dynasty also the writing on history is cancelled. Indian history has more blank spaces than any other of the classical cultures. We know less about Indian achievements in culture, politics and economy than we know from about anybody else. Babylonians and Assyrians had huge libraries (real libraries, not simply archives) of clay tablets, today to be found in Berlin and London. The Greeks discovered historiography for themselves sooner than everybody else (5th century BC), they had huge libraries in Alexandria and Pergamon, and the Romans stepped in their footsteps. The Arabs and the Latin West copied later their works in scriptories as good as they could. We profit from that today. The Chinese invented paper as a writing material early on (100 AD), and despite their archaic mode of writing were obsessive recorders of whatever caught their eye.

Indian historical tradition is, though, comparatively weak. The oldest copy of Caesar's Gallic War is from 1000 AD, the oldest  parts of the Bible from  the second century AD, and the oldest still surviving fragments of Greek philosophical treatise were uncovered in 4th century BC grave in the dry sands of Egypt. What how old is the oldest still extant Indian book? 

Now, I would like to know the reasons. Possible explanations may be:

- The output of Indian written sources was smaller than elsewhere. Therefore, the total amount of extant works is also smaller

- Indian History was, for a reason to be explored, particulary malevolent to written sources. Much, too much, had been destroyed by the volatile and violent history of the subcontinent

- Indian texts, and this may be the most important reasons, were written on particularly perishable material. I once read that palm leaves were the preferred Indian writing material for most of its history, and that there are today no older copies of Indian works earlier than from 1750. Palm leaves are of course, being organic material, very perishable, especially unprepared, although I am no expert at that.

- A lot of ancient sources are there, still alive and waiting very much for translation. Many texts are then simply not translated into European languages, therefore nobody knows of them in the West and what I described above does not reflect the true status of extant works of ancient Indian literature.

So, what is your opinion. Why has been Indian literary tradition so weak?

Originally posted by Vedam Let me explain to you about the Vedas which are an Oral tradition but in ways more accurate than a literary one.

So, when were the Vedas put to paper, so to speak, and what kind of knowledge do they comprise beyond the religious and philosophical? Also historical events?

PS: It has beeen shown, that the modern Greek language can be traced in a single development line to the Mycenean Age in the middle of the 2nc millemium BC. Mycenean Greeks were Greeks.

Perhaps it is best to start with the question when exactly did India regain literacy? I just read that Megasthenes wrote (around 300 BC) that the Indians had no (written) law because they did know know writing.

I am very much open minded, enlighten me about the early era of Indian writing.

"In the twenty-six years since my coronation prisoners have been given amnesty on twenty-five occasions." Pilar Edict Nb5 (S. Dhammika)

"Twenty-six years after my coronation various animals were declared to be protected -- parrots, mainas, //aruna//, ruddy geese, wild ducks, //nandimukhas, gelatas//, bats, queen ants, terrapins, boneless fish, //vedareyaka//, //gangapuputaka//, //sankiya// fish, tortoises, porcupines, squirrels, deer, bulls, //okapinda//, wild asses, wild pigeons, domestic pigeons and all four-footed creatures that are neither useful nor edible. Those nanny goats, ewes and sows which are with young or giving milk to their young are protected, and so are young ones less than six months old. Cocks are not to be caponized, husks hiding living beings are not to be burnt and forests are not to be burnt either without reason or to kill creatures. One animal is not to be fed to another." Pillar Edict Nb5 (S. Dhammika)

"These Dhamma texts -- Extracts from the Discipline, the Noble Way of Life, the Fears to Come, the Poem on the Silent Sage, the Discourse on the Pure Life, Upatisa's Questions, and the Advice to Rahula which was spoken by the Buddha concerning false speech -- these Dhamma texts, reverend sirs, I desire that all the monks and nuns may constantly listen to and remember. Likewise the laymen and laywomen." Minor Rock Edict Nb3 (S. Dhammika)

"Contact (between religions) is good. One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions." Rock Edict Nb12 (S. Dhammika)

Digvijay, If you look at the other threads started by our comon friend the gunpowder king / MA,  you will notice the same sentiment running in all the threads started the same day he joined. A person joins one fine day after discovering this site & immediately starts making multiple threads all pointing towards one common conclusion largely. Is definitely an extraordinary person

Digvijay, If you look at the other threads started by our comon friend the gunpowder king / MA,  you will notice the same sentiment running in all the threads started the same day he joined. A person joins one fine day after discovering this site & immediately starts making multiple threads all pointing towards one common conclusion largely. Is definitely an extraordinary person. hats off to him.

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma Magasthenes obvioulsy has never made any comment like this.

Yes, he has. In the fragments (Strabo, XV, 1, 53) we read:

"...they (i.e.the Indians) have no written laws for they do not know how to write but manage everything by memory."

T. Brown: The Reliability of Megasthenes, in: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 76, No.1 (1955), p.22

And Megasthenes, being apparently the ambassador of Seleucos, was in personam in India, travellled throughout the country and met Chandragupta himself several times. Which means he must have been in Chandragupta's capital or at least at his court, and I mean, if he does not report of literacy even there, where then?

I think the quote is self-explaining: "...for they do not know how to write..."

-> Around 300 BC.

Whether the Indus symbols were a script is still very much an open question among archaeologists and philologists, but should be anyway not of concern to us here. I specifically talked about the reestablishment of a script in India (although I do not necessarily believe the earlier symbols constituted a script).

Originally posted by Gun Powder Ma And Megasthenes, being apparently the ambassador of Seleucos, was in personam in India, travellled throughout the country and met Chandragupta himself several times. Which means he must have been in Chandragupta's capital or at least at his court, and I mean, if he does not report of literacy even there, where then?

Edited by Preobrazhenskoe - 05-Sep-2006 at 12:33

Originally posted by Gun Powder Ma I read your post carefully, but Ashoka's reign was later than Chandragupta's, even though not by much. What do you imply then? So far we have two facts: 1. Megasthenes saying that he did not encounter any writing in India (around 300 BC) and 2. Ashoka's (273 BC - 232 BC) famous edicts on the pillars. This would suggest the adopting of the Indian script in the meantime. Or not? Or what?

Answer is staring at you. You just have to think a little more.

-Digs