Thread by @shrikanth_krish

Whenever one attempts to learn more about the antecedents of Ganesha, here's what we read -

"Ganesha is one of the youngest Indian deities. He originated most likely in the Gupta period".

This seems to be the "mainstream" academic view. But should we accept this?

(Contd..)

I am aware of two references to Ganesha in Vedic literature.

In Maitrayani Samhita associated with Krishna Yajurveda.

In Taittareya Aranyaka also associated with Krishna Yajurveda

In Maitrayani Samhita, here's the allusion to a deity strikingly reminiscent of Ganesha -

tat karāṭāya vidmahe hastimukhāya dhīmahi
tan no dantī pracodayāt

The word Hastimukha (elephant faced) is clearly suggestive of Ganesha

In Taittareya Aranyaka here's the verse that alludes to Ganesha -

tat purushaya vidmahe vakratundaya dhīmahi
tan no dantī pracodayāt

Vakratunda (curved trunk) again strongly pointing to Ganesha

Both these texts belong to the middle-late Vedic period and even by a conservative estimate are likely to be atleast 3000 years old

Yet the indologist response to this is -

"These are much later interpolations"

I am not sure how we must react to this.

Should we accept the mainstream view that Ganesha emerged as a major deity barely 1500 years ago during the Gupta age?

Or should we cite the Vedic verses, and claim a much greater antiquity for Him?

I don't understand this tendency among indologists to single out portions as being "later interpolations".

A similar claim is made for Purusha Sukta too.

But it is never quite explained why they feel that way.

I don't deny the possibility of interpolations. But given the status of the Veda as Shruti, why would the transmitters of the Vedic tradition tamper with the content?

The response of indologists would be - "Hey...they wanted a Vedic stamp for Ganesha. Hence the interpolation"

But why should I buy that theory? If it were that easy to interpolate why is it that nearly all of the Vedic textual material still remains in very archaic language and not in classical Sanskrit.

And once we accept this "interpolation" hypothesis, why weren't other things interpolated?

Eg : Krishna is a major major deity. Perhaps more major than Ganesha. Yet he wasn't interpolated into the Vedas, except for the odd reference to kr^ishna devakiputra in the odd text.

The Pandavas weren't interpolated into the Vedic texts.

Parikshit and Janamejaya feature as major Kuru kings, but their ancestors (who are discussed in Mahabharata) don't find mention in the Vedas

If the idea was to interpolate later traditions into Vedas to increase their "respectability" in the establishment, then why wasn't it done in more cases?

Why do indologists conveniently pick on examples like these two Ganesha references and Purusha Sukta as "interpolations"?

I am no scholar. And I understand that perhaps my own religious-cultural background makes me less objective in these matters.

But the onus still remains on the indologists to explain these stances that have become orthodoxies in the academic establishment.

Literary analysis is notoriously subjective.

The predilections of a few scholars must not dominate academic discourse and override the claims of traditionalists who will point you to the Ganesha references in the early Vedic layers and deny this theory of "Gupta" origin for Him

Post-script : It's interesting that the Maitrayani and Taittareya recensions of YV in which the references to a proto-Ganesha are found are popular in Western and Southern India respectively - the regions where Ganesha is most popular to this day relative to the North and East.