Reading Max Muller today

I had read a lot about Max Muller, before I got around to reading anything that he wrote. In fact, going by the contrasting views that I had read about him, I knew of two Max Mullers. The first Max Muller opened the eyes of western scholars (and some eastern, they say) to the real worth of Vedas and argued for this civilization’s rightful place in history. The second Max Muller misrepresented the facts about Vedas to suit his faith and prejudice. Which one is the real Max Muller? Was he the apostle who propagated the message of Vedas to the west? Or was he the devil who distorted the facts to fit prejudices, confusing the uninformed? Recently I had the opportunity to read what Max Muller thought of Vedas and Indians in his own words.

Initial revelation was that Max Muller is not as much of a student of philosophy and religion as he is a historian. His interest in Vedas and the rest of Sanskrit literature mainly is the light that it can throw to the history of development of religious thought. For him, the early Sanskrit literature provides a unique exposure to the development of religion. They provide us an opportunity to see how religion develops from primitive thought. Many hymns in the Vedas are rational (the italics is mine) appeals to the elements of nature composed even before the myths and Gods around these elements were created, indicating a primitive phase of development of religion. We don’t have information on similar phases of other religions. For example, we know Greek religion as a rather fully developed religion with all its established Gods and myths.

He was ahead of his times to view the eastern cultures with any respect or even interest. He considered Vedic cultures comparable to the other ‘Aryan’ cultures. In fact, he felt that some of the Vedic thoughts were so advanced that a 19^th century European could sympathize with those. But he would not go as far to say that we learn religion or philosophy from Vedas. More on this point will come later. But compared to many 19^th and 20^th century European thinkers he was definitely pro-Vedas . But this sympathy did not come from a more inclusive view of human civilization. He did not think there is a human history beyond Aryan history – just that he believed that the Vedic civilization fundamentally Aryan.

How could Max Muller identify with the religious thoughts in Vedas? How could he believe that modern western religions developed from Vedas? The concept of sin and punishment for sins did definitely get his attention. But what about the abundance of Gods in Vedas? The multi-theist concept of the Vedic religion is in clear conflict with the nameless, omnipotent, supreme God of Christianity. Max Muller attempts at conciliation by observing that the many names of Gods in Vedas are just the initial attempt of the human mind to describe the one supreme power. “[These names] failed in expressing what, in its very nature , must always remain inexpressible. But that Inexpressible itself remained, and in spite of all these failures, it never succumbed, or vanished from the mind of ancient thinkers and poets, but always called for new and better names, nay calls for them even now, and will call for them to the very end of man’s existence upon earth”. Thus the multi-God Vedic religion is the amoebae that evolved in to the omnipotent God of Semitic religions.

Max Muller sings high praises for the Vedas. But he respects them only as historic artifacts. For many of the Indian admirers of Vedas it is an epitome of philosophical and spiritual knowledge, that even today’s generation can learn from. For max Muller it was just the documented first step in the journey of discovering God. Today’s religious faiths are more refined versions of the primitive thoughts in Vedas. They are admirable considering the era in which they were composed - like the drainage systems in Harappan towns. Though enamored by the historical insights that the Vedas provide, Max Muller won’t advice you to go to Vedas for spiritual insight. He shares the same lack of enthusiasm when it comes to the literary quality of the Sanskrit literature post Vedas. For him, all that is written in Sanskrit can be classified in to two distinct phases based on the time of composition. The first phase is the period of Vedas and early Buddhist teachings. The second phase includes everything after that. I could not find any specific mention of dates corresponding to these phases. But I guess the phase 1 ends around 300-200BC. The works of Kalidasa comes in phase 2. He mentions Mahabharata (and Gita) as part of phase 2 as well. According to him, what was written in phase 1 deserves our attention for the lessons in history they provide. Phase 2 has some pretty poems, but not what you would compare with the classics in Greek or Latin. He probably did not like the more developed form of the religion either, because it did looked more like degeneration than development. Instead of seeing the one power behind the various natural phenomena, Indians further refined their multi-god system. He would not waste his time reading any of those today.

However, he does notice that the Aryans in India turned out to be more spiritual compared to their northern (read European) counterparts. The Europeans were ‘active’ of the brethren, focused on the material sciences and technology. The Indians were more ‘passive’ focused on the philosophical development. He knows why. The Europeans faced a tough struggle against the hostile climate, forcing them to be on their toes all the time. They were busy building better houses, heating systems and other comforts that helped them survive the rough climate. They naturally had no time to ponder on the philosophical aspects of life. That makes me wonder: Now that the Europeans are living rather comfortably and the Indians are struggling to survive, will Europe get more philosophical and India more material?

Finally, should Indians love him or should we hate him? Why should we be grateful to Max Muller? Firstly, because he thought Indians were Aryans, he strongly believed that Indians are part of humanity and should be treated with necessary respect. If you think it deserves no mention in political correctness, compare it with Winston Churchill’s view that Indians ‘are a beastly people with a beastly religion’. Secondly, his work did create the interest to critically study ancient Sanskrit literature. Many of his conclusions were crippled with many prejudices of the times, but his approach was refreshing. It would be a fitting tribute to him if we continue the study that he started, instead of judging him for his conclusions.