Interestingly, there has been cross-pollination of stories between these two. I know of at least one instance where the ‘plagiarism’, if you will, is all too evident. The Indians plagiarized the Greek when telling a story from the life of Adi Shankaracharya. Specifically, the story of Adi Shakaracharya and Kollur Mookambika has been ripped off from the story of Orpheus and Eurydice.

Let us start with the story of Adi Shankar and Mookambika. The following has been quoted from the wikipedia article on the subject, dated Aug. 31, 2010:

It is believed that Adi Shankaracharya had a vision of Sri Mookambika Devi and installed the deity here. The legend goes that Adi Shankara mediated at Kodachadri hills and Devi incarnated before him asking for his wish. He revealed his wish to install the Devi idol in a place in Kerala to worship where he wanted. Devi agreed but put forward a challenge that she will follow Shankara and he should not look back till he reaches his destination. But to test Shankara, Devi deliberately stopped the voice of her anklets when they reached Kollur whereupon Shankara turned and looked back because of doubt. Devi then asked Shankara to install her vigraha, just as he sees her, at that very location in Kollur.

Here is Virgil‘s account of Orpheus and Eurydice copied from (again) the wikipedia article on the subject, dated Aug. 31, 2010:

The most famous story in which Orpheus figures is that of his wife Eurydice (also known as Agriope). While walking among her people, the Cicones, in tall grass at her wedding, Eurydice ran into a nest of snakes which bit her fatally on her heel. Distraught, Orpheus played such sad songs and sang so mournfully that all the nymphs and gods wept. On their advice, Orpheus traveled to the underworld and by his music softened the hearts of Hades and Persephone (he was the only person ever to do so), who agreed to allow Eurydice to return with him to earth on one condition: he should walk in front of her and not look back until they both had reached the upper world. He set off with Eurydice following and in his anxiety as soon as he reached the upper world he turned to look at her, forgetting that both needed to be in the upper world, and she vanished for the second time, but now forever.

Now, who copied who? As it turns out Virgil lived in 1st century BCE whereas Adi Shakaracharya lived in 9th century CE. You do the math.

I love mythologies and the many dots you can connect with it.

The story of King Mahabali

Mahabali was the king of asuras (who are a class of deites, and not demons; demons are called rakshasas in Hindu mythology). The asuras ruled in Paatala loka (which is one of the 14 worlds, and is not hell; hell is called Narka in Hindu mythology). Mahabali expanded his empire to all the 7 ‘lower’ worlds and then invaded Bhuloka (or the earthly world): the lowest of the 7 ‘higher’ worlds. Then he set his eyes on the remaining ‘higher’ worlds which were ruled by devas (another class of deities). The king of devas, Indra, was worried by this expansion and realized that he was no match for Mahabali, so he approached lord Vishnu to save his kingdom. Vishnu then took the form of vamana, or a brahmin boy, and approached Mahabali for Daana or donation/alms. Vamana asked for three steps of land for him to live in. Mahabali agreed. Then Vamana grew so large that in one step he covered all of the higher worlds, and in another step he covered the Bhuloka, and asked Mahabali where he should place his third step. Realizing that he has been bested, Mahabali asked the third step to be put on his head and Vishnu placed his third step on Mahabali’s head sending him to Paatala.

The story of Ramayana (hopelessly abridged)

Prince Rama is sent on an exile with his wife and brother. They wander to south of Vindhya mountains and down south, king Ravana of Lanka abducts Rama’s wife. While searching for his wife he comes across a kingdom of monkeys (vanaras) and with their help he defeats Ravana and rescues his wife.

Obvious connections

So how do these stories point to Aryans and Dravidians? The most obvious references here are (a)the notion of Mahabali being from the ‘lower’ world (possibly refering to south India) and the devas and Vishnu being from the ‘higher’ workd (possibly refering to north India, and (b) Rama being an Arya putra from Ayodhya (in north India) and Ravana being from Lanka (in the south) and the Dravidian people being referred to as ‘monkeys’.

But we need more than such annotated instrumentation to make our case.

Mahabali and Onam

First, lets look at the case of Mahabali. King Mahabali is said to been a very just king and all of his subjects were said to have lived properously during his reign. Yet he is cast down back to Paatala. Also, Paatala could well refer to the state of Kerala (again, in the south) because the Hindu  festival of Onam celerbrated only in Kerala is a celebration of King Mahabali, their King Mahabali. It is worth noting that Hindus in Kerala celebrate the reign of an asura king who was cast down by Vishnu and interestingly, such a celebration is endemic to Kerala. It is not celebrated anywhere else!

Vijayadashami in north and south India

In north India the Hindu festival of Vijayadashami marks the defeat of Ravana by Rama. However, in south India, the same festival marks the defeat of Mahishaura by Durga. Why such different reasons to mark the same festival? The only bridge between the two is the tale that Rama performed a sacrifice to Durga in the eve of the battle with Ravana. This suggests that these were really two different festivals in two different cultures and religions. They were later joined together by expansion of Hinduism into all of India.

The legend of Vindhya and Agasthya

The legend is that Vindhya mountains (which separates north and south India) started growing to such heights that it challenged the path of sun in the sky. So sage Agastya, in order to stop this growth asked Vindhyas to stoop down so that he may cross to down south. He also extracted a promise that Vindhyas would not grow any higher until he returned back north. But Agastya permanently settled in the south, and so the Vindhyas did not grow anymore.

The story (which is from the puranas, and is said to have occured before the itihaasas) can be interpreted as the northerners’ (Aryans) conquest over the Vindhyas (much like the conquest of Mt. Everest) which paved way for migration to south India, thus triggering contact with the south Indian Dravidians.

Genetic Markers, Caste System, and the North-South Divide

A recently published study of genetic profiles of Indian peoples concludes a distinct divide among Ancestral North Indian (ANI) tribes and Ancestral South Indian (ASI) tribes with very strong evidence of enogamy. The study  also revealed that individuals descending from the ANI tribes tend to be in the ‘higher castes’ and are genetically closer to europeans where as individuals descending from the ASI tribes tend to be in the ‘lower castes’. This again points to an Aryan-Dravidian divide that has been there for millenia, and the strong enogamy suggests conflict and competition between the groups, and looks like the Aryans won the struggle and encoded it into their mythology which was then shared with the Dravidians when they all became a single Hindu people, yet isolated from each other by caste barriers.

Consider the beauty ideal from any time, at any place, in any civilization. It is not hard to notice that the most affluent people (historical or fictional) at that time and place were considered to be beautiful. Be it Helen of Troy, or Nefertiti of Egypt, or Desdemona in Othello, Sita in Ramayana etc. This correlation, IMHO is not coincidental. In fact, I think its causal; the physical characteristics and appearance that denote affluence (and/or power) become the beauty ideal of that age and place.

Lets consider a few examples to illustrate my assertion:

Europe – Middle Ages

In the middle ages, in Europe, the gender roles were rigid and strict among the affluent. Men were supposed to be the knightly type, and the women, the homely type. The women therefore, seldom went out in hot sun. They almost never exerted themselves physically. Most of the work around the house was done by the orderlies. Consequently, the women were pale, physically weaker than men, delicate in the way they carried themselves to accentuate that perception of weakness, demure in their behavior towards men (acknowledging/submitting to superiority of the man), and so on. Interestingly, those features are actually a good description of the feminine beauty ideal of those times.

America – The 50s

The America in the 50s was a booming place. They had just won the war, and the economy was busting at the seams. Everyone was happy, and the money was flowing. The affluent got their hands on most of the money while a tiny trickle went down to the rest of the society (the middle class was a very thin social class). The affluent had all the money to buy food, healthy and lots of it. They didn’t have travel far to get anything, others did it for them. On the other hand, the poor had to fight for a decent meal, and had to walk quite some distances. Consequently, the poor looked thin and frail, and sun-tanned for most part. The affluent women on the other hand had little tan (because they didn’t need to go out in the sun), and were ‘pudgy’ by today’s standards; a sign of good healthy food: hence affluence). Not surprisingly, this was the feminine beauty ideal personified by Marylin Monroe. In today’s scales, Monroe would be considered ‘fat’ in the fashion industry.

America – 21st century

The economic boom in the second half of 20th century made basic living expenses affordable in America. Importantly, food become ridiculously cheap with the influx of fast food into America. Fast food was the cheapest food you could get, and was hence the poor man stable diet. Fast food, unfortunately, has this side-effect of being high in Sodium, MSG, and hydrogenated, saturated fat. Not exactly the healthiest, but filling nevertheless. Thus came about the obesity epidemic in the US. The rich and affluent, however, didn’t have to eat the unhealthy fast food. They would afford healthy food, and so long as they maintained a healthy life style, their weren’t likely to grow obese.

The trend was reversed. The poor were no longer thin and frail, and the rich no longer on the heavier side. Interestingly, the beauty ideal for this time was thin, almost anorexic. Coincidence? I think not!

Independent India in the 20th century

India struggled for post part of the second half of the 20th century. After independence, the power structures that were established by the British were left intact as the model of governance for independent India. The people who replaced the British personnel in the various positions in this power structure were the educated elite. Since pre-independent India did not have an education system to speak of, all of the educated elite were educated in Briton. Due to their education background, they replicated the British value system back in India. Therefore, people being served by the power structure actually saw little change in the value system before, and after independence. Consequently, the perception that the Europeans were superior (and the affluent) which was established in colonial India, was propagated in independent India through the replication of the value system imbibed by the educated elite who operated the traditional power structure.

Consequently, the perception of Europeans being superior or affluent never really faded away. The economic acceleration of the west, coupled with the crippling poverty of India did not help change the perception. Consequently, the Europeans were the rich and the affluent. Power and affluence was associated with white skin, with fair skin.

This, in fact, can explain the Indians’ obsession with fair skin that has bled into the 21st century.

I understand that the illustrations I have elucidated above are indicative at best, and inadequate to draw a strong conclusion. But it does support my hypothesis that the beauty ideal is defined based on the lifestyle and appearance of the people who inhabit the higher rungs on the social ladder.

Typically, the female archetypes reflect role and perception of women in the culture and age that the myth belong to (or originated from). Among the various female archetypes from different cultures, myths and ages, nothing is more contrasting than the one in the western mythology and Indian (I make no mention of other eastern mythology ‘cuz I dont know enough about them).

All of the female archetypes in western fairy tales, and Judeo-Christian mythology are a combination of weak, motherly, manipulative, gossipy, insubordinate, ‘evil’, and virginal (in a side-kick sort of way). To illustrate better:

• ‘Damsel in distress’ is a combination of weak and virginal
• ‘Fairy godmother’ is motherly
• ‘Evil step-mother’ or ‘evil step-sister’ is a combination of ‘evil’ and manipulative
• Lot’s wife in the Bible is a combination of weak, gossipy, and insubordinate
• Eve in the Bible is a combination of weak and insubordinate, and so on.

Although there are a few positive archetypes, none of them come close to the male archetype ‘Hero’ that is the most popular one in all myths and folktale.

Contrastingly, however, in Indian/Hindu mythology, there are many positive female characters that translate to some positive male archetypes that approaches the ‘Hero’ archetype. Take for instance, the story of the Hindu goddess ‘Durga’ she was bestowed with the best traits/weapons of all the gods to create the most powerful being the slay the demon that none of the god could kill individually.

Similarly, the character of ‘Kali’ is another example of the female ‘Hero’ archetype in Hindu mythology. In fact, although the character of ‘Radha’, Krishana’s lover may not seem like the classic ‘hero’ archetype, the life of ‘Radha’ follows Joseph Campbell’s classic ‘Hero’s journey’. She is a simple (virtually unknown) human lover and subsequently ascends to be the divine better half of Krishna.

It is interesting to note that the all the female archetypes in western folklore and mythology are present in the Hindu mythology as well. But Hindu mythology provides a a wider range of female archetypes that includes the ‘Hero’ archetype. In other words, all archetypes were applied equally to both men and women. It goes to demonstrate that in the Vedic age, women were considered on par with men. Something that India has lost today, and worse, something the west hasn’t had for over two thousand years, and women continue to struggle for equality.