Posted on: 9 September 2013

Hypothesis:
The Origin of Ganesha-Worship
By Srikara Dattatreya

Ganesha or Ganapati is one of the most widely worshipped deities in the pantheon of Hindu gods. Indians have loved and revered this deity as a remover of all obstacles (Vighna-Vinashaka), irrespective of their religious or geographic affiliations for centuries. But how did this deity come to be? Was Lord Ganesha a Vedic god, at par with the original Hindu gods or a later creation?

The Orthodox Hindu Revival of the Guptas:

The 4th-5th Century A.D. Gupta sites in Madhya Pradesh, such as the ones in Vidisha and Bhumra, contain the earliest known iconographic depictions of Ganesha. The period also corresponds exactly with the Guptas’ Orthodox Revivalism, in which they restored Brahmanical dominance after centuries of patronage to heterodox sects (Jain, Buddhist, Ajivika etc).

According to John Keay, the writer and historian:

"Whatever their genesis (of the various deities of Hinduism), sanction for this accretion and fusion of cults was provided by the Puranas and the epics as they were recast, expanded and written down during and after the Guptas. Brahmanic authority was thus gradually accorded to the new composite deities, and the sculptor responded by giving them concrete form. Awesome figures of legend, obscure local deities, and various fertility and tutelary spirits were duly transformed into worshippable images. Their identity with the gods and goddesses of orthodox scripture conferred prestige on them; at the same time it brought them within the Brahmanic mainstream of what is now called the ‘Great Tradition’ (Sanatana Dharma) of Hinduism."

Read more

http://bit.ly/14D7Qje

Image:
Oldest Ganesha image at Vidisha, MP; also seen is Durga as Mahishasura-Mardhini


 View Post on Facebook

Comments from Facebook

I cant cease to be amazed how pure fiction such as in the above write up is cooly passed off as a working hypothesis of history.

Satyakam Sudershan: You may be right. But please check out this link: http://bit.ly/14EAnox

RBSI I am a bit astonished at your posting of the above so called 'analysis'. This is such a typical colonial, left narrative with so much woven out of whole cloth, so much stated out of context, old certainties of history which have been discredited being confidently re stated that i do not where to start. As for the web site I do not think I rely on such sites to tell me about religion and history.

The write up in your comment is more balanced and open ended search for answers compared the the definitive statements in the above. It also is more meaningful in the sense of linking the present with the past in the statement ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Depictions of elephant-headed human figures, which some identify with Ganesha, appear in Indian art and coinage as early as the 2nd century. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Clearly, the importance of Ganesha is "at least" dated back to 2nd CE, and since all dating in India is a big open question, it is shocking to make such definitive statements which have NO BASIS whatsoever in terms of historical proofs. (No well dated texts attesting to it, no archaeological evidence, no popular oral narrative) Its all simply made up.

John Keay is a journalist and a writer of popular books on India , not a historian ( although he may have graduated in History). To make his opinions ( based on the accepted colonial narrative as he was writing for his domestic audience) as some of kind of authoritative history of the religion and culture of India is mileading( and inaccurate).

Read Bhandarkar's "Origins of Ganesha"

Ms. Ojha, could you expand on what you mean when you state that Keay isn't a historian? He has written a number of books on the history of India, colonial discoveries of India's past and British engagement in India. These "popular histories" might not be academic works, but is there evidence to suggest that he hasn't been as rigorous with his work as a typical academic would be to discredit his opinions?

A fools rigours dont history make,They make only noises learned imbecile make.Every attempt of disinformation is merely travesty of academics.Alas it haunts innocent minds for centuaries.

Re: " John Keay is a journalist and a writer of popular books on India , not a historian ... To make his opinions ( based on the accepted colonial narrative as he was writing for his domestic audience) as some of kind of authoritative history of the religion and culture of India is misleading (and inaccurate). " etc, etc. & and so on ... Those amongst us who are familiar with the " popular histories" of Mr Keay will be aware that he has always been careful to describe himself, rather modestly, as a " historical writer " with a 'journalistic' approach, and not as a " historian " in the traditional sense of the word. Indeed, the man seems to have a pronounced aversion towards academia and to the historical establishment (in both the East and the West) more generally, dating perhaps to his days as a student at Oxford - who knows ? Having said that, Mr Keay has been writing on matters sub-continental for more than forty years and many of his books contain an impressive degree of original and diligent scholarship - and his opinions, if not "authoritative" should not be so flippantly discounted - certainly by those of us who are interested in history itself, rather than purely in the rendering of history as ' politics'. Nor, it should be pointed out, does he write exclusively for a " domestic audience" - his books are popular bestsellers acround the globe. His 'India: A history' - that was published about ten years ago, was highly acclaimed both in the West and in India for its impartiality, insightfulness and erudition.

Nice...i also read yesterday in Wiki that Karpaga Vinayagar temple at Pillayar Patti has origins in the 4th century AD.

Dating and interpretations of history have always been contentious subjects...but I honestly did not find anything flippant or offensive in this article. This is a simplistic hypothesis based on the little information available on the origins of Ganesha.

I am sharing this article.