Aryans and Dravidians

[弥永信美]

     I have been most interested by all this discussion about the 
"discredited theory" of Aryan invasion and the origin of Tantra, etc. 
 Although I am not an Indologist at all (I am a scholar of the 
Buddhism and the field of my interest is rather the Chinese and 
Japanese Buddhism), I am interested by these problems, and would like 
to hear more opinions from the specialists of Indology.
1.   I think that there is (or perhaps *was*) a well-established 
theory that pretends to explain all the history of Indian religion as 
a history of a struggle between Aryan (or Indo-European) power and 
Dravidian (or autochthon) power (perhaps this theory is now 
"discredited" ?).  The main argument of this theory is very simple : 
at the starting point, there was an autochthon culture in India (the 
civilization of Indus...~ the Dravidians ?), of Asian or 
"Austro-Asian" (?) origin, and then, there was the invasion of Aryans,
 of Indo-European origin, who bore the Vedic religion, and drove the 
Dravidians out towards the Southern part of India...  ; but the 
Dravidians regained power, and the long struggle between Aryans and 
Dravidians started...  The Brahmanical orthodoxy remains still mainly 
Aryan, but the devotional Hinduism is "more Dravidian", all the 
Tantric movements are the last form of the final victory of the 
Dravidian power, which ended in absorbing all the Aryan power in 
India, etc. (I simplify purposely, to clarify the argument).  In this 
theory, the Aryan tendency represents the masculinity, the 
rationality, etc., and the Dravidian tendency represents the 
femininity, the emotionality, etc.  I think that this theory is a form
 of Occidental "Orientalism" and can no longer be maintained.  
Nevertheless, the Japanese Buddhology continues (or continued until 
very recently) to adopt partially these views : for the Japanese 
Buddhology, this is the Buddhism, and especially the Mahaayaana 
Buddhist philosophy that is (*must be*) the greatest achievement of 
the Indian culture, and this is why the same Mahaayaana Buddhist 
philosophy must be the most rational (and "Aryan" ?) part of the 
Indian culture.  Anyway, the disappearing of the Buddhism from the 
Indian Continent is explained as having been absorbed by the ambient 
Hindu Tantrism (which is perhaps true...), and as a consequence of the
 victory of the non-rational ("Dravidian ?) power in the Indian 
culture...  This seems to me as a very interesting phenomenon of an 
"Oriental form of the Orientalism".  So, I have been most struck by 
seeing that some Indian Brahmin priests adopt also a similar "Oriental
 form of the Orientalism" in saying that "Shiva being a non Aryan 
deity, we Aryan Brahmins do not worship him with the same devotion" 
(as wrote Jayant.B.BAPAT at the beginning of this thread).

2.   I don't know if the problem of the historical origin of the 
Tantrism is so important ; anyway, it seems to me of little interest 
to speculate about some original form of Tantrism of which we have no 
evidence...
     I read some books of Madelaine Biardeau (_Clefs pour la Pensee 
Hindoue_, 1972 ; _Le Sacrifice dans l'Inde ancienne_, 1976 [with Ch. 
Malamoud]), and have been most impressed (and influenced) by her 
views.  Her starting hypothesis is the "unity of the religion of the 
Hindus" ; she attempts to explain all the history of Hindu religion as
 a development of some *internal* forces or tendencies that were 
contained in the sacrificial religion of the Vedism (or the 
Brahmanical orthodoxy) ; her method is at the same time structural and
 historical.  I think that her theory is in some degree based on the 
sociological works of Louis Dumont (_Homo Hierarchicus_ [1966], and 
especially the very important essay "Le renoncement dans les religions
 de l'Inde" included in this book [there is an important chapter on 
the Tantrism in this essay]).  I would like to know what the 
professional Indologists think today about these works (of Biardeau 
and Dumont).

3.   As a student of the Buddhism, I am very interested in the 
relation between Buddhism and Hinduism.  I am deeply convinced that 
the Buddhism must be studied above all as *one of the many* Indian 
religions (though certainly a heretical one from the point of view of 
the Hindu orthodoxy).  I am especially interested in the relationship 
between the Hindu and Buddhist mythologies.  Many aspects of the 
Buddhist mythology must be explained by reference to the Hindu 
mythology ; for example, many aspects of the mythical figure of the 
Bodhisattva Avalokite'svara can be traced back to the mythology of 
'Siva and Indra, etc.
     There is however one thing that embarrasses me : we, 
Buddhologists, should ask many questions to the Indologists, but the 
Indologists usually should have only few questions to ask to the 
Buddhologists...  Nevertheless, there is perhaps a field where the 
Buddhologists can help in some degree the Indologists, and this is 
precisely the problems relating to the beginnings of the Tantrism.  
There are only very few evidences of the early period of the Hindu 
Tantrism, but one can find many texts of the Buddhist Tantra from 6th 
or 7th century remaining in the Chinese Canon...

     I apologize for my poor English.  I hope however that what I 
meant can be understood, and that this can ba an invitation to 
fruitful discussions and dialogs between Indologists and 
Buddhologists.
Nobumi Iyanaga
Tokyo,
Japan
(n-iyanag at cc.win.or.jp
GGA03414 at niftyserve.or.jp)