How Ancient Astronaut Theorists Faked a Hindu Nuclear Explosion
Jason Colavito
2011/2013
2011/2013
Note: This article was updated in 2013 to include new information.
The very spring and root of honesty and virtue lie in the felicity of lighting on good education.
-- Plutarch, Of the Training of Children
-- Plutarch, Of the Training of Children
Ancient Astronaut Theorists (AATs for short) have spent fifty years arguing that ancient Hindu texts present firsthand reports of prehistoric nuclear explosions. I have discussed and debunked the case of nuclear weapons in my eBook Ancient Atom Bombs, where a fuller discussion of the claim can be found. However, a major problem with efforts at debunking AATs' claims is that most scientific debunkers focus on, logically enough, the science involved since the most prominent debunkers tend to be physicists, evolutionary biologists, astronomers, etc. Fewer are experts in history and the humanities, which AATs have exploited, basing much of their evidence on ancient texts and artwork that hard scientists are not always able to effectively debunk on the merits of individual cases. Even an archaeologist, by dint of specialization, may not have the broad cross-cultural knowledge to spot the mistake in a quotation from a sacred text from an unfamiliar culture or time period.
Here, I’d like to focus on a problem with texts used by the AATs to show exactly how a false belief arises, how it is sustained, and how a mixture of ignorance, half-truths, and misrepresentation creates fanciful new extraterrestrial “texts” out of very different originals. Our sample text will be an alleged "quotation" from the Mahabharata "reporting" on a nuclear explosion and its aftermath.
In 1960 Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier published Morning of the Magicians, their outrageous, Fortean compendium of conspiracies, misinterpretations, and lies. In that book, they drew on some weird Soviet “science” that suggested nuclear weapons had been used in ancient India. To support their claim, they quoted what they said was the Indian Mahabharata, an ancient Sanskrit epic poem from c. 400 BCE:
Here, I’d like to focus on a problem with texts used by the AATs to show exactly how a false belief arises, how it is sustained, and how a mixture of ignorance, half-truths, and misrepresentation creates fanciful new extraterrestrial “texts” out of very different originals. Our sample text will be an alleged "quotation" from the Mahabharata "reporting" on a nuclear explosion and its aftermath.
In 1960 Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier published Morning of the Magicians, their outrageous, Fortean compendium of conspiracies, misinterpretations, and lies. In that book, they drew on some weird Soviet “science” that suggested nuclear weapons had been used in ancient India. To support their claim, they quoted what they said was the Indian Mahabharata, an ancient Sanskrit epic poem from c. 400 BCE:
In the Mausola Purva, we find this singular description, which must have been incomprehensible to nineteenth-century ethnologists though not to us today: “…it was an unknown weapon, an iron thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death which reduced to ashes the entire race of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas. The corpses were so burned as to be unrecognizable. Their hair and nails fell out; pottery broke without any apparent cause, and the birds turned white. After a few hours, all foodstuffs were infected. The thunderbolt was reduced to a fine dust.”
And again: “Cukra, flying on board a high-powered vimana, hurled on to the triple city a single projectile charged with all the power of the Universe. An incandescent column of smoke and flame, as bright as ten thousand Suns, rose in all its splendor… When the vimana returned to Earth, it looked like a splendid block of antinomy resting on the ground.” (p. 122)
According to a Google Book and scholarly database search, the spelling “Mausola Purva” turns up nowhere before the 1963 English translation of the Morning of the Magicians, and all later references with that spelling derive from later writers copying that book without checking the source. The conventional spelling since at least 1807 is Mausala Parva, and it is the sixteenth parva, or division, of the Mahabharata, which one would not know from reading Morning. Similarly, “Curka” is a misspelling of Sakra, another name for Indra, a misspelling found only in Morning and its derivatives. The misspelling occurred because nineteenth century French translations of the Mahabharata transliterated Sakra as Çakra, with the c-cedilla (Ç) having the sound of an “S.” Pauwels and Bergier, or their publisher, mistakenly dropped the cedilla (the small hook) from the Ç, and misread the “a” as a “u.” This error appears in both the 1960 French edition and the 1963 English translation.
According to Pauwels and Bergier and other AATs, these passages record the blinding explosion of nuclear weapons and accurately report the fallout from a nuclear blast, including radiation burns, the loss of fingernails, etc. As we shall see, this is not the case when we look at the original text. But for now, let's focus on the text these authors provide.
What we have so far is an English translation of a questionable French translation of a Sanskrit original. Now watch what happens when ancient astronaut theorist David Hatcher Childress,* gets hold of this passage. In his Lost Cities of Ancient Lemuria and the Pacific (1988, repeated in 1992's Vimana Aircraft), he conflates the two passages into one continuous passage, and then he breaks it up into lines to make it look like original Sanskrit poetry, calling his mangled poetry "authentic verses":
According to Pauwels and Bergier and other AATs, these passages record the blinding explosion of nuclear weapons and accurately report the fallout from a nuclear blast, including radiation burns, the loss of fingernails, etc. As we shall see, this is not the case when we look at the original text. But for now, let's focus on the text these authors provide.
What we have so far is an English translation of a questionable French translation of a Sanskrit original. Now watch what happens when ancient astronaut theorist David Hatcher Childress,* gets hold of this passage. In his Lost Cities of Ancient Lemuria and the Pacific (1988, repeated in 1992's Vimana Aircraft), he conflates the two passages into one continuous passage, and then he breaks it up into lines to make it look like original Sanskrit poetry, calling his mangled poetry "authentic verses":
Gurkha, flying a swift and powerful vimana,
hurled a single projectile
charged with all the power of the Universe.
An incandescent column of smoke and flame,
as bright as ten thousand suns,
rose in all its splendor.
It was an unknown weapon,
and iron thunderbolt,
a gigantic messenger of death,
which reduced to ashes the entire race of the Vrishnis and Andhakas.
The corpses were so burned
as to be unrecognizable.
Their hair and nails fell out.
Pottery broke without any apparent cause,
and the birds turned white.
…After a few hours, all foodstuffs were infected…
…to escape from this fire,
the soldiers threw themselves in streams
to wash themselves and all their equipment.
(pp. 72-73)
Somehow the god Sakra, mistakenly called “Cukra” in Morning, has now become “Gurkha,” the name of a Nepalese tribe. This, in turn occurred because Erich von Däniken,** or his publisher, mistakenly transliterated Cukra as Gurkha in the German edition of Chariots of the Gods? when summarizing Pauwels and Bergier, possibly due to misreading the word as a French rendering of the famed Nepalese military unites, the Gurkhas. The mistake was carried over into the English edition: “In the same book [the Mahabharata], in what is perhaps the first account of the dropping of an H bomb, it says that Gurkha loosed a single projectile on the triple city from a mighty Vimana.”
Childress followed the spelling of von Däniken, even though von Däniken did not provide the text Childress reprints. Note that in Childress the material has been rearranged, lines altered, words dropped, and ellipses added, as though Childress were presenting a scholarly excerpt from a longer text. But he is not. This text appears in this alleged "translation" nowhere before Morning of the Magicians, and certainly not in the false poetic form given here, or in the rearranged and misleading conflation presented here. The origins of this "poetic" form are a bit obscure, but according to one bibliographic entry on a website and Childress's bibliography, it apparently originates in Charles Berlitz's Mysteries from Forgotten Worlds (1972), which presents "excerpts" from the Mahabharata (properly cited but not conventionally translated) but does not claim they are a continuous poem (pp. 214ff.). Berlitz is merely repeating Pauwels and Bergier, though with the inclusion of some unwarranted ellipses, apparently the inspiration for Childress's more numerous own. Joseph Rosenberger's The Atlantean Horror, a 1985 novel about an action hero who takes on impossible missions, uses the excerpts as a single poem. On page 25 of the novel, part (but not all) of the quote from Morning of the Magicians is set in verse (without ellipses) as a "prophecy" from Atlantis of nuclear war as Russians and Americans battle in Antarctica. The text, in poetic form, also appears in The Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, but that was in 2007 (vol. 30), and is far too late. So, Childress either conflated the excerpts and rendered them into a poem, or he relied on a source unknown to me and unacknowledged in his work.
More than 35 books and thousands of websites have published Childress's version of the text.
So now we have a conflated, rewritten version of an English translation of a questionable French translation of a Sanskrit original. "Authentic verses" indeed.
So, what exactly did this Sanskrit original say? Funny thing: It doesn’t say anything about nuclear weapons. Turning to the Mahabharata, we find the following four wholly separate and either unrelated or distantly related passages (as given in the standard Ganguli translation):
Childress followed the spelling of von Däniken, even though von Däniken did not provide the text Childress reprints. Note that in Childress the material has been rearranged, lines altered, words dropped, and ellipses added, as though Childress were presenting a scholarly excerpt from a longer text. But he is not. This text appears in this alleged "translation" nowhere before Morning of the Magicians, and certainly not in the false poetic form given here, or in the rearranged and misleading conflation presented here. The origins of this "poetic" form are a bit obscure, but according to one bibliographic entry on a website and Childress's bibliography, it apparently originates in Charles Berlitz's Mysteries from Forgotten Worlds (1972), which presents "excerpts" from the Mahabharata (properly cited but not conventionally translated) but does not claim they are a continuous poem (pp. 214ff.). Berlitz is merely repeating Pauwels and Bergier, though with the inclusion of some unwarranted ellipses, apparently the inspiration for Childress's more numerous own. Joseph Rosenberger's The Atlantean Horror, a 1985 novel about an action hero who takes on impossible missions, uses the excerpts as a single poem. On page 25 of the novel, part (but not all) of the quote from Morning of the Magicians is set in verse (without ellipses) as a "prophecy" from Atlantis of nuclear war as Russians and Americans battle in Antarctica. The text, in poetic form, also appears in The Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, but that was in 2007 (vol. 30), and is far too late. So, Childress either conflated the excerpts and rendered them into a poem, or he relied on a source unknown to me and unacknowledged in his work.
More than 35 books and thousands of websites have published Childress's version of the text.
So now we have a conflated, rewritten version of an English translation of a questionable French translation of a Sanskrit original. "Authentic verses" indeed.
So, what exactly did this Sanskrit original say? Funny thing: It doesn’t say anything about nuclear weapons. Turning to the Mahabharata, we find the following four wholly separate and either unrelated or distantly related passages (as given in the standard Ganguli translation):
When the next day came, Camva actually brought forth an iron bolt through which all the individuals in the race of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas became consumed into ashes. Indeed, for the destruction of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas, Camva brought forth, through that curse, a fierce iron bolt that looked like a gigantic messenger of death. The fact was duly reported to the king. In great distress of mind, the king (Ugrasena) caused that iron bolt to be reduced into fine powder. (Mausala Parva, sec. 1)
Note that the supposed “bomb” is actually a bolt (like a scepter), that the king feared the bolt, and the king destroyed it before it could be used.
From a different section of the parva comes the bit about supposed radiation poisoning, which has almost nothing to do with the previous passage about the iron bolt that was never used except that they were incidents in the lives of a particular people, over many decades:
From a different section of the parva comes the bit about supposed radiation poisoning, which has almost nothing to do with the previous passage about the iron bolt that was never used except that they were incidents in the lives of a particular people, over many decades:
Day by day strong winds blew, and many were the evil omens that arose, awful and foreboding the destruction of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas. The streets swarmed with rats and mice. Earthen pots showed cracks or broken from no apparent cause. At night, the rats and mice ate away the hair and nails of slumbering men. […] That chastiser of foes commanded the Vrishnis to make a pilgrimage to some sacred water. The messengers forthwith proclaimed at the command of Kecava that the Vrishnis should make a journey to the sea-coast for bathing in the sacred waters of the ocean. (Mausala Parva, sec. 2)
This destruction, incidentally, happens three decades after the destruction of the iron bolt, when the Vrishnis and Andhakas (and I am not making this up) killed each other by beating one another with pots and pans. Not exactly a nuclear bomb. Note that the supposed effect of radiation poisoning recorded in the Pauwels/Bergier/Berlitz/Childress text, the loss of nails, is a complete fabrication. In the original mice and rats ate the nails. Again, hardly a nuclear bomb.
The bit about Sakra riding the vimana comes from an entirely different parva, the Karna Parva, the eighth book of the Mahbharata, and again has nothing to do with the other passages:
The bit about Sakra riding the vimana comes from an entirely different parva, the Karna Parva, the eighth book of the Mahbharata, and again has nothing to do with the other passages:
While the worlds were thus afflicted, Sakra, surrounded by the Maruts, battled against the three cities by hurling his thunder upon them from every side. When, however, Purandra failed to pierce those cities made impenetrable, O king, by the Creator with his boons, the chief of celestials, filled with fear, and leaving those cities, repaired with those very gods to that chastiser of foes, viz., the Grandsire, for representing unto him the oppressions committed by the Asuras. […] (Section 33)
Thus equipped, that car shone brilliantly like a blazing fire in the midst of the priests officiating at a sacrifice. Beholding that car properly equipped, the gods became filled with wonder. Seeing the energies of the entire universe united together in one place, O sire, the gods wondered, and at last represented unto that illustrious Deity that the car was ready. […] Then He called Nila Rohita (Blue and Red or smoke)--that terrible deity robed in skins,--looking like 10,000 Suns, and shrouded by the fire of superabundant Energy, blazed up with splendour. […] The triple city then appeared immediately before that god of unbearable energy [Maheswara, or Siva], that Deity of fierce and indescribable form, that warrior who was desirous of slaying the Asuras. The illustrious deity, that Lord of the universe, then drawing that celestial bow, sped that shaft which represented the might of the whole universe, at the triple city. Upon that foremost of shafts, O thou of great good fortune, being shot, loud wails of woe were heard from those cities as they began to fall down towards the Earth. Burning those Asuras, he threw them down into the Western ocean. (Sec. 34)
Note that Maheswara (Siva), not Sakra (or Cukra or Gurkha), is the driver of the car in the original; and also note that it is the Asuras (evil gods), not the Vrishnis who are the subject of these weapons. Note, too, just how much text it took Pauwels and Bergier to find a half-dozen lines they could string together to supposedly show nuclear weapons.
As should be clear, this passage is referring to the power of thunder in destroying the evil gods, the Asuras, parallel to the thunder-god Zeus using the thunder bolt to destroy the giants in the Gigantomachy of Greek mythology. Additionally, it is clear that the “weapon” is envisioned as an arrow (not an explosive), which pierces the cities and causes them to fall down, not to evaporate as Pauwels and Bergier and Childress assert.
Thus, I hope I have now shown at sufficient length that the AATs’ methodology is little better than slapping together random sentences to create a false impression. Pauwels and Bergier seem to have intentionally mistranslated Sanskrit sentences into French to create a false impression, but were honest enough to allow that the sentences weren't related to each other and to leave in some baffling details, like the disintegration of the thunder-bolt. But Berlitz, Childress, and their followers are content to mangle a bad English translation of a French mistranslation of a Sanskrit original without ever checking the original source material. Texts are conflated, separate incidents combined into one. No context is considered or analyzed. Details that do not support the AATs’ ideas are eliminated with no indication that they were dropped. Mistranslations are purposely created, copied uncritically but changed at will to support the author’s views, and repeated endlessly as revealed truth.
The Mahabharata is 1.8 million words long. These authors seem to have purposely used no references or citations to the actual text of the ancient epic, trusting that no one will be able to search through that much text to find the passages to which they have done so much violence. My guess, from the number of later writers who claim "Gurkha" as a Hindu god, is that most later copyists never consulted the original at all.
David Hatcher Childress asserts: “The public needs scientists and the scientists need the public. However, many times the lay person is the better source of information” (Atlantis and the Power Systems of the Gods, 2002, p. 36). What exactly are we to think of this? As we have seen, Childress is a terrible source of information. He, those he copied from, and those who copy from him are at best guilty of ignorance and poor scholarship; at worst they intentionally altered texts and misrepresented history to fool their readers—all while claiming “scientists” are the ones hiding the truth.
As should be clear, this passage is referring to the power of thunder in destroying the evil gods, the Asuras, parallel to the thunder-god Zeus using the thunder bolt to destroy the giants in the Gigantomachy of Greek mythology. Additionally, it is clear that the “weapon” is envisioned as an arrow (not an explosive), which pierces the cities and causes them to fall down, not to evaporate as Pauwels and Bergier and Childress assert.
Thus, I hope I have now shown at sufficient length that the AATs’ methodology is little better than slapping together random sentences to create a false impression. Pauwels and Bergier seem to have intentionally mistranslated Sanskrit sentences into French to create a false impression, but were honest enough to allow that the sentences weren't related to each other and to leave in some baffling details, like the disintegration of the thunder-bolt. But Berlitz, Childress, and their followers are content to mangle a bad English translation of a French mistranslation of a Sanskrit original without ever checking the original source material. Texts are conflated, separate incidents combined into one. No context is considered or analyzed. Details that do not support the AATs’ ideas are eliminated with no indication that they were dropped. Mistranslations are purposely created, copied uncritically but changed at will to support the author’s views, and repeated endlessly as revealed truth.
The Mahabharata is 1.8 million words long. These authors seem to have purposely used no references or citations to the actual text of the ancient epic, trusting that no one will be able to search through that much text to find the passages to which they have done so much violence. My guess, from the number of later writers who claim "Gurkha" as a Hindu god, is that most later copyists never consulted the original at all.
David Hatcher Childress asserts: “The public needs scientists and the scientists need the public. However, many times the lay person is the better source of information” (Atlantis and the Power Systems of the Gods, 2002, p. 36). What exactly are we to think of this? As we have seen, Childress is a terrible source of information. He, those he copied from, and those who copy from him are at best guilty of ignorance and poor scholarship; at worst they intentionally altered texts and misrepresented history to fool their readers—all while claiming “scientists” are the ones hiding the truth.
* After I wrote The Cult of Alien Gods (2005), David Hatcher Childress demanded that I refrain from referring to him as an ancient astronaut theorist. I honored this request from 2006 until Childress began appearing on the History Channel's Ancient Aliens series in 2009 as one of the program's resident AATs. (On one program, for example, he argued aliens put a satellite in orbit to take electricity from Egyptian obelisks and beam it to Easter Island to move the island's statues.) I therefore feel no compulsion to continue to avoid describing him as an AAT. I have a longer discussion of this here.
** My thanks to Francesco Brighenti for bringing to my attention the appearance of the word "Gurkha" in Chariots of the Gods?.
