ramana wrote:johneeG, The tradition of lying about India and Hindu culture was continued even in modern age from Sir William Jones to Wendy Doniger, Martha Nussbaum.
I agree with that view, Ramana garu. Just to clarify, the original comment was not mine.
johneeG wrote:Strabo says
Generally speaking, the men who hitherto have written on the affairs of India, were a set of liars. Deimachus holds the first place in the list, Megasthenes comes next, while Onesicritus and Nearchus, with others of the same class, manage to stammer out a few words [of truth]. Of this we became the more convinced whilst writing the history of Alexander. No faith whatever can be placed in Deimachus and Megasthenes. They coined the fables concerning men with ears large enough to sleep in, men without any mouths, without noses, with only one eye, with spider-legs, and with fingers bent backward. They renewed Homer's fable concerning the battles of the Cranes and Pygmies, and asserted the latter to be three spans high. They told of ants digging for gold, of Pans with wedge-shaped heads, of serpents swallowing down oxen and stags, horns and all; meantime, as Eratosthenes has observed, reciprocally accusing each other of falsehood."
Link to original post
I quoted a comment on a blog. That commentator quoted Strabo. Of course, I agree with the view of Strabo that Greek writers on India are unreliable.
Who is Strabo?
Wiki:
Strabo, was a Greek geographer, philosopher and historian.
Born: 64 BCE, Amasya
Died: 24 CE
Strabo is most famous for his 17-volume work Geographica, which presented a descriptive history of people and places from different regions of the world known to his era.[5]
Virendra ji posted a link to the Strabo's work, Geographica. In that work, Strabo rejects the works of Greek historians on the subject of India because he feels that these works are utterly unreliable. He goes on to call them as liars. He does not even spare the famous ones like Deimachus, Megasthenes, Onesicritus and Nearchus. Strabo calls the works of these greeks as concocted fables.
Who is Nearchus?
Wiki:
Nearchus was one of the officers, a navarch, in the army of Alexander the Great. His celebrated voyage from what is now Pakistan to Susa after Alexander's expedition in north-western Indian subcontinent is preserved in Arrian's account, the Indica. Wikipedia
Born: 360 BCE
Died: 300 BCE
However, he remained in command of the fleet for the voyage from the Indus to the Persian Gulf, which he recorded in detail (and which was used extensively for Arrian’s Indica).
Who is Onesicritus?
Wiki:
Onesicritus, a Greek historical writer, who accompanied Alexander on his campaigns in Asia. He claimed to have been the commander of Alexander's fleet but was actually only a helmsman; Arrian and Nearchus often criticize him for this. Wikipedia
Born: 360 BCE
Died: 290 BCE
We learn from Diogenes Laërtius[11] that Onesicritus wrote a work about Alexander called How Alexander was Educated (Greek: Πῶς Ἀλέξανδρος Ἤχθη), imitating the style of Xenophon, though he fell short of him as a copy does of the original.[12] It is most frequently cited in regard to the campaigns of Alexander in Asia, and for descriptions of the countries that he visited. Though an eye-witness of much that he described, it appears that he intermixed many fables and falsehoods with his narrative, so that he early fell into discredit as an authority. Strabo is especially severe upon him.[13] Plutarch cites him as one of those who related the fable of the visit of the Amazons to Alexander, for which he was justly ridiculed by Lysimachus,[9] and Arrian accuses him of falsely representing himself as the commander of the fleet, when he was in truth only the pilot.
Who is Megasthenese?
Wiki:
Megasthenes was a Greek ethnographer and explorer in the Hellenistic period, author of the work Indica. He was born in Asia Minor and became an ambassador of Seleucus I of the Seleucid dynasty possibly to Chandragupta Maurya in Pataliputra, India.
Born: 350 CE
Died: 290 CE
At the beginning of his Indica, he refers to the older Indians who know about the prehistoric arrival of Dionysus and Hercules in India, which was a story very popular amongst the Greeks during the Alexandrian period. Particularly important are his comments on the religions of the Indians. He mentions the devotees of Heracles and Dionysus but he does not mention Buddhists, something that gives support to the theory that the latter religion was not widely known before the reign of Ashoka.[2]
His Indica served as an important source for many later writers such as Strabo and Arrian.
Who is Deimachus?
Wiki:
Deimachus was a Greek of the Seleucid Empire who lived during the third-century BCE. He became an ambassador to the court of Bindusara "Amitragata" in Pataliputra in India.
As an ambassador, he was the successor to the famous ambassador and historian Megasthenes.
To me, the above is a suspect narrative.
Who is Eratosthenes?
Wiki
Eratosthenes of Cyrene was a Greek mathematician, geographer, poet, athlete, astronomer, and music theorist. He was the first person to use the word "geography" in Greek and he invented the discipline of geography as we understand it
Born: 276 BC, Cyrene
Died: 194 BC, Alexandria
Works
- Περὶ τῆς ἀναμετρήσεως τῆς γῆς (On the Measurement of the Earth)[13] (lost, summarized by Cleomedes)
- Geographica (lost, criticized by Strabo)
- Arsinoe (a memoir of queen Arsinoe; lost; quoted by Athenaeus in the Deipnosophistae)
- A fragmentary collection of Hellenistic myths about the constellations, called Catasterismi (Katasterismoi), was attributed to Eratosthenes, perhaps to add to its credibility.
Deimachus, Megasthenes, Nearchus, Onesicritus and Eratosthenes are approximately of the same time period. They are dated as 300s BCE(i.e. approx 2300 years ago). About 3 centuries later(i.e. approx 2000 years ago), Strabo and Arrian came.
Strabo and Arrian are also Greeks. Strabo creates a work called Geographica dealing with geography of the world. Obviously, he tries to research the work of his predecessors on this topic. So, he researches the previous greek works for the knowledge of Geography. And in trying to ascertain the geography of India, he comes across these earlier greeks who claimed to have visited and written about India. But, once he reviews their works, he comes to the conclusion that their works are utterly unreliable.
Why? Strabo gives his reason in the following manner:
We reply, that [Eratosthenes] did not object [to the statement of Patrocles] merely because it differed [from that of Megasthenes], but because the statement of this latter as to the stadia was confirmed by the Itinerary, an authority of no mean importance. There is nothing wonderful in this, that though a certain statement may be credible, another may be more credible; and that while in some instances we follow the former, in others we may dissent from it on finding a more trust-worthy guide. It is ridiculous to say that the greater the difference of one writer from others, the less he should be trusted. On the contrary, such a rule would be more applicable in regard to small differences; for in little particulars the ordinary observer and the man of great ability are equally liable to err. On the other hand, in great matters, the ordinary run of men are more like to be deceived than the man of superior talent, to whom consequently in such cases greater deference is paid. 2.1.9
Generally speaking, the men who hitherto have written on the affairs of India, were a set of liars. Deimachus holds the first place in the list, Megasthenes comes next, while
-- 109 --
Onesicritus and Nearchus, with others of the same class, manage to stammer out a few words [of truth]. Of this we became the more convinced whilst writing the history of Alexander. No faith whatever can be placed in Deimachus and Megasthenes. They coined the fables concerning men with ears large enough to sleep in, men without any mouths, without noses, with only one eye, with spider-legs, and with fingers bent backward. They renewed Homer's fable concerning the battles of the Cranes and Pygmies, and asserted the latter to be three spans high. They told of ants digging for gold, of Pans with wedge-shaped heads, of serpents swallowing down oxen and stags, horns and all; meantime, as Eratosthenes has observed, reciprocally accusing each other of falsehood. Both of these men were sent ambassadors to Palimbothra, [Note]—Megasthenes to Sandrocottus, Deimachus to Allitrochades his son; and such are the notes of their residence abroad, which, I know not why, they thought fit to leave. Patrocles certainly does not resemble them; nor do any other of the authorities consulted by Eratosthenes contain such absurdities. 2.1.10
[Note] If the meridian of Rhodes and Byzantium has been rightly determined to be the same, then that of Cilicia and Amisus has likewise been rightly determined; many observations having proved that the lines are parallel, and that they never impinge on each other. 2.1.11
In like manner, that the voyage from Amisus to Colchis, and the route to the Caspian, and thence on to Bactra, are both due east, is proved by the winds, the seasons, the fruits, and even the sun-risings. Frequently evidence such as this, and general agreement, are more to be relied on than the measurement taken by means of instruments. Hipparchus himself was not wholly indebted to instruments and geometrical calculations for his statement that the Pillars and Cilicia lie in a direct line due east. For
-- 110 --
that part of it included between the Pillars and the Strait of Sicily he rests entirely on the assertion of sailors. It is therefore incorrect to say that, because we cannot exactly determine the duration of the longest and shortest days, nor the degree of shadow of the gnomon throughout the mountainous region between Cilicia and India, that therefore we are unable to decide whether the line traced obliquely on the ancient charts should or should not be parallel, and consequently must leave it unreformed, keeping it oblique as the ancient charts have it. For in the first place, not to determine any thing is to leave it undetermined; and to leave a thing undetermined, is neither to take one view of the matter nor the other: but to agree to leave it as the ancients have, that is to take a view of the case. It would have been more consistent with his reasoning, if he had told us to leave Geography alone altogether, since we are similarly unable to determine the position of the Alps, the Pyrenees, and the mountains of Thrace, [Note] Illyria, [Note] and Germany. Wherefore should we give more credit to the ancient writers than to the modern, when we call to mind the numerous errors of their charts which have been pointed out by Eratosthenes, and which Hipparchus has not attempted to defend. 2.1.12
But the system of Hipparchus altogether teems with difficulties. Reflect for an instant on the following absurdity; after admitting that the southern extremity of India is under the same degree of latitude as Meroe, and that the distance from Meroe to the Strait of Byzantium is about 18,000 [Note] stadia, lie then makes the distance from the southern extremity of India to the mountains 30,000 stadia. Since Byzantium and Marseilles are under the same parallel of latitude, as Hipparchus tells us they are, on the authority of Pytheas, and since Byzantium and the Dnieper [Note] have also the same meridian, as Hipparchus equally assures us, if we take his assertion that there is a distance of 3700 [Note] stadia between Byzantium and the Dnieper, there will of course be a like difference between the latitude of Marseilles and the
-- 111 --
Dnieper. This would make the latitude of the Dnieper identical with that of Keltica next the Ocean; for on proceeding 3700 stadia [north of Marseilles], we reach the ocean. [Note]
quoting from the link posted by Virendra ji.
Essentially, Strabo's points are:
a) These earlier Greek writers are reproducing and remixing the more ancient greek fiction like Homer's works.
They renewed Homer's fable concerning the battles of the Cranes and Pygmies, and asserted the latter to be three spans high.
b) These earlier Greek writers give fantastic and simply incredible descriptions.
They coined the fables concerning men with ears large enough to sleep in, men without any mouths, without noses, with only one eye, with spider-legs, and with fingers bent backward.
C) These 'facts' provided by one greek writer does not match the 'facts' provided by another.
d) These earlier greek writers accuse each other of falsehood.
They told of ants digging for gold, of Pans with wedge-shaped heads, of serpents swallowing down oxen and stags, horns and all; meantime, as Eratosthenes has observed, reciprocally accusing each other of falsehood.
e) These works of early greek writers are riddled with self-contradictions.
Based on the above points, Strabo comes to the conclusion that the earlier greek writers, writing on India, were bunch of liars.
Why is it important to Indians?
Because
Sir William Jones could not believe in the antiquity of the Bharata War according to Indian accounts because of his Christian faith which told him that Creation took place at 9-00 a. m, on 23rd October 4004 BC. He tried to search the Greek and Roman accounts. These accounts supplied some information about India of the time of the Macedonian king Alexander. It mentioned seven names of three successive Indian kings. Attributing one name each for the three kings the names are Xandrammes, Sandrocottus and Sandrocyptus. Xandrammes of the previous dynasty was murdered by Sandrokottas whose son was Sandrocyptus.
So, Jones formulated a theory based on the above
Jones picked up one of these three names, namely, Sandrokottas and found that it had a sort of phonetic similarity with the name Chandragupta of the Puranic accounts. According to the Greek accounts, Palibothra was the capital of Sandrokottas. Jones took Palibothra as a Greek pronunciation of Pataliputra, the Indian city and capital of Chandragupta. He, then, declared that Sandrokottas of the Greek accounts is Chandragupta Maurya of the Puranas.
But,
Jones died just a year after this declaration and possibly before his death, could not know that Puranas have another Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty.
So, there is more than one Chandragupta in Indian history. Jones did not know about it. He knew of only one Chandragupta i.e. Chandragupta Maurya. He thought the word 'Chandragupta' was phonologically similar to the word Sandrokottas(the greek name mentioned in greek works). He assumed the greek works to be authentic. So, he came to the conclusion that the Sandrokottas must be Chandragupta. He did not even venture to think that perhaps the greek works are bogus.
He assumed the greek works as the gold standard. The greek works became axioms i.e. self proven. This self-proven greek works were used to 'cross check and make sense of' Indian history.
After this, the rest of the colonial historians/indologists followed this trend. All of them accepted the Jones work without any critical review of his work.
Later scholars took this identity of Sandrokottas with Chandragupta Maurya as proved and carried on further research. James Princep, an employee of the East India Company, deciphered the Brahmi script and was able to read the inscriptions of Piyadassana. Turnour, another employee of the Company in Ceylon, found in the Ceylonese chronicles that Piyadassana was used as a surname of Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya. The inscription bearing the name of Asoka was not found till the time of Turnour. In 1838, Princep found five names of the Yona kings in Asoka's inscriptions and identified them as the five Greek kings near Greece belonging to third century BC who were contemporary to Asoka.
Based on this, the colonial historians/indologists arrived at an interesting theory called Sheet Anchor Theory.
In the Greek accounts, Sandrokottas of Palimbothra is described as a contemporary of Alexander of Macedonia who invaded India during 327 BC to 323 BC This decides the approximate date of Chandragupta Maurya. Princep's research decides the approximate date of Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya as in 3rd century BC Both these dates were adjusted with the reign periods of the three successive Magadha kings, Chandragupta, Bindusara and Asoka of the Maurya dynasty given in the Puranas. Thus, the date c. 320 BC was fixed as the date of coronation of Chandragupta Maurya. It is on this date that every other date of Indian history has been constructed.
320 BCE is the sheet anchor for determining all other dates in Indian history. The entire Indian history is constructed on the basis of this date. This date has been determined on the basis of alleged phonological similarity between two words 'Sandrokottas' and Chandragupta. Sandrokottas is found in greek works, while Chandragupta is mentioned in Puranas. But, Puranas mention 2 Chandraguptas: Chandragupta Maurya and Chandragupta of Gupta Dynasty. Jones, who 'discovered' the alleged phonological similarity, did not know about the mention of another Chandragupta(of Gupta Dynasty).
But, the main problem with the above Sheet anchor date is the assumption that Greek works can give better idea about Indian history than Indian literature itself. Colonials did not want to take the word of Indians(Indian literature) for granted. So, they searched for foreign accounts about India. So, the works of greeks(Megasthenes, ...etc) and chinese(Fa Hein) are presented as important to determine the Indian history.
This kind of non-sense would not be tolerated in any other country. Why would the accounts of foreigners be depended upon to determine the history of India?
It is not as if these foreign works can provide the historian with all dates or chronologies. These works are largely useless. It is Indian literature(particularly Puranas) that give the dates, names of the kings and dynasties, and chronologies of the Indian history. Then what is the use of the foreign accounts?
It seems the foreign accounts are used to cross-check the Indian version of the events. That means if there is dispute about what is the truth, then they depend on the foreign accounts(greek or chinese). So, the implicit view is that the foreigners are more reliable than the Indians even if the subject is Indian history. Irony of this view would not be lost on anyone. But, this is no surprise because those historians who were formulating these ideas and theories were first and foremost colonials.
So, the implicit idea behind sheet anchor theory itself is steeped in inherent racist worldview.
But, the real problem is while these colonial EJ indologists were cynical about accepting the Indian version of events in India, they enthusiastically without questioning accepted the greek version of India. They never paused to think whether the greek version were authentic or just bogus.
This was happening in 1800s.
Max Mueller, in 1859 AD, finalized this identity of Sandrokottas with Chandragupta Maurya and declared c. 320 BC, the date of coronation of Chandragupta Maurya as the Sheet Anchor of Indian history.
Of course, not everyone agreed with this kind of sham. So,
M. Troyer did not agree with this conclusion and noted this fact in the introduction to his translation of Rajatarangani of Kalhana. He even communicated his views to Prof. Max Mueller in a letter but did not receive a reply from him.
Link[/quote]
So, clearly even when Max Mueller was informed that the Jones reached his conclusion without adequate knowledge, Max Mueller did not reply. That shows quite clearly that his interest was not in history, but in distorting history to suit the colonial EJ agenda.
But about 2000 years earlier, Strabo had already raised the question of authenticity of Greeks. So, the colonial EJ indologists not only ignored the criticism of their times, but they also ignored the criticism of their source material by a historical figure about 2000 years ago. Strabo was also a greek, so one cannot even say he was a foreigner. Strabo had studied the works of the greek predecessors on India and come to the conclusion that their works were simply concocted fables which was in some(if not most) case reproduction the remixed version of earlier greek fables.
Alexander's invasion of India is modeled on an earlier fables of Hercules and Dionysus visiting India. Like the earlier fables(Hercules and Dionysus), the Alexander's invasion of India is also a fable. Homer's work was also used to remix the memes by these greek writers.
They seem to get their facts completely wrong indicating that they never visited India. They may only have heard vague tales of India and may have had only some vague notions about geography of India(like Mountains in the north and sea to the south). It seems greeks were fascinated with India but did not have proper knowledge about it(including its geographical location).
For example, Megasthenes and other greek accounts do not mentioned 'Maurya'. Megasthenes does not make any mention of Chanakya or Kautilya.
The empire of Chandragupta was known as Magadha empire. It had a long history even at the time of Chandragupta Maurya. In Indian literature, this powerful empire is amply described by this name but it is absent in the Greek accounts. It is difficult to understand as to why Megasthanese did not use this name and instead used the word Prassi which has no equivalent or counterpart in Indian accounts.
Further, Megasthenes and other greek accounts do not even mention Buddhism!!! Buddhism was supposed to be the flourishing religion at the time, but Megasthenes does not mention it.
Asoka's empire was bigger than that of Chandragupta Maurya and he had sent missionaries to the so-called Yavana countries. But both of them are not mentioned. Colebrook has pointed out that the Greek writers did not say anything about the Buddhist Bhikkus though that was the flourishing religion of that time with the royal patronage of Asoka. Roychaudhari also wonders why the Greek accounts are silent on Buddhism.
According to the Greek accounts, Xandrammes was deposed by Sandrokottas and Sandrocyptus was the son of Sandrokottas. In the case of Chandragupta Maurya, he had opposed Dhanananda of the Nanda dynasty and the name of his son was Bindusara. Both these names, Dhanananda and Bindusara, have no phonetic similarity with the names Xandrammes and Sandrocyptus of the Greek accounts.
So, there is no phonological similarity in the names of the son of Sandrokottas and son of Chandragupta Maurya. Chandragupta Maurya's son was Bindusara. Sandrokottas son was Sandrocyptus. There is no phonological similarity between the names Sandrocyptus and Bindusara.
Next,
To decide as to whether Pataliputra was the capital of the Mauryas, Puranas is the only source. Puranas inform us that all the eight dynasties that ruled Magadha after the Mahabharata War had Girivraja as their capital. Mauryas are listed as one of the eight dynasties. The name Pataliputra is not even hinted at, anywhere in the Puranas.
So, according to the Indian accounts Pataliputra is not the capital of Mauryas. The capital of Mauryas was Girivraja. Pataliputra was brought into the picture because of seeming phonological similarity between the words Pataliputra(Indian city) and Palibothra. But,
He further states, "Pataliputra cannot be written as Palibothra in Greek because 'P', in Patali is written in Greek as English 'P', only ; then why 'P', in Putra is changed to 'B', in Greek? There is no instance where Sanskrit 'P', is changed to Greek 'B'." Putra cannot be Bothra.
So, the truth is that there is no phonological similarity between Pataliputra and Palibothra. They cannot be referring to the same place. Further, Pataliputra is not the capital of Mauryas.
Recently, a project on Alexander after working extensively, created a website, which points out the following facts:
1) Alexander’s ideas concerning India were …still sketchy in the extreme.
2) To the Greeks, the land across the Indus was a shallow peninsula, bounded on the north by the Hindu Kush (it was known as such only in the medieval period) and on the east by the great world-stream of ocean, which ran at no great distance beyond the Sind desert, implying that there were no countries.
3) On the main Indian sub-continent, let alone the vast Far Eastern land-mass from China to Malaysia, they knew nothing.
4) In general Alexander’s ignorance of Indian geography remained profound.
5) His whole eastern strategy rested on a false assumption.
6) When enlightenment came, it was too late.
7) The great Ganges Plain, by its mere existence, shattered his dream more effectively than the army could have done.
The Greek cartographers have cleared showed that the world ends with Arabia during the material period. No two maps tally with each other in any detail. In fact, they later start to identify India as Indian extra-Gangem and India intra-Gangem. Whereas, there were Greek scholars who considered India as a land of knowledge, wealth and so on, and thus, later even mentioned as paradise on the earth. But, because of the complexity, they started misrepresented the facts of India.
The Difference Between Greek and Indian Geographers
Greek geographers and other experts made Alexander to believe that he had reached the end of the world, after he crossed Persia. But, Indian geographers, astronomers and cosmologists had clear idea about the world, existing countries and even Universe.
Greek scholars
a) World was flat surrounded with oceanic waters.
b) The existing world contained Greece, African and Middle east countries.
c) Considered other people as barbarians, uncivilized and so on.
d) Non-Greeks were described as men with two heads, three eyes, half-man-half-animal and so on.
e) Later, western scholars expurgated all such descriptions and made the writings to appear as reasonable, accetable to modern mind.
Indian Scholars
a) World was round / globular with land and water.
b) World contained seven continents with different countries and peoples.
c) The civilization of other peoples recognized and respected.
d) No such description.
e) Not subjected to such expurgation or expunction, but continued to be printed and circulated as such.
There is further another problem here. The complete works of earlier greek writers on India did not survive. So, the colonial EJs did not have access to these works in their entirety either. So, what did they do?
They searched for later western works that quoted the earlier greek works. They found Arrian, almost a contemporary of Strabo.
Who is Arrian?
Arrian of Nicomedia was a Roman historian(ethinic Greek), public servant, military commander and philosopher of the 2nd-century Roman period. As with other authors of the Second Sophistic, Arrian wrote primarily in Attic . Wikipedia
Born: 92 AD, Nicomedia
Died: 175 AD, Athens
Arrian is an important historian because his work on Alexander is the widest read, and arguably the most complete, account of the Macedonian conqueror. Arrian was able to use sources which are now mostly lost, such as the contemporary works by Callisthenes (the nephew of Alexander's tutor Aristotle), Onesicritus, Nearchus and Aristobulus. Most important of all, Arrian had the biography of Alexander by Ptolemy, one of Alexander's leading generals and allegedly his half-brother.
Criticism
Arrian says that Alexander's greatness is worthy of praise and glory, and should be known by future generations. It seems that he wanted to make Alexander's life a legend—which it is today—through his book. Not all historians agree with this goal. A. B. Bosworth, an expert on Greek history,[8][9] criticized what he viewed as Arrian's hagiography in 'Errors in Arrian' (1976)[10]
Bosworth, in line with the epigraphic tradition of modern classical studies, points out that Arrian is a secondary source of Alexander's biographical data: "Arrian is prone to misread and misinterpret his primary sources, and the smooth flow of his narrative can obscure treacherous quicksands of error". One of his principal sources, Ptolemy, was an interested party. Bosworth writes that "not only has it been virtually disproved that Ptolemy constructed his history from archival material, but it appears that he inserted his own propaganda to exaggerate his personal achievements under Alexander and to discredit those of his rivals". Bosworth alleges that "Arrian was prone to the errors of misunderstanding and faulty source conflation that one would expect in a secondary historian of antiquity".
Bosworth further points out that "Arrian makes it quite plain that his work is designed as a literary showpiece. Alexander's achievements, he says, have never been adequately commemorated in prose or verse. The field is therefore open for him to do for the Macedonian king what Pindar had done for the Deinomenid tyrants and Xenophon for the march of the Ten Thousand". Bosworth states that "Arrian has in mind Thucydides' famous strictures of histories of the pentekontaetia,[11] on which the passage is patently modelled". The charge is that Arrian has written a panegyric rather than a work of serious history.
So, the works of later writers were searched for the quotations of the earlier greek writers on India. And these quotations were brought at one place and used as gold standard to cross check the Indian history.
Almost all these greek historians have been accused by their contemporaries and later day greeks of being interested parties and prone to wild exaggerations and falsehoods in their narratives. Yet, these versions(not even complete ones, but picked from secondary sources) were used by the colonial EJ indologists in 1800s to craft the modern version of ancient history of India. These foreign dubious versions were given higher priority even when they were completely contradicted by the Indian version. Of course, the foreign versions were useless without the Indian versions, but Indian versions needed no foreign version.
So, it seems to me that it happened in the following manner: Some greek writers created a fiction about Hercules, Dionysus and Achilles. After some centuries, these memes were used to create the fable of Alexander. At around this time, greeks also wrote about their notions of India and world geography. They get their facts completely wrong. After few centuries, greeks use the earlier works to again write about India. After few centuries(two millenias), european colonial EJ indologists use these greek fables to distort the history of India.
At each level, the previous works(of westerners) are taken as authentic and then a new layer of distortion and deception is added to it. Of course, the same was done by the predecessors also. So, the result is complete falsehood.
An analogy: Lets say X mixes flour into water and sells it to Y as milk. Y think that it is indeed milk. Then, he mixes urea into water and then mixes this with the liquid given to him by X. He thinks this is adulterated milk. He sells it to Z as milk. Z thinks this is authentic milk, he mixes some chalk powder into water and add its to the liquid given to him by Y. He sells this liquid to W. W buys this liquid thinking that it is milk. And so on...
Is there any milk at all in the above version? NO. Similarly, there is no truth in european versions about India. Each liar is adding one more layer of lies to the previous false narrative.
So, from Indian perspective, an Indian must start from scratch. That means question the very basics and not take anything for granted. For example, Indians may question about the whether Alexander won against Porus or not. Some Indians go to the next step and question the very invasion of Alexander to India.
But, even this is not enough. The very basic question is: Did Alexander exist? or was it simply a reproduction of an older meme borrowed from old greek fables?
Wiki on sources of Alexander story:
Apart from a few inscriptions and fragments, texts written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander were all lost.[14] Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life included Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman. Their works are lost, but later works based on these original sources have survived. The earliest of these is Diodorus Siculus (1st century BC), followed by Quintus Curtius Rufus (mid-to-late 1st century AD), Arrian (1st to 2nd century AD), the biographer Plutarch (1st to 2nd century AD), and finally Justin, whose work dated as late as the 4th century.[14] Of these, Arrian is generally considered the most reliable, given that he used Ptolemy and Aristobulus as his sources, closely followed by Diodorus.
None of the primary sources have survived. All of them are lost. Only the secondary sources(just 5) are surviving. Strabo criticizes the primary sources itself. And it is a most direct criticism of being liars. Moreover, it seems even these greek writers have accused each other of lying. So, how are they reliable. If the primary sources itself are suspect and cannot be verified, then how reliable are the secondary sources that selectively quote the primary ones?
Plutarch is one of the main source of Alexander's story.
Wiki:
Plutarch then named, on his becoming a Roman citizen, Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus, c. 46 – 120 AD, was a Greek historian, biographer, and essayist, known primarily for his Parallel Lives and Moralia. He is considered today to be a Middle Platonist. Wikipedia
Born: 45 AD, Chaeronea
Died: 120 AD, Delphi
Plutarch's Life of Alexander, written as a parallel to that of Julius Caesar, is one of only five extant tertiary sources on the Macedonian conqueror Alexander the Great. It includes anecdotes and descriptions of events that appear in no other source
Basically, Plutarch wrote fiction, but it is presented as history. Why is Plutarch important? Because it seems Plutarch is the main source of Alexander's Indian invasion.
The Myth, Romance and Historicity of Alexander and His Influence on India This link lead to an article that discusses whether any real alexander existed or was it a myth which was famous in many countries and which was ultimately usurped by the Greeks.
The Truth About Alexander Another interesting article on Alexander and greek relations with India.[/quote]
It seems the Alexander like meme is popular in different cultures. And each of the narratives differs. In Egyptian version, he is the Pharoah. In the greek version, he is the Macedonian. It may be a popular motif in the ancient worlds.
If Alexander was also a myth like Hercules and Dionysus and other greek fables, then the whole greek works are to be summarily dismissed.
---------
The words for 'Yes' in different languages:
Hindi(Indian) -> Han
Japanese -> Hai
Cantonese(Chinese) -> Hai
French -> Oui
English -> Aye
Telugu(Indian) -> Sye
Mandarin(Chinese) -> Shi
Latin -> Sic
Italina -> Si
German -> Ja
All of these seem to be related to each other phonologically. Here, Ya, Ja, Aa, Ha, and Sa are seen. It seems Sa is the primary sound which gets corrupted into Ha. Then, Ha gets corrupted into Ya or Aa. Ya can further get corrupted into Ja.
The exceptions seem to be:
Hebrew -> Ken
Russian -> Da
EDIT: Or maybe, the Da(russian) is not an exception. Ha may have become Da.
Some general corruptions in the sounds are:
Sa -> Sha Eg: Sama -> Shama
Sha -> Sa Eg: Shyama -> Syama, Ashashin -> Assassin
Ba -> Va Eg: Jambu -> Jamvu
Va -> Ba Eg: Vedi -> Bedi, Vanga -> Banga
Ra -> La Eg: Rama -> Lama
Pa -> Fa Eg: Hapta -> Hafta
Fa -> Pa Eg: Soft -> Sopt
Tha -> Ta Eg: Thara -> Tara
Ta -> Tha
Ya -> Aa Eg: Shyama -> Shama
Ya -> Ja Eg: Yehova -> Jehova, Yeshu -> Jeshu
Ya -> Ha
Ha -> Ya
Ha -> Aa Eg: Hashashin -> Ashashin
Sa -> Ha Eg: Sapta -> Hapta
Da -> Dha
Dha -> Da
Ma -> Na
Na -> Ma
Cha -> Ka
Any half consonant followed by ra -> full consonant followed by ra. Eg: Free -> Feree.
EDIT:
Tha -> Dha Eg: Thatha -> Dhadha
Pa -> Ba Eg: Papa -> Baba
Za -> Sha
Za -> Sa
Za -> Ja Eg: Hazar -> Hajar
Probable corruptions:
Ra -> Da
Va -> Aa
Va -> Ya
Aa -> Ha
Aa -> Ya
Ka -> Cha
Sha -> Za
I think it would be better idea if instead of deleting it, he could add the following sentences to the original sentence in the following manner:
Caste is a social hierarchy based on occupation. There are four broad categories of castes in Hindu society: Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Sudra. Each caste is known to perform a specific duty. Brahmins perform rituals and are in charge of teaching society; Kshatriyas are rulers and warriors, and are involved in ruling and defending the territories; Vaishyas are cultivators and businessmen; Sudras rank last in society and are labourers by profession. Each caste is further subdivided into smaller units generally known as subcastes, which in turn are further divided into multiple exogamous clans known as Gotras. The caste system governs all social, religious and economic activities of the people. The long-term social boundaries and endogamy practice among all social groups has given birth to diverse, population-specific social traditions and the development of distinct linguistic dialects. The divergent endogamous cultural and social structures are helpful in understanding genetic variation among the populations and their ancestry.
