Originally Posted by
Saidevo
With this presentation, I would like to end the topic of Jones and his PIE, which is considered as a digression from the purpose of the thread by Sarabhanga (though I differ in that opinion), and request him to proceed with his work.
Namaste Saidevo,
Despite the admitted digression, I cannot allow the host of unsubstantiated allegation and falsehood to stand uncontested by facts.
Originally Posted by
Saidevo
I am convinced that Jones had extensive scholarship and am inclined to change my opinion about suggesting his 'idiocy' (by which I actually meant ignorance, 'avidyA').
Yet, for all his great scholarship, I feel and subscribe to the view that Jones had a hidden agenda and subjected all his excellent knowledge to that end and tailored it suitably to aid and abet the conversion and subversion policies of his colleagues--the colonnial ruling class of which he was part and parcel of. You may or may not agree with my opinion here. I leave it to the other members for their own consideration.
Jones, in fact, can surely be called the pioneer of the ideas of PIE (Proto-Indo-European language) and the AIT (Aryan Invasion Theory), though these conspiratorial concepts and designs in those names came up later. Here are some details of Jones' hidden agenda:
Jones was first and foremost an orthodox Christian …
No doubt he was a Christian by denomination, and an Englishman by nationality, and his initial impressions from 1784 are not perfect in every detail.
William Jones was simply using the biblical name (“Raamah, son of Cush”) and relating that to the known characteristics of rAma, the inheritor of koshala and most famous “son of kusha” whose own son is named kusha.
And the sons of Cush: Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtechah. And the sons of Raamah: Sheba, and Dedan. [Genesis 10.7]
William Jones introduced his essay with the following important declarations:
The comparison, which I proceed to lay before you needs be very superficial; partly from my short residence in Hindustan, and partly from my want of complete leisure for literary amusements.
We cannot justly conclude, by arguments preceding the proof of facts, that one people must have borrowed their deities, rites, and tenets from another; since Gods of all shapes and dimensions may be framed by the boundless powers of imagination, or by the frauds and follies of men, in countries never connected; but, when features of resemblance, too strong to have been accidental, are observable in different systems, without fancy or prejudice to colour them and improve the likeness, we can scarce help believing, that some connection has immemorially subsisted between the several nations who have adopted them.
It is my design, in this Essay, to point out such resemblance between the popular worship of the old Greeks and Italians and that of the Hindus. Nor can there be room to doubt of a great similarity between their religions and that of Egypt, China, Persia, Phrygia, Phoenicia, Syria; to which, perhaps, we may safely add some of the southern kingdoms, and even islands of America: while the Gothick system, which prevailed in the northern regions of Europe, was not merely similar to those of Greece and Italy, but almost the same in another dress, with an embroidery of images apparently Asiatic.
From all this, if it be satisfactorily proved, we may infer a general union or affinity between the most distinguished inhabitants of the primitive world.
Disquisitions concerning the manners and conduct of our species in early times, or indeed at any time, are always curious at least, and amusing; but they are highly interesting to such as can say of themselves, ‘We are men, and take an interest in all that relates to mankind’.
It is not the truth of our national religion, as such, that I have at heart; it is truth itself.
And if any cool unbiased reasoner will clearly convince me, that Moses drew his narrative through Egyptian conduits from the primeval fountains of Indian literature, I shall esteem him as friend for having weaned my mind from a capital error, and promise to stand among the foremost in assisting to circulate the truth, which he has ascertained.
Having no system of my own to maintain, I shall not pursue a very regular method, but shall take all the Gods, of whom I discourse, as they happen to present themselves; beginning, however, like the Romans and the Hindus, with Janus or Ganesa.
And the last lines do consider the evangelical Christian urge for conversion and “saving souls”, not in any hidden agenda, but openly published (presumably in response to questions from his colleages, rather than as a declaration of the secret aim of his life’s work).
The Hindus … would readily admit the truth of the Gospel; but they contend, that it is perfectly consistent with their Sastras: the deity, they say, has appeared innumerable times, in many parts of this world and of all worlds, for the salvation of his creatures; and though we adore him in one appearance, and they in others, yet we adore, they say, the same God, to whom several worships, though different in form, are equally acceptable, if they be sincere in substance. We may assure ourselves, that neither Muselmans nor Hindus will ever be converted by any mission from the Church of Rome, or from any other church; and the only human mode, perhaps, of causing so great a revolution will be to translate into Sanskrit and Persian such chapters of the Prophets, particularly Isaiah, as are indisputably Evangelical, together with one of the Gospels, and a plain prefatory discourse containing full evidence of the very distant ages, in which the predictions themselves, and the history of the divine person predicted, were severally made publick; and then quietly to disperse the work among the well-educated natives; with whom if in due time it failed of producing very salutary fruit by its natural influence, we could only lament more than ever the strength of prejudice, and the weakness of unassisted reason.
His suggestion was to translate the Bible into Sanskrit. But after two centuries such a Sanskrit translation remains unavailable, and I have already suggested why that might be!
What did those who actually knew Sir William Jones have to say about him?
From a Discourse delivered at a Meeting of the Asiatick Society, in Calcutta, on 22nd of May, 1794, by the Honourable Sir John Shore.
I shall begin with mentioning his wonderful capacity for the acquisition of languages, which has never been excelled. In Greek and Roman literature, his early proficiency was the subject of admiration and applause; and knowledge of whatever nature, once obtained by him, was ever afterwards progressive.
At an early period of life his application to Oriental literature commenced; he studied the Hebrew with ease and success, and many of the most learned Asiaticks have the candour to avow, that his knowledge of Arabick and Persian was as accurate and extensive as their own : he was also conversant in the Turkish idiom, and the Chinese had even attracted his notice.
It was to be expected, after his arrival in India, that he would eagerly embrace the opportunity of making himself master of the Sanscrit; and the most enlightened professors of the doctrines of Brahma confess with pride, delight, and surprise, that his knowledge of their sacred dialect was most critically correct and profound. The Pandits, who were in the habit of attending him, when I saw them after his death, at the public Durbar, could neither suppress their tears for his loss, nor find terms to express their admiration at the wonderful progress he had made in their sciences.
But the judgement of Sir William Jones was too discerning to consider language in any other light than as the key to science, and he would have despised the reputation of a mere linguist. Knowledge and truth, were the object of all his studies, and his ambition was to be useful to mankind; with these views, he extended his researches to all languages, nations, and times.
Such were the motives that induced him to propose to the Government of this country, what he justly denominated a work of national utility and importance, the compilation of a copious digest of Hindu and Mahommedan Law, from Sanskrit and Arabick originals, with an offer of his services to superintend the compilation, and with a promise to translate it.
And his experience, after a short residence in India, confirmed his sagacity had anticipated, that without principles to refer to, in a language familiar to the judges of the courts, adjudications among the natives must too often be subject to an uncertain and erroneous exposition, or willful misinterpretation of their laws.
To the superintendence of this work, which was immediately undertaken at his suggestion, he assiduously devoted those hours which he could spare from his professional duties. After tracing the plan of the digest, he prescribed its arrangement and mode of execution, and selected from the most learned Hindus and Mahommedans fit persons for the task of compiling it.
Encouraged by his applause, the Pandits persecuted their labours with cheerful zeal, to a satisfactory conclusion.
During the course of this compilation, and as auxiliary to it, he was led to study the works of Menu, reputed by the Hindus to be the oldest, and holiest of legislatures; and finding them to comprise a system of religious and civil duties, and of law in all its branches, so comprehensive and minutely exact, that it might be considered as the Institutes of Hindu law, he presented a translation of them to the Government of Bengal. During the same period, deeming no labour excessive or superfluous that tended, in any respect, to promote the welfare or happiness of mankind, he gave the public an English version of the Arabick text of the Sirajiyah, or Mahommedan Law of Inheritance, with a Commentary.
To these learned and important works, so far out of the road of amusement, nothing could have engaged his application, but that desire which he ever professed, of rendering his knowledge useful to his nation, and beneficial to the inhabitants of these provinces.
The students of Persian literature must ever be grateful to him, for a grammar of that language, in which he has shown the possibility of combining taste, and elegance, with the precision of a grammarian; and every admirer of Arabick poetry, must acknowledge his obligations to him, for an English version of the seven celebrated poems, so well known by the name of Moallakat, from the distinction to which their excellence had entitled them, of being suspended in the temple of Mecca : I should scarcely think it of importance to mention, that he did not disdain the office of Editor of a Sanskrit and Persian work, if it did not afford me an opportunity of adding, that the latter was published at his own expense and was sold for the benefit of insolvent debtors. A similar application was made of the produce of the Sirajiyah.
Of his lighter productions, the elegant amusements of his leisure hours, comprehending hymns on the Hindu mythology, poems consisting chiefly of translations from the Asiatick languages, and a version of Sacontala, an ancient Indian drama, it would be unbecoming to speak in a style of importance which he did not himself annex to them. They show the activity of a vigorous mind, its fertility, its genius, and its taste.
Of the ability and conscientious integrity, with which he discharged the functions of a Magistrate, and duties of Judge of the Supreme Court of Judicature in his settlement, the public voice and public regret bear ample and merited testimony. The same penetration which marked his scientific researches, distinguished his legal investigations and decisions; and he deemed no inquiries burthensome, which had for their object substantial justice under the rules of law.
His addresses to the jurors are not less distinguished for philanthropy, and liberality of sentiment, than for just expositions of the law, perspicuity, and elegance of diction; and his oratory was as captivating as his arguments were convincing.
I have already enumerated attainments and works, which, from their diversity and extent, seem far beyond the capacity of the most enlarged minds; but the catalogue may yet be augmented. To a proficiency in the languages of Greece, Rome, and Asia, he added the knowledge of the philosophy of those countries, and of every thing curious and valuable that had been taught in them. The doctrines of the Academy, the Lyceum, or the Portico, were not more familiar to him than the tenets of the Vedas, the mysticism of the Sufis, or the religion of the ancient Persians; and whilst with a kindred genius he perused with rapture the heroic, lyrical, or moral compositions of the most renowned poets of Greece, Rome, and Asia, he could turn with equal delight and knowledge, to the sublime speculations, or mathematical calculations, of Barrow and Newton. With them also, he professed his conviction of the truth of the Christian religion.
We all recollect, and can refer to, the following sentiments in his eighth anniversary discourse.
“Theological inquiries are no part of my present subject; but I cannot refrain from adding, that the collection of tracts, which we call from their excellence the Scriptures, contain, independently of a divine origin, more true sublimity, more exquisite beauty, purer morality, more important history, and finer strains both of poetry and eloquence, than could be collected within the same compass from all other books, that were ever composed in any age, or in any idiom. The two parts, of which the Scriptures consist, are connected by a chain of compositions, which bear no resemblance in form or style to any that can be produced from the stores of Grecian, Indian, Persian, or even Arabian learning; the antiquity of those compositions no man doubts, and the unstrained application of them to events long subsequent to their publication, as a solid ground of belief that they were genuine predictions, and consequently inspired.”
There were in truth few sciences, in which he had not acquired considerable proficiency; in most, his knowledge was profound. The theory of music was familiar to him; nor had he neglected to make himself acquainted with the interesting discoveries lately made in Chymistry.
His last and favourite pursuit, was the study of Botany, which he originally began under the confinement of a severe and lingering disorder, which with most minds, would have proved a disqualification from any application. It constituted the principle amusement of his leisure hours. In the arrangements of Linnaeus he discovered system, truth, and science, which never failed to captivate and engage his attention.
The last composition which he read in this Society, was a description of select Indian plants.
It cannot be deemed useless or superfluous to inquire, by what arts or method he was enabled to attain a degree of knowledge almost universal, and apparently beyond the powers of man, during a life little exceeding forty-seven years.
The faculties of his mind, by nature vigorous, were improved by constant exercise; and his memory, by habitual practice, had acquired a capacity of retaining whatever had once been impressed upon it. To the unextinguished ardour for universal knowledge, he joined a perseverance in the pursuit of it, which subdued all obstacles; his studies began with the dawn, and during the intermissions of professional duties, were continued throughout the day; reflection and meditation strengthened and confirmed what industry and investigation had accumulated. It was a fixed principle with him, from which he never voluntarily deviated, not to be deterred by any difficulties that were surmountable, from prosecuting to a successful termination, what he had once deliberately undertaken.
But what appears to me more particularly to have enabled him to employ his talents so much to his own and the public advantage, was the regular allotment of his time to particular occupations, and a scrupulous adherence to the distribution which he had fixed; hence, all his studies were pursued without interruption or confusion : nor can I here omit remarking, what may probable have attracted your observation as well as mine, the candour and complacency with which he gave his attention to all persons, of whatsoever quality, talents, or education; he justly concluded, that curious or important information, might be gained even from the illiterate; and whenever it was to be obtained, he sought and seized it.
Of the private and social virtues of our lamented President, our hearts are the best records; to you, who knew him, it cannot be necessary for me to expatiate on the independence of his integrity, his humanity, probity, or benevolence, which every living creature participated; on the affability of his conversation and manners, or his modest unassuming deportment : nor need I remark, that he was totally free from pedantry, as well as from arrogance and self-sufficiency, which sometimes accompany and disgrace the greatest abilities; his presence was the delight of every society, which his conversation exhilarated and improved; and the public have not only to lament the loss of his talents and abilities, but also that of his example.
And consider what Jones himself actually had to say:
From ‘Discourse on the Hindus’ by Sir William Jones’ (1786)
The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet being to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists : there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothick and the Celtick, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanskrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family.
Of the Indian Religion and Philosophy … it will be sufficient in this dissertation to assume, what might be proved beyond controversy, that we now live among the adorers of those very deities, who were worshipped under different names in old Greece and Italy, and among the professors of those philosophical tenets.
The six philosophical schools, whose principles are explained in the Dersana Sastra, comprise all the metaphysicks of the old Academy, the Stoa, the Lyceum; nor is it possible to read the Vedanta, or the many fine compositions in illustration of it, without believing, that Pythagoras and Plato derived their sublime theories from the same fountain with the sages of India.
We are told by the Grecian writers, that the Indians were the wisest of nations; and in moral wisdom, they were certainly eminent.
The Philosopher, whose works are said to include a system of the universe founded on the principle of Attraction and the Central position of the sun, is named Yavan Acharya, because he had travelled, we are told, into Ionia : if this be true, he might have been one of those, who conversed with Pythagoras; this at least is undeniable, that a book on astronomy in Sanskrit bears the title of Yavana Jatica, which may signify the Ionic Sect; nor is it improbable, that the names of the planets and Zodiacal stars, which the Arabs borrowed from the Greeks, but which we find in the oldest Indian records, were originally devised by the same ingenious and enterprising race, from whom both Greece and India were peopled; the race, who, as Dionysius describes them, “first assayed the deep, and wafted merchandize to coasts unknown, those, who digested first the starry choir, their motions marked, and called them by their names.”
Of these cursory observations on the Hindus, which it would require volumes to expand and illustrate, this is the result : that they had an immemorial affinity with the old Persians, Ethiopians, and Egyptians, the Phenicians, Greeks, and Tuscans, the Scythians or Goths, and Celts, the Chinese, Japanese, and Peruvians; whence, as no reason appears for believing, that they were a colony from any one of those nations, or any of those nations from them, we may fairly conclude that they all proceeded from some central country, to investigate which will be the object of my future Discourses.
From ‘Discourse on the Persians’ (1789)
It has been proved by clear evidence and plain reasoning, that a powerful monarchy was established in Iran long before the Assyrian government; that it was in truth a Hindu monarchy.
The Brahmans could never have migrated from India to Iran, because they are expressly forbidden by their oldest existing laws to leave the region, which they inhabit at this day.
From ‘Discourse on the Origin and Families of Nations’ (1792)
That Nature, of which simplicity appears a distinguishing attribute, does nothing in vain, is a maxim in philosophy; and against those, who deny maxims, we cannot dispute; but is vain and superfluous to do by many means what may be done by fewer, and this is another axiom received into courts of judicature from the schools of philosophers : we must not, therefore, says our great Newton, admit more causes of natural things, than those, which are true, and succinctly account for natural phenomena; but it is true, that one pair at least of every living species must at first have been created; and that one human pair was sufficient for the population of our globe in a period of no considerable length.
If the human race then be, as we may confidently assume, of one natural species, they must have proceeded from one pair.
On that part of it, to which our united researches are generally confined, we see five races of men peculiarly distinguished … but we have reduced them to three, because we can discover no more, that essentially differ in language, religion, manners, and other known characteristicks : now those three races, how variously soever they may at present be dispersed and intermixed, must (if the preceding conclusions be justly drawn) have migrated originally from a central country, to find which is the problem proposed for solution. Suppose it solved; and give any arbitrary name to that centre.
Nor does the argument in any form rise to demonstration, which the question by no means admits : it amounts, however, to such a proof, grounded on written evidences and credible testimony, as all mankind hold sufficient for decisions affecting property, freedom, and life.
The most ancient history of that race, and the oldest composition perhaps in the world, is a work in Hebrew, which we may suppose at first, for the sake of our argument, to have no higher authority than any other work of equal antiquity, that the researches of the curious had accidentally brought to light : it is ascribed to Musah; for so he writes his own name, which, after the Greeks and Romans, we have changed into Moses; and, though it was manifestly his object to give an historical account of a single family, he introduced it with a short view of the primitive world, and his introduction has been divided, perhaps improperly, into eleven chapters.
Three sons of the just and virtuous man, whose lineage was preserved from the general inundation, travelled, we are told, as they began to multiply, in three large divisions variously subdivided : the children of Ya’fet seem, from the traces of Sklavonian names, and the mention of their being enlarged, to have spread themselves far and wide, and to have produced the race, which, for want of a correct appellation, we call Tartarian; the colonies, formed by the sons of Ham and Shem, appear to have been nearly simultaneous; and, among those of the latter branch, we find so may names incontestably preserved at this hour in Arabia, that we cannot hesitate in pronouncing them the same people whom hitherto we have denominated Arabs; while the former branch, the most powerful and adventurous of whom were the progeny of Cush, Misr, and Rama (names remaining unchanged in Sanskrit, and highly revered by the Hindus), were, in all probability, the race, which I call Indian, and to which we may now give any other name, that may seem more proper and comprehensive.
Now these primeval events are described as having happened between the Oxus and the Euphrates, the mountains of Caucasus and the borders of India.
When we find, indeed, the same words, letter for letter, and in a sense precisely the same, in different languages, we can scarce hesitate in allowing them a common origin: and not to depart from the example before us, when we see Cush or Cus (for the Sanskrit name is variously pronounced) among the sons of Brahma, that is, among the progenitors of the Hindus, and at the head of an ancient pedigree preserved in the Ramayan; when we meet with his name again in the family of Rama; when we know, that the name is venerated in the highest degree, and given to a sacred grass, described as a Poa by Koenig, which is used with a thousand ceremonies in the oblations to fire, ordained by Menu to form the sacrificial zone of the Brahmans, and solemnly declared in the Veda to have sprung up soon after the deluge, whence the Pauranicks consider it as the bristly hair of the boar which supported the globe; when we add, that one of the seven dwipas, or great peninsulas of this earth, has the same appellation, we can hardly doubt that the Cush of Moses and Valmic was the same personage and an ancestor of the Indian race.
That the branch of Ya’fet was enlarged in many scattered shoots over the north of Europe and Asia, diffusing themselves as far as the western and eastern seas, and, at length in the infancy of navigation, beyond them both : that they cultivated no liberal arts, and had no use of letters, but formed a variety of dialects, as their tribes were variously ramified; that, secondly, the children of Ham, who founded … the monarchy of the first Chaldeans, invented letters, observed and named the luminaries of the firmament, calculated the known Indian period of four hundred and thirty-two thousand years, or an hundred and twenty repetitions of the saros, and contrived the old system of Mythology … that they were dispersed at various intervals and in various colonies over land and ocean; that the tribes of Misr, Cush, and Rama settled in Africk and India.
From ‘Discourse on the Philosophy of the Asiaticks’ (1794)
I have already had occasion to touch on the Indian metaphysicks of natural bodies according to the most celebrated of the Asiatick schools, from which Pythagoreans are supposed to have borrowed many of their opinions; and, as we learn from Cicero, that the old sages of Europe had an idea of centripetal force and a principle of universal gravitation (which they never attempted to demonstrate), so I can venture to affirm, without meaning to pluck a leaf from the neverfading laurels of our immortal Newton, that the whole of his theology and part of his philosophy may be found in the Vedas and even in the works of the Sufis : that most subtil spirit, which he suspected to pervade natural bodies, and, lying concealed in them, to cause attraction and repulsion, the emission, reflection, and refraction of light, electricity, calefaction, sensation, and muscular motion, is described by the Hindus as a fifth element endued with those very powers; and the Vedas abound with allusions to a force universally attractive, which they chiefly ascribe to the Sun, thence called Aditya, or the Attractor.
From ‘Dissertation on the Orthography of Asiatick Words in Roman Letters’
A perfect language would be that, in which every idea, capable of entering the human mind, might be neatly and emphatically expressed by one specific word, simple if the idea were simple, complex, if complex; and on the same principle a perfect system of letters ought to contain one specific symbol for every sound used in pronouncing the language to which they belonged : in this respect the old Persian or Zend approaches to perfection … and the same may indubitably be said of the Devanagari system; which, as it is more naturally arranged than any other, shall here be the standard of my particular observations on Asiatick letters. Our English alphabet and orthography are disgracefully and almost ridiculously imperfect; and it would be impossible to express either Indian, Persian, or Arabian words in Roman characters, as we are absurdly taught to pronounce them.
Originally Posted by
Saidevo
Here is a picture of the marble panel in The Chapel of Oxford College that depicts Jones with a missionary skull cap, with brahmins cowering at his feet:
Have you not read the caption to this panel?
“HE FORMED A DIGEST OF HINDU AND MOHAMMEDAN LAWS”
William Jones was appointed as a Supreme Court Judge in Bengal, and he immediately realized that India could not be governed by an imposed judiciary with no understanding of local laws and customs. So he employed Hindu and Muslim scholars to select and explain the relevant texts, the whole body of which, at the time, remained unknown to the British.
Jones was NOT a missionary. What defines his cap as a “missionary cap”? Why do the Brahmins who are reading sacred texts have their own heads covered in the image?
And Brahmins “cowering at his feet” ??? Complete nonsense !! Two of them are engrossed in their own reading, and one has his back turned, apparently deep in thought. No character in this panel is bowing to anything but Wisdom itself!
Originally Posted by
Saidevo
With these quotes, anyone can have a clear idea about the whole purpose of his extensive work (to which he gave a facade of scholarship but actually worked with vested interests behind the scenes)
Your quotes and images prove nothing more than a paranoid imagination!
Originally Posted by
Saidevo
Why he did not find correspondences between Krishna and Jesus Christ (or his God, the Father), as did some of the other western scholars and still continue to do, in their lives and teachings. Had Jones done it, he would have surely lost his job, probably branded as a hertic and possibly subjected to an inquisition!
More hysterical nonsense! Jones was employed as a Judge, and the Asiatick Society was his own creation. And he did find and mention correspondences between Krishna and Christ !
From ‘On the Gods of Greece, Italy, and India’
Each sect must be justified by its own faith and good intentions : this only I mean to inculcate, that the tenet of our church cannot without profaneness be compared with that of the Hindus, which has only an apparent resemblance to it, but a very different meaning.
One singular fact, however, must not be suffered to pass unnoticed. That the name of Crishna, and the general outline of his story, were long anterior to the birth of our Saviour, and probably to the time of Homer, we know very certainly.
Originally Posted by
Saidevo
In fact, if anyone had noticed, Jones was careful to omit the 'h' in the natural Anglican spelling of Krishna's name and spell it as Crishna, not Chrisha, (compare the names Christian, Christopher, Christina)--lest he should give the Church any impression of possible heresy in his scholarship!
So much for the scholarship and quest for true knowledge of a knighted, noble man, lauded and eulogized by most western scholars and many Hindu pundits.
Perhaps I was not after all wrong in having called this noble, nescient! Nescience or not, Jones surely lacked the guts of a true seeker of wisdom that should have been the hallmark of such scholarship and study.
You were absolutely wrong in calling Sir William Jones nescient! And what do you mean by “lacking the guts of a true seeker of wisdom” ???
And Jones himself fully explains the reasoning behind his orthography.
From ‘Dissertation on the Orthography of Asiatick Words in Roman Letters’
We come now to the first consonant of the Indian system, in which a series of letters, formed in the throat near the root of the tongue, properly takes the lead. This letter has the sound of our k and c in the words king and cannibal; but there will be great convenience in expressing it uniformly by the second of those marks, whatever be the vowel following it. The Arabs, and perhaps all nations descended from Sem, have a remarkable letter founded near the palate with a hard pressure, not unlike the cawing of a raven, as in the word Kasim; and for this particular sound the redundance of our own alphabet supplies us with a useful symbol : the common people in Hhejaz and Egypt confound it, indeed with the first letter of Gabr, and the Persians only add to that letter the hard palatine found in the Arabian kaf; but, if we distinguish it invariably by k, we shall find the utility of appropriating our c to the notation of the Indian letter now before us. The third letter of the Roman alphabet was probably articulated like the kappa of the Greeks; and we may fairly suppose, that Cicero and Cithara were pronounced alike at Rome and at Athens.
Nescient is “holding that only material phenomena can be known and knowledge of spiritual matters or ultimate causes is impossible”, or simply “ignorant, uneducated, lacking knowledge or sophistication, unlearned and incapable of understanding complex issues”.
Sir William Jones was certainly not “nescient” (in any sense) ~ but those who mindlessly condemn the whole of his work surely are!
Originally Posted by
Saidevo
the reason for his undermining the divinity of Hindu gods by finding all sorts of correspondences of their origin and function with the Greek and Roman pagan gods; the hidden agenda here was to prove that the Hindu Gods were also extinct like the Greek and Roman gods, so can never be equated with the Christian Gods--the Father or the Son;
How does finding correspondences in any way undermine the divinity of Hindu Gods?
And what makes you so sure that the Grecian and Roman deities, and I presume the whole of the Celtic and Gothic pantheon, is extinct? This is the most arrogant presumption of all. Based on nothing but ignorance !!
Originally Posted by
Saidevo
the reason for Jones' iniative on the suggestion of a common ancestor for the languages Sanskrit, Greek and Latin (though he did admit that Sanskrit was used in many parts of the world and subsequently lost its status as a vernacular) and suggest a PIE (in which PIE he let the Eurpoeans keep their fingers and bring all the tongues to be kept waiting for the f(l)avour and taste of the PIE)!
The reason has been given above, very plainly from Jones’ own words.
Originally Posted by
Saidevo
the reason for Jones dismissing the Hindu cycles of Time in four yugas as "untenable because the first three ages were merely mythological--Krita, Treta, Dwapara--and the fourth was traceable no earlier than probably 2000 B.C." (Sastry, p.87)
Jones did not agree with the vast extent of time suggested by the Hindu understanding of yugas. But that does NOT invalidate everything he said on a myriad of other matters.
Originally Posted by
Saidevo
the reason for Jones' fictitious connection of Sandracottus with King Chandra Gupta Maurya (1541-1507).
From ‘Discourse on Asiatick History, civil and natural’ (1793)
The jurisprudence of the Hindus and Arabs being the field, which I have chosen for my peculiar toil, you cannot expect, that I should greatly enlarge your collection of historical knowledge; but I may be able to offer you some occasional tribute, and I cannot help mentioning a discovery, which accident threw in my way.
To fix the situation of Patalibothra (for there may have been several of the name), which was visited and described by Megasthenes had always appeared a very difficult problem; for, though it could not have been Prayaga, where no ancient metropolis ever stood, nor Canyacubja, which has no epithet at all resembling the word used by the Greeks, nor Gaur, otherwise called Lacshmanavati … yet we could not confidently decide that it was Pataliputra, though names and most circumstances nearly correspond, because that renowned capital extended from the confluence of the Sone and the Ganges to the site of Patna, while Patalibothra stood at the junction of the Ganges and Erannaboas, which the accurate M. D’Anville had pronounced to be the Yamuna : but this only difficulty was removed, when I found a classical Sanskrit book, near two thousand years old, that Hiranyabahu, or golden-armed, which the Greeks changed into Erannaboas, or the river with a lovely murmur, was in fact another name for the Sona itself, though Magasthenes, from ignorance or inattention, has named them separately. This discovery led to another of greater moment; for Chandragupta, who, from a military adventurer, became like Sandracottus, the sovereign of upper Hindustan, actually fixed the seat of his empire at Pataliputra, where he received ambassadors from foreign princes, and was no other than that very Sandracottus who concluded a treaty with Seleucus Nicator; so that we have solved another problem, to which we before alluded, and may in round numbers consider the twelve and three hundredth year before Christ …
Megasthenes was a friend of Seluekos Nikator, and his ambassador at the Court of Sandrokottos, king of Palibothra. And Demarchos was ambassador at the same court in the days of the son and successor of Sandrokottos.
According to Arrian:
Megasthenes resided with Siburtios the satrap of Arakhosia, and who tells us that he frequently visited Sandrakottos the king of the Indians.
But even Megasthenes, as far as appears, did not travel over much of India, though no doubt he saw more of it than those who came with Alexander, the son of Philip, for, as he says, he had interviews with Sandrokottos, the greatest king of the Indians.
According to Plutarch:
Androkottos presented Seleukos with 500 elephants, and overran and subdued the whole of India with an army of 600,000 men.
According to Appian:
And having crossed the Indus, he [Seleukos] warred with Androkottos, the king of the Indians, who dwelt about that river, until he entered into an alliance and a marriage affinity with him.
According to Strabo:
Megasthenes, who was in the camp of Sandrokottos, which consisted of 400,000 men, did not witness on any day thefts reported which exceeded the sum of 200 drachmai, and this among a people who have no written laws, who are ignorant even of writing, and regulate everything from memory.
According to Athenaios:
Phylarchos says that among the presents which Sandrokoptos, the king of the Indians, sent to Seleukos were certain powerful aphrodisiacs.
Sandrokottos overthrew the Macedonian rule in the Punjab, and ascended the throne of Magadha, whence he established the Mauryan empire.
The Asiatick Society found reference to Chandragupta as founder of the Mauryan dynasty of Magha, and ascertained the date of his coronation as about 312 BC
Seleukos Nikator, the king of Syria, advanced eastwards to recover the territory previously held. The exact date of the expedition is uncertain, but it is presumed to have occurred around 305 BC.
A treaty was signed, in which Seleukos received 500 elephants and relinquished any claim to Greek conquests beyond the Indus, and also gave up even more territories west of the Indus, along with his own daughter, to Sandrokoptos.
At Pataliputra, the Sisunagas were succeeded by the Nandas in 370 BC, and the Mauryas succeeded them in 315 BC. And the last Nanda king is called Xandrames by the Greeks, and Agrammes by Curtius. While Indian authorities name him as Dhanananda, Nanda, Mahapadma, or Hiranyagupta. And Xandramas is an exact Greek transliteration of the Sanskrit Chandramas.
More baseless comments from Swami Prakashananda:
Two more attempts of Jones to destroy the Divinity of Sanskrit language and to mutilate Bhartiya history.
His second attempt was to mutilate the Divine greatness of Sanskrit language, and his third attempt was to create a fiction…
This was his third attempt to destroy the culture and the history of Bharatvarsh by mutilating the historic dates.
To establish that that Chandragupt belonged to the Maurya dynasty, he mentions about some poem by Somdev which tells about the murder of Nand and his eight sons by Chandragupt in order to usurp the kingdom. In this way Jones created a fictitious connection between Chandragupt Maurya and Sandracottus.
Anyone could see that these people were adamantly prone to fabricating false statements all the time just to demean our culture …
All the things referred to in this speech are absolutely wrong and outrageous.
Somdev was just a story writer of fun and frolics.
He never described Chandragupt Maurya as the usurper of the kingdom.
There was never a written book in India that lasted for 2,000 years.
Now we know that there was no such book that was 2,000 years old. Moreover, Jones never produced or showed that book to anyone, even to his close associates. It was simply his word of mouth to relate the fake story of a 2,000 year old book.
Everyone who has read Megasthenes knows that his writings are most unreliable. But Jones found an excuse to quote the writings of Megasthenes.
Jones, deliberately overlooking these facts and taking an excuse of the unfounded writings of a worldly disdained gossiper, Megasthenes, fabricated the story of matching Chandragupt Maurya with Sandracottus.
In fact, he was doing his job as he was told by his superiors. However, these scheming strategies show the malignancy of their promoters, the people of East India Company.
The non-credibility of the statements of Megasthenes.
Nothing Jones said about Sandrakottus is refuted by Swami Prakashananda, who simply dismisses Jones, Megasthenes, and even Somadeva, as fools with nothing true to offer.
And what did Jones have to say about Somadeva?
The popular tales of the Hindus, in prose and in verse, contain fragments of history; and even in their dramas we may find as many real characters and events, as a future age might find in our own plays … for example, a most beautiful poem by Somadeva, comprising a very long chain of instructive and agreeable stories, begins with the famed revolution at Pataliputra by the murder of King Nanda, with his eight sons, and the usurpation of Chandragupta; and the same revolution is the subject of a tragedy in Sanskrit, entitled the Coronation of Chandra, the abbreviated name of that able and adventurous usurper.
The identity of Chandragupta and Sandrokoptos does NOT depend on anything written by the poet Somadeva (whose work Swami Prakashananda dismisses as “just a story of fun and frolics”).
The important document is actually a Buddhist Chronicle, and examining the Greek accounts of Sandrokoptos and Buddhist accounts of Chandragupta the two are found to agree on all main points.
According to the Buddhist accounts, his father was the ruler of a small valley in the Himalayas, called Maurya because of its many peacocks. He was killed resisting an invasion, and his wife fled to Pataliputra, where she gave birth to a son, who was called Chandragupta.
A Brahmin from Taxila, named Chanakya, was residing in Pataliputra. He was mortally offended by king Dhanananda, and vowed to avenge the insult. Learning that he was of royal descent, Chanakya adopted the young Chandragupta and trained him in the Kshatriya arts. And when grown, he was put in command of body of troops, but their attempted rebellion against Dhanananda was suppressed and Chandragupta fled to the desert, where he collected a new force and returned from the Panjab to invade Magadha, which he captured. The unpopular king Dhanananda was killed, and Chandragupta Maurya ascended the throne.
Originally Posted by
Saidevo
how Jones paved the way for the AIT (Aryan Invasion Theory) that came up later, through his suggestion of PIE that gave birth to the idea of Proto-Indo-European people (Aryans).
Jones gave birth to the idea of Aryans ??? What about the Vedas ???
Originally Posted by
Saidevo
Unwittingly, even the church in England has become a part of this conspiracy. The Chapel of Oxford College took the lead, and presented William Jones wearing a skull-cap on a marble panel, showing Jones to be a missionary, though he had earlier been lauded as a Sanskrit-lover, as the Father of Indo-European Linguistics attesting to the supremacy of Europeans and their burden to civilize many colonies including the Indian colony. Hindus were shown on the marble panel cowering at the feet of William Jones.
Jones was NOT a missionary. He was a Supreme Court judge!
And if the Church of England didn’t know anything about Jones’ cunning plan to destroy Hinduism and conquer India for Anglican Christianity, he must have kept it very secret!
Originally Posted by
Saidevo
It was Sir William Jones who misrepresented Vedic allegories and conjured up the Aryan race by Immaculate Conception-a seedless parenthood, that is to say, one without any foundation. Yet his colonial brethren embraced the spurious offspring with the fervour of new converts; the rest is history
Conjured up the Aryan race? Once again, what about the Vedas ???
Re: Extrapolating Christianity--to What End?
Re: Extrapolating Christianity--to What End?
Re: Extrapolating Christianity--to What End?
Re: Extrapolating Christianity--to What End?
Bookmarks