The First Encounter of the Mahabharata-people with Belief and Brutality
Converted Persian-Ruler Rob in Bharatavarsa
Mahmud of Ghazni intruded into Bharatavarsa through the Pāriyātra Parvata of the western Himalayas some 1000 years ago with the sole purpose to plunder. Unlike Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian he did not face resistance. He robbed and collected riches up to his logistic capacity and left. This event was the first of this kind in the long history of Bharatavarsa. It was beyond their imaginations o the Mahabharata-people that anything like the foray of Mahmud of Ghazni could happen.
Ghazni was an ancient small market place on a plateau of the western Himalayas more than 2000 meters above the ocean-level. Ghazni is located quite near to the Pāriyātra Parvata, later called the Khyber Pass. The Himalayas are impassable; the Pāriyātra Parvata was almost impassable excepting for one pass and two small by-passes. These were the only land-routes to Bharatavarsa. The rest of Bharatavarsa is surrounded by oceans.
The adjacent lands in the West of Bharatavarsa are arid mountainous and thinly populated. People lived there comfortably with the nature, with the surrounded flora, fauna and habitat in balanced equilibrium. Who knows for how many millenniums! These lands were rather insignificant eastern periphery of the Persian “Rulers” and were less affluent. This region was not affected by the many Greco-Persian wars. In all probability the Greek dominated regions were economically less developed than the Persian dominated regions. It is not on record that the Persian “Rulers” had begun wars against the Greek dominated regions.
We all know, Wars are rather a disguising expression of robbery. Robbers know beforehand where to rob. There was nothing to rob in the northern or western regions of Greece. The Greeks begun robbing eastwards in the western periphery of the Persian “Rulers” who knows when. Persian “Rulers” knew about the Vedic culture, the Vedic societies and the accumulated riches in Bharatavarsa. They eventually knew also the land-route through the Pāriyātra Parvata. There are no indications of a clash between Persia and Bharatavarsa. Being maritime since time immemorial Bharatavarsa never attempted or tempted to a foray. Since time immemorial Bharatavarsa was affluent in all walks of life. Since time immemorial the people of Bharatavarsa were eager to know all about the surroundings, the sun, the sky with its luminaries and beyond. But why didn’t the Persians try to rob Bharatavarsa? This question has not been raised yet. We leave this question to be answered by the prevalent inquisitive scholars.
Anything like a foray was beyond imaginations for the people in Bharatavarsa through the ages. Since time immemorial the people of Bharatavarsa were eager to know all about the whole universe. The horizons of their knowledge are fascinating. They comprehended that the developments in human societies, of human civilizations, of human cultures are determined by the laws of the Nature on the earth. The laws of the Nature on the earth are determined by the laws of the solar-system. The laws of the solar-system are determined by the laws of the Universe. It is not known how many human societies on the earth had acquired this knowledge.
The people of Bharatavarsa had acquired vast amount of knowledge. At some point they the limit of human knowledge relating to the Universe was reached. The people of Bharatavarsa then tried to preserve their knowledge for generations of human-beings to come. They compiled the Four Vedas as a human knowledge bank. We have called them the Vedic-people. They shaped accordingly their societies, their civilizations and the Vedic culture. It is not known how many human societies on the earth had acquired this knowledge.
The Vedic-people handed down their knowledge on the universe, on the solar-system, on the magnificent unity in diversities on the earth and on sanatana dharma (the human duties, i.e. the function, assignment, role and purpose of human life on the earth). The Vedic civilizations are characterized by productions of food stuffs and utilities in affluence using renewable resources and preserving the nature. The Vedic-people handed down a culture creating harmony and happiness for all Beings on the earth.
The pre-Vedic-people had explored our universe accessible to the humankind and lived according to the acquired knowledge. The growth of knowledge and the growth of qualities in living was one and the same process. They created a knowledge-bank when they experienced the limit of human knowledge. The knowledge-bank was preserved in the collective memory. The vehicle of common exchanges was the Vedic language which had grown with the growth of knowledge. This wholeness of the Vedic culture has been handed down to the post-Vedic-people.
We shall never know about the sentiments of the Vedic-people reaching this peak. A peak slides down-wards by its nature. The Vedic-people knew that all entities in the universe have a beginning and have an end. The duration of “stay” is variable. The variation is determined by the laws of the universe. Yet the Vedic-people did their utmost to preserve the Vedic knowledge-bank, the Vedic language and the Vedic culture. The Vedic-people had to experience that the wholeness of the Vedic culture was caught in a low-tide. The dynamics of social practices after reaching the peak of knowledge began to corrupt the sophisticated Vedic language, the only entry to the Vedic knowledge-bank. It has not been handed down what the Vedic-people did during the long period of the low-tide evolving gradually to the “Upanishad-people”. “Upanishad-people” is also our denomination. In a little while more on this.
The peak of this Vedic culture was achieved creating the Vedic knowledge-bank and applying thin knowledge to shape societal practices accordingly. As long as the knowledge grows, the dynamic of changes in societal practices are readily accepted as to be the least were to be done. The dynamic of changes in societal practices develop a dynamic of a different quality when the knowledge has reached a peak and do not grow any more. The knowledge can be preserved. The knowledge can get forgotten. The dynamics of societal practices cannot be controlled. Differences of opinion get also a different quality. Special claims, special interests, distributional inequalities had begun at some period in Bharatavarsa. The malice of achieving a peak and then the following flow downwards has been discussed elsewhere.
The Vedic culture needed four different functional sections as division of work to maintain happiness and harmony in the society smoothly. All four functions are understood to be intertwined, interdependent, equivalent and with free mobility within and between the sections: Production, innovation, preservation and distribution. In spite of continued affluences contributed by the “producers” and by the “innovators” a distributional imbalance had crept in with time being expressed in claims for individual excellence. A few of the later Upanishads are “authored” by individuals. The “authors” of the Vedas and the other Upanishads are not known. The “authors” of the Vedic knowledge-bank had defined their individual identity as to be a part of the whole of the community.
In all probability the Upanishad-people overlooked this seed of singling out of the collective whole. Probably they were concerned observing the low-tide of the Vedic knowledge and culture. They were busy with building dams to stop the loss of the Vedic language, the key to the Vedic knowledge. Building these dams had priority. In the course of time they created a light-version of the Vedic language and called the light-version the Sanskrit language. All Upanishads are compiled in the Sanskrit language. The Upanishads are explanations and interpretations of particular aspects of the Vedic knowledge for all those who were forgetting the Vedic language being absorbed in the dynamics of the social practice. The Upanishad-people did not try a mission-impossible to “translating” the Vedas into the Sanskrit language. Instead they created institutions to preserve the Vedic language and the Vedic knowledge-bank.
Special claims and special interests of “individuals” leading to distributional inequalities were considered to be negligible anomalies at the sight of affluence in all walks of life. The seed of singling out of the collective whole had sprouted and the sprouts had grown and had spread over to other sectors, especially to the section of the distributors. The Upanishad-people never thought of “sanctions” against the anomalies at individual or at sub-collective levels. They had fundamental trust in human beings in finding ways to their dharma. The Vedic culture is learnt individually and collectively and not taught.
The dams built by the Upanishad-people had helped to reduce the velocity of the continued low-tide for millenniums. They knew that all entities have a “Beginning” and an “End”. They knew about the time-cycles. Yet it was their dharma to try to expand the time-line from the beginning to the end. They could not avert the continued low-tide. Their absolute priority was to preserve the Vedic-knowledge-bank. Other priorities were “secondary”. They continued building dams to slow-down anomalies in the Vedic societies. They might have neglected anomalies like the loss of absolute mobility and equality in the Vedic societies. They might have neglected anomalies like the emergence of Vedic sub-cultures, emergence of “Rulers” at many levels, fights and battles. In view of these developments the Upanishad-people were evolving to the Mahabharata-people creating the Mahabharata in a narrative style of the Sanskrit language as the next major dam to reduce speed of the down-trend. The Mahabharata narrates vividly the state of affairs in the Vedic societies. The Vedic societies could relate their own state-of-affairs to the narrations and learn.
The Great Battle of the Mahabharata indicated the limits in the battles in human societies, the worst-case-scenario in the Vedic culture so to say. The end of the Great Battle was the beginning of the Kali Yuga, the last quarter of the 28th time cycle. The dam erected by the Mahabharata-people creating the Mahabharata in a narrative style of the Sanskrit language could not avert “battles cum wars” between “Rulers” and segregation movements in the Vedic culture. Advantaged by geographical seclusion, by climate and by serenity of the Mahabharata-people the vast majority in the functional sectors of production and of innovation were marginally affected by fights, battles and wars. They continued to follow the paths towards sanatana dharma. “Rulers” at all levels fought and battled each other to gain control over larger territories and indirectly for more “taxes”. These “Rulers” belonged to the functional sections of “distribution” and “administration”.
The history of the Kali Yuga of the 28th time-cycle, i.e. the history of the post-Great Battle, is under-researched. If the Great Battle of Mahabharata is not a metaphor it was an internal affair of a large “ruling-clan” in one of the Vedic societies. The ownership-claims of “properties” were the cause. Related clans, friends, advisors and hired service-people were directly or indirectly involved in the battle. All others in the society were not involved in this battle, though they were not indifferent. It is remarkable that the Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta does not discuss the issue of “individual ownership of properties” in the Vedic societies.
In our comprehension, the Mahabharata-people had to cope with continuously increasing disintegrations within the Vedic societies by many-faceted individual claims. In all probability the Mahabharata-people lived before the Great Battle with battles between “Rulers” at all levels across the whole area of Bharatavarsa. These battles continued up to the period when the “Supra-regional Rulers” from Magadha began wars occupying territories of other “Rulers” during the late phase of the Kali Yuga. Battles and wars distinctly deviated from the Vedic sanatana dharma. These battles and wars did not aim to abolish the Vedic sanatana dharma. These battles and wars did not aim to undermine the Vedic culture. The “Rulers” with their related followers generated Vedic sub-cultures. The vast majority continued to live their dharma. They were however affected to the extent of paying higher “taxes” to the “Rulers”.
By its nature the “Rulers” are at whatever levels robbers. The “Rulers” do not work to produce societal values. They just claim “rights” and propagate these “rights” by all means to appropriate parts of the produced values by the “Ruled”. In the beginning the claims are executed by violence. In the course of time they set up “laws” of “taxations”. At the worst end of “taxations” the “Ruled-producers” are exploited to the extent of just physical existence. Till it reaches the worst end the “Rulers” create a variety of “justifications” to manage the minds of the “Ruled”. The “Ruled” are left with only one alternative: to tolerate the inhuman “relationship of Rulers and Ruled” or to abolish this relationship by force.
It seems that the risks of a revolt were first apprehended some 3000 years ago in Bharatavarsa. “Supra-regional-Rulers” were building up armed forces to conquer territories. Wars need more resources than battles. The need of more resources leads to increased “taxations”. The need of more resources calls for more mind-management of those who are squeezed out. The two segregation “movements” some 2700 years ago, first the Jain-Dharma and a few decades later the Buddhist-Teachings, were generated by scions of “Rulers” from Magadha. Both segregation movements were maintained by “Ruling-Dynasties”. Both segregation movements appealed to individual “Have-nots” propagating austerity in life and total nonviolence. Well, we may not comment further.
Both segregation movements did not deal with inequalities, battles and wars in the human societies. The Jain-Dharma did not and does not deal with poverty. The Buddhist-Teachings did refer to poverty, misery, and illness of many individuals. Siddhartha Gautama Buddha did not question where and how poverty, misery, and illness were generated from. He prescribed instead every individual to acquire similar enlightment that he had attained. This exercise was prescribed as the way to overcome “sorrow” caused by poverty, misery, and illness. Well, we may not comment further.
The Jain-Dharma had begun creating massive building structures with natural materials as visible symbols for exclusive identification. These buildings were the beginning of changing the landscape of Bharatavarsa. These were “training centres for propagators” and “Jain-Temples”. What were the costs of these abuses of natural materials? We do not know. Who had financed these abuses of natural materials? We do not know for sure. These questions were not raised, has not been raised yet. We know only that the followers of the Buddhist-Teachings followed the example of the followers of the Jain-Dharma abusing natural materials to build “Biharas”, “Stupas”, and “Temples”. We know however that both segregation movements were generated and sponsored by the “Ruling Dynasties” in Magadha, later also by other “Ruling Dynasties”.
Both segregation movements flourished with the territorial expansion of the Ruling-Dynasties from Magadha in Bharatavarsa and beyond. Both began to decline after the fall of the Maurya-Dynasty also originating from Magadha some 2200 years ago. We are not eager to determine the dates of the flow of the tide during the centuries. It is known that both segregation movements failed to win over the minds of the Mahabharata-people and have almost vanished from Bharatavarsa as Vedic sub-cultures. It is known that the massive structures they had built have remained. The literature they have produced in the Prakrit and in the Pali languages have also remained. To articulate In the Prakrit and in the Pali languages 2/3 of the sounds in the Sanskrit language are necessary. Did they cultivate and preserve the oral-tradition? It is not known.
The Mahabharata-people resisted rather “silently” against the missionary activities of these two movements. They created “meeting-points” all over Bharatavarsa to live the Vedic culture. They continued to preserve the Vedas, the Vedic language, the Upanishads, the Sanskrit language and the oral-tradition. The Vedic Acharyas like Adi Shankara elevated at times the level of the Vedic culture for the Mahabharata-people even during the late phase of the Kali Yuga. Many of the “meeting-points” developed in the course of time to massive structures. It is not known how these massive structures were financed. They are numerous in comparison to those built by the Jain-people and by the Buddha-people. The whole landscape of Bharatavarsa changed. It is remarkable and we are amazed that none of the “Ruling-Dynasties” had erected personal monuments, not even palaces that could be compared with the massive structures like the Biharas, the Stupas and the Temples. Did they not press out enough resources from the “Ruled” to set up palaces and monuments?
It is not known whether before the Great Battle a social category similar to or comparable with “inheritance” was known. There is no synonym for “inheritance” in the Vedic or in the Sanskrit language. There is no synonym for “dynasty” in the Vedic or in the Sanskrit language. There is no mention of dynasties in the Mahabharata. There are no indications of “a dynasty of a ruler” in Bharatavarsa prior to the emergence of the “Jain Dharma”. Details of these events have been described elsewhere. This social category of “inheritance” was called “dynasty” at the level of the “ruling-families”. Since when? We do not know. The social category of “inheritance” and the acceptance of “dynasty” do cut off social mobility in general by its nature.
We revert to Ghazni after this tiny aside in regard to the “Vedic-minds” of the Mahabharata-people. Ghazni was the site of an insignificant regional “satrap” (governor) in the eastern periphery of the Persian “Empire” before Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian conquered Persia on his foray to Bharatavarsa. Alexander’s foray, those ten years, brought the region surrounding Ghazni in focus.
Forays have a different logistic logic compared to wars. Alexander had planned to rob Bharatavarsa and to carry back booties to Greece. To put it plainly and clearly, on his route Alexander had to procure daily “Lebensmittel” for the existential living of his ruffians, horses and himself. Uninhabited lands do not fulfil this need. He had to select well-populated routes on which daily robbery could be practiced.
While marching forward Alexander had to conquer regions after regions and build up “strongholds” to guard against attacks from behind. To maintain control over those “strongholds”, small and large “satrapies”, reliable Greek “manpower” was required. Thus there was a permanent need to recruit and to train “foreign mercenaries”. In the thinly populated arid mountainous regions surrounding Ghazni it was a difficult and a time-consuming mission. All he knew from the narrations of Ctesias that there was a “far off land” in the East of Persia, a land of “wonders” with “God-like-people”, “philosophers”, artisans, legendarily rich and possessing immense quantity of Gold. When he reached the region surrounding Ghazni Alexander knew nothing about the geographical features there. He had to explore from the conquered people the viable land-route through the Pāriyātra Parvata. This Himalayan mountain range was passable only in rain-free summer days. Alexander ultimately reached Bharatavarsa in some ten years totally exhausted with a small army only to realize the complete failure of foray. It was a “mission-impossible” to conquer Bharatavarsa, to rob, to plan a feasible strategy to transporting the booty back to Greece. None of these missions were fulfilled. Alexander retreated at least to save life and the rest. He expired before he could reach home.
After the death of Alexander the “Wars of the Diadochi” broke out amongst his main “commanders” on the issue of succession of the occupied areas. These wars continued for many years. Seleucus could secure control of the “Satrapy Babylonia”. He claimed to establish a new dynasty. Thereafter he systematically took over all Satrapies in the East of Babylonia and launched thereafter a foray to rob Bharatavarsa. Seleucus‘s logistics was better planed. The Satrapy Ghazni gained importance in this process. Seleucus Ruffians entered into Bharatavarsa through the Pāriyātra Parvata and got involved in wars with Chandragupta Maurya. After two years of wars Seleucus Ruffians were ousted from Bharatavarsa. They were unable to make booties. But many people were taxed and exploited during those two years. Seleucus had to surrender his eastern-most Satrapies to the Maurya-Dynasty and bought “peace” in the east of his “empire”.
It is not known how those surrendered eastern Satrapies were governed by the Maurya-Dynasty. In all probability Chandragupta Maurya left those surrendered eastern Satrapies to the local “Rulers” who traditionally had never intended to rob in Bharatavarsa. The Maurya-Dynasty did not intend to conquer regions westwards beyond the Pāriyātra Parvata. Thus the people in those regions were happy to live in peace as they had lived before the occupation by the Hellenes. The only land-route to Bharatavarsa was thus protected. The Maurya-Dynasty or any other later “Ruling-Dynasties” in the North-West of Bharatavarsa had ever considered to “fortifying” the passes of the Pāriyātra Parvata. Throughout the history these passes had remained unguarded.
When the Maurya-Dynasty took over the “control” of the Hellenic eastern Satrapies “Functionaries” of the Jain Dharma and of the Buddhist-Teaching appeared there. The spread of these two Vedic sub-cultures occurred as usual along with the territorial expansions of the Maurya-Dynasty. These two Vedic subcultures erected their status symbols also in those regions westwards of the Pāriyātra Parvata.
The Satrapy Ghazni developed to an important centre of these two Vedic subcultures. The people in this region have lived the Persian culture throughout the history of several millenniums, then exposed to the Hellenic occupation for a short period and thereafter exposed to mind-managements by the two Vedic sub-cultures. For some 150 years there had been no wars in this region. The vast area in the west of the Maurya-“administrated” regions of eastern Persia was affected by continuous warfares amongst the Hellenes themselves, then by the forays of the Romans who prevailed over the Hellenes in some 250 years. Their efforts to conquer Persia failed as well. Details are described elsewhere.
The history of Persia is under researched. The Persian language is rich, there are evidences of Persian civilizations, there is Persian literature and there was a distinctly different Persian culture till the Persian-people were converted to the Muhammad-people some 1200 years ago. The Persian-people had known a lot about Bharatavarsa before the other Mediterranean-people knew that there were lands beyond the East of Persia. Ctesias, the Greek medical mercenary at the court in Persia, was the first to narrate stories in the Persian air on a far-off-land beyond the eastern border of Persia. There are no indications that a Persian Ruler ever attacked Bharatavarsa. There are no indications that a Ruler from Bharatavarsa ever attacked Persia for whatever purposes. There are no indications of an effort to guard or take control over the Pāriyātra Parvata from either side.
In all probability the region in the West of the Pāriyātra Parvata was never “colonized” by the Maurya-Dynasty of Magadha. There are no evidences that Chandragupta Maurya ever sent “troops” through the narrow passes of the Pāriyātra Parvata. There was nothing to be robbed in the regions in the West. “Rulers” are by its nature robbers. And the robbers know where to rob. For the “Ruling-Dynasties” of Magadha in general and for Chandragupta Maurya in particular it was more lucrative to operate within the affluent territories of Bharatavarsa.
No other “Ruling-Dynasty” than the Maurya-Dynasty had gained control over the whole of Bharatavarsa. It is irrelevant to explore when the peak of the territorial control was attained and when it began to decline. The Maurya-Dynasty existed for nine generations and then vanished some 2180 years ago followed by many smaller “Ruling-Dynasties” all over Bharatavarsa. It is not on record that a “Ruling-Dynasty” in Bharatavarsa ever campaigned against the Vedic culture. The diversities of the Vedic societies documented in the Mahabharata represented the Vedic culture. The diversities of the Vedic societies documented the unifying strength of Vedic culture based on applied Vedic knowledge. There were no existential needs in the whole of Bharatavarsa.
There are no indications that the battles and the wars amongst the “Ruling-Dynasties” had ever affected the minds of the Mahabharata-people creating affinities towards the one or the other “Regional-Ruler”. In this late phase of the Kali Yuga small and large “Ruling-Dynasties” emerged and vanished regularly. Their impact on the Vedic societies did not affect the flow of the Vedic culture in the continued low-tide. The Mahabharata-people considered the “Ruling-Dynasties” as a minority deviating “individually” from the dharma of the Vedic culture. They remained “indifferent” as long as the doings of the “Ruling-Dynasties” were restricted to the recruitment of mercenaries from all four functional sections of the Vedic societies.
It may be relevant to explore the social processes how individuals serving in the distributional sectors in the affluent Vedic societies became robbers. It may also be relevant to know what these robbers did with the booties. The history of these processes is almost lost. We have to live with the surprise that none of “Rulers” had built palaces to demonstrate their riches. The first massive buildings were the Jain-Temples some 2700 years ago. In this late phase of the Kali Yuga the “Rulers” in Magadha in particular had exploited the people to the extent that their minds were to be managed to avert revolts. The Jain-Dharma propagated the need of austerity in life and total nonviolence. The second segregation movement, also sponsored by the Magadha-Rulers a few decades later, propagated the need overcoming “sorrow” caused by poverty, misery and illness by acquiring enlightment on the path shown by Siddhartha Gautama Buddha.
In summary both segregation movements trained “missionaries”, produced literatures in light versions of the Sanskrit language and yet failed ever to win the minds of a majority. There are no references that the Magadha-Rulers spent energies preserving the Vedas, the Vedic language, the Upanishads, the Sanskrit language and the Mahabharata. This was done by those Mahabharata-people who quietly practiced their dharma in the emergence and thereafter in the growth of the “meeting-points”. There are no references that any “Rulers” ever campaigned against the “meeting points” gradually developing to notable “Ashrams”, “Muths” and “Temples” of the majority-people who kept the Vedic culture alive in the continued low-tide. There are no references as well that that the productivity in general and the accumulation of riches in the Vedic societies in particular had gone down during the post-Great-Battle-phase.
In the late phase of the Kali Yuga, we recall, Ctesias, the Greek medical mercenary at the court in Persia, collected narrations in the Persian air on a far off land in the East of Persia some 5000 years ago. He brought the news for the listeners of his narrations, the Greek “scholars” included, that this far off land was a land of “wonders” with “God-like-people”, “philosophers”, artisans, legendarily rich and possessing immense quantity of Gold. The “Persian Rulers” living the Persian Culture were never tempted to a foray even knowing about the legendary riches in Bharatavarsa. Alexander the Macedonian Gambler taught and instructed by Greek scholars living the Greek Culture undertook a foray in Bharatavarsa. He failed. On his retreat he died at the age of thirty-two. He was forgotten. After a silence of 300 years, after the Roman conquest of the Greek-Emporium, the “Alexander the Great” was created who is still going strong as “Alexander the Great Instead commenting these historical facts we take liberty of an aside to re-check our comprehension of the low-tides of the Vedic culture.
In our perception the “Four Vedas” mark the first caesura in the history of Bharatavarsa. Since time immemorial the pre-Vedic-people laboured to know all about the universe. When they reached the limit of the human knowledge by experience, they had decided to preserve their knowledge in different storages and handed down the Vedic-knowledge-bank for generations to come in a unique manner. The Vedic-knowledge is expressed in the most sophisticated Vedic language. The Vedic-knowledge is primarily stored in the “collective-memory” of people in the Vedic societies. They created the unique “Oral-Tradition” for inter-generational transfers. The social practice based on the Vedic knowledge shaped Vedic societies and Vedic civilizations. In manifestations the Vedic societies appeared to be different and diverse. The Vedic knowledge was the common link. The final answer to the purpose of human life was also the common link. The Vedic sanatana dharma, the everlasting duties of the human-kind to preserving the universe, was consensus in all Vedic societies establishing the unity in the diversities. The daily practice of individual dharma shaped the frame of the Vedic mind creating the Vedic culture.
It was a long journey beginning as “individual-human-beings” born “ignorant” but equipped with senses, memory and a “super computer” and then reaching the peak of the high-tide of knowledge, the Vedas. As referred elsewhere, the history of the pre-Vedic-people is lost. They did not tell how they had acquired the comprehensive knowledge of the universe that could be explored and learnt by the human-kind. They had begun with the elementary experience of light and darkness on the earth. They were curious and wanted to discover why it was so? All human-societies had begun this journey for discoveries. We do not know how, but we do know that the pre-Vedic-people had discovered that “entities” appear in the light and disappear when there is darkness, that the Sun is the primary source of light and of enlightment. They discovered that all “entities” exist for a limited time. The span of time varies. For all entities there is a beginning and there is an end. The pre-Vedic-people did calculate the time when the sun had begun to shine, when the Sun will extinct and the solar-system will collapse. They explored and knew a lot about “Before the Beginnings” and “After the Ends”.
Besides the luminaries in the sky the pre-Vedic-people had learnt a lot about the earth, a tiny part of the universe, its geo-physics, its flora, fauna and habitat. Observing and comprehending the interdependence of all entities and their finite nature, the pre-Vedic-people shaped and reshaped their societal organizations in harmony with the nature. The Vedic societies were different due to the geo-physical diversities in Bharatavarsa. Their “philosophy of life” united them creating the Vedic culture. The pre-Vedic-people made their life comfortable (civilization) within the limits of the laws of nature, i.e. making use of naturally renewable material resources. They handed down their culture expressed in the Vedic-knowledge-bank, not in constructed-”Monuments” abusing material resources on the earth.
The human-beings like all other kinds on the earth survive only in “communities” as “social-beings. All efforts for survival are “works”. Trial-and-error is the beginning. Reflections on observations and experiences gradually lead to knowledge. The knowledge leads the growth of efficiency that reduces the workload for productions and reproductions (Lebensmittel) i.e. the growth of productivity. There is time and opportunities to look around, individually and collectively. In the course of time the pre-Vedic-people had discovered and learnt that four fundamental organisational functions were to be fulfilled to run a society in harmony with the nature:
These organisational functions are equivalent and interdependent. In the pre-peak phases the “Vedic-people” did not know of social categories like inequality, discrimination, disparity, deprivation or hierarchy in their societies. The social mobility was unlimited. In the Vedic-knowledge-bank there are no hints that divisions of work or further sub-divisions of work could eventually abuse the equivalence and interdependency of the four fundamental organisational functions or could complicate the flow of mobility. The “Vedic-people” were all equals. Hierarchies or distributional inequalities are not an inherent to divisions of works.
The pre-Vedic-people evolved to the post-Vedic-people when they were unable to add knowledge to the “knowledge-bank” for quite some time. Gradually they realised that they had reached the limit of human knowledge on the universe. This realisation ended the function of Vedic-Rishis (Seer-Scientists) being part and parcel of the Vedic societies, i.e. the Vedic-people and the Vedic-Rishis were One. The social institution of the Vedic-Rishis expressed the realisation of unity between the system of luminaries and the human-kind on the earth. The then Vedic societies had attained the peak of harmony and happiness in the Vedic societies creating the Vedic culture. In our comprehension this End of science-explorations, the End of discovering the Universe, was the first caesura in the history of Bharatavarsa.
We imagine that the struggle for existence was the Beginning in the history of pre-Vedic-people. We shall not know in which time-cycle this beginning was. Is it relevant to know how much time the pre-Vedic-people needed to reach the peak of human knowledge? In the course of time after the Beginning they were able to produce more than they needed. Thus they gained time to look around and learn. The “division of work” emerged. The “sub-divisions” of work emerged as well. By its nature a process of harmonious developments lead to unity in human societies. When the pre-Vedic-people had reached the peak of human knowledge, they were united in harmony and happiness. They knew about the finiteness of individual human beings arriving with nothing and passing away with nothing. They knew about the finiteness of all enteritis in the universe. The period of finiteness varied from entity to entity. They knew about the different longevity of human individuals, of human societies, of human civilisations and of human cultures. They defined sanatana dharma as the purpose of individual human life in human societies.
Consequently the pre-Vedic-people shifted their focus of developments on the time-line from growth towards preservation. They did not celebrate their achievements. They preserved their achievements for the humanity. Their history of attaining the peak is thus lost. They did not look back. They handed down their knowledge, their wisdom for the post-generations. They maintained the knowledge-bank, the Vedic language as the entry into the knowledge-bank and took care for applications of the knowledge shaping the Vedic societies in the future as well.
The daily practice of the Vedic societies was “guided” by the emerging Vedic-Scholars. The maintenance required “specialised works” that had to be learnt by a part of the whole of the Vedic societies. The whole of the Vedic societies was constituted by the equivalent and interdependent specialised parts. The daily practice developed its own dynamics of developments leading to increasing sub-divisions of work, i.e. to especially skilled work-groups and individuals.
The Vedic-people were living the Vedic culture that had passed its zenith. There were “changes”, but no growths in regard to knowledge. The all-encompassing equality and unity of the Vedic societies has not been maintained. To question why it has not been maintained will lead to culs-de-sac. It would be a futile exercise. The “explorers-and- discoverers” evolving to “preservers” did create sufficient provisions for learning the Vedic language to make sure that in spite of specialisations of skills there were established paths to the Vedic-knowledge-bank. For all other areas of social practice the sophisticated Vedic language was not needed. Consequently the overall mobility in the Vedic societies was on decrease.
By its nature the specialisations inherently lead to increasing “exchanges” within the sub-group of “specialists” and reducing “exchanges” with the other “communities” in the society. Special skills have to be learnt and to be trained. By its nature the specialised areas of work become gradually “autonomous” fulfilling the special needs. In the course of time the interactivities of four fundamental organisational functions were diminishing. The practiced inter-mobility was getting lost.
The four fundamental organisational functions as fundamental division of work in the Vedic societies, the varnas as four divisions of work, were growing and evolving numerous subdivisions of specialised work. These processes of specialisations of work were leading to decreased “communications” between major sections of specialised works. An overall decrease in mobility and decrease in outside-communications was thus inevitable. In all probability the Vedic-people had observed the changes in the Vedic societies and were overwhelmed by its dynamics. However the Vedic culture was not questioned. The overall productivity was on increase.
There were controversies on proper understanding of some aspects and components of the Vedic knowledge and on the optimal applications of the Vedic knowledge shaping the Vedic societies. In the natural process of controversies on the right meanings of the knowledge stored in the Vedas the Vedic-people had noticed that more and more people were not having direct entry to the Vedic-knowledge-bank. The Vedic language was getting lost for many of the Vedic-people. The controversies were also on the dynamic developments of the specialised segments of productions and reproductions. Were the dynamic changes in the Vedic societies in harmony with sanatana dharma?
We apologise and withdraw this question. A fundamental understanding of the human role in the universe creates, fosters and promotes innovations. The controversies were on options for innovations. An option has to be justified. There were “dissonances” in collective memories for many of the Vedic-people. In this phase the Upanishads emerged. The purpose of the Upanishads was to resolve “dissonances” in collective memories. The Upanishad-people preserved also the basic disposition of open-mind: Live your individual dharma and let others live their dharma. All options could be freely tried out in the Vedic societies.
In the post-Vedic low-tide the Vedic-people evolved to the Upanishad-people. They re-narrated Vedic knowledge in a “light-version” of the Vedic language and created the Upanishads to provide a secondary entry to the Vedic-knowledge-bank. The Vedic-language-light is called the Sanskrit language, the second most sophisticated human language. The section at the knowledge-front had to preserve additionally the Upanishads and the Sanskrit language. The communications with the other three fundamental sections with their many sub-divisions of work were thus on decline. The mobility became marginal. The Vedic culture, sanatana dharma united the changing diversities in the Vedic societies. In all probability also the Upanishad-people did not know social categories like discrimination, deprivation or hierarchy. There were no existential, social and cultural scarcities in the Vedic societies.
We recall, the Upanishad-people marks the second caesura in the history of Bharatavarsa. Apart from the feasibility of a reconstruction of the process between these two caesuras, no “acrobatic efforts” to reconstruct the social processes between the two caesuras will add to knowledge. There are however a few “landmarks” revealing qualitative changes. The pre-Vedic-people lived as “One People” and attained the peak of human knowledge, the peak of the Vedic culture. The post-Vedic-people had to face many different almost autonomous Vedic societies living the Vedic culture. Many different segments were emerging within the Vedic societies as well. The post-Vedic-people could not live as “One People”. The Upanishad-people lived as “Different people” the Vedic culture.
The history of the Upanishad-people has not been handed down. But there are “landmarks”. In the malice of low-tide the compilers of a few Upanishads had claimed individual credits for their contributions. Were they specially benefitted? It is not on record. The fact is, however, that all post-Upanishad literatures in Bharatavarsa are individually “authored”. Fact is also that the low-tide continued with varying velocity.
Human societies are integral parts of the whole human-kind though living different civilisations and cultures. Human-individuals define themselves accordingly in their “communities” irrespective of the size. The Vedic-people were “individuals” living as an integral part of the whole society and living the Vedic culture. They were part and parcel of the whole. To live for the community was their dharma. All individuals were equals. The individuals did not compete against each other. There was no need. The question of individual excellence in collective works is not functional to maintain the Vedic heredity. A discrimination of individual “works” in terms of quality or importance was alien to the Vedic-people. The Vedic knowledge-bank was a common asset; even the tiniest part of knowledge could not be “owned” by individuals.
In all probability the Upanishad-people knew that “deviant attitudes and behaviours” (options) are functional for changes in the societies. They had learnt to maintain an open mind. They had learnt to live and let live. They knew that individually defined dharma does not necessarily contradict with collectively defined dharma and collectively defined dharma does not necessarily contradict with sanatana dharma. They knew also about the finiteness of all Entities, about the Tides, about the Time-cycles and about the Yugas indicating the Beginnings and the End of the Time-cycles. The Upanishad-people lived in harmony and happiness preserving the Vedas, the Vedic language, the Upanishads, the Sanskrit language, producing common-wealth in surplus and “monitoring” the diversities of the Upanishad societies united in the Vedic culture. The Upanishads do not refer specific dates of their compilations, i.e. in which Time-cycle and in which Yuga of that particular Time-cycle the Upanishads were compiled.
The Time-cycles and the Yugas of a Time-cycle are already discussed elsewhere. The Mahabharata refers however to the Time-cycle and to the Yuga. Immediately after the end of the “Great Battle” the Kali Yuga of the current 28th time-cycle had begun. In some 2000 human years of our time the 29th time-cycle will begin. In our comprehension the Mahabharata indicates the third caesura in the history of Bharatavarsa. The Upanishad-people had evolved to the Mahabharata-people. Details of the Mahabharata are elsewhere. In the present context we put the Mahabharata in a nutshell.
Seeing “battles” in the Vedic societies the Upanishad-people became concerned and felt that the down-trend needed resistance. They collected known facts and compiled a monumental epical narration in the Sanskrit language on the realities in the human societies in general and a comprehensive “history” of the contemporary Vedic societies. The design of this narration is ingenious. A wealthy kinship-group is divided in two “parties”, the “Kauravas” and the “Pandavas”. The “Pandavas” suffered immoral expropriation of their property. The “Kauravas” refused to a peaceful solution. Ultimately they met on the battle-field to fight the “Great Battle”.
Each and every person of the Kinship-group, their friends, their acquaintances have been dealt in detailed side stories, where they live, how they live, and their interpersonal relationships and so on. All types of individual feelings have been described. All patterns of individual relationships have been described. All facets of dissonance within the human societies have been described. All facets of life in human societies have been described. All stories are related to the main story. All flora, fauna and habitat of Bharatavarsa have been integrated into the narrations.
All stories are related to the main story. All stories are realistic. All stories contain allegories, metaphors and parables. All facets of human society have been described in the chapters of Mahabharata. These are integrated into the nature in its whole range of diversities. In other words, what is found in the Mahabharata can be found elsewhere. What cannot be found in the Mahabharata cannot be found elsewhere. The background of the “Great Battle” was thus set.
Arjuna, the lead fighter of the “Pandavas”, stood on his war-chariot and saw only known faces of his relatives, the “Kauravas”. He expressed his inhibition and reluctance to fight to Krishna, his charioteer, adviser and friend. Krishna convinced him in an audible prolonged discourse that in the given situation it was his dharma to fight. This prolonged discourse between Arjuna and Krishna has been completely recorded. The complete discourse is known as the Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta, the “pearl” abode of knowledge and wisdom preserved in the Mahabharata. It is a “key” and a road-map to the knowledge stored in the Vedas.
The Mahabharata-people mark the third caesura in the history of Bharatavarsa. The post-Vedic-people had to begin their history with the beginning of the low-tide of the Vedic-culture. They had to experience of reaching the peak of human knowledge on the Universe. Realising this fact the post-Vedic-people centred their work-capacity to preserve this paramount human knowledge for the forthcoming human generations not only in Bharatavarsa. This was the first caesura.
It has been referred elsewhere that the history of the pre-Vedic-people is lost. It is beyond our imaginations how they had reached the summit of the human knowledge, how they had created the most sophisticated Vedic-language and how they had trained the memory of the people establishing the collective-memory as the most reliable storage of the Vedic knowledge-bank. The post-Vedic-people did maintain the assets of the Vedic culture splendidly. However, they had to cope with significant changes in the course of time. In this process the Vedic-people evolved to the Upanishad-people. This was the second caesura.
The peak of the Vedic culture was marked by the oneness of the Vedic culture in spite of the diversities in the Vedic societies. The collective-memory of knowledge and the diversities in the nature lead to many de-central Vedic societies developing their own civilisations and Vedic sub-cultures. At all social levels – local, regional and supra-regional – the Vedic sub-cultures maintained sanatana dharma as the general principle. Persons at all level were free to derive their dharma from the general principle of sanatana dharma. This freedom maintained the Vedic culture as the unifying force in diversities.
In all probability the Upanishad-people knew that “deviant attitudes and behaviours” (options) are preconditions for changes in the societies. They continued to practice the Vedic frank and fundamental permissiveness towards “deviant attitudes and behaviours”. They knew the basic frame of mind of the people in fulfilling their dharma first of all. They knew also that the Vedic knowledge-bank, the Vedic language and the Vedic culture were one-unit. The growth of the Vedic language had begun to cease when the limit of human knowledge was being gradually reached.
The Vedic societies at many levels did simplify the Vedic language in the daily social practice. This happened in all four basic functional sections due to the numerous sub-divisions of work. Less and less sections of people needed the sophisticated Vedic language to fulfilling their dharma. The continuous growth of productivity was setting more and more persons free for many other “economic” activities. These sub-groups were developing their different “codes” and vocabularies for mutual exchanges. Manifold specialisations of economic activities led to many and varied sub-cultures of “works”. In this process the post-Vedic-people had decided to create a secondary route to the Vedic knowledge-bank: the Upanishads have dealt with different interpretations of the Vedic knowledge in the Sanskrit language to stop further dilutions of the Vedic language. The Vedic language and the Vedic knowledge-bank were thus preserved. The Sanskrit language uses only 63/64 different sounds instead 97 sounds needed in the Vedic language. The Upanishad-people were permissive towards all other changes.
The history how the Upanishad-people evolved to the Mahabharata-people has not been handed down. But the Mahabharata reveals factual changes in the Vedic societies during that period. We refer to a few of the major changes. The Upanishad-people were permissive and did not to object against the claim of individual credit for contributions to knowledge. In all probability they were conscious of the malice of the low-tide regarding the Vedic culture. The Vedic societies were and remained affluent. The Upanishad-people did not feel unequal distribution of social “goods” as there was no scarcity at no level.
Neither the Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta nor the Mahabharata discusses a social category like “private” or a social institution like “properties”. The root of any “private” possessions is the usurpation of larger shares of corporately produced “goods and utilities”. Properties are created by implementing uncompromising force. The “seed” of force grow within the property-holders and between the property-holders by its nature. Battles follow. It is irreverent to ascertain whether the “Great Battle” between the “Kauravas” and the “Pandavas” belongs to the history or it is a metaphor or a parable. It is also irreverent to ascertain whether other “kinship-groups” had participated in the “Great Battle” between the “Kauravas” and the “Pandavas”. The fact is that the Vedic societies had reached the extent of inequalities manifested in “private” properties and battles in the late phase of the Dwapara Yuga of the 28th time cycle. This low-tide of the Vedic culture had alerted the minds of the Mahabharata-people.
The “Great Battle” was not fallout from the sky. At one time a category like inequality was alien in the human societies. Human-beings like all other Kinds come with nothing and after a while go with nothing. Without the care of the society none will survive after coming. All living-kinds are social beings. The “parents” are the smallest unit of societal care. Whatever is needed is procured and shared. We may never know how and under which circumstances a social category like “inequalities” arise in a human society. We assume, it is not caused by the nature of human-mind.
The Vedic-people throughout their history did not know this category. Bharatavarsa is geo-physically predestined for affluence of all human needs. There was no need for a social category like “inequality”. Yet at some time some “individuals” in the Vedic societies began claiming for more than they existentially needed. The acceptance of claims for more by a few was an aberration of human nature. The Upanishad-people had accepted the claims of individual authorship for a few Upanishads. Once claimed and once the claim is accepted in the society, it grows in a spiral. In all probability the Mahabharata-people remained permissive even towards claims of ownership for lands. Why did they accept this deviation of human dharma? We do not know. Battles and the “Great Battle” for property’s sake were the means to imposing this aberration by force.
In all probability the Upanishad-people perceived the “Great Battle” as a precarious peak of aberrations while they were evolving to the Mahabharata-people. Coincidently the “Great Battle” and Dwapara Yuga ended together. The Kali Yuga, the last part of the 28th time-cycle, began. It is irrelevant to explore when the Mahabharata-people had begun compiling the Mahabharata. The obvious purpose of compiling the Mahabharata was to disseminate comprehensive accounts on inequality, discrimination, disparity, deprivation, hierarchy, disputes and battles in the Vedic societies after the “Great Battle” was over.
The Mahabharata mediates a comprehensive description of the diversities in the Vedic societies through narrations in the Sanskrit language. Following the Vedic heredity the Mahabharata-people did not preach, did not teach and did not drill. They expressed whatever they knew. They had learnt and let others learn in freedom. The Mahabharata-people continued dutifully the maintenance of the Sanskrit language, the oral-tradition, preserved the Upanishads, the Vedic language and the Vedas. After this summarised comprehension of the low-tide of the Vedic culture and the minds of the Mahabharata-people we revert to Ghazni.
Ghazni was an ancient small market place on a thinly populated plateau located more than 2000 meters above the ocean-level in the western Himalayas. People lived there since millenniums with the nature, with the surrounded flora, fauna and habitat in a harmonious equilibrium. They did not produce surplus. The region was insignificant eastern periphery for the Persian “Rulers”. The many Greco-Persian wars since millenniums did not affect this region. Persian “Rulers” knew about the Vedic culture and about the accumulated riches in Bharatavarsa. There are no indications that Persian “Rulers” ever considered a foray towards Bharatavarsa.
The peaceful and harmonious life of the Persian-people in this insignificant eastern periphery underwent changes when Alexander conquered Persia on his foray to Bharatavarsa. On his route Alexander had to procure foodstuffs for daily existential living of his ruffians, horses and himself. The “Persian-people” living in the eastern periphery had to pay a high price. Their life was affected by this first foreign domination. Alexander did rob their “services”, but had no time for prolonged exploitations. He had to retreat after a short while. But the Hellenic domination remained for a few decades till Seleucus I lost the whole area in the West of the Pāriyātra Parvata to Chandragupta Maurya after his defeat.
For a few decades these Persian people living in eastern periphery were exploited by the Hellenes. Ghazni was “up-graded” from an ancient small market place to a “Capital-city”. The domination of the Maurya-Dynasty relived them from robberies and exploitations by the Hellenes. But a foreign domination remains a foreign domination. To recall, the Magadha-Rulers patronised two segregation-movements in the Vedic societies. The Maurya-dynasty was rooted in Magadha. These two Vedic sub-cultures became active especially in Ghazni protected by the Maurya-Dynasty. Irrespective of qualities between the militant Hellenic culture and the rather non-militant Vedic subcultures like the Jain-dharma and the Buddhist-teachings “foreign-dominated” mind-management remained as “foreign-dominated” mind-management. These Persian-people were alienated from their peace-loving culture since millenniums. They were never involved in warfare before the arrival of the Hellenes.
The vast area in the West of the Maurya-“administrated” regions of eastern Persia was affected by continuous warfare amongst the Hellenes themselves. Then the Hellenes had to face the forays of the Romans who prevailed over the Hellenes in some 250 years. The efforts of the Romans to conquer Persia failed. During this period the Persian “Rulers” subsequently re-conquered their Persian territories. The region around Ghazni was not affected. Details are described elsewhere.
The history of Persia is under researched. The Persian language is rich, there are evidences of Persian civilizations, there is Persian literature and there was a distinctly different Persian culture. The rise of the Moses-people, then the rise of the Jesus-people and their militancy and missionary zeal to spread their belief in their “super-human almighty” did not have an impact on Persia. The following rise of the Muhammad-people with their uncompromising zeal to spread their belief in their “super-human almighty” did have an impact in the region centring Ghazni. The militant Muhammad-people conquered the whole of Persia and converted the Persian-people almost completely to their belief some 1200 years ago of our time. The Persians were able to drive out the Hellenes, resisted against the Romans, but were conquered and converted to the belief of the Muhammad-people. We do not know how it could happen. It has happened. We shall revert to this aspect in the next chapter. Now we back to Ghazni, to the surrounded region and to the setup of minds of the people there.
A chronology of events is least helpful to describe the qualitative changes in the history of the Human-Beings. The Human-beings like all Beings survive differently in different geo-physical surroundings. The history of the Human-Beings is inherently the history of the Human Societies. The history of the Human Societies is determined by its surrounding nature and is expressed in the collective achievements of the members.
All human societies develop their languages. The experiences made in the struggle for existence are preserved in the “collective-memory” and transferred from generations to generations. A few of these societies created a secondary storage, a written-mode of their language, rather something like an archive, as a support of the “collective-memory”. The accumulation of common experiences and the reflections over them lead to knowledge in the society. The growth of knowledge in the society is reflected in the daily life. The daily life in the society shapes the mind of the people.
The vast area in the West of Bharatavarsa was populated by human societies since time immemorial developing innumerable societies, languages and civilisations. Most of them did not create “literature” and “culture”. The history of these developments is thus lost. There are indications that in the central region in the vast area in the west of Bharatavarsa the many societies together had established a common “economy”, a common civilisation and a culture that has been subsumed as the “Persian-Culture”; for whatever reasons. This Persian central region was less affluent than Bharatavarsa.
In the vast area in the North-West of this Persian central region another “central region” came up in the western periphery in the course of time. This new “central region” also established a common “economy”, a common civilisation and a culture that has been subsumed as the “Greek-Culture”. This new “central region” was less affluent than the Persian central region. The degree of affluence in the central regions was determined by the geo-physical conditions. At some time “clashes” between these two “central regions” had begun, details of these “clashes” were recorded in the “collective memory” of the people and these memories were handed down elaborately and systematically more in the Greek-Region. These handed down “collective memory” by the Greeks began at a stage when most of the societies in all regions were accustomed with the institution of “Rulers” at many levels.
The historical processes evolving to the institution of “Rulers” has not been handed down anywhere. Then, the “clashes” at whatever levels - individual, sub-societal, societal, civilisational or cultural – are never fallout from the sky. Yet, nothing, absolutely nothing has been handed down that lead to the roots of “clashes”. No where! The handed down collective memories on “Rulers”, on clashes between the “Rulers” and many details regarding “Rulers” are not comprehensive. We assume, the roots of all handed down collective memories on “Rulers” are stories spread on assignments remunerated by the “Rulers”. These stories are not authentic. These handed down memories of upper level “Rulers” and on their many clashes against each other are the bases of the “modern history”. Thus the history of the developments “who-knows-for-how-many-millenniums” prior to the emergence of the “modern history” is lost. We refrain from commenting the quality of the “modern history” and its compilers.
As long as there was one “central region” in the West of Bharatavarsa there was no need to name this one “central region”. This might be the reason why the Persians have not hand down collective-memories on clashes between the Persian “Rulers”. At some time “clashes” between the two “central regions” in the West of Bharatavarsa had begun, details of these “clashes” were recorded in the “collective memory” of the people and these memories were handed down elaborately and systematically in the Greek-Region as referred earlier.
In all probability the first “central region”, the Persian-territories, took similar path of development like in Bharatavarsa favoured by geo-physical conditions. As repeatedly referred to, there had never been a clash between Bharatavarsa and this first “central region”, though the Persian “Rulers” knew about the riches accumulated in Bharatavarsa. Robberies, raids or forays in foreign territories were alien to those two cultures. Robberies were well known phenomena. “Rulers” at whatever levels are robbers.
The malice of a “central region” of civilisation and culture is that the peripheral societies are less developed. The peripheral societies are linked by means of the language and culture. The Vedic culture in Bharatavarsa for whatever reasons gave rise to poly-central-regions creating diverse Vedic societies united by means of the Vedic-knowledge-bank. The Vedic language was the common link of the poly-central-regions carrying different geographical denominations for mutual communications.
The first “central region” in the West of Bharatavarsa did not require a “name” till the rise of a second “central region” in the western peripheries of the first “central region”. This new “central region” was less developed and little common with the first “central region”. In all probability the second “central region” felt a need to attribute a name for both “central regions”. Explorations on this issue, on this process will not add knowledge of the humanity.
As referred, the second “central region” has become known as Greek, later as Hellenic, and the first “central region” as Persian. The prevailing “modern” history is founded on narrations of the Greeks and of the Hellenes in the “Greek language”. These narrations cover events staged by the Greeks and by the Hellenes are based on events perceived by them in their immediate and remote peripheries. The Greek narrations are preserved as Greek literature. They created also a culture that was aggressive and predatory.
There had been numerous so-called Greco-Persian wars. The War-fields were in the affluent territories of the Persian culture. Not the other way around. Persian affluent territories were occupied. Persian territories were freed. Not the other way around. The handed down Greek history is a history of inner Greek battles, forays, occupations, exploitations and mind-managements in the West of Persian territories. This Greek history was based on a comparatively “powerful” civilisation, language, literature and culture. The prevalent culture in our days is rooted in the Greek culture. The “social” values stored in Greek history continue to live in our days too.
In all probability the Persian culture had emerged earlier than the Greek culture. The history of the Persian culture is lost. The few handed down landmarks imply that the Persian societies were affluent, did not destroy flora, fauna and habitat in their cultural territories and did not expand in foreign territories. At some time later – who will know when, after how many centuries or millenniums - the Greek culture emerged in the north-eastern Mediterranean regions. The societies in this region were not as affluent as it was in the vast areas in the East dominated by the Persian culture. The societies in the vast north-western Mediterranean regions were less developed in all respects conditioned by the nature. In all probability this was the reason why Greek-Rulers” had begun their foray towards the East. These forays have been handed down as the so-called Greco-Persian wars from the Greek perspective. We do not know whether the same was done by the Persians too. If this was done, it has not been propagated as vehemently like the Greeks.
As referred elsewhere the Hellenic domination began its decline when Alexander the great gambler had to retreat empty-handed. The Persian-“Rulers” re-conquered their territories in the course of time. From the West the Roman-Ruffians began their forays into the more affluent territories of the Hellenic domination ultimately colonising all Greek-dominated-territories. All Roman efforts to conquer Persian-territories had failed. Between the rise of the militant Greece and the more aggressive Romans there had been another “Central Region” in the southern Mediterranean area, the” Egyptian” Civilisation in the Delta of the Niles. It is not certain that the Egyptian Civilisation also had created literature and culture. It is however evident that this “Central Region” was more affluent than the Greeks and the Romans. The “Egyptian” Civilisation was victim of forays and not the other way around.
Only three of these societies, the Persians, the Greeks and the Romans, have produced dominant language and literature and thus also culture. Whatever happened in this vast area in the west of Bharatavarsa has been reflected in the “Persian”, “Greek” and “Roman” cultures. Many important intra-cultural and inter-cultural events have been handed down in narrations. The validity of the details is questionable. None of these three societies established an “Oral-Tradition” as it is in Bharatavarsa.
There are absolutely no indications that Bharatavarsa was ever engaged in robberies, raids or forays in foreign territories. Bharatavarsa was throughout the ages affluent in productions foodstuff, utilities, arts, knowledge and technologies. Bharatavarsa was never a victim of robberies, raids or forays before some 3000 years ago when the Hellenic ruffian Alexander appeared in the region of Nord-west Himalayas. As referred elsewhere the Persian “Central Region” was aware of the accumulated riches in Bharatavarsa and yet was never engaged in robberies, raids or forays in Bharatavarsa. Thus the area surrounding Ghazni remained a relatively under-developed eastern territory of the Persian culture.
In all probability the “Rulers” of Persian “Central Region” were not engaged in robberies, raids or forays in foreign territories. The western territories of the Persian “Central Region” was victim of regular robberies, raids or forays first by the Greeks and after the fall of Greek domination by the Romans. Yet the Persian culture prevailed. As referred elsewhere the Greek and Roman dominated “Central Regions” were not affluent. Evidently the “Central Region” of Egypt was also victim of Greek and Roman robberies, raids or forays.
After the defeat of the Hellenic successor of Alexander, Seleucus I Nicator, in the vast area in the West of Bharatavarsa by the Maurya-Dynasty, the region surrounding Ghazni lived for some 150 years in peace. The vast area in the west of the Maurya-“administrated” regions of eastern Persia was affected by continuous warfare amongst the Hellenes themselves, then by the forays of the Romans who prevailed over the Hellenes in some 250 years. The efforts of the Romans to conquer Persia had failed. Details are described elsewhere.
The Persian-people knew a lot about Bharatavarsa before the other Mediterranean-people knew that there were lands beyond the East of Persia. Ctesias, the Greek medical mercenary at the court in Persia, was the first to narrate stories in the Persian air on a far-off-land beyond the eastern border of Persia. There are no indications that a Persian Ruler ever attacked Bharatavarsa. There are no indications that a Ruler from Bharatavarsa ever attacked Persia for whatever purposes. There are no indications of an effort to guard the Pāriyātra Parvata from either side.
We revert to Ghazni after this aside on different set up of minds shaped by different cultures. Ghazni was the site of an insignificant regional “satrap” (governor) in the eastern periphery of the Persian “Empire” before Alexander conquered Persia on his foray to Bharatavarsa. Alexander’s foray, those ten years of inhuman campaigns, brought the region surrounding Ghazni in focus. Forays have a different logistic logic compared to wars. On his foray Alexander had planned to rob far away Bharatavarsa and to carry back booties to Greece. To put it plainly and clearly, on his route Alexander had to procure daily “Lebensmittel” for the existential living of his ruffians, horses and himself. Uninhabited lands do not fulfil the needs. He had to select well-populated routes on which daily robbery could be practiced. He did not “buy”. He procured by means of violence and force.
While marching forward Alexander had to conquer regions after regions and build up “strongholds” to guard against attacks from behind. Those “strongholds”, small and large “satrapies”, required reliable Greek “manpower”. Thus there was a permanent need to recruit and to train “foreign mercenaries”. In the thinly populated arid mountainous regions surrounding Ghazni it was a difficult and a time-consuming mission.
All he knew from the narrations of Ctesias that there was a “far off land” in the East of Persia, a land of “wonders” with “God-like-people”, “philosophers”, artisans, legendarily rich and possessing immense quantity of Gold. When he reached the region surrounding Ghazni Alexander knew nothing about the geographical features there. He had also to explore the land-route through the Pāriyātra Parvata from the conquered people. He had to learn that the land-route was passable only in rain-free summer days. Ultimately Alexander reached Bharatavarsa in some ten years totally exhausted with a small army only to realize his “mission-impossible” to conquer Bharatavarsa and rob. Alexander retreated at least to save life and the rest. He expired before he could reach Macedon. He was then 32 years old.
After the death of Alexander the “Wars of the Diadochi” broke out amongst his main “commanders” on the issue of succession of the occupied areas. These wars continued for many years. Seleucus could secure control of the Satrapy Babylonia. He claimed to establish a new dynasty. Thereafter he systematically took over all Satrapies in the East of Babylonia and launched thereafter a foray to rob Bharatavarsa. Seleucus‘s logistics was better planned. He knew by then more details in regarding the geo-physical handicaps.
The Satrapy Ghazni gained importance. Seleucus‘s Ruffians entered into Bharatavarsa through the Pāriyātra Parvata and got involved in wars with Chandragupta Maurya. After two years of wars Seleucus‘s Ruffians were ousted from Bharatavarsa. These Hellenic ruffians were also unable to make booties. But many people were “taxed” and exploited during those two years. Seleucus had to surrender his eastern Satrapies to the Maurya-Dynasty. He bought “peace” in the then established Easter Border of his “empire”.
It is not known how those surrendered eastern Satrapies were governed by the Maurya-Dynasty. In all probability Chandragupta Maurya left those surrendered eastern Satrapies to the local and regional “Rulers” who traditionally had never thought of forays in Bharatavarsa. The Maurya-Dynasty did not intend to conquer regions beyond the Pāriyātra Parvata. Thus the people in those regions were happy to live in peace as they had lived before the occupation by the Hellenes. The only land-route to Bharatavarsa was thus unimportant. The Maurya-Dynasty or any other later “Ruling-Dynasties” in the North-West of Bharatavarsa had ever considered to “fortifying” the passes of the Pāriyātra Parvata. Throughout the history these passes had remained unguarded. The Mahabharata-people never thought of building “walls” isolating themselves. In all probability the encounter with the Hellenes in the North-West of Bharatavarsa was less important for them than the encounters with the Jain and the Buddha Vedic-subcultures.
The “territorial control” of the Maurya-Dynasty over the “Satrapy Ghazni” meant no wars in this region. It brought peace for the people there for some 150 years. However they were not free from foreign mind-management activities. Functionaries of the Jain Dharma and of the Buddhist-Teaching intruded into the “Ghazni-territories” and spread their Vedic-subculture. These two Vedic subcultures erected their status symbols also in the regions westwards beyond the Pāriyātra Parvata. The Satrapy Ghazni developed to an important centre of these two Vedic-subcultures.
The people in this region lived throughout the history the peaceful Persian culture, then exposed to the aggressive and militant Hellenic occupation for a short period and thereafter exposed to mind-managements by the two Vedic sub-cultures. These are hard facts. The vast Western area beyond the Maurya-“administrated” regions of eastern Persia was affected by continuous warfare amongst the Hellenes themselves, then by the forays of the Roman-Ruffians in Greece and in areas of Hellenic control elsewhere. In some 250 years it was over with the Hellenic control in Greece and elsewhere. The efforts of the Roman-Ruffians to conquer Persia as well failed. The minds of the people were shaped by these hard facts. They knew nothing else than a single pattern of social relationship: “Rulers” and “Ruled”. Details are described elsewhere.
The history of Persia is under researched. The Persian language is rich, there are evidences of Persian civilizations, there is Persian literature and there was a distinctly different Persian culture than that of the “Greek-culture”. This Persian culture since millenniums ended some 1200 years ago. The Persian-people and the whole of Persian territories were overrun by the Muhammad-people and the Persian-people were converted to Muhammad-people. A conversion of people is the most primitive and violent type of mind-management.
The Persian-people knew a lot about Bharatavarsa before the other Mediterranean-people knew that there were lands beyond the East of Persia. Ctesias, the Greek medical mercenary at the court in Persia, was the first to narrate stories in the Persian air on a far-off-land beyond the eastern border of Persia. There are no indications that a Persian Ruler ever attacked Bharatavarsa. There are no indications that a Ruler from Bharatavarsa ever attacked Persia for whatever purposes. There are no indications of an effort to guard the Pāriyātra Parvata from either side.
In all probability the region in the West of the Pāriyātra Parvata was never “colonized” by the Maurya-Dynasty of Magadha. There are no evidences that Chandragupta Maurya ever sent “troops” through the narrow passes of the Pāriyātra Parvata. There was nothing to be robbed in the regions in the West. “Rulers” are by its nature robbers. And the robbers know where to rob. For the “Ruling-Dynasties” of Magadha in general and for Chandragupta Maurya in particular it was lucrative to rob within the affluent territories of Bharatavarsa.
No other “Ruling-Dynasty” than the Maurya-Dynasty had established control over the whole of Bharatavarsa. It is irrelevant to explore when the peak of the territorial control was attained and how it began to decline. In the 9th generation the Maurya-Dynasty had vanished some 2180 years ago followed by many smaller “Ruling-Dynasties”. It is not on record that a “Ruling-Dynasty” in Bharatavarsa ever campaigned against the Vedic culture. The diversities of the Vedic societies documented in the Mahabharata represented the Vedic culture and not Vedic sub-cultures like those two Vedic-subcultures, the Jain-dharma and Buddhist-teachings generated by “Ruling-Dynasties” of Magadha. The diversities of the Vedic societies documented the unifying strength of Vedic culture based on applied Vedic knowledge. There were no existential needs for the people in the whole of Bharatavarsa.
There are no indications that the battles and the wars amongst the “Ruling-Dynasties” in Bharatavarsa had ever affected the minds of the Mahabharata-people creating affinities towards the one or the other “Regional-Ruler”. In this late phase of the Kali Yuga “Ruling-Dynasties”, small and large, emerged and vanished regularly. Their impact on the Vedic societies did not affect the Vedic culture in the continued low-tide. The Mahabharata-people considered the “Ruling-Dynasties” as a minority deviating “individually” from the dharma of the Vedic culture. There are no indications that the Mahabharata-people thought in terms of “tolerating” “criticising” or “sanctioning” the deviations of the “Ruling-Dynasties”. These terms are alien in the Vedic culture. The knowledge based Vedic culture generates a different kind of mental setup.
The Mahabharata-people knew from their Vedic heredity and Vedic heritage that there were different paths to reaching truths. As referred elsewhere the pre-Vedic-people realised their reaching the peak of human knowledge on the universe, the Vedas, by their experience that for a stretch of time they could not add to knowledge. All the time the Vedic-people had lived the Vedic culture with “acceptances”, “deviations” and “growths” in knowledge, its dissemination and applications into the societal practice. They had to live the malice of a peak, i.e. with an inevitable down-trend. In the course of time they evolved to the Upanishad-people living the Vedic culture with “acceptances”, “deviations”, “growths” in knowledge, its dissemination and applications into the societal practice. They had realised that the laws of nature enclose “deviations” as part and parcel of the law. The Vedic-people and the Upanishad-people had known that the “deviants” were performing their dharma as well. So did the Mahabharata-people. Living this knowledge is the Vedic culture.
In all probability the Mahabharata-people were thus confident that the Rulers and their recruited mercenaries were performing their dharma “differently” and that they will find their way back to the sanatana dharma of the Vedic culture in the course of time. They kept all doors of the Vedic culture open.
Yet it may be relevant to explore the social processes how individuals serving in the distributional sectors in the affluent Vedic societies became robbers. It may also be relevant to know what these robbers did with the “booties”. The history of these processes seems to be lost. Yet, we live with the surprise that none of “Rulers” (robbers) in Bharatavarsa had built palaces to demonstrate their riches or monuments to show off their might. The first massive buildings were the Jain-Temples some 2700 years ago. In this late phase of the Kali Yuga the “Rulers” in Magadha in particular had exploited the people to the extent that their minds were to be managed to averting revolts. The Jain-Dharma propagated the need of austerity in life and total nonviolence. The second segregation movement, also sponsored by the Magadha-Rulers a few decades later, propagated the need overcoming “sorrow” caused by poverty, misery and illness by acquiring enlightment on the path shown by Siddhartha Gautama Buddha.
In summary both segregation movements trained “missionaries”, produced literature in light versions of the Sanskrit language and yet failed ever to win the minds of a majority in Bharatavarsa. There are no references that the Magadha-Rulers spent energies to preserving the Vedas, the Vedic language, the Upanishads, the Sanskrit language and the Mahabharata. This was done by those Mahabharata-people who quietly practiced their dharma, established the “meeting-points” and maintained the Vedic culture. There are no references that any of the “Rulers” ever campaigned against the “meeting points” or those gradually emerging “Ashrams”, “Muths” and “Temples” of the majority-people who kept the Vedic culture going in the continued low-tide. There are no references as well that that the productivity in general and the accumulation of riches in the Vedic societies had gone down during the post-Great-Battle-phase.
In the late phase of the Kali Yuga the Greek medical mercenary at the court in Persia Ctesias, collected narrations in the Persian air on a far off land in the East of Persia some 5000 years ago. He brought the news for the listeners of his narrations, the Greek “scholars” included, that this far off land was a land of “wonders” with “God-like-people”, “philosophers”, artisans, legendarily rich and possessing immense quantity of Gold. The “Persian Rulers” living the Persian Culture never attempted a foray even knowing about the legendary riches in Bharatavarsa. We recall.
In all probability the whole credit of inventing the “philosophy” of forays goes to the culture of the Hellenes. Alexander the Macedonian Gambler, taught and instructed by “Greek scholars” living the Hellenic Culture, undertook a first adventure of forays when he was just 22 years old. His ultimate goal was to rob in that far off land of “wonders” with “God-like-people”, “philosophers”, artisans, legendarily rich and possessing immense quantity of Gold, in Bharatavarsa. He failed. On his retreat he died at the age of thirty-two. The whole immoral investment of the Hellenes did not bring the expected returns. The Hellenic dominated areas were in turmoil. The resources were wasted. The agenda on the Hellenic air thereafter was: “Save yourself who can” and “Grab what you can grab.” Alexander the Macedonian Gambler was just forgotten. What followed thereafter through centuries has been narrated in details. Here in a nutshell:
The rival generals began grabbing; the “Wars of the Diadochi” broke out to succeed the Hellenic domains. These wars continued for more than five decades. Meanwhile the Roman ruffians were on rise in the western Mediterranean territories and they opened fronts and began forays in the Hellenic dominated areas. In some two centuries the more primitive Roman-ruffians were out to “colonise” the Hellenic-Emporium facing thereby insurmountable resistance in the East dominated by the Persian culture. The Persian Rulers had re-conquered their territories from the Hellenes. Repeated Roman attacks were unsuccessful. The Romans failed also in colonising the Hellenic culture. The reason is simple. The Roman Ruffians possessed “power” but no culture. The practical Romans invented the “Greco-Roman culture. There were plenty of Hellenic intellectual prostitutes around.
Centuries after the Roman conquest of the Hellenic-Emporium the Roman occupants encouraged “Greek scholars” in their service to revive and glorify the “Greek and the Hellenic” culture. They desired to become a part of that culture. Thus the “Greco-Roman culture” emerged and developed. In this process “Alexander the Great” was created who is still going strong as “Alexander the Great”. Instead commenting these historical facts we take liberty to recall the “birth hour” of the social category called “Belief”, belief in an imagined Almighty.
The inventor of the social category called “Belief” was Moses who had claimed to have an encounter with the Almighty, when Moses was asked by the Almighty to free and bring “His-people” back “home” who were enslaved in Egypt. We, the authors, have denominated “His-people” as Moses-people. Moses did not describe the physical features of the Almighty and none else claimed to have an encounter with the Almighty.
In summary the Moses-people claimed Canaan to be their homeland. Moses was guided by their imaginary Almighty, as it was claimed by Moses and accepted by the Moses-people. They were living there in Canaan happily being “especially-chosen-people” by their Almighty till they were “colonised” by the Romans. During the Roman-occupation of the homeland of the Moses-people many of the affluent of them left their “home-land” with mobile wealth. The other well-to-do left behind sections collaborated with the Roman-occupants. The lower strata of the Moses-people were exploited by the Roman occupants and by the collaborating Moses people in alliance.
A part of the lower strata of the Moses-people evolved to “Jesus-people” in the course of time. Being less powerful the “Jesus-people” were persecuted by the Moses-people although both sections believed in same imaginary Almighty. Jesus of Nazareth was esteemed by his people to be the Son of the Almighty transformed as a human-being to bring the Moses-people on the right track.
The Moses-people defined their affinity by consanguinity. The “Jesus-people” defined their affinity being “benevolent” and “merciful” towards downtrodden people in general. The mission of the Jesus-people has been to make the downtrodden people believe that the Jesus-people would improve the lot of the downtrodden people better than the Moses-people because the Jesus-people were benevolent and merciful. The leaders of the Jesus-people positioned themselves as “intermediates”. In this way the “Jesus-people” became an attractive “movement”. In some 400 years the Roman-Rulers saw the appeasing-advantage of the conquered people becoming “Jesus-people”, entering into an alliance with the “establishment” of the “Jesus-people”, their “Churches”.
Social categories like “being specially chosen by an imagined Almighty” or “being benevolent and merciful” were alien in the “Greek and the Hellenic culture” and in the “Greco-Roman culture” till some 1700 years before our time. Yes, some 1700 years back the “Roman-Rulers” had consolidated an alliance with the “leaders” of the Jesus-people. In the course of time the “Roman-Rulers” vanished. The Mind-Management ability of the Jesus-people as new “Rulers” has prevailed.
Whatever has been handed down to our days as the so-called History of the Humankind and as the Histories of Human societies are in Handwritten and/or in Printed form. This history of the humankind excludes all human past beyond the restricted horizon of the Greek “Historians”. The Greek Herodotus is considered to be the founder of “history” and of modern history. He lived some 7000 years ago. He is credited to have handed down the most authentic accounts of the Greco-Persian wars of his time. The horizon of his world was restricted from Greece dominated Sicily, Greece to Persia in the East. So it is handed down. The question has never been raised whether Herodotus could write, whether a written-mode of the language was available at his time. It is however known that Socrates who lived centuries later could not write and read. All his deliberations were spoken. In all probability a written-mode of the “Greek language” was created later.
We take liberty not to get occupied with the issue: why, when, where and under which circumstances a human society needs a written-mode of the language and when the Greek-scripts were created in particular. We would rather focus on the prerequisites of “Handwriting” and “Printing”. A plane surface, a “scraper” and a conception to transferring the content of a spoken-text into “signs” and drawings were the basic requirements during the time beginning from the Greek Herodotus to the beginning hand-written documents. The plane surface was to be durable and portable. The “meaning” of the invented “signs” and drawings will have to be shared by at least one additional member of the society. More and more members were to be convinced that the conception to transferring the “content” of a text were advantageous for them. It requires millenniums of human years before a written-mode of a language can evolve to a medium of social exchanges even for a substantial minority. We all know that in none of the societies in our days the written-mode has reached all people though all people are conversant in the spoken-mode of the language.
The human-beings were “communicative” from the beginning of human existence and used all natural faculties innovating means for common exchanges. Innovations and inventions are an interactive process. The process begins with individual sparking wits and ideas. The wits and ideas can begin to grow with the appreciation by “friends and neighbours”. The larger is the appreciation, the larger is the probability of its growth. We all know that all human societies needed common exchanges and have invented a set of media for the purpose. The language has proved to be most important. We also know that “local” languages were submerged in some “regional” languages, subsequently in larger geographical entities. This process of growth indicates two major aspects.
The local languages did not provide transport of all developing ideas in the society. The growth of knowledge determines the growth of media of communications in general and the growth of language in particular. This is one aspect. Secondly, as narrated elsewhere, only a few “supra-regional” entities have created literature and culture. The types and ranges of created literature and culture shape the minds of the people and ensure the continuity over generations in whichever directions. The directions are determined by the memories of the past. The memories of the past can only be preserved by permanent exchanges of individual memories at all levels of the society evolving to the collective-memory. The collective-memory of the past is “history”. Only a few “supra-regional” entities were able to preserve the collective-memory through ages by creating literature. In our perception the range and the degree of comprehensiveness of the collective-memory varies by the nature of the process.
The collective-memory of a culture is the result of acceptance of individual memories by a majority of the people through generations. The individual memories are the result of own observations and experiences or firsthand narrations. Even a firsthand narration is in all probability not as authentic as personal observations and experiences by its nature. It is seldom checked whether the listener did understood the narration of personal experience. Narrations and re-narrations are a selection of aspects of the original narration by its nature.
The collective-memory of a culture is always a selection of the totality of individual memories by its nature. The range and the degree of comprehensiveness of the collective-memory vary according to the systematic approaches to preserving the whole history, i.e. of the complete collection of human observations and experience encountered from the beginning to the prevalent state of development of a culture. For all practicality it is a mission impossible. Even flawless approach can not eliminate subjective selections of the listeners.
The collective-memory inherently carries knowledge in a society. The range and the degree of knowledge accumulated in a society shapes and imprint the prevalent culture, i.e. shapes and imprint the minds of the majority of the people. We all know: we are what we know. The collective-memory of a culture thus shapes the future developments of the culture.
The degree of historical validity of the collective-memory of a society is determined by the degree of accuracy in the approach of its preservations. This degree of accuracy in the approach of its preservations differs from culture to culture. Therefore we conclude that a comprehensive history of the human societies is lost. All efforts and plausible acrobatics to reconstructing the history are deceptive and manipulative. It seems to be obvious that many parts of the collective memories and the knowledge carried by the collective memories live through ages although many of them are not considered to be contemporarily relevant. The relevance is determined by the “ruling order”.
Keeping these basics in mind we look into the “Greek culture” that is considered to be root of our prevailing culture. World wide. In our perception the prevailing history hails the present state of affairs justifying the prevalent values by an arbitrary selection of references to the collective memory. All other still living parts of the collective memory are labelled as pre-history, as hearsays, as fairy tales, as myths or as fantasies. The comprehensive past is thus faded out. This direction of cultural growth is thus determined by arbitrary references to the “Greek culture”. This restricted horizon of the Greek culture determines the so-called history based on evidences. History based on evidences? We shall revert to this issue in little while. We ascertain that the range of the evidences is determined and set by the present “rulers”. By its nature the “rulers” follow their interest first. The “rulers” protect their interests by mind-manipulations if possible and by violence if necessary. The prevailing culture thus consequently hails the present state of affairs shaping the minds of the people. We all know: We are what we know. Our knowledge has been sealed at a low level.
The history of the Greek culture is, as it is handed down, some 7000 years old. It is a history of human conflicts, of battles and of “wars” within the societies, is the history of Greek “conquests” of foreign territories and a history of Greco-Persian wars. This history begins at a stage of development of the Greek societies when these societies were dominated by “rulers” at all societal levels and the “ruled” majority. The “ruled” majority were slaves. The slaves did not posses anything else than their life, i.e. their ability to work. For survival the majority had to sell their ability to work in the buyer-market of the “rulers” at a fixed or variable tariff. The history of this majority has not been written yet. For the Greek culture the slaves existed as semi-humans. The only chance to escape from this sub-human-status was to serve the “rulers” as combating personnel protecting the interest of the “rulers”. This way of escape was open to a thin minority of the slaves at the individual level. By its nature “rulers” have to create a “ruling-class” to rule over the “ruled”. The combating personnel mark the lower end of the “ruling-class”.
In our comprehension the general pecking-order in the Greek culture must have resembled to a pyramid having multiple layers. At every layer similar pecking-orders were set by the “rulers” to maintain the interests of the “haves”, of the “rulers”, of the “masters”. There was no alternative to this pattern of a civilisation due to the “normative compulsion of the factual”, a civilisation fundamentally based on a enforced relationship between the “Haves” and the “Have-nots”, “rulers and ruled”, “master and servant”. The “kith and kin” of the rulers” mark the higher end. The middle layers mark the intermediaries. The intermediaries constantly compete to climb in the pecking order, “everyone being against everyone else”. The horizon of the Greek literature and culture was limited accordingly. The horizon of the Greek-minds was limited as well. They knew exclusively a handed down division of “haves and have-nots” and a pecking order in all sub-layers within the society. Thus the Greek-Rulers could smoothly recruit Greek-Have-nots to rob and kill in territories beyond their cultural borders.
We revert to the issue “history based on evidences versus history based on “myths”, “fairy tales”, “hearsays”, etc. By its nature the History is narrations and re-narrations on past events. The narrators are denominated as “Historians”. It is not relevant to explore when and why the narrators were denominated as “Historians”. A new denomination does not alter the fundamental prerequisites regarding narrations or the need of validity of narrated contents. The historians are not eye-witnesses. The historians are “professionals” who collect and sell stories that are sellable in the “market”. They have no time to check and re-check the authenticity, reliability and validity of the stories “in the air” of their times. The competitive demands of the market compel them to select stories and put in individual “colours” for competitive marketing. What does an individual colour mean? Well, the historians enrich facts with “spices” to make their stories more saleable. They live on that. The terms of the market are not dictated by the historians. There are competitors and the terms are tough. “Entertainment” and not factuality was the call of the day. These basics are valid for all Historians in all times.
The historians are not chroniclers. They are collectors of re-narrated stories, are selectors of stories and are propagators of stories. The terms of the market determine the range of their focus. The stories narrated are not authentic. The stories “in the air” are in re-narrated versions. Some of these once sellable stories remain alive in the collective memory for ages, handed down from generations to generations. The collective-memories are corrected and standardised versions of individual-memories. There are no other “reliable sources” on past events than the collective-memories. It is arbitrary to qualify handed down collective-memories through ages in categories like based on “myths”, “fairy tales”, “hearsays”, etc. and based on evidences. The quality of the collective-memories depend on the quality how the collective-memories are preserved and maintained.
All these terms qualifying “History” are created after a written-mode for a few languages had been established. To recall: all human societies need the vehicle “language” for common exchanges of individual observations, experiences and thoughts. The integral components of a language have ever been sounds, gestures and mimics. A language is genuine only when exchanges of individual observations, experiences and thoughts are executed “face-to-face”. There is no substitute mode for common exchanges of individual observations, experiences and thoughts. We have discussed the issue “oral-mode” versus “written-mode” elsewhere in details. Here we take liberty to highlight the following aspects.
· In all probability there is a correlation between the size of a social entity and a need of “remote-communications”. The larger the “regional-social-entities” are, the higher is the need of “remote-communications”. “Professional narrators” is the beginning of “remote-communications”. “Professional narrators” use the articulated language for communications.
· In all probability many societies have created “drawings” as media of communication on suitable surfaces provided by the nature. Such drawings were not transportable, were not easily re-producible. We do not know whether there had been an urge for re-productions of “drawings” on suitable surfaces provided by the nature. From “drawings” on suitable surfaces provided by the nature up to “scripts” on suitable surfaces prepared by human-beings was a long way to go.
· In all probability neither the “professional narrators”, nor the “listeners” of narrations felt an urge for any type of “remote-communications”. Any type of “remote-communications” would have contradicted the interests of the “professional narrators” and of the “listeners”. Such communications would have required “prepared” durable smooth surfaces, the skill of “writing”, the invention of “ink and pen”, the skill of reproductions at the “sending-end” and the skill of “reading” at the receiving-end”.
· In all probability quite a few interested sub-minorities were interested and engaged in creating prerequisites for the written-mode of a language. What could have motivated those individuals other than exploring new “professions” for personal gains? We do not know. Was there a social need? We do not know. We know however that only a few societies on the earth have created written-modes of a language, a secondary carrier for communications. It must have been a long journey to creating signs to represent sounds, gestures and mimics. We will also not know about the process how the signs were knitted to the “written-mode” of a language. We have raised certain issues. We take liberty not to explore further. We think it is worth to keep these issues in mind while we discuss “language”.
· We recall the “Vedic-people” in Bharatavarsa. When the pre-Vedic-people realised that they had reached the summit of human knowledge on the universe, they evolved to the post-Vedic-people. The “Vedic-people” did not deliver their “life-histories” to posterities. They delivered a Knowledge Bank and a Road to the knowledge bank. They handed down the Four Vedas as the summit of human knowledge on the universe. This has been the claim of the Vedic-people. This claim has yet to be refuted. The Vehicle to reach the knowledge-bank is the Vedic language in the “Oral-mode” having 97 different sounds. The knowledge bank is stored in the human-memory. The transfer from one memory to the other demands all human senses of realisation. The whole process of transfer from one memory to the other, the dissemination of knowledge, has been subsumed as the “Oral-Tradition”. The Vedic-people have delivered a number of “supports” for effective preservation and dissemination. The written-mode of the Vedic language is one of them. The Vedic culture excels in delivering knowledge to the posterities.
· We recall the Greek culture. In contrary to the Vedic culture the Greek culture has delivered memories on past events, happenings, incidents, occurrences in the “Greek languages”. We leave it to the dating-acrobats to ascertain why and when the written-mode of the “Greek languages” was created. We ascertain only that the “Greek culture” is chronology-oriented. Consequently the individuals and their achievements are accentuated. Therefore we know that Socrates lived some 4000 years ago. He was an eminent “scholar” of all times. So it is said. He is celebrated as one of the main founders of the prevalent culture. We know also that he did not deliver his “observations” in writings. He narrated. Whatever we know about Socrates we know from “reports” given by two of his ardent followers: Plato and Xenophon. Did these two ardent followers of Socrates write? We do not know. Is it relevant to know?
· The narrators collect “stories” and re-narrate the stories in “meetings”. Why should a narrator be interested to explore another mode for “transport” of his narrations? In all probability the professional narrators were least interested to create a “written”-mode for “transport” of their narrations. The written-mode of a language is artificial and presupposes a substantial number of individuals who might have been interested in learning to read and write. For the narrators it is a lengthier process to use a written-mode. Then, what would be the benefit of copying the text in “hand-drawing? A written-mode presupposes also portable and durable even surface. Even papyrus, animal skin, vellum, textile and scroll of parchment as durable even surface for the written-mode would not have served the interests of the narrators. And there was absolutely no market for “books” till “Johannes Gutenberg” in the 15th century. More on “Johannes Gutenberg” in a little while. We assume that the celebrated Greek “scholars” did not write, they have narrated. Whatever has been handed down as deliberations of Greek “scholars”, these are re-narrations of re-narrations.
· The then Greek societies were divided in two fundamental categories, the category of the Haves and the category of the Have-nots. The Haves were those who had “managed” to grab “lion’s shares” of the “social products” depriving others. By its nature the Haves constituted a varying minority of the whole population. The Have-nots, the vast majority, did not count. They were kept as slaves having a pecking-order set by the Haves. The Haves had also set up a pecking-order for themselves set by the “Rulers” who dominated the upper end to protect their interests. At the lower end of the “Rulers” were the “soldiers”. The lowest rank of the soldiers was recruited out of the large pool of the Have-nots. These soldiers became the lowest-ranked “Upstarts”. Quite a few could climb the ladder by offering special services to the Haves. The celebrated Greek “scholars” were professional narrators. They were not scions of “Rulers” or of “Nobles”, or of “Top-Mercenaries”. In their young age they were soldiers having different ranks in Wars against the Persians. Some of them climbed as narrators of extraordinary situations and events. A few of them ascended as “Teachers” and “Advisers”. They were in competition against each other. The rules of the competition were set by the “Rulers”.
The Greek “scholars” were the first “intellectual prostitutes” who sung the songs pleasing the “Rulers”. We may recall the age-long proverbs: “he who pays the piper calls the tune” or “never quarrel with your bread and butter”. Socrates has been handed down as an exception. He narrated stories that were not palatable for the “Rulers”. He preferred Hemlock than to singing songs pleasing the “Rulers”. We do not know how many “Socrates” lived in the history of the “Greek” culture.
· There are no evidences that the Greeks or the Hellenes had ever written down the history of the “Greek” culture. The Greek “scholars” have re-narrated stories regarding the past and narrated their individual observations, experiences and judgements. All tales told by the Greek “scholars” before and after Herodotus were recorded in the memories of the “listeners”. The memorised stories were re-narrated through the centuries. For the “Greeks” the “Greek-history” lived in the collective-memory of the “Greeks”. Many parts of the “Greek History” are lost because the “Greeks” did not create something like the Oral-Tradition in Bharatavarsa to preserve knowledge. The Vedic-people did not care to preserve their stories. The Vedic-people handed down their acquired knowledge by creating the Oral-Tradition to preserving knowledge for generations to come and created many avenues to disseminate knowledge. The Oral-Tradition in Bharatavarsa has prevailed. The history of Bharatavarsa is lost alike the “Greek History”. However, many tales told by many narrators do live in the collective memories since time immemorial.
· The Hellenes had invested most of their attentions and resources to rob in Bharatavarsa neglecting the movements of the Roman-Ruffians in the West of “Greece”. The investments in Alexander were a flop. The “Greek Civilisations” and of the “Greek Culture” began to decline. The Roman-Ruffians ultimately colonised the Hellenic “Empire” up to the Persian border some 3000 years ago. The Persians had taken the advantage of the Roman forays into “Greece” and re-conquered their lands. Endeavours of Roman forays in Persia failed.
· The Roman-Ruffians were comparably primitive and did not develop a culture. They were overwhelmed seeing and experiencing the “Greek” civilisations and the Hellenic culture. They decided to become a part of these overwhelming civilisation and cultural achievements of the Hellenic-people propagating the concept of a Greco-Roman-culture. The Hellenic mercenaries were “encouraged” to narrate the “Hellenic past” in the light of a fictive “Greco-Roman-culture”. It goes without saying that those Hellenic mercenaries knew, - as mercenaries and intellectual prostitutes always do - , what to narrate and what to omit. The Roman occupants were not cultured; they were not fools as well.
· Exemplarily we recall the disastrous foray of Alexander to Bharatavarsa and the beginning decline of the Hellenic dominance. All the time after Alexander the “Hellenic scholars” were all quiet for some four centuries. “Greco-Roman-culture” created a new set of “Greek-scholars” re-discovering the “Hellenic” and the “Greek” past. In this process the “gambler Alexander” was dressed as “Alexander the Great” legitimising forays as a cultural attribute. How could he be rediscovered? What were the sources? Well, any story can be told if it did not undermine the interests of the Roman occupants.
· Exemplarily we also recall the story of Herodotus. Did he live? He was “discovered” after some five centuries. How could he be “re-discovered” after some five centuries? Could the “re-discovered” Herodotus read and write? When was a written-mode created for the Greek language? Was there a market for a written-mode of the Greek language? On which even surface Herodotus could have written? These and many similar queries have remained as non-questions for the evident oriented history.
These are facts qualifying the handed down “Greek-literature” and the handed down “Greek history” compiled as “products” of the Greco-Roman-culture during the Roman occupations. The interests of Roman-occupants to create a new elevated identity for them kept the Greek-culture alive. In all probability the Greek history would have been lost otherwise. The handed down “Greek history” has not been compiled by the “Greeks”. The narrators of the “Greek history” were high-ranked Roman officials of “Greek” origin. The handed down “Greek history” has not been compiled on the basis of “evidences” as it has later been claimed and marketed. It was practically not possible.
Things happen in human societies that affects life. Not all in the society are physically present to see and experience. The others are “informed” by those who were witnesses of the “happening”. The “eye-witnesses” narrate what they have seen. They are not “narrators”, they “report”. The “eye-witnesses” see only parts of an event. And the perceptions of the “eye-witnesses” are different. These reports of the “eye-witnesses” are constituent parts of collective-memories since ages. In Greece and everywhere.
Professional narrators emerge with the territorial growth of the societies. Professional narrators perceive collective-memories, collect reports of “eye-witnesses”, process the subjective reports of “eye-witnesses”, evaluate their whole collection, anticipate the interests of the listeners and narrate their calculated versions of the “happenings” in competitions with other narrators. Professional narrators offer their narrations as commodities in a “market” anticipating a common “demand” to know about remote “happenings” affecting the course of their life. The “listeners” receive different “explanations” for their mental dissonances, evaluate different narrations, memorise the evaluated narrations, re-narrate their memories and re-narrate and re-narrate. These are a few basics how collective-memories emerge and grow in the societies.
The emergence of professional narrators was the beginning of the mind-management by spreading “information”. In the beginning the professional narrators had to apprehend and perceive the “demands” of the listeners and narrate accordingly to earn their living. At this phase the professional narrators operated in a market of communications in which the demands dominated the “rules”. In the course of time the “Rulers” discovered the latent power of propagating entertaining “stories” to gain control over the Minds of the “Ruled”. The professional narrators became aware of “sellable” qualities of a mixture of “facts” and “fictions” sponsored by “Rulers”. The profession of narrators metamorphosed in this phase. The intellectual prostitutes emerged. We recall the exceptional professional narrator Socrates in Greece.
In the course of time individuals were fascinated seeing smooth surfaces here and there and were tempted to do something on such surfaces. In all probability “signs”, “symbols”, “inscriptions”, “drawings” and “Arts” would not have appeared if the nature would not provide smooth durable surfaces. The “uses” of smooth surfaces provided by the nature were projections of “ideas” of the users. And those who saw the “signs” projected their imaginations in them. There were no communications between the two groups. Thus these “signs” became media of communication possessing low ranges and less precision compared with the language. Ages later a “written-mode” of few languages came into being created by individuals who were in search of a new profession to earn a better life. There was no common demand for a written-mode of languages.
Face-to-face communications via language, i.e. the oral-mode of the language, provide the maximum range. No “written-mode” of a language can transfer sounds, gestures and mimics or the “spirit” of the surroundings. This is the reason why the most of the societies did not create a written-mode of the language. For millenniums in the history of human societies there was no social need for a “written-mode”. A need of remote-communications came up relatively recently. In the course of technological developments in a few societies the feasibility of remote communications arose after “man-made” portable and durable smooth surfaces were available in the market. From “papyrus” to “vellum” was a long way to go. The market of remote-communications remained restricted till after ages the feasibility of “duplication” of “signs”, “symbols”, “inscriptions”, “drawings”, “Arts” and later of “scripts” was underway.
It is arbitrary to qualify the handed down collective memories through ages being based on “myths”, “fairy tales”, “hearsays”, etc. and based on evidences. The term evidence is recent. “Evidence” is something that one has seen or experienced. This meaning has been extended in the course of time to tales that claimed to be “true” to make others “believe”. “Evidence” as it has been defined by “historians” was only possible after “Johannes Gutenberg”. Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg, a „German blacksmith” in the 15th Century, has been duly or unduly credited to have introduced printing to “Europe” with the printing press on papers. He used moveable hand mould metal types for printing of a hand-written version of the “Bible”. So it is said. Prior to the printing press all duplications of Texts were done in handwriting. The texts prior to the printing on paper were handwritten on processed animal skin having a limited durability and flexibility. The printing press of “Johannes Gutenberg” needed investments. The duplicators in handwriting were tough competitors. They were cheap. The demand for copies was low. The “printing Press” became profitable when the “Churches” ordered to print “indulgences” and the “Bible”. It is said that about 180 copies of the “Gutenberg Bible” were printed on paper and some on vellum. The written-mode was practiced as individual “passion”, rather as individual hobby, of transferring collective memories in the written-mode till the Churches of the Jesus-people felt a need of standardising their “teachings” for missionary activities. In all probability there was need of the written-mode before the alliance of the “Jesus-people” with the Roman Rulers in 4th century.
The low demand for duplicated “texts” till as late as the 15th Century clearly indicates that the written-mode was not attractive for the professional narrators. It is useless to explore whether the professional narrators acquired the skill of “read and write”. Why should they have wasted their valuable time to produce a written version of their narrations? Should there be a reference to a professional narrator, this could at best mean that some “freak” experimenting with “scripts” transferred a narration in a written-mode after listening to a narration or re-narration, or a re-re-narration. Many references are just fakes.
The root of any narration in a written-mode regarding the past is collective-memory. All talks of “manuscripts” and “books” authored by “scholars” before the availability of competitive printing press along with adequate paper and ink are utter lies circulated later, from the 16th Century onwards. The tale that the Roman “statesman” Marcus Tullius Cicero living some 2000 years ago had declared Herodotus who lived some 5000 years ago to be the “Father of History” is a fantastic swindle. How could Marcus Tullius Cicero have known anything about Herodotus’ narrations? Did Herodotus write a single line? In which Greek-language could Herodotus have narrated? How could the Roman “statesman” Marcus Tullius Cicero have learnt that “ancient Greek-language”? How do we know that Marcus Tullius Cicero has really written a single line? Where, when and who had discovered Marcus Tullius Cicero? We could continue with similar questions relating any of the celebrated “demigods” who helped the “Rulers” managing the minds of the “Ruled”.
Instead we maintain that there is nothing like History based on “evidences”. The “modern history” is based on re-told stories published as books on paper decorated with new propaganda to please the prevalent ruling interests. The celebrated modern historians are the courtesans amongst the intellectual prostitutes. How many “Socrates” is handed down? After this aside we revert to the mind-disposition, grown mentality and mind-management of the Greeks, of the Romans and of the Romans following their alliance with the Jesus-people.
The handed down collective-memories of the Greeks based on “myths”, “fairy tales”, “hearsays”, etc. as well as based on evidences tell us that the Greek-people remembered only of societal organisations that divided the people in “Ruling-minorities” and “Ruled-majority”. The “Ruled-majority” was kept as slaves. The slaves never owned anything else than their ability to work and produce “living-means”. They knew by experiences that there was only one avenue to escape from the lot of slavery and that was by offering extra services to the “Rulers”.
The “Ruling-minorities” as a whole owned all resources that could be owned. Within these minorities the resources were unequally distributed. The key of distributions was set in a pecking-order fixed from the top. The “Ruling-minorities” as a whole resembled a pyramid with many “ladders”. The “ladders” were occupied. One had to pull down others to climb up and thereby grab as much “properties” as possible from them. This procedure was part and parcel of the approved pecking-order. This was the horizon of the handed down Greek culture forming the behavioral dispositions as well as defining the purpose of human life. Get as much as can get, take as much as you can take, grab as much you can grab.
Consequently there had not been an “uprising” of the slaves, of the majority of the whole “Greek” population. They continued to produce the “living-means” and looked after “ways” and “means” to the ladders to climb. The foremost outlet was to be recruited as “soldiers” and then start climbing. As it has been mentioned earlier, the “Greek-Scholars” were engaged in “wars” against the “Persians”. The “wars” are extensions of violent exploitations of less powerful people in neighbouring territories. Forays in foreign territories are more vicious form of exploitations. The purpose of human life on the earth was defined in the handed down Greek culture to live at the cost of others at all levels.
The Romans practiced the same system in organising the “Roman-Societies” and developed similar civilisations. It is irrelevant whether the Romans were influenced by the Greek culture or not. The fact is that the “Greco-Roman Culture” was nothing else than the usurpation of the Greek culture by the Romans after they had conquered over the “Greek” dominated areas. Accounting all handed down indicators we conclude that in the vast areas in the West of the Himalaya the people lived in societies divided in “Rulers” and “Ruled” following the principle: Get as much as can get, take as much as you can take, grab as much you can grab.
We do not know whether in this vast region the “Ruled-people” ever had questioned the “legitimacy of the “Rulers” of being “Rulers” at any level. Whatever else had happened before some 7000 years ago has been discriminated, neglected, banished, and covered. This history is lost. We however know that in the “evidenced-based” history the question how the “Rulers” became “Rulers” at any level has never been raised. Nor the issue of “legitimacy” of the “Rulers” becoming “Rulers” has ever been raised. The “historians” and the “Scholars” have lived and live comfortably within the frame work of the “current” state of affairs and practice “reflections” over changes that could be desirable. The “historians” and the “Scholars” are competitors in the market of Mind-Management-Devices to keep the “Ruled” away from raising questions. The “historians” and the “Scholars” feed the “Ruled” with explanations justifying their miseries as temporary state of affairs. The “historians” and the “Scholars” glorify and propagate the prevailing laws as if there were “fallouts” from the sky. One has to live the laws or “die” a miserable “death”.
The justifications of the prevailing state of affairs and projections of forthcoming improvements did function for quite some time. Whenever the efforts of Mind-Managements seemed likely to fail, the repressive force had to be increased. In the same region some 3000 years ago while the Romans were conquering over the Greeks Moses emerged. He was not of Greek or of Roman origin. We recall the story in a nut-shell as it has been handed down. We have narrated the story elsewhere.
An Egyptian princess found Moses as a baby, a foundling from the River Nile. He was called Moses and brought up as an Egyptian prince at the Court of Pharaoh. At his best age he was asked by a “Supreme Authority” to free “His-People” from Egyptian slavery bringing them home across the Red Sea, Sinai Mountains to today’s Palestine. Moses did it successfully, so the story goes. The once enslaved people of the “Supreme Authority” in Egypt followed Moses in the “Belief” of fighting back their homeland called “Canaan”. The campaign took years.
How did the freed “People of the Supreme Authority” maintain themselves during the long years of the campaign? Which other people were massacred by the “People of the Supreme Authority” during these years till they ultimately conquered their homeland called “Canaan”? What happened to the then “native Canaanites”? Were they killed or dispersed or what? Why the “Supreme Authority” didn’t prevent slavery and deportation of his people by the Egyptians? We do not know. No questions, no answers. The whole story goes back to a single source: Moses. This story about and around the “Supreme Authority” of the Moses-people handed down by Moses has been later upgraded as history not only by the Moses-people.
The Moses-people lived for quite some time in their “homeland” according to the ”laws” set by the “Supreme Authority” mediated and implemented by Moses. So it has been handed down. This “Supreme Authority” was believed to be “Almighty”. He was beyond the reach of all others than Moses who was, according to Moses himself, blessed with “revelation”. The followers of Moses became thus the chosen-people of the “Almighty” and lived for quite some time discriminating other people in the region till the primitive Roman Ruffians occupied Canaan too. Once again the almighty “Supreme Authority” did not protect His own people, the Moses-people, against the primitive Roman Ruffians who knew nothing about the Belief of an invisible, unreachable “Supreme Authority” being Almighty. Only a few wealthy Moses-people fled away from the reach of the Roman occupation.
The Roman Ruffians were a minority in the occupied areas. They needed local mercenaries who knew the skills of “Rulers”. All occupants need collaborators and mercenaries. The “ruling” Moses-people, the “Haves” remained in power under the reign of the Roman occupants as junior partner. The degree of suppression and exploitation of the “Have-nots” increased. At some point the discontent of the “Have-nots” led to the rise of the “Jesus-people”. It was claimed that the “Almighty” had sent “His Son in human body as Jesus of Nazareth” to free His-people and to guide them to “salvation”. The Jesus-people remained “chosen-people” adding two special traits of identification and to differ from the Moses-people. The Jesus-people, mostly the “Have-nots”, promised to practice charity and mercy amongst themselves sharing the hardships and to win over the minds of other “Have-nots” offering them the opportunity to become Jesus-people. The Jesus-people did not campaign to abolish unequal distribution; they urged their “Haves” to practice charity and mercy. They practiced the same system of “organisation” as the system of the Moses-people. The difference was in the beginning the “Rulers” amongst the Jesus-people possessed less power to applying violence against their own “Have-nots”.
The Jesus-people in general and the “Haves” of them in particular did continue to rob fellow-Jesus-people and other-people keeping the same pattern of unequal distribution, which was interpreted as being sanctioned by the “Almighty”. The “urge” or rather the loud appeal to the “Haves” to practice charity and mercy appeased the “Have-nots”, who continued their work producing the “means for living”. In the beginning they operated as a “movement” of the “Have-nots” against collaborating Moses-people. Their assets were “Jesus of Nazareth” being the Son of the “Almighty”, demands for charity and mercy and the numerical growth of the “organised” “Have-nots”. As a rule the “Haves” had to depend on the “production of living-means” by the “slaves”. Jesus-people were continuously winning the minds of the “slaves” claiming to fulfil the mission of “Jesus of Nazareth” who was the Son of the “Almighty” as a human-being.
The movement of the Jesus-people had to prevail first against the Moses-people. The Moses-people were predominantly occupied to reset their standing as the Moses-people under the “Roman-Occupation”. They were contended being the chosen-people of the “Almighty” and lived as exclusively as possible. They were thus never “missionaries”. In contrast to them the Jesus-people needed “missionary activities” to wining the minds of the “slaves” for survival. The numerical growth of the Jesus-people was instrumental to gaining power.
It took some 300 years of agitations and struggles increasing pressures on Roman-Rulers to convince them better to get into an alliance with the Jesus-people to serve their interests of forays. In these some 300 years the Jesus-people had built up a stable hierarchal organisation and many strongholds. The strongholds were de-central meeting-points of the Jesus-people in the beginning, evolving to organisational cells and trainings-centres for missionaries to spreading appeals to the “rulers” to practice charity and mercy towards the “Have-nots”. The history of this process is lost.
Some 1700 years ago the Roman-Rulers got formally converted to Jesus-people. This alliance between the Roman “military power” and the “mind-management instruments” of the Jesus-people worked in the whole region of the Mediterranean See and in the large part of the vast land in the West of Persia. The Roman-Rulers conquered foreign territories and the Jesus-people appeased the conquered people. Under the protection of the Roman-Rulers the Jesus-people operated their “mind-management instruments” to strengthening their organisational base. The growing strength of the strongholds led automatically to more influence upon the Roman-Rulers. In the course of time the domination of the Roman-Rulers diminished, but not the role of the “Rulers”.
The chieftains of the Jesus-people became the new “Rulers” mixing effectively “military power” with instruments of “mind-management” rendering a new dimension to the relationship between the “Haves” and the “Have-nots”. The “Have-nots” were made to believe that the chieftains of the Jesus-people were not “Rulers”. Their mission was to establish the “Kingdom of the Almighty” on the earth. They represented “Jesus of Nazareth being the Son of the “Almighty”. The invisible Almighty knew all that was necessary and was just in the long run. The “Have-nots” were made to believe that nothing happened on the earth if it was not determined by the invisible Almighty.
The chieftains of the Jesus-people as the new “Rulers” established hypocrisy, false standards and lies as sustainable instruments for mind-management. In the course of time the “ruled-people” had to live under the Jesus-people in the “Kingdom of the Almighty”. The “Kingdom of the Almighty” had a short history. The “ruled-people” had to internalise the short history as the whole history of the mankind and either live accordingly or die a miserable death. The purpose of human existence was to live complying with the “Will of the unfathomable Almighty” as mediated by the chieftains of the Jesus-people. Wherever the Jesus-people established their reign, they destroyed the history and culture of the occupied people. Their mind was managed to live according to the rules of the relationship between the “Haves” and the “Have-Nots” valid in the “Kingdom of the Almighty”.
We do not know whether the Jesus-people ever tried to spread their “Kingdom of the Almighty” towards the East. We know, the Roman Ruffians did not succeed to occupy Persia. The rise of the Muhammad-people some 1300 years ago in the so far neglected barren “Arabian Peninsula” is on record. The Muhammad-people knew all about the Moses-people and all about the Jesus-people. They referred back to the same family-tree, acknowledged the same “Almighty”, but claimed to be closer to Him. Where this claim came from und how was the claim justified? The Will of the “Almighty” was not “revealed” to Muhammad as it was to Moses, the Will of the “Almighty” was not “mediated” through His son Jesus of Nazareth as human-being on the earth, Muhammad was “directed” in the smallest details by His personal messenger to install the best “Kingdom of the Almighty” on the earth. So it has been handed down.
The Muhammad-people began their almost irresistible triumphal March into all surrounding areas of the “Arabian Peninsula” spreading the mission of Muhammad, conquered and occupied vast areas in a century including some areas controlled by the “Greco-Romans” and by the “Roman-Jesus Alliance” in the Eastern-Mediterranean-Regions as well as in the Northern-Mediterranean-Regions. The invasions were like lightening. Brutally and viciously they installed the “Laws of the Almighty” in the occupied areas. They did not discriminate between the “Haves” and the “Have-Nots”. They did not make booties. They did not focus on “conversions”. They just implemented the Will of “Almighty of the Muhammad-people”. Their conquest included Persia too.
Many local and regional Persian “Rulers” possessing “mobile-properties” escaped to Bharatavarsa and got assimilated as “Parsees” in the Western region. These “Rulers” knew the entry to Bharatavarsa through the Pāriyātra Parvata of the western Himalayas. It is not on record whether those representatives of the Vedic subculture, the followers of the Jain-dharma and of the Buddha-teachings settled in Ghazni surroundings under the shield of Maurya-dynasty, also returned to Bharatavarsa. It is however on record that the massive-structures built by them in the territories of eastern Persia, the Jain-temples, the Buddha-Biharas and Stupas, were not instantly and entirely demolished by the Muhammad-people.
The “Parsees” received refuge in Bharatavarsa. There are no references of conflicts between the “refugees” and the Mahabharata-people. We do not know about Persian references of the Mahabharata-people. The Mahabharata-people knew about the Persian-people. There are many references in the Mahabharata. There are no indications of tensions or conflicts between the two cultures. In all probability the societies in both the cultures did not know material scarcities in life. Who knows since how many millenniums these two cultures lived peacefully side by side. If there were differences between the two cultures, they were in all probability determined by natural circumstances.
In some two centuries the Persian people became Muhammad-people. The majority of the Persian-people had to live the Laws of the “Almighty of the Muhammad-people” installed by the Muhammad-people. In this process the Persian-people lost their heritage excepting for their millenniums-old Persian language. In all other occupied areas the Muhammad-people had successfully installed the Arabic language along with the Laws of the “Almighty of the Muhammad-people”. Their Mind-Management had functioned perfectly as their focus of occupation was not “making booties”. Their focus of occupation was winning the minds of the people by all means to spread and establish the Laws of the “Almighty of the Muhammad-people” in foreign territories.
As narrated elsewhere in details, the Persian-people of Eastern Persia bordering the western Himalayas lived peacefully their own culture rather in “slumber” till the arrival of the Hellenic-Ruffians led by Alexander the Macedonian-ruffian en route to Bharatavarsa. Their peaceful life was affected by this temporary occupation. The Hellenic-Ruffians had to rob “living-means” to feed themselves and their “horses”, “buy” services of the local people to plan their logistics of the foray to Bharatavarsa, “recruit” mercenaries for combat, for scouting and for expert consultations. The plan of Hellenic plundering in Bharatavarsa was a flop. The Hellenic-Ruffians had to retreat gradually from the whole of Persia.
The “Ruling-Nanda-Dynasty” of Magadha might have undertaken precautionary measures safeguarding the Pāriyātra Parvata of the western Himalayas. Did the Nandas do it? We do not know. Sometime later Seleucus I Nicator began with superior logistics the second Hellenic efforts to rob in Bharatavarsa. Seleucus I Nicator had to face Chandragupta Maurya. He had overthrown the “Ruling-Nanda-Dynasty” founding the Maurya-Dynasty of Magadha. The Maurya-Dynasty had built up a strong military force and was on the trip of territorial expansions. Chandragupta Maurya defeated Seleucus I Nicator miserably. As a result Seleucus I Nicator had to surrender vast regions in the Eastern Persia bordering the western Himalayas to the Maurya-Dynasty which was controlled for many decades by the Maurya-“Rulers”. Being affluent enough the Maurya-“Rulers” did not exploit the region. The region became rather autonomous. Ghazni developed to a regional centre.
In the course of time the control of Bharatavarsa over this region had declined. Dynasties rise, Dynasties decline. The Maurya-Dynasty of Magadha had gained territorial control of the whole of Bharatavarsa. The history of the Maurya-Dynasty has been narrated elsewhere. After the fall of the Maurya-Dynasty many Regional-Rulers exercised territorial control over Bharatavarsa. Yet there had not been any forays into Bharatavarsa before Mahmud of Ghazni raided on the same route some 1000 years ago.
There are no indications that the Mahabharata-people knew about the Moses-people, about the Jesus-people, about the Muhammad-people and about those developments caused by these people in the vast areas in Persia and beyond westwards. There are no indications that the Mahabharata-people were curious to know why the “Parsees” sought refuge in Bharatavarsa. They just received refuge in Bharatavarsa.
Even when some 1000 years ago Mahmud of Ghazni robbed and collected riches up to his logistic capacity and left Bharatavarsa, the local and regional “Rulers” seemingly did not immediately initiate precautionary measures as it was undertaken by Chandragupta Maurya against the Hellenic-Ruffians. The Mahabharata-people were living the Vedic culture in low tides. Living the Vedic culture means fulfilling all human duties towards the nature and towards the society; sanatana dharma was derived from the laws of nature at the societal level and dharma at the individual level. At no level dharma is “prescribed” or “taught”. In the society it is individually learnt and internalised.
Differences and deviations at the individual level in this process are inherent. In the Vedic culture since time immemorial the deviant individuals were not sanctioned. The fundamental understanding in the Vedic culture in all tides is that it is the duty of the individuals to overcome their deviances with the help of the “society”, to get back to their dharma. Deviances at the societal level are the formations of Vedic-subcultures. In the course of time these subcultures find their ways back to sanatana dharma. Violence, battles and wars are deviances in the Vedic culture.
The Mahabharata-people produced all along affluently, maintained the Vedas, the Vedic language, the Upanishads, the Sanskrit language, the Mahabharata, took notice of the deviations amongst the distributers and administrators and did not create obstacles for them to get back to their dharma. The emergence of “Rulers” at whatever levels claiming a larger distributional share of goods and utilities did not involve their mental disposition as human-beings. In all probability the people living the Vedic culture did not discriminate human-beings in geographical and in social categories. The Mahabharata-people knew that Human-beings are one of the numerous Beings on the Earth; the Earth being a tiny part of the Solar-system. They knew also that they were living through the Kali Yuga, the last of the four Yugas of the 28th time cycle on the earth. They considered the Tensions, the Violence, the Battles and the Wars amongst the Deviants, the “Rulers” at all levels, as peripheral phenomena.
The foray of Mahmud of Ghazni some 1000 years ago involved the local and the regional “Rulers”. In all probability quite a few of the Mahabharata-people had to suffer as well. This type of sufferance for a part of the people occurred since the emergence of the “Rulers” in the Vedic societies. In this perspective the foray of Mahmud of Ghazni was not a special case. For the deviants of the Vedic culture, for the local and the regional “Rulers”, it was a special case. It was a new experience. In all probability these local and regional “Rulers” did not know about Ghazni or of Mahmud of Ghazni. These “Rulers” were not militarily strong enough to protect their “riches” against an attack like a lightning. Mahmud of Ghazni could safely return with the booty.
The local and the regional “Rulers” seemingly did not immediately initiate precautionary measures as it was undertaken by Chandragupta Maurya against the second attack of the Hellenic-Ruffians led by Seleucus I Nacator. There is nothing on record. It is on record that Mahmud of Ghazni successfully repeated his foray after five years. The route of entry into Bharatavarsa was the same. The purpose of both brutal assaults was solely robbery. Nothing is on records indicating Mahmud’s interest in establishing the Will of “Almighty of the Muhammad-people”.
It is on record that Mahmud of Ghazni successfully repeated his forays every year thereafter i.e. fifteen times, seventeen times in all. Being a ruthless plunderer Mahmud realised that he will never be able carry back the “riches” accumulated in Bharatavarsa. He might also have realised that the local and the regional “Rulers” belonged to a minority that could not count on support of the majority of the people. If he could establish control the Pāriyātra Parvata of the western Himalayas, he will establish a “Bank” possessing unlimited resources. In all probability he successfully made use of those five years to establish control the Pāriyātra Parvata of the western Himalayas. Every year he invaded and plundered in different regions. Thus Mahmud of Ghazni built up an “empire” securing control over the entry to Bharatavarsa, became a “Sultan” and founded a “Dynasty” that lasted for some 150 years.
During these years the North-western Regions of Bharatavarsa was plundered almost every year, one region after another, by these Muhammad-people. The Persian people lived in the region since time immemorial, knew about the prosperity in Bharatavarsa and never thought of plundering. The same people had lost their traditional nature in some two centuries becoming Muhammad-people. They raided a new region unscrupulously, destroyed, murdered indiscriminately, plundered up to his logistic capacity and left. There had been no efforts of converting Mahabharata-people to Muhammad-people or of establishing the Laws of the “Almighty of the Muhammad-people” in foreign territories. There was no time. Their greed was stronger than their Belief in “Almighty” and in the Laws of the “Almighty”.
In other words, the Belief in invisible and indiscernible “Almighty” of whatever-people had always been a fraudulent mask, a deceitful and deceptive cover and it was effectively used as an instrument to recruit manpower for robberies and forays. For the Muhammad-people” of Ghazni during this period there was no need to recruit manpower in Bharatavarsa to plunder effectively. The deviant Vedic-subcultures of the local and regional “Rulers” of the Mahabharata-people were, unlike during the period of the Magadha-dynasties, unprepared for sudden assaults. They were easy victims of loot. They were unable to protect their surplus wealth stored in the “Temples”. The Mahabharata-people were living sanatana dharma and preserved the Vedas, the Vedic language, the Upanishads, the Sanskrit language and the Mahabharata. They were following their individual dharma and consciously passing through the last phase of the Kali Yuga. The first encounter of the Mahabharata-people with “Almighty’s”-people living belief and brutality was actually a non-encounter. They belonged to two diametrically different worlds.