The Mahabharata-people 1000 Years Ago
Impacts of the Kali Yuga on their Mind
Some 1000 years ago, the people of Bharatavarsa in the north-west faced a foray. Foreign ruffians intruded through the Pāriyātra Parvata of the western Himalayas, the only land-route into Bharatavarsa. These foreign ruffians looted, massacred and damaged those massive building structures, the “Temples”, with unknown brutality. They left when their logistic limit of safe return was exhausted. In our comprehension this event was another caesura in the history of Bharatavarsa.
How could it happen? What happened between the first ever attempt of a foray in Bharatavarsa led by Alexander the Macedonian-Ruffian some 2300 years ago and the foray of the foreign ruffians led by Mahmud the Ghazni-Ruffian some 1000 years ago. The issue is under-researched, to put it benevolently. The victims belonged to the Vedic culture living during the last phase of the Kali Yuga of the 28th time cycle of the human-kind on the earth.
The people of Bharatavarsa knew about the malice of the Kali Yuga. The Kali Yuga is the fourth and the last phase of a Yuga in all time cycles. The prior three phases are the Satya Yuga, the Treta Yuga and the Dwapara Yuga. The Kali Yuga is the last decaying phase of a time cycle. The Mahabharata-people were passing through the 28th time cycle. The Kali Yuga of this time-cycle began with the end of the Great Battle of the Mahabharata. The most of this Kali Yuga, some 430.000 human years, are already spent. It will come to the End in some 2000 human years and thereafter the 29th time-cycle of the human-kind in the solar-system will begin with new élans. The aspects of the Vedic time-calculations are dealt with in details in:
These are exemplary glimpses of the findings and calculations stored in the Vedas by the Rishis (seer-scientists). The Rishis (seer-scientists) in the pre-Vedic phase belonged to the Vedic-people working at the knowledge front. They had discovered the fundamental need of division of the societal works. The human-beings like all other kinds on the earth survive in “communities” only. All efforts for survival are works. Trial-and-error is the beginning. Reflections gradually lead to knowledge of works. This knowledge leads the growth of efficiency that reduces the workload for productions and reproductions (Lebensmittel). There is time and there are opportunities to look around individually and collectively. In the course of time the Vedic-people had learnt that four fundamental organisational functions were to be fulfilled to run a society in harmony and happiness:
In the pre-peak-phases the “Vedic people” did not know of social categories like discrimination, disparity, deprivation, hierarchy or inequality in the human societies. In the Vedas there are no hints that divisions of work or further sub-divisions of work could lead to hierarchies or distributional inequalities in the society. There is no mention of these or of similar categories in the Vedas. Hierarchies or distributional inequalities are not an inherent to divisions of works.
The “Vedic-people” is one of our denominations to mark a caesura in the history of Bharatavarsa in our comprehension. These people have not handed down how they came to know all about the universe from the human perspective. How did they come to know that the solar-system is a part of the whole universe, that the earth is a tiny part of the solar-system, that the human-kind is one of innumerable kinds on the earth and that all these phenomena are interdependent? They did not feel it to be a necessity to tell us how they had begun to live in societies, developing languages, civilisations, literatures and the Vedic culture on the earth. Instead these people have handed down the Four Vedas as a comprehensive knowledge-bank on the whole universe. These are Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda and Atharva Veda.
In our comprehension the pre-Vedic-people had reached the limit of human knowledge on the universe, summed up this knowledge in the Four Vedas and handed down to the humanity. Thus the “pre-Vedic-people” evolved to the “post-Vedic- people”. The Vedic-people mark the first caesura in the history of Bharatavarsa. We do not know how the Vedic-knowledge-bank was created. We know, however, that the Vedic-people had to create adequate carriers for the interpersonal transfer using the human memory as storage of knowledge. Two primary carriers were created for this purpose, the Vedic language and the social institution of the “oral-mode” to preserving the Vedas in original. The whole process of disseminations must have consumed time-immemorial.
We all know by own experiences how human-knowledge begins. It begins with individual perceptions, observations, reflections and exchanges with other individuals. Whenever the results of these encounters are disseminated in the society and accepted by the society, it becomes a component, a part of the human knowledge. The urge of mutual exchanges leads gradually to a common carrier of “thoughts”, a language. The “thoughts” shape a language and not the other way around. All human societies create their language for mutual exchanges for all practical purposes. Not all human societies keep their history, produce literature and create culture. Most human societies become parts of larger societal units in the course of time losing their original identity. From this preliminary beginning to accomplishing a knowledge-bank like the Vedas is a long run through ages. Nowhere else than in Bharatavarsa the accumulated knowledge has been systematically stored in the human memories creating a collective-human-memory and systematically transmitting the same from generations to generations undistorted. This is the unique “oral-tradition” of the Vedic culture and Vedic heredity.
The pre-Vedic-people handed down a vast number of Vedic societies living the Vedic culture. The identity of the different Vedic societies must have been determined by the variables of natural surroundings in the beginning. How the vast number of societies in spite of diversities evolved to the Vedic societies living the Vedic culture we will never know. Our knowledge is determined by the “Four Vedas” which were disseminated in all areas of Bharatavarsa. There is no mention in the Vedas that there were “centres” for the maintenance of the Vedic culture. All Vedic societies lived in affluence. All Vedic societies were familiar with divisions of work. All Vedic societies knew about the interdependent relationship between the community and the individual identity. The individuals were part and parcel of the community with their different identities. The individuals did not constitute the community. The community created rooms for individual pursuits flowing back to the community.
The Vedas were compiled by individual contributions. But there is no mention of individual authorship for any part. The individual contributors were “privileged” to contribute, not to earn privileges. During the last phase of the Upanishads a few Upanishads are individually authored. That was the beginning of the loss of the prevailing equalities in the Vedic societies living the Vedic culture. By that period the Vedic-people had evolved to the Upanishad-people. In all probability the Upanishad-people did not possess the intellectual power similar to the Vedic-people. Exemplarily we recall the gigantic intellectual dimensions of time-calculations of the Vedic-people. We are overwhelmed viewing the time calculations. How did they achieve this height? How did they create the Vedas? We have dealt with the Vedic-people in details in:
We know a little more about the post-Vedic people. They lived the Vedas disseminating the knowledge-bank in the Vedic societies for all practical purposes. The Vedic-people lived the Vedic language, the Vedic civilisations created in the Vedic societies, the post-Vedic literature and the Vedic culture. Obviously the Vedic-people did not add new elements of knowledge into the Vedas. For them the Vedic-knowledge-bank was complete. They were eager to preserve and to apply the Vedic knowledge in practice at all societal levels, in all walks of life. They fulfilled their dharma preserving their natural surroundings, i.e. fauna, flora and habitat. There are no indications that there were disharmonies amidst the Vedic-people.
In the course of incalculable time a section of the Vedic-people perceived the gradually growing gaps and contradictions between the Vedic knowledge and its application in the daily practice within the Vedic societies. A section of the Vedic-people viewed a gradual flattening of the Vedic language too. A section of the Vedic-people felt that preserving the Vedic knowledge and the Vedic language in the oral-tradition was not enough. The dynamic of the societal developments, especially of the technologies in the production were gradually deviating from the values of the acquired knowledge and the Vedic language was losing in precision. As a result the Vedic culture was getting gradually corrupted.
At this phase there had been disputes on the meanings of certain aspects of the Vedic knowledge. Carrier of these disputes was the language then used in general in the Vedic societies. The emerging literature dealing with different understandings of certain aspects of the Vedic knowledge was called the Upanishads. The language used in the Upanishads was simpler than the Vedic language. The Vedas are compiled in the most sophisticated language using 97 different sounds along with mimics and gestures. This language is called “chando bhasha”, we call it the “Vedic language” for convenience. The Upanishads are compiled in the second most sophisticated language needing 63/64 different sounds along with mimics and gestures. This “Vedic-language-light” is called the “Laukika Bhasha” which has become known as the “Sanskrit” language.
In Bharatavarsa the whole Vedic-knowledge-bank, i.e. the Vedas, is stored in collective-human-memory since time immemorial. The sounds of the Vedic language along with mimics and gestures are perfectly learnt from generations to generations and stored in memory. Thus the unique methodology, the “oral-tradition”, has been created to make sure that once acquired and accumulated human knowledge does not get lost. The Vedic-people knew that a language is a vehicle to transport knowledge, and that a vehicle for transferring knowledge has essentially to be “audio-visual” in original and not “staged” later.
The Vedic-people have created a number of secondary storages for knowledge as supports to the human memory as well. The chronology of the creations is not known. A chronology of the creations is irrelevant. The main secondary storage is the immediate dissemination of knowledge in the societies building up Vedic civilisations and the Vedic culture. In this process the knowledge is internalised and expressed in the daily practice. The other main secondary storage is the creation of the written-mode as an eventual support of the human memory. Applied knowledge is also stored in narrations, stories, poetries, songs, parable, metaphor, proverbs, practically in all walks of the daily life. These were primarily in the Oral-tradition, later also in the written-mode. Thus the sustaining Vedic culture was created in the Vedic societies in Bharatavarsa.
In our comprehension the pre-Vedic-people had realised by experiences that they had reached their limit of accumulation of knowledge on the universe. They summed up their knowledge in “theorems”. The theorems are put in metrics to minimise lapses of the memory. These theorems are put into the Four Vedas and handed down to the humanity by the Vedic-people. This juncture was the first caesura in the history of Bharatavarsa in our comprehension. The pre-Vedic-people then shifted their priority from searching for knowledge towards preserving and disseminating the accumulated knowledge. They created social institutions to preserve the Vedas and the Vedic language. There is no other entry to this Vedic “knowledge-bank” than by learning the Vedic language. The Vedic language is “audio-visual” as languages in general are. The oral-tradition created by the Vedic-people made it possible that the audio-visual knowledge-bank is available in our days too. In this process the pre-Vedic-people became gradually the post-Vedic-people.
The Vedic-people are unique in the history of the Mankind. They had attained the summit of human knowledge on the universe. So far, the Vedic-knowledge-bank has not been challenged. However, the pre-Vedic-people could not have known that they had reached the summit. In all probability they continued their urge to know more and became gradually frustrated not being able to add aspects to the Vedas. They had to realise the malice of reaching a peak. They had to realise that it was not less important to maintain and sustain the accumulated knowledge. In this process they had almost converted the peak to a plateau.
We are unable to calculate the time-span when the Vedic-people began feeling the necessity of building a dam against the low-tide of the Vedic culture. Efforts of such calculations of the time span will not add knowledge. The Vedic-people perceived the need of building dams at some period after reaching the peak of the Vedic knowledge. These dams were the Upanishads compiled in a light version of the Vedic language called the Sanskrit language. Thereafter nothing has been handed down in the Vedic language. In our comprehension the emergence of the Upanishads was the second caesura in the history of Bharatavarsa. The Vedic-people metamorphosed to the Upanishad-people.
The Upanishads are different interpretations of particular aspects of the Vedic knowledge. The “authors” of the Upanishads did their best to bridge the gulf between the Vedic knowledge-bank and the dynamics of “technological innovations” in the Vedic societies. The Upanishad-people had also learnt that all entities in the universe have a Beginning and an End. The span of “life” of the entities is different. The Upanishad-people had learnt reflecting on “time”. They might have hoped that human knowledge possesses other dimensions than entities in general.
In all probability they knew that in the course of time the Vedic knowledge will be lost when the solar-system comes to its end. So, why not try your best to prolong the span of “life” for the Vedic knowledge-bank up to the end of the solar-system? We do not know whether the Upanishad-people thought this way. We know only that they have maintained and preserved the Vedas and the Vedic language in the midst of changes in the societies bringing out qualitative different civilisations. And they have done their best in transferring the Vedic-knowledge-bank for the Upanishad-people in the Sanskrit language.
As ascertained earlier, the history of the pre-Vedic-people is lost. We shall never know in which time-cycles they lived, whether they knew what could happen with the accumulated human knowledge after the End of the “Kali Yuga” (the fourth phase of all previous time-cycles) of any of the time-cycles. We recall we are passing through the last phase of the 28th time-cycle. The Upanishad-people mark the second caesura in the long history of Bharatavarsa in our comprehension.
Nothing is known when the Vedic-people had begun their metamorphosis in the Upanishad-people and about the efforts of the Vedic-people to slow down the “low-tide”. The Upanishad-people had comprehended quite early the malice of reaching a summit. They soon knew about the inevitable down-trend. In all probability they realistically did not mobilise their energy to revive the Vedas, not even the Vedic language. At best they could preserve the Vedas and the Vedic language. They did accomplish this task excellently. Secondly they strengthened the application of the Vedic knowledge in all walks of daily life. Thirdly they successfully stopped the continuous flattening of the Vedic language by standardising the carrier of thoughts at the level of the “Vedic-language-light”, the Sanskrit language. All Upanishads were compiled in the Sanskrit language. As mentioned earlier in the late phase of the Upanishads a few of them was claimed to have been “authored” by individuals. This specific mention of individual authors was the beginning of a remarkable deviation from the Vedic heredity. The Upanishad-people have produced a large quantity of literature on the Vedic-knowledge-bank at various levels. All post-Upanishad literature is “authored” by individuals. The process of this deviation continued.
We recall, the Vedic societies of the pre-Vedic-people did not know anything like specific mention, specific credit or specific rewards for individuals for any type of work. The Vedas were compiled by many individuals being parts of the Vedic societies. The societies felt an urge to work for the section of “discoverers” (the knowledge front) and created facilities including the needed manpower to accomplish that work. All persons involved came back to the society after accomplishing the special missions to live their dharma in the society. We recall the Vedic heredity of four fundamental division of work that are needed to build up and to maintain a society in harmony and happiness.
The Vedic-societies were prosperous. The growth of productivity set free work capacity to pursue activities in many areas to improve the quality of life in the societies. The improvement of human life in the societies was defined by the Vedic-people as improving the human role in preserving the surrounded fauna, flora, habitat and caring for the harmony in the order of the nature. The Upanishad-people maintained this fundamental attitude towards the whole of the universe. They were however unable to avert organisational changes in the societies deviating from the values inherent in the Vedic heredity.
In some ages the Upanishad-people began feeling the need of a dam against the accelerating low-tide. They have produced vast amount of literature dealing with aspects of the Vedic knowledge. But they have not narrated the processes that will enable us to comprehend the momentums of the accelerated low-tide in the Vedic societies sliding away from the Vedic knowledge. We have to be contended with the Mahabharata, the dam the Upanishad-people had set up to resisting against worse. In this process the Upanishad-people became the Mahabharata-people. We put here our third caesura in the history of Bharatavarsa.
We take liberty of a comparison between the Upanishads and the Mahabharata. The Upanishads were compiled by “authors” who were part and parcel of the Vedic societies. They were guided by those four fundamental organisational functions dividing “works” to run a society in harmony. Inevitably there were many subdivisions of “works” within those four fundamental organisational functions. The many subdivisions of “works” did not interfere with the free flow of mobility and in the continuity of harmony. Thus the Upanishads were compiled by the Upanishad-people who had understood that the use of a common language was necessary to preserve the Vedic knowledge in practice by creating the “Vedic-language-light”, i.e. the Sanskrit language. The focus was on the preservation of the Vedic knowledge. In some ages the Upanishad-people began realising the dynamics of developments within the organisation of the Vedic societies. They perceived that the seed of claims for special credit by the workers at the knowledge front had sprouted in the late phase of the Upanishads and had spread over in all sections of the Upanishad-people. By its nature special claims lead invariably to discrimination, disparity, hierarchy within the people. In this phase the Upanishad-people began feeling that individual claims for more is a never ending spiral that ultimately lead to disintegration of the society. They were determined to build a dam against this accelerating low-tide. They created the Mahabharata focussing on the realities in the Vedic societies in a narrative style of the Sanskrit language comprehensible for all. The Mahabharata is an epical vivid description of Bharatavarsa and of the surrounding “world”. The Mahabharata does not preach, does not follow a mission, but let the people to draw their own conclusions.
The Mahabharata was disseminated in all Vedic societies in Bharatavarsa. The Mahabharata-people got thus an opportunity to learn about and reflect over the accelerating low-tide towards disintegration. The epic Mahabharata was a challenge for the people and the “authors” of the Mahabharata trusted in the wisdom of the people drawing their own conclusions, individually and collectively. The Mahabharata was narrated, i.e. in the face-to-face mode of “communication”.
The design of this epical narration is unique. It tells a story of a large exemplary kinship-group in Bharatavarsa. An internal issue of disagreement on property matters creates dissonances and disputes. The kinship is divided in two distinct “parties” on the issue of the dispute. It is a dispute on “justice”. One part of the kinship-group, the “Kauravas”, disowned and usurped all material assets of the “Pandavas”. All negotiations on a peaceful settlement failed. Ultimately it came to a battle. In the battle the victim-party, the “Pandavas”, won. This battle has been denominated as “The Great Battle”.
Around this rather “simple” story the Mahabharata has compiled a “history” of the human-kind. It has tried to define the demarcation-line of human minds drifting away towards inhumanity blinded by greed for personal ownership of properties. The Mahabharata does not preach. All facets of life in human societies have been described. All facets of dissonance within the human societies have been described. All patterns of smaller groups in human societies and their interrelationship have been described. All patterns of relationships between the human-kind have been described. All types of individual feelings have been described. These are set into the whole range of the diversities of nature on the earth. What is found in the epic Mahabharata can be found elsewhere. What cannot be found in the epic Mahabharata cannot be found elsewhere. To recall, the “Great Battle” narrated as the “worst-case-scenario” after the end of the Dwapara Yuga (the third phase of the 28th time-cycle).
The epic Mahabharata was the dam built by the Mahabharata-people with the purpose of slowing down the low-tide of the Vedic culture. They were concerned seeing “battles” to securing “properties”. The “Great Battle” was narrated as the “worst-case-scenario” after the Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta was recorded. It is irrelevant to raise questions in regard to the quality of the dam that the Mahabharata-people erected by compiling the epic Mahabharata. The Mahabharata-people did what they thought to be done fulfilling their dharma. We refer to facts as they have developed in the course of the Kali Yuga that begun after the “Great Battle”.
The silent resistance against the two Segregation Movements, Jain-Dharma and Buddhist-Teachings, initiated by scions of “Rulers” some 2800 years ago, led to their practical decline. The Mahabharata-people lived a quite peaceful life. We recall, these two movements emerged during the period of wars for hegemony over territories in Bharatavarsa by the “Rulers” of Magadha. Both these movements propagated more or less identical “consolation” to the “Ruled”. Both these movements propagated that the dichotomy “wealth and riches of the Rulers” and the “poverty of the Ruled” were not interdependent and were not relevant for a fulfilled life. The highest human attainment could be achieved individually overcoming the “sorrows” and living an ascetic and meditative life. It was not relevant to know why, how and where from the social disparities and exploitation of a majority by a minority or “sorrows” arise. This happened in the end-phase of the Kali Yuga. The Mahabharata-people remained on the path of the Vedic culture as good as they could, live their dharma, fulfilling their individual duties in collective interests.
The fall of the Maurya-Dynasty of Magadha led to many “Regional-Rulers”. Those two Segregation Movements became marginal in Bharatavarsa. The traditional sector of productions and reproductions continued to flourish. The sector at the knowledge-front was not able to maintain the standard of knowledge set by the “Shankaracharyas” as narrated elsewhere. But they were able to preserve the Vedas, the Vedic language, the Upanishads, the Mahabharata and the Sanskrit language in the oral-tradition.
It is not known whether the attempt of the foray by Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian was disseminated to the Mahabharata-people. There are no reports in the Sanskrit language on the developments in the lands West of Bharatavarsa. No reports on the Moses-people, on the Jesus-people, on the Muhammad-people. No reports on their intolerant and inherently violent claims or on their Belief of being specially chosen people of an invisible and indefinable Supreme Lord governing over the humanity on the earth. The Mahabharata-people could have known many aspects of those developments through the maritime activities of the section of “distributers”, but they were obviously not concerned enough to narrate their observations in the West of Bharatavarsa. The Mahabharata-people did never discuss a category like Belief.
Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian had given the first signal of forays in foreign lands. When he reached the north-west of Bharatavarsa his ruffians were exhausted being on forays for some ten years. So it has been narrated. Forays in foreign lands were alien to the people of Bharatavarsa. It is under-researched whether or to what extent there had been “fights” between the foreign ruffians and the “local” and “regional” Rulers in the North-West. The “military” potential of the then supra-regional “Ruling Dynasties” was not put under test. The “military” potential of the Nanda Dynasty of Magadha was strong and it was expanding to the West in wars.
Whatever might have been the causes, Alexander’s ruffians refused to fight. Alexander had to retreat. The Hellenic “domination” in the West of Bharatavarsa had passed its zenith by reaching Bharatavarsa only. On his way back Alexander died when he was 32 years old. His supreme commanders (“Diadochis”) fought against each other to succeed Alexander. After the total crash of the first inhuman undertaking of looting Bharatavarsa the “Diadochis” were keen to rescue as much conquered lands as possible. Ultimately they divided the rest of the conquered foreign lands amongst themselves.
After the death of Alexander there was no looting, no damages and no massacres in the north-western parts of Bharatavarsa caused by foreign people. The lootings, the damages and the massacres caused by Alexander in the North-West of Bharatavarsa are under-researched. In all probability the looting of the people did not exceed the limit beyond the daily need of feeding their horses and feeding themselves. That was bad enough. Seleucus I Nicator, one of the three “Diadochis” succeeding Alexander, took over the whole eastern part of the Hellenic occupied lands.
In the mean time the strong and aggressive Nanda Dynasty of Magadha was toppled by Chandragupta Maurya founding the more aggressive Maurya-dynasty of Magadha.-After two years of wars between Chandragupta and Seleucus I Nicator these two “Rulers” made a treaty. Accordingly Chandragupta Maurya-took over lands far beyond the range of Pāriyātra Parvata of the western Himalayas from Seleucus I Nicator and the Hellenes opened an “embassy” at the court of Chandragupta Maurya in Pataliputra in Magadha lead by Megasthenes. It is remarkable that this treaty is almost a forgotten deal. There are no indications that Chandragupta Maurya had thought of opening an “embassy” at the court of Seleucus I Nicator as well. In the History of Bharatavarsa the Maurya-Dynasty could have pioneered exchanging ambassadors. This was not done.
Quite a few Hellenes took advantage of the friendly relationship and travelled over lands in Bharatavarsa. Megasthenes lived in Bharatavarsa for many years, travelled thoroughly, was overwhelmed seeing the Vedic culture and compiled in the Greek language four volumes on his perceptions, observations, discussions and knowledge of the contemporary state of affairs in Bharatavarsa for the Hellenes-people. So it has been handed down yet unchallenged. These four “volumes” were the beginning of accounts on Bharatavarsa in the lands west of Bharatavarsa. Some 3000 years ago during the end-phase of the Kali Yuga. These four “volumes” were titled: 1. Geography, fauna, flora; 2. Customs, cities, administration; 3. Society, philosophy; 4. Archaeology, myths, history. The title: Tá Indiká (Τά ινδικά). Literally translated: The “Indian” matters. The Hellenes knew about the legendary riches, but knew little of the Vedic culture before Megasthenes’ accounts. So it has been handed down and universally accepted.
These four “volumes” compiled by Megasthenes have become the roots of knowledge about the ancient Bharatavarsa spread in the vast lands West of Bharatavarsa if we trust the Encylopædia Britannica that states:
“Megasthenes, (born c. 350 bc—died c. 290), ancient Greek historian and diplomat, author of an account of India, the Indica, in four books. An Ionian, he was sent by the Hellenistic king Seleuces I as an ambassador to the Mauryan emperor Chandragupta. He gave the most complete account of India then known to the Greek world and was the source for work by the later historians Diodorus, Strabo, Pliny, and Arrian. The major faults of Megasthenes’ work were mistakes in details, an uncritical acceptance of Indian folklore, and a tendency to idealize Indian culture by the standards of Greek philosophy.”
Well, the Editors of the Encylopædia Britannica were not interested to know how the Hellenes knew about the legendary riches accumulated in Bharatavarsa. They have skipped the issue that no foray is planned in the blue. A foray is an investment and it requires information and later a logistic. the Editors of the Encylopædia Britannica were interested to denigrate Megasthenes narrations referring to “the later historians Diodorus, Strabo, Pliny, and Arrian“. The Encylopædia Britannica trusted more these later historians maintaining: “major faults of Megasthenes’ work were mistakes in details, an uncritical acceptance of Indian folklore, and a tendency to idealize Indian culture by the standards of Greek philosophy”. What were the bases of this trust? We shall get back to these “the later historians Diodorus, Strabo, Pliny, and Arrian“ in a while.
How could the Editors of the Encylopædia Britannica know that Megasthenes had “authored” four books titled Indika? Did the “Editors” see and read those books?-Did Megasthenes claim to be a Greek philosopher? Did he claim to have given “the most complete account of India then known to the Greek world”?
Did the Editors of the Encylopædia Britannica see and read “the later historians Diodorus, Strabo, Pliny, and Arrian“ to be able to spread “major faults of Megasthenes’ work were mistakes in details, an uncritical acceptance of Indian folklore, and a tendency to idealize Indian culture by the standards of Greek philosophy”? The Editors of the Encylopædia Britannica have not answered these or any similar questions. These questions have not been raised yet. Not even the simplest question: how did the Editors of the Encylopædia Britannica know details about “writings” of Megasthenes who “wrote” some 2250 years ago? What was the purpose of the Encylopædia Britannica? The consumers of the Encylopædia Britannica must have blind trust in its writers and in its editors. We shall get back to the Encylopædia Britannica in a while.
The negative connotations in regard to the narrations of Megasthenes have grown in our days. The print-media have just been overrun by the electronic media like the Wiki-products. We find in the Wikipedia (the highlights are ours): “Indika (Greek: Ἰνδικά; Latin: Indica) is an account of Mauryan India by Megasthenes. The original book is now lost, but its fragments have survived in later Greek and Latin works. The earliest of these works are those by Diodorus Siculus, Strabo (Geographica), Pliny, and Arrian (Indica).“
The purpose of the Wiki-products and the procedures how Wikipedia fakes history has been dealt with in details in:
In a hard way we had to learn to question published writings in general and reference books in particular. Encylopædia Britannica is exemplary. The Editors of the Encylopædia Britannica were and are well-paid persons. They are asked to read and to express their personal assessments of published matters. Asked by whom? For what purposes?
“Encyclopædia Britannica, the oldest English-language general encylopaedia. The Encyclopædia Britannica was first published in 1768, when it began to appear in Edinburgh, Scotland. (…)
“The first edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica was published and printed in Edinburgh for the engraver Andrew Bell and the printer Colin Macfarquhar by “a society of gentlemen in Scotland” and was sold by Macfarquhar at his printing office on Nicolson Street. (…)
The title page begins as follows: “Encyclopædia Britannica; OR, A DICTIONARY OF ARTS and SCIENCES, COMPILED UPON A NEW PLAN.” The work could not compete in bulk with the 68 volumes of Johann Heinrich Zedler’s Universal Lexicon or with the French Encyclopédie, whose 17 volumes of text had recently been completed. But it did challenge comparison with all previous dictionaries of arts and sciences, large or small, because of its new plan. (…)
“According to Robert Kerr, about 10,000 copies of the third edition were printed, and the profit to Bell and Macfarquhar’s heirs was £42,000.”
The quotes are of the Editors of the “Encyclopædia Britannica”.
We get back to Megasthenes and to the process that reveals how “history” is faked. It is on record that Megasthenes, almost a contemporary of Alexander, was never a soldier or mercenary. He was the first Greek ambassador at the court of the Maurya-Dynasty, lived many years in Bharatavarsa and travelled there a lot. He is said to have compiled four “volumes” on Bharatavarsa, titled “Indica”. These were the first narrations on the “far-off-land” from Greece based on real personal experiences.
None of these “volumes” are available anywhere. Did these “volumes” ever exist as volumes in the written-mode of the Greek language? It is not known. In all probability Megasthenes narrated after his return. Assuming once that the Hellenes had already created a written-mode of their language and there was a single rational reason for Megasthenes to acquire the skill of reading and writing: on which writing-surface Megasthenes could have written; on paper, on textile, on Vellum, on parchment, on Papyrus, on potteries, on woods, on stones? We shall get back to materials as writing surface in a while.
It is said that Tá Indiká (Τά ινδικά) is available only in “fragments”. Are these fragments available? Have the Editors of the “Encyclopædia Britannica” seen and sifted one of those “fragments”? On which writing-surface are those “fragments”? Is the handwriting identical on the “fragments” like the original? Is the surface of writing of the “fragments” identical? Is the handwriting on the “fragments” the original handwriting of Megasthenes? Who could have verified the handwriting of Megasthenes? On which writing-surface did he write? Many questions have to be raised. Answers to the questions we leave to the dating acrobats.
In all probability Megasthenes did not write those “volumes”; like Socrates he also narrated his “books”. After his return from Bharatavarsa he narrated to his contemporaries about his observations, perceptions and experiences. He had stored his understandings of “Indika” in his memory. The contents of his narrations were disseminated to his listeners, the listeners stored those contents in their memory and the listeners re-narrated the contents to their kin, friends and acquaintances. This is the process how collective-memory is created. The collective memory is by its nature more comprehensive, more authentic than a “written”-mode can be. The collective memory has many inbuilt correctives. The collective memory can be incomplete, but cannot be faked.
We recall the “Encyclopædia Britannica”, an exemplary seller of “knowledge”, and read in parts. (highlighted by us, also the names):
“The campaign of Alexander made no impression on the Indian mind, for there are no references to it in Indian sources. A significant outcome of his campaign was that some of his Greek companions—such as Onesicritus, Aristobulus, and his admiral, Nearchus—recorded their impressions of India. Later Greek and Roman authors such as Strabo and Arrian, as well as Pliny and Plutarch, incorporated much of this material into their writings. However, some of the accounts are fanciful and make for better fiction than history. (…)
“The treaty ushered in an era of friendly relations between the Mauryas and the Seleucids, with exchanges (exchanges) of envoys. One among them, the Greek historian Megasthenes, left his observations in the form of a book, the Indica. Although the original has been lost, extensive quotations from it survive in the works of the later Greek writers Strabo, Diodorus, and Arrian. (…)
“Megasthenes, (born c. 350 bc—died c. 290), ancient Greek historian and diplomat, author of an account of India, the Indica, in four books. An Ionian, he was sent by the Hellenistic king Seleucus I as an ambassador to the Mauryan emperor Chandragupta. He gave the most complete account of India then known to the Greek world and was the source for work by the later historians Diodorus, Strabo, Pliny, and Arrian. The major faults of Megasthenes’ work were mistakes in details, an uncritical acceptance of Indian folklore, and a tendency to idealize Indian culture by the standards of Greek philosophy.”
We hold back our additional commentaries in spite of contradictions in the texts of Encyclopædia Britannica. We try to get a chronological order of the “authorities” referred to and try to discover them through printed “references” like the “Encyclopædia Britannica”. There are no records on Onesicritus. The first handed down reference was given by Strabo, so it is said. He is the primary source referring to Onesicritus as a combating eye-witness of Alexander’s forays. One crux of this reference is that Strabo lived some four hundred years later than Alexander or Onesicritus.-Another crux of this reference is that we do not know when, how, by whom Strabo was discovered. Did he live? Did he write?
Assuming that he did live and write, how could Strabo know anything about Onesicritus? He has not disclosed how he came to know about one Onesicritus who was later promoted from a combating eye-witness of Alexander’s forays to the commander of Alexander's fleet by much later born Plutarch, Arrian of Nicomedia, Lucian of Samosata or Diogenes Laërtius. These later born celebrated reporters on Alexander’s forays have not disclosed their source of information. Well, Strabo obviously did not possess the fantasy creating the Alexander's fleet in Bharatavarsa. Alexander's fleet in Bharatavarsa? When and how did Alexander build up a fleet in Bharatavarsa while he was on retreat? A fleet just out of the blue? What are the prerequisites to build up a fleet? Well, no questions, no answers. The celebrated “later historians Diodorus, Strabo, Pliny, and Arrian“ have not been questioned yet.
Arrian of Nicomedia, a Roman public servant, a military commander and a “historian” of Greek origin, is the primary source referring to Aristobulus as a friend of Alexander accompanying the foray as an architect and military engineer and to Nearchus as the “Navarch” (“Admiral)” of Alexander’s Army.-Arrian lived some five hundred years later than Aristobulus-and Nearchus. Plutarch was a contemporary of Strabo.
Who were those “later historians Diodorus, Strabo, Pliny, and Arrian“ elevated to primary source of “world history” in the Encyclopædia Britannica. We shall get to these “later historians” in a little while. It is evident that Alexander the Macedonian “Prince” knew about the legendary riches accumulated in a “far-away-land” eastward from Greece. Forays need investments in the “logistics” and in the strategy. He was coached and encouraged in his strategic planning also by Aristotle. How could Aristotle know about the riches in Bharatavarsa? Evidently Megasthenes was the first narrating Hellenic “sight-seer” in Bharatavarsa. Why did Megasthenes denominate this land as “Indiká”? We shall see whether those “later historians Diodorus, Strabo, Pliny, and Arrian“ knew answers to our queries.
An entry to Bharatavarsa was feasible only through the Pāriyātra Parvata of the western Himalayas or by seas. Exploring foreign lands by seas presupposes “hardware” like constructed vessels and “software” like the knowledge of winds and currents on the oceans generated by extraterrestrial luminaries. Which ancient civilisations possessed the necessary timbers for oceangoing-ship-building and had acquired knowledge of winds and currents on the oceans that are needed to reach Bharatavarsa on sea-routes? Did ancient Mediterranean civilisations know anything about the vast water-surfaces on the earth beyond the limit of the Mediterranean Sea? No questions, no answers.
We are back to those “later historians”. Diodorus is a phantom figure. There are no evidences of his physical existence. Some 1650 years ago a high-grade Catholic Church functionary, later St. Jerome, referred in his Chronicon to one Diodorus Siculus as a Greek historian, as the author of a “universal history” (Bibliotheca historica), who lived in Sicily some 2000 years ago. Jerome, born as Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus, is best known for his translation of the Bible into the Vulgate-Latin-language.
The later St. Jerome was neither of Greek, nor of Roman origin. He was born and brought up in Stridon, a bishopric seat of the “Roman-province” Dalmatia, in today’s Bosnia. His mother tongue was Illyrian, so it is said. We won’t enter into a rather questionable “linguistic classification” of this language. The fact is that Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus had learnt at a later age the Latin language in Rome, was baptized and made a career in the Catholic Church. He learnt also some Greek, so it is said. He undertook a revision of the “Latin-Bible” in the written mode. This original Latin-Bible was a translation of a Greek version of the New Testament. He became a celebrated scholar and was later declared to be a Saint.
We are unable to discern when and how St. Jerome could discover Diodorus. How could he know that Diodorus was a Sicilian-Greek-historian, who had authored 40 volumes on a “universal history” in the Greek language? Where are those 40 volumes on a “universal history” in the Greek language? Most of the volumes compiled by Diodorus are said to be lost. Were these volumes lost before or after the discovery of St. Jerome in Rome after some 350 years?
St. Jerome reported also that Diodorus had travelled Egypt and Rome only. How could he have authored a “universal history”? The volumes compiled by Diodorus are lost. However, some reconstructed texts of Diodorus, also on Bharatavarsa, are available in the “late European languages”. So it is said. Some reconstructed texts on Bharatavarsa? Where did they come from? How a Sicily-born person could have access to reliable “sources” on “India”? Were there “reliable-sources” before Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press some 600 years ago? How could a person like Diodorus Siculus know about events that happened 250 years ago of his time in far off “lands” Eastwards of Rome and Egypt?
We recall. Some 1650 years ago St. Jerome had prepared a “hand-written Manuscript” in the Latin language called Chronicon. In that manuscript he reported to have discovered 40 Volumes on ancient world history in the Greek language compiled by Sicily-born Diodorus.-St. Jerome had also claimed to have known that Diodorus had lived some 350 ago of his time. Instead of a comment on these miraculous claims we raise two questions. Was the hand-written “Manuscript” called Chronicon by St. Jerome in the Latin language ever copied in the hand-written-mode? When and by whom this hand-written “Manuscript” in the Latin language called Chronicon by St. Jerome was discovered?
In the Chronicon by St. Jerome it has been asserted that Diodorus had read Megasthenes on “India” who lived many years in Bharatavarsa and narrated a lot some 2500 years ago. Diodorus did not care to disclose to St. Jerome where and how he got hold of the “volumes” compiled by Megasthenes on “India”. We are unable to comprehend (hi)stories of this kind: the Sicily-born Diodorus was able to “read” Megasthenes who lived in Greece some 250 years earlier than Diodorus. and that Jerome discovered him after another some 500 years later. Well! Which Greek dialect did Megasthenes speak? Ionian?
Assuming once that Megasthenes had written down those four volumes of Tá Indiká (Τά ινδικά), he could not have used stones, woods, or potteries as surface for writing which are neither specious nor transportable. We leave this issue to the dating-acrobats to ascertain on which transportable and durable surface Megasthenes could have written and where and how this comprehensive hand-written “Manuscript” could have been preserved. We are over-challenged to compete with the wonder that is the prevailing contemporary “hi(story)”.
Strabo, a scion of a well-to-do family, lived also some 2000 years ago in Amaseia in Pontus (today’s Turkey near the Black sea), when the Romans had conquered the whole of the Greek dominated “lands”. After the Roman conquest of Greece the most of the privileged Greeks made advances to the new “Rulers” offering their services. Likewise Strabo settled down in Rome as an “intellectual prostitute” when he was 21 years old. The Romans celebrated him in the course of time as a Greek geographer, philosopher and historian. A lot of travels have been ascribed to him – in Egypt, in Kush, in Tuscany, in Ethiopia, but never near Bharatavarsa. Like many others he also pleased the Roman Rulers in their self-esteem that they were the greatest. Whatever he might have learnt, he knew nothing of Bharatavarsa. It has been ascribed that he wrote a “major work” titled Historica hypomnemata which is lost. So it is said. How could this be ascertained? When was it ascertained? Who ascertained it? Why did Strabo deal with “India”? How could he have dealt with “India”? Did Strabo write? On which writing-surface did he write? We do not know.
There were two Plinys, Pliny the Elder and his nephew and later his adoptive son Pliny the Younger. They lived some 100 years later than Strabo, mainly in Rome. None of them travelled. None of them was “Historian”. Pliny the Elder was a “lawyer” and “administer”. Pliny the Younger was “politician” and Judge. Both of them were thoroughly Roman “nobles”. In all probability none of them needed any knowledge of the Greek language for making their carrier although the less cultured Romans kept all Greek traditions in high esteem. None of them were anywhere near Bharatavarsa. How could they have “written” anything historical on “India”?
Arrian was a scion of a rich “Greek family” in the then Nicomedia in today’s Turkey. He lived some 150 years later than the Plinys, i.e. some 1750 years ago of our time. His full name was: Lucius Flavius Arrianus, indicating that he was a scion of a “citizen of Rome” since at least one generation. All his life Arrian served the Roman “Rulers” in various political offices. He was not a “historian”. He did not travel. Arrian is credited for many “volumes”.
Only the volumes, “Anabasis” and „Indica“, are not lost, so it is said. These two volumes are available, translated in many late European languages. We shall get back to these two volumes in a little while. Who and when it was ascertained that Arrian had authored many volumes? But why and how all other works of Arrian are lost? Were they ever written? There are no answers to these questions. The questions have not been raised yet. What does the Encyclopædia Britannicatell in prints on paper?
“Megasthenes, (born c. 350 bc—died c. 290), ancient Greek historian and diplomat, author of an account of India, the Indica, in four books. An Ionian, he was sent by the Hellenistic king Seleucus I on embassies to the Mauryan emperor Chandragupta. He gave the most complete account of India then known to the Greek world and was the source for work by the later historians Diodorus, Strabo, Pliny, and Arrian. The major faults of Megasthenes’ work were mistakes in details, an uncritical acceptance of Indian folklore, and a tendency to idealize Indian culture by the standards of Greek philosophy.”
The last sentence in this small quote is remarkable. The wonder that is the modern (hi)story, the Encyclopædia Britannica and the likes included.
How could these “later historians Diodorus, Strabo, Pliny, and Arrian“ write any historical accounts on Bharatavarsa? How could Arrian write those historical accounts called “Anabasis” and „Indica“ dealing with details on the forays of Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian? Why and how all other works of Arrian are lost?
All later born “historians” have placed those “later historians Diodorus, Strabo, Pliny, and Arrian“ as demigods in the ancestral gallery of “historians”. Well, historians are persons dealing with “history”, so is the claim. What is “history” and how do the “historians” define “history”? A journey through the printed “references” to find answers to these two rather simple questions is a journey through jungles of confusions to a dead-end, to cul-de-sac. The term History is rooted in the Greek language meaning “enquire from those who know”.-This meaning was manipulated in the Latin language, then in French and ultimately in English languages. “History” and “historians” are terms created for manipulation. These are deceptive packaging as “terms” generally are. Being simple-minded and straightforward we take liberty to follow a straight way of scrutiny in regard to “historians”. We first identify those who are celebrated in the community of “historians”, who is considered to be the “father” of the “historians” and scrutinize the course of their life. Thus we try to comprehend their socio-political role before we decide to deal with their narrated or with their hand-written or in their printed deliberations.
The “scholars” of the prevailing “scholarship” consider Herodotus of Halicarnassus to be the father of the historians. It is claimed that he “wrote” accounts of major wars launched by a Persian “Ruler” against the Greeks some 5000 years ago and he “published” his only work in the Ionic-Version of the Greek language. There had been evidently quite a few so-called Greco-Persian Wars. A “history” of these wars is credited to him. It is also claimed that “his History” was the best, has survived through the centuries and is available in our days at least in an English version titled “The History”. The way of his presentation elevated him to a genuine “historian” from the common “story-tellers”. Well!
It is not known when and where Herodotus was born or when or where he lived or when or where he died. Whatever is known about him in our time has been inferred from his “The History”. Assuming that Herodotus had written by hand on such a durable surface, with such an ink that the discoverer of this hand-written “manuscript” could read his “The History”, the question will arise: did he write his autobiography or did he write “history”? How can it be inferred from his “The History” that he was a scion of a well-to-do Greek family living in a township called “Halicarnassus” located in the south-west of Turkey of our time, but then under the control of the Persian “Ruler”? Was he conversant of the Greek and the Persian languages? We know nothing more about him.
We would not know about his existence unless a celebrated Roman politician and writer, Marcus Tullius Cicero would have claimed that he was overwhelmed reading his “The History”. This Roman politician and writer has been credited to have raised Herodotus as the Father of a subject called history some 500 years later. This assertion has not been challenged yet. It is a riddle how a Roman politician in office could become a historian. Whatsoever.
The malice of this cute story is that Cicero could not have read “The History” by Herodotus because Herodotus did not write. Herodotus narrated his collections of narrated stories in the air following the practice of his time. He made a living by his narrative entertainments. He was a contemporary of Socrates whose narrations were handed down by Plato and Zenophon only following the practice of that time. Nothing is known about who had or could have collected the collections of narrated stories by Herodotus.
In all probability the written-mode of the Greek language was not created then. Even if a written-mode of the Greek language was in making only very few people would have been conversant with it, alike those few people claiming, for example, to have deciphered antique sketches on stones or woods in Egypt, Persia or elsewhere. Even if we benevolently conceded that Herodotus had written his “The History”, we would definitely be eager to know the kind of material as writing surface on which Herodotus could have written, check the durability of that material and of the ink used. We leave the malice of the cute “tale of Herodotus” told by Cicero to the “historians” to exercise their art of creating (hi)stories exemplarily. Five hundred years are “a hell of a lot of time”.
Whatsoever we leave Herodotus after providing a link that reveals the horizon of the celebrated Father of History:
In our simple-minded and straight-forward approach we try to collect handed down information on the then existing social order in the vast region in the West of Bharatavarsa. Nothing has been handed down on the living conditions of the “producers” of means-for-living. Almost nothing is known about the local and regional “Rulers” and on the predicament of the “Ruled”. In all probability there was a changing “net-work of Rulers” at various levels leading to “supra-regional-Rulers”. The “Rulers” had their families, relatives, friends and admirers. This tiny minority owned and possessed everything that could be possessed. The “Rulers” made the rules of all “peeking-orders” valid for the whole society. This whole minority of owners and possessors of “properties” did live at the cost of the producing majority.
Our comprehension expressed in plain and straightforward diction is that the societies in the vast lands West of Bharatavarsa resembled to a pyramid having the shape of the fruit called “pears”. On the top is the supreme “Ruler” followed by “Nobles”, “Aristocrats” and the up-coming “Merchants”-cum-“service-providers”. The rest of the society, the majority people fall into the category “slaves” having no rights and possessed not much more than their life only.
The question of mobility amongst the “Rulers”, “Nobles” and “Aristocrats” did not arise. It is not handed down how this thin-minority-class of “Rulers”, “Nobles” and “Aristocrats” evolved to “Rulers”, “Nobles” and “Aristocrats”. We imagine it was a long process of arbitrary and ruthless violence exercised by this minority on the majority. We also do not know about the development processes leading to the class of “Merchants”-cum-“service-providers”. This class was not off-suit of the “Rulers”, “Nobles” and “Aristocrats”, i.e. the “Ruling-class”. This class did not own land-properties to begin with.
We assume that the emergence of this intermediate class was the result of a “pecking order” for the “slaves” set by the “Ruling-class”. The higher-ranked slaves could acquire “rights” offering special services. The growth of this intermediate class was determined by the growing power of resistance amongst the “slaves”. In the course of time this intermediate-class was large and powerful enough to challenge the absolute-power of the ruling-class and ultimately to share powers with the ruling-class. They created a name for their class as well: “citizens”, the class of “citizens”.
The only chance of escaping slavery, so it was propagated, was to be picked up to the class of citizens for special services. They could become a citizen, when they acquired wealth to procure properties. The citizens bargained with the “Ruling-class” for more rights. The class of citizens never looked back to their root, the slaves. They aspired to be included to the “aristocrats” by rendering special services to the “Ruling-class”. Almost all the males of this class participated in wars as soldier or mercenary. These few basics bring us back to the “Greek-scholars” in general and to Herodotus in particular assuming that he was not a phantom.
Herodotus collected news, information, stories on wars and re-narrated the narrations that were in the “air” after relating these to his personal observations and experiences. There was absolutely no “market” for anything else for Herodotus and the likes. His class or the other higher-ranked classes did not produce anything to maintain their physical-existence, i.e. “foodstuffs and utilities”. Herodotus competed with other narrators to earn his living. He had to be entertaining enough. The narrations of the story-tellers were a mixture of fantasies, fictions, narrated facts on the past and their personal observations. The sellable qualities were decisive, not facts, not truths.
The narrations of the “ancient Greek scholars” had little to do with knowledge and with accumulation of knowledge. They concealed their interests entertainingly in sellable packages and propagated them. The predicament of the “slaves” was never a subject for the deliberations of the Greek-scholars. Many of these entertainment-packages have later been sold as “scholarly deliberations”, as “History”. Cicero crowned Herodotus as the “Father of History” some 500 years later. It is not known whether Cicero narrated or wrote. Irrespective of whether a written-mode of the Greek and of the Latin languages were created by then there was no market for stories in the written-mode simply because they could not be duplicated for sales without great difficulties.
Herodotus knew nothing of the lands beyond the East of Persia. He could not have-come across the narrations of one Ctesias of Cindus who was a few decades junior to him. Plato and Zenophon were contemporaries of Ctesias. Only “Diodorus the phantom” of the “later historians Diodorus, Strabo, Pliny, and Arrian“ referred to Ctesias of Cindus after a few centuries. So it is said. It has not been questioned how Diodorus could refer to Ctesias. No questions, no answers.
The Greek Ctesias was a mercenary in Persia, lived many years as a “medical man” at the court of the Persian Artaxerxes II. Being a mercenary at the court of Artaxerxes II he collected many narrations on Greco-Persian wars from the perspective of the Persian-Rulers and stored them in his memory. On his return to Greece he became a competitor narrating Greco-Persian war events from a different perspective. To be competitive in the “Greek-market” of narrations, however, he had to twist and adjust his stories to make them sellable. But his narrations were not sellable in the mainstream market. His case reveals exemplary how narrations on sociopolitical events (“history”) become instrumental favoring particular interests.
An “event” is not a fall-out from the sky at whatever level. Sociopolitical events are expressions and results of clashing interests.-Events produce losers and winners. At one end of the continuum of events are the distributional struggles and at the other end are “battles”, wars and forays. Only the participants and “observers” can narrate an event. No one would narrate without a demand of listening to. And no one would narrate without an interest. Narrations are by its nature filtered through interests. Demands are created by those who can afford buy; by the winners. The losers do not possess resources to mobilize “demands” of narrations and offer opportunities for those who can earn a living as narrators. This is how the market of narrations is created. And: He, who pays the piper, calls the tune.
All early narrators had to store their collected “information” on past events in memory. Regardless of whether their spoken language had developed a written-mode or not they were compelled to store their collected “information” in memory. On which surface of materials could they have stored “information” in written-mode? In all probability the early narrators were unable to read and write. These “skills” came up much later. Even then there was no need to spend time to read and write. The oral-mode of the language was the call of the day. And narrated episodes, events were instantly disseminated and stored in the memories of the listeners and were re-narrated and re-narrated. This procedure of creating collective human memory is history.
Being a mercenary in Persia for many years Ctesias was also exposed to “stories” in the Persian “air” on a land beyond the East of Persia. He was amazed and overwhelmed listening to details of a human society that was fundamentally different than that of the Greek and the Persian societies. The Persians knew about them. Ctesias collected all available details of this far-off-land that the Persians talked about. On his return he re-narrated the stories about this foreign land. This foreign land was Bharatavarsa.
The first ever reference to Bharatavarsa for the Greeks came through Ctesias. These narrations were not to be adjusted to the demands of the market. These narrations of Ctesias were more authentic. The “stories” on Bharatavarsa in the Persian air were not propagated by particular interests. These were Persian perceptions of a land “East of Persia”. It is remarkable to note that none of those “stories” in the Persian air hinted a single war between Persia and the legendary rich land that was so different in most aspects. Ctesias made it known to the Greeks that the Eastern border of Persia was not the end of the “human world”. There was no market in Greece for these narrations. The Greeks of his time did have a closed mind. We recall the horizons of Herodotus, the “Father of History”.
The details of Persian knowledge on Bharatavarsa are not known. Even the details of Ctesias’ narrations in Greece are not known. Ctesias was systematically marginalized because of his narrations on Greco-Persian wars from the Persian perspectives. Nonetheless Ctesias’ narrations are not completely lost. Even marginalized narrations remain in the memory of the listeners and listeners re-narrate. This is the nature of narrations. Marginalized narrations may become in the course of time fragmental of the whole but they are not lost. We keep in mind that there had never been a second “Ctesias”. We cite an example showing how Ctesias’ narrations have been denigrated, devaluated and how History is faked (highlights are ours):
“Ctesias, (born late 5th century bc, Cnidus, Caria [now in Turkey]), Greek physician and historian of Persia and India (India?) whose works were popular and influential in antiquity. In 405 bc Ctesias traveled to the Persian court, where he remained as physician under the rulers Darius II and Artaxerxes II. He claimed to have treated Artaxerxes for wounds inflicted by his brother, Cyrus, at the Battle of Cunaxa in 401 (an episode related by Xenophon in Anabasis, Book I).
Ctesias returned to Greece in 398 and began writing (writing?) his Persica, a history of Assyria-Babylonia in 23 books. Books I–VI included a history of Assyria and the Medes, and the last 10 books were a more detailed account from the death of Xerxes (465) to 398. Although Ctesias claimed that his history was based on Persian archives and state records and therefore was far superior to Herodotus’s history, what survives is full of romantic stories, exotic anecdotes, court gossip, and lists that are of dubious reliability. The work (work?) no longer exists, except in an abstract compiled by the patriarch Photius of Constantinople (flourished c. ad 860). Ctesias also wrote a history of India (Indica) that was based on reports of Persian visitors and of Indian merchants and envoys to the Persian court. Although legendary and fabulous, it was the only systematic account of India until Alexander the Great’s invasion of that country.”
This has been written by “The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica“. These “Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica” relied upon the only “source” that is “the patriarch Photius of Constantinople (flourished c. ad 860)”. Photius indicated that he had made an abstract of the original deliberations of Ctesias. Did he ever see the original “works” of Ctesias? Where did he look through the original “works” of Ctesias? How could he have examined any of Ctesias’ original “works” to preparing an “abstract”?
Ctesias never wrote, he narrated. Any average Editor could have found out that the abstract of Ctesias’ original “works” by Photius some thirteen centuries later was just faking history. The malice here is, “The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica“ are far more than average Editors. They are known to be highly competent. They knew why they have transported Photius’s manipulations as history.
How did the Persian come to know about Bharatavarsa? There is no hint of Persians visiting Bharatavarsa. Their perceptions of a land “East of Persia” came through direct encounters with the people from Bharatavarsa visiting Persia. These people reached Persia on sea-routes with a variety of utilities and artifacts. It has been mentioned elsewhere that Bharatavarsa was maritime since time immemorial. They were curious people. Through ages they wanted to know more. They were peaceful people. They were happy to be welcomed. They were not “traders”. The goods were gifts as a token of friendship. The hosts offered precious metals as gifts to the guests in addition to their hospitality. There was no bargaining. It is not known in which language they communicated. Whatever the Persians have known about Bharatavarsa, they have known by their personal encounters with visitors coming from Bharatavarsa.
Alexander commenced his forays some one-and-a-half centuries later. His ultimate goal was to rob the legendary riches stored in Bharatavarsa. Forays are never planned in the blues. It is on record that he was coached by quite a few Greek “Intellectual Giants” like Aristotle. There are no references about how the coaches of Alexander could have known about the riches stored in Bharatavarsa some one-and-a-half centuries later.
In the vast regions in the West of Bharatavarsa there had been permanent wars at all levels. Wars in general, the wars in this vast region in the West of Bharatavarsa and the Greco-Persian wars in particular were robberies, killings and exploitations. It is on record that many of the Greek “Intellectual Giants” were engaged as soldiers or mercenaries. They were conversant about logistics of war. Forays are the worst form of wars.
The narrations of Ctesias on Bharatavarsa were not much sellable in the Greek-market of narrations. This market was saturated with narrations on wars at many levels. The life of the people was directly affected by those wars. Ctesias’ narrations on Bharatavarsa were not on wars. These narrations were on a foreign land, on foreign people and on foreign culture, so foreign that these narrations were beyond comprehension of the Greek contemporaries. They were perceived by “established coaches” of Alexander and the likes only. In all probability the tales of Ctesias have stirred fantasies in the mind of “intellectuals” like Aristotle who coached Alexander.
We recall a few fundamentals set by the laws of the universe to judge over the manipulations in human societies transported through the written-mode of languages in the late phase of Kali Yuga. The laws of the universe are beyond the reach of human manipulations. These few fundamentals could guide our comprehension to judge over the real significant role of human societies, human societal developments, human civilizations and human cultures within the universe.
The solar-system is only a part of the universe. The earth is a tiny part in the solar-system. The human-kind on the earth is only one of the many kinds. The human beings are equipped with senses perceiving the surroundings whenever there is light delivered from the sun, a large capacity of storage for perceptions and of experiences and an effective calculator. These equipments are not human achievements. These are determined by the laws of the universe, represented by the nature on the earth.
Human-beings are like all other beings. Like all other beings the human-beings are basically social beings. A human-being cannot survive individually. For survival on the time line human-beings need comprehensive intense exchanges between themselves and with the nature. This inbuilt program is also not a human achievement. Thanks to this program and thanks to these equipments we know whatever we know. Human languages are one of the media for exchanges. In all probability all other beings are equally equipped and identically programmed. Otherwise they would not have survived through ages fulfilling their specific functions to preserving the whole.
The human-kind seems to differ from all other kinds at least in one respect. The human-beings differ in defining their specific roles and functions preserving the whole. We are still in search of knowledge concerning the universe and in search of our role and of our identity as a tiny part of the universe on the earth. It is not known how and when the human-beings did break out from the grand-design of equilibrium, interdependence and harmony in the nature. This search for knowledge has produced different results in different regions. The development of human knowledge is marked by growths and by declines in the sense of obliviousness. On the time line there are high-tides and low-tides in the development of this search.
The Vedas mark the peak of human knowledge. The Vedas store comprehensive knowledge on human-individuals on the earth as well as on the human knowledge of the laws maintaining the whole universe. The Vedic-knowledge-bank was created by Vedic Rishis who were not “professionals” receiving special attentions or special rewards from the society for their work. They were chosen and delegated for special tasks contributing to the growth of common knowledge. Thereafter they returned to their previous life in the society.
The Vedic Rishis were part and parcel of the Vedic societies. They were workers at the knowledge-front. The Vedic-people practiced divisions of work. All works were needed and were interdependent. All workers were equals. They were fulfilling their dharma (duties). These basics made it possible that accumulated knowledge were disseminated instantly and were applied in the social practice avoiding an unnatural lag. The oral-mode of the common language was used for the transport of knowledge in face-to-face exchanges from one “memory” to other “memories” creating a collective human memory. Thus the oral-tradition was created in the Vedic societies. The practice of the oral-tradition based on collective human memory enabled the people of Bharatavarsa to preserve the Vedic-knowledge-bank through ages. Nothing is lost. The Vedas are compiled in the oral-mode of the Vedic language. The Vedic language is the most sophisticated language. The oral-mode of the Vedic language is as well enriched by the flora, fauna and habitats of Bharatavarsa. One must learn the language in Bharatavarsa to know about the stored knowledge in the Vedic-knowledge-bank. There is no short cut.
The Vedic Rishis were farsighted. The Vedas were compiled in metrics. The Vedic knowledge was transferred to the social practice without lags. Once the applied knowledge in the daily practice was internalized, the daily practice became an effective support of the collective memory. Questioning details of the social practice lead consequently to the Vedic-knowledge-bank. In the course of time a written-mode of the Vedic language was created as well as a secondary storage, as an additional support for the preserver of the oral-tradition. Whenever the preservers read the written texts, the corresponding associated sounds, gestures and mimics were reconstructed in their memory. A written-mode of a language has no authentic value without familiarity with the oral-tradition of the same language.
All human societies like all living beings need means of collective exchanges that ultimately lead to language. The most human societies have not created a written-mode of their languages. There was no social need. A written-mode of a language is the result of the social need of supports for memory caused by the growth of knowledge. A written-mode of a language is useless to persons who are not conversant of the oral-mode. A written-mode of a language does never substitute the oral-mode. The oral-mode, the face-to-face exchanges of views, is the only genuine audio-visual medium. The inbuilt mechanisms of the face-to-face exchange ensure reliability of the transfers. This is one.
Secondly the written-mode of a language requires a durable and portable surface; then durable inks. A durable and portable surface, the ink and a “pen” have to be prepared by human hands. In the most human societies there had been individual urges of creating additional means of expressions other than the language in the oral-mode; scratches and drawings on durable surfaces provided by the nature, i.e. on stones, on woods, later on invented utilities like potteries. These surfaces are not portable and are only suitable for short messages. The written-mode of the Vedas was scratched on long durable palm leaves as secondary storage.
It is not known when the written-mode of the Greek language was created. An articulated specific need for a written-mode in the various versions of the Greek language is not discernible. We escape temptations of performing dating acrobatics. We keep in mind that in the Mediterranean regions “papyrus” was invented as a surface of writing.-The production of “Papyrus” as a surface of writing is tiresome. “Papyrus” is portable, but not durable and not suitable for long messages (“books”). Animal skins (“parchment”, “vellum”) as surface for writing is portable, not as durable as durable “paper” and with some reservation also suitable for long messages depending on the durability of the inks.
We also keep in mind that an availability of materials that could be used as writing surface does not indicate a specific social need for a written-mode. Paper for example came to the Mediterranean regions centuries later than its invention, in today’s China for writing. We keep in mind as well that the availability of “paper” and the increasing demands to own a copy of the “Bible” had inspired Johannes Gutenberg some 600 years ago to inventing his “printing-technique”. Here is one interesting hint in regard to the durability of writing surface. The oldest complete Torah-scroll of the Moses-people is some 800 years old, hand-written on animal skin. This is one of the accepted facts of our time.
The early narrators in the Mediterranean regions were busy in collecting “stories” in the air, in sorting the stories, in relating those stories to life-experiences and in making them entertaining and saleable. There was a market for narrations. Why should a narrator seek alternatives to narrations? There was no time to waste. In all probability the narrators did not need a secondary storage in support of their memory.
Then, why should a person write down the story having opportunities to narrate? The written version would become his “manuscript” and no one would know about its existence. Who would be interested to read and would not prefer “recitations”? Even if someone would know about the existence of a “manuscript”, would he be able to read? Even if someone would be able to read, who will undertake the toilsome work making a copy of a hand-written “manuscript”? The “author” personally? There was no market for anything in the written-mode. This market was created after the invention of the “printing-technique” by Johannes Gutenberg some 600 years ago.
We are inclined to conclude that none, absolutely none, could have read anything written by Ctesias. He never wrote, he narrated only. The celebrated ancient Greek “scholars” did not write. It is irrelevant and futile to explore when the written-mode of the Greek language was created. It is needed to realize that the Greeks did not create an oral-tradition that would be comparable with that in Bharatavarsa to build up reliable collective memory through the ages. The Greek narrators depended on larger audience and on re-narrations. They were not concerned to preserve truths. The “manuscript” tradition, the hand-written-mode of a language, threw open doors of fraudulent fabrications and distortions of truths. Then Johannes Gutenberg came. He threw open all doors of fraudulent fabrications and distortions of truths for the “masses”.
After these basics in a nut-shell we are once again back to the narrations of Ctesias. His narrations remained alive in the memory of his listeners. These listeners re-narrated casually. The re-narrated versions were by its nature incomplete. The listeners were not trained narrators. Yet some two centuries later Aristotle and his consorts who trained Alexander heard about a land of “wonders” with “God-like-people”, “philosophers”, artisans, about a land that was legendarily rich and possessing immense quantity of gold. It is not known whether Aristotle and his consorts knew about the existence of Ctesias or knew a denomination for that far-of-land. It is not on record what name Ctesias had used for Bharatavarsa. To recall, he had gathered “second-hand” knowledge from Persian sources only. The Persian denomination for Bharatavarsa of that time is lost. Whatsoever, Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian relied upon those “information” spread in the air before planning his immensely expensive foray.
Alexander had reached Bharatavarsa in some nine years. He disastrously failed with his foray to rob and murder in Bharatavarsa though those “information” spread by Ctesias and often re-narrated corresponded to facts. For whatever reasons, he had to retreat unconditionally. This retreat was the beginning of the end of the Hellenic hegemony in the vast lands West of Bharatavarsa. The Hellenic hegemony had reached its peak when Alexander began his foray at his age of 22 mobilizing all Hellenic resources. Alexander died on his way back when he was 32 years old. The whole investment of the Hellenes did not bring the expected returns.
As narrated elsewhere his supreme commanders (“Diadochis”) got involved in wars amongst themselves to get control of as much of the conquered foreign lands between Greece and the West of Bharatavarsa as they could. The Diadochis were unable to stop the low-tide of Greek domination that resulted after the collapse of Alexander’s foray. Within a few decades the Roman-ruffians had begun conquering Greece. Within a century they conquered almost all Hellenic dominated foreign lands up to Persia and ultimately “colonized” Greece, the Greeks possessions, Greek cultures and Greek minds.
We take liberty to put on record that Alexander was not elevated to “Alexander the Great” anytime before or soon after his death. He was completely forgotten at least for three centuries in the whole of Greece. Alexander was the worst type of adventurers and gamblers who at the end of the “day” had robbed and killed also many non-Greek people wasting the resources of the Hellenic-people. The Hellenes did not feel any urge to glorify Alexander’s “visions“ or his “efforts” of bringing rich-booties for the Hellenic societies by the means of forays. No one narrated those gruesome some ten years of Alexander’s foray. There was no market for such narrations. It was all quiet in the front of Hellenic “philosophers” and “scholars”. The societies in the whole area in the West of Bharatavarsa were in turmoil.
The Kali-Yuga has not been calculated for Bharatavarsa in particular. The Kali-Yuga is all over the earth. Alexander the Adventurer had left behind a power-vacuum in the “world” of the vast areas in the West of Bharatavarsa. This vacuum was filled by the “Moses-people”,-by the Roman-Ruffians and by the “Jesus-people”, who were more primitive than the Greek-people, more primitive than Aristotle and Alexander. Details of the events during this period between the peak of the Greek power-domination and the Roman conquest of Greece along with all those occupied foreign lands has been described elsewhere.
The Roman-Ruffians were the most primitive. The whole peninsula, now Italy, was never a target of forays. The societies in the whole north-western region of Greece did not produce anything in surplus. None of the ancient Greek or the Hellenic “intellectual giants” took interest about those “Roman” societies. There was nothing that could be narrated about them. None of those societies produced civilizations, literature and culture till the beginning of “Roman Civilization” in the western region of the peninsula around the River “Tiber”. In all probability the local and regional “Rulers” there became aware of the Greco-Persian battles and wars in the Eastern Mediterranean Regions as vehicles leading to “prosperity”.
These Roman-Ruffians around the River “Tiber” began to conquer as many territories as possible and to spread their locally spoken language called Latin. They conquered territories in the north. Later they felt strong enough undertaking forays in the southern Mediterranean regions. To determine dates when this beginning was is not our purpose. We take liberty to ascertain that the “Roman Civilization” has not produced “literature” and “culture”. The contribution of the “Roman Civilization” was limited by quite a few versions of the Latin language besides the classical Latin language in the oral-mode as well as in the written-mode. The “Roman Civilization” produced accounts of battles and wars only.
The Roman “Rulers” began expansion to the East while the Hellenic “Diadochis” were battling and warring against each other. The Roman-Ruffians prevailed in the Battle of Corinth and that was the end of the Hellenic-Power-Domination some 2200 years ago. They reached then the Land of the Moses-people, defeated the Moses-people and dispersed many of the Moses-people. They were well established in the Eastern Mediterranean regions when the Jesus-people emerged some 2100 years ago. During the same period the Persian-Rulers recovered their territories defeating the Hellenic-Seleucus-Dynasty. All efforts of the Roman “Rulers” in the following centuries to re-conquer Persia failed. Thus the Romans were prevented from dreams of robbing Bharatavarsa.
The Roman “Rulers” however had to live with stories in the “Air” on Bharatavarsa narrated centuries ago by Greek “intellectuals” like Ctesias who collected information on Bharatavarsa available in Persia only; Megasthenes was sent by the founder of the Seleucus-Dynasty as an ambassador at the court of Maurya-dynasty some two centuries later and has been credited as author of four “books” titled Indika (meaning Bharatavarsa); Deimachus succeeded Megasthenes as ambassador who has been credited as author of two “books” also titled Indika; and Dionysius succeeded Deimachus as an ambassador to be the last Hellenic ambassador in Bharatavarsa. Details of this history have been given elsewhere. No one else could have authentically reported on Bharatavarsa.
The Roman “Rulers” did not show interest for socio-cultural changes in the land of the Moses-people. They were rather impressed by the achievements of the Hellenic-Culture. They began to learn and to culture the Greek language, to listen to the narrations on the Greek-past and to render those into the Latin language. In this process the Latin language was enriched accommodating many aspects of the cultured life that was alien to them. Whatever might have been the reasons the Roman-Ruffians felt to be closer to the Hellenes in particular and to the Greeks in general than to the Moses-people.
For all practical purposes the Roman-Ruffians “colonized” the Greek past usurping the Greek culture. The Roman-Ruffians felt comfortable to adopt themselves into the Hellenic-Culture creating a “Greco-Roman”-tradition in the following centuries. They encouraged the Greek mercenaries holding high offices under the Roman occupants to re-discover the Greek-“literature” after centuries of neglect, promoted glorifications of Greek wars and forays and created a common heritage. The purpose was obvious. The glorification of Greek wars and forays legitimized implicitly the Roman wars and forays as achievements of the Roman civilization.
After some three centuries Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian causing the downfall of the Hellenic dominance was glorified as Alexander the Great by “reconstructing” those gruesome inhuman ten years in glorious and heroic tales. Thus the Roman forays were justified as human “cultural” achievements and as the spread of superior culture. These Roman forays were towards the Nord and towards the West keeping “colonial control” of the East up to Persia. This process had begun before the emergence of the Jesus-people.
The Roman-occupants were indifferent not only towards the Jesus-people. They were indifferent towards social conflicts of the occupied people as long as their colonizing authority and power were not questioned. Quite soon the occupants had to realize the need to find other instruments than recruiting “mercenaries” to consolidate the occupations. In some three centuries, some 1700 years ago, the Roman-“rulers” and the “leaders” of the Jesus-people became “partners”. Together they expanded in all lands in the West of Persia.
The Roman-ruffians were unable to conquer Persia.-Persia was conquered by the Muhammad-people. Some two centuries later than the beginning of the “joint-ventures” of the Roman-“Rulers” and the Jesus-people, i.e. some 1400 years of our time, began the Muhammad-people with forays in the so far neglected Arab-Peninsula by the Hellenes and by the Romans. The reason was simple. Arab-Peninsula was “under developed”. There was nothing to be robbed and there was not enough potential for capturing slaves.
We recall all indications and evidences that have been handed down on the vast lands in the west of Bharatavarsa. All human societies in the area were divided in “Haves” and “Have-nots”, “Rulers” and “Slaves” at all level. The “Ruling-Sections” were a thin minority, naturally. At all level the “Haves” had their pecking-order set by their current “Alpha-Wolf”. The pecking-order of the “Have-nots” was set by the section of the “Haves”. The unequal distribution was maintained by violence at all levels, meaning continuous clashes, fights, battles and wars. Wars are by its nature forays at a smaller scale. Nothing is known how theses societies had attained unequal distributions and successfully maintained the pecking-order by violence.
Whatever might have been the reasons the lands east-wards of the West of Bharatavarsa up to the Eastern-Mediterranean-Region were “wealthier” than the other regions. Besides continuous clashes, fights, and battles the Eastern-Mediterranean-Region had to face wars more often than in other regions. The “Have-nots”, the “Slaves”, lived through in a precarious state. To prevent eventual revolt of the “Have-nots” a new instrument was invented in the Eastern-Mediterranean-Region by the Moses-people while the Hellenes and the Romans were warring for hegemony: Mind-Management besides violence. Leaving aside many stories of and around Moses and his “team” it has to be noted that they successfully justified the unequal distributions within the societies as if it was the unquestionable will of a “Phantom being Almighty” mediated by Moses and not the consequence of robbery of a minority in the society. A considerable section trusted in Moses’ claim of being chosen by the “Phantom being Almighty” to implementing His Will.-Moses and his “team” made the Moses-people believe that being specially chosen people of the Almighty they were better off in comparison to all other people. This is how the category “Belief in the Will of the Almighty” was created to justify the unequal distributions within the societies.
In all probability the especially chosen people were content with the Belief in the Will of the “Almighty” for quite some time in Canaan, the land of the Moses-people with their centre in Jerusalem. It is not known whether the predicament of the people was worse in the surrounding of Canaan. It is however known that the Roman-Ruffians occupied Canaan soon after the Roman conquest of Greece. The primitive Roman-Ruffians did not care for the “Almighty” of the Moses-people. The “Almighty” did not protect His specially chosen people. The Romans established their rule, continued their foray eastwards, got involved in wars against the Persian rulers and ultimately ending their forays eastwards.
Many of the affluent Moses-people migrated to neighboring lands to save their mobile wealth. The “left-behinds” continued to live as Moses-people with distributional inequalities. The majority of them were doubly exploited. The Romans did not interfere in the “internal pecking order” of the chosen people, not even when quite a few of them “revolted” against their “internal pecking order”. Their sole interest was to maintain their “colonial” rule, to usurp Greek culture and exploit people to the maximum.
The revolting Moses-people cleverly claimed that the “Almighty” was aggrieved seeing intolerable disparities in the society. To set things right He the almighty had sent “His Son Jesus” to Canaan. The Jesus-people propagated benevolence, charity, compassion towards the “Have-Nots”. They did not question, they were not eager to know, where the disparities come from. They appealed to the “Haves” to practice benevolence, charity, compassion towards the “Have-Nots”. Thus the revolting Moses-people elevated themselves from the “chosen people” of the “Almighty” to “His own people” guided by his Son on the earth. The distributional inequalities were thus further consolidated. The Jesus-people were unable to convince the Moses-people. The Jesus-people turned to other people in the surrounding lands propagating the messages of Jesus with increasing success. The Jesus-people had to depend mainly on Mind-Management through missionary activities.
The Roman “rulers” needed some three centuries in realizing ultimately that it was more advantageous to embrace the growing Jesus-people than to combat them uncompromisingly. Some 1600 hundred years ago of our time the Supreme Roman “Ruler” integrated the leading Jesus-people in an alliance of Violence and Mind-Management to rule over the majority. Yet the expansion of their dominance was limited towards the North-Northwest. Then the Roman dominance declined. The Jesus-people prevailed indicating the efficiency of overt Mind-Management and latent use of Violence. But forays remain forays with all brutalities.
The expansions of the Jesus-people are indicated in the following link that is not result of our search:
In Mecca, a few hundred kilometers southwards away from Jerusalem in the East of the Arab-Peninsula the Muhammad-people emerged on the scene some 1600 hundred years ago of our time. Alike Moses, alike Jesus, Muhammad claimed to have been asked by the Almighty to implement his laws on the earth by all means. All laws were dictated to him word by word by the Archangel Gabriel. He was sent by the Almighty repeatedly to dictate to Muhammad, so is the claim. The Muhammad-people began violently implementing those laws by occupying territories and thereafter converting the people to Muhammad-people uncompromisingly. In the beginning they avoided wars against the Jesus-people in the western part.
The expansions of the Muhammad -people are indicated in the following link that is not result of our search:
The inherent intolerance, aggression and violence in the claim of the Moses-people being a special breed of human-beings divided the human-beings in different value-categories. The Moses-people were content with their belief. But the seed of intolerance, aggression and violence created by Moses sprouted. The Jesus-people became missionaries as well. They were masked with benevolence, charity and compassion. Those who refused to believe in them, they had to bite the dust. The sprout of intolerance, aggression and violence grew. The Muhammad-people practiced it without the inhibition of a mask.
The Mahabharata-people in Bharatavarsa had no knowledge of these developments in the West of Bharatavarsa. They have produced a vast amount of literature. There are no references of the Hellenes, of Moses, of the Romans, of Jesus or of Muhammad. The Mahabharata-people did not discuss a category like Belief. Evidently Alexander had reached Bharatavarsa through the Pāriyātra Parvata of the western Himalayas. How many Hellenes-Ruffians accompanied him is not on record. There had been no clash between the Hellenes-Ruffians and the Nanda-Dynasty. While Alexander was on retreat the Nanda-Dynasty was toppled by the founder of the Maurya-Dynasty, by Chandragupta Maurya. He defeated in some two years gaining territories far beyond the Pāriyātra Parvata of the western Himalayas Seleuces I Nicator, one of the successors of Alexander holding control over lands from the eastern Mediterranean to the eastern Persia.
The battle-fields are not on record. Greek sources refer to a remarkable aspect of the peace agreement. Chandragupta permitted to host an ambassador of the Hellenes at his court, but he did not send an ambassador at the court of Seleuces I Nicator. There had been three Hellenes ambassadors at the court of the Maurya-Dynasty in Pataliputra, the only three who travelled over lands and narrated al lot on their observations and assessments of the Vedic culture in Bharatavarsa for the Hellenes. There had not been any other authentic Hellenic narrations on Bharatavarsa. Neither Alexander nor Seleuces I Nicator left behind any marks of the Hellenic culture on the Vedic culture. The Mahabharata-people were occupied with the two segregation movements, the Jain Dharma and Buddha teachings, flourishing along with the expansions of the Magadha dynasties. In all probability they did not take notice of Alexander’s forays or of the many events in the vast area in the West of Bharatavarsa.
The Mahabharata-people lived the Vedic culture in the Kali Yuga of the 28th time-circle without being exposed to any external influences till some 1000 years ago. The fall of the Maurya-Dynasty of Magadha had led to many “Regional-Rulers”. Those two Segregation Movements became marginal in Bharatavarsa. The traditional sector of productions and reproductions continued to flourish. The sector at the knowledge-front was not able to maintain the standard of knowledge set by the many “Shankaracharyas”. But they were able to preserve the Vedas, the Vedic language, the Upanishads, the Mahabharata and the Sanskrit language in the oral-tradition.
Then the Muhammad-people represented by Mahmud the Ghazni Ruffian intruded through the Pāriyātra Parvata of the western Himalayas, the only land-route into Bharatavarsa to rob. This event was the third caesura in the history of Bharatavarsa. How did the Mahabharata-people, the Vedic societies in the late phase of the Kali Yuga, deal with the Muhammad-people?