The Vedic Societies in Bharatavarsa
An area of darkness in the prevailing History of the Mankind
A human society is organised and formed by its members (people). Their knowledge, their values determine the pattern of their interactions and their “developments”. Thus they create their specific culture that sustains for generations to come. The growth of knowledge and a review of the prevailing values change the culture. These basics are valid for all parallel existing human societies as well. The mutual relationship with other human societies is determined by the same rules irrespective of the depth of knowledge and of the differences in values in particular societies. The history in general and the history of the human societies in particular narrate the beginning and the following developments in cohesions.
How to determine the beginning of human societies in Bharatavarsa? Only the “people” of Bharatavarsa could tell how they had begun to ensure their existence as human-being on that particular part on the earth which they had denominated in the course of time as Bharatavarsa. It must have begun with “families” in small localities, then in well-known “regional” units, then in manageable “supra-regional” units. Sooner or later the ““supra-regional” units knew that there were similar human societies around.
The interactions between these societies led to common “language”, exchanges of perceptions, experiences, knowledge and values were long and variable processes. There is no way to reconstruct this history. We assume, similar processes have taken place in the vast spread of a unique geographical area that evolved to one cultural entity in the course of time by the people keeping their diverse geographical identities and denominated the whole area as Bharatavarsa.
The need of this denomination could have arisen only after they came to know that there were other areas on the earth having human societies as well. Factually the “people” of these “nuclear” societies have not handed down in how many human years, or in how many centuries, or in how many millenniums or in how many millions of years they had melted into one cultural entity as the “Vedic People”. This history, how they accomplished this, is lost. But many of the remarkable achievements of the “Vedic People” are not lost for the human-kind.
This unique geographical area is surrounded by seas. In the north is the massive Himalayan range.
There is only one land-route as an entry in the north-west of Bharatavarsa, a narrow and a not-easy-to-find Himalayan pass, which at some time has been called the “Khyber Pass”. There are of course a few tiny sub-passes as well. There are no indications that this Himalayan pass and the few sub-passes were systematically used by non-local individuals as entries into the vast secluded area before Alexander the Macedonian ruffian raided some 2500 years ago to rob the riches accumulated all over in Bharatavarsa.
Human-beings came into being in this vast area on the earth secluded by natural boundaries since time immemorial. When and how those human-beings became the “Vedic people”, we will not know. The “Vedic people” is our denomination. Those human-beings, the ancestors of Bharatavarsa, are not responsible for this name. In all probability they had not given a “name” for their collective identification to begin with. There was no need. In all probability they had their personal names and belonged to small geographical areas having a name. In all probability these small areas were almost self-sufficient units. In course of time these self-sufficient units took notice of the neighbouring self-sufficient units, came together, made themselves understandable (sounds and gestures), learnt exchanging (language) their perceptions, experiences, thoughts, conclusions and so on (knowledge).
In all probability this or similar “social” processes took place all over in this vast secluded area. It must have been a long process. It is irrelevant to knowing how long this long process was. The people involved in this long and “exciting” process (history) ensured the continuity of this process, i.e. transferring knowledge to the immediate-following generations. Those people have not told us anything. In all probability the people involved in this process did not feel an urge to create “records” manifesting their “foot-steps and routes” to achievements. They did not create their “monuments” for future generations. They just left behind all traces of their life and of their collective achievements for future generations. There is no mention of individual achievements or of individual claims as discoverers.
Many of these traces have been covered or destroyed by the nature in course of time. Quite a few have remained as a rich heritage. The richest of the heritages is a “knowledge-bank”. The creators of this “knowledge-bank” have given it a name: the Veda(s). The meaning of Veda in the Vedic language is knowledge. There are Four Vedas: Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda and Atharva Veda. All knowledge on the universe, and all that goes with it, are accumulated and stored by the “Vedic people” in dense formulations in these four Vedas.
The knowledge stored in the Vedas is based on hard facts. These are of the quality: the sun rises and the sun sets. In all probability the Vedas are final. This handed down knowledge in the Vedic language has not been questioned or challenged by the following generations, not even in parts. The Vedas, this “knowledge-bank” is the peak of accumulated human knowledge. This peak manifests the wide range of highly developed knowledge, culture and civilisation. It’s reaching this paramount of human knowledge and culture took almost an eternity. All exercises to reconstruct the “history” of this long phase in Bharatavarsa will be futile.
A reconstruction of this history will not add anything to the accumulated human knowledge. This knowledge has shaped the mind of the Vedic-people and the mind of all post-Vedic people in Bharatavarsa. This knowledge is an impressive legacy for the human-kind as well. The name “Bharatavarsa” for this vast secluded area on the earth is not ours. The “Vedic-people” have called this area Bharatavarsa. In course of time the “Vedic-people” had come to know about other areas on the earth having different names for identification.
The “carrier” of this knowledge, as mentioned elsewhere, is the “Vedic language” called the “Chhando Bhasha” using 97 different sounds. There is no other entry to this “knowledge-bank” than by learning the “Chhando Bhasha”. The authentic 97 different sounds of “Chhando Bhasha” are available in Bharatavarsa in our days as well. On second-hand participations in this “knowledge-bank” we will get back in little while.
The Vedas, the Vedic “knowledge-bank”, was not created out of nothing. It is the result of common efforts of the people evolving later to the “Vedic people”. The beginning of this effort was definitely the common perceptions of the sun and of the moon. From perceptions to the understanding of the decisive impact of them on conditions of life during the struggles for survival, was a long way. The perceptions of seasonal changes came thereafter. Once the physical survival was achieved the perceptions were evaluated to the level of experiences. The exchange of individual perceptions and experiences with other individuals was the beginning of the human societies and of human knowledge.
The nature is rich in Bharatavarsa and the soil fertile. The struggles for survival were of short duration. The people were comfortably placed to developing their societies. They took notice of the fact that each human life has a beginning and has an end. But the human-kind continues to exist. In this process they observed many other living-beings around experiencing the same process. They realised that human-kind is an integral part in a “game” played by the nature. In spite of “killings” (food chain) all kinds are maintained and enough natural resources are available for living together in harmony.
The people in Bharatavarsa realised soon that the human-kind was a part of a whole and the whole was interdependent of the parts. The “rules” of coexistence between all living-beings were set by the nature. Thus the attention of the people was focused on flora, fauna and habitat (micro cosmos) and on the sun, on the moon, on climate and on stars (macro cosmos). The formations of social organisations were determined also by the “rules” set by the nature. What was the meaning of life? What was the “role” to be played by the human beings? What was the responsibility of the human beings? What was their duty in this “big game”? In course of time the people of Bharatavarsa evolved to the “Vedic people” discovering sanatana dharma, the role of the human-beings in the universe.
All activities for survival and reflections on the activities resulted into knowledge and the knowledge resulted to improvements of the social practice and of life. The growth of knowledge and the changes in the society, i.e. social growth, were one and the same process. The whole society was part and parcel of the “knowledge-bank” in practice. This might be one of the reasons for absolute absence of historical indications of this toilsome process creating the four Vedas, creating the Vedic “knowledge-bank”, which has remained as a Peak of Human-knowledge.
As mentioned elsewhere, the history of the long way up to the finalized Vedas is almost totally lost. A few indications have survived. The pre-Vedic-people were diversely organised. The geographical and climatic features were different. The common link of the innumerable pre-Vedic societies was the mental of setup of the pre-Vedic-people. They wanted to know all about the nature. The accumulation of their knowledge led ultimately to to the Vedas, to the Vedic knowledge-bank. The Vedic knowledge-bank united die pre-Vedic-people to creating the Vedic culture. We shall not know how this unity in diversities was accomplished. The pre-Vedic-people did not care to tell the following generations how they had created the Vedas. But they inherited the Vedic knowledge-bank for the humanity. Nothing indicates that there had ever been a tendency to creating a “central-organisational unit” to maintain the cultural unity in diversities. Probably the diversities of the pre-Vedic societies favoured and facilitated the growth in all walks of social life, and thus to the growth of knowledge and its dissemination.
As mentioned elsewhere, the Vedic societies were affluent.
In the beginning all individuals able to work were needed for the productions and reproductions (Lebensmittel. All needs for human living). With the growth of knowledge on methods of productions and reproductions the workload in general was reduced (growth of productivity). There was time and opportunities to look around. “Needs” of knowing more came up. Not individually, but collectively. One area of to-know-more about was the universe perceived by the five senses of the human beings. The other main area was to improve the organisation of human societies in a manner that all individuals participated in and contributed to the improvements within the society. Thus four fundamental organisational functions were identified to run a society in harmony by the Vedic-people:
All works were socially needed and performed. All works were interdependent. All members were equally responsible to maintaining harmony in the society. This was the dharma of the Vedic people. In the pre-peak-phases the “Vedic people” did not know of social categories like discrimination, disparity, deprivation, hierarchy or inequality in 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 similar categories in the Vedas. Hierarchies or distributional inequalities are not an inherent to divisions of work.
A peak is followed by down-trends. This is the malice of a peak. So were the developments in the post-Vedas phase in Bharatavarsa. The history of this phase is a little better documented, which is marked by the emergence of the Upanishads and innumerable “books” that followed the Upanishads. Between the Vedas and the Upanishads no “books” have been handed down. No “books” have been handed down on the pre-Vedas phase as well. As mentioned, the history of this phase is lost. Most of the achievements in the realm of civilisation during the pre-Vedas phase are covered by the nature in course of time. A few of them has been excavated. An exercise to reconstructing history on the basis of archaeological remains might serve other purposes. Archaeological remains never reconstruct history.
The pre-Vedic-people have handed down the Vedas in the Vedic language in the primary oral-mode to the Vedic-people. They have tried to transfer the 97 sounds into 97 signs (visible characters, alphabets) to create a support for the human memory, a secondary storage in written-mode, in signs called the Devanagari characters. The written-mode can never transfer the sounds or the gestures of a language. The creation of this “support” for human memory was great. In all probability the pre-Vedas people did not have any urge to convince the future generations that they had been great, that they toiled for thousands of years to attain the peak of knowledge stored in the Vedas. They were great. The Vedas (human knowledge-bank) are great. The Vedic language is great. The oral-tradition is great.
The pre-Vedic-people were conscious about the phenomenon time. They have contemplated time in different contexts. Not in the context of a chronology of events. As mentioned earlier, no other culture or civilisation has calculated time more meticulously than the pre-Vedic-people. Quite early they perceived and observed that their personal life was for a limited time. This knowledge is final for the humanity. They observed as well that life was for a limited time for all other beings. This knowledge is also final. In the course of time they knew finally that all entities in the universe have a beginning and an end, the sun included. They knew, after the end of the sun the universe of the solar system will be dark and cold. They have calculated when this will happen. The basis of this calculation is the conception of “human-year” as the unit for calculations. Details are available in:
In all probability also this part of the knowledge that even the solar system had a beginning and will have an end is final. The concept of spiral cycles is as reliable as many other axioms of mathematical calculations. The Vedic people, the Vedic culture were great. It is overwhelming.
All living beings encounter the sunrise and the sunset. How could the Vedic-people describe comprehensively the solar-universe setting out from this basic experience of “sunrise and sunset”? How did they do it? Did they have “scientific instruments” and technological gadgets? Nothing has been found in excavations that would show signs comparable to the “modern technology”. What was the methodology of the Vedic-people to attaining final knowledge in so many areas of human experiences? The Vedic-people did not tell us how they did it what they have done. Well! Why should we not be able to find answers to questions raised here?
A last example in this context: The pre-Vedic-people have handed down the complete terminological network that they had developed in the quest of knowledge in the Vedic language. Beside the terminological precision is here another aspect also important. For all practical purposes the word muhurta means a moment, a tiny unit on the time scale, in the post-Veda languages. In the Vedic time-calculations the the tiniest unit was not muhurta, but swedayana.-Fifteen swedayana make a lomgarta, fifteen lomgarta make a nimesh, fifteen nimesh make an en, fifteen en make a prana, fifteen prana make a idam, fifteen idam makes a eterhi, fifteen eterhi makes a kshipra and fifteen kshipra makes a muhurta, 15 muhurta makes one “day” and another 15 muhurta makes one “day and night”.-Well, we don’t possess a “calculator”.
In all probability there had been no gap between the social practice and the “knowledge-bank” in the transitional phase: the pre-Vedic-people becoming the Vedic-people. Their societies contributed to the growth of knowledge and the knowledge reinforced the growth of their societies. The division of work in the four functional areas of organisation in the society did not lead to a division of the people in four specialised “classes”. Special individual interests determined the mobility to the functional areas of societal organisation. All were equals. All were integrated in the society. There were no lags between them in regard to knowledge, language, culture and distribution of material “goods”.
In all probability the pre-Vedas people were completely absorbed working for the growth of human knowledge and did not find sense in keeping bureaucratic records and waste time and energy. They were obsessed to know more on all areas of the universe. They were happy with their achievements and lived in harmony. In all probability they did not know that they had achieved a peak of human knowledge. At some time they were exhausted and they relaxed. They stored their knowledge in the Vedas and continued to live the Vedas. At some time they realised that they had attained in many areas knowledge that were final. This realisation marks the transitional phase.
In this phase the dharma (natural drives, duties, responsibilities) of the section at the knowledge-front was redefined: a shift from exploration and discovery to preservation of the Vedas and of the Vedic language. The Vedas are books carrying final human knowledge explaining the universe. The knowledge stored in the Vedas has not been challenged. This knowledge-bank is open to all who care to learn the Vedic language. There are no short-cuts. There is no other entry. The Vedas have remained a peak of human knowledge. The time-span from the beginning of the human society and the achievement of this peak is almost an eternity. This peak could not have been reached in a straight climbing. This peak “developed” in numerous tides.
A peak is a caesura. But not in terms of the people experiencing the peak. The pre-Veda-people who had built up the peak became at some time the post-Veda-people. The mental dispositions of these people remained the same at least for individual human-life. In all probability it remained so for many generations. In all probability the down-trend form the peak was flatter than the up-trend to the peak. In this transitional period the Vedic-people were evolving to the Upanishad-people. Any chronological reconstruction even of the transitional phase from the peak of the Vedic culture to the post-Vedic-period will be speculative. A chronological history of the transitional phase will not promote human knowledge of the universe. It is more likely that a qualitative analysis of a continuous process will promote understanding, judgment and realisation about the societal changes.
The Upanishads are the next set of “books” after the Vedas that has been handed down as heredity of ancient Bharatavarsa. There are 183 of the Upanishads. It is probable that there were more Upanishads that are lost. The Upanishads are composed in the “Laukika Bhasha” (the Sanskrit language) indicating the failure in preserving the Vedic language for the whole society. The emergence of the Sanskrit language is a clear indication that not only the growth of the Vedic knowledge had ceased, and in all probability the depth of once achieved meanings were getting diminished. The precision of the Vedic language was also declining. The Sanskrit language uses 63 or 64 different sounds and corresponding mimics and gestures in the oral-mode and later also 63 or 64 different characters (alphabets) in the Devanagari script like that of the “Chhando Bhasha”. The “Laukika Bhasha” (the Sanskrit language) is thus inferior to the “Chhando Bhasha” (the Vedic language), but yet the second richest language ever created by the human-kind.
In all probability the number of the Upanishad-people who could articulate the Four Vedas in the “Chhando Bhasha” having 97 different “sounds” for comprehensive expressions was decreasing. Probably the majority of the Upanishad-people were unable to make use of the written-mode as secondary storage of the Vedas. In the phase of this low-tide of the Vedic culture the Upanishads were efforts to “translate” aspects of the Vedic knowledge in the “Laukika Bhasha” (the Sanskrit language). Thus the Upanishads become the “second-hand” entry to the “Vedic-knowledge-bank.
The “Upanishad-people” is our denomination like the “Vedic-people”. Between these two classifications might have passed millenniums of human-years. As indicated earlier, when the Vedic-people had realised that they might have known all about the universe, all about the dharma of the human-beings in the universe, they focused their attention to the preservation of the Vedic knowledge, to the growth of the Vedic societies and to the growth of the Vedic culture. At this point the Vedic-people began evolving to the Upanishad-people. Many re-organisations were necessary.
The ever-increasing divisions of work led to specialised technical “terminologies” and “languages” in the majority section of productions and re-productions. These languages were related to the language of the Vedic knowledge in a “diluted” form. The daily habits were practiced in the Vedic-societies as “routine” activities. The links to the Vedic-culture were taken as granted, although reflections over them were overshadowed by the demands coming from the ever-specialising networks. A diversity of interests emerged in this process. The Vedic-subcultures were emerging. The malice of subcultures is also that perceptions of them largely differ.
The ever-increasing division of work in specialisations decreased the social mobility in the Vedic societies. The specialised skills, technical terminologies and technical “languages” were to be learnt in the practice of work. Thus the communications within the societies were at least diverted in “work-dominated” or “family-dominated” sectors. For these communications in all probability fewer sounds were sufficient and other less expressive gestures were needed. The spoken language in the “world of works” continuously deviated from the Vedic language.
The ever-increasing division of work in specialisations increased the material affluence. There was no death of material “goods” needed for a care-free life in happiness and harmony. The majority section fulfilled its dharma and “blindly” assumed and relied upon that the delegated minority sections of “distributers”, “organisers” and “discoverers” will perform their dharma as well. These three sections were undergoing similar specialisations and all that goes with it. The communications between the sections were continuously reducing.
The social mobility within the sectors and between the sectors was on decline as well. In all probability this creeping process of damaging changes in the cohesion of the society was not noticed for long. But in course of time it was felt that a revival of social and cultural cohesion and the solidarity with all Kinds was necessary in the Vedic societies. This resulted to the Upanishads.
The Upanishads are “philosophical” discourses on the meanings of knowledge stored in the Vedas as guidelines for the Vedic societies of the Upanishad-people. The Vedic knowledge even in parts has never been questioned in any of the Upanishads. The Upanishads are rather auxiliaries and commentaries to understanding the whole range of the Vedic wisdom. None of the Upanishads were compiled in the Vedic language, though the authors of the Upanishads were well conversant with the Vedas in oral-tradition as well as in the written-mode. The Upanishads were created for the Upanishad-people. The authors of the Upanishads were a minority section of the Upanishad-people delegated to work at the knowledge-front.
The “Upanishad-people”, for whatever reasons, had accepted the reduction of the number of sounds of the Vedic language from 97 to 63/64. They have not handed down the reasons for the reduction. They must have done it conscientiously. One probability cannot be ruled out. The Vedic knowledge was disseminated in the society to an extent that the whole range of the sophisticated Vedic language was not needed for compiling the Upanishads. The Upanishads are compiled in the inferior Sanskrit language. It seems that the “Upanishad-people” were keen to preserve the Vedas in the oral-tradition, i.e. the Vedic knowledge and the Vedic language as far as possible.
The “Upanishad-people” were concerned about the quality of disseminations of the Vedic knowledge in certain areas in course of time. They preserved the Vedas in the oral-tradition. They “translated” the Vedic knowledge into the Sanskrit language. But the malice of “translations” is that the personal understandings of the “translators” may not represent the original understandings. “Translations” into an inferior language are even worse. It is remarkable that there were no efforts to “translate” the Vedas into the Sanskrit language. The “Upanishad-people” obviously knew that it would have been a mission impossible like trying to store 10 litters of milk in a pot having the capacity to store a litre.
Obviously the “Upanishad-people” were able to stop further dilution of the Vedic language at the level of the inferior Sanskrit language. Probably the Sanskrit language was generally spoken in the whole of Bharatavarsa. In all probability simpler languages were spoken in supra-regional, regional and local areas. However, the handed down post-Upanishad literatures are compiled in the Sanskrit language. The literatures in the Sanskrit language do manifest endeavours of the Upanishad-people to store the Vedic knowledge at many different walks of the Vedic societies: the many Brahmanas, Sutras, Shastras and Puranas, the Itihasa, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, the Panchatantra and innumerable alike books have been created out of the rich Vedic heredity of Bharatavarsa to preserve the Vedic knowledge in many secondary storages.
It is significant to note that the “Upanishad-people” had either approved or could not prevent articulations of individual interests. Articulation of individual interests is a claim for “more” in comparison to all others in the society. Articulation of individual interests indicates also a competition within a sub-section of the society. Articulation of individual interests means also “hierarchies” in the society. Articulation of individual interests leads gradually to the end of “equalities” within the whole society. As a matter of fact a few Upanishads do claim individual authorship. The “Upanishad-people” thus had accepted the downgraded Vedic heredity as the “Upanishad culture”.
All post-Upanishad literature is authored by individuals. There are no indications to judge whether these authors were specially rewarded for their contributions. There was no need for special rewards as the Upanishad-societies were in general more affluent than in the Vedic societies. In all probability these authors were specially respected for their “scholarship” in the beginning. Sooner or later special respects bring additional material gains by its nature.
Alike in the other “sections” also the workers at the knowledge front were rooted in the smallest social unit of a two-generation “family”. In all probability the children of these authors experienced “first hand” dissemination of knowledge and thus were privileged by the nature of the smallest social unit in the society. The Upanishad-societies must have known this mechanism and had approved it. The doors towards the beginning of special trainings for particular specially rewarded works were thus opened. This was a dilution of the Vedic culture.
The Mahabharata is narrated in the Sanskrit language as all post-Upanishad literature. The Vedic language in the articulated version of the Vedas has been handed down from human-memory to human-memory. And the Vedas in the written-mode in the Devanagari characters as a secondary support for the human-memory has been preserved too. This secondary carrier, the Vedas in the written-mode in Devanagari characters, to the Vedic knowledge is of no use for those who are not conversant in the articulated version of the Vedas. As ascertained earlier, a language is fundamentally articulated sounds, mimics and gestures for human communications face-to-face. Written characters can never substitute sounds and gestures. A written mode of a language is of no use for those who are unable to reconstruct in mind the self-experienced articulated sounds, mimics and gestures. Face-to face communications cannot be substituted. This is determined by the nature of human communications.
The Mahabharata-people were ultimately not able to avert the dilution of the Sanskrit language too. It flattened further to the Prakrit language losing more than a third of the sounds required in the Sanskrit language. We shall revert to the Prakrit language in a little while. Ages had gone by between the emergence of the Mahabharata in the Sanskrit language and the emergence of the Prakrit language. During these ages the Mahabharata-people lost their “battles” stemming against the erosion of the Vedic-“knowledge-bank” and thus of the Vedic culture.
The Upanishads were needed for the revival of the Vedic knowledge for the Upanishad-people. They compiled philosophical discourses on the Vedic knowledge in the Sanskrit language. The author(s) of the Mahabharata followed a similar goal for the Mahabharata-people, the revival of the Vedic knowledge, but took a different route than that of philosophical discourses. The Mahabharata is an epical narration on the realities in the human societies. The Mahabharata claims to be a comprehensive “history” of the human-kind. This history of the human-kind does not reproduce chronological accounts, but offers a narrated qualitative analysis.
The author(s) of the Mahabharata has selected an ingenious design to narrate the history of the human-kind. It tells a story of a large exemplary kinship-group in Bharatavarsa. The kinship is divided in two distinct “parties” on the central issue of human life: the right path to live as human being in the universe. These two parties were unable to find a peaceful solution. The controversy developed to a battle which has been denominated by the author(s) of Mahabharata as the “Great Battle”.
In the present context the focus is not on this “Great Battle”. The focus is on the Upanishad-people evolving to the Mahabharata-people. A detailed narration on the Mahabharata and all that goes with it is available in:
The climax of the epical narration is the “Great Battle” between two sides belonging to the same kinship group. This exemplary kinship group is wealthy and powerful having many social links. Each and every person of the Kinship, their friends, their acquaintances have been dealt with in detailed side stories, where they live, how they live, on their interpersonal relationships and so on. All stories are related to the main story. All stories are realistic. All stories contain allegories, metaphors and parables. All facets of human society have been described in the chapters of the Mahabharata.
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 integrated into the nature in its whole range of diversities. In other words, what is found in the epic Mahabharata can be found elsewhere. What cannot be found in the epic Mahabharata cannot be found elsewhere. The Mahabharata is compiled and composed in the “Laukika Bhasha” (the Sanskrit language) using 63/64 different sounds, mimics and gestures. Later the epic Mahabharata was made available also in a written-mode of the Sanskrit language using 63/64 of the Devanagari characters.
The Upanishad-people had preserved the Vedas in oral-tradition. They were able to stem against the downtrend of the Vedic knowledge being conscious of the increasing inability of a majority to make use of the Vedic language. There are no indications of their eventual efforts to revert the trend by a revival of the Vedic language. The Upanishad-people did their best to “transfer-and-translate” the Vedic knowledge in parts into their inferior Sanskrit language. Innumerable “books” were made following the same purpose, preserving the most of the Vedic knowledge in parts in the Sanskrit language both in oral and written modes. Thus the Upanishad-people were able to create a lean version of the “Knowledge Bank” of the Vedic-people. There are no indications of their efforts trying to “translate” the Four Vedas into the Sanskrit language. They must have anticipated that a “translation” of the Vedas into the Sanskrit language was a mission impossible.
To recall, the prevailing Sanskrit language of the Upanishad-people was the “Vedic-language-light”, leaving out one third of the sounds of the Vedic language. The Sanskrit language of the Upanishad-people was to stem against the increasing gap between the Vedic language and the then spoken languages in the Vedic societies. However, the Upanishad-people ensured the continuity of the oral-tradition of the Vedas. The Vedic societies were designed by the Vedic knowledge, i.e. the results of applications of the Vedic knowledge to put daily life in shape. The Vedic culture was also diluting, but at a slower speed, as the social practices is in general more sustainable. Social practices are manifestation of internalised values leading to “habits”.
In the Upanishads there are no indications that the in the Vedic societies were “falling-apart”. The whole purpose of the Upanishad-people was to optimise the applications of the Vedic knowledge in the Vedic societies. It is not known whether the authors of the Upanishads had anticipated “battles”, “unequal distributions” or “individual ownerships of the means of productions” within the Vedic societies. In all probability these social phenomena were unknown to the authors of the Upanishads.
The revival movement launched by the Mahabharata-people have dealt with these issues indicating the changes in the Vedic societies between the period of the Upanishads and the emergence of the Mahabharata. The vivid narrations on the realities in the Vedic societies in many diverse formations show that the revival movements of the Upanishad-people could not stop the trend of the Vedic culture downwards. This downtrend is marked by the emergence of “individual ownership of the means of productions”, “unequal distributions” and “battles”. The Mahabharata narrates and does not analyse the processes leading to these phenomena. Claims for more have always to be implemented, have to be enforced. The distributional privileges have to be maintained. This process is by its nature violent. The demarcation line between enforcement, violence and killing is fluent. Claims for more end in “battles” and in “wars”.
The Mahabharata was compiled for the Mahabharata-people. This Epic informed comprehensively the people of Bharatavarsa on the “state of affairs” in the then Vedic societies to mobilise them for a revival of the Vedic culture. The Mahabharata was compiled in the Sanskrit language in the oral-mode. The narrative-mode of the Sanskrit language is simpler than the mode of philosophical discourses in the Upanishads. The Mahabharata-people continued to preserve the oral-tradition of the Vedas. In addition they stemmed against the tendencies of dilution of the Sanskrit language. The main section of productions in the society was obviously getting used to “spoken” languages at the work-front, caused by specialisations of work, which deviated even from the simpler version of the Sanskrit language in the narrative-mode.
The Mahabharata reveals the exemplary efforts of the Mahabharata-people to protect the Vedic societies drifting away from the Sanskrit language. The loss of the Sanskrit language would have meant for all practical purposes being cut-off even from the lean version of the “Knowledge Bank” of the Vedic-people created by the Upanishad-people. The loss of the Sanskrit knowledge would have meant an increasing dilution of the Vedic culture as well. The Mahabharata-people obviously felt the need of reviewing “battles”, “unequal distributions” and “individual ownerships of the means of productions” within the Vedic societies and dealing with these developments.
We recall, the “Great Battle” as the “worst-case-scenario” in a Vedic society was fought on the issue that one side had deprived the other side of its material properties within a kinship group. A “battle“ is a “battle” in which casualties of life are unavoidable by its nature. This inevitable inhuman consequence of a “battle“ was realised by the “lead-fighter” of the deprived side on the battlefield itself, so the tale of the “Great Battle” in the Mahabharata goes. He was hesitant to fight. As a result, the beginning of the battle was delayed by a prolonged discourse on the issue of the right path to live as human being in the universe between him and his “friend” and charioteer standing on the chariot on the battlefield.
This discourse has been completely recorded and is known as the Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta which is considered universally as the “pearl-abode” of knowledge and wisdom preserved in the Mahabharata. Of course the Mahabharata was compiled and composed in the oral-mode. In the course of time the whole of the Mahabharata was also stored in the inferior secondary storage, in the written-mode, as a support for the human memory.
The narrative parts of the Mahabharata were a “mirror” for the Mahabharata-people to seeing their realities and the Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta was the cultural norm to understanding the realities. The “Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta” limits the extent of tolerability of “battles” in a human society. Hunting weapons, mainly arrows and bows, were used in the “Great Battle”. That was inhuman enough. The “Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta” deals with all aspects of the human knowledge as it has been stored in the Vedas. Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta is a “key” and a road-map composed in the Sanskrit language to the knowledge stored in the Vedas.
We take liberty to look a little ahead. The complete Mahabharata has been “translated” from its Sanskrit original into all “vernacular” languages of Bharatavarsa. Later innumerable “translations” have followed in the most languages of our time. The discourse “Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta” has been “translated” by “modern scholars” over and over again. Remarkably foreign translators claim to have translated from the Sanskrit original. None of the foreign translators, absolutely none, has ever learnt the Sanskrit language. This issue has been dealt with in details in:
The Mahabharata-people obviously felt that they were to deal with “battles”, “unequal distributions” or “individual ownerships of the means of productions” within the Vedic societies. The “Great Battle” in the Mahabharata indicates also that in all over Bharatavarsa “battles” were taking place. Who were the “parties” of the battles? We do not know. What were the causes of battles? We do not know. We know only the cause of the “Great Battle” in the Mahabharata. We also note that the “Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta” limits the extent of tolerability but does not morally disapprove “battles” in human societies. There are no mentions of “battles” or the like in the Upanishads or in the Vedas.
We know from the “Great Battle” that the parties belonged to the same kinship group. This kinship group possessed properties, wealth and weapons. In all probability this kinship group belonged to the section of the organisers and was a part of the section of the organisers in that area. We recall the four sections in a society.
How did this or other kinship groups could accumulate wealth? We do not know. What had been the reaction of the others in the society that a few of them had accumulated properties, wealth and weapons? We do not know. How did the other three sections, the “producers”, the “distributers” and the “discoverers”, react that a few in the society had accumulated properties, wealth and weapons?-We do not know. These or similar questions have not been dealt with in the “Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta”. The Mahabharata narrates facts as they were, and does not analyse or evaluate facts. The Mahabharata was compiled and composed for the Mahabharata-people living in Bharatavarsa informing them on the “state of affairs” in the Vedic societies. The Mahabharata does not “teach” or “preach”. The Mahabharata spreads out facts and thus becomes a “book” (source) of knowledge. Books of knowledge do not follow the purpose of “teaching” or “preaching”. Knowledge has to be acquired, has to be learnt.
What do we learn about the Mahabharata-people and their societies from the Mahabharata? The Mahabharata-people were familiar with the Sanskrit language. They had organized themselves in many self-sufficient “local/regional” societal units sustaining the Vedic culture by and large, in essence. The distributional equality was not maintained. The minority section of the “organisers” were evolving to “rulers” at all levels.-The minority section of the “distributers” was evolving to “dealers” and “merchants”. These two of the “four Vedic functional sections” were “taking/getting” a larger share of “produced goods”, were controlling many “means-of-productions” and accumulating wealth. There are no reports on unequal distributions within the other two sections, “producers” and “discoverers”, nor of scarcities in the societies in any area. There are no reports on exploitations and no reports on revolts against the “rulers” or against the “merchants”. Yet, in all probability the distributions of goods, individual ownership were unequal within all “sections”. This inequality might have been “accepted” as there was no scarcity and no subjectively felt discrimination, deprivation or exploitation.
The “discoverers” were “workers” at the knowledge front delegated by the people. As indicated earlier, the “workers” at the knowledge front during the Mahabharata-phase were not pre-eminently engaged in adding new aspects to the Vedas, not even to the Upanishads, but in preservation of the acquired knowledge at the level of the “Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta” and in preservation of the Vedas in the oral-tradition. In all probability they had built up a ”hierarchy” amongst themselves as well.
There are no reports on particular “battles” like that of the “Great Battle”. The demarcation line between “competitions for more” and “battles for more” is rather fleeting. The “Great Battle” was a battle within a “kinship-group” that was a “local ruler”. This “Great Battle” did not involve other sections of the Mahabharata-people. There are no indications that “kinship-groups” were battling each other to possessing larger territories as “rulers”.
We take liberty of an aside. The “Great Battle” of the Mahabharata-people left behind a marker for “modern scholars” of history trained as “dating acrobats”. The end of the “Great Battle” was the beginning of the “Kali Yuga”. This marker has remained obscure because the Mahabharata in its original version is out of the reach of modern scholars of history trained as “dating acrobats”. It cannot be mentioned often enough that these “scholars” never learnt the Sanskrit language. Even if these scholars would come to know from hearsays that “The end of the “Great Battle” was the beginning of the “Kali Yuga”, they would know nothing about the relevance of this rather casual reference of the “Kali Yuga”.
The entry to the meanings of the “Kali Yuga” requires the knowledge of the Vedic language. These scholars do not know even that the Vedas are compiled in the Vedic language and not in the Sanskrit language. These scholars are “grand children” of the European-Christian-“Sanskrit-Demigod” Friedrich Maximilian Müller, alias Friedrich Max Müller, alias Max Müller. He was the great swindler, who became a celebrated “Sanskrit scholar” without ever learning the Sanskrit language. His claim to have translated the Rig Veda from the “Sanskrit original” has been accepted by “modern scholars” of history and being propagated as fact in our days too. Does it matter that at no time there was a Rig Veda in the Sanskrit language?
Benevolently we could qualify these scholars as ignorant. The fact is that none of the four Vedas has ever been translated from the Vedic language to any other language, the inferior Sanskrit language inclusive. The Upanishad-people, the creator of the Sanskrit language, were conversant with the Vedic language. They knew that it was a mission impossible to translate a text from a superior language to an inferior one. The Vedic language needs 97 different sounds for expressions. The Sanskrit language use 63/64 different sounds to carry the then available knowledge. The Upanishad-people could only reproduce the knowledge stored in the Vedas as they had understood. That is why they have compiled commentaries on the Vedas in the Sanskrit language.
The Sanskrit language is inferior to the Vedic language, but yet richer and superior to any other post-Sanskrit language in the world. All texts compiled in the original Sanskrit language are in the oral-tradition. It takes six to ten years to learn the Sanskrit language. None, absolutely none of the modern “scholars of history” or of “Indology” have learnt the Sanskrit language in the oral-tradition. They are no better than the great swindler Friedrich Maximilian Müller. He not only swindled about his Sanskrit-qualification, he propagated also that the Rik Veda is a collection “religious hymns” composed by the immigrant “Aryans”. The “Aryans” are creations of Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s sick fantasies.
The Vedic-people, the Upanishad-people or the Mahabharata-people did not know a category even similar to “religious”. The term “Religion” is very recent. “Religion” is based on a “belief in God”. The people of Bharatavarsa wanted to know, to know more. There is no word for “Religion” in the Vedic or in the Sanskrit language. Benevolently we have qualified these modern scholars as ignorant. Well! We get back to “Kali Yuga”.
“Yuga” is denominated as one of the units of a comprehensive time-scale. The Atharva Veda deals with the concept of time: eternal und ephemeral.
The Vedic Rishis (Seer-Scientists) have assumed that the time scale is a spiral circle from the smallest to the highest level in both directions from the present. One human year is a unit. The average span of one human life is assumed to be 100 human years, and as such becomes another unit as one human period. The next period on this time spiral circle has been denominated as the Divya period. The same systematic has been applied. One human year has been defined as one day-and-night-rhythm of the Divya period. Thus one Divya month is 30 human years and one Divya year becomes 3600 human years constituting the next higher time-spiral-circle. The complete past has been subsumed in large time-spiral-circles. Each of these time-spiral-circles has been denominated as “Chaturyuga” meaning four Yugas.
The Vedic Rishis (Seer-Scientists) have calculated 4,320,000 Human-Years in the time-spiral-circle of our time, which is currently the 28th time-spiral-circle. Of this time-spiral-circle of our time most has been spent. Kali Yuga is the last of the four Yugas of which some 2500 human-years are left before our universe will enter the 29th time-spiral-circle. All cycles have specific names; it is not just digital counting. The Vedic Rishis (Seer Scientists) were great mathematicians too. Their calculations go beyond the “death” of the sun. The end of the solar-system is not the end of the universe. It is not known which type of “calculators” they had at their disposal.
As referred earlier, the malice of a peak is that a trend ascends and then descends. On both sides the flow of the trend is not linear. There are peaks in-between. The Vedas were the highest peak in the development of the Vedic culture so far. The human history in Bharatavarsa from the beginning to this peak is lost. The human history in Bharatavarsa from the peak down-to our time is not lost for qualitative understanding of changes without prejudices and without value-judgements. Prejudices and value-judgements are guided by interests. And interests make us blind.
The Vedic-people have handed down Four “Books” on human knowledge, the Vedas. The medium (carrier) of this knowledge is the Vedic language. For mutual communications on knowledge the Vedic people needed 97 different sounds and their gestures, we recall. The Vedic language in original, the only primary source to the Vedic knowledge, is handed down in the oral-mode and is available in our days too. There is no short-cut to the whole of the Vedic knowledge. A language is full-fledged only in the face-to-face communication, i.e. in the oral-mode. A written-mode of a language is inferior in all respects.
The depth and breadth of knowledge stored in the Vedas had never been challenged or added, meaning that the Vedas are the highest peak of human-knowledge. The carrier of this knowledge, the Vedic language, is the most differentiated human language. The Vedic people had created many other carriers to avoid a gap between knowledge and its applications in the social practice. The Vedic people transformed the Vedic knowledge into the Vedic culture not depending on one carrier, the language only. The Vedic people lived the Vedic knowledge and internalised the implications of the Vedic knowledge.
In the descending flow from the peak the Vedic-people evolved to the Upanishad-people and created a second highest peak establishing a “Vedic-language-light”, the Sanskrit language, reducing the range of different sounds to 63/64. In all probability this was not the only spoken language in the Vedic societies of the Upanishad-people. The Upanishad-people polished up ambiguities around the Vedic knowledge that had been clouded by changing social practices in the course of time and thus sustained the Vedic culture in all Vedic societies.
In the descending flow from the peak of the Vedic-people the Mahabharata-people felt the need of building a dam to withstand the momentum of the descending flow. They were concerned perceiving the “battles” within the sections in the Vedic societies. They apprehended or even foresaw “battles” between the Vedic societies. In the descending flow the Mahabharata was the third highest peak. This dam was based on the Sanskrit language. The Mahabharata-people dutifully preserved the oral-tradition of the Vedas. In all probability the Mahabharata-people had realised that there were no ways to bring the “organisers” evolving to “rulers” and the “distributers” evolving to “merchants” back to their dharma, to their duties towards the human societies.
There are no chronological evidences for the period between the end of the “Great Battle” and the first segregation movement in Bharatavarsa, the emergence of the “Jain segregation movements”, called “Jain Dharma”, around two thousand seven hundred years before our time. For a qualitative analysis of the period between the Mahabharata-people and the “Jain Dharma”-people chronological events are insignificant.
The Mahabharata-people had perceived that the seed of a claim for more in comparison to other fellow workers set by a few authors of the Upanishads, had grown. They were apprehensive that this growth had not reached an ultimate peak. Their effort creating a dam had only slowed down the growth of this seed of distributional inequality. The Mahabharata-people were settled in many affluent regional self-sufficient units organised and administrated by local/regional “rulers” maintaining the Vedic culture and the Vedic heredity. These units were geographically differentiated and denominated. The Mahabharata-people did not think of “counting” these units. They were eager to know about the diversities of the Vedic societies and describe the diversities.
Up to the period of the “Great Battle” there had not been battles between the regional units for whatsoever purposes. It is on record that before the emergence of the “Jain Dharma” the people of Bharatavarsa lived in larger “administrative units” established by “rulers”. In the post “Great Battle” period there must have been “battles” between the “administrative units” leading to supra-regional “ruler-ships”. These “rulers” were eager to inherit the “privileges” and “riches” to the next generations. In all probability this process of inheriting “privileges” and “riches” had developed in all four “sections” of the Vedic societies. The down-trend of the Vedic culture had thus continued.
It is on record that some 2700 years before our time the “Jain segregation movements”, called “Jain Dharma”, emerged in the north-eastern part of Bharatavarsa, where a supra-regional “ruler-ship” called Magadha was established. In all probability the “battles” of the Mahabharata-people all over Bharatavarsa had evolved to “wars” on issues of territorial distributions. There are no indications that the productions and the productivity in general, and/or in Magadha in particular, had gone down. Magadha was rich. The distribution of the riches was unequal. The administrative sections within the societies claimed a major share of the riches and had ultimately set their rules of distribution. Thus the administrators evolved to “rulers”. There must have been discontents amongst the “ruled”. New justifications for the new status quo were needed. The “Jain Dharma” was a reflex to this need.
Vardhamana Mahavira is credited to be the founder of the “Jain Dharma”. It will be a futile exercise to get into the etymology of the name “Jain” which has no geographical background. “Jain Dharma” is described and explained in the Prakrit language. The Prakrit language is a light-version of the Sanskrit language. It might have been the spoken Sanskrit language in Magadha as well. So, whatever names or terms are used in the Prakrit language, can be found in the Sanskrit language and are derived from the Vedic culture. The “Jain Dharma” was and is a Vedic sub-culture.
The meaning of dharma in this context is a code of duties of the Jains towards the nature and towards the societies. The meaning of dharma in the “Jain Dharma” has been diluted and not substituted. The “Jain Dharma” is yet not a reduced version of sanatana dharma, but a simple and corrupted plagiarism. The concept of sanatana dharma is based in the Vedas. In all probability the “Jain Dharma”-people were not conversant with the Vedic language.
The credited founder Vardhamana Mahavira was a scion of a “ruling-clan” in Magadha and is considered by the followers of the “Jain Dharma” as the last Mahavira (“great-hero”). Vardhamana is the name and Mahavira is the title. In the Jain-genealogy Vardhamana was the 24th and last “Mahavira” (great hero), so it has been claimed. Remarkably the first Mahavira in this geneology, Rishabha, was also a scion of a “Ruler”.
When Vardhamana was thirty years old he renounced his “royal life” seeking enlightment by discovering the meaning of human existence. So it is said. After his enlightment he did not redefine the meaning of human existence. The “Jain Dharma” focuses on the duties (dharma) of the individuals propagating more austerity in life, more devotion to discovering the meaning of human existence and to achieve absolute non-violence towards all “living” beings. As a consequence the followers of the “Jain Dharma” were to live on vegetarian foods. The flora was and is not considered as “living beings”. And the concept of non-violence has not been discussed. The “Jain Dharma” does not deal with the role of the “Rulers” or with the increasing inequalities in the societies. The “Jain Dharma” does not define violence. The term non-violence is just a synonym for “no killing” in the Prakrit language.
The “Jain Dharma” was promoted and financed by quite a few “Rulers”. They helped to build “Jain-Temples”, massive structures as its symbols for a separate identification, structures that were not built for human dwellings, but for representation of power and riches. Along with the new “symbols” for exclusive identification new social institutions were created; “teaching” centres and centres for board and lodging of the “teachers” propagating the “Jain Dharma”. The “teachers” were trained to make others follow the “Jain Dharma”. This was the beginning of “missionary” activities deviating distinctly from the Vedic culture. The Vedic culture is never taught. The Vedic culture does not make others follow. The Vedic culture is learnt in the practice of the society as a whole.
The “Jain Dharma” does not deal with the past of Magadha, with the heredity of the Magadha-people, with the distributional inequalities, with the riches accumulated by the “sections” of organisers and distributors some evolving to “rulers”, not with exploitations and not with the necessity of reverting these corrupted developments. The “Jain Dharma” is not like the Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta.
It is irrelevant to discuss the sincerity or the honesty of the “Mahaviras”. The fact is that the “Jain Dharma” helped the “rulers” and their collaborators to maintain, to consolidate their material interests and to make them future-proof. The exploited majority was left with two options: follow the “Jain Dharma” and be “happy” or remain unhappy being exploited. The “Rulers” in general need justifications for the status quo of inequalities in the societies. The “Jain Dharma” served this purpose for the emerged “rulers”.
Along with the “rulers” a category called “dynasty” came up. It meant inheritance of power and riches to the next generations as a social institution; in all probability not only in Magadha. The Magadha-people were continuously cut off from the Sanskrit language and thus being cut off the paths to rediscovering their Vedic heredity. The “functionaries” of the “Jain Dharma” focused on individual duties towards their sub-societies and towards their immediate surroundings. This deviated from the “great battle” in the Mahabharata defining the duty of human individuals in the society, in the micro cosmos and in the universe as manifested in the Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta. They did never care to preserve the Vedas in oral-tradition, nor the Vedas in the written-mode as support for human memory. The Prakrit language uses 43 sound characters for their communications and 43 Devanagari characters for the written-mode.
The general prosperity and affluence had grown. The inequality of distribution of wealth was on increase in favour of the “organiser-section” resulting in local, regional and supra-regional “rulers”. The “section” at the knowledge-front in Magadha or elsewhere might have neglected this trend of development. There are no indications that this “section” at the knowledge-front had tried to revert this trend of distributional inequalities.
The “Jain Dharma” propagates societies divided in sections: Sadhus, Sadhvis (female), Shravaks and Shravikas (female). The first two groups were supposed to work at their knowledge front to give guidance to the last two groups engaged in social productions and reproductions. It is not specified to which of these categories those “rulers”, “traders” and “distributors” were to be included. The spread of “Jain Dharma” has remained limited. The Jain-“societies” (communities) were wealthy and have remained as a wealthy tiny minority in our days and significantly was favoured by the “British occupants”.
Not much later decades another segregation movement was commenced by a scion of a “ruler” called Siddhartha Gautama also in Magadha, the same north-eastern region of Bharatavarsa. A similar tale like that of Vardhamana Mahavira is handed down about him. When he was twenty-nine he left all comforts of his home after seeing poverty, misery, and illness of many individuals for the first time in his life. Overwhelmed he dedicated his life to find ways to overcome poverty, misery and illness at individual levels. He did not question where poverty, misery, and illness came from. As a consequence he desired to attain the ultimate knowledge about the meaning and purpose of human existence at the individual level first. So it is said.
So, when Siddhartha Gautama was twenty-nine, as it has been handed down, he decided to leave his “cage” in search of a solution to overcome the misery and “sorrow”. He took up travelling and meeting others and “talking” with them. After a period of time, after about six years, so it is said, he returned to his home-area and started contemplating over his experiences. He claimed to have discovered a way to evade miseries and “sorrow” of individuals at individual levels. This, his ultimate enlightment made him known in his immediate surroundings as “Buddha”, the "Awakened One." He was then probably in his mid-thirties. Whatever knowledge he had gathered, whatever enlightment he had attained, he considered his path of acquiring knowledge and his experiences would help those individuals in poverty, misery, and illness to overcome their “sorrow”.
In all probability Siddhartha Gautama Buddha’s horizon of the “world” was determined by the knowledge that could be stored in another spoken language called Pali in Magadha. The Pali language is another diluted Sanskrit language like the Prakrit language using much less sounds. In the written-mode the Pali language does not use the Devanagari characters. In all probability he was only exposed to the then practiced Vedic Culture in his surroundings with no knowledge of the Sanskrit language. He belonged to one of the “ruling” clans “battling” each other for power and riches, we recall.
As “Buddha”, the "Awakened One", he began to propagate his “discovery” of a path to overcome “sorrow”. He was able to build up centres called “sangha(s)” meaning assembly of likeminded who were ready to follow the same path of enlightment as practiced by Siddhartha Gautama later becoming “Buddha”, the "Awakened One". The “sanghas” were the beginning of “strongholds” for spreading the “Buddha-teachings”. Female and male followers of “Buddha” started living in simple shelters practicing the “path” of Siddhartha Gautama.
The female members of “sanghas” were called bhikkhunis and the male-members bhikkuhs. The members of the “sanghas” were factually “missionaries” of the teachings of “Buddha” that was patronized by the supra-regional “ruler” of Magadha. In his region the “sanghas” were soon elevated to “Viharas” as noticeable buildings, as symbols of the teachings of “Buddha”. The “trader”-community welcomed the “Viharas” as shelters on their trade routes.
Siddhartha Gautama Buddha lived many years propagating his teachings focusing on individual enlightment. Quite a few supra-regional “Rulers” had made use of his teachings to exercising power, in large “battles” and in “wars”. During his life time the “Viharas” were enriched with “Stupas” as symbols of might. Soon thereafter temples were also built. The word dharma was used by him, but never designated his teachings as “Buddha-dharma”. He or his followers did never care to find out the roots of poverty, misery, and illness. He or his followers did maintain that the “sorrows” caused by poverty, misery and illness could be evaded living the life as bhikkhunis or as bhikkuhs to achieve individual enlightment. No wonder that the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama Buddha was favoured and propagated by “rulers” at all levels.
We get back to the beginning of the post-Vedas period of the Vedic people. The moment the peak of the knowledge-bank stored in the Vedas was reached, the pre-Vedic people became the post-Vedic-people. The Vedic-people were living a “social-system” having four fundamental organisational functions to run a society in prosperity and in harmony as an integral part of the universe. We recall:
The functional sections were created by the Vedic-people. All works were socially needed and performed. All works were interdependent. All members were equally responsible to maintaining happiness and harmony in the society. This was the dharma of the Vedic people which was denominated by them as sanatana dharma of the human-kind for all time, as the role and duty of all human individuals following the rules required for the functioning of the universe.
The Vedic-people knew about that diversions and divisions of work lead to specialisation of skills. In the pre-peak-phases the Vedic-people did not know of social categories like discrimination, disparity, deprivation, hierarchy or inequality in human societies. In the Vedas there are no hints that divisions of work or further sub-divisions of work could lead to hierarchies or inequalities in the society. The absence of these or similar categories in the Vedas in spite of divisions of work in the Vedic societies indicates that hierarchies or inequalities are not an inherent to divisions of work.
The Vedic-people knew that specialisations will reduce “mobility” creating “family-kinship-clans” of specialists as forthcoming generations would learn the skills in the daily practice of the elders. In all probability they apprehended that the reduction of “mobility” could have adversely affected “productivity”. They were conscious of the “negatives” of material affluence and therefore keen to maintain distributional equality in all four functional sections of work to ensure that the diversity of skills was not discriminated or differentiated in terms of special tributes and rewards.
In all four sections there were innovations and specialisations. The man-power in the functional sections was chosen by the Vedic-people and these chosen Vedic-people remained part-and-parcel of the Vedic-people. The movements (mobility) between the sections were open. Individual leanings and abilities perceived by the members of the society were decisive for the selections, corrections as well.
The Vedic societies underwent changes. In all probability the individual mobility between the four functional sections continuously retarding. During the post-peak-phase the Vedic-people faced a specific problem at the “knowledge-front”. The Vedas were handed down as a “knowledge-bank” created by the Vedic Rishis (the seer-scientists). After the creation of the “knowledge-bank” this had to be maintained. In this process, most probably, the Vedic Rishis (the seer-scientists) were evolving to “Vedic scholars”. Learning the Vedic language was the only entry to the “knowledge-bank”. Consequently the post-peak-Vedic-people had to ensure facilities for the forthcoming generation to learn the Vedic language. For learning comprehensive meaning of the knowledge stored in the Vedas the Vedic Rishis (the seer-scientists) evolving to “Vedic scholars” were the best addresses. There was and there is no short-cut to the Vedic “knowledge-bank” as elaborately described elsewhere.
In the other three sections the Vedic-people continued to work based on the practical applications of the knowledge stored in the Vedas. At work-places “spoken” versions of the Vedic language were required. It is irrelevant to explore in how many ages the Vedic-people had evolved to the Upanishad-people. The emergence of the Upanishads reveals that the worries of the Vedic people to noticing the negligence of the sanatana dharma in daily routine was realistic. A need of revitalisation of the Vedic culture in the Vedic societies was felt. In this process there were controversies on the interpretations of the Vedic knowledge to be applied in the prevailing Vedic societies. The Upanishads were the outcome of the revitalisation movement.
The Upanishads are commentaries on parts of the Vedic knowledge. There are at least 183 of them. That the Upanishads are compiled in the Sanskrit language, a Vedic language “light”, reveals that the Upanishad-people in general were no longer conversant with the Vedic language. This was left to the section working at the knowledge-front. This section at the knowledge-front was deputed to preserve the Vedas and the Vedic language in the Oral-tradition. It may also reveal that for the Upanishads the Sanskrit language was sufficient enough to comprehend the meanings of Vedic knowledge in its practical applications.
As mentioned elsewhere, the Sanskrit language is the second most sophisticated human language using 63/64 different sounds. Thus the Upanishads compiled in the Sanskrit language are the second-best entry to the Vedic “knowledge-bank”. The authors of the Upanishads were conversant with the Vedic language and knew the Vedas. These and many other “Vedic scholars” continued to preserve the oral-tradition of the Vedas in the Vedic language. There are no indications that any part of the Vedic “knowledge-bank” was challenged by the Upanishad-people. The controversies were on its application in the prevailing Vedic societies in certain areas.
Following the logic or malice of a peak the culture of the Vedic people was diluting. The late phase of the Upanishad-people reveals that the distributional equality was shaken. Breaking the tradition a few Upanishads carry the name of the author. All post-Upanishad literature in the Sanskrit language is personally authored, the Mahabharata included. All these authors were permitted and accepted by the Upanishad-people to define their personal interests. Defining personal interests means claiming special individual credits for their contribution to the society in comparison to other fellow members. Such claims lead sooner or later to distributional inequalities. The Upanishad-people might not have apprehended this development. Such processes are slow and the Vedic societies all over Bharatavarsa were producing in affluence. Thus the distributional inequalities might not have been felt in general.
As referred elsewhere the “Upanishad-people”, the “Vedic-people” or all other “hyphened-people” are our denominations to facilitate a qualitative analysis. When we refer to the Vedic-people, they were already in the process of evolving to the next historical “caesura-people”, i.e. to the “Upanishad-people”. We shall not know details of the process how the Vedic-people evolved to the “Upanishad-people”. There are no records. The reasons of the absence of records are simple. The Vedic-people lived sanatana dharma. All mutual exchanges in the Vedic societies all over Bharatavarsa were face-to-face and not based or guided by the written-mode of the Vedic language. The written-mode of a language is incomplete exchanges. The written-mode of the Vedic language was created as a support of human memory in the Devanagari characters, we recall.
The Vedas are handed down in the oral-tradition. The Upanishads deal with interpretations of the Vedic knowledge in a language that is the Vedic-language-light that was current at that phase of the Vedic societies, the Sanskrit language. The Upanishads are also handed down in the oral-tradition. The written-mode of the Sanskrit language was also created later as a support of human memory also in the Devanagari characters and not as substitute.
During the pre-Vedas period the Vedic-Rishis accumulated and disseminated knowledge in a continuous process for ages. Then they reached a stage when they felt, they knew all about the universe that are accessible to human-mind and enough to practice sanatana dharma as human-societies. They decided to preserve their knowledge for generations to come. This was their dharma. The Vedas are evidences that the Vedic-Rishis were part and parcel of the Vedic societies living their dharma.
This was the transition when the pre-Vedic-people became the Vedic-people and the Vedic-Rishis became Vedic-scholars. The Vedic-people had two self-assigned task: preserve the “knowledge-bank” and sharpen dharma in all walks of the Vedic societies establishing the Vedic culture for the human-kind. The beginning of the Vedic-people has been the highest peak of human culture. We take liberty to refer to the “malice” of peaks once more.
The Upanishads reveal the non-fulfilment of the self-assigned tasks of the Vedic-people in course of innumerable ages. They have preserved the Vedas, the Vedic language and the Vedic culture in Bharatavarsa. In this vast area having varied geographical regions there were countless self-sufficient Vedic societies having different conditions of living using different colloquial languages in the daily life. Yet the Vedic-people did successfully create the cultural unity in this diversity. How did they do it? All mutual human exchanges were based on the “oral-tradition”!
The Upanishad-people facing the age-long low tide in spreading the Vedic language in all Vedic societies, they did create a Vedic language-light and transferred the Vedic knowledge into the Sanskrit language. It is remarkable that the Upanishad-people did never try to “translate” the Vedas into the Sanskrit language. They created an auxiliary storage, a secondary storage, for the Vedic-knowledge-bank. They were wise and kept all doors open to the Vedas and to the Vedic language. They have lived their dharma. Nonetheless, this second-highest peak of the Vedic culture was the beginning of the Mahabharata-people.
The Upanishad-people were not able to prevent the sprouting of the “seed” of claiming authorship of a few Upanishads, claiming particular interests in the Vedic societies. It is a mission impossible to trying to explore in how many ages and in which circumstances this “seed” sprouted and spread out in the Vedic societies. The Mahabharata tells us that there were significant dilutions of the Vedic culture faced by the Mahabharata-people.
The Mahabharata reveal that the Mahabharata-people have preserved the Vedas, the Vedic language, the Sanskrit language and the Vedic culture in Bharatavarsa. The seed of particular interest of individuals in the societies did sprout, grow, sprawl and almost defuse as a “natural” element more or less in all sections. In all probability the section of “organisers” took the lead promoting this process followed by the section of “distributers”. Local “organisers” evolving to local opinion-leaders, “opinion-leaders” evolving to “local-rulers”, setting additional rules and took a larger share from the common-wealth.-In all probability this was a prolonged process for ages. Large number of “books” are handed down that emerged in the phase between the Upanishads and the Mahabharata, all in the Sanskrit language, both in oral and written modes. We have not been able to identify critical discourses on distributional inequalities.
The comprehensive narrations in the Mahabharata on diversities in the Vedic societies do indicate that certain sub-sections had evolved to “local rulers” as “family-clans” claiming and “getting” more of the commonly produced wealth in comparison to all other sections. The “Great Battle” in the Mahabharata indicates also that “battles” occurred in the Vedic societies. A battle is by its nature the enforcement of particular interests violently. The Mahabharata does not deal with how local self-sufficient “communities” merge to “regional” administrative entities and these amalgamate to supra-regional administrations.
The Mahabharata-people were concerned about “battles” and all that went with it. Their main thrust was to build a dam against distributional conflicts over resources and to limit the range of “battles” on moral issues. The “great battle” in the Mahabharata defines the dharma (duties) of human individuals in the society, in the micro cosmos and in the universe in its “pearl-abode”, the Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta. The Mahabharata was the third highest peak of the Vedic culture keeping all doors open to the roots, to the Vedas.
As mentioned earlier the end of the “great battle” in the Mahabharata was the beginning of the Kali Yuga, the last of the four Yugas, in the 28th time-spiral-circle. This Kali Yuga has a total time span of 432000 human years of which the most has been spent. Some 2500 human-years are left for us before our universe will enter the 29th time-spiral-circle in the universe.
The Mahabharata was not compiled “in a day”. In all probability it was compiled in decades, if not in centuries. In our comprehension this Epic was compiled in both oral and written modes almost simultaneously containing 220,000 lines in the written mode. For the authors it might have been necessary to keep accounts on the progress of this epical work. Very few people had access to the written-mode. Whatever was written was written by hand. A copy of the original was also hand-written. There was no other device for duplicating. The Mahabharata was compiled for the Mahabharata-people in the oral-mode. In all probability the Mahabharata was completed during the last phase of the Kali Yuga. In the beginning of the Kali Yuga the distributional inequalities were not felt by the majority of the people. They produced and lived affluently. It would be a futile exercise trying to find out reasons why those “things” happened in spite of affluence. Whatever might have been the reasons there were battles over property-resources within families, extended families, relatives and clans. There are no indications in the Mahabharata that the people were battling each other to implement a larger share of resources and/or a larger share of produced utilities. In all probability a development in this direction was apprehended or even anticipated by the Mahabharata-people. The Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta, the pearl-abode of the Mahabharata, did slow down the low-tide for ages, but could not prevent the flow of the low-tide.
Some 2700 human-years ago the first “segregation movement” emerged in the history of the Vedic culture. At this post-Mahabharata phase in Bharatavarsa the “political power” was exercised by “rulers” of all kinds, at various levels and in all areas. The “rulers” were “ruling families” and their hired “supports” (administrations) recruited from all “functional sections” of the society. The “rulers”, the “ruling families”, the “collaborators” and their hired “underlings” formed a sub-section within the societies which deviated fundamentally also from the majority of the section of the “organisers”, one of the four functional sections of the Vedic culture. These “ruling sub-sections” were not organised on the basis of equality. “Ruling sub-sections” were organised in hierarchies following the basic logic of “ruling sections”. Once “ruling sections” are established in a society, it becomes difficult to maintain the cohesion of the society.
The “ruling heads” tried to inherit “political power” by creating a social institution named “Dynasty”. The institution has remained, but there were many “rise” and “decline” of “ruling-dynasties” in Bharatavarsa. There are reports on how a particular ruling dynasty declined in the course of time. There are no explanations on why ruling dynasties regularly fall. It is just a non-question why “rulers”, the “ruling families”, the “collaborators” and their hired “underlings” are unable to inherit their possessions to generations for ages. Even the genealogical lineage gets lost as a rule after a while. Why is it so? Why do the ruling dynasties regularly fall? No questions, no answers.
The issue how “rulers” become “rulers” has been maintained as a non-question more systematically. The (hi)-stories of “rulers” begin after they became “rulers”. The “rulers” do not contribute to productions of goods. The “rulers” call territories to be their own and appropriate riches which they have not produced.-Whatever the “rulers” possess has been produced by others. Why are the “chroniclers” so discrete not to tell us how lands and riches come in the possession of the “rulers” which were not their own at whatsoever level?
We get back to the two segregation movements commenced in Magadha within a few decades. We do not know who the initiators of these movements had been. We only know that both segregation movements were propagated by the then “ruling dynasties”. The “political power” of those “ruling dynasties” was based on force and violence by its nature. The “Rulers” are in all times nothing else than “robbers” and “exploiters” of the “Ruled”. Why did the “ruling dynasties” support the segregation movements? It is known that both segregation movements were led by scions of the “ruling clans”. It is known that both “leaders” of both segregation movements left behind their luxurious life in the quest of the meaning of human-life and started living at the cost of others who were not rich. Why did they do it? Who were benefitted and who had lost?
The “Jain Dharma” highlighted Ahimsa as a fundamental moral principle for individuals, however not for all individuals. The word Ahimsa means in the Prakrit language non-violence. The word Ahimsa in the Prakrit language has been taken-over from the Sanskrit language. As mentioned earlier, the meaning of words in the Vedic or in the Sanskrit languages changes in the context of the whole sentence. In the Prakrit language the meaning of the word Ahimsa is fixed as the absence of desire to harm any living-being. The “Jain Dharma” has not elaborated the term “harm”. Were the “ruling dynasties” doing harm to the “Ruled”? No questions, no answers. The “Jain Dharma” has thus reduced the Vedic comprehensive meaning of dharma of the human-kind as a collective to individual’s duty of non-violence towards any living-being. Why did “Jain Dharma” do it? This question has not been raised yet.
We take liberty of a tiny aside. The community of “professional” chroniclers tell us a lot in the Prakrit language to begin with. They tell us the (hi)-stories like that Pradyota was one of the first of a “ruling” dynasty” in Bharatavarsa established around 2700 year ago in the north-eastern region called Magadha where the “Jain Dharma” and later the ”Buddhist teachings” had emerged. Thereafter detailed (hi)-stories followed on “ruling dynasties” and of “rulers” operating in the last phase of the Kali Yuga, of the remaining some 6000 human years, in the Pali language and in many different “vernacular” languages.
We recall the Kali Yuga of the 28th time-spiral-circle beginning after the “great battle” narrated in the Mahabharata and that has a time span of 432.000 human years. The community of “professional” chroniclers do tell us how the post- Mahabharata-people lived their Vedic culture before the first of the “ruling dynasties” in Bharatavarsa emerged. We recall also that the institutions like “ruling dynasties” and “rulers” were unknown in the Vedic societies till the beginning of the Kali Yuga. We recall as well that the Mahabharata composed in the Sanskrit language is available in our days too. Neither the Sanskrit language, nor the Vedic language has vanished from the Vedic societies in Bharatavarsa during the Kali Yuga. The dam built by the Mahabharata-people has functioned. The low tide of the Vedic culture in the post-Mahabharata phase when the Jain-Dharma emerged was flat.
In all probability the Mahabharata-people living their dharma might not have noticed that a few minorities of two sections, the “organisers” and the “distributors”, were deliberately violating their dharma. This minority had accumulated land and resources by robbing and exploiting the majority people during the post-“Great Battle” phase. It is not known why this minority in Magadha or elsewhere felt the need to initiate and promote segregation movements some 2700 years ago. At that period the Vedic societies were organised in supra-regional-administrations.
The amalgamations of local self-sufficient units to regional units and from regional units to supra-regional-administrations were not needed to improve the productivity and the distribution. In all phases in Bharatavarsa the production-sector did increase productions and productivity. The amalgamations were gradually enforced evolving the local and regional “rulers” to “governors” of supra-regional-administrations. The “ruling dynasties” were engaged in wars, not in battles or in a “great battle” as handed down in the Mahabharata.
After this aside we get back to the Jain-Dharma in Magadha. The “rulers” and the “merchants” in Magadha had established a new relationship between the “Rulers” and the “Ruled” within the Vedic societies. A relationship between the “rulers” and the “ruled” is always based on one-sided violence exercised by the “Rulers” against the “Ruled”. The “Rulers” set the new rules and laws. The “Ruled” have to follow them. If they resist, they will be made to follow. It is all quite about this fundamental violence in the “Jain Dharma”. Instead the “Jain Dharma” prescribes for the “Ruled” to be absolutely non-violent towards any living-being as their foremost duty in the society. No wonder that the “Jain Dharma” was promoted by the “ruling dynasties” elsewhere in Bharatavarsa as well.
The knowledge of the Vedic-people acquired in ages that the role and duty of the human-kind was to maintain and preserve the universe. This role and duty is defined as sanatana dharma of the human-kind being a tiny integral part of the universe. The “Jain Dharma” buried this knowledge defining the human-societies as assemblies of individuals. Individuals and their diverse interests were placed at the centre of the human societies. The “Jain Dharma” has thus corrupted the meaning of dharma in the Vedic and in the Sanskrit language. On top of it, the “Jain Dharma” did not deal with the distributional inequalities within the societies in Magadha some 2700 years before our time. The “Jain Dharma” has never dealt with the distributional inequalities within the human societies. The “Jain Dharma” did not and does not deal with “sorrows” caused by “poverty, misery, and illness” of many individuals that moved Siddhartha Gautama a few decades later as it is said.
Siddhartha Gautama was another scion of a “Ruler” also in Magadha, commencing the next segregation movement. A similar tale like that of Vardhamana Mahavira is handed down about him. When he was twenty-nine he saw “sorrows” of many individuals caused by “poverty, misery, and illness”. Overwhelmed he dedicated his life to find ways to overcome “sorrows” at individual levels. He did not question where “poverty, misery, and illness” came from. He took up travelling and meeting others and “talking” with them. After a period of time, after about six years, so it is said, he returned to his home-area and started contemplating over his experiences collected while he was travelling. Thus reaching enlightment, so it is said, he propagated a way to evade miseries and “sorrow” of individuals at the individual level following his path of enlightment as his teachings. Try to become a “Buddha”, the "Awakened One" and thus overcome your sorrow caused by poverty, misery, and illness.
Siddhartha Gautama Buddha lived many years propagating his teachings focusing on individual “enlightment”. It is not handed down how he had financed his travelling and meeting his costs of maintenance in those six years, who fed him while he contemplated over those six years in his home-area. It is handed down that quite a few supra-regional “Rulers” engaged in wars did finance his “Sanghas” “Viaharas”, “Stupas” and “Temples” thereafter.
It will be a senseless and futile exercise trying to explore why the warring "Rulers" in Magadha sponsored "Jain Dharma" and soon thereafter the "Buddhist-Teachings". Factually they did it. As a rule the "robbers" and the "exploiters" sponsor projects to promote their own interest and propagate sponsoring as an act of benevolence, as an act of compassion. Yet, ruling dynasties rise and fall.
The Magadha-people have witnessed twenty-eight individual “rulers” of four ruling-dynasties. So it is said by the professional chroniclers. The fall of the fourth ruling-dynasties was the beginning of the Maurya-Supra-Regional-“Rulership” and of the Maurian-dynasty some 2400 years ago. The territory of Magadha began to expand. Both of the segregation movements grew with the growth of the ruling-dynasties in Magadha. It seems to be evident that the “organisers” and the “distributors” in Magadha deviated far away from the Vedic culture.
On the roles of the other two sections in Magadha nothing has been handed down. All speculations will distract from a qualitative analysis of the social history of Bharatavarsa. The fact is that dynasties rise and fall, but the people continue to live. The fact is also that a “success” or a “failure” depends on the dispositions of the people at the production and at the knowledge fronts (sections). These dispositions are not recorded.
It is also a fact that the growth of societies and of cultures does not depend on the “Rulers (organisers)”, nor on the distributing “Traders” or “Merchants”, but on the “Producers” and on the “Discoverers”. The last two sections in a society always constitute a vast majority. There are no indications on the state of mind of the “Producers” and of the “Discoverers”. In all probability quite a few of them were singled out and recruited as supports for the “Rulers”. The rest of the people continued to fulfil their dharma.
The distributional equality was not maintained. There are no reports on unequal distributions within the sections of “Producers” and “Discoverers”, or on scarcities in the prevailing Vedic societies. There are no reports on exploitations and no reports on revolts against the “Rulers” or against the “Merchants” as well. In all probability the unequal distributions of all distributional items were prevalent within all “sections”. This inequality was probably “accepted” as there was no scarcity and no subjectively felt discrimination, deprivation or exploitation. In all probability the majority of the people failed to comprehend the “urges” of the “Rules” and of the “Merchants” to deviating from the Vedic culture.
We take liberty of a short glance back to the achievements of the Vedic-people and to the unique geo-physical location of Bharatavarsa. Since time immemorial the Vedic-people were engaged exploring the universe. They came to know that the earth was a tiny part of the universe and Bharatavarsa was a tiny part of the earth. They perceived that the most of the surface of the earth was covered by oceans. They discovered the “wonder” that is a system of energies and laws of the “nature” maintaining the universe and with it its tiny part the Vedic culture in Bharatavarsa flourishing in affluence.
As explorers of the universe in affluence the Vedic-people became in a natural course seafaring-people discovering the earth covered by lands and all that goes with it. Wherever they went and met human societies they had plentiful utilities with them as presents to offer. They did not trade. They did not need any utilities for exchange. They did not ask for a corresponding counter-value. They came back often with precious metals if offered. This one-way “traffic” continued for ages. This is how the accumulated legendary riches in Bharatavarsa made the rounds in the surrounding lands of Bharatavarsa since time immemorial. This is how the accumulated legendary riches in Bharatavarsa made the rounds in the surrounding lands of Bharatavarsa.
The archaeological findings have revealed ancient “artefacts” from Bharatavarsa in other “continents”, but nothing of this like in “India” from other lands or continents. And there is a considerable quantity of foreign-produced precious metals is available in “India”. In our comprehension the people of Bharatavarsa was never confronted with foreign-people before the Hellenic foray launched by Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian some 2300 years ago. The credit of the rise of Vedic culture and the responsibility of its creeping decline go solely to the people of Bharatavarsa.
The end-phase of the Kali Yuga of the 28th time cycle in Bharatavarsa is marked by all-encompassing unequal distributions in the Vedic societies in spite of an unparallel flourishing prosperity of the people at all levels. Distributional inequalities are another “term” to disguise exploitations of human beings. The extent of exploitations is variable. In the beginning, i.e. the lowest end of the exploitation-continuum, exploitation may appear to be “tolerable” to the exploited people. The high-end of the exploitation-continuum is marked by slavery. We assume that in the period between the “Great Battle”, i.e. the beginning of Kali Yuga, and the emergence of “Ruling Dynasties” based on large supra-regional-administrations the degree of exploitation was at the low end. In this phase the pre-Mahabharata-battles had developed to Wars with the purpose to occupying larger territories. The wars of the “Ruling Dynasties” did kill human beings participating in the wars. The rest of the people, the vast majority, were not involved in these wars. Nonetheless this vast majority was affected in terms of the degree of exploitation.
We get back to expanding Magadha under the Nanda-Dynasty in the central-east of Bharatavarsa and to the ever first foray against Bharatavarsa of Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian some 2300 years ago. The Nanda-Dynasty being the 3th “Ruling-Dynasty” of Magadha was expanding towards the north-west. So it has been said. Alexander had set out from ancient Greece towards the East when he was 22 years old to rob the legendary riches of Bharatavarsa. There had been no war between the Nanda-Dynasty and Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian. Alexander died when he was 32 years old. What did he do in these 10 years and how did he do it?
Alexander became the “Ruler” of Macedonia inheriting a “modernised” army at the age of 20. He was “educated” by Greek “intellectual prostitutes” like Aristotle. He was initiated to lead a mission, a campaign, a foray against Bharatavarsa. For this campaign Alexander was equipped with all resources available in Greece in the expectation of high returns in booties. The adventurous logistic was ready when Alexander was 22 years old. It was a long distance to reach Bharatavarsa. A sea-route from Greece to Bharatavarsa was not available. A look on the map of the lands around the Mediterranean-sea will reveal why a sea-route was not available. Moreover the Mediterranean-people did not possess timbers or the technological know-hows for shipbuilding. They knew nothing about the oceans or of the winds and currents. Additionally it was impracticable to transport a large army by sea.
Greek and Persian “Rulers” were engaged in regular wars resulting in alternating occupations. The “Hellenic campaign” against Bharatavarsa availed the known land-route through Persia crossing the “Hellespont”. The strategic plan was to conquer “Persian-Rulers” one by one by massive surprising attacks. The daily lootings of the foreign people on the way was limited to procuring “provisions” for maintenance. It was a large army including “heavy and light cavalries”, in man power of some 40,000 as referred in the later Greek sources. The number of man power is unimportant. Whatsoever.-Food-stuff for all, horses, riders and for Alexander inclusive was essential.
The “Hellenic campaign” knew that the routes back from Bharatavarsa with booties had to be consolidated. Consequently networks of vassals were to be created and established, mercenaries were to be recruited, trained and controlled and “Satraps” (Governor) were to be installed before moving ahead. The reliable “Satraps” were naturally Greeks. A lot of time was required and each and every step was reducing the force of the ultimate foray of Bharatavarsa. These are hard facts.
It is also a hard fact that the “Hellenic campaign” against Bharatavarsa had to cross the impassable narrow passes of the Hindu-Kush mountain-ranges of the Himalayan-massive. Just imagine of horses passing these mountain ranges. Whatever details on the “Hellenic campaign” against Bharatavarsa are made available in print-or-electronic-media are products of fantasies. These products have been created by Anglo-Saxon-Christians. The Wikipedia with its many auxiliaries is the peak of the propagated Fake-Histories in our days. We shall get back to Fake-Histories in a while.
In all probability the “Hellenic campaign” did pass the Hindu-Kush mountain-ranges of the Himalayan-massive occupying some of the border areas. The “Hellenic campaign” was totally exhausted in some nine years. The Nanda-Dynasty of Magadha had by then expanded in the whole of northern Bharatavarsa. The “military-strenght” of the expanding Nanda-Dynasty of Magadha was not put on a test. The “diadochis” practically revolted against the ardent killing zeal of Alexander, the “motor” of that gruesome inhuman campaign. Alexander had to retreat. On the way back he died when he was 32 years old. That was the end of the “Hellenic campaign”. The mission of looting Bharatavarsa remained till then a mission impossible.
The fall of the “Hellenic Domination” was on the way when die “diadochis” battled against each other to succeed Alexander. The whole Hellenic conquered area was divided. Seleucus I Nicator got hold of the Eastern-Part. In the mean time the Nanda-Dynasty was overthrown by one Chandragupta Maurya founding the Maurya-Dynasty. He built up a strong military force and ousted the Hellenic enclaves in the Nord-West of Bharatavarsa under Seleucus I Nicator in a war and expanded the rule of the Mauryia-Dynasty over almost the whole of Bharatavarsa and beyond some 2350 years ago.
We get back to Fake-Histories in regard to Alexander. He has been commonly hailed as Alexander the Great. Since when? We do not know. The hard fact is that the “Hellenic campaign” led by Alexander had failed. Instead of rich booties Greece lost its dominance to the Romans. Nonetheless Alexander has been elevated to “Alexander the Great”. He is “Alexander the Great” in our days too revealing the moral and intellectual standard of our modern world. The “Hellenic campaign” led by Alexander had been mass-killings in foreign lands only to make booties.
Most of the hailing hi(stories) about and around him are fakes. When and who narrated those stories? Were they part of the “Hellenic campaign” led by Alexander? Were they contemporaries of Alexander? For the time being we restrict ourselves to our comprehension deriving from a qualitative analysis of those 10 years of Robberies, Rapes, Killings, Occupations and Exploitations of people in foreign lands under the leadership of Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian. The hailing hi(story) of the “Hellenic campaign” is the wonder that is the Greek culture, the cradle of Jewish-Christian-Islamic civilisations and cultures.
The Maurya-Dynasty was founded by Chandragupta Maurya after the “Hellenic campaign” had ended. His grandson Ashokavardhan Maurya, known as “Ashoka the Great”, is considered to have reached the zenith of the Maurya-Dynasty possessing the ever largest territory in the history some 2300 years ago. The Maurya-Dynasty continued sponsoring both “Jain Dharma” and ”Buddhist teachings”. It is irrelevant to explore the role of these two segregation movements during the reign of the many “Ruling-Dynasties” of Magadha. The fact remains that the beginning of the fall of the Maurya-Dynasty is marked in some 2270 years ago. The centralised administration of the Maurya-dynasty fell apart in many territories. The institution of “ruling-dynasties” in Bharatavarsa continued to exist in smaller regional entities.
This was not the case with “Jain Dharma” and ”Buddhist teachings”. After the fall of the main sponsor, the Magadha-based Maurya-Dynasty, the low tide of these two segregation movements had begun. Whether co-related or not, the number of people following “Jain-Dharma” and ”Buddhist teachings” in Bharatavarsa gone down to a negligible minority since then. They had operated being richly sponsored by many “ruling Dynasties” and wealthy merchants. In some 400 years they could not significantly win over the minds of the Mahabharata-people. However, all the massive structures as symbols of riches and of importance are left behind as historical reminiscences.
On the “ruling Dynasties”, on “Jain Dharma” and on ”Buddhist teachings” a lot of “literature” has been handed down in the Prakrit language, in the Pali language and in many “vernacular” languages. The Sanskrit language was neglected in Magadha. Most probably the “sponsors” and the founders of the “Jain Dharma” and the ”Buddhist teachings” did know little about the Upanishads, and of the Vedas. They knew about the Mahabharata. It is not known whether the “rulers” of Magadha were conversant with the Sanskrit language. Being a part of the Vedic societies they were able to adopt concepts and social practices into the “Jain-Dharma” and into the ”Buddhist teachings”. The “rulers” at all levels, the merchants and the “organisation” of the “Jain Dharma” and of the” Buddhist teachings”, had to recruit “manpower” from the other two sections of the Vedic societies. The loyalty of this minority of the Mahabharata-people had to be bought. The majority continued living the Vedic culture in a low tide.
As mentioned earlier the massive demonstrations of material resources in favour of the two segregation movements in building massive structures like “temples”, living-units for missionary activities, “stupas”, “biharas”, etc. did not click. This can be concluded although the (hi)story-tellers did not or do not tell anything about this failure. In spite of-“Ashoka the Great” and his sponsorship of the “Jain-Dharma” and of the ”Buddhist teachings” the Mahabharata-people did preserve the Vedas, the Vedic language, the Upanishads, the Sanskrit language and the Vedic culture in the Vedic societies in Bharatavarsa.
The majority section of the Vedic societies responsible for productions and reproductions continued to fulfilling its dharma. Bharatavarsa remained rich. The section at the knowledge front of the Vedic societies was obviously asked by the majority section to take up additional duties. The “manpower” at the knowledge front was necessarily increased to meet this demand. In addition the Vedic societies had begun founding new “meeting points” all over Bharatavarsa, as mentioned elsewhere, where Vedic texts were recited and cultured. These “meeting points” were self-organised self-sufficient units. This was the initial reaction of the Mahabharata-people to the wars between the “Ruling Dynasties” and to the “Jain-Dharma” and the ”Buddhist teachings”. The Mahabharata-people resisted against the down-trend of the Vedic culture in their own way, quietly and persistently.
These “meeting points” were insignificant clusters in comparison to the massive structures of Jain-training-centres, or Jain temples, or Buddhist-Biharas, or Buddhist-Stupas or Buddhist-Temples. These “meeting points” evolved to new centres for preservation of the Vedic knowledge and its dissemination. The sites of these “meeting points” were selected following the Vedic knowledge on befitted cites for human dwellings avoiding negative waves and rays affecting life on the earth. The “Ruling Dynasties” of Magadha with their “infra-structures” might not have noticed these “meeting points”. They were busy protecting their territories and wealth conquered in wars in course of time after the “Great Battle” documented in the Mahabharata.
The efforts of the Mahabharata-people to limit the extent of violence to the “Great Battle” were not successful. As referred earlier, the end of the “Great Battle” marked the beginning of the Kali Yuga. The Itihas (history) of the Kali Yuga in Bharatavarsa is yet untold. The following two links of maps show approximately Bharatavarsa prior to the territorial expansion of Magadha.
Documentary reference are available only for some 4000 human years handed down in literatures composed in the Prakrit and Pali languages, the then prevalent languages in the Magadha region located in the eastern part of-Bharatavarsa. In all probability the Magadha region had by then evolved to be the “home” of the most aggressive “supra-regional-rulers”. The tales of rise and fall of “ruling dynasties” began in Magadha. The “supra-regional-rulers” of the Maurya-Dynasty took over the whole territory of Bharatavarsa in some 800 human years.
The following link of a map shows the territorial expansion of Magadha just before the fall of the “Nanda-Dynasty”. Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian ended the “Hellenic campaign” seeing the military strength of the “Nanda-Dynasty”.
The fall of the “Nanda-Dynasty” was the beginning of the “Maurya-Dynasty” in Magadha. The founder of this dynasty, Chandragupta Maurya, took over the whole territory of the “Nanda-Dynasty” after defeating Dhana Nanda, the 9th Nanda. The following link of a map shows the territorial expansion of Magadha under him.
Some 2315 years ago the Maurya-Dynasty began to decline. The beginning of decline of the “Jain-Dharma” and of the ”Buddhist-teachings” is not exactly marked. The fact remains, however, that both of these two segregation movements have almost vanished from Bharatavarsa and the non-Jain and non-Buddhist “meeting-points” began to emerge some 2300 ago.
Between the Mahabharata in the Sanskrit language and the flood of post-Sanskrit literature in quite a few simpler languages, no significant “books” has been handed down. This fact indicates that during the Kali Yuga in Bharatavarsa the Vedic societies did not cultivate the “Vedic knowledge-bank”, the Mahabharata and the Sanskrit language. The Mahabharata-people did preserve the Vedas, the Upanishads and all “books” composed in the Sanskrit language, but the mainstream only lived the Vedic culture in the low-tide and followed their dharma. We do not know whether the four functional sections as integral parts of the Vedic societies were maintained or the functional sections had evolved to many sub-sections retarding systematically the social mobility in the Vedic societies. The following facts continued to prevail in the Kali Yuga:
In all probability the “rulers” and the “traders” were indifferent to all others as long as they continued to live their dharma and did not challenge the usurped privileges. De facto the “rulers” and the “traders” had created their own Vedic-subcultures. We do not know when exactly the “meeting points” began to emerge. Probably the “homes” of all individuals delegated to the knowledge-sectors became “meeting points”. “Dating acrobatics” will not be beneficial to assessing the importance of the “meeting points”.
The “meeting points” did get a specific significance in the late phase of the Kali Yuga when wars amongst the “rulers” were the call of the day. The greed of a minority for wealth caused relative poverty of the producing people. The “rulers” and the “traders” sponsored the Jain-Dharma, a little later Buddha-teachings as well, to “appease” the potential individuals falling down in “sorrows caused by poverty, misery and illness”. In this phase the “meeting points” were evolving to “Ashrams” (dissemination-places of Vedic knowledge and for the practice of the oral-tradition), to “Muthas” (centres for mutual exchanges between Vedic Acharyas) and “Mandirs” (Temples, places for individual and collective contemplation).
All over Bharatavarsa there are innumerable “Temples” and many “Muthas”. These “Temples” are neither “Jain Dharma-Temples”, nor ”Buddha-Temples”. These “Temples” have grown from the early “meeting-points” of the Mahabharata-people. The regional diversity of the Vedic societies is manifested in these massive building structures, which were not built for human dwellings. It is the Vedic culture that maintained the unity in diversity without ever creating a sort of remote-administration. Dissemination of the Vedic knowledge did not need remote-administrations. Dissemination of the Vedic knowledge is learnt from the culture manifested in daily life.
None of the clusters of “meeting-points” growing to “Temples” or “Muthas” were ever designated as Vedic-Building-Structures. Many of these “Temples” are “ancient”. But none of these “Temples” was built before 2300 years ago. These non- “Jain Dharma”-Temples, non-”Buddha”-“Temples” were designated to different “names” for differentiations. Where these “names” did come from? How and why these names were generated?
The Mahabharata-people did not tell us anything about these “names”. They just gave the names. These “names” are Vedic “words” in the Vedic language featuring all the many physical and supra-physical energies in the universe and their interactions. As mentioned earlier, the Vedas deal with all aspects of the universe that can be perceived by the five senses of the human beings. The life on the earth as a tiny part of the whole is determined by many physical and supra-physical energies in the universe and their interactions. These energies have different qualities, effects and impacts. The Vedic-Rishis (seer-scientists) did identify the cosmic matrix of energies and named them individually with meanings for differentiations. These names characterise their kind and quality. Many of the names representing important supra-physical energies were further diversified according to their different phases of manifestation. For example “Indra”. “Indra” is also “Shiva” or “Sundareswara“ or „Shankara”. “Indra” has many other names indicating fine differences within the main energy.
As mentioned, all the many non- “Jain-Dharma-Temples”, non-”Buddha-Temples” were places for specific contemplations and reflections over specific constellations of supra-physical energies and how they affect life on the earth. This was one of the methods created by the Mahabharata-people to preserve the Vedic-knowledge-bank during the segregation-movements. This method has prevailed over the segregation movements sponsored by powerful “ruling-dynasties” like that of Magadha.
The Mahabharata-people correlated this method with another branch of knowledge. The human-being as an individual and as a part of the “collective” possesses potentiality of individual growth in diverse directions as well as with the differentiations within the directions. The directions of the growth can be defined, determined, followed and attained. The result of this correlation has been that the names of energies were “personalised” to ease personal identifications to the qualities of growth. The rather “abstract” knowledge on cosmic energies and their matrix was disseminated comprehensively in the daily life by means of stories, metaphors, parables personifying different characters, giving different artistic forms.
After this little aside we are back to the post-Mahabharata phase, to the phase of “segregations” and of “meeting points”. Individual Credits were not important for the Vedic-Rishis (seer scientists), not for the most Vedic “scholars”. But thereafter names and Credits differentiating individual accomplishments became more and more common. The Mahabharata is full of names and of their individual history. These names were adopted from the “Vedic figures” like Vishnu and Indra with their “thousand other names”. Names in this category are for differentiations. The universe is interdependent. The cosmic matrix differentiates.
In the phase of “segregations” and of “meeting points” the Vedic Gurus and the Vedic Acharyas were required, not the Vedic Rishis or the Vedic scholars. The Gurus and the Acharyas were narrators knowing all about the names of the Vedic-figures. Many Gurus and Acharyas assumed also names of Vedic-figures. The matrix (network) of physical and supraphysical energies and their impact on human societies were disseminated along with Vedic-figures carrying aspects of the Vedic knowledge applied in daily activities in the Vedic societies.
The Mahabharata-people succeeded with this systematic approach to revive the Vedic culture. Some 2600 years ago they delegated enough manpower to the knowledge-front. It was a toilsome task for the Gurus and the Acharyas that they succeeded to turn around the downtrend and to elevate the Vedic culture to the level of the “great-Battle”-phase in the Mahabharata. In around 300 years the level of the Vedic culture was elevated to an extent that after the fall of the Maurya-Dynasty no other “Ruling-Dynasties” followed a similar hegemonic goal to rule over the whole of Bharatavarsa. The two segregation movements did not succeed. A third segregation movement in the Vedic societies has not emerged.
Quite a few Gurus and Acharyas even traced back to the level of post-Upanishad phase when many Upanishads were commented in the Sanskrit language as auxiliaries to “reaching” the Vedic knowledge stored in the Vedas. In the midst of many Acharyas there were quite a few “Shankaracharyas” as well. Shankara is one of the “thousand” names of the “Vedic figure” Shiva or Indra. One of the “Shankaracharyas”, Adi Shankaracharya has left behind strong marks elevating the Vedic culture. Adi most probably indicate the foremost of all “Shankaracharyas” of that phase.
This revival of the Vedic culture consolidated the oral-tradition de-centrally and created a similar social atmosphere as it was in the post-Upanishad phase of Vedic “scholarship”. Another institutional outcome was the social practice of “calling” Vedic Gurus and Acharyas for recitation of Vedic texts in all important social events. Thus the familiarity with the sounds of the Vedic and of the Sanskrit languages has been maintained. The large “section” responsible for productions and reproductions continued fulfilling its dharma. Bharatavarsa continued producing a large variety of utilities in surplus always keeping harmony with the nature. They used renewable basic materials for productions of utilities. They have maintained and not destroyed the nature.
There are no indications that any of the “Ruling-Dynasties” ever fought against or suppressed the emerging social “institutions”. There are no indications that there had been “battles” between the diverse social institutions in the Vedic culture. Diverse social institutions were and are expressions of different routes of possible implementation of knowledge into the social practice.
There had not been battles between the Vedic societies or battles within the Vedic societies on issues comparable to the issue of the “great-battle” in the Mahabharata. The majority of the people were not parties in the battles or wars of the “Ruling-Dynasties”. The “Ruling-Dynasties” needed and recruited mercenaries for their wars. The rest of the people remained indifferent and lived the Vedic culture.
The battles or the wars were and are never a purpose for itself. The wars especially are always another name of robbing and of exploitation of human-beings. In the course of time the Vedic culture prevailed over goals to establishing a singular rule of a “Ruling Dynasty” and over those two segregation movement originating from Magadha.
We take liberty of an aside. None of the Vedic societies have ever robbed in foreign territories. But yet there had been a significant spread of the Vedic culture beyond Bharatavarsa in whatsoever diluted form. The Vedic-Rishis (Seer-Scientists) were not only experts in Astronomy; they were also experts on currents in the oceans and winds on the surface of the earth. The spread of the Vedic culture was based on “life-styles” and on peaceful exchanges of produced utilities using the sea routes. The Vedic civilisation in Bharatavarsa had a significant maritime wing since millenniums. The legendary accumulation of wealth was thus known elsewhere. As mentioned earlier, Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian undertook the very first attempt to rob in Bharatavarsa some 2300 years ago. The Vedic culture and the Vedic civilisations of the Mahabharata-people prevailed.
Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian is an example. Being a “ruler” of a poor region he knew that it would be difficult to pile up wealth exclusively exploiting his “own people”. He knew about the welfare of the people and their wealth accumulated in the surrounding foreign regions. His advisers and he came to the conclusion that it could be more convenient to invest all resources for planning of forays. This is the cultural background and the mental setup of all ruffians at all levels. In a little while more on this aspect.
The Vedic-people knew that the welfare of the people and their common wealth needed distributional equality in all walks of life in the society. The distributional equality was maintained in the Vedic societies up to the late phase of the Upanishads. We recall a few “authors” of Upanishads had begun to claim special credit for their contributions towards the society. Any special claim of anybody for more for anything is the beginning of inequalities within any society. That seed of a few “authors” did sprout in all Vedic societies and has affected the Vedic Culture. Factually all post-Upanishad-literatures carry names of the author. Thus the authority of knowledge was transformed as an instrument of piling up individual assets claiming for more and more privileges.
The Upanishad-people might not have anticipated that this minor claim of authorship was the beginning of a never ending spiral increasing distributional inequalities. Any speculation on this issue is futile.-The fact is that the Upanishad-people have not prevented distributional inequalities. The distributional inequalities were and are the cause of “battles” and “wars”. We do not know the details how it began in Bharatavarsa. It has happened.
Individual perceptions and experiences in the surroundings and reflections on them are prerequisites for exchanges on the same issues with fellow individuals. When individual perceptions, experiences and reflections correspond with that of the others, or if there are controversies and then lead to a consensus, these parts become components of knowledge. When components of knowledge are disseminated in the society, the authority of knowledge begins. The whole society contributes to establish the authority of knowledge. There is no room for individual credits or for any special claims. And, there is no need for individual credits. Whenever a society sanctions individual claims for credits, the society has accepted the transformation of the authority of knowledge to exercising individual power and violence by usurpation of other contributions.
The vivid descriptions in the Mahabharata of diversely developed Vedic societies manifest distributional inequalities in many walks of life in the Vedic culture. As mentioned elsewhere the “Great Battle” and the Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta were the pillars of a dam built by the Mahabharata-people to put a halt towards increasing distributional inequalities and towards “battles” to usurp more and more.
For “groups” of individuals delegated to the sectors for organisation and distribution it had been practically rather “smooth” to take a little more. The reverse-side of this smoothly-taking-more was that there were plentifully surplus-productions. Otherwise there would have been no peace in the society. Whatever might be the case, peaceful or not, “taking more” than all others in the society means robbery, to put it plainly. The dam built by the Mahabharata-people has not prevented the progress of the low-tide of the Vedic culture. The “battles” had escalated to wars at many levels.
After this aside we are back to another dimension of the “Ruling-Dynasties” and to the two segregation movements setting out from Magadha. We are back to the phase of some 2700 years ago.-In all probability the section of “organisers” began with battling and warring. The section of “distributors” followed the example of the “organisers”. The other two sections living their dharma were not directly involved. For them there was no need of a showing-off. The emergence of the “Ruling-Dynasties” in Bharatavarsa preceded the “Jain Dharma”. The “Ruling-Dynasties” were warring for larger territorial control and all that goes with it. There are no indications that the “Ruling-Dynasties” were robbing wealth as well. It is remarkable that none of them had built “Palaces” as symbols of their might and wealth. There are no “archaeological remains” of “Palaces” or of “Forts” or of “Walls” in Bharatavarsa that were built as status symbols of wealth. We recall, the “Jain-Dharma-Temples” were the beginning of “massive-structures” as symbols of might.
As detailes elsewhere, the Vedic people of the pre-Vedas-period did not hand down the history how they created the “knowledge bank”, the Four Vedas. They assumed, they knew all about the universe that was accessible to the human-kind. They saved this knowledge for all future generations of the human-kind. The Vedic-people organised their societies according to this knowledge leading to the Vedic culture and to Vedic civilisations. The Vedic-people had realised that no other Kind on the earth than the human-kind did create “knowledge-banks”, cultures and civilisations. At the sight of this “privilege” they reflected over their duty and responsibility in the universe. The result was sanatana dharma, the maintenance of the perceived universal order as a whole. Accordingly they built up human civilisations safeguarding against the “whims” of the nature on the earth. Building up civilisation means to make use of natural resources. The Vedic people did not build anything that went beyond this purpose. They used renewable resources. They did not waste resources.
The Vedic people made their life safe and comfortable without affecting the universal order. The low-tide of the Vedic culture had begun immediately after reaching the peak marked by the Four Vedas. The post-peak-Vedic-people did not know that they were evolving to the Upanishad-people. The Upanishad-people felt the need of building a dam to retard the speed of the low tide. They preserved the Vedas and the Vedic language. Additionally they created a Vedic-language-light (the Sanskrit language), rendered the Vedic knowledge into the Sanskrit language, but were unable to prevent the beginning of distributional inequalities in the Vedic societies diluting the Vedic culture. However, the Vedic societies remained affluent.
In a similar way the Upanishad-people were evolving to the Mahabharata-people immediately after they had completed their dam, i.e. the completion of the Upanishads. The Mahabharata discloses that distributional inequalities in the Vedic societies had captured all walks of life in different degrees. Family-clans belonging to the sector of the organisers were battling to increase their power, possessions and eventually wealth. The Mahabharata-people did not deal with the distributional inequalities. They preserved the Sanskrit language and all that goes with it. In “scholarly circles” they preserved also the Upanishads, the Vedas and the Vedic language. They were concerned about the “battles” within and amongst the Vedic societies. The “Great-Battle” and the Shrimad Bhagavad Geeta were the pillars of the dam they had built to limit the justifications for a battle.
By its nature the dams slow down the speed of tides only. The down-trend of the Vedic culture continued and had led to “Ruling Dynasties” not only in Magadha. Wars were the call of the day. The “Rulers” did recruit “mercenaries” from the other three “sections”, but there were no wars against them. The “Rulers” were warring for their territorial gains. The “Rulers” were parts of the Vedic culture. The ruling administrations were also parts of the Vedic cultures. They lived a Vedic sub-culture. Is it not remarkable that none of the “rulers”, none even of the Maurya-Dynasty, had ever built a massive structure of durable materials that could be denominated as a palace?
The “Ruling Dynasties” did not cultivate the Sanskrit language, the Upanishads, the Vedic language and the Vedas. They promoted instead more simple regional languages. They did not fight against any aspects of the Vedic heredity. There are no indications that a “Ruler” ever interfered in the activities of the “scholarly circles”. They went only up to the extent of sponsoring the two segregation movements.
To recall, the “Jain-Dharma” was founded and sponsored by the “Ruling-Dynasties in Magadha some 2700 years ago. The “Jain-Dharma” propagates “social” practices that would discard all human temptations with the purpose to achieve “ultimate freedom” in life at individual level. The propagators of the “Jain-Dharma” began building massive structures with durable materials. These buildings were not built for human dwellings. They were “training centres”. They were to provide board and lodging for the “activists” while being trained with the purpose of propagating the “Jain-Dharma” into the Vedic societies. The language used is called Prakrit, a regional “Sanskrit-light” language leaving out 1/3 of the sounds of the Sanskrit language. The “Jain-Temples” followed as perceivable symbols of power and prosperity. The landscape of Bharatavarsa began changing.
To recall as well, Siddhartha Gautama founded his teachings several decades later. He himself belonged to a “Ruling-Dynasty” in Magadha and the spread of his teachings were sponsored by the “Ruling-Dynasties”. Siddhartha Gautama dedicated his life to find ways to overcome poverty, misery and illness at individual levels. He had spent years travelling and meeting others and “talking” with them. On returning to his home-area he started contemplating over his experiences. He “discovered” a way to evade miseries and “sorrow” of individuals at individual levels. This, his ultimate enlightment made him known in his immediate surroundings as “Buddha”, the "Awakened One." He began to propagate his “discovery” of a path to overcome “sorrow” at individual levels. The language he used is called Pali, another regional “Sanskrit-light-language”. Siddhartha Gautama Buddha followed a similar “Jain-Dharma-path” building massive structure with durable materials: buildings for training centres and “Stupas”, “Biharas” and Temples as symbols for separate identification. The landscape of Bharatavarsa became crowded by all these massive building structures under the patronage of the “Ruling-Dynasties”.
The malice of whatever “teachings” is that the “teachings” represent the interests of the patronising “Rulers”. The “Ruled” should not learn to perceive the “world” around them. “Teachings” have to be propagated to the “Ruled”. They have to be taught, they should not learn at their own. These basics by its nature teach us why the “Jain-Dharma” and the “Teachings of Siddhartha Gautama Buddha” flourished for a few centuries only and then almost vanished from Bharatavarsa. The “Ruling-Dynasties” in Magadha in particular needed “justifiers” appeasing the “Ruled”. In all probability these two “segregation movements” did never spread in Bharatavarsa. With the fall of the Maurya-Dynasty” these two “segregation movements” failed as well. Those massive buildings using durable materials have remained as sources for “wild speculations” by “intellectual prostitutes” of our days.
Two aspects are remarkable in this context. The “Ruling-Dynasties” of Magadha attempted successfully to gain administrative control over the Vedic culture in the whole of Bharatavarsa in steps. The Nanda-Dynasty of Magadha defended Bharatavarsa against the invasion of Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian. Instead of wars both opponents preferred to establish “friendship” in mutual interest. Many Hellenes lived thereafter in Bharatavarsa as “ambassadors” and have composed many “books” carrying detailed information on Bharatavarsa in their language. This has been a one-way process. There are no comparable “books” on the land of the Hellenes in the Sanskrit language or in a “Sanskrit-light” language like the Prakrit language or in the Pali language. Those Hellenes did not bring any new aspects of knowledge into Bharatavarsa. The Maurya-Dynasty never gained control over the Vedic culture. The “Jain Dharma” and “Buddha-Teachings” sponsored and maintained by the Magadha-Dynasties failed to divide the minds of the Mahabharata-people. After the fall of the Maurya-Dynasty the “Ruling-Dynasties” in general were reduced to “regional rulers” in the Vedic societies. The Vedic culture prevailed. This is one aspect.
The Maurya-Dynasty was able to maintain territorial control over vast areas in Bharatavarsa for round about a century. Those massive buildings using durable materials, once created as symbols of new identity, of wealth and of might, remained. During this period the Mahabharata-people were occupied to build up a dam against the “segregation movements”. They littered Bharatavarsa with “meeting-points” later evolving to large “Ashrams” (dissemination-places of Vedic knowledge and for the practice of the oral-tradition)”, to “Muthas” (centres for mutual exchanges between Vedic Acharyas)” and “Mandirs” (Temples, places for individual and collective contemplation). Their “Muthas” and their “Temples" were also massive buildings using durable materials as symbols of a revival of the Vedic culture. These massive buildings have remained. The landscape of Bharatavarsa became dominated by “Temples”. This is the second aspect.
There are no indications of atrocities between the powerful minority of the Magadha-people and the majority of the Mahabharata-people. None of the massive buildings were ever attacked or were objects of aggressions from the one side or the other. But the wars between the “Ruling-Dynasties” continued after the fall of Maurya-Dynasty at many levels over territorial control. In all probability the majority of the all four sections was not directly involved in these wars or affected by the wars. These wars were not forays. These wars did not specially affect the prevailing distributional inequalities in the Vedic societies. The prevailing distributional inequalities continued in its own dynamic.
There are no indications that the “Ruling-Dynasties” interfered in the activities of the “meeting-points”, “ashrams”, “muthas” and “new temples”. The revival movement of the Mahabharata-people ensured that the “section at the knowledge front” could continue their work in these new centres. The oral-tradition of the Vedas, the Vedic knowledge, the Upanishads, the Mahabharata and the Sanskrit language were preserved. The increase in productivity and growth in all branches of production continued. The Vedic civilisations also. The Vedic culture was strengthened.
This revival movement of the Mahabharata-people some 2300 human years ago brought them a calm prosperity for more than a millennium. The Vedic culture continued to flourish. The surplus of the production-sector leading to wealth and riches was unequally distributed, and was accumulated in the hands of “rulers” and of “merchants”. Their dwellings did not provide enough storage space for accumulated wealth and riches. They did not extend their dwelling building “Palaces”. They preferred to store accumulated wealth and riches in the “Temples”.
It is not on record how much the Mahabharata-people knew what was happening in the vast areas West of Bharatavarsa when Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian intruded into Bharatavarsa on foray through the only land-route, a pass through the Pāriyātra Parvata of the western Himalayas some 2300 years ago. In all probability the Mahabharata-people who were engaged resisting against the two segregation movements did know nothing about Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian. They were not affected.
In all probability the regional “Ruling-Dynasties” in the West of Bharatavarsa were taken into surprise by this first attack of foreign ruffians. This pass through the Pāriyātra Parvata of the western Himalayas was unguarded. Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian knew about the accumulated wealth and riches in Bharatavarsa before he commenced his forays. The following map may give an impression about the extent of the forays of Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian.
When Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian appeared on foray, the “ruling-dynasties” in the north-west of Bharatavarsa were surprised seeing the range and variety of violence. They knew only the kind of wars of their own and that of the “ruling-dynasties” of Magadha. In those wars the people were not robbed or massacred. Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian had to rob and kill for the maintenance of his fellow-ruffians and horses. The smaller “ruling-dynasties” were “militarily” not well-equipped to stop Alexander. But when these fellow-ruffians envisaged the strength of the well-equipped aggressive Nanda-Dynasty in the north-west, they revolted. Alexander had no alternative than to retreat. Thus the “Hellenic-Campaign” led by Alexander was a complete disaster. The massive investment of the Hellenic-“Rulers” was lost. On the way back Alexander died. The whole occupied area began to fall apart.
In this phase Nanda-Dynasty was abolished by Chandragupta Maurya establishing the Maurya-Dynasty of Magadha that was significantly more aggressive than the Nanda-Dynasty. Chandragupta Maurya expanded his territorial control in all directions. The following link of a map shows the territorial expansion of Magadha under him.
The Maurya-Dynasty was “militarily” strong enough to occupy the whole territory in the West of Bharatavarsa then ruled by the “diadochi”, Seleucus I Nicator, one of the successors of Alexander. This was not done. The territorial aggression of the Maurya-Rulers had been restricted within the territories of the Vedic societies in Bharatavarsa. It is known that the Vedic subculture of the Jain-Dharma had a spread westwards beyond today’s Afghanistan. It is not known whether the Maurya-Rulers were keen to safeguard the pass through the Pāriyātra Parvata of the western Himalayas by peaceful means only. The fact is that the no “ruling dynasty” was involved in the developments of “West Asia” in the Hellenic-period.
It is also a fact that after some two years of wars between Chandragupta Maurya and Seleucus I Nicator there was a settlement of peace. Seleucus I Nicator surrendered the whole territories of the Himalayan extension in the West of-the Pāriyātra Parvata. He was pleased to have established peaceful “friendly relationship” with Chandragupta Maurya and having the privilege of sending an Ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya. It is not on record that there was an exchange of Ambassadors.
This peaceful “friendly relationship” made it possible that quite a few of those Hellenic ruffians stayed back in Bharatavarsa, travelled extensively, observed, learnt and “wrote” many books describing the flora and fauna of Bharatavarsa, the Vedic culture, the Vedic societies and the Vedic civilisations. In the course of time these ruffians learnt and knew more details than they knew about their own land. The explanation is simple. The ruffians on forays are in general not personalities with knowledge. Even in the north-west of Bharatavarsa the Mahabharata-people did not aspire of taking similar undertakings like that of Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian to rob the Hellenes or to participate in their knowledge. The reason might be simple as well. The domains of the Hellenes were less developed in all respect.
We take liberty of an aside to look into the developments in the vast areas in the West of Bharatavarsa which has deeply affected the Mahabharata-people after more than a millennium of the post-Hellenic-period.
The Mahabharata-people knew a lot from the Mahabharata how the surface of the earth looked like that was not covered by water. The Vedic civilisations had developed a comprehensive network of maritime undertakings to know many details about the earth as a tiny part of the universe. As mentioned earlier the Vedas store comprehensive knowledge about the Solar-system which is a part of a greater system of luminaries in the Universe. It goes without saying that the Vedas store comprehensive knowledge as well about the winds on the surface of the earth and the wind and the currents on oceans determined by the Solar-system. The Mahabharata-people inherited this knowledge and undertook naturally maritime undertakings to know more about human societies on the earth. These undertakings made Bharatavarsa known with its “legendary” knowledge, culture, civilisations and riches millenniums earlier than the violent adventure of Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian.
The Hellenes had developed their languages, had summed up their perceptions, experiences and mutual exchanges in a knowledge-system. Their societies, their culture, their civilisations were outstanding in the vast areas in the West of Bharatavarsa. The heredity of the Hellenes came partly from the developments of human societies in the areas that surround the large water surface now called the “Mediterranean Sea” and partly from the whole of the North-East of “Greece” including “Persia”. There had been many “Wars” between the “Persian”-Ruling-Dynasties and “Greek”-Ruling-Dynasties. There had been numourous “Battles” also in the vast areas in the West of Bharatavarsa. In all probability the main purpose of these “Battles” were not making booties, but for territorial gains. In none of these areas notable amounts of riches could not be accumulated because of their low productivity determined by the nature. In all probability Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian was the first undertaking forays in the West of Bharatavarsa and just not “Battles”.
It might be remarkable that Bharatavarsa and the entire West of Bharatavarsa have played significant roles in the human history; the complete “Mediterranean Sea” areas included. It may not be fruitful use of time and resources to trying to reconstruct the causes. The facts following the “significant events” are important. The “Mediterranean Sea” is almost completely enclosed excepting one narrow outlet towards the “Atlantic Ocean” in the West. It is surrounded by two vast land-areas which are almost partitioned by water. In the south-east corner of the “Mediterranean Sea” these two land-areas are connected by land.
The northern “Mediterranean Sea” has five major peninsulas: “Ceuta” on the north-west coast of the “continent” now called “Africa”, “Anatolian” peninsula on the north-west of the other “continent” now called “Asia”, “Balkan” peninsula on the north-north-west “Mediterranean Sea” including “Greek”, “Italian” and “Iberian” peninsulas. For reasons not known and cannot be reconstructed why the “Mediterranean” rims had developed differently. The Hellenic Ruffians topped the list of resourcefulness and began forays eastwards. Decades later the “Roman” Ruffians began forays towards the mainland northwards. After the collapse of Hellenic dominance caused by Alexander the great Hasardeur the Roman Ruffians “colonised” Greece also. Both gangs of Ruffians followed one single objective: to capture as much territory and booty as possible. This is the nature of Ruffians.
The foray of Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian has been the peak of the Greek cultures and civilisations in terms of violent domination of foreign lands. This was some 2300 years ago. There are indications on the pre-peak-phase in “Greece”. These indications are not sufficient to reconstruct the history of the Greeks who were engaged in constant “Battles” against Persia or vice-versa with changing territorial dominations. Eastern Persia was exposed to the Vedic culture. We do not know for how long. There are no indications that there had ever been “Battles” between Bharatavarsa and Persia.
From the West of Bharatavarsa a broad belt of lands up to the “Iberian” peninsula humane societies, cultures and civilisations emerged that was favoured by nature differently. We shall deal with it in a while. We get back to the pre-peak history of Greece as it has been handed down. This history has been divided in the “Classical Greek” and “Hellenic Greek”. Who divided this period of history and why, it is beyond our knowledge. Looking back to the history of this broad belt of lands in general and to the history of Greece is restricted to some 7000 years.
Beyond this limit everything is in darkness, so it is said. Said by whom? We do not know. There are no indications that this assertion was shared by any contemporaries of Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian. Whatever is “known” about Greek language, Greek knowledge, Greek culture and Greek civilisation, are rediscoveries of a later period. These rediscoveries are primarily based on written literatures. A similar literature-base has not been handed down by any other “people” belonging to this broad belt of lands excepting for the “Romans”. The ancient Greek literature was narrated first. It is not known when the written-mode of the Greek and the Latin languages of the Romans were created.
We keep in mind that all human societies on the earth create their own language. Human languages are spoken. There is no substitute, no surrogate for a spoken language. Not all human societies have created “grammar books” for their language. Initial “grammar books” are also spoken. Not all human societies have created “civilisations”, i.e. moulding natural surroundings to make life comfortable. Only a few human societies have created literature.
The language is a medium of transport for thoughts. The accumulation of thoughts is literature. All initial literature is narrated. The literature is a prerequisite to developing a culture. The need crop up to creating secondary storages of cultural achievements later. The written-mode of a language is one of the secondary storages for literature. For a long stretch of time the secondary storages remain accessible to a slim minority. There was never a compelling need for the vast majority to read and write. This majority was and is privileged to use the primary transport for communication, i.e. face-to-face. This assertion is valid in our days as well.
It goes without saying that written literatures are never authentic. The written-mode of any language presupposes an oral-version. A language is essentially sounds, mimics and gestures used in interpersonal exchanges. No “written-mode” can substitute listening to articulated sounds and observing mimics and gestures while sounds are produced. This is fundamental for any interpersonal exchanges. A language is a “medium” of transport for interpersonal exchanges. A written-version for the same interpersonal exchange will remain meaningless if the “reader” is not conversant with the sounds and gestures and unable to reconstruct those in his mind. Even the best reconstruction by the “reader” will remain secondary to the original exchange for the simple reason that the “reader” does never have an immediate feedback. In addition to this the “reader” will not know whether the written-version has been manipulated and corrupted.
We take liberty to get into a few more basics regarding human societies and “communications”. The human-kind like all other kinds on the earth needs “society” for survival. Human-beings like all other beings are equipped with senses, with an organ enabling to produce sounds and with memory. These equipments are used for exchanges of perceptions, experiences, and reflections by mimics, gestures and sounds. The range of different mimic, gestures and sounds are needed for differentiations of massages. The different sounds are the beginning of languages. The mimics and the gestures are integrated précising supports. All human societies create their own language constituting their particular identity which is conditioned by the “local” factors of the surrounding nature. A language carries the whole meaning essentially in the “oral-mode”, i.e. in face-to-face exchanges.
A language is carrier of “communications”. It develops at all levels along with the growth of the societies. This development is determined by the demands of the societies to improve the quality of interpersonal exchanges. The more knowledge a society accumulates, the more different sounds are required to create more words, more precise rules for using words in a sentence and so on. All these happen in the “oral-mode”, i.e. in face-to-face exchanges. The need of a “written-mode” can come up much later as special cases. The most human languages in the history did not create “written-modes”.
Individual perceptions, experiences, reflections, realisations, estimations, point of views are not worth unless they are disseminated and accepted in the society, thus becoming socially relevant. This is the way how individual point of views becomes knowledge for the whole society. All parts of knowledge are essentially stored in the human memory. The human memory is so to say the individual “hard disk”. The storage capacity of human memory seems to be limitless. In the “oral-mode”, i.e. in face-to-face exchanges, the individual “hard disks” are shared with many others. This is the process how knowledge is accumulated in human societies. The whole range of human communications, from short massages, episodes, narrations, discourses of thoughts, is regulated by collectively shared human memory in the “oral-mode”, i.e. in face-to-face exchanges. There are no compelling reasons for a “written-mode” of languages to live harmoniously and happily in a society.
As a matter of fact all human languages at the initial local levels have vanished without leaving a mark on the history of human “communications”. The societies at the initial local levels needed larger levels of “organisations” to improve the conditions of their life building up regional and supra-regional levels. This growth has determined the creation of more efficient “carriers” for interpersonal exchanges, i.e. the growth of languages. It cannot be recalled enough that only few human societies on the earth have created “literature” as well for the forthcoming generations as the Vedic-people did. The Vedic-people created the memory-based “oral-tradition” to ensure that nothing gets lost in the course of time. They knew that there is no substitute for the “oral-tradition”. None the less they created a number of storages outside of the human memory as supports for the human memory at various levels, amongst them also the written-mode. As dealt with elsewhere, the Upanishad-people and by the Mahabharata-people preserved and maintained the oral-tradition following the insight and wisdom of the Vedic-people. The Vedic language using 97 different sounds was diluted in the course of time. The down-trend could be consolidated creating a “Vedic-language-light”, the Sanskrit language, using 63/64 different sounds. They cared to preserve the Vedic language in the oral-tradition. And they did not neglect the necessity of storages outside of the human memory.
The Epic Mahabharata is narrated, not written. The vast amount of literature in Bharatavarsa is narrated. The narrated literature is authentic and is disseminated in the societies belonging to the Vedic culture. Written versions of literature are of inferior quality by its nature and accessible to a slim minority. Written versions are needful for “archives”, to be maintained by “clerks”. Human societies need spoken languages for genuine, un-manipulated, un-mediated exchanges of information, facts, cohesive narrations and literature. Genuine exchanges have to be stored in common-human-memory. Human societies need oral-tradition for developing a culture. The written-mode is by its nature mediated, at best, secondary exchange of “information” for a tiny minority. Someone has to write down. Someone has to read. The massage is never genuine, at best, it is not deliberately faked.
We take liberty not to get back to the “broad belt of lands west of Bharatavarsa” in general and to Greece in particular before we cite one example, one sound “om” of the Vedic language. Hundreds of written pages won’t reproduce what happens in human body and mind being exposed to this sound seeing the person creating this sound. This sound is not lost in the “Vedic-language-light”, the Sanskrit language, using 63/64 different sounds.
There are no indications that the “ancient” Greek-people had ever developed an oral-tradition of the Greek language. The Greek language seemingly used less than 40 different sounds for mutual communications. In the written-mode there were and there are less than 40 alphabets. Whatever is known about the developments of human societies in the “broad belt of lands west of Bharatavarsa” has been summarised and archived in the written-mode of the Greek language. Only a few of the “ancient” Greek-people were able to transfer spoken sounds into alphabets, words, sentences and so on, quite naturally without sounds, mimics and gestures. Who were these few people? We do not know. This question or similar questions have to be put whenever we deal with our past. However it is obvious that these people could record in the written-mode only contents that they had understood while listening to the oral version. What did they understand? How was it checked that the receiving-end did understand the recitation of the sending-end? An exact cross-checking is inbuilt in the oral-tradition in Bharatavarsa.-The “ancient” Greek-people did not create an oral-tradition. The “ancient” Greek-people did not differentiate between primary narrations and secondary narrations. Their “collective-memory” is rather arbitrary.
All other people of the “broad belt of lands west of Bharatavarsa” have not handed down written-modes of their language, did not produce literature in their own language. For example, the “Nile-Valley”-people had a little higher productivity, created civilisations, but no literature and culture. The same is valid for the land of rivers “Tigris-Euphrates” and probably for Persia. The “rulers” were “battling” each other at all levels. The Supra-regional-“Rulers” of Ancient-Greece, the Land of rivers “Tigris-Euphrates”, Persia and of the “Nile-Valley” were permanently on Wars with varying domination over territories. In the North of this “broad belt of lands west of Bharatavarsa” was just “darkness”. In the “broad belt of lands west of Bharatavarsa” the ancient Greeks were “elevated” because of their civilisation, language and culture. Their perceptions and versions of all events around are recorded and archived in Greece in the written-mode of the Greek language. It is not on record when this Greek archive was first used, by whom and for what purpose. It is also not on record how often this recorded information were copied or rewritten.
In ancient Greece there were no other facilities to create readable “Texts” than by “hand-writing” and no other facilities of duplicating other than by “hand-writing”. On which material did they write? The malice of “hand-writings” and of making copies by “hand-writing” was earlier worse than in our days. How reliable are “information” in the written-mode? How often and by whom those texts have been rewritten? In the Vedic culture the language in the oral-tradition was learnt in the societal daily practice and was not taught. Whatever they learnt, they preserved it in their memory in original and exchanged with others in face-to-face-mode in original. Thus the oral-tradition is established. The “written-mode” was taught to a few persons only who were to take care of one of the secondary supports, the written-mode, for eventual aid to the human memory and as secondary source besides the oral-tradition for the future generations.
The ancient Greek “scholars” produced huge amount of literature which was not accessible in the written-mode to the most of the ancient Greek-people. The reasons are simple. The most of the ancient Greek-people were slaves. Slaves did not count in Greece or anywhere in this area. They were considered to be “sub-human”. Even amongst the rest of the ancient Greek-people, a tiny minority of the whole population, the ancient Greek “scholars” included, were not conversant in the written-mode. The most of this minority did not care about the written-mode. The most of this minority exchanged in the face-to-face communication-mode. They talked to each other. This minority was privileged. They never produced anything for their existential living (Lebensmittel). The supply came from the slaves. These are the two reasons.
There are no indications that the huge amount of literature produced by the ancient Greek “scholars” was in the written-mode of the Greek language. The ancient Greek “scholars” were scions of the “haves” at the lower end. They were in competition with each other to climb in the hierarchy selling their skills to the “Rulers” as Justifiers and Advisers. They did not care to communicate their thoughts to the “slaves”, to the vast majority of the people. The “slaves” were negligible for “intellectuals” in the ancient Greek-Polis and for all “haves” in the society. The critical reviews of societal organizations initiated by ancient Greek “scholars” had nothing to do with the “slaves”, with the “have-nots”.
The Vedic Rishis (seer-scientists) in Bharatavarsa were part and parcel of the whole society. Their knowledge was disseminated to the whole society. They established the oral-tradition of the Vedic language permanently. Thus they could avoid creation of virtual worlds of thoughts and fantasies for exclusive circles. The Vedic Rishis (seer- scientists), the Vedic Scholars, the Vedic Acharyas did not sell their knowledge. They were not missionaries either. There are no indications that they ever travelled to Greece or elsewhere outside Bharatavarsa. There are no handed down accounts in Bharatavarsa on Greece, neither in the Vedic language nor in the Sanskrit language. There are indications in the Greek literature that the ancient Greeks knew about the culture and riches in Bharatavarsa. It is on record that ancient Greek “scholars” were consultants of Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian before he set out on forays. The Greek and Hellenic “scholars” were the first “intellectual prostitutes” on record.
There are no evidences that ancient Greek “scholars” had visited Bharatavarsa. They could have widened their horizon in all spheres of knowledge. After the death of Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian Hellenic “scholars” did visit, stay and reported on Bharatavarsa in the Greek language. As mentioned, the Greeks did not establish an oral-tradition. Whatever is handed down about ancient Greek “scholars”, on the Greek culture began after the “dark period”, i.e. some 5000 years ago, in the narrated-mode of the Greek language. Who were these ancient Greek “scholars” and how authentic are the “texts” ascribed to them?
Socrates is an exemplary case. Whatever is known about him has been handed down by his main “disciples”, Plato and Xenophon. These two young “followers”, Plato and Xenophon, have narrated their encounters with Socrates. These narrations are here and there contradictory. Naturally, individual perceptions are different. None the less it seems to be beyond doubts that Socrates did live. He was not a scion of a “Ruling Family”, not a scion of an “Oligarch”, not a scion of the “nobles”, he belonged to a well-to-do family engaged in stone-mason-works. He might have learnt the skill of stone mason and sculpture too. He served as soldier, as mercenary and participated in at least three wars. He was rather indifferent to his family duties. He spent most of his time in symposiums. So it has been narrated.
In ancient Greece the Symposiums were at best “meeting-points”, at best with like-minded “friends” for conversations. Generally symposiums were places for entertainments with meals and drinks. This link gives a visual impression:
Plato and Xenophon were impressed by the way how Socrates used to talk, used to put questions to initiate critical review of the society. Socrates is celebrated as “a classical Greek philosopher who is credited with laying the fundamentals of modern Western philosophy”. It is not known whether Socrates had ever claimed to be a “philosopher”. Two elements of the Greek language, φῐ́λος (affinity) and σοφός (to know about how it works) constitute the word “philósophos”. This original meaning has been corrupted in the Latin Language by “intellectuals” amidst the Catholic-Church-People in the 17. Century engaged in justifying the combined rule of the Church and the “Rulers”. These plagiarists attributed to the term “Philosophos” a false meaning calling it “Philosophia” in the Latin Language: „love of wisdom".
As indicated earlier, “Society” meant for ancient Greek “scholars” only the section of the “haves by birth” in the society. A foreigner like Aristotle, the celebrated “pupil” of Plato, a metoikos, did not have the same rights. All others were slaves for agricultural and other works, the “have-nots” having no rights in the society.-The ancient Greek “scholars” belonged to the section of “Traders and Merchants” amongst the “citizens” enjoying all rights and fighting to climb in the hierarchy, to becoming “equals” of the “Aristocrats”, “Nobles” and “Rulers”.
Being a meticulous observer Socrates did not miss the social dynamic how smoothly a “Have” at the lowest level in the “society” could fall into the section of the slaves. However, Socrates did not see, at least did not talk about, exploitations, “battles”, wars at many levels, etc., nor did his disciple Plato or Plato’s favourite disciple Aristotle. The ancient Greek “scholars” having affinity to describe how it works did not notice that the Human-Kind is a tiny part on the earth besides all other “Kinds” and that the earth was a tiny part in the whole of the universe as die Vedic-Rishis did and disseminated this knowledge to the most in the society.
Socrates has not handed down a single line in “writing”. There is no indication that he could read and write. Socrates had talked. Plato and Xenophon were young listeners. These two attentive admirers talked about Socrates. Otherwise we would not know anything about Socrates. Plato and Xenophon listened also to the “defence speech” of Socrates while he was put on a public trial because of his critical reviews of societal organisations and were impressed by the speech. Socrates was not an “intellectual prostitute”. He was sentenced to death. He took hemlock as poison. “The wonder that was” the ancient Greek culture. It is not known how many Socrates lived in the ancient Greek culture.
Plato and Xenophon reported on this largely organised public trail and also on the speech of Socrates. Both of them had understood the speech as “apology”. Both of them narrated the “speech” as a “central issue”. Both of them narrated differently. This is the malice of understanding by listening only. In Plato’s dialogue the “apology” of Socrates is the central issue as he had understood. In Xenophon’s dialogue “apology” is the central issue as he had understood. It is remarkable that both of them narrated under the same heading. The crux is that Socrates did not apologise in his speech. He spoke on societal organisations critically. “The wonder that was” the ancient Greek culture.
In all probability Plato and Xenophon were also narrators and not writers. The written-mode of the Greek language was created later. The “moral dispositions” of the ancient Greek “scholars” is best reflected in the fact that Aristotle, the celebrated “disciple” of Plato, left “Athens” after the death of his “patron” Plato and became the teacher of Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian instructing him and promoting his plans of forays. The Hellenes hailed Aristotle as a great scholar and Alexander as “Alexander the Great”. This indicates the standard of moral and culture not only of the Hellenes, but of the whole “broad belt of lands west of Bharatavarsa”. The “Hellenic Campaign” was the beginning of forays in the human history.
Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian had set out from “Mediterranean Europe” and conquered parts of “North Africa” and large parts of “West Asia”. It has not been questioned how it could have been accomplished? How could the “Campaigners” maintain themselves? Who were the people living in those vast far-reaching conquered areas? How many human beings were killed? Did those people had languages, literatures, cultures and civilisation? What happened to the booties? How could this vast area be controlled and administered? It might be that there never has been a “Hellenic Empire”.
While Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian was hurrying to invade Bharatavarsa the Roman-Ruffians were busy building up an invading potential. On their routes the Ruffians had to maintain themselves. They had to rob and all that goes with it. They did not care to look behind. But Alexander’s Ruffians and he himself were exhausted being on continuous forays for 10 long years. His top Ruffians preferred friendship with the “regional-rulers” in Bharatavarsa than eventually to die. Getting into Bharatavarsa was the zenith of achievement in the life of Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian. The “Hellenic Campaign” to rob riches in Bharatavarsa was a total flop.
Alexander died on his route back when he was 32 years old, some 2300 years ago in Babylon. This peak of an eventual “Hellenic Empire” was reached in some 12 years. This was the peak of the Hellenic civilisation. The death of Alexander was the beginning of the decline of the Hellenic civilisation. It took some hundred years. Not much is known. In all probability there was a dominance of the Hellenes in the eastern area of the Mediterranean between Egypt and Turkey till the Romans defeated and “colonised” them after the fall of Corinth in 2146 years ago our time.
The fall of the Greek civilisation indicate the decay of the social order not only in Greece. The whole “broad belt of lands west of Bharatavarsa” was precariously inhuman. Those societies unable to create their own literature, and thus culture for the progenies, were engaged in indiscriminate robberies and killings and all that go with them in their own areas. The inherent human values leading to human cultures were getting destroyed. Most of these societies did not develop devices to preserve their past. It is not known how many of them had created devices for storage of information outside the human memory. Thus their past was getting lost. They did not create the oral-tradition of storage in the “collective-human-memory. They lived without developing future perspectives. Wild stories were in the air. These stories were recorded by the Greeks according to their capacity of understanding of the languages which were not their own. No validity check of the stories could be undertaken. This is the malice of wild stories in the air. All stories were at least once “translated”. No translation is equivalent of the original. Translations and translations of translations are reconstructions of past narrations. We keep this mind.
The “philosophy” of our time is dominated by the traditions laid by these Greek “scholars”. The “western philosophers” have yet to explain when, how, where and from whom they acquired the knowledge of the ancient Greek language and in which mode, oral or written. In all probability these questions have not been raised yet. Whatsoever. Two aspects are remarkable in this context.
Making booties is a process of learning. Making booties mean - in straight diction – robbing, exploiting, suppressing producers belonging to the same community, virtually of “own” people. This inherently inhuman violent attitude is learnt at the lowest level leading to local “rulers”. It is thereafter a continuum to larger entities. The booty-makers, the “rulers” at all level never produce “Lebensmittel”, for none. The established practice of booty-making in a society reflects a primitiveness which is inherently alien to the nature of-human-beings. This is one aspect.
The Hellenes and the Romans knew about the accumulated wealth and riches elsewhere in the foreign. They knew also that they will never reach that height in terms of wealth and riches exclusively by robbing and exploiting their own people. They mobilised all resources, worked out the logistics and set out for forays in foreign territories having higher productivity. Where did that knowledge come from? The Ruffians were by their nature too primitive to acquire knowledge about foreign lands and cultures. In all probability there had been a period of peaceful exchange of knowledge and culture before the Ruffians like Alexander began to dominate. This is the second aspect.
The societies in the whole “broad belt of lands west of Bharatavarsa” were disintegrated inhumanly. In view of indiscriminate exploitation by “Rulers” at all levels the people were losing hopes of relief from societal instances. The exploited people failed to revolt against the “Rulers”. There were no instances for orientations. In this social atmosphere of peril in the whole “broad belt of lands west of Bharatavarsa” the people there were ready to adopt fantasies, narrations, stories and ideas of some “supreme authority” as an ultimate saviour.
This was the ideal breeding ground for ideas of some kind of an unearthly authority possessing ultimate powers to transform inhuman-societies to human-societies. How many such ideas were produced is not on record. It is on record that during this period an imaginary category was invented in the human history in the lands of eastern Mediterranean Sea, between today’s “Egypt” and “Iraq”: the category is called belief as a substitute to knowledge. In the hopeless situation the people could be distracted from their knowledge based on experiences that their misery was caused by the unlimited greed of the “Rulers”. The knowledge-based reaction should have been searching for ways to dismantle the power of the “Rulers”. Instead the people were lured to try a cosy way trusting in an imaginary “supreme authority” governing over the perceived universal order. Thus they were cut off from their own perceptions, experiences, knowledge. However, the virtual “supreme authority” remained indefinable, invisible, indescribable, unearthly but almighty. So the “supreme authority” has been defined. The people were made to believe that the “supreme authority” being omniscient (all-knowing) knew also about their misery and will send messages to overcome when the time comes. So it came.
The “supreme authority” appeared to a single person in today’s Egypt and revealed to him exemplarily how to save the down-trodden” humanity from peril. One has to believe and trust in that single person. This is the malice when one depends on belief. Who was this single person in the history? How this single person became known? Who made this single person known? We first take liberty to tell the story as it has been told and believed since some 2300 years. It “happened” during the low tide of the Pharaonic Civilisation in today’s Egypt, while the Greek civilisation and culture was declining and while the high tide of the Roman-Ruffians was on.
The “supreme authority” appeared to a single person at the court of Pharaoh and asked him to liberate those slaves who were “His people” and to lead them to their “homeland”. “His people” was denominated as the Hebrew-people and their homeland as “Canaan” in the North of today’s Egypt. This single person himself has put the whole story on record. He has not told how this happened. How could he identify the “supreme authority”? In which language did they communicate with each other? Whatsoever, it was claimed by that single person and the enslaved Hebrew-people in “Egypt” trusted and followed him blindly. So it has been narrated by that single person. There are no other sources for this story.
We reproduce the main components of the story. We refrain from qualifying these components. However, we take liberty to raise questions. The “Egyptian Rulers” had at some time enslaved Hebrew-people and kept them in misery in “Egypt” as slaves. One day a courtier of the “Egyptian Ruler” claimed that the “supreme authority” of the Hebrew-people had asked him to liberate “His people”, the Hebrew slaves, and take them back to their original Hebrew-homeland called “Canaan” far away in the North of “Egypt” across the “Red-Sea”. It is not told when and how these Hebrew-people were brought from “Canaan” to Egypt.
The Hebrew-people in “Canaan” were offspring of one “clan-chief” called Abraham. He was guided by the “supreme authority”. So it was narrated after more than a millennium of Abraham’s life-time had passed. Abraham had many wives and many children. These children had also many children. It is not known when he lived. It is not known how he became a Hebrew. However, all Hebrew-people belonged to the lineage of Abraham. Thus all Hebrew-people are people of “Abraham’s supreme authority”. So it is said and also accepted by a large part of the human-kind in our days too.
This story of Abraham has been narrated many centuries later by the same courtier of the “Egyptian Ruler”. He was the very first narrator of this “(hi)story”. And this story has not been challenged yet. Before he could narrate the story of Abraham he had claimed that the “supreme authority” revealed to him personally his mission of liberating the Hebrew slaves from “Egypt”. There are no other sources indicating the same or similar narration. The Hebrew slaves were ready to follow the courtier of the “Egyptian Ruler”, but the “Egyptian Ruler” opposed to the mission.
The “supreme-authority” noticed the resistance of the “Egyptian Ruler” and sent “Ten Plagues” to the people of Egypt to break the resistance of the “Egyptian Ruler”. The Egyptian “Ruler” had to give up his opposition and let the Hebrew slaves go. This “missionary” action on behalf of the “supreme authority” resulted in liberating the Hebrew slaves from “Egypt” and in guiding them across the “Red Sea” to “Canaan”. It took years. No one has narrated how this “human-trek” could physically maintain themselves in those years. Well, no questions, no answers.
When the liberated “Hebrew-people” reached the “Mount Sinai”, the “supreme-authority” appeared personally again only to the same courtier of the “Egyptian Ruler” and revealed to him the “fundamental laws” to be followed by “His Hebrew-people” in “Canaan”. These “fundamental laws” were the “Ten Commandments” and as such is valid in our days too. This story was and is believed not only by the Hebrew-people. The “Ten Commandments” are in fact a list of ten bans needed to maintain identity as a human-society in cohesion as practically the last chance. Who was the courtier of the “Egyptian Ruler”?
A daughter of the “Egyptian Ruler” discovered a baby-foundling in a “basket” on the bank of the “River Nile” in “Egypt”. She rescued the male-baby, took him to the “palace”, gave him the name Moses and brought him up as an “Egyptian Prince”. He learnt communicating in the language spoken in ancient “Egypt”. He did not disclose in which language the “supreme authority” communicated to him and in which language he communicated to the Hebrew slaves. Whatever is known about Moses, goes back solely to the tales told by Moses.
There are no indications that these “(hi)storys” were in the air in the area between “Egypt” and “Turkey" before Moses narrated them. No one has ever questioned how a foundling from the River Nile, an adopted “Egyptian Prince”, could have known anything about Abraham living far away in “Canaan” centuries before his time, about his “supreme authority”, about his descendents and about “Canaan”, the land of the “Hebrew-people”. No question, no answer. There are no indications when that “Egyptian Ruler” had conquered “Canaan”, enslaved “Hebrew-people” and deported them to “Egypt”. It is not on record that “Egyptian Rulers” were engaged in wars in the “broad belt of lands west of Bharatavarsa” like the Greeks and Persians. In all probability the “Egyptian” civilisations were well-to-do enough and did not feel like developing the inhuman drive for forays.
The liberated “Hebrew-people” took possession of “Canaan” and settled down. Moses had expired before the “Hebrew-people” took possession of “Canaan”. Nothing is known about how those non-Hebrew human-beings living in “Canaan” were expelled, where to and what happened to them. No questions, no answers. The “Hebrew-people” lived for quite some time in “Canaan”, did implement the “Torah” that was passed over to Moses by the “supreme-authority”, known as the “Mosaic Laws”. The “Torah” did not dismantle or discredited the practices of unequal distribution in all walks of life. Disparities amongst the “Hebrew-people” are a non-topic in the “Torah”. The “Torah”, as claimed by the “Hebrew-people”, contains five “chapters” of narrations by Moses in oral-mode. These “chapters” were called “books” in the English translation of the Greek word τὰ βιβλία meaning “the books”.
All narrations by Moses are in the Hebrew language, so it is claimed. The fact is, however, all his narrations could not be recorded in the Hebrew language which was then spoken only. The “Moses-people” did not establish an oral-tradition making systematic use of human memory as primary storage of history. They did not produce literature and thus did not create culture. Whatever is known about Moses was first recorded in the ancient Greek oral lore only.
As mentioned elsewhere, the Greeks also did not establish an oral-tradition. In all probability the Greeks created the written-mode of their language earlier than any other people in the West of Bharatavarsa. This explains why all tales in the air of this vast area have been recorded in the Greek language. The written-mode of the Hebrew language, for example was created some 1500 years ago. So it has been claimed. The Greek language has kept Moses alive. And Moses has created the story of the “supreme-authority” of the “Hebrew-people”, narrated in the “Hebrew language” and handed down in the Greek language. We keep the malice of translations in the mind.
It may not be relevant to explore whether Moses is at all a historical figure. The concept of the “supreme-authority” of the “Hebrew-people” has survived as the concept of a “supreme-authority” which is beyond the reach of human perceptions and thus beyond human knowledge. The obvious contradiction was bridged by Moses claiming that the “supreme-authority” of the “Hebrew-people” had “revealed” the whole (hi)story to him. The denominations of the “supreme-authority” have changed with time, but not the concept of the “supreme-authority” and the concept of “revelation”. Both concepts are in the realm of “Belief”. One has to believe or one will be made to believe. In the world of Knowledge one has to be convinced by facts. We keep these two different worlds in the mind.
The “Hebrew-people”, better the “Moses-people”, began to practice and to live the “Torah” in “Canaan”. The “Moses-people” added nineteen “books” to the “Torah”. These nineteen “books” mainly describe the life and performances of outstanding persons amidst the “Moses-people” titled as “Prophets”. In the pecking order they carried lower weight than that of Moses, the “revealed” one. The “Prophets” were not “revealed”. These twenty-four “books” are considered by the “Moses-people” as organisational guide-lines (laws) for their societies. They named the whole collection of twenty-four “Books” as the “Tanakh”. In the “world” of “Tanakh” another instance was created between the “supreme-authority” and His-people: The Angels. There is a pecking order amongst the “Angels” too. The “Angels” are describable.
All these stories were handed down in the Greek language in oral-mode. It may not be improbable that the Greeks had created a written-mode by that time, i.e. some 2200 years ago. The “Moses-people” lived as the “chosen people of the supreme-authority” in “Canaan” having their centre of domination called “Jerusalem”. They were happy to be the “chosen people of the supreme-authority”. They did not dismantle social disparities amongst the “Moses-people”. Unequal distribution in all walks of life continued. Unequal distribution was accepted as the will of the supreme-authority”.
The “Moses-people” trusted Moses telling them the story of his “revelation”. They must have felt elevated that the “supreme-authority” has chosen them to be “His” people. The “chosen people of the supreme-authority” might or might not have reflected over the malice of their Belief. All other human-beings on the earth were not chosen to be “His” people. Accordingly all other human-beings were inferior to the “chosen people of the supreme-authority”. They definitely did not know that never before human-beings were classified in the categories “superiority - inferiority or “blessed – not-blessed”. It is not even a tiny “step” from “not-blessed-human-beings” to “cursed-human-beings”. This seed of degrading or even denigrating “other-human-beings” on the basis of a belief sprouted as violence of no limit.
The “supreme-authority” of the “chosen people” on the earth might have felt uncomfortable in view of the self-righteousness of the “Rulers” at all levels, should the following handed down story be taken soberly. The “supreme-authority” of the “Moses-people”, so it is said, “sent” his personal messenger, the archangel Gabriel, to a simple 14 years old virgin girl called “Mary” in Nazareth. The archangel Gabriel brought the message from the “supreme-authority” to the simple virgin girl Mary that she was to become the mother of the Son of the supreme-authority. This “Son” was to bring back the “Moses-people” to the right path eliminating all wrong paths leading to social disparities and deprivations. Mary gave birth to Jesus as the Son of the supreme-authority who has been called Jesus of Nazareth.
We apologise deviating a little in interpreting stories told. We get back to facts. Decades earlier before Jesus of Nazareth was born the Romans were on forays and had occupied “Canaan” also. The “ruling domination of the “Moses-people” there was over. By that time the “Moses-people” were calling themselves “Jewish people”. When, why and how the “Moses-people” became “Jewish people”, is not known. The “Jewish people” had given a name for their “supreme-authority” also: YHWH in the written-mode, in the English language Yahweh or Jehovah. The “Tanakh” was also renamed as the “Jewish Bible”. The term “Bible” was borrowed from the Greek language following the usual practice. The Greek word τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, (bible) means "the books". When, why and how the “Tanakh” was renamed as the “Jewish Bible” is not known.
The societies of the “Jewish people” in “Canaan” were in turmoil. Their “supreme-authority”, “Yahweh” or “Jehovah” did not care for remedies against exploitations of the “Have-nots” by the “Haves” amongst His-people. The violent “Romans” were keen to rob and squeeze out as much as possible from the conquered foreign lands. This is the nature of forays. Those “Haves” of the “Jewish people”, who could migrate with their mobile wealth, did migrate to less developed regions beyond the reach of the Roman ruffians. Many “Haves” of the “Jewish people” became collaborators of the Roman ruffians. The Rest of the “Haves” did not possess the potential to win the “Have-nots” for a common struggle against the Roman occupants. Or they did not consider this alternative. A Moses was not there. They continued their exploitations of their own people at a smaller scale being “junior” administrators under the Roman occupants. The social disparities reached a precariously critical point in some decades.
A significant minority of the “Jewish Have-nots” resisted against the indigenous exploiters. The “Jewish self-government” operating under the Roman ruffians was strong enough to meet the resistance. It is not known how many “leaders” of the resistance were put into prison or even sentenced to death. It is on record that one of the leaders of the resistance was Jesus of Nazareth. He had to face a trail and the “Jewish self-government” sentenced him to death with the approval of the Roman occupants. The Roman occupants “crucified” this “leader” of the resistance. After his death he became a hero of the Jewish “Have-nots”. They successfully launched a movement claiming that Jesus of Nazareth was not just a normal Jew. He was the Son of the invisible Lord “Yahweh” of the “chosen people” having a visible human body. Thus another “human-figure” like Moses was created for better identification with the circulated stories.
We recall. The Supreme Lord Yahweh of the “Jewish people” sent his personal messenger the Archangel Gabriel to Mary, the 14 years old virgin girl, to announce that she was to become the mother of the Son of the Yahweh. This “Son” was to bring back the “Jewish-people” on track overcoming social disparities. Mary gave birth to Jesus of Nazareth. The grown up Jesus of Nazareth, so it is said, knew to propagate a new formula of consolations for the “Have-nots”: he proclaimed the need of “benevolence” and of “charity” in the human society, the need to show “compassion” and to show “mercy”. He appealed to the “Haves” to practice these needs towards the “Have-nots”.
So it has been spread by the “followers” of Jesus of Nazareth, especially by the “twelve disciples” called “Apostles”, creating a new section of the “Jewish people”. It is not relevant whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person, or whether it was he who added those amendments and created a new section of the “Jewish people”. The fact is that a section of the “Jewish people” took up the mission to propagate the need of “benevolence” and of “charity” in the human society, the need to show “compassion” and to show “mercy”. He did not urge the “Have-nots” to put up resistance against exploitations by the “Haves”. The “Jewish have-nots” flocked together in hopes. Gradually the mission of the Jesus-people, preaching the need of “benevolence” and of “charity” and “compassion and “mercy” towards the destitute, appealed to many.
It is not known in which language or languages all these people were communicating with each other and with the Roman ruffians. Whatever happened in the areas of “Lord Yahweh” was originally recorded in no other language than in the Greek language. All other sources, Latin versions included, are reproductions of the Greek records. We keep in mind that reproductions do not resemble the original. The Greek versions are also reproductions of hear-says in the air.
The mission of the “supreme-authority” under Moses had obviously ignored the practice of unequal distribution in all walks of life. The “supreme-authority” did not disclose to Moses that unequal distribution in all walks of life cannot be maintained in the long run. It is not known whether the stories told by Moses about the Supreme-Authority, about his mission, the ten Plagues against the Egyptian “Ruler”, the dictated Ten Commandments are true. It is not relevant to explore what is true and what is false. It is important to note that the “Moses-people” were fully satisfied with their belief of being the “chosen people” of the “supreme-authority” and with their “Tanakh”, later renamed as the “Jewish Bible”.
The new section of the “Jewish people”, the Jesus-people, did not segregate from “Abraham’s heredity”, they amended only the “Jewish Bible” in two parts: the Old Testament and the New Testament. They maintained that the “supreme-authority” had revealed to Moses the right guidelines for the organisation of the “Jewish societies”. The implementation of the guidelines was imperfect. Seeing the imperfect implementation the “supreme-authority” of the “Jewish people”, the “Supreme Lord”, sent Jesus of Nazareth to accomplish the perfect implementation of the right guidelines. The “Moses-people” had lived the Old Testament and the “Jesus-people” live the New Testament.
The “Moses-people” never thought of proselytising. They were happy and felt comfortable being the “chosen people” of the Supreme Lord. Their violence towards the “other-peoples” was limited in exploitations. The section of the Moses-people switching over to the Son of the “supreme-authority” on the earth, the Jesus-people, took up the mission of the Son of the “supreme-authority” on the earth to proselytising the whole “World” with this truth. The Jesus-people represented the Will of the Supreme Lord represented by his Son in a human body, a Will for the whole humanity showing the only path to salvation. The sprouted seed of violence of the “Moses-people” started growing. The mission of salvation of the humanity alienated the “Jesus-people” gradually from the lineage of Abraham and from their identity as “Jewish-people”. The latent violence of the “chosen-people” took real shape.
It is not known when and under which circumstances the title “Christ” was added to Jesus of Nazareth. In all probability it was not his personal claim. The title “Christ” was a special reverence elevating Jesus compared to Moses. This term Christ was, following the usual practice, borrowed from the Greek word Χριστός, meaning literally „the anointed one“ and in a metaphorical sense “the especially chosen one”. The “Moses-people” would have called him “Mashiah” or “Messiah”, who would lead the humanity to “salvation”. Calling Jesus of Nazareth Jesus Christ the Jesus-people factually segregated from their “Jewish-heredity”.
Many of the oppressed people around did find consolations in the mission of the Son of the “supreme-authority” and became part of a mission. The Roman occupants were indifferent towards the “Jesus-people” in the beginning. The following some three centuries the “Roman-rulers” practiced a policy of swing between persecutions of and co-operations with the “Jesus Christ-people”. Some 1600 years ago the “Roman-Rulers” ultimately realised the benefit of close alliance with the mission of the “Jesus-people” in maintaining unequal distributions and exploitations in all walks of life all over the regions of Roman occupation. The Roman occupations and the proselytising of the “Jesus-people” campaigned jointly. In this process the “Jesus Christ-people” alienated completely from their “Jewish-heredity” and created a new identity as the “Jesus Christ-people”. The Mission of Jesus Christ, proselytising the entire humanity, went far beyond the inherent violence of forays. The Hellenes and the Romans were after the riches generated and accumulated by “others”. They were ruthless robbers. The Mission of Jesus Christ, proselytising the entire humanity, robbed the cultural identity the “others” in addition.
One large area in the “broad belt of lands west of Bharatavarsa” was never a target of forays, the “Arab-Peninsula” The reason is simple. The “Arab-regions” were not wealthy. There was nothing to be robbed. The region was under-populated. Some 1400 years ago a person living in Mecca, a trading centre at the western part of the “Arab-Peninsula” on the Eastern Coast of the “Red Sea”, claimed that the Supreme Lord had sent his personal messenger Archangel Gabriel revealing to him the latest “Testament” of the Supreme Lord. He was then 40 years old. He was not a “Prince” like Moses, not of such humble origin like Mary and Jesus of Nazareth; he was an Arabic spoken Trader and a shepherd having good reputation. He was an orphan.-His paternal uncle took care of him. He was well settled in life when he married a well-to-do widow. He was 25 and she was 40 years old. The whole coastal area of the Eastern “Red Sea” was dominated by “Jewish-people” and by “Jesus-people”. The most of the population was in poverty. He felt with them. Often he took refuge to a cave called Hira not far from Mecca to contemplate over the miseries of the oppressed people, so it is said.
While he was contemplating at his age of 40 in that cave Hira the Archangel Gabriel, the personal messenger of the Supreme Lord, appeared to reveal him his mission. He was Muhammad ibn ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿAbdul-Muṭṭalib ibn Hāshim. His followers called him Muhammad. He claimed that the personal messenger of the Supreme Lord Archangel Gabriel visited him repeatedly to reveal word by word the latest “Testament” called The Quran. The Quran has been narrated in the Arabic language, not in the Greek language. The Quran as the latest “Testament” of the Supreme Lord determine in details, word by word, the societal organisations necessary to live the latest “Testament”.
It is not relevant to look into the merits of claims or to judge the merits of the stories told. The fact is that the Muhammad-people based their actions as a mission on the basis of these claims and on the stories told, as the Moses-people and the Jesus-people did. These people acted and lived on the basis of the Belief that “The supreme Lord” revealed The Torah to Moses, sent his son Jesus as a human-being to create The New Testament and sent his personal messenger the Archangel Gabriel to Muhammad to receive The Quran word by word as His latest “Testament”. Moses was an adopted Prince at the court of the Egyptian “Ruler, Jesus as His Son was given birth by Virgin Mary belonging to the Jewish-people and Muhammad was an ordinary merchant when he was 40 years old.
“The supreme Lord” of Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad is “The Lord” of the “Hebrew-people”, alias the “Moses-people”, alias the “Jewish-people. The sole source of the whole story of a Supreme-Lord is Moses. Moses narrated the “five books” of the Torah. The Torah tells the tale of Adam, Eve, Noah the 10th Patriarch, Noah’s Ark, the great flood, Noah’s family, Abraham the 10th decent of Noah and so on. All details of this story can be found in Genesis. The link below gives an exemplary review of the whole story.
We refrain from commenting. But we add a few hard facts. The only source of information is “Genesis”. “Genesis” is narrated by Moses. Where Moses could learn any other language than the spoken “Egyptian” language is not known. The first ever written version of “Genesis” is in the Greek language. There is no mention of the term “God”. The term “God” has been created some 300 years ago either by the Germans or by the Angel-Saxons. So it is assumed. The Etymological sources are desperately helpless.
The foundling Moses was raised in the court of the Egyptian “Ruler” as a “Prince”. He librated the Hebrew-slaves and fought a long way to the Sinai mountains in about 40 years. He died before reaching the “holy land”. There is no mention in his narrations or in the first “written-version” or in recent “written-versions” where, when and how he could know the history of the “Hebrew-Patriarchs” for many thousand years. And no questions, no answers. Were there any questions? All that about a “Supreme Authority”, we know from the narrations of Moses.
A “Supreme Authority” beyond human perceptions implies that there are other Authorities beyond human perceptions than the “Supreme” one. Those Authorities are less powerful and resourceful than the “Supreme Authority”. The concept of a “Supreme Authority” is inherently intolerant and violent. The “Supreme Authority” referred in the” Genesis” belonging to the Hebrew-people, later the “Jewish-people” only. This claim of the Jewish-people implies that the other peoples’ Authorities are inferior to their “Supreme Authority”. Whenever and wherever this “supremacy” was or is challenged, battles and wars between peoples are inevitable. So it was and so it is. This is the malice of the category “Supreme Authority” or “Supreme Lord”.
The liberated Hebrew-slaves led by Moses had to rob and kill for their physical maintenance on their trek. There was no alternative. What to do if the “Supreme Authority” does not provide an alternative? It becomes a part of the mission. The “Moses-people” might not have accumulated booties. In fulfilling their mission the “Jesus-people” had to be more violent. They battled to make other peoples believe in the supremacy of their Authority or they had to face the ultimate consequence. In all probability Jesus of Nazareth did not battle personally like Moses. It is difficult to discern the process.
The Muhammad-people have followed the violent path of their “Supreme Prophet” Muhammad who personally led a military-campaign to liberate Mecca from the “Nonbelievers”. He began military-campaigns only after The Quran was completely dictated word by word by the Archangel Gabriel. The Muhammad-people executed from then on military campaigns to the east and south of Mecca to establish their “Supreme Authority” named Allah. They were not less aggressive and less violent than the Jesus-people, probably more. Two new institutions were introduced. The Caliphs, the “Supra-regional-Rulers”, conquering over the Local and Regional “Rulers”, and the Imams making the people believe in the Testament of Allah.
The Jesus-people needed some 300 years to win over the “Roman-Rulers” as military ally. Immediately after the death of Muhammad the “great Prophet”, the Muhammad-people established themselves as Military power to spread “The Quran” as the Testament of Allah. They first took over the whole of Arab peninsula uniting the Arab-people. Thereafter they campaigned in two directions: to the South-West, the Southern-Mediterranean-Lands now called “Africa” and to East-Northeast. The Muhammad-people promised equality in the society. The oppressed people readily followed ignoring the obvious contradiction that “The Caliphs” were also “Rulers” and the followers remained the “Ruled”. In some 600 years the Muhammad-people took over complete military control of the whole area in the East up to the pass through the Pāriyātra Parvata of the western Himalayas. Like Alexander the Macedonian Ruffian they also knew about the legendary riches in Bharatavarsa. They were ready for forays after assembling their military power at the border and beyond.
We close this aside ascertaining the fundamental difference between the forays of the Hellenic-people, from that of the Jesus Christ-people and the Muhammad-people. The Hellenic-people were robbers with all that goes with it. They had no missions as justification for their inhuman campaigns. The Jesus-people and the Muhammad-people were and still are full-fledged robbers and sustained exploiters with the Belief of a mission for their “Supreme Authority”, thus shedding off all inhibitions and responsibilities at all levels. It is the Testament of a Supreme Authority. His wills are implemented. Whatever an individual does is approved by the Supreme Authority who would have stopped him beforehand.
Then, some 1000 years ago, the “ruling-dynasties” in the north-west of Bharatavarsa and the Mahabharata-people there, were taken into surprise by a foray of foreign ruffians intruding through the Pāriyātra Parvata of the western Himalayas, the main land-route called “Khyber Pass” in our days. These foreign ruffians did not have to fight. Without hindrances they looted, massacred and damaged those massive building structures, the “Temples”. They left when they thought they had robbed up to their logistic limit, then getting back on the same route. These foreign ruffians were well equipped with weapons. In all probability the “ruling-dynasties” in the north-west of Bharatavarsa were not equipped with weapons to put up resistance against this armed assault. This was a caesura in the history of Bharatavarsa. How could it happen?