Sir William Jones : A study of intentions

Sir William Jones:
A Study of Intentions
Prof. T. P. Verma
397A, Ganga Pradushan C. Road,
Bhagwanpur, Varanasi-221 005


Sir William Jones was a fanatic Christian to the core who:
i) induced Europe to search for the non-extant Proto- Indo-European Languages;
ii) distorted India’s history and chronology to suit biblical doctrine; and
iii) caused interpolations in Hindu Puranas.



Preamble

Sir William Jones is a big name among the earliest Indologists. He served as a Judge in the Supreme Court of Bengal from 1783 till his death on April 27, 1794. He was born on September 28, 1764 at Beaufort, Westminster. At an early age he learnt Greek, Latin, Persian, Arabic and the basics of Chinese writing. By the end of his life ‘he knew thirteen languages thoroughly and another twenty-eight reasonably well, making him a hyper-polyglot.’ He learnt Sanskrit in India. When he joined service in India Indological studies were in preliminary stage and many Europeans serving in the East India Trading Company were individually engaged in enquiring about India’s history and culture. William Jones founded the Asiatic Society of Bengal to provide a forum to Europeans for the study of India’s past. He was ardent believer in biblical stories and basically interested in Iranian studies; therefore when he diverted his attention to Indology his biblical and Iranian bias are manifest in his discourses.
During those early days Indians were not interested in the enquiries on the lines of the Europeans and therefore not ready to answer several questions on history and chronology asked by them. Under the circumstances inquisitive European scholars had to face tremendous difficulties in collecting and analyzing material that were based on personal enquiry with Indians and probing deep into the literary sources at their own whims. The foremost difficulty was that of language, local as well as classical. Knowledge of Sanskrit is most essential for understanding ancient India. Jones acquired proficiency in it. I admire and appreciate Sir William Jones, and all other European savants, for diligent indulgence and unfailing spirit of enquiry. But their biblical bias and Eurocentric vanity is quite apparent. Sir William Jones was one among the foremost that is manifest in his presidential speeches and other discourses. I consider him one of the best among early Indologists. But at the same time I am critical of his Christian bias that dominates every word of his speeches, as we will see.
Methodology
We will first enquire into the Bible, especially some relevant things from the first eleven chapters of ‘The Old Testament’ so that our Indian reader may form an idea about it because a good number among us are not conversant with the original passages. Bible very loosely narrates the story of creation and early history of mankind, to some extent vague too. Then we will examine Presidential lectures of Sir William Jones delivered at the Asiatic Society in which he has compressed the whole Indian historical chronology to suit biblical stories of creation. We will also see how evidences were not only twisted and concocted but passages were forged and inserted in the scriptures like Puranas. Our discussions conclusively show that it was only Sir William Jones who could have been instrumental in interpolations passages in the Bhavishya Puräëa. In the third section we propose to examine first reactions of Europeans towards Hindu civilization and also note how Indomania was forcibly converted to Indophobia.
Because of the nature of discussion we may be forgiven for extensively quoting from the Bible as well as from the lectures and articles of Sir William Jones. There are so many controversial points where the reader may feel to know more; and with this he can verify the material to satisfy as regards some of the conclusions arrived at in this essay.
I
Bible’s Influence on Historical Probing
Bible is the most celebrated Scripture of Christians (read Europeans). It still has tremendous influence on the Christian Europe. Till renaissance it was a matter of faith but with the beginning of the age of enlightenment it has become a matter of serious enquiry in the field of historical studies as well. The basic features of the Old Testament proclaiming historicity can be summarized as: i) a shorter chronology compressing the whole human existence only to six thousand years, ii) proclaiming that humanity originated from Adam, iii) that the Great Flood occurred during the time of Noah, and iv) the descendents of Noah spoke a single language prior to the construction of the city of Babel and the Great Dispersal. We first take the issue of chronology.
When the European Christians diverted their attention to the history of the world civilizations they could not get rid of the faith that the earth was created about 6000 years from now. They compressed the whole human chronology within this time frame. Very soon archaeologists entered the arena and they also joined the chorus. Thus the civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia were dated after this ‘event of creation’. On the other hand scientists working in the fields of geology and astrology were proposing longer chronology for the age of the earth and that of the universe. But historians and archaeologists are not prepared to change their attitude. Rather they involved in finding excuses. Believing in racial hierarchy of men a full-fledged theory of human evolution was evolved by pre-historians that man was evolved from apes. At preliminary stages four human races were proposed and supposed to have evolved from four types of apes like gorilla (Negroid-Austroloid), chimpanzee (Mongoloid), orangutan (Europeoid) but this ‘polygenesis could not hold water when confronted with such facts as the amazing anatomical and physiological similarity of all races of mankind’.[1] The time limit for human existence among archaeologists was believed to be one tenth of a million years that continued till the sixth decade of the twentieth century; but by the end of the century it was increased to four to four and a half million years. Still no need is being felt by historians and archaeologists to revise the established ‘ten thousand’ time limit for the ‘civilized man’. This goes to show that, though not confessed, the biblical notion is still a dominant force over the scientific knowledge.
On the other hand the man, most evolved among all creatures, is constrained to remain in the stage of savagery (or in prehistoric conditions) for millions of years. This gap is not insignificant considering that man was created with intelligence and language. They ignored the opinion of T.H. Huxley, a close friend of Charles Darwin and one of his ardent supporters, who claimed that “No one is more strongly convinced than I am of the vastness of the gap between… man and the brutes… for he alone possesses the marvelous endowment of intelligence and rational speech…”[2] It is against the natural laws that the speaking and intelligent man should be kept by the prehistorians in savage stage for millions of years. This gap is still increasing when we consider Arnold J. Toynbee[3] saying that ‘Man would have been in existence for about twenty-five million years from now’; and, according to Asimov ‘Judging by differences in the hemoglobin molecules, it is believed man diverged from the other apes about 75 million years ago, or just about the time the ancestral horses and donkeys diverged’.[4] There are some Geo-Linguists who assert that ‘the ability for spoken language has been a characteristic of the hominid at least since the emergence of the genus Homo in the Later Pliocene, about 2.5 myr’; but they seem unwilling to discuss other repercussions of such revelations. It is anomalous that these researches in human existence do not affect the biblical chronology adopted by the historians and archaeologists for world civilizations.
Such is the repercussion of evolutionism which now has become a religion of faith.
Ussher-Lightfoot Chronology
To probe into the chronological havoc wrought by the biblical accounts on the world history in general and that of India in particular it will be interesting to note the European mindset about the Bible in seventeenth century that provided basics for chronological computations for world civilizations. James Ussher, the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh (in what is now Northern Ireland) is given the credit for providing a definite date for the creation after computation of dates given in the Bible. But he was not the first to do so. They say ‘This chronology is sometimes called the Ussher-Lightfoot chronology because John Lightfoot published a similar chronology in 1642-44, perhaps several years before Ussher. Thus it is, however, is misnomer that the chronology known as based on Ussher’s work alone and not that of Lightfoot. Ussher deduced that the first day of creation began at nightfall proceeding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC, in the proleptic Julian calendar, near the autumnal equinox. Lightfoot similarly deduced that Creation began at nightfall near the autumnal equinox, but in the year 3929 BC.’
These calculations were influenced by the then-widely-held belief (in Europe) that the Earth’s potential duration was 6000 years (4,000 before the birth of Christ and 2,000 after), corresponding to the six days of Creation, on the grounds that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”. Here it may be recalled that such equations of ‘one day equal to one thousand years’ is not unique to biblical story alone but the Hindu Puranas, as we will presently see, also have done this which was denounced by ignorant Eurocentric scholars as ‘fanciful’, ‘absurd’, ‘monstrous’, ‘repugnant to the course of nature’, etc.
This became the major concern of Christian scholars over centuries. Most of the conservative groups within Christianity still follow the estimate of Dr. John Lightfoot who was the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, and one of the most eminent Hebrew scholar of his time, and that of Bishop John Ussher. Modern Christian scholars seem engaged in mending the gap between science and religion. It is said that ‘From about 1700 onwards, annotated editions of the immensely influential King James translation of the Bible began to include his chronology with their annotations and cross-references. The first page of Genesis was annotated with Ussher’s date of Creation, 4004 BC, though in reality, Ussher’s Annals is estimated to have relied on Bible for only one sixth of its volume. … Most modern translations of the Bible usually omit the chronology, but there are still many copies of the annotated King James in circulation.’[5] But such explanations cannot deliver the goods unless the historians and archaeologists revise their opinion regarding the chronology of ancient civilizations like Egypt and Mesopotamia, &c.
On the other hand the scientists are almost unanimous on the point that the age of “Earth and our solar system is 4.54 billion years, plus or minus 0.02 billion years.” The difference between scientific and biblical estimates is of about half a million times. Henry Morris holds that “… the Biblical chronology is about a million times shorter than the evolutionary chronology. A million-fold mistake is no smaller, and Biblical scholars surely need to give primary attention to resolving this tremendous discrepancy right at the very foundation of our entire Biblical chronology. This is not a peripheral issue that can be dismissed with some exegetical twist, but central to the very integrity of scriptural theology.”[6]
But still there are many conservative Protestants who are keen to prove that the earth is young - under 10 millennia old. Our historians and archaeologists are no better who, though live in the scientific age of twenty-first century profess that all human civilizations are only that much old.
Basics of Hindu System of Chronology
When we compare the biblical narrations, we will have occasion to cite from the Bible, we find that these appear to be crude and vulgar caricature of Puranic and Epic stories. The Hindu accounts about the origin of the universe, the age of Earth and emergence of man are very convincing and scientifically oriented. These are supported by reason and philosophy. The European scholars, who were unscientific and fanatic in approach, were engaged in hunting faults in Puranic system only to prove biblical chronology correct. They never, except some early scholars, tried to properly understand the Puranic details, by which, they could have saved humanity from going on a wrong path for world history. However, it is a misfortune that European scholars, to use L. A. Waddell’s words, ‘summarily rejected all this great body of Epic (and Puranic) literary historical tradition as mere fabulous fabrications of the Brahmin priests and bards –just as modern writers of British history have arbitrarily rejected the Ancient British Chronicles preserved by Geoffrey and Nennius.’ This, though served European colonial interests and ego, deprived the world community from an authentic historical source that contains early history of whole humanity.
The chronology of the Hindus is more precise, exact and up to date because they still continue the practice of counting dates (with the geographical location) in religious and social functions. In this resolve the performer of a religious rite was supposed to give his individual geographical location and exact time of performance. We do not intend to discuss it in details but since we will encounter William Jones’ criticisms of Indian chronological system it will be appropriate to have salient features here.
The Hindu system of chronology, based on movements of the Earth, Solar System and other stars in our Galaxy, is most authentic. The computation begins with about 230 tilt in the axis of the earth that makes 24 hours day-night on/ near equator but six month’s day-night on poles. The latter is known as the day-night of the Pitras (ancestors) or Devas (gods). This formed the basic unit in all calculations. Thus one year of human beings is equal to one day of the gods; and 360 human years equal to one divine year. This scale for time calculation is more reason based than that of the Bible which arbitrarily fixes “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”. A thousand divine years are equal to 360000 human years. To this is added one hundred divine years at the beginning and end as twilight periods that makes it 1200 divine years. This is the smallest unit of 432000 human years called Kali (i.e. ‘Unit’ from kalane, or calculation). Twice of this period is named Dväpara (two), thrice Tretä (three) and four times Kåit (four). A total of 4320000 human years make a Mahäyuga (or Great Age). One thousand such Great Ages are the life of our planet Earth. This comes to a total of 4.32 billion years that is almost the same as modern science also guesses i.e. 4.5 billion years; but the only difference is that Hindu calculation is more precise and accurate, not merely approximate guess. This period is one day of Brahma, also called a Kalpa (with a night of the same length). The whole life of the earth is most rationally divided into fourteen divisions of 308.448 million years each because during this period the solar system takes one round of our galaxy. This is called one Manvantara. During this period great changes take place on Earth; its live stock (ie biological features), the polar stars (called åishis or Sapta-åishis); even the fuel of the sun (called Indra= from éïdhane) changes. There are a little more than seventy-one Mahäyugas (i.e. a cluster of four yugas). So far six such rounds of the Solar System have taken place and epoch of the seventh one is going on. Each one is ruled (to use Puranic language) by a ‘Manu’, the intelligent being. The first one was Sväyàbhuva, i.e. self emerged. For the evolution of life on earth the period of first five Manus are clubbed together as they are described the descendents of the sons of the son of First Manu; that means evolution in the live-stock till the time of fifth Manu was extremely slow. The fifth epoch, that of the Manu Raivata that took place 737,429,111 years ago (base year 2010 CE) ago. During this period life evolved only up to the creepers. The sixth one, named Chäkñusha, appeared 428,981,111 years ago. The present Manu, whose name is Vaivasvata, i.e. the son of Vivasväna emerged 120,533,111 years ago. He was the first man on Earth from whom whole humanity emerged.[7] It was during his time the Great Flood occurred. A connected history is given in the Puranas from this Manu; but as we probe earlier, naturally it is sketchy and scanty. The word ‘Manu’ means ‘thinking, wise, intelligent,’ etc. This word is preserved in many civilizations in a variety of forms. In Europe this word in Gothic is manna; in German it is Mannus, mentioned by Tacitus as the mythical ancestor of the West Germans; it is also called Mann, man; in Anglo-Saxon it becomes Man giving rise to the word man in English.[8]
The Biblical history, if it can be called history at all, has deviated European scholars from the right path or we may say that they all set in search of a wild golden goose, viz. a Proto-Indo-European language that never existed. It is no different from Sanskrit. Even after a devoted and intense research of about two centuries they could not arrive at an agreed original homeland ‘Urheimat’ for the Indo-Europeans. It is not a secret that the speeches of Sir William Jones (and his intense faith in the Bible) played vital role in this deviation. They could have done far better, and consequently be most acceptable, without Bible.
There can be found some parallels also between Hindu and biblical traditions. Bible says that Adam was created first but human history began from Noah who faced the Great Flood. The Hindus also differentiate between Ädi Manu (i.e. Sväyaàbhuva, biblical Adam of Jones?) and the Seventh Manu (ie Vaivasvata Manu, biblical Noah of Jones?) the originator of humanity. Sir William Jones, as we will see hereafter, also suggested this but could not understand the secret of the vast gap of time between the two.
The Mahäbhärata says that whole humanity originated from Manu.[9] Bible also declares that ‘the whole world had one language and a common speech’ before dispersal. This seems to be an eco of the Rämäyaëa of Välméki which tells that ‘Brahmä, by his intellect, created man with one language, one shape and one class.’[10] Thus there is nothing new in the Bible except a crude remembrance of an original story, which is very poorly understood and narrated.

II
Sir William Jones
Sir William Jones’ entry in the Indological studies was taken as a great solace and relief in the European academic circles. It will be interesting to see how the confused William Jones tried all sorts of legerdemain to prove his point; and also often confused his audience/ readers by his rhetoric and vast knowledge; his deep knowledge made him flicker from one point to another.
Before discussing his lectures it will be interesting to note Trautmann’s findings on the subject. He claims “Although the Biblical frame is not brought to the foreground until the summing up in the ninth discourse, it is present at the very outset in the aspiration to determine whether the origin of the Asian nations is “that which we generally ascribe to them”, which is to say, whether it accords with the Mosaic account in the opening books of Genesis in the Bible.” He further announces “Jones brought this project with him to India, and he situated his work in series with other rational defenses of Moses…”[11]

Lecture I
The Chronology of the Hindus
We will first take his speech on ‘the Chronology of the Hindus’ ‘written in January 1788’ published in Asiatic Researches volume 2, (1790) pages 88 to 114 (as article number VII); and then his supplement to it, as article number XXVII, on pages 303 to 314. We intend to discuss both these papers in sequence. At a next stage we will discuss a lecture on The Tenth Anniversary Discourse, delivered 28th February, 1793, by the President on Asiatic History, Civil and Natural by him published in the Volume the Fourth of Asiatic Researches; or Transactions of the Society Instituted in Bengal, for inquiring into the History and Antiquities, the Arts, Sciences, and Literature of Asia, London 1799.
We apologize here again for quoting him extensively because, I think, it will help the reader understand the issue and form his opinion. Sir William Jones is great authority and speaking anything about him requires reliable evidence. Italics, capital letters and spellings are from the original; but when we desire to emphasize we have underlined the portion. As far as possible we have given the quotations in double quotes, separated by paragraphs.
In the premise Sir Jones declares: “I propose to lay before you a concise account of Indian Chronology extracted from Sanscrit books or collected from conversations with Pandits, and to subjoin a few remarks on their system, without attempting to decide a question…” Then he gives an extract from the Code of Manu, called Manusmriti. However, after some discussion he refers to a Varanes (read Varanasi) Almanac giving Hindu account of time beyond 4.32 billion years that the age of Earth and one day of Brahma. He quotes “A thousand Great Ages are a day of BRAHMÄ; a thousand such days are an Indian hour of Vishnu; six hundred thousand such hours make a period of Rudra; and a million of Rudras (or two quadrillions five hundred and ninety-two-thousand trillions of years), are but a second to the Supreme Being.”
This account, though not exact translation but apparently adopted to be intelligible to his European audience, is enough to bewilder a Christian mind who believed that the earth is only six thousand years old. Actually, as stated earlier, a full life-span of earth is Brahmä’s one day and his night also is of the same length; and his life-span is of one hundred ‘divine’ years. His hundred year life-span is one day and night of Vishnu; and hundred years of Vishnu is one day of Rudra. And, a hundred year life span is one day of Sadäçiva, who is akñaya or un-decaying.[12]
Instead of probing into the philosophy of time of the Hindus, the determined Jones opted to twist the matter to mould the discussion in favour of biblical mythology. He states “… ciphers are added at pleasure to swell the periods…”; and that “… should it be thought improbable, that the Indian astronomers in very early times had made more accurate observations than those of Alexandria, Bagdad, or Maraghah, and still more improbable that they should have relapsed without apparent cause into error, we may suppose, that they formed their divine age by an arbitrary multiplication of 24000 by 180; …may consequently reject it from our present inquiry into the historical or civil chronology of India.” Finally he recourses to the ‘common sense of mankind’; in the name of which he prepares background to equate biblical Adam with the first Manu and Noah with the seventh Manu. (Underline is by us)
Thus his European and Christian coquetry compels him to denounce Indian observations which, according to him, must be inferior to that of Alexandria, Bagdad, or Maraghah’. I have already stated the scientific and astronomical for calculation that in one Manvantara, i.e. 308.488 million years, solar system completes one round of our Galaxy. Modern astronomers first calculated this as 220 million years, but now they have 280 million years. Hindu calculation is not arbitrary but more exact and precise. During the entire life of the earth, i.e. in 4.32 billion years our Solar System takes fourteen such rounds of the galaxy. This astronomical observation also approximates modern estimates. Such types of astronomical observations are not known to have done even by modern scientist not to talk of scientists of above mentioned places.
Here it also may be mentioned that Hindu calculations are made from 1972.949111 million years from now (in the year 2010 CE) which is called the Era of Creation of life on Earth (not that of Earth). It may be mentioned that to begin life, Brahmä had to wait for 170.64 million years; then the time of the First Manu starts 1955.885111 years from now (in 2010 of CE). This must be kept in mind for all calculations.[13]
Jones advances step by step to his calculated goal of equating Biblical chronology with that of India. First he contracts five Manus into one and says “Of the five MENU’S, who succeeded him, I have seen little more than names; but the Hindu writings are very diffusive on the life and posterity of the seventh Menu…” We have already mentioned that not much is known about the intervening five Manus but it is because of very slow progress in the evolution of life during this long period. Modern science also has scanty data about early periods of life on earth. But the time periods of each Manu cannot be altered because these are astronomical figures concerning earth’s (actually whole Solar system’s) movement within our gallexy. The Puranas mention that the progeny of the second to the fifth Manu were the children of Priyavrata, the son of the First Manu; this means that the live-stock (vegetation including fungi etc. are considered life in Hindu philosophy); and until 428.981 million years had made very slow progress. Modern science also believes that all life begins with the Cambrian period (which is too late and arbitrary) and during Ordovician periods, or pre-Cambrian, there was no life on earth. It is during Silurian period, i.e. 435 million years ago, that first plants appeared on land. According to Hindu calculation this was the period of fifth Manu, called Raivat, who reigned between 737 million and 428 million years.
After discussing Sväyaàbhuva Manu (whom he intends to equate with Adam of the Bible) Jones comes to the seventh Manu, the son of Vivasväna, in whose reign the universal deluge, so important in the history of mankind, had occurred. Jones quotes the incident from Bhagavatapurana with assurance that he has ‘extracted the whole, and translated it with great care.’ But here, in this translation he inserts his biblical notions that are not to be found in the original (note portions underlined). First let us see his translation.
“The demon Hayagréva having purloined the Vedas from the custody of ‘Brahma’, while he was reposing at the close of the sixth Manvantara, the whole race of men became corrupt, except the seven Rishés and Satyavrata, who then reigned in Dravira, a maritime region to the south of Carnata: this prince was performing his ablutions in the river Critamala, when VISHNU appeared to him in the shape of a small fish, and, after several augmentations of bulk in different waters, was placed by SATYAVRATA in the ocean, where he thus addressed his amazed votary: “In seven days all creatures, who have offended me, shall be destroyed by a deluge, but thou shalt be secured in a capacious vessel miraculously formed: take therefore all kinds of medicinal herbs and esculent grain for food, and, together with the seven holy men, your respective wives, and pairs of all animals, enter the ark without fear; then shalt thou know God face to face, and thy questions shall be answered” Saying this, he disappeared; and after seven days, the ocean ‘began to overflow the coasts, and the earth to be flooded by constant showers, when SATYAVRATA, meditating on the Deity, saw a large vessel moving on the waters: he entered it, having in all respects confirmed to the instructions of VISHNU; who, in the form of a vast fish, suffered the vessel to be tied with a great sea-serpent, as with a cable, to his measureless horn. When the deluge had ceased, VISHNU slew the demon, and recovered the Vedäs, instructed SATYAVRATA in divine knowledge, and appointed him the seventh MENU by the name of Vaivaswata.”
The narration is to be found in the 24th chapter of the eighth ‘Skandha’ (part) of the Bhägavatapurana; but the underlined portions are not in the original. The underlined portions reflect biblical notions added by the author.
There is no mention of Karnataka (Carnata) in the text. But most glaring is the shadow of biblical narration in this ‘extract’ of Jones which he claims to have ‘translated with great care’. These are i) the whole race of men became corrupt, except the seven Rishés and Satyavrata, ii) In seven days all creatures, who have offended me, shall be destroyed by a deluge, and iii) your respective wives, and pairs of all animals. I do confirm that above phrases do not exist in the Bhägavatapuräëa.
It is not difficult to discern a shadow of the 6th Chapter of the Old Testament of Bible entitled ‘The Flood’ in these insertions of Jones. I quote from the Bible.
“The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the Lord said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth – men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air- for I am grieved that I have made them.” But Noah found favour in the eyes of the Lord.
“Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.
“Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. … So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. … I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. But I will establish my convent with you, and you will enter the ark- you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. ...”[14]
I have reproduced this passage from an International Version of the Bible, not only to show the translation of Bhägavata presented by William Jones bears its shadow, but also to make a Hindu reader acquainted with the real nature of biblical narration of the great deluge which most of us have had no opportunity to see. Does it not appear a crude and vulgar version of some more authentic story prevalent among the cultured people in other parts of the world? Also to point out how revengeful this God of Christians is, who was bent upon destroying the whole creation of animals of the earth and birds in the sky for the sin of men. We will have occasion to see that His followers were no different.
William Jones continues his speech: “Let us compare the two Indian accounts of Creation and the Deluge with those delivered by MOSES. It is not made a question in this tract, whether the first chapters of Genesis are to be understood in a literal, or merely in an allegorical sense: the only points before us are, whether the creation described by the first MENU, which the Brahmans call that of the Lotos (read Lotus), be not that same with that recorded in our Scripture, and whether the story of the seventh MENU be not one and the same with that of NOAH. I propose the questions, but affirm nothing; leaving others to settle their opinions, whether ADAM be derived from adim, which in Sanscrit means the first, or MENU from NUH, the true of the Patriarch; whether the Sacrifice, at which GOD is believed to have descended, allude to the offering of ABEL; and, on the whole, whether the two MANUS can mean any other persons than the great progenitor, and the restorer of our species.” (Underline is by us).
This is not a proposal but a premeditated judgment injecting in the minds of the audience; this ‘judgment’ of Justice Sir William Jones deserves a challenge in some better and learned court because of its inclination towards biblical narrations.
On the other hand we also can put a similar proposal, by the other way round. Following William Jones’ phonetic analogy, it can be suggested, with emphasis, that it was the Bible which transformed the name of ‘ÄDI MANUÙ’ into ADAM, by dropping the last syllable ‘NUÙ’; and that of the seventh MANUÙ into NOAH by dropping the letter initial latter ‘M’. Furthermore, a contraction seven Manus into two is, apparently, a faulty and wrong appropriation of a sound and scientific system of Manvantaras that is based on the movements of astral bodies and the evolution of life on earth. Vulgar cannot apprehend philosophical subtleties. A critical and impartial analysis is bound to that Puranic narration is the earliest and therefore original. Recent researches in many branches of sciences show the shallowness of compressed biblical chronology unsatisfactory and only vast Puranic chronology can replace it.

He Concocted Two Buddhas
After identifying Vaivasvata Manu with Noah Jones falls upon the ten incarnations (avataras) of Vishnu simply to propound his theory two Buddhas. This is a unique discovery could get no supporter since then. The Hindu Puranas are of the opinion that the Buddha is the last incarnation, in whose age we are living, flourished in the Kali Age. But Jones ventures to inform us that ‘the Astronomers at Varanes (read Varanasi) place him in the third age’, i.e. in the Tretäyuga. It seems to be nothing more than a hoax by an ignorant Christian pastor; because it is most unlikely that the so-called ‘astronomers (?) of Varanasi’, who also must, necessarily, be priests also, could give such a opinion because at the very start of any religious rites they are required to recite Saàkalpa-päöha in which he has no option than to say that he is performing the rite in the first quarter of the Kali age when the Buddha is the presiding avatar (Kail prathama charane … Buddhavatare, etc.). But, if a personality like Sir William Jones claims this, his intentions must be doubted.
But this does not end here. Jones further claims ‘Radhacant insists that he (Buddha) appeared after the thousandth year of the fourth’ i.e. Kaliyuga. Here, I am constrained to say, that Jones is either again misinformed or bent upon preparing ground to advocate his preplanned scheme. He, to convince his audience, often resorts to such legerdemain as mentioning some literary source first but without quoting from it passes on to oral evidence. Let us mark his funny arguments in his following statement.
He asserts that “… the learned and accurate author of the Dabistän, whose information concerning the Hindus is wonderfully correct, mentions an opinion of the Pandits, with whom he had conversed, that BUDDHA began his career ten years before the close of the third age; and GOVERDHANA of Cashmir, who had once informed me, that CRISHNA descended two centuries before BUDDHA, assured me lately, that the Cashmirians admitted an interval of twenty-four years (others allow only twelve) between those two divine persons. The best authority, after all, is the Bhagawat itself, in the first chapter of which it is expressly declared that “BUDDHA, the son of JINA, would appear at Cécata, for the purpose of confounding the demons, just at the beginning of the Caliyug.” (See Appendix A for a forged insertion to this effect in the Bhavishya Purana; obviously initiated by none other than him.)
It is evident that in this passage, all the evidences (?) produced by him are oral conversations, although he cites a literary a work called Dabistän; only to confuse the reader. To recall Bhägavatapuräëa in the same breath should also be viewed in the same light. It is twisted. The referred çloka is number 24 from the third chapter of the first Skandha (not the first chapter as he claims). The actual words are ‘tataù Kalau sampravarte’, meaning ‘after the promulgation of Kali’. Jones wrongly twists it to say that Buddha appeared ‘just at the beginning of the Caliyug’.
Jones then presents ‘written evidence’ (?). Observe his knack. He says "I have long been convinced, that on these subjects, we can only reason satisfactorily from written evidence, and that our forensic rule must be invariably applied, to take the declaration of the Brahmanas most strongly against themselves, that it, against their pretensions to antiquity; so that, on the whole, we may safely place BUDDHA just at the beginning of the present age: but what is the beginning of it? When this question was proposed to Radhacant, he answered: of a period comprising more than four hundred thousand years, the first two or three thousand may reasonably be called “the beginning”. On my demanding written evidence, he produced a book of some authority, composed by a learned Goswami, and entitled Bhagawatamrita, or, the Nectar of the Bhagawata, on which it is material comment; and the couplet, … after the just mentioned account of BUDDHA in the text, the commentator says,
Asau vyaktah kalerabdasahasradvitéye gate
Murtih patalavarnsya dvibhuja chikurojjhita*
‘He became visible, the-thousand-and-second-year-of the-Cali-age being past; his body of-a-colour-between-white and ruddy, with two arms, without-hair on his head’.”
Here ‘Kalerabda sahasradvitéye gate’ by no rule of grammar may mean ‘the-thousand-and-second-year-of the-Cali-age’. It must be taken as “in the second millennium of the Kali age”.
Jones drops the discussion at this juncture without converting the date of the Buddha in Christian era. To leave the discussion in the middle can be interpreted as to confuse the reader with the number ‘1002’. He never refers to this date of the Buddha again; certainly because it would go against the thesis advocated by him. Is it not strange that after so much exercise he abandons the subject undecided? It is interesting to note that tradition knows that the Buddha was born in 1887 BCE and died in 1807 BCE.[15]
Proposing the existence of two Buddhas Jones concludes “It seems highly probable, on the whole, that the BUDDHA… was believed to be VISHNU himself in a human form, and that another Buddha, one perhaps of his followers in a later age, assuming his name and character, attempted to overset the whole system of the Brahmans, and was the cause of that percussion, from which the Bauddhas are known to have fled into very distant regions.”
It will be interesting to note that it was not ‘the whole system of the Brahmans’ but ‘the Christian chronology’ would be overset had Jones carried the discussion on the date of the Buddha any further. It is not strange that in spite of a lapse of two centuries Jones could not find a single supporter of his TWO BUDDHA THEORY.
Jones’ proposal that “BUDDHA was first distinguished in this country about a thousand years before the beginning of our era; … Hence it is clear, that, whether the fourth age of the Hindus began about one thousand years before the CHRIST, …” becomes incongruous because Buddha does not find a place in his fabricated Chronological Table given at the end of the article.
His Disgust over the Hindu Chronology
Jones then takes up the issue of Hindu chronology and uses most abusive language that exhibits not only his personal anxiety and anger but also that of the whole Christian world. Hindu chronology had shook Europe to its core. Christendom apprehended threat of extinction on account of the soundness of Hindu doctrine.
Edwin Bryant notes that “Such scholars were greatly relieved by ‘the fortunate arrival of … the various dissertations, on the subject, of Sir William Jones. Jones was just as concerned about the fact that ‘some intelligent and virtuous persons are inclined to doubt the fact the authenticity of the accounts delivered by Moses’. In his estimation, too, ‘either the first eleven chapters of Genesis… are true, or the whole fabric of our national religion is false, a conclusion which none of us, I trust, would wish to be drawn.”[16]
In the article under discussion Jones declares “The received Chronology of the Hindus begins with an absurdity so monstrous, as to overthrow the whole system; for, having established their period of seventy-one divine ages as the reign of each Menu, yet thinking it incongruous to place a holy personage in times of impurity, they insist, that the Menu reigns only in every golden age, and disappears in the three human ages that follow it, counting to dive and emerge, like a waterfowl, till the close of his Manvantara…” (Emphasis is by me).
His anxiety about the Hindu chronology being a threat to ‘overthrow the whole system’ of Biblical chronology is not difficult to understand. But Jones is not telling the truth when he says that a Manu ‘reigns only in every golden age’; i.e. Kritayuga. This was the main reason to outlaw the study of Puranas in the West because, in the light of astrological and geological discoveries, Hindu chronology was a severe threat to ‘overthrow the whole system’ of biblical as well as historical and archaeological dating.
Let us see how he pleads with abusive words and with same technique of beginning by quoting some literary work but finally resorting to oral source as evidence. He says “… the learned author of the Puranarthaprakasa, which I will follow step by step, mentioned this ridiculous opinion with serious face; but, as he has not inserted it in his work, we may take his account of seventh Menu according to its obvious and rational meaning …” (Emphasis is by me).
It is worth recalling that this ‘learned author of the Puranarthaprakasa’, named Radhakant Sarman was, most probably, an employ of Jones, consequently under his influence.
But, here again, he presents a hoax that though Radhakant ‘has not inserted it in his work’ he ‘mentioned this ridiculous opinion with serious face’. Obviously Radhakant was not willing to confess in writing but his Lord was eager to believe his oral evidence. ‘Confession’ with ‘serious face’ is accepted only in Christianity.
We may notice that Sir William Jones is in the habit of presenting oral evidences in the cover of some literary work, and at the same breath confessing that it is not written there. How a judge like him can entertain something as evidence which the author ‘has not inserted in his work’. He certainly was not speaking the truth when he asserts that “Menu … reigned in the last golden age, or, according to the Hindus, three million eight hundred and ninety-two thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight years ago. But they contend, that he actually reigned on earth one million seven hundred and twenty-eight thousand years of mortals, or four thousand eight hundred years of the Gods…”
I am not able to check these figures for the reign of Manu, claimed by Jones, from the Puranas and epics I have consulted. Reign of the Seventh Manu, called Vaivasvata and Sävarëi, started 120.533111 million year before now (in 2010 CE). This is the shortest date. The Matsyapurana claims that ‘Manu is still present on the Meru’ (Sävarëo’pi Manurmeruvadyapyasta tapodhana). Mountain Meru, identified by us with Pamir, was the place where seventh Manu tied his ark. This was also the site where his daughter Ila and other sons are said to have lived at that early stage.[17] Most likely these figures for the reign of Manu were his mischievous fabrication, or only to impress upon the audience.
Then Jones uses most objectionable and provoking language and says “… this opinion is another monster so repugnant to the course of nature and to human reason, that it must be rejected as wholly fabulous, and taken as a proof, that Indians know nothing of their Sun-born Menu but his name and the principal event of his life; I mean the universal deluge, which the three first Avataras are merely allegorical representations, with a mixture, especially in the second, of astronomical mythology.” (Underline emphasis is by me).
These words do not appear uttered by a learned justice of a High Court but by a pastor delivering his sermon before the faithful. Ignorance is said to be bliss; Jones does not seem in a mood to accept that others also could be right because ‘human reason’ was bestowed only to Christians by their God’.
His labour on computing the generations of the kings of Solar and Lunar branches, emerging from Manu, was futile because he could gather only 55 generations of Solar kings from Manu to Rama; and, thereafter only 30 between Kusha, the son of Rama, and Vrihadrana, a contemporary of Parikshita, the grand-son of Arjuna of Mahabharata time. Incidentally, he gives 3100 YBC to Vrihadrana; but one need not think that he accepted this as date for the Bharata War. Jones, in this essay, could collect names of only 85 generations of kings which was beyond his comprehension. To accord this to his notion of biblical chronology he opted to eliminate this limited list and accept only those who could be fitted within his timeframe. Therefore he declared “…the three first ages of the Hindus are chiefly mythological, whether their mythology was founded on the dark enigmas of their astronomers or on the heroic fictions of their poets, and, that the forth, or historical, age cannot be carried farther back than about two thousand years before CHRIST.” (Emphasis is mine). One wonders how he arrived at this time of two thousand years before Christ.
Thus his Anglican bias eliminates the existence of 86 generations of kings whose names he so laboriously collected from the Puranas.
Now let us make it clear that till date there is no unanimity about the number of kings of the Solar and Lunar branches. F.E. Pargiter collected a list of 65 kings of the Solar branch from Manu to Rama, 95 kings from Manu to Brihatkñaya, a contemporary of Bhärata War.[18] But recent researches of Gunjan Aggrawal finds 71 names of kings from Manu to Rama and 113 kings up to Båihadraëa, of the Mahäbhärat time.[19] It is obvious that the Puranic list of kings can never be considered as complete. The Puranas like Väyu assert that only prominent kings of the family are enumerated on account of their importance.[20] It is also said in the Bhägavata ‘O king, because of inexhaustible number the names of all the kings of the family of Manu cannot be enumerated even in hundred years.’[21] Indeed it is impossible to keep a record of all kings who flourished during 120 odd million years. Therefore any attempt to calculate chronology on the basis of the lists of kings is destined to failure. Hindu history and tradition is so deeply embedded in antiquity that it is impossible to even remember the name of each and every king and all the traditions. Pargiter opines about Hindu tradition thus: “Naturally it was impossible to remember all the accumulated traditions, much dropped out, and only what was important or especially interesting to the kings, priest and people was preserved. Consequently, the principal matters that would have survived, would be (speaking generally) the genealogies of great dynasties, ballads and stories about famous kings and eminent rishis, and accounts of the chief popular religious beliefs and observances.”[22]
Thus defying all the discussions in preceding pages of this article, Jones attaches a Chronological Table announcing premeditated and arbitrary dates in tabulated form that is finally based on Biblical concept of chronology. The Table is given below.

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE,
(according to one of the Hypotheses intimated in the preceding tract)

Hy




Christan and Muselman Hindu Years from 1788 (in BC)
of our era
ADAM MENU I. Age I 5794 4006
NOAH MENU II 4737 2949
Deluge, 4138 2350
Nirmod, Hiranyacasipu. Age II 4006 2218
Bel, Bali, 3892 2004
RAMA, RAMA. Age III 3817 2029
Noah’s death 3787 1999
Conversion of dates in BC is done by me.
I see little consistency between his long lecture covering 26 printed pages, and this Chronological Table except some glimpses here and there in which he pointed out his inclination. All this intellectual exercise was done only to fit India’s chronology with that announced by Usher-Lightfoot chronology. But we must accept that he failed.

Supplement to Lecture I
A Supplement to the Essay on Indian Chronology was published in the same volume as item number XXVII on pages 303- 314. Here he is more aggressive. In this part his genius to argument is much more manifest because he, defying whole array of arguments of the previous lecture compresses the whole Hindu genealogy only into three generations. Nothing more could be expected of a determined missionary preacher in the garb of a Justice. Let us see it.
Jones begins with Båihatsaàhitä of Varäha Mihir where the names of Paräçara and Garga are mentioned. He aims at dating these two celebrated rishis and reaches at miraculous conclusions.
The date of Paräçara, on his findings from Båihatsaàhitä was fixed to 1181 BCE who was same as the father of Vyäsa of Mahäbhärata period, consequently, also a contemporary of Kåiñëa. Jones’ genius makes Paräçara a contemporary of Rama by saying that the former was the grandson of Vasishtha who was the preceptor of Rama of Ayodhya. Thus, according to him, there was a gap of only three generations between Rama and Krishna; and that they may be placed in the twelfth century before Christ. Further, Garga, referred by Varäha Mihira as Våiddha Garga was, in his estimation, the father of Gärgé, mentioned in the Vedas. In this way out talented Sir William Jones withered his own chronology so laboriously established in the previous essay that Rama flourished in 2029 BCE. Let us read this confused justice.
“All the Brahmens agree, that only one Parasara is named in their sacred records; that he composed the astronomical book before cited, and a law-tract, which is now in my possession; that he was the grandson of Vasisht’ha, another astronomer and legislator, whose works are still extent, and who was the preceptor of Rama, king of Ayodhya; that he was the father of Vyasa, by whom the Vedas were arranged in the form which they now bear, and whom Crishna himself names with exalted praise in the Gita; so that, by the admission of the Pandits themselves, we find only three generations between two of the Ramas, whom they consider an incarnate portions of divinity; and Parasara might have lived till the beginning of the Caliyuga, which the mistaken doctrine of an oscillation in cardinal points has compelled the Hindus to place 1920 years too early. This error, added to their fanciful arrangement of the four ages, has been the source of many absurdities; for they insist that Valmici, whom they cannot but allow to have been contemporary with Ramachandra, lived in the age of Vyasa, who consulted him on the composition of the Mahabharata, and who was personally known to Balarama, the brother of Crishna. When a very learned Brahmen had repeated to me an agreeable story of a conversation between Vakmici and Vyasa, I expressed my surprise at an interview between two bards, whose ages were separated by a period of 864,000 years; but he soon reconciled himself to so monstrous an anachronism, by observing that the longevity of the Munis was preternatural, and that no limit could be set to divine power… It is agreed by all, that the lawyer Yagywalkya was an attendant on the court of Janaca, whose daughter Sita was the constant but unfortunate wife of the great Rama, the hero of Valmic’s poem; but that lawyer himself, at the opening of his work, which now lies before me, names both Parasara and Vyasa among twenty authors, whose tracts form the body of original Indian law. … The age and functions of Garga lead to consequences yet more interesting: he was confessedly the purohita, or officiating priest, of Crishna himself, who, when only a herdsman’s boy at Mathura, revealed his divine character to Garga, by running to him with more than mortal benignity on his countenance, when the priest had invoked Narayana. His daughter was eminent for her piety and her learning, and the Brhamans admit, without considering the consequence of their admission, that she is thus addressed in the Vedas itself: … “That Sun, O daughter of Garga, than which nothing is higher, to which nothing is equal, enlightens the summit of the sky; with the sky enlightens the earth; with the earth enlightens the lower worlds; enlightens the higher worlds, enlightens other worlds; it enlightens the breast, enlightens all besides breast.” He asserts “but whatever be the comparative antiquity of the Hindu scriptures, we may safely conclude that the Mosaic and Indian chronologies are perfectly consistent; that Menu, son of Brahma, was the Adima, or first, created mortal, and consequently our Adam; that Menu, child of the Sun, was preserved with seven others, in a bahitra or capacious ark, from an universal deluge, and must therefore be our Noah; that Hiranyacasipu, the giant with a golden axe, and Vali or Bali, were impious and arrogant monarchs, and most probably our Nirmod and Belus; that three Ramas, two of whom were invincible warriors, and the third not only valiant in war but the patron of agriculture and wine, which derives an epithet from his name, were different representations of Grecian Bacchus, and either the Rama of scripture, or his colony personified, or the Sun first adored by his idolatrous family; that a considerable emigration from Chaldea into Greece, Italy, and India, happened about twelve centuries before the birth of our Saviour; that Sacya or Sisak, about two hundred years after Vyasa, either in person or by a colony from Egypt, imported into this country the mild heresy of ancient Bauddhas; and that the dawn of true Indian history appears only three or four centuries before the Christian era, the preceding ages being clouded by allegory or fable.” (Emphasis is by me)
I have already given my comments on this.
After this prophecy Jones cites a passage from Bhägavatapurana that symbolically presents the asterism in the form of a Çinçumära that represents Vasudeva or God. I leave this discussion because such symbolism is beyond intellectual understanding of a prejudiced clergy who is bent upon opposing Hindu philosophy and religion.

Real Intention behind praising the Sanskrit Language
We can now take up the most famous passage of Sir William Jones about the Sanskrit language that earned him the name of a great philologist and very often produced as a piece of classic importance.
It runs as follows:
“The Sanskrit language, whatever may be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong, indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source which, perhaps, no longer exists: there is a similar reason, though not so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothick and Celtick, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanskrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family.” (Emphasis is ours)
This statement of Jones is said to have established Sanskrit as an Indo-European language although commonality of several Indian words with European languages was noticed earlier. There is no cause to feel elevated with this praise of Sanskrit that proclaims its superiority over Greek and Latin because Christian scholars never accepted this; rather they did everything to dethrone, nay, eliminate Sanskrit language from all linguistic studies (but they always use Sanskrit words and etymology in their studies). They invented many pseudo formulae like ‘The Law of Palatals’ &c. But, if they continued to quote from Sanskrit words in support of their linguistic studies, it was because they could not do without that. Sanskrit provided several basics for Indo-European linguistics but it was dropped because of Christian conspiracy. Edwin Bryant notes “The Indomania of the early British Orientalists ‘did not die of natural causes; it was killed off’ and replaced by an Indophobia initiated by Evangelicalism and Utilitarianism, epitomized by Charles Grant and James Mill, respectively.”[23]
Note the emphasized portions in the passage quoted above and the bigotry of Jones will become manifest. This passage should be seen in the light of Trautmann’s observation that ‘Jones brought this project with him to India’. Here he had two reservations with grave consequences. First, when he says about Sanskrit language ‘whatever may be its antiquity’ he is certainly referring to his preconceived idea that whole Hindu literature must be dated within Biblical chronological limits. Secondly, when he says that Sanskrit along with Greek and Latin ‘to have sprung from some common source which, perhaps, no longer exists’, he is suggesting a future line of linguistic enquiry; i.e. he is directing the future generations not to consider Sanaskrit as original language, instead they should hunt for some other one. He was aware that if Sanskrit was given a place whole Christian mythology will collapse without leaving a trace. Consequently Europeans set forth for a ‘common source’ i.e. the Proto-Indo-European language that never existed. Two and a half century research and millions of written pages lead Indo-Europeans to nowhere.
The desperate situation described by Pulgram, quoted by Edwin Bryant, on Proto-Indo-European is obvious; “We now find ourselves in possession of two entirely different items, both of which we call Proto-Indo-European: one, a set of reconstructed formulae not representative of any reality; the other, an undiscovered (possibly undiscoverable) language of whose reality we may be certain.”[24] They continue to carry a dead body that never breathed. In spite of tall claims and coining hundreds of distorted words, there is not a single complete sentence that can be produced from this nonexistent Proto-Indo-European. Thus the most celebrated philologist Sir William Jones misdirected not only Europe, but the whole world, to follow a wrong line of research and wander for more than two centuries, and, to gain nothing!
Returning to the antiquity of Sanskrit language, and thereby the chronology of India’s history, now it is easy to guess his intentions. One should not feel surprised when he reads: “I propose to lay before you a concise history of Indian chronology extracted from Sanskrit books, attached to no system, and as much disposed to reject Mosaic history, if it be proved erroneous, as to believe it, if it be confirmed by sound reason from indubitable evidence.” Edwin Bryant remarks “Despite such assurances, Jones’s own predispositions on this matter were revealed in several earlier written statements: ‘I… am obliged of course to believe the sanctity of the venerable books [of Genesis]’; Jones concluded his researches by claiming to have ‘traced the foundation of the Indian empire above three thousand eight hundred years from now’, that is to say, safely within the confines of Bishop Usher’s creation date of 4004 B.C.E. and, more important, within the parameters of the Great Flood, which Jones considered to have occurred in 2350 B.C.E.”[25]

Lecture II
Jones lies about Chandragupta Maurya
Sir William Jones, when he fixes the date of Chandragupta Maurya, resorts to a series of lies. Let us read from his lecture delivered in tenth anniversary discourse on February 28, 1793; published in the fourth volume of Asiatic Researches.
“I cannot help mentioning a discovery which accident threw in my way; (I) thought my proofs must be reserved for an essay which I have destined for the fourth volume for your Transactions. To fix the situation of that Polibothra (for there may have been several of the name) which was visited and described by MEGASTHENESE, had always appeared a very difficult problem… but this only difficulty was removed, when I found in a classical Sanacrit book, near 2000 years old,[26] that Hiranyabahu, or golden armed, which the Greeks changed into Erannoboas, or the river with a lovely murmur was in fact another name for the Son itself, though MEGASTHENESE, from ignorance or inattention, has name them separately. This discovery led to another of greater moment; for CHANDRAGUPTA, who, from a military adventure, became, like SANDRACOTTUS, the sovereign of Upper Hindustan, actually fixed the seat of his empire at Pataliputra, where he received ambassadors from foreign princes; and was no other than the very SANDRACOTTUS who concluded a treaty with Seleucus Niketar; so that we have solved another problem, to which we before alluded, and may in round numbers consider the twelve and the three hundredth years before CHRIST...”
To return to Jones, he brings in a fiction writer, Somadeva, in his support whose stories are known to Arabs and the Europeans, and tells about the murder of the Nanda king and his eight sons by Chandragupta.
He says “… a most beautiful poem by Somadeva, comprising a very long chain of instructive and agreeable stories, begins with the famed revolution at Pataliputra, by the murder of king NANDA with his eight sons, and the usurpation of CHANDRAGUPTA; and the same revolution is the subject of a tragedy in Sanscrit, entitled the Coronation of Chandra, the abbreviated name of that able and adventurous usurper.”
He further notes:
“… but we know from an arrangement of the seasons in the astronomical work of PARASARA,[27] that the war of the PANDAVAS could not have happened earlier than the close of the twelfth century before CHRIST; and SELEUCUS must, therefore, have reigned about nine centuries after that war.”
There are many things, the authenticity of which cannot be ascertained:
i) In this lecture Jones informs about a classical Sanskrit book, near 2000 years old. But till date no scholar, European or Indian, could a get trace of it.
ii) Secondly his claim that ‘the astronomical work of Parasara’ indicates that ‘the war of the Pandavas could not have happened earlier than the close of the twelfth century before Christ’; is false statement. No astronomical work in India can give such an indication. Swami Prakashanand categorically denies this and says “There is no such astronomical record in Bharatiya scriptures that determines 1200 BC for the war of Mahabharata.”[28] This also is great lie on the part of Jones.
iii) His calculation that ‘Seleucus must, therefore, have reigned about nine centuries after that war’ is unconnected to the arrived date of the war of Mahabharata. This amounts to another lie on the part of Jones.
iv) Somadeva’s story about the coronation of King Chandra may not be true, however. But, since this assertion of Jones, it has become a part history of Maurya period and every schoolboy knows that Chandragupta Maurya was the son of a barber. They found and promulgated a supporting story from the Greek sources as well. Thus Swami Prakashananda writes “Somadeva was just a story writer of fun and frolics. Yet he never described Chandragupta Maurya as the usurper of the kingdom and never connected him to the period of Seleucus Nicator and Alexander.”[29]
v) Megasthenese is hence treated as the greatest Greek authority for Maury history but, in the eyes of his fellow writers, he was a great liar. His work Indica is lost; he survives only in extensive quotations from the writings of later Greek writers like Strabo, Diodorus, and Arrian. Now see what these Greek writers say about Megasthenese. Among these Strabo was of the opinion that Megasthenese simply created fables and as such no faith could be placed in his writings. He says “Generally speaking the men who have written on the affairs of India were a set of liars. Diemachus holds the first place in the list, Megasthenese comes next: while Onesikritos and Nearchos, with others of the same class, manage to stammer out a few words (of truth). Of this we become more convinced whilst writing the history of Alexander. No faith can be placed in Diemachus and Megasthenese.”[30] Arrian holds views similar to Strabo. Arrian’s Indica quotes Megasthenese as saying that in those days, women bore children when they were only seven years of age, men lived at the most forty years and the elephants up to 200 years. Megasthenese informs us that ants by instinct are gold diggers, and that the ants of India are larger than foxes. That is how Indians obtain gold from there. He also wrote that ancient Indians ate the bark of trees and the raw flesh before Dionysus came to India. In relating the Dionysus legend he freely used his imagination. About India he writes about flying snakes dropping their venom at night as well about winged scorpions of extraordinary size. About sugarcane he writes that India had honey yielding reeds but it was without bees.
It is the miracle of evangelical propaganda, supported by a colonial government that such a liar has gained the status of a reliable historian.
The prime concern of this great savant, adoring the prestigious chair of a Justice in the then highest British Court in India was to propagate religion. He proposed to write stories of Jesus Christ and insert in Hindu Puranas to convert Hindus to Christianity. I quote from him.
“As to the general extension of our pure faith in Hindustan there are at present many sad obstacles to it… We may assure ourselves, that… Hindus will never be converted by any mission from church of Rome, or from any other church; and the only human mode, perhaps, of causing so great a revolution, will be to translate into Sanscrit … such chapters of the Prophets, particularly of ISAIAH, as are indisputably evangelical, together with one of the gospels, and a plain prefatory discourse, containing full evidence of the very distant ages, in which the predictions themselves, and the history of the Divine Person (Jesus) predicted, were severally made public; and then to disperse the work among the well-educated natives.”[31]
This was not a passive suggestion. Jones got this done by the Pundits under the influence of the British authorities in Calcutta. Interpolation of passages in the Bhavishyapurana is a glaring example of this forgery. Here the idea of two Buddhas and his claim that a Greek lady, daughter of Seleucus, was married to Chandragupta Maurya leaves no doubt about source of interpolation. It runs as follows:
“At this time Hari was remembered by Kali. From Kasyapa was begot famous Gautama Deva. He propagated (i.e. cultured or originated) Buddha’s religion on reaching Paööaëa (i.e. Kapilavastu?). Sakyamauni was born to him after a reign of 10 years. He ruled for 20 years. His son was Suddhodana who ruled for 30 years. His son was Sakyasimha. He ruled in first quarter of Kali, after two thousand and hundred years and destroyed the Vedic religion. Being Vishnu among the kings, he reigned for 60 years and following the axiom ‘people follow the king’, all men became the followers of Buddhism. Following the path of Vishnu, he made it a world religion. Those who went in his protection were benefited with wealth; even their sins were exempted. From Sakyasimha was born Buddhasimha who completed the half done work of his father. His son was Chandragupta who married the Buddhist converted Yavani (=Greek) daughter of Suluka, king of the Persians. After a reign of 60 years Bindusara was born to him. He reigned as he his father did and his son was Asoka.”[32] (Emphasis is by me). (For original Sanskrit version see Appendix A)
The underlined portions tell a tale that it was got interpolated by a modern scholar who i) propounded the theory that Chandragupta can be equated with Sandracottus of the Greek sources, a contemporary of Alexander; who married the daughter of a Yavana king named Seleucus. Here he is called Seluka or Seluva. ii) The concept of Buddhism as world religion also is a modern concept. iii) In India religious converts are not benefited with any type of reward, and, iv) it is in Christendom where sins are exempted. v) Here, as discussed above, two Buddhas were proposed by Jones.
Above discussion points to only one person, and that was our celebrated Sir William Jones.
Here we may review the history of the Mauryas in the light of this proposition. It must be admitted that there is nothing more than phonetic similarity between the names of so called Sandracottus and Chandragupta (of Maurya dynasty). This similarity does not go beyond the first generation. The tradition knows that the name of the son of Chandragupta Maurya was Bindusara while the Greek sources tell that the son of Sandracottus was named Amitrachodes. To reconcile they invented a theory, without any support, that the Indian form of this word is Amitraghata that might have been his other name. But it is mysterious that the Greek sources fail to give the name of Chandragupta’s grandson Asoka who was the most illustrious king of this dynasty, and, who had contacts with as many as five Greek kings of West Asia. He also claims to have sent missionaries to their countries. We know that Indica of Megasthenese survives only in fragments of later Greek writers who could not ignore this great personality of India’s history. Further, Megasthenese never mentions a personality like Kautilya or Chanakya instrumental in establishing the Maurya Empire. This goes to prove unreliability of Greek sources; at least the interpretation offered by European savants. No wonder if Indian literature does not recognize the hoax of Alexander’s world conquest so ceremoniously established, and repeated till date, in every Indian history textbook. It would have been better to equate, if resolved to sound similarity, Chandragupta I of the Gupta dynasty as Sandracottus and his son Samudragupta with Amitrachodes. The fictitious story of the surrender of four provinces to Chandragupta by Seleucus Niketor collapses when we find Asoka claiming in his RE XIII that Yona-Kambojas were within his own provinces (hida-visayesvapi), i.e. the so-called Indo-Greeks were his direct subjects. In fact the Bactrian Indo-Greeks never looked at Syria for inspiration; rather they seem more inclined towards Hinduism. Thus the history of the Indo-Greeks, so ceremoniously inserted in India’s history-books as invaders after the collapse of the Maurya Empire, stands jeopardized.
This is the fraudulent face of Christianity to distort Hindu chronology and history to suit biblical dogma. They have also interpolated their ideas in the Puranas. Ten çlokas are added in chapter 7 of Bhavishya Purana to confuse Hindu chronology and bring down the age of Vikramaditya.[33] (See Appendix B).

The Intolerant Christians
Its intolerant face was recognized much earlier for Will Durant in his ‘The Story of Philosophy’ writes on page 241:
“Intolerance was inherent in all the Semitic faiths and was responsible for the crusades, jehads and the institution of the Inquisition. A century before the time of Schopenhauer, Voltaire also fell a victim to the wrath of the clergy. He wrote an Essay on the Morals and the Spirit of the Nations, which offended everybody because it told the truth. It spoke highly of the ancient cultures of India, China and Persia and relegated Judea and Christendom to a relatively inferior position. How could then he be forgiven for ‘so unpatriotic a revelation’? He was exiled for a second time by the French Government.”
How revengeful these bigots can be is revealed by the treatment met by Robertson Smith: (1846-1894), the professor of Judaic language in Free Church College and the writer of ‘The Religion of the Semites’. Lewis Spence writes “The heterodox character of an encyclopaedia article on the Bible led to his prosecution for heresy, of which charge, however, he was acquitted. But a further article upon ‘Hebrew Language and Literature’ in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1880) led to his removal from the professoriate of the Collage.”[34]


III
Europe’s Early Reaction to Hindu Culture & Chronology
So far we have discussed the conspiracy to distort the early history, i.e. the Hindu history, especially by Sir William Jones. Now we go to enquired into the reasons behind this sharp reaction that invited the wrath of whole Christian World.
The introduction of India’s culture and of Sanskrit language on the Continent was so favourable that the orthodox took it as a conspiracy against Christianity; although this was natural and spontaneous; at least not initiated by the Hindus. A brief account is given here.
The Hindu knowledge preserved in the Gita and the Upanishadas as well as in the Puranas etc. impressed the eighteenth and early nineteenth century European intellectuals who were in search of better epistemological discussions. Scientific discoveries were constantly increasing the antiquity of earth and thereby also of man that puzzled these intellectuals. A longer date for the Flood, given in the Hindu literature, attracted them much and it was asserted that the mythology and cosmogony of the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans were borrowed from doctrines of the Brahmins. There was a time when India was presented in Europe as the cradle of humanity with all the excellent characteristics in the field of philosophy and culture. A deified image of India was emerging in Europe. A. Schopenhauer, Voltaire and many others spontaneously were most appreciative of Hindu wisdom. The Christian Europe was stirred on such intellectual moves because it apprehended some sort of conspiracy against biblical theology which has over powered the European mind since more than a millennium. They complained that longer chronology of the Hindus for the world history was a direct attack on Christianity. “Thomas Maurice, for example, complained bitterly in 1812 about ‘the daring assumptions of certain skeptical French philosophers with respect to the Age of the World … arguments principally founded on the high assumptions of the Brahmins … [which] have a direct tendency to overrun the Mosaic system, and, with it, Christianity.”[35]
Here is a brief account of some early researchers about India who held appreciative view about the Hindu culture. Edwin Bryant notes that ‘… British scholars John Howell, Nathaniel Halhed, and Alexander Dow – all associated in various capacities with the British East India Trading Company- had relayed back to an eager Europe gleaning from Puranic sources that described an immense antiquity for human race. These provided the ranks of disaffected Christians, such as the vociferous Voltaire, with valuable materials with which to attempt to shake off the constraints of Judeo-Christian chronology and to refute Jewish or Christian claims to exclusive mediation between man and Providence.’[36] Howell announced that Hindu texts contained a higher revelation than the Christian ones and that the mythology, as well as the cosmogony of the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans, were borrowed from the doctrines of the Brahmins.
Pt. Bhagavadutta has also given a glimpse of these early reactions that enraged the furry of the bigot Christians.
Two German scholars, August Withelm von Schlegel and his brother Friedrich Schelegal are well known for their love for Sanskrit. Friedrich wrote a book entitled ‘Upon the Languages and Wisdom of the Hindus’ in 1808. Another Sanskritist Hern Withelm von Humbolt became the collaborator of August Schlegel whose edition of the Bhagavad Gita directed his attention to its study. In 1827 he wrote to a friend saying: ‘It is perhaps, the deepest and loftiest thing the world has to show’.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), a great German philosopher, happened to read the Latin translation of the Upanishads, done by a French writer Anquetil du Perron (1731-1805) from the Persian translation of Prince Dara Shikoh (1665), named as Sirre-Akbar – the Great Secret. Schopenhauer was so impressed by their philosophy that he called them ‘the production of the highest human wisdom’, and considered them to contain almost superhuman conceptions. The study of the Upanishads was a source of great inspiration and means of comfort to his soul, and writing about it he says, ‘It is the most satisfying and elevating reading (with the exception of the original text) which is possible in the world; it has been the solace of my life and will be the solace of my death.’ It is well known that the book ‘Opnekhat’ (Upanishad) always lay upon his table and he invariably studied if before retiring to rest. For him the introduction of Sanskrit literature was ‘the greatest gift of our century’, and predicted that the philosophy and knowledge of the Upanishads would become the cherished faith of the West. Alas! Arthur Schopenhauer did not survive to see the prophecy of this great philosopher was thrashed down by his fellow religionists.
Pt. Bhagavadutta, a great Sanskrit scholar of his time, writes “When Indian literature became first known in the West, people were inclined to ascribe a hoary age to every literary work hailing from India. They looked upon India as something like the cradle of mankind, or at least of humanity.
“This impression was natural and spontaneous. It was based on truth and had no element of bias. … When the people of the West came to know of them for the first time, many unbigoted scholars were highly impressed by their marvelous accuracy and profound wisdom and being uninfluenced by any considerations of colour or creed they were generous in their acclamations. This enthusiastic applause of the honest people of Christian lands created a flutter in the devotees of Jewry and Christian missionaries, who were ignorant of the real import of their own Scriptures and traditions as those of Bharatavarsha and followed the dictates of dogmatic Pauline Christianity which had made them intolerant of all other faiths.”[37]
In the preceding pages we have had a long discussion about it. Here we wish to conclude with the analysis of Swami Prakashanandji. Though he presents it in theological context but it is true in our discussion as well.
“There were two main reasons why the scientists did not put their faith in God. The first reason was their religious background. The religion of the Bible, which is commonly followed in the West, does not describe any philosophy of evolution or the exact procedure of the creation of the universe except that God created the heaven and earth. So it is no good for scientific purposes. Also the description of God in the Bible is not the description of the true loving God in His Divine personal form. It is the description of a dogmatic God, whose wrathfulness is frequently described in the Bible, especially in the OT. “The second reason was that the ‘true knowledge of God’ which was given by God himself to the Saints of Bharatavarsh (India) was abused and suppressed by the English people to such an extent that the people of the world could not benefit with the knowledge of such Divine God Who is extremely kind and loving and Who is the eternal friend of all the souls.”[38]



References
[1] Nesturkh, M. The Races of Mankind, 1963, Moscow, p. 45.
[2] Biman Basu, The Story of Man, New Delhi, 1997, p. 45.
[3] Man Kind and Mother Earth, O.U.P. New York. 1967. P. 22; quoted in Vasudeva Poddar’s Vishva ki Kalaganana (Hindi). New Delhi. 2000.
[4] The Universe – Asimov—Pp. 124, Allen Lane, the Penguin Press. London 1967. Quoted in Vasudeo Poddar’s book cited above.
[5] Internet: Ussher chronology- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (6/17/2010).
[6] Internet: Beliefs in Earth’s age (6/17/2010).
[7] For more details see author’s The Science of Manvantaras 2006, Bangalore.
[8] Monier Williams, Sanskrit-English Dictionary, entry on ‘Manu’.
[9] Mhabharat, Van. 187. 53; Adi. 75. 13.
[10] Ramayana VII. 75. 13.
[11] Trautmann, Thomas R Aryans and British India, New Delhi, p. 42.
[12] Desai, Devangana, ‘The Structure of Time in the Kandariya Mahadeva Temple of Khajuraho’; Concept of Time: Ancient and Modern edited by Kapila Vatsyayana, p. 342.
[13] Verma, T.P. The Science of Manvantaras, page 8.
[14] The Bible, New International Version, first published by International Bible Society in Great Britain 1979; this edition 1989, p. 8-9.
[15] Gunjan Aggrawala Bhagaväna Buddha aur unaké Itihäsa-sammataTithi, Patna, 2009, p. 167.
[16] Edwin Bryant, p. 15.
[17] See Matsyapurana ch. 11 and following for details.
[18] Pargiter, F.E. Ancient Indian Historical Tradition, Reprinted in India, 1972, p. 144-49.
[19] Aggrawal, Gunjan, op.cit. p. 51-52, fn. 3.
[20] @te #úvakudayda rajan> àayz> Sm&t>, v[21] ïUyta< manvae v àacuyeR[ pr[22] Pargiter, F.E. p. 4.
[23] Edwin Bryant, 2001 p. 23.
[24] Edwin Bryant, 2001, p. 68.
[25] Ibid, p 15.
[26] He never revealed the name of this book.
[27] This book also is unknown to scholars till date.
[28] Saraswati, Swami Prakashananda, The True History and Religion of India, 2001, Delhi, p. 254.
[29] Ibid p. 254.
[30] MaCrindle, Ancient India as described by Megasthenese and Arrian, being a translation of Indica of Megasthenese collected by E.A. Schwanbeck and of the first part of the Indica of Arrian, Calcutta, 1926, pp. 18-19.
[31] Asiatic Researches Vol. I. Published 1979, pages 234-35. First published 1788; quoted in Swami Prakashanand Saraswati’s The True History and the Religion of India, 2001, New Delhi p. 245.
[32] Saraswati Prakashananda, The True History and Religion of India, Delhi, 2001, p. 318; Bavishyapurana, Pratisarga Parva, Part I, chapter 6, çlokas 36-44. This has been taken from the ibid page 318. English rendering is my own. For a Hindi translation see Gunjana Aggrawala Op.cit., p. 92.
[33] Saraswvati, Prakashananda, op. cit, p. 319.
[34] Lewis Spence An Introduction to Mythology, New York, - Date of publication not indicated in the book.
[35] Edwin Bryant The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture, 2001, p. 14.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Western Indologists: A Study in Motifs, by Pt. Bhagavadutta (with minor additions of “Review of Beef in Ancient India). A copy of this was provided to me by Sri Gunjan Aggrawala of Patna.
[38] Op. cit. p. 439.

Jambudwipa i.e. Central Asia Thesis of Vedic Civilization

The Central Asia thesis for Vedic Civililaztion is a new concept that postulates Central Asia (Jambudwip) the cradle of human civilization. This was the land where earliest hymns of the Vedas were composed and this was the land where Indra fought and killed Vrittra and several early episodes referred to in the Rigveda and in the Puranas took place.
There are several benifits of this postulation that have solution of many controversial theories like Aryan Invasion Theory of India and question of Indo-European and Proto-Indo-European etc. It was here that Manu arraived about 120 million years ago and from him emerged the whole humanity. Modern investigators are advocating off and on that this was the region from where frequent movements of human tribes have been taking place.
Thus combining the archaeological and literary material we can unfurl the early history of humanity.
Not only this Puranas record several episodes that can be interpreted in terms of geology and geography of this period. There was a time when most of Europe and Asia was submerged in a Sea which scientists call Tethys Sea and the Puranas Uttara Samudra or North Sea. The Indian landmass collided the Asian landmass to give rise mountains like Pamira and Himalayas etc.

We have much to share with you on the subject and we propose to be in contact with you in future.

MAHISHASUR MARDINI from INDUS VALLEY

http://www.rjbm.nic.in/

http://www.rjbm.nic.in/
AYODHYA VERDICT in FULL DETAILS