Kitabı oku: «Truths», sayfa 2

CHAPTER 1 PROLOGUE

Modern scholars and their sciences

“No one who is at all acquainted with the position which India occupies in the history of the world, would expect to find many synchronisms between the history of the Brahmins and that of other nations before the date of the origin of Buddhism in India. Although the Brahmins of India belong to the same family, the Aryan or Indo-European family, which civilised the whole of Europe, the two great branches of that primitive race were kept asunder for centuries after their first separation. The main stream of the Aryan nations has always flowed towards the North West. No historian can tell us by what impulse those adventurous Nomads were driven on, through Asia towards the isles and shores of Europe. The first start of these world-wide migrations belongs to a period far beyond the reach of documentary history; to times when the soils of Europe had not been trodden by either Celts, Germans, Slavonians, Romans or Greeks. But whatever it was, the impulse was as irresistible as the spell which, in our own times, sends the Celtic tribes towards the prairies or the regions of gold across the Atlantic. It requires a strong will, or a great amount of inertness, to be able to withstand the impetus of such national, or rather ethnical movements. Few will stay behind when all are going. But to let one’s friends depart, and then to set out ourselves – to take a road which, lead where it may, can never lead us to join those again who speak our language and worship our gods – is a course which only men of strong individuality and great self- dependence are capable of pursuing. It was the course adopted by the southern branch of the Aryan family, the Brahmanic Aryans of India and the Zoroastrians of Iran.

At the first dawn of traditional history we see these Aryan tribes migrating across the snow of the Himâlaya southward to the ‘Seven rivers’ (the Indus, the five rivers of the Panjâb and the Sarasvati), and ever since India has been called their home. That before that time they had been living in more northern regions, within the same precincts with the ancestors of the Greeks, the Italians, the Slavonians, Germans and Celts, is a fact as firmly established as that the Normans of William the conqueror were the Northmen of Scandinavia. The evidence of language is irrefragable, and it is the only evidence worth listening to with regard to ante-historical periods. It would have been next to impossible to discover any traces of relationship between the swarthy natives of India and their conquerors, whether Alexander or Clive, but for the testimony borne by language. What other evidence could have reached back to times when Greece was not peopled by Greeks, nor India by Hindus? Yet these are the times of which we are speaking. What authority would have been strong enough to persuade the Grecian army, that their God and their hero ancestors were the same as those of King Porus, or to convince the English soldier that the same blood was running in his veins and in the veins of the dark Bengalese? ... There was a time when the ancestors of the Celts, the Germans, the Slavonians, the Greeks, and Italians, the Persians, and the Hindus were living together within the same fences, separate from the ancestors of the Semitic and Turanian races.

It is more difficult to prove that the Hindu was the last to leave this common home, that he saw his brothers all depart towards the setting sun and that then, turning towards the south and the east, he started alone in search for a new world. But as in his language and in his grammar he has preserved something of what seems peculiar to each of the northern dialects singly, alone, as he agrees with the Greek and the German where the Greek and the German seem to differ from all the rest, and as no other language has carried off so large a share of the common Aryan heirloom – whether roots, grammar, words, myths or legends – it is natural to suppose that, though perhaps the eldest brother, the Hindu was the last to leave the central home of the Aryan family.

The Aryan nations, who pursued a north-westerly direction, stand before us in history as the principal Nations of North-western Asia and Europe. They have been the prominent actors in the great drama of the history, and have carried to their fullest growth all the elements of acting life with which our nature is endowed. They have perfected society and morals, and we learn from their literature and works of art the elements of science, the laws of art, and the principles of philosophy. In the continual struggle with each other and with Semitic and Turanian races, these Aryan nations have become the rulers of history, and it seems to be their mission to link all parts of the world together by the chains of civilisation, commerce, and religion. In a word, they represent the Aryan man in his historical character.

But while most of the members of the Aryan family followed this glorious path, the southern tribes were slowly migrating towards the mountains which gird in the north of India. After crossing the narrow pass of the Hindukush or the Himâlaya, they conquered or drove before them, as it seems without much effort, the aboriginal inhabitants of the Trans-Himalayan countries. They took for their guides the principal rivers of northern India, and were led by them to new homes in their beautiful and fertile valleys.”

These few lines tell precisely the prevailing Modern History of Human Culture in a nutshell. Every sentence of this quotation seems to carry findings of meticulous research by scholars that have been summed up in these lines. Is it so? It is not so. Not a single source has been mentioned. So, for readers, for us, for our understanding there is only one alternative left. Either believe in this told history or reject. Nothing can be checked. Nothing can be known. As it is just mentioned, Modern History of Human Culture is founded on these lines whatsoever. Never before lines like these were published. Not a single line in this quote has been revised. Modern Scholars have believed in these findings and have accepted these findings. Willingly, as it appears. One needs only to consult published literature.

These lines are quoted from a celebrated scholarly book published in 1859 by a renowned scholar of that time who is well-celebrated till today. The inner title-page of this book is noteworthy. Here it is.

As simple - minded searchers, we have learnt to adopt the wisdom of our ancestors that is universally practiced in daily life through ages. Whenever we hear a tale or see something, we are alert and we are careful. From the inner title-page we come to know that the author is one Max Müller. He has acquired the academic degree of a Master of Arts. We all know that “Master of Arts” is an academic degree. It is, in simpler words, academy-leaving-certificate indicating that the holder of the certificate did consume his years in the academy successfully. It is not a research degree. Research Degrees can only be acquired by doing and publishing independent research. These are post M.A. degrees. Research Qualifications can also be acquired by doing and publishing research works.

Therefore, we conclude that Max Müller, M.A., did not acquire a research a research degree up to the year 1859. This does not mean that Max Müller, M.A. has not acquired research qualifications. It would have been a better decoration of the inner-title page referring to eventual published research reports. We must look out whether, when, where and on what subjects he has done independent research. We have taken a note of our query and we shall follow it up. We must also know where and from which College or University Max Müller has acquired his academic degree of a Master of Arts.

*****

The title of the book “A HISTORY OF ANCIENT SANSKRIT LITERATURE” assumes that Max Müller, M.A. has thoroughly studied ancient Indian history, ancient Indian literature and ancient Indian culture handed-down in an ancient Indian language called Sanskrit. We shall search for primary sources to check up these claims.

We have read the sub-title of the book: “SO FAR AS IT ILLUSTRATES THE PRIMITIVE RELIGION OF THE BRAHMINS” several times. The sub-title tells that Max Müller, M.A. has also acquired thorough knowledge of religions in general and specific knowledge of the religion of the Brahmins. And that the religion of the Brahmins has been qualified by Max Müller, M.A. as primitive. We shall search for primary sources to check up where and how he acquired these claimed competences. And we shall also have to know how Max Müller, M.A. defined the term “primitive”.

*****

Further we are informed by the inner title page of the book that Max Müller, M.A. has also been attached to many learned institutions. We come to know as well that, at least in 1859, Max Müller was “Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford; Correspondent de l'Institut lmpérial de France; Foreign Member of the Royal Bavarian Academy; Honorary Member of the Royal Society of Literature; Corresponding Member of the Asiatic Society of Bengal; and of the American Oriental Society; Member of the Asiatic Society of Paris, and of the Oriental Society of Germany; and Taylorian Professor in the University of Oxford.”

We admit we are unable to take this inner-title-page of the book. We do not find any systematic relationship between these 8 (eight) different institutions and Max Müller, M.A. as the author of a book titled: A HISTORY OF ANCIENT SANSKRIT LITERATURE. As simple-minded readers and searchers for truths we wished to comprehend the purpose of all these information on the inner-title-page of this book. Yes, what could be the purpose? What is the purpose?

Then we stumbled on “Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford” on the top of the list and “Taylorian Professor in the University of Oxford” at the end. A college, we all know, is not a university. Colleges are for teaching and not for research. British Colleges at Oxford are no exceptions. For all practical purposes, “All Souls College” at Oxford is biased by Christian belief and not laden with knowledge. Colleges like All Souls College do socialize its pupils to become Christian missionaries at a more effective level than those trained solely in Christian Churches and all that goes with it. Does this mention indicate his confession of being a Christian missionary? Or should it create some other associations? We are on alert. “Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford” should not create associations that All Souls College at Oxford is a part of Oxford University.

“Taylorian Professor in the University of Oxford” does not indicate the subject. We became curious and did search and digging. The results take us in surprise. Here are the results:

A “Taylorian Professor in the University of Oxford” did never exist. There was indeed a Taylor Institution at Oxford, which was not a part of Oxford University. This institution organized lessons in “modern” European languages. Here is the story of the Taylor Institution in a nutshell. None of the colleges at Oxford, or Oxford University used to teach “modern languages”. In 1724, George I tried to initiate teaching of French and of German to train future diplomats at Oxford University. He failed. The Authorities of the University rejected the initiative. Oxford University continued teaching Greek and Latin only.

Years later, the notable architect Sir Robert Taylor (1714-1788) fixed in his will in favour of his only son, Michael Angelo Taylor, that a part of his huge fortune was to be spent to set up a foundation “for the teaching and improving those European languages … essential to Diplomatic and commercial pursuits” at Oxford. “After various legal complications and the death of Sir Robert's son, Michael Angelo, in 1834, the University inherited the sum of £65,000.” After many controversies “the Taylorian statute finally passed on 4 March 1847” for teaching European languages and started with French and German. Even the newly constructed building of the foundation differs distinctly from that of Oxford University.

It is known that Oxford University added the Boden Chair for Sanskrit to Greek and Latin in 1832. We are however unable to comprehend how a Taylorian Professor for Modern Languages, in the University of Oxford or just at Oxford, should be qualified to write a scholarly book on “A HISTORY OF ANCIENT SANSKRIT LITERATURE, SO FAR AS IT ILLUSTRATES THE PRIMITIVE RELIGION OF THE BRAHMINS.” Was it not a subject for the holder of the Boden Chair for Sanskrit? We have taken this issue as a marker.

*****

We also take note of several different status-descriptions in this remarkable list as well: Max Müller, M.A. is “Correspondent” Member, “Foreign” Member, “Honorary” Member, “Corresponding” Member and “Member” of an “Institute”, of an “Academy” in “Societies” in different Countries. What do these different types of membership indicate? It is even more puzzling when we look into the types and details of institutions mentioned. Because we stumbled, we wanted to get more details about these institutions. Here are the results:

Ø Correspondent de l'Institut lmpérial de France. This Institute is in France happened to be not royal, not national, but it is imperial. Imperial has something to do with empire and empire has something to do with a geographically extensive group of lands and peoples, is something like making a conquest, an occupation, isn’t it? When was the institution founded, by whom, for what purpose? For how long did it exist? Did it really exist? We have reasons to maintain our scepticism as we don’t find answers to our questions.

Ø Foreign Member of the Royal Bavarian Academy. We assumed Max Müller is a German name. And Royal Bavarian Academy must have been a German institution. Our assumptions are correct. Why then “foreign member”? While trying to collect a little more information on this institution we stumbled again. “Royal Bavarian Academy” of what? Elector of Bavaria Max III Joseph founded in 1769 the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities in Munich. Then a school of Arts for drawing and graphic in 1770. King of Bavaria Maximilian I Joseph of Bavaria elevated this school to an Academy of Fine Arts in 1808 which was also called the "Royal Academy of Fine Arts" and never Royal Bavarian Academy. We wonder about this type of slip in the inner title-page of a scholarly book.

Ø Honorary Member of the Royal Society of Literature. It must had been: The Royal Society of Literature in Britain, founded in 1820 by King George IV, in order to "reward literary merit and excite literary talent"

Ø Corresponding Member of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. To be accurate Max Müller’s “Asiatic Society” could at best be the “Asiatick Society of Bengal”, founded in 1784 in Calcutta by Sir William Jones. He is considered to be a scholarly demigod. A detailed hi(story) will follow after a while in a separate chapter. At present this much: The “Asiatick Society of Bengal” was the first factory for forging history and for brainwashing. And Sir William Jones was a high-graded swindler.

Ø American Oriental Society was founded in 1842. This so-called oldest US learned society claimed to deal with basic research in languages and literatures of Asia. It also claimed to deal with subjects like philology, literary criticism, textual criticism, palaeography, epigraphy, linguistics, biography, archaeology, and the history of the intellectual and imaginative aspects of Oriental civilizations, especially of philosophy, religion, folklore and art. Is there any area of so-called Humanities left? Quite naturally all European waves, also the orient enthusiasms, reached the European “colonisers” in “America” too. But learned societies for basic research as well? Who were the “scholars”?

Ø Asiatic Society of Paris. If one puts Asiatic Society of Paris in the search machines of the web, one gets something else. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Asiatic Society of Japan - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopaedia, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal and so on. If one goes deep, one finds in the “Bibliot. Nat. France cat.” a Société Asiatique, founded in1822.

Ø Oriental Society of Germany. In the search machines of the web there is no reference to a society called Oriental Society of Germany. The nearest approach would be: The Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft (DOG), which is an “Eingetragener Verein” - a registered voluntary association -, based at Berlin in Germany. The DOG was officially founded in January 1898 to foster public interest in oriental antiquities. Then there was The Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft (DMG), a scholarly organization dedicated to studies on Asia and on a broader Orient. The DMG was established on 2 October 1845 in Leipzig by leading Oriental scholars from Germany, as well as members of other “Oriental Societies” such as the Asiatick Societies in Paris, London and Kolkata.

We do not know whether others also stumbled so often while studying the inner title-page of this book as we did and/or how they reacted if they did actually stumble. Nothing is handed down on this issue. We are surprised. We have become apprehensive by this simple check-up, which leads us to ask questions like: Are these simple inaccuracies? Don’t they show too many facets to be accounted for as just careless inaccuracies? We remain apprehensive. That is why we raise other questions like: Could there be a system behind these inaccuracies? Who is this Max Müller, M.A.? What is known about his life, work and career? What did he do? How did he earn his living? Which institutions recruited him? We have taken note of all these dissonances arisen in our mind about the author Max Müller, M.A.

*****

It has not escaped our attention that there are no references to the sources in the entire text we have cited in the beginning of this chapter. Before we get into the issue of sources, we would like to turn back our attention to the quoted text in the beginning and start reading it more carefully. As mentioned, we are simple-minded persons. We are slow in grasping because we read every sentence and try to comprehend the whole meaning. This is the way how we read. We apologise in advance if our mode of reading should irritate. But we are as we are.

“No one who is at all acquainted(Max Müller obviously claims to be well “acquainted”) with the position which India occupies in the history of the world (Max Müller claims to be a “global” historian), would expect to find many synchronisms (! ?) between the history of the Brahmins (We shall have to verify his claim to know all about the Brahmins correlating the claims to his biography.) and that of other nations before the date of the origin of Buddhism in India (Had there been ‘nations’ prior to Buddhism?). Although the Brahmins of India belong to the same family, the Aryan or Indo-European family (How has it been established that there was “the Aryan or Indo-European family”, when, by whom and how?), which civilised the whole of Europe, the two great branches of that primitive race were kept asunder for centuries after their first separation (“first separation”? Does Max Müller subtly intend to make us believe that there are Aryans and Aryans who are in fact Indo-Europeans? And that these “two branches of this primitive race” separated at some “pre-historic” period? That one of the branches civilised the whole of Europe? That the branch of the Brahmins was inferior to those who had civilised the whole of Europe?). The main stream of the Aryan nations has always flowed towards the North West (How does Max Müller arrive to this assertion?). No historian can tell us by what impulse those adventurous Nomads were driven on, through Asia towards the isles and shores of Europe (Has there been any systematic ‘historical research’ on this issue?). The first start of these world-wide migrations belongs to a period far beyond the reach of documentary history; to times when the soils of Europe had not been trodden by either Celts, Germans, Slavonians, Romans or Greeks (How can we know anything if it is beyond historical sources? How should Max Müller come to know about ‘the first start’?). But whatever it was (Obviously Max Müller is not keen to establish how it has been!), the impulse was as irresistible as the spell which, in our own times, sends the Celtic tribes towards the prairies or the regions of gold across the Atlantik. It requires a strong will, or a great amount of inertness, to be able to withstand the impetus of such national (?), or rather ethnical (?) movements. Few will stay behind when all are going. But to let one’s friends depart, and then to set out ourselves – to take a road which, lead where it may, can never lead us to join those again who speak our language and worship our gods (gods?) – is a course which only men of strong individuality and great self- dependence are capable of pursuing (We are left speechless by these limitless fantasies!). It was the course adopted by the southern branch of the Aryan family, the Brahmanic Aryans of India and the Zoroastrians of Iran.

At the first dawn of traditional history (What is traditional history? Who handed it down? When? Where is it available?) we see these Aryan tribes (!) migrating across the snow of the Himâlaya (Is it by any means possible to migrate ‘across the snow of the Himâlaya’ on foot?) southward to the ‘Seven rivers’ (the Indus, the five rivers of the Panjâb and the Sarasvati), and ever since India has been called their home. That before that time they had been living in more northern regions, within the same precincts with the ancestors of the Greeks, the Italians, the Slavonians, Germans and Celts, is a fact as firmly established (‘firmly established’ by whom, how and when?) as that the Normans of William the conqueror were the Northmen of Scandinavia (What is the message behind this rather poetic narration: Only Aryan “tribes” have brought ‘civilisation’ to mankind? What about the Semites? Had there been other “tribes” also?). The evidence of language is irrefragable, and it is the only evidence worth listening to with regard to ante-historical periods (Max Müller claims to be an expert in ‘Linguistics’ also!). It would have been next to impossible to discover any traces of relationship between the swarthy natives of India and their conquerors, whether Alexander or Clive, but for the testimony borne by language (Is this a subtle message that the Christian occupants of in Bharatavarsa were not ‘colonizers` in fact? Did they just visit their relatives and they claimed their legal ‘heir’, while they were plundering indiscriminately?).

What other evidence could have reached back to times when Greece was not peopled by Greeks, nor India by Hindus (Which people “peopled” Greece and India and how did Max Müller come to know this?)? Yet these are the times of which we are speaking. What authority would have been strong enough to persuade the Grecian army, that their God and their hero ancestors were the same as those of King Porus, or to convince the English soldier that the same blood was running in his veins and in the veins of the dark Bengalese? ... There was a time when the ancestors of the Celts, the Germans, the Slavonians, the Greeks, and Italians, the Persians, and the Hindus were living together within the same fences, separate from the ancestors of the Semitic and Turanian races (That is it!).

It is more difficult to prove that the Hindu was the last to leave this common home, that he saw his brothers all depart towards the setting sun and that then, turning towards the south and the east, he started alone in search for a new world. But as in his language and in his grammar he has preserved something of what seems peculiar to each of the northern dialects singly, alone, as he agrees with the Greek and the German where the Greek and the German seem to differ from all the rest, and as no other language has carried off so large a share of the common Aryan heirloom – whether roots, grammar, words, myths or legends – it is natural to suppose that, though perhaps the eldest brother, the Hindu was the last to leave the central home of the Aryan family (We shall have to scrutinise meticulously where, when, from whom Max Müller could have learnt which languages!).

The Aryan nations who pursued a north-westerly direction, stand before us in history as the principal Nations of North-western Asia and Europe. They have been the prominent actors in the great drama of the history, and have carried to their fullest growth all the elements of acting life with which our nature is endowed. They have perfected society and morals, and we learn from their literature and works of art the elements of science, the laws of art, and the principles of philosophy. In the continual struggle with each other and with Semitic and Turanian races, these Aryan nations have become the rulers of history, and it seems to be their mission to link all parts of the world together by the chains of civilisation, commerce, and religion. In a word, they represent the Aryan man in his historical character (Is this the message that the Aryan tribes, the Aryan people, the Aryan nations have been the most decisive actors in the great drama of history? Have they perfected human society and morals? Do we learn from their literature and works the elements of science, the laws of art, and the principles of philosophy? Is this the message that in the continual struggle with each other and with Semitic and Turanian races these Aryan nations have become the rulers of history?).

But while most of the members of the Aryan family followed this glorious path, the southern tribes were slowly migrating towards the mountains which gird in the north of India. After crossing the narrow pass of the Hindukush or the Himâlaya, they conquered or drove before them, as it seems without much effort, the aboriginal inhabitants of the Trans-Himalayan countries. They took for their guides the principal rivers of northern India, and were led by them to new homes in their beautiful and fertile valleys.”

*****

We get back to the issue of sources of information. In all standard books on history, on history of culture, on Indology published after 1859 we find all those facts presented here by Max Müller as referred to in the beginning of this chapter. On this fundament, Max Müller has integrated other perceptions on society and culture without any critical check-up of the validity of the assertions. In none of the standard books on these subjects published before 1859, we find these facts presented by Max Müller. Therefore, we conclude that Max Müller has handed-down these facts for the first time in the literature on the Modern History, on Human Culture and on Indology. Thus, he is accountable for his sources.

There was no mention of the Aryan-race prior to Max Müller. He was thus the discoverer or inventor of the Aryan-race as well. He did describe the physical features of the Aryans in comparison to the rest of humankind. The Aryans were tall, strong, fair skinned, fair haired, blue or grey-eyed. In 1859 photography was yet to be invented. When did he go to the land of Aryan-origin? When did he see “Aryans”? The land of Aryan-origin, so it is told by Max Müller, was to be Central-East Asia. It is handed-down that the Venetian Marco Polo spent long years in that area in the 13th century. He has written a lot on what he had seen and experienced. Why did he not see the Aryans, why did he not write on the Aryan-Race?

We must find out how and when Max Müller discovered these facts. It is undeniable that he is accepted as an authority on all these facets of ancient “History”, on “Religions”, on “Indology”, on “Philosophy” and on “Linguistics”. Even his claim to have acquired perfect command over the ancient Language called Sanskrit is also universally accepted. He is also accountable on this issue.

A language does not travel. A language has to be transported by human beings. There are two ways. One travels to the land of that language, learns it and carries it to his land. Or one comes from that land and brings the language with him and also teaches it. We shall have to investigate how Sanskrit arrived in Europe and how European scholars of Sanskrit came to their knowledge of Sanskrit.