Alam_dar Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 (edited) Quote By Muloghonto: Megasthenes visited India during the reign of Ashoka’s grandfather, when Buddhism was a minor sect. He specifically noted that there is no slavery in India. Indians are proud of their glorious past where great achievements like Ayurveda and Yoga were made. But becoming over-proud make you blind, and you will start looking at others as inferior humans. Thus, this superiority complex also make some people to claim that there existed no slavery in the glorious past of Vedic India. But this claim is not true. This crown goes to Greek philosophers and to Buddha who were perhaps the first ones (along with Persian King Cyrus the great), who condemned slavery. The crown of introducing DEMOCRACY also goes to the Greeks/Romans. Greek Diplomat Megasthenes: These people quote Magesthenes (a Greek Diplomat who visited India around 300 BCE) to claim that slavery never existed in India. Megasthenes wrote in his book Indika: " Of several remarkable customs existing among the Indians, there is one prescribed by their ancient philosophers which one may regard as truly admirable: for the law ordains that no one among them shall, under any circumstances, be a slave, but that, enjoying freedom, they shall respect the equal right to it which all possess: for those, they thought,who have learned neither to domineer over nor to cringe to others will attain the life best adapted for all vicissitudes of lot: for it is but fair and reasonable to institute laws which bind all equally, but allow property to be unevenly distributed." But in reality Megasthenes is considered to be telling a lie here. Let us see criticism upon him. Megasthenes wanted to present India as an Utopia Land to his people: After reading whole account which Megasthenes wrote about India (link to the book), it seems he fabricated stories about India, in order to present it as an Utopia land to his people. For example: 1. Megasthenes claimed that food has been in so much abundance, that there had never been any famine in India. 2. Indian Elephants are special and they live up to 200 years of age. Indian elephants are much biggen in Size and Strength than African elephants. 3. Indian Tigers are double the size of lions. 4. Indian Monkeys are larger than the largest dogs. Their tails are more than 2 cubits in length. They are so tame that they never attack man nor steal. 5. Stones are dug up which are of the colour of frankincenso and sweeter than figs or honey. 6. There are serpents two cubits long which have membranous wings like bats. They fly about in night, when they let fall drops of urine or sweat, which blister the skin of persons not on their guard, with putrid sores. 7. There are also winged scorpions of an extra ordinary size . 8. Indian dogs are greatest in strength. The bull was seized by the muzzle, and died before the dog could be taken off. 9. He also wrote fantastical stories, such as those about tribes of people with no mouths, unicorns and other mythical animals, and gold-digging ants Fantasy story of Greek god Dionysus and Herakles: Megasthenes wrote (link): The most learned Indian scholars say that Dionysus invaded India, and conquered it. When his army was unable to bear the excessive heat, he led his soldiers to the mountains called Meros for recovery; this led to the Greek legend about Dionysus being bred in his father's thigh (meros in Greek).[a] Dionysus taught Indians several things including how to grow plants, make wine and worship. He founded several large cities, introduced laws and established courts. For this reason, he was regarded as a deity by the Indians. He ruled entire India for 52 years, before dying of old age. His descendants ruled India for several generations, before being dethroned and replaced by democratic city-states.[16] The Indians who inhabit the hill country also claim that Herakles was one of them. Like the Greeks, they characterize him with the club and the lion's skin. According to them, Herakles was a powerful man who subjugated evil beasts. He had several sons and one daughter, who became rulers in different parts of his dominion. He founded several cities, the greatest of which was Palibothra (Pataliputra). Herakles built several places in this city, fortified it with water-filled trenches and settled a number of people in the city. His descendants ruled India for several generations, but never launched an expedition beyond India. After several years, the royal rule was replaced by democratic city states, although there existed a few kings when Alexander invaded India.[17] Off course no one could believe that India got democratic states and Indians worshiped Greece gods. Therefore, from all these fantasy stories, it becomes evident that Megasthenes was presenting India as an Utopia land to his people. At that time, there was a movement in Greece about the Democracy, and as well as against the slavery. The Stoics in Greece had condemned slavery in the 3rd BC century. Therefore, it seems due to this temptation, Megasthenes fabricated the lie that there existed no slavery in India. In order to make India an utopia land, Megasthenes mentioned seven castes in India, but omitted presence of shudras and untouchables. Here is criticism upon Megasthenes by historians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indica_(Megasthenes): The first century Greek writer Strabo called both Megasthenes and his succeeding ambassador Deimachus liars, and stated that "no faith whatever" could be placed in their writings.[26] The Indika contained numerous fantastical stories, such as those about tribes of people with no mouths, unicorns and other mythical animals, and gold-digging ants.[27] Strabo directly contradicted these descriptions, assuring his readers that Megasthenes' stories, along with his recounting of India’s founding by Hercules and Dionysus, were mythical with little to no basis in reality.[28] (link). According to Paul J. Kosmin, Indica depicts contemporary India as an unconquerable territory, in order to justify Seleucus's retreat from India. Megasthenes tries to argue that Dionysus was able to conquer India, because before his invasion, India was a primitive rural society. Dionysus' urbanization of India makes India a powerful, impregnable nation. The later ruler — the Indian Herakles — is presented as a native of India, despite similarities with the Greek Heracles. This, according to Kosmin, is because now India is shown as unconquerable.[29] Megasthenes emphasizes that no foreign army had been able to conquer India (since Dionysus) and Indians had not invaded a foreign country either. This representation of India as an isolated, invincible country is an attempt to vindicate Seleucus' peace treaty with the Indian emperor.[30] Megasthenes states that there were no slaves in India, but the Arthashastra attests to the existence of slavery in contemporary India;[31] Strabo also counters Megasthenes's claim based on a report from Onesicritus. Buddha: The real Hero from the Indian Land Vedic religion didn't end slavery, but imposed slavery. Thus this vedic era does not belong to the glorious past of India regarding slavery. But the glorious past of India began with great Buddha, who criticised not only the vedic caste system, but also the vedic era slavery system. And when his follower Ashoka became the emperor of India, he banned all the slave markets (although he didn't abolished slavery completely. link. Thus, due to Ashoka, the size of slavery in India became negligible. It stayed so, till Muslims invaded India and once again introduced the slave markets in India. PS: I have to start this thread in order to refute Muloghonto. In my opinion, he has been unfortunately suffering with this superiority complex. He uses Megasthenes to deny presence of any slavery in ancient India. Edited February 24, 2020 by Alam_dar Laaloo, GoldenSun, mishra and 2 others 1 4
Real McCoy Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 Listen mr.pakistani there was no slavery in India until the islamic conquest ok. Ancient Greeks had a high opinion of the Indians who they came in contact with. Its not only megasthenes. There are others who have visited India and spoke in great detail. Contrast that with Islamic historians who cite several examples of slavery. India relied on interdependence which means even though two groups may not like each other, they had to work with each other to gain some value out of life. Agricultural people needed farm hands and there were people who relied on meat and fruits who couldn't store them like rice and wheat and vegetables. So they worked as farm hands. The priests were involved with temple, administer medical treatments, philosophers, advisors and assistants to the king, time keeping work like solar calendar, astrology, teaching, etc. The farmers and landowners were involved in conserving water for irrigation, building ancient dams, which crop to plant during which season. Merchants were busy in traveling over distances to buy and sell to give the people what they wanted. Some even traveled in ships to the middle east and east asia. The rest worked as farmhands, potters, carpenters, builders. Those who didn't want to live in civilization were free to do as they please in their own section which was usually hills and the coast. Laaloo 1
Alam_dar Posted February 24, 2020 Author Posted February 24, 2020 12 minutes ago, Real McCoy said: Listen mr.pakistani there was no slavery in India until the islamic conquest ok. It is true only after the Buddha/Ashoka era who fought against caste-system and as well as slavery system. But the pre Ashoka/Buddha period i.e. Vedic period did have slavery. No religion opposed slavery. It were only the "rebels" to religion, who got rid of Religious Systems and thus get rid of slavery too. Laaloo, Adi_91, Real McCoy and 1 other 4
coffee_rules Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 (edited) Wikipedia warrior. There have been other accounts to debunk slavery in Vedic India. Listen to what real non-Marxist historians speak about Buddha. He inspired reform in the society bogged down by some customs. But the idea about Hindu vedas being v bad and Buddha being v good is myth created by western academia starting from the 17th century. Much of his teachings on renunciation is borrowed from later Upanishads. You don’t get to read it on Wikipedia, you need real internet not what you get in Pakistan. All you read is left propaganda rags and biased translated works, for eg you still think dasyus in rigveda are slaves. Every time you come back with the same old crap. Edited February 24, 2020 by coffee_rules Vilander and Laaloo 2
Vilander Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 1 hour ago, Alam_dar said: It is true only after the Buddha/Ashoka era who fought against caste-system and as well as slavery system. But the pre Ashoka/Buddha period i.e. Vedic period did have slavery. incorrect there was no slavery in vedic India as it was a land of plenty, mass murder rape and pillage was desert arabic islamic culture that came in with your illegitimate forefathers (not actual forefathers).
Muloghonto Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 7 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Indians are proud of their glorious past where great achievements like Ayurveda and Yoga were made. But becoming over-proud make you blind, and you will start looking at others as inferior humans. Thus, this superiority complex also make some people to claim that there existed no slavery in the glorious past of Vedic India. But this claim is not true. This crown goes to Greek philosophers and to Buddha who were perhaps the first ones (along with Persian King Cyrus the great), who condemned slavery. The crown of introducing DEMOCRACY also goes to the Greeks/Romans. Greek Diplomat Megasthenes: These people quote Magesthenes (a Greek Diplomat who visited India around 300 BCE) to claim that slavery never existed in India. Megasthenes wrote in his book Indika: " Of several remarkable customs existing among the Indians, there is one prescribed by their ancient philosophers which one may regard as truly admirable: for the law ordains that no one among them shall, under any circumstances, be a slave, but that, enjoying freedom, they shall respect the equal right to it which all possess: for those, they thought,who have learned neither to domineer over nor to cringe to others will attain the life best adapted for all vicissitudes of lot: for it is but fair and reasonable to institute laws which bind all equally, but allow property to be unevenly distributed." But in reality Megasthenes is considered to be telling a lie here. Except Greeks of this era were extremely racist and saw themselves as the most superior civilization in the world. All their writings re: Persians, Egyptians, Babylonians and Romans confirm that. Megasthenes has no reason to lie about lack of slavery in India. 7 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Let us see criticism upon him. Megasthenes wanted to present India as an Utopia Land to his people: After reading whole account which Megasthenes wrote about India (link to the book), it seems he fabricated stories about India, in order to present it as an Utopia land to his people. For example: Stop making up lies. Indica is a lost work and only fragments survive through the writings of other authors who reference Indica. 7 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Off course no one could believe that India got democratic states and Indians worshiped Greece gods. Excepts the Puranas themselves refer a few ganarajyas. That literally means a democracy. 7 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Therefore, from all these fantasy stories, it becomes evident that Megasthenes was presenting India as an Utopia land to his people. At that time, there was a movement in Greece about the Democracy, and as well as against the slavery. The Stoics in Greece had condemned slavery in the 3rd BC century. Therefore, it seems due to this temptation, Megasthenes fabricated the lie that there existed no slavery in India. Megasthenes lived a full 100 years prior to the stoics condemning slavery in Greece due to spread of Buddhism in the Greek world 7 hours ago, Alam_dar said: In order to make India an utopia land, Megasthenes mentioned seven castes in India, but omitted presence of shudras and untouchables. Because there were no shudras in that period in any writings. 7 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Vedic religion didn't end slavery, but imposed slavery. Thus this vedic era does not belong to the glorious past of India regarding slavery. Show us one quote of slavery in the Vedas or Puranas, hindu hater. 7 hours ago, Alam_dar said: But the glorious past of India began with great Buddha, who criticised not only the vedic caste system, but also the vedic era slavery system. And when his follower Ashoka became the emperor of India, he banned all the slave markets (although he didn't abolished slavery completely. link. There is no mention of slavery in any of Buddha’s works. Ashoka did not ban slave marketers- there were no slave markets to begin with. Not a single edict of Ashoka talks of banning slave markets. 7 hours ago, Alam_dar said: Thus, due to Ashoka, the size of slavery in India became negligible. It stayed so, till Muslims invaded India and once again introduced the slave markets in India. False. No evidence whatsoever that Ashoka banned slavery. 7 hours ago, Alam_dar said: PS: I have to start this thread in order to refute Muloghonto. In my opinion, he has been unfortunately suffering with this superiority complex. He uses Megasthenes to deny presence of any slavery in ancient India. Because there is no proof of slavery in ancient India whatsoever and we have decisive proof from writers of that era- local and foreign- that slavery never existed there. You havent provided a single piece of evidence of slavery in ancient India.
Muloghonto Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: It is true only after the Buddha/Ashoka era who fought against caste-system and as well as slavery system. But the pre Ashoka/Buddha period i.e. Vedic period did have slavery. No religion opposed slavery. It were only the "rebels" to religion, who got rid of Religious Systems and thus get rid of slavery too. Show us proof. Quote us a Vedic text that sanctions slavery or talks of slavery. Show us mention of a slave market. The 7 castes and no slaves are also mentioned by Diodotus Siculus, I-tsing and line up with Megasthenes. Not everything Megasthenes said was incorrect and there is no historical source of the ancients that got everything correct FYI. Megasthenes FYI correctly mentions the distance of Pataliputra from Qandahar ( Alexandria in Arachosia) and it’s size. He correctly identified the geography of various kingdoms in India.
Muloghonto Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 4 hours ago, Alam_dar said: It is true only after the Buddha/Ashoka era who fought against caste-system and as well as slavery system. But the pre Ashoka/Buddha period i.e. Vedic period did have slavery. No religion opposed slavery. It were only the "rebels" to religion, who got rid of Religious Systems and thus get rid of slavery too. Show us proof. Quote us a Vedic text that sanctions slavery or talks of slavery. Show us mention of a slave market. The 7 castes and no slaves are also mentioned by Diodotus Siculus, I-tsing and line up with Megasthenes. Not everything Megasthenes said was incorrect and there is no historical source of the ancients that got everything correct FYI. Megasthenes FYI correctly mentions the distance of Pataliputra from Qandahar ( Alexandria in Arachosia) and it’s size. He correctly identified the geography of various kingdoms in India.
Muloghonto Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 As for unicorns - Megasthenes, diodotus, I-Tsing and heliodorus ALL mention unicorns in India. Coz we still have them. A one horned graceful majestic four legged horse like creature that no one can ride except the Gods. Abbe bewakoof, this is LITERALLY how you’d describe an Indian one horned rhino if you’d never see a rhino in your life !!!
Muloghonto Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 The heraklius in India- Hercules in India- has been explained by several historians in the same way: like Arjunayanas, the Matsya confederation has numerous mentions in the Puranas as calling themselves ‘ Hari-kula’ Aka ‘ of the lineage of Hari’, Hari being the nickname of Krishna. Even in Bengal, the furthest reaches of Ganges delta has always been known as Krishna’s castles or Harikela. The Greeks encountering Hari-kulas would obviously conflate it with Heraklius coz it sounds so similar. This explanation is satisfactory and has been proposed by numerous historians over the years- one of the few things of ancient Indian history that there is no historical disputes on from any sides
coffee_rules Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 (edited) @Muloghonto Do you believe in the Sandrocuttos error? One thing that doesn't match in greek accounts with our Purana chronology is Chandragupta maurya would have lived 1200 years before what Greek accounts say he did. This is because Greeks mention a Sandrokottos who William Jones identified as Chandragupta Maurya, but our Purana lineage is about 1200 years earlier (1500 bce). I have read this account from multiple reliable people to disparage it. This is why western academia doesn't believe in the chronology of our puranas, but call it mythology. https://www.sanskritimagazine.com/history/who-was-sandrocottus-samudragupta-or-chandragupta-maurya/ http://indiafacts.org/who-was-sandrokottos-chandragupta-maurya-or-chandragupta-i-of-imperial-gupta-dynasty/ Quote Mentor It is well-known that Chandragupta Maurya was installed as the ruler of Magadha by his mentor Chāṇakya, who engineered a coup to depose the last Nanda ruler. Chāṇakya then played a larger than life role as the Prime Minister of Chandragupta, his son Bindusāra, and grandson Aśoka. If Chandragupta Maurya was the Sandrokottos of Greek accounts, then the absence of any mention of Chāṇakya in the Greek accounts is difficult to explain. The Severe Famine According to Jain sources, there was a great famine during the rule of Chandragupta Maurya [13]: “Traditional accounts celebrate the place, as the one whereto Bhadrabahu, known as the last Sruttakevalin and preceptor or spiritual guru of Emperor Chandragupta Maurya (321-296 BC) resorted to, leading thousands of lay followers, when the country around Pāṭaliputra had fallen under severe and prolonged famine condition. As such, he advised Chandragupta Maurya to make suitable arrangements for mobilization of people, and his Jain sangha, from famine-stricken region, to a safer place.” However, according to the Greek classical writer Diodorus, India had never experienced a famine [14]. If Sandrokottos was Chandragupta Maurya, Greek writers would have known about the severe famine and would not have written that famine had never visited India. The List of Kings Greek classical writers have noted that there were 153 kings between Father Bacchus and Alexander the Great or between Dionysos and Sandrokottos [15-17]. Sethna has tabulated the list of kings, but there are only 111 kings starting from Svāyambhūva Manu, the first king in Indian lists, to Chandragupta Maurya, while there are 146 kings, starting from Svāyambhūva Manu to Chandragupta I [18]. Even though we don’t exactly know who the Greeks had in mind when they talked about Father Bacchus or Dionysos, the evidence is clearly against Chandragupta Maurya being the contemporary of Alexander. Thus, based on the examination of the information provided by Greeks, we can safely say that evidence is better tilted in the favour of Chandragupta I of the Imperial Gupta Dynasty being the Sandrokottos of the Greek accounts instead of Chandragupta Maurya. However, what tilts the balance in the favour of Chandragupta Maurya being Sandrokottos is the second sheet anchor of Indian history. We will take a critical look at the second sheet anchor of Indian history in the next article. ALso, there is no mention of Asoka in Greet accounts. A lot of Asoka's references are made up from different Buddhist accounts, his story of a tyrant to a recluse monk is a myth perpetrated by British historians. There are some inscriptions where even after Kalinga, he has killed a lot of people (Kharavela Hathigumpha inscription in Orissa). https://www.academia.edu/30677395/Who_was_the_Indian_King_Sandrokottus_A_Contemporary_of_Alexander_and_Seleucus_Nicator Quote Almost all western historians have agreed with William Jones and re-constructed the chronologyof ancient India considering the contemporaneity of Alexander and Chandragupta Maurya asSheet anchor. These western historians were generally Christians by birth. Therefore, they blindlybelieved that Jesus was born around 1 AD and considered the epoch of 1 AD as the sheet anchorof the world chronology. Thus, they have fixed the date of Alexander around 332-324 BCE.Accordingly, the date of Chandragupta Maurya has been brought forward by ~1285 years and fixed the date of Chandragupta Maurya’s accession in 324 BCE. Puranas give the date ofChandragupta Maurya around 1609-1575 BCE. Chandragupta I or Samudragupta as Sandrokottus Sh. Kota Venkatachalam concludes that “It is most likely that Chandragupta I and Samudragupta were the contemporaries of Alexandar and Seleucus Nicator; and were known to the Greeks under the name of Xandrames, Sandrokottus and Sandrocyptus.” He followed the traditionalPuranic chronology and fixed the date of Maurya dynasty around 1534-1218 BCE and the date ofGupta dynasty around 327-82 BCE. Chandraketu as Sandrokottus Pandit Bhagavaddatta speculated that Yamuna was flowing through Palibotha i.e., Paribhadra,the capital of the Prassi kingdom. Palibothra was 200 miles from Prayaga on way to Mathura. Thekshatriyas there were known as Prabhadrakas or Paribhadrakas. Their king was Chandraketu. Thecapital Paribhadra was near to Sindhu-Pulinda which is in Madhya Desha and is today termed asKali-Sindha. The Karusha Sarovara was between Sindhu-Pulinda and Prayaga. The Methodology of historians In fact, the methodology adopted by western historians was fallacious. They followed an unqualified epoch of 1 AD and fixed the date of Alexander. Thereafter, they fixed the date ofChandragupta Maurya based on the mistaken contemporaneity of Alexander and ChandraguptaMaurya and reconstructed the chronology of ancient India without any verification of thetraditional chronology. In reality, we have to arrive the complete chronology of ancient Greeceand ancient India independently. Thereafter, we have to establish the identity of the Indian kingSandrokottus, the contemporary of Alexander.Similarly, Sh. TSN Shastry and Sh. Kota Venkatachalam reconstructed the traditional chronologyof ancient India based on Puranas but simply believed that Alexander lived around 332-324 BCE.Thus, they proposed that Sandokottus must be identified with Chandragupta I or Samudragupta. Pandit Bhagavaddatta has also blindly accepted the date of Alexander around 332-324 BCE andproposed that King Chandraketu was the Sandrokottus. The Date of Chandragupta Maurya, Chandragupta I and Alexander I have already explained the chronological error in fixing the date of Buddha nirvana in my article “The Date of Buddha Nirvana” and also presented the true chronology of ancient India fromMahabharata war to early medieval era in my book “The Chronology of Ancient India: Victim of Concoctions and Di stortions”. According to my research, Buddha attained nirvana in 1865 BCE. Thus, Chandragupta Maurya reigned around 1609-1575 BCE. I have also discussed the epoch ofthe Gupta era and fixed the epoch in 335 BCE. Therefore, Chandragupta I and Samudraguptareigned around 335-280 BCE. Edited February 24, 2020 by coffee_rules
Muloghonto Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 11 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: @Muloghonto Do you believe in the Sandrocuttos error? One thing that doesn't match in greek accounts with our Purana chronology is Chandragupta maurya would have lived 1200 years before what Greek accounts say he did. This is because Greeks mention a Sandrokottos who William Jones identified as Chandragupta Maurya, but our Purana lineage is about 1200 years earlier (1500 bce). I have read this account from multiple reliable people to disparage it. This is why western academia doesn't believe in the chronology of our puranas, but call it mythology. https://www.sanskritimagazine.com/history/who-was-sandrocottus-samudragupta-or-chandragupta-maurya/ http://indiafacts.org/who-was-sandrokottos-chandragupta-maurya-or-chandragupta-i-of-imperial-gupta-dynasty/ It is a very contentious and complex issue because Jain and Buddhist chronology plus some puranic accounts converge on the idea that Chandragupta Maurya lived in the 400-300 BCE period. I suggest a new thread for this because this will eat up a whole thread if we get into this. Quick summary: For eg, Bhavishya Purana and Vayu Purana both mention that the simuka, the first ruler of the Andhras rose to power after deposing the Kanvas, who ruled for 70 years, who ruled after the Shungas who ruled 115 years, who ruled after the Mauryas, who ruled for 135 years, etc. Cross reference to Satavahanas more or less fixes this to 4th-5th century BCE for ChandraGupta M. Buddhsit long count calendar and Jain long count converges on 600s BCE - aka 7th century BCE for dates of Buddha, the Buddhist short count calendar puts it at 5th century BCE aka 500-400 BCE period. Yet, all Roman and Greek accounts potray a diverse local landscape politically that do not line up with old Magadha imperialism, which was specific to removal of local dynasties from power and investing power in the Amatyas- Governors. Their depiction is much more socially in line with the Gupta Era, where local rulers ruled in their own names but acknowledged overlordship of certain dynasties and imperial power was federated in India. So there are some mixed signals and there are some explanations that make sense but my opinion is, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Pillars of Ashoka are 265-255 BCE period. This is because Ashoka names 3 Greek Kings - all three independently verified, ruling over Egypt, Macedon and Syria during this period. This is the 10 year period when those rulers coincide in western records and they are well documented there. Question is, does ‘ Devanampriya Priyadassi/Priyadarshi’ decisively refer to Ashoka ? Apparently according to Orissa rock inscription in same script, almost certainly. This is is a big anchor of Indian history that I don’t think can be challenged. Very rarely do we have evidence of a king talking of 3 foreign kings and those three foreign kings are referred independently in their own people’s writing. This is literally historical gold- their times equivalent of the Aliens finding US declaration of war in WWII where some dude named Rosevelt is declaring war on people over there who’s dudes name is Hitler.
Alam_dar Posted February 24, 2020 Author Posted February 24, 2020 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: Megasthenes has no reason to lie about lack of slavery in India. Why not? Was he not a human being? Were there not the people who told fantasy stories to get famous? It is the first century Greek Historian Strabo, who called both Megasthenes and his succeeding ambassador Deimachus liars, and stated that "no faith whatever" could be placed in their writings. He got the whole book of Megasthenes, and he got no reason to blame Magesthanes for telling lies. Contrary to Megasthenes, nobody ever called Strabo a lair. All consider him reliable historian. And my detailed post already contained the motives of Megasthenes for telling the lies. It is only this that you neglected this part. Here it is once again: According to Paul J. Kosmin, Indica depicts contemporary India as an unconquerable territory, in order to justify Seleucus's retreat from India. Megasthenes tries to argue that Dionysus was able to conquer India, because before his invasion, India was a primitive rural society. Dionysus' urbanization of India makes India a powerful, impregnable nation. The later ruler — the Indian Herakles — is presented as a native of India, despite similarities with the Greek Heracles. This, according to Kosmin, is because now India is shown as unconquerable.[29] Megasthenes emphasizes that no foreign army had been able to conquer India (since Dionysus) and Indians had not invaded a foreign country either. This representation of India as an isolated, invincible country is an attempt to vindicate Seleucus' peace treaty with the Indian emperor.[30] 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: Stop making up lies. Indica is a lost work and only fragments survive through the writings of other authors who reference Indica. Yes, but all those references were collected in that book and thus nobody denies them to be from Megasthenes. If you challenge this book, then bring your proofs. 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: Excepts the Puranas themselves refer a few ganarajyas. That literally means a democracy. This is the main problem in your behaviour. You take only one part, and try to twist things by trying to confuse people. Here is the full passage about Domocratic States in India by Megasthenes: Fantasy story of Greek god Dionysus and Herakles: Megasthenes wrote (link): The most learned Indian scholars say that Dionysus invaded India, and conquered it. When his army was unable to bear the excessive heat, he led his soldiers to the mountains called Meros for recovery; this led to the Greek legend about Dionysus being bred in his father's thigh (meros in Greek).[a] Dionysus taught Indians several things including how to grow plants, make wine and worship. He founded several large cities, introduced laws and established courts. For this reason, he was regarded as a deity by the Indians. He ruled entire India for 52 years, before dying of old age. His descendants ruled India for several generations, before being dethroned and replaced by democratic city-states.[16] So, do you believe in this "Megasthenes described Indian Domocracy"? In fact, you also have to tell if you believe in this whole story of how great Greeks invaded India and conquered it? And then do you believe that Indians were really such wild and primitive people before the arrival of Greeks that neither they knew how to grow plants, nor to make wein, nor they had any religion? Are you able to see the reasons why Megasthenes told these lies about India? Therefore, I wonder why you neglected all these fantasy stories by Megasthenes about how democratic states were formed in India? 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: Megasthenes lived a full 100 years prior to the stoics condemning slavery in Greece due to spread of Buddhism in the Greek world False. Megasthenes was not 100 years prior to Stoicism, but he was present in the era of Stoicism (around 300 BC). Link. And this philosophical movement of Stoicism was able to condemn slavery, while they also didn't follow the religion, but followed nature. 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: Because there were no shudras in that period in any writings. If Shudras were not present in that era, then why Buddha was fighting against the cruel caste system in India? And Shudras are even present in the Religious Hindu Texts like Rigveda, Manusmriti, Arthashastra and Dharmashastras. 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: Show us one quote of slavery in the Vedas or Puranas, hindu hater. I wish that you ever behave and instead of calling names to others, you come up with proofs and arguments like civilised person. There are plenty of proofs in Hindu Religious Books which I already presented before in other thread and already discussed it and presented our arguments. While I had to open this thread for Megasthenes and his stories. Real McCoy 1
Muloghonto Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 Another few anchors to Indian history are I-tsing, Xuanzeng and Faxian. Xuanzeng fixes Harshavardhana-Sasanka-etc to 650s CE coz basically he was in love with Harsha and wrote crap ton about both and then went back to China, Chinese went ‘ omg u r so learned about Buddhism and law and we r Buddhist here be administrator of this province’ and he didn’t and he died in 680s and we know of him etc.
Alam_dar Posted February 24, 2020 Author Posted February 24, 2020 56 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: The heraklius in India- Hercules in India- has been explained by several historians in the same way: like Arjunayanas, the Matsya confederation has numerous mentions in the Puranas as calling themselves ‘ Hari-kula’ Aka ‘ of the lineage of Hari’, Hari being the nickname of Krishna. Even in Bengal, the furthest reaches of Ganges delta has always been known as Krishna’s castles or Harikela. Once again, it is not about how Puranas describe the story of Hari-kula, but it is about how Magesthenes describe the story of Hercules with all it's details, which are as under: According to Megasthenes (link): The most learned Indian scholars say that Dionysus invaded India, and conquered it. When his army was unable to bear the excessive heat, he led his soldiers to the mountains called Meros for recovery; this led to the Greek legend about Dionysus being bred in his father's thigh (meros in Greek).[a] Dionysus taught Indians several things including how to grow plants, make wine and worship. He founded several large cities, introduced laws and established courts. For this reason, he was regarded as a deity by the Indians. He ruled entire India for 52 years, before dying of old age. His descendants ruled India for several generations, before being dethroned and replaced by democratic city-states.[16] The Indians who inhabit the hill country also claim that Herakles was one of them. Like the Greeks, they characterize him with the club and the lion's skin. According to them, Herakles was a powerful man who subjugated evil beasts. He had several sons and one daughter, who became rulers in different parts of his dominion. He founded several cities, the greatest of which was Palibothra (Pataliputra). Herakles built several places in this city, fortified it with water-filled trenches and settled a number of people in the city. His descendants ruled India for several generations, but never launched an expedition beyond India. After several years, the royal rule was replaced by democratic city states, although there existed a few kings when Alexander invaded India.[17] Therefore, if you want to believe in slavery theory of Megasthenes, then first you have to believe in his WHOLE STORY of DIONYSUS and HERKALES. which you don't. Real McCoy 1
Alam_dar Posted February 24, 2020 Author Posted February 24, 2020 2 hours ago, Muloghonto said: As for unicorns - Megasthenes, diodotus, I-Tsing and heliodorus ALL mention unicorns in India. Coz we still have them. A one horned graceful majestic four legged horse like creature that no one can ride except the Gods. Abbe bewakoof, this is LITERALLY how you’d describe an Indian one horned rhino if you’d never see a rhino in your life !!! It is an insult to answer such conjectures about Megasthenes fantasy stories about one mouthed people, unicorns, gold digging ants, winged scorpions of extra ordinary size, 200 years old Indian elephants, who were bigger in size and strength than African elephants. Here is Strabo's contradiction of Megasthenes: The first century Greek writer Strabo called both Megasthenes and his succeeding ambassador Deimachus liars, and stated that "no faith whatever" could be placed in their writings.[26] The Indika contained numerous fantastical stories, such as those about tribes of people with no mouths, unicorns and other mythical animals, and gold-digging ants.[27] Strabo directly contradicted these descriptions, assuring his readers that Megasthenes' stories, along with his recounting of India’s founding by Hercules and Dionysus, were mythical with little to no basis in reality.[28] (link). Real McCoy 1
Muloghonto Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: It is an insult to answer such conjectures about Megasthenes fantasy stories about one mouthed people, unicorns, gold digging ants, winged scorpions of extra ordinary size, 200 years old Indian elephants, who were bigger in size and strength than African elephants. Then you havnt read any ancient historian coz they all have fantastic mythical beasts in their stories. Including Julius Caesar himself. Quote Here is Strabo's contradiction of Megasthenes: The first century Greek writer Strabo called both Megasthenes and his succeeding ambassador Deimachus liars, and stated that "no faith whatever" could be placed in their writings.[26] The Indika contained numerous fantastical stories, such as those about tribes of people with no mouths, unicorns and other mythical animals, and gold-digging ants.[27] Strabo directly contradicted these descriptions, assuring his readers that Megasthenes' stories, along with his recounting of India’s founding by Hercules and Dionysus, were mythical with little to no basis in reality.[28] (link). Strabo never went to India. Megasthenes did. Strabo and Plutarch are considered the least reliable of the classical Greco Roman sources and Diodotus Siculus and Arrian one of the most reliable. again, I pointed out what Megasthenes got remarkably accurate at: his description of geography and politics in India hey dumdum Pakistani, the gold digging ants sounds incredible but it’s not that far off the moles that have been traditionally used in Potoahari plateau to dig gold dust Edited February 24, 2020 by Muloghonto
Muloghonto Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 23 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: Therefore, if you want to believe in slavery theory of Megasthenes, then first you have to believe in his WHOLE STORY of DIONYSUS and HERKALES. which you don't. Nope. Lack of slavery is an observation of a first hand source. How and why and it came about are their speculations that they can be just writing down local stories or fiction of their people- as historians like Siculus specifically mentions. megasthenes specifically said there was no slavery in India. He came before Buddhism spread. Not a single Buddhist text or inscription talk of Ashoka ending slavery. You made up that nonsense because you are a hindu hater
mishra Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 Bhai, Mulo! There is Ram Charit Maanas which has description of conduct of war, post war conduct, nation vs nation relation and behaviour among people living in India and Lanka. No other historians is needed to know social, ethno religious customs of IndiA. In our area, Even cutting a branch of mango tree is forbidden sin, why, never understood, till i felt, we respect life the most be it any form. And here some Islamic fanatic is trying to portray his messengers behaviour as human nature.
Muloghonto Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 34 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: Why not? Was he not a human being? Were there not the people who told fantasy stories to get famous? Motive. He had zero motive to lie about things. 34 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: It is the first century Greek Historian Strabo, who called both Megasthenes and his succeeding ambassador Deimachus liars, and stated that "no faith whatever" could be placed in their writings. He got the whole book of Megasthenes, and he got no reason to blame Magesthanes for telling lies. Ok. Those guys didn’t go to India. Megasthenes did. Diodotus Siculus makes fun of Strabo for saying that’s btw because he specifically stated that Strabo does not differentiate on sources who are first hand or second hand: 34 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: Contrary to Megasthenes, nobody ever called Strabo a lair. All consider him reliable historian. Diodotus Siculus did Fyi. 34 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: And my detailed post already contained the motives of Megasthenes for telling the lies. It is only this that you neglected this part. Here it is once again: According to Paul J. Kosmin, Indica depicts contemporary India as an unconquerable territory, in order to justify Seleucus's retreat from India. Megasthenes tries to argue that Dionysus was able to conquer India, because before his invasion, India was a primitive rural society. Dionysus' urbanization of India makes India a powerful, impregnable nation. The later ruler — the Indian Herakles — is presented as a native of India, despite similarities with the Greek Heracles. This, according to Kosmin, is because now India is shown as unconquerable.[29] Megasthenes emphasizes that no foreign army had been able to conquer India (since Dionysus) and Indians had not invaded a foreign country either. This representation of India as an isolated, invincible country is an attempt to vindicate Seleucus' peace treaty with the Indian emperor.[30] This is wrong because Ctesias is older than Megasthenes and already calls India unconquerable due to kings of Praesii and Gangaridai during Alexander’s time itself. ignorant speculations of such are easily dismissed which is why nobody takes this guy seriously. 34 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: Yes, but all those references were collected in that book and thus nobody denies them to be from Megasthenes. If you challenge this book, then bring your proofs. This books preface ITSELF says that not everythint in it is from Indika but later references to Indika and Indika is a lost work. 34 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: This is the main problem in your behaviour. You take only one part, and try to twist things by trying to confuse people. Here is the full passage about Domocratic States in India by Megasthenes: Democratic states in India are ALSO mentioned in our PURANAS as ganarajyas 34 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: So, do you believe in this "Megasthenes described Indian Domocracy"? In fact, you also have to tell if you believe in this whole story of how great Greeks invaded India and conquered it? No because as I said, observation of objective society does not rely on how you think this observation came around. 34 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: And then do you believe that Indians were really such wild and primitive people before the arrival of Greeks that neither they knew how to grow plants, nor to make wein, nor they had any religion? Are you able to see the reasons why Megasthenes told these lies about India? Therefore, I wonder why you neglected all these fantasy stories by Megasthenes about how democratic states were formed in India? because just like with Marco Polo or Caesar or any other ancient or medieval writer, serious modern historians take the OBSERVATIONS as a separate issue to theory of these guys on how or why those observstions came true. Proving the AMT wrong doesn’t mean observstions of how Indians lived in 1800s by historians who believed in AMT is false. same applies to Megasthenes 34 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: If Shudras were not present in that era, then why Buddha was fighting against the cruel caste system in India? Because you don’t need shudras to think the cast system is restrictive in theory 34 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: And Shudras are even present in the Religious Hindu Texts like Rigveda, Manusmriti, Arthashastra and Dharmashastras. Nobody cares about manusmriti-most Hindus don’t, it’s a minor book. PLEASE specify what these texts say about Shudras. 34 minutes ago, Alam_dar said: I wish that you ever behave and instead of calling names to others, you come up with proofs and arguments like civilised person. You cannot prove a negative when it comes to material history. there is zero material evidence to slavery ever being present in the Indian subcontinent prior to Muslims.
Recommended Posts