11-06-2008, 02:10 AM
Dear Bodhi, Husky and Ramana, thank you. All the three of you are right. I have reopened the previously settled Yavana=Greek case. It causes new discussions. This was my aim. The material is for free use. Personally, I do not care for credentials. I do care for respect for and decent and proper depiction of our culture, for which I will battle with my "pen".
The lack of credentials for Indian scholars will be a problem for a while. But, their energy cannot be destroyed or tamed. Till then, they have to do it this way.
I have the e-mail of Shrikant. At this moment he will be all occupied dealing with reactions of his excellent new book. Dr. Kalyan and others are aware of the posted material.
The Yavana=Greek=Bactrian Greek is not over yet, but the sound defense of that by proponents has become weaker.
<b>Yavanas ruling Taxila? </b>
The Heliodorus inscription is from the latter half of the second century. The Raja is Amtalikitasa or Antialcidas. The Indo-Greeks ruled from the Paropamisus to Taxila. His dynasty didn't rule over Bactria! Menander's father had already lost Bactria around 170 BCE. But leaving that aside, these Indo-Greeks were ruling over Sakayavana (see Milindapanha), Gandhara and Taxila.
The Heliodorus inscription doesn't mention that Yavanas were ruling Taxila, but that Raja Antialcidas had a Yonadata Heliodorus.
The translation "Heliodoros, the son of Dion, a man of Taxila, sent by the Great Greek (Yona) King Antialkidas, as ambassador" on for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliodorus_pillar is clearly wrong. There is nowhere in the text "the great Greek/Yona king" or maha yonaraja. Maharaja means king. Yona is not placed before the name of Antialcidas, which is wishful thinking and totally ungrammatic. Antialcidas is here not called Yonaraja or Yonamaharaja, but simply maharaja! In the Milindapanha, his predecessor, the greater king Milinda is humbly and simply called Raja and nowhere Yonaraja!
Yonadatena in the instrumental case is attached to Heliodorus in the instrumental case!
Besides, the website gives a wrong quote of the ASI. This is what the real translation is:
<i>Text A: "This Garuda-standard was made by order of the Bhagavata â¦â¦â¦.Heliodoros, the son of Dion, a man of Taxila, a Greek ambassador from King Antialkidas, to King Bhagabhadra, the son of the Princess from Benares, the saviour, while prospering in the fourteenth year of his reign." (On the other side of the pillar the following inscription is found:-)
Text B: "Three are the steps to immortality which â¦â¦â¦â¦ followed lead to heaven, [namely] self-control, self-denial and watchfulness."</i>
From: Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Report (1908-1909). Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1912, 129.
The ASI clearly and rightly places Yona with Heliodorus! But, it translates Yona as Greek, seen against the wrong equation Yavana=Greek of those times.
This is what the text really says:
"Devadevasa Va [sude]vasa Garudadhvajo ayam
"This (ayam) Garuda-standard (Garudadhvajo) of Vasudeva (Vasudevasa), the God of Gods (Devadevasa)
karito i[a] Heliodorena bhagavatena Diyasa putrena Takhasilakena Yonadatena agatena
was erected (karito) here (ia) by the devotee (bhagavata), son of Dion (Diyasa putrena), a man of Taxila (Takhasilakena), a Yonadata
maharajasa Amtalikitasa ...
of king Antialcidas (maharajasa Amtalikitasa) sent to (agatena) ...
Yonadata attached to Heliodorus indicates his etnicity. Yonadata is read as Yonaduta. He was sent to Bhagabhadra to erect the Garudadhvaja in the latter's kingdom, which doesn't mean per se that Heliodorus was an ambassador, but one could better see in him an architect/artisan. Ambassadors rather exchange other formalities.
But even if king Antialcidas had sent Heliodorus, the extra word ambassador is not needed to imply that someone was sent officially (in the function of an ambassador).
The Yonadutena interpretation as per ASI gives (by Heliodorus the) Yona(ka) ambassador (of king Antialcidas). The last meaning neatly placed before the genitive maharajasa Amtalikitasa (mahaaraajasya Amtalikitasya).
It is clear that the etnicity of Heliodorus is Yona(ka), he is from Yonanam (a word used in the Milindapanha) or Yona Janapada (Pali works and Piyadassi inscription of Kandahar, thus here also not Bactria). He has a Greek name, which points to culturo-political influence.
On the contrary, with regards to the etnicity of Antialcidas, his name is not coupled to the ethnonym Yona, as it was neither to Menander in the Milindapanha! Menander ruled over Yonanam = the country (Janapada) Yona. Also in this case in this time, Yonanam is not (!) Bactria, which was out of his reach.
One must understand this clearly: No Indo-Greek kings called themselves Yona or Yavana, nowhere on any coin, etc., as far as I know Even if it did, one has to look for it within the Yona Janapada context. The designation, then must come from the Indian natives. But, it is these natives who nowhere equate Yavanas or Yonas with Indo-Greeks.
The false equation Yavana=Greek has its false sister equation Yavana=Bactria. These two wishful and false equations are in such a way burnt in the minds, that it becomes hard to get rid of it. (just like AIT)
<b>Yavana=Bactria myth</b>
The three important people who could give information on the ethnic name of the eastern Greeks and geographical name of Bactria, are remarkably silent: Persians simply name it Baktri.sh, Greeks call it Bactria, and Indians Bahlika. None of the Indian sources, ever place Yona or Yavana Janapada beyond Indian territories of the subcintinent.
The problem with the Yavana issue is always the time frame and the location. If one reads Manusmrti X.44 and their corresponding Mahabharata verses some see in these that these suggests a vicinity in Balkh.
pauNDrakaashchauDradraviDaaH kaambojaa yavanaaH shakaaH |
paaradaapahlavaashchiinaaH kiraataa daradaaH khashaaH
[M.puNDrakaashchoDadraviDaaH]
<b>Yavana = not Balkh in Indian texts</b>
Kambojas are clearly placed, besides in the northwest also in the west!
shakaanaaM pahlavaanaaM ca daradaanaaM ca ye nrpaaH ||
kaambojaa rShikaa ye ca pashcimaanuupakaashcha ye || (Udyogaparva 4.15)
Now, when did Kambojas feature in the west, in the riverbank areas of India in Indo-Greek times? Leaving that aside, MS X clearly refers to to Yavanas in the west like this corresponding verse of the Mahabharata, see the logic of the MS below.
However, I cannot see how Yavana is in Balkh with any imagination. What does MS X really state, forgetting any pre-composed identity of Yavana-Bactria? Firstly, Yavana in the text is nowhere mentioned amongst Bahlikas, does it! The word China is misleading. Is it referring to Chinese or rather to Shinas (variant Tshina), a Gana belonging to the Dardic group? Secondly, what is the logic behind MS X's enumeration? The enumeration starts in the east (Paundraka), moves to the southeast Odra), south (Dravida), and then proceeds to the west (Kamboja-Yavana-Shaka-Parada=Pahlava). Finally it enumerates the northern, the Himalayan Ganas to complete the series (China=Tshina, Kirata-Darada-Khasha) and the circle is round! Where on earth does Balkh feature in the mind of the author?
The next Shloka 45 gives the following information about the central and immediately surrounding Ganas and their speech:
mukhabaahuurupajjaanaaM yaa loke jaatayo bahiH |
mlecchavaacash caaryavaacaH sarve te dasyavaH smrtaaH || MS X.45||
All these tribes in this world, which are outside (the area) of those born from the mouth, the arms, the thighs, and the feet (of Brahman),
are called Dasyus, whether they speak the language of the Mlecchas or that of the Aryas.
NOTE: The people of the central area are called Arya, Ganas surrounding these, the enumerated ones in X.44 spoke Arya or correct speech (Shishta of the grammarians) and Mleccha or incorrect/hybrid speech (Ashishta of the grammarians), who are accordingly called Dasyu.
This Shloka makes a distinction between Indian Ganas of the central area speeking the correct (read Shishta) speech called Aryavacas and called Arya and Indian Ganas of the surrounding areas whether speaking correct (read Shishta) speech called Aryavacas or incorrect (read Ashishta) speech called Mlecchavacas and are called Dasyu. Mlecchavacas must refer to incorrect Aryavacas, whether as further developed mothertongue of some groups, or adopted hybrid language influenced by the native mothertongue of other groups.
(Remember MS II.23 which gives the difference between Arya and Mleccha as:
krSHNasaaras tu carati mrgo yatra svabhaavataH |
sa jneyo yajniyo desho mlecchadeshas tv ataH paraH ||MS II.23||
That land (of the Aryas known as Aryavarta) where the black antelope naturally roams,
one must know to be fit for the performance of sacrifices; (the tract) different from that (is) Mlecchadesha or area where the Mlecchas are.
The Shloka following this again stresses that the enumerating, surrounding Ganas were previously Arya:
ye dvijaanaam apasadaa ye caapadhvaMsajaaH smrtaaH |
te ninditair vartayeyur dvijaanaam eva karmabhiH || MS X.46||
(These Dasyus,) who are remembered as the base-born (offspring, apasada) of Aryas, or as produced in consequence of a violation (of the law, apadhvamsaja), shall subsist by occupations reprehended by the twice-born.
<b>This is the best clear intertextual proof that (these Dasyus of Shloka 45, referring to the Ganas of 44) who are remembered = the enumerated Mleccha Jatis who were former Aryas </b>.
Now, remember the Assalayanasutta of the Majjhima Nikaya stating that Yonas and Kambojas recognized two Varnas: Arya and Dasa. Even though the Middle Country didn't recognize these as Arya, they recognized themselves still as Arya and others as Dasa within their community!
Let this give us a proper perspective that those Arya Ganas not recognized anymore by others as Arya, because of certain shifted standards (yajna), still considers themselves as such and on the other hand antagonized others as Anarya (Dasa or Mleccha or Daeva).
But, non-Arya foreigners (non-Indo-Iranians) never took the designation Arya or the distinction of Arya for themselves and Anarya for others.
<b>Conclusion </b>
If one wishes to see Yavanas in Bactria, one will see that. But, not without violating the logic of the texts. In short, neither Manusmrti, nor the Mahabharata do support Yavanas being in Balkh! So far, a negative proof of looking for Yavana=Bactria in Indian texts.
Thus, Yavana or Yona country is never in Bactria, and the equation Yavana=Bactria is unfounded. The same with the equation Yavana=Greek.
A lot of wishful thinking based upon the wrong equations gives a forceful interpretation of the Indian textplaces concerning Yavanas and an equally false chronology of Yavanas and texts.
The lack of credentials for Indian scholars will be a problem for a while. But, their energy cannot be destroyed or tamed. Till then, they have to do it this way.
I have the e-mail of Shrikant. At this moment he will be all occupied dealing with reactions of his excellent new book. Dr. Kalyan and others are aware of the posted material.
The Yavana=Greek=Bactrian Greek is not over yet, but the sound defense of that by proponents has become weaker.
<b>Yavanas ruling Taxila? </b>
The Heliodorus inscription is from the latter half of the second century. The Raja is Amtalikitasa or Antialcidas. The Indo-Greeks ruled from the Paropamisus to Taxila. His dynasty didn't rule over Bactria! Menander's father had already lost Bactria around 170 BCE. But leaving that aside, these Indo-Greeks were ruling over Sakayavana (see Milindapanha), Gandhara and Taxila.
The Heliodorus inscription doesn't mention that Yavanas were ruling Taxila, but that Raja Antialcidas had a Yonadata Heliodorus.
The translation "Heliodoros, the son of Dion, a man of Taxila, sent by the Great Greek (Yona) King Antialkidas, as ambassador" on for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliodorus_pillar is clearly wrong. There is nowhere in the text "the great Greek/Yona king" or maha yonaraja. Maharaja means king. Yona is not placed before the name of Antialcidas, which is wishful thinking and totally ungrammatic. Antialcidas is here not called Yonaraja or Yonamaharaja, but simply maharaja! In the Milindapanha, his predecessor, the greater king Milinda is humbly and simply called Raja and nowhere Yonaraja!
Yonadatena in the instrumental case is attached to Heliodorus in the instrumental case!
Besides, the website gives a wrong quote of the ASI. This is what the real translation is:
<i>Text A: "This Garuda-standard was made by order of the Bhagavata â¦â¦â¦.Heliodoros, the son of Dion, a man of Taxila, a Greek ambassador from King Antialkidas, to King Bhagabhadra, the son of the Princess from Benares, the saviour, while prospering in the fourteenth year of his reign." (On the other side of the pillar the following inscription is found:-)
Text B: "Three are the steps to immortality which â¦â¦â¦â¦ followed lead to heaven, [namely] self-control, self-denial and watchfulness."</i>
From: Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Report (1908-1909). Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1912, 129.
The ASI clearly and rightly places Yona with Heliodorus! But, it translates Yona as Greek, seen against the wrong equation Yavana=Greek of those times.
This is what the text really says:
"Devadevasa Va [sude]vasa Garudadhvajo ayam
"This (ayam) Garuda-standard (Garudadhvajo) of Vasudeva (Vasudevasa), the God of Gods (Devadevasa)
karito i[a] Heliodorena bhagavatena Diyasa putrena Takhasilakena Yonadatena agatena
was erected (karito) here (ia) by the devotee (bhagavata), son of Dion (Diyasa putrena), a man of Taxila (Takhasilakena), a Yonadata
maharajasa Amtalikitasa ...
of king Antialcidas (maharajasa Amtalikitasa) sent to (agatena) ...
Yonadata attached to Heliodorus indicates his etnicity. Yonadata is read as Yonaduta. He was sent to Bhagabhadra to erect the Garudadhvaja in the latter's kingdom, which doesn't mean per se that Heliodorus was an ambassador, but one could better see in him an architect/artisan. Ambassadors rather exchange other formalities.
But even if king Antialcidas had sent Heliodorus, the extra word ambassador is not needed to imply that someone was sent officially (in the function of an ambassador).
The Yonadutena interpretation as per ASI gives (by Heliodorus the) Yona(ka) ambassador (of king Antialcidas). The last meaning neatly placed before the genitive maharajasa Amtalikitasa (mahaaraajasya Amtalikitasya).
It is clear that the etnicity of Heliodorus is Yona(ka), he is from Yonanam (a word used in the Milindapanha) or Yona Janapada (Pali works and Piyadassi inscription of Kandahar, thus here also not Bactria). He has a Greek name, which points to culturo-political influence.
On the contrary, with regards to the etnicity of Antialcidas, his name is not coupled to the ethnonym Yona, as it was neither to Menander in the Milindapanha! Menander ruled over Yonanam = the country (Janapada) Yona. Also in this case in this time, Yonanam is not (!) Bactria, which was out of his reach.
One must understand this clearly: No Indo-Greek kings called themselves Yona or Yavana, nowhere on any coin, etc., as far as I know Even if it did, one has to look for it within the Yona Janapada context. The designation, then must come from the Indian natives. But, it is these natives who nowhere equate Yavanas or Yonas with Indo-Greeks.
The false equation Yavana=Greek has its false sister equation Yavana=Bactria. These two wishful and false equations are in such a way burnt in the minds, that it becomes hard to get rid of it. (just like AIT)
<b>Yavana=Bactria myth</b>
The three important people who could give information on the ethnic name of the eastern Greeks and geographical name of Bactria, are remarkably silent: Persians simply name it Baktri.sh, Greeks call it Bactria, and Indians Bahlika. None of the Indian sources, ever place Yona or Yavana Janapada beyond Indian territories of the subcintinent.
The problem with the Yavana issue is always the time frame and the location. If one reads Manusmrti X.44 and their corresponding Mahabharata verses some see in these that these suggests a vicinity in Balkh.
pauNDrakaashchauDradraviDaaH kaambojaa yavanaaH shakaaH |
paaradaapahlavaashchiinaaH kiraataa daradaaH khashaaH
[M.puNDrakaashchoDadraviDaaH]
<b>Yavana = not Balkh in Indian texts</b>
Kambojas are clearly placed, besides in the northwest also in the west!
shakaanaaM pahlavaanaaM ca daradaanaaM ca ye nrpaaH ||
kaambojaa rShikaa ye ca pashcimaanuupakaashcha ye || (Udyogaparva 4.15)
Now, when did Kambojas feature in the west, in the riverbank areas of India in Indo-Greek times? Leaving that aside, MS X clearly refers to to Yavanas in the west like this corresponding verse of the Mahabharata, see the logic of the MS below.
However, I cannot see how Yavana is in Balkh with any imagination. What does MS X really state, forgetting any pre-composed identity of Yavana-Bactria? Firstly, Yavana in the text is nowhere mentioned amongst Bahlikas, does it! The word China is misleading. Is it referring to Chinese or rather to Shinas (variant Tshina), a Gana belonging to the Dardic group? Secondly, what is the logic behind MS X's enumeration? The enumeration starts in the east (Paundraka), moves to the southeast Odra), south (Dravida), and then proceeds to the west (Kamboja-Yavana-Shaka-Parada=Pahlava). Finally it enumerates the northern, the Himalayan Ganas to complete the series (China=Tshina, Kirata-Darada-Khasha) and the circle is round! Where on earth does Balkh feature in the mind of the author?
The next Shloka 45 gives the following information about the central and immediately surrounding Ganas and their speech:
mukhabaahuurupajjaanaaM yaa loke jaatayo bahiH |
mlecchavaacash caaryavaacaH sarve te dasyavaH smrtaaH || MS X.45||
All these tribes in this world, which are outside (the area) of those born from the mouth, the arms, the thighs, and the feet (of Brahman),
are called Dasyus, whether they speak the language of the Mlecchas or that of the Aryas.
NOTE: The people of the central area are called Arya, Ganas surrounding these, the enumerated ones in X.44 spoke Arya or correct speech (Shishta of the grammarians) and Mleccha or incorrect/hybrid speech (Ashishta of the grammarians), who are accordingly called Dasyu.
This Shloka makes a distinction between Indian Ganas of the central area speeking the correct (read Shishta) speech called Aryavacas and called Arya and Indian Ganas of the surrounding areas whether speaking correct (read Shishta) speech called Aryavacas or incorrect (read Ashishta) speech called Mlecchavacas and are called Dasyu. Mlecchavacas must refer to incorrect Aryavacas, whether as further developed mothertongue of some groups, or adopted hybrid language influenced by the native mothertongue of other groups.
(Remember MS II.23 which gives the difference between Arya and Mleccha as:
krSHNasaaras tu carati mrgo yatra svabhaavataH |
sa jneyo yajniyo desho mlecchadeshas tv ataH paraH ||MS II.23||
That land (of the Aryas known as Aryavarta) where the black antelope naturally roams,
one must know to be fit for the performance of sacrifices; (the tract) different from that (is) Mlecchadesha or area where the Mlecchas are.
The Shloka following this again stresses that the enumerating, surrounding Ganas were previously Arya:
ye dvijaanaam apasadaa ye caapadhvaMsajaaH smrtaaH |
te ninditair vartayeyur dvijaanaam eva karmabhiH || MS X.46||
(These Dasyus,) who are remembered as the base-born (offspring, apasada) of Aryas, or as produced in consequence of a violation (of the law, apadhvamsaja), shall subsist by occupations reprehended by the twice-born.
<b>This is the best clear intertextual proof that (these Dasyus of Shloka 45, referring to the Ganas of 44) who are remembered = the enumerated Mleccha Jatis who were former Aryas </b>.
Now, remember the Assalayanasutta of the Majjhima Nikaya stating that Yonas and Kambojas recognized two Varnas: Arya and Dasa. Even though the Middle Country didn't recognize these as Arya, they recognized themselves still as Arya and others as Dasa within their community!
Let this give us a proper perspective that those Arya Ganas not recognized anymore by others as Arya, because of certain shifted standards (yajna), still considers themselves as such and on the other hand antagonized others as Anarya (Dasa or Mleccha or Daeva).
But, non-Arya foreigners (non-Indo-Iranians) never took the designation Arya or the distinction of Arya for themselves and Anarya for others.
<b>Conclusion </b>
If one wishes to see Yavanas in Bactria, one will see that. But, not without violating the logic of the texts. In short, neither Manusmrti, nor the Mahabharata do support Yavanas being in Balkh! So far, a negative proof of looking for Yavana=Bactria in Indian texts.
Thus, Yavana or Yona country is never in Bactria, and the equation Yavana=Bactria is unfounded. The same with the equation Yavana=Greek.
A lot of wishful thinking based upon the wrong equations gives a forceful interpretation of the Indian textplaces concerning Yavanas and an equally false chronology of Yavanas and texts.