Truths. Prodosh Aich

and handed down to our contemporary time by priest families verbally in an unbelievably precise manner, they can now be considered, after their dating can be regarded as being fixed at least in specific centuries, as historical sources of first rank for the history of the Vedic society in northern India.”

      Nothing in this quote is based on primary sources. Absolutely nothing. These types of loose writings are based actually on “modern-science-rituals” of “copy and paste” from available printed pages. Take palatable parts from printed secondary sources, add some new bits of “information” or “imagination”, make it plausible, and make it sellable. In this way these secondary-source-writings create virtual worlds of fantasy with sellable qualities only.

      Unless the claims are collated with career-data of the celebrated authors, the truth will never be unveiled. None of the claims of any European Christian intellectual giants have been challenged or put to the test of validity. This is unsurprisingly done in this book. In course of the journey along with the real biography of Max Müller, M.A., for example, it is revealed, we apologise looking a little ahead, that his claims are swindles. It is also revealed that his biography is exemplary to this culture. We are surprised to note that Max Müller was kept on the payroll of the British East India Company to accomplish his scholarly jobs; from the very beginning of his occupational career. Yes, the British East India Company. And what did the British East India Company do in Bharatavarsa?

      It is remarkable that in the cultural heritage of Rig Veda there is no mention of a land or of a geographical area which is called “India”. This is all the more remarkable because this cultural heritage includes vast number of profound books on knowledge, science, philosophy and literature. Rig Veda is the first of the four Vedas composed in the Vedic language. The other profound books are handed-down in the Sanskrit language that emerged later. There are two more ancient languages, Prakrit and Pali following Sanskrit. Also in the post Vedic books in the Sanskrit language there is indeed mention of a vast geographical area of culture called Bharatavarsa. The name “India” is obviously accorded by foreign people, most probably by the Hellenes in the Greek language. For convenience the authors of this book use “India” keeping Bharatavarsa in mind.

      After the unsuccessful foray of Alexander the Macedonian, about 2400 years back, the Hellenistic diplomat Megasthenes stays in Bharatavarsa as Ambassador of Seleucus I for eleven years. He writes four bulky volumes on his observations and experiences there, but he does not write on the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Sutras, Brahmanas and the likes, nor makes any special references to languages. This may indicate that the Hellenes were quite familiar with these books and with the languages. However, this is not known. It is known that the cultural heritage of India was not brought to Christian Europe in the Greek language. Whatever the Hellenes have reported on India comes to the rest of Europe much later, after the Europeans have lived around a thousand years in Christianity.

      The first recorded real encounter of European Christians with India goes back to the beginning of the 16th century. The “Thomas Christians” a few hundred years earlier, were immigrants in the south of Bharatavarsa. They never went back to Europe. Vasco da Gama was the next. Vasco da Gama and the “Vasco da Gamas” do not arrive in India on foray like Alexander the Macedonian or quite a few Islamic ruffians; they are on war and lay the foundation of foreign occupation of “India”, along with the Christian Orders of the Vatican in Goa.

      Yet, whatever is known about this ancient cultural heritage of Bharatavarsa in our time is not conveyed in Latin or in Portuguese languages. These are conveyed mainly in the English language. This is so in today’s India as well. Most of the authors of those books are Europeans Christians from British “United Kingdom”. The questions arise inevitably, why in English and how these authors writing in English or in some other contemporary European languages could know about the ancient cultural heredity of Bharatavarsa? Did they learn the Vedic, Sanskrit, Prakrit or Pali languages? Where, when, from whom, for how long?

      The knowledge accumulated in Bharatavarsa in course of time immemorial is stored in the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Sutras, Brahmanas and the likes, either in the Vedic language or in the Sanskrit language. Before the creation of scripts these treasures were preserved in oral-tradition. The oral-tradition exists also in today’s India, parallel to the written-tradition that emerged logically much later than the oral-tradition. The parallel existence of oral and written tradition has preserved the ancient books undistorted.

      At least three gulfs have to be bridged before one reaches the treasures stored in the Vedic language and the Sanskrit language. The modern European languages have emerged recently. There is an immense gap in terms of time. Another gap is in terms of the difference in culture. Third gap is in terms of the differences in depth and richness of these two sets of languages, the Vedic language and the Sanskrit language in one side, and the European languages on the other. Were these divides bridged? How could these divides be bridged?

      All major European Christian authors have, however, claimed that they translated the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Sutras, Brahmanas and the likes from the original “Sanskrit” language. The Vedas are composed in the Vedic language. The Sanskrit language is post-Vedic. Well, we may let this ignorance regarding the Vedic language be.

      But how do they overcome those three Gulfs? Apart from the issues of their ignorance regarding the Vedic language, their efforts bridging the Gulfs, it has then to be explicated at least where, when, from whom and for how long these European Christian authors had chances to learn this obscure foreign language called Sanskrit.

      The next issue is to scrutinise the life-career of those European Christian authors individually, beside Max Müller, who handed-down the accumulated knowledge in Bharatavarsa to their fellow European Christians in European languages. This may appear to be an easy undertaking whenever one gets into a “modern” library. There are so many books and plenty of reference books in the libraries introducing and specifying those individual European Christians who are credited accomplishing this difficult performance. But is it so? How reliable are these printed papers?

      It is, de facto, not an easy undertaking to scrutinise all those printed papers. One has to demand proofs for almost each sentence. These readily available references books in the libraries do not disclose their sources. Therefore it is needed to search for primary sources in the archives. Whenever primary source is absent, the only conclusion would be that the version that has been scrutinised is a fake.

      The readily available reference books do not stand this test. These books are deceptive packages. These books are not authentic. These books do not carry truths. Arriving at this point one has to search for sources, for primary sources, look into the bio-data of those individual European Christians in details to collate their writings to their bio-data. One has to collate each and every “fact” in the reference books with original documents. This has to be learnt by own experiences. We, the authors of this book, have undergone this toilsome process.

      Scholars belonging to this culture have never learnt to question their celebrated “intellectual giants” whether, where, for how long and in which educational institutions they acquired their claimed qualifications and abilities to read and understand the books written in the Vedic or in the Sanskrit languages. We, the authors of this book, have questioned these celebrated “intellectual giants” decorating the reference books. What were their sources? Did they critically check their sources? Or were they just “imaginative”?

      These are the issues dealt in this book. The results of scrutinises presented in this book are based on documented primary sources only. The logic is simple and straightforward. Any deliberation which cannot be traced back to a primary source, and the referred primary source cannot stand the test of its validity, is faked. It is a tiresome searching job no doubt. But this hardship is necessary. This book is a proof that most of the secondary sources