The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great as described by Arrian, Q. Curtius, Diodoros, Plutarch and Justin: Being Translations of such portions of the Works of these and other Classical Authors as describe Alexander's Campaigns in Afghanistan, the Panjâb, Sindh, Gedrosia and KarmaniaMcCrindle, John Watson
History
The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great as described by Arrian, Q. Curtius, Diodoros, Plutarch and Justin: Being Translations of such portions of the Works of these and other Classical Authors as describe Alexander's Campaigns in Afghanistan, the Panjâb, Sindh, Gedrosia and Karmania
McCrindle, John Watson
Alexander, the Great, 356 B.C.-323 B.C.; India -- History -- To 324 B.C. -- Sources
According to Megasthenes the Indian sages were divided into two sects,
Brahmans and Sarmans. There was besides a third sect, described as
quarrelsome, fond of wrangling, foolish and boastful. The Brahmans, he
says, were held in higher esteem than the Sarmans because there was more
agreement in their doctrines. Among the Sarmans the Hylobioi (_living in
woods_) were held in most honour, and next to them the physicians, who
are mendicants and also ascetics, like the class above them and the class
below them, which consisted of sorcerers and fortune-tellers. Megasthenes
has related at some length the nature of the opinions and practices of
all these sects, and Duncker considers that in all essential points his
accounts agree with the native authorities, though the view taken may be
here and there too favourable, in some points too advanced, in others not
sufficiently discriminating. “It is true,” he says, “that the Brahmans
and the initiated of the Enlightened (Buddhists), the Śramanas, are
confounded in the order of the sages; this is shown by the statement that
any one could enter into this order.... In the description of the life of
the ascetics and wandering sages, the Brahmans and Bhikshus (mendicants)
are again confounded, and if the Greeks tell us that the severe sages
of the forest were too proud to go to the court at the request of the
king, the statement holds good according to the evidence of the Epos of
the Brahmanic saints, and the Sutras of the great teachers among the
Buddhists. In the examination of the doctrines of the Indian sages,
Megasthenes distinguished the Brahmans and the Buddhists, inasmuch as he
opposes the less-honoured sects to the first, and declares the Brahmans
to be the most important. From his whole account it is clear that at his
date, _i.e._ about the year 300 B.C., the Brahmans had distinctly the
upper hand. But, according to him, the Śramanas took the next place to
the Brahmans among the less-honoured sects. Among the Buddhists Śramana
is the ordinary name for their clergy” (_Hist. of Antiq._ pp. 422-424).
NOTE X.—THE INDIAN MONTH
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account