At
the outset, therefore, the Eastern Initiate declares the evidence of
those Orientalists who, abusing their unmerited authority, play ducks
and drakes with his most sacred relics, ruled out of court; and before
giving his facts he would suggest to the learned European Sanskritist
and archeologist that, in the matter of chronology, the difference in
the sum of their series of conjectural historical events, proves them to
be mistaken from A to Z. They know that one single wrong figure in an
arithmetical progression will always throw the whole calculation into
inextricable confusion: the multiplication yielding, generally, in such
a case, instead of the correct sum something entirely unexpected. A fair
proof of this may, perhaps, be found in something already alluded to--
namely, the adoption of the dates of certain Hindu eras as the basis of
their chronological assumptions. In assigning a date to text or
monument they have, of course, to be guided by one of the pre-Christian
Indian eras, whether inferentially, or otherwise. And yet--in one case,
at least--they complain repeatedly that they are utterly ignorant as to
the correct starting-point of the most important of these.
Pages:
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481