Since, however, the Piyadasi
inscriptions belong distinctly to India, and the title was borne but by
two kings--Chandragupta and Dharmasoka--what has "'Ptolemaios' of the
Greeks" to do with "Turamaya" or the latter with "Asuramaya," except,
indeed, to use it as a fresh pretext to drag the Indian astronomer under
the stupefying "Greek influence" of the Upas Tree of Western Philology?
Then we learn that, because "Panini once mentions the Yavanas, i.e.,
.... Greeks, and explains the formation of the word 'Yavanani,' to
which, according to the Varttika, the word lipi, 'writing,' must be
supplied," therefore the word signifies "the writing of the Yavanas" of
the Greeks and none other. Would the German philologists (who have so
long and so fruitlessly attempted to explain this word) be very much
surprised if told that they are yet as far as possible from the truth?
That--Yavanani does not mean "Greek writing" at all, but any foreign
writing whatsoever? That the absence of the word "writing" in the old
texts, except in connection with the names of foreigners, does not in
the least imply that none but Greek writing was known to them, or that
they had none of their own, being ignorant of the art of reading and
writing until the days of Panini? (theory of Prof.
Pages:
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493