Alexandrian times and aftermath: Philosophical Understandings of the  Indian and Greek Philosophers

Anil Kumar Singh

doi:10.56062/

Authors

Anil Kumar Singh Greek Studies School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56062/

Keywords:

Alexander, Scepticism, Pyrrhon, Aristoboulos, Nearchos, Onesicritus, Brahamanas, Megasthenes, Indian Philosophy, Socratic Method, Gymnosophists.

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Indians and Greeks came in direct contact after the arrival of Alexander in the North-West of India in 326 B.C. Many wise men accompanied him, including Pyrrhon, the father of Scepticism, Aristoboulos, Nearchos Onesicritus, etc., who studied Indian societal and philosophical thoughts and patterns and, after critically analyzing them, produced theories and perceptions about India and Indians. After Alexander returned back, he left a split empire, which was being ruled by Indo-Greek kings in north-west India, who sent Ambassadors like Megasthenes to the Royal court of Patliputra. Living in the heartland of India, Megasthenes did a deep study of Indian philosophical systems and tried to narrate them in his book "Indica". This research paper presents a study of Scepticism and its origin in Greek and Indian traditions, especially during the times of Pyrrhon, a companion of Alexander and views of Aristoboulos, Nearchos and Onesicritos about socio-philosophical systems in India. This study also presents a significant part of Megasthenes' reflections on the Indian thought process and its impact on the lives of others.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Paul Le Valley, "What did the Gymnosophists Believe', Yavanika, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1992, Bareilly, ISGARS, pp. 61-84.

Permanent military colonies spread over the empire, and we have evidence of an Indian colony in Mesopotamia (K. Karttunen, India in Early Greek Literature, Finnish Oriental Society, Helsinki, 1989, p. 49).

Herodotus, I, 30, Trans. By George Rawlinson, John Murray, London, 1862

Aristocrates (Plutarch, Lycurgus, Ch. 4) in C. Muller's Fragmenta Hisoricorum Graecorum (Paris, 1878) vol. IV, p.333.

Aristoxenos in C. Mueller' op. cit, vol. II, p. 81, Frag. 31 (Euseb., Pre. Ev. XI, 3).

Onesikritos, No. 134, F. 17a (Strabo, XV, 1, 64, Trans. By Horace Leonard Jones, Loeb Classical Library)

Ibid, 17a (Strabo, XV, 1, 65).

T. S. Brown, Onesicritus: A Study in Hellenistic Historiography, 1949, Berkeley, pp 39.

Urich Wilcken, "Alexander der Grosse und die Indischen Gymnosophisten" in Sitzungsberichte der Preussichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1923, Phil. Hist, Klasse, Berlin, pp. 150-183.

Aristoboulos, No. 139, F. 41 (Strabo, XV, 1, 61).

F. 17b (Plutarch, Alexander, LXV).

Megasthenes, No. 715, F. 34 (Strabo, XV, 1, 68). See T. Brown, op.cit., p. 46 and L. Pearson, The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great, 1960, New York, p. 99.

Nearchos, No. 133, F, 23 (Strabo, XV, 1, 66)

Arrian (from Ptolemy), Anabasis (VI, 16, 3-5 & XVII, 2). The passages have been attributed to Ptolemy by W.W. Tarn, Alexander the Great, vol. II, Cambridge, 1948, p. 36.

A. B. Keith, Cambridge History of India, Chapter IV, 1922, pp. 95-96.

See R.S. Tripathi's remark in Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol. XVI, 1940, p. 558.

Nearch., No. 133, F. 23 (Strabo, XV, 1, 66)

No. 715, F. 4 (II, 40-41); F. 19a (Arr. Ind., 11-12); F. 19b (Strabo, XV, 1, 39-41; 45-49)

F. 19b (Strabo, XV, 1, 49); F. 19a (Arrian, Indica, XII, 8-9)

F.4 (Diod. II, 40, 1); F. 19a (Arr. Ind., XI, 2); F. 19b (Strabo, XV, 1, 39).

F. 4 (Diod. II, 40,2); F. 19a (op. cit.); F. 19b (op. cit.).

F. 4 (Diod II, 40, 2-3); F. 19a (Arr. Ind., XI, 4-5); F. 19 (Strabo, XV, 1, 39).

F. 4 (Diod., 40, 1).

F. 19b (Strabo, XV, 1, 39).

F. 33 (Strabo, XV, 1, 59).

F. 33 (Strabo, XV, 1, 60).

McCrindle, Ancient India as Described in Classical Literature, Vol. VI, 1901, Westminster, p. 65, n.1.

Nearchos, No. 133, F. 23 (Strabo, XV, 1, 66)

Rock edict no. XIII, Corpus Inscrptions Indicarum, vol. 1., Edited by E. Hultzsch, Oxford, 1925

As society was divided into four classes in Brahmanical India, the life of the individual was divided into four stages. These four stages, according to ancient texts, were Brahmacarin, Grihastha, Vanaprastha and Sanyasin. When an Aryan had put on the sacred thread at the end of his childhood, he became a Brahmacarin, leading a celibate and austere life as a student at the home of his teacher; next having mastered the Vedas or part of them, he returned to his paternal home and was married, becoming a householder (grahastha); when well advanced in middle age, he left his home for the forest to become a hermit (Vanaprastha); by meditation and penance he freed his soul from material things, until at least, a significantly older man, he left his hermitage and became a homeless wanderer (Sanyasin), with all his earthly ties broken.

Manu states the 6 acts of Brahamana (X, 75) out of which three (sacrificing for others, teaching, and accepting gifts from pure men) he recognized his means of subsistence (X, 76). Further, we see Manu (XI, 38-40) emphasizing the inevitability of the sacrificial fee. In VIII, 208-10, he described the rules regarding the payment and distribution of sacrificial fees.

Manu, VII, 58; Yagnavalka, I, 311.

Manu, VII, 82-89; Yagnavalkya, I, 314.

Manu, VII, 43; Gautama, XI, 3; Yajna valkya, I, 310.

Manu, VII, 38; Visnu Smrti, III, 77.

Manu, VIII, 9. Also see Gautama, XIII, 36; Vasistha, XVI, 2; Visnu, III, 73; Yajnavalkya, II, 3.

Manu, VII, 58; Yajnavalkya, I, 31, 1.

Manu, VIII, 10, 11.

Manu, VIII, 20 & XII, 110 ff; Gautama, XXVIII, 49; Baudhayana I, 1, 7,9.

Manu, VII, 133-136; Apastamba II, 26, 10; 25, 11; Gautama, X, 9; Vasistha, XIX, 23; Visnu, III, 26, 79.

A Brahamana lost his status if he violated the restrictions prescribed as to food and gifts, occupation or profession (Manu, III, 150-166).

A.B. Keith (Camb. Hist. of India, Vol. I, pp. 122-28) writes, "We can distinguish in this period two classes of Brahmanas, the priests, who, as Purohitas of the king or belonging to his entourage took part in the vast sacrifices, some of them lasting for at least a year, which they offered for their masters and the priests of the village, who lived a humble and more restricted existence, except when they might be called on to serve at the sacrifice instituted by some rich noble or merchant. In both cases, the priest was, in the long run, at the mercy of the political power of the king".

Manu, X, 81-130. For references to parallels of Manu in other Indian sources, see Sacred Books of the East Series, vol. XXV, pp. 574-75.

The Jatakas refer to Brahmanas pursuing the following callings: tillage, tending cattle, trade, hunting, carpentry, weaving, policing of caravans, archery, driving of carriages and even snake charming; the Vasettha Sutta refers to Brahmanas working as cultivators, artisans, messengers, sacrificers and landlords. In the Jatakas Kshatriyas are also referred to working successively as a potter, basket-maker, reed-worker, garland-maker and cook (Jataka, V, 290).

The references to 'hardest of all' and their uneasy lives' for sophists in Arrian's version of Megasthenes (F. 19a Arr. Ind., XI) undoubtedly show to mean ascetics.

Mbh. XII, 86, 26. The Mahabharata says, "The king should, with attentive care, inform the ascetics (within his dominions) of the state of his self, of all his measures, and of the kingdom and should always behave with humility in their presence. The king should place his wealth in charge of an ascetic and should take wisdom from him" (P.C. Roy's translation, The Mahabharata, vol, VIII, pp. 197-98).

Meg., F. 34 (Strabo, V, 1, 68).

Meg., F. 32 (Strabo, XV, 1, 54); F. 6 (Arr. Ind. X, 8).

Meg., F. 33 (Strabo, XV, 159). 50. Ibid.

S.K. Chatterjee (Edited), Cultural Heritage of India, Vol. I, 1958 (Rep., 1975), pp. 355-56.