HPB-SD(ed.1) v.2 p.1 st.1 sl.4: Difference between revisions

{{Style P-No indent|Sun-god imparted the knowledge of the stars,” ''in propriâ personâ'', as Dr. Weber himself states, is identified by him, in some very mysterious way, with the “ Ptolemaios ” of the Greeks. No more valid reason is given for this identification than that “ this latter name (Ptolemaios), as we see from the inscription of Piyadasi, became the Indian ‘ Turamaya,’ out of which the name ‘ Asuramâya ’ ''might ''very easily grow.” No doubt it “ ''might'',” but the vital question is — Are there any good proofs that it ''has ''thus ''grown ? ''The only evidence that is given for it is, that it ''must ''be so : “ since this Maya is distinctly assigned to Romaka-pura in the West.” * The Maya is evident, since no Sanskritist among Europeans can tell where that locality of “ Romakapura ” was, except, indeed, that it was somewhere “ in the West.” Anyhow, as no member of the Asiatic Society, or Western Orientalist, will ever listen to a Brahmanical teaching, it is useless to take the objections of European Orientalists into consideration. “ Romakapura ” was in “ the West,” certainly, since it was part and parcel of the last continent of Atlantis. And it is equally certain that it is Atlantis, which is assigned in the Hindu Purânas as the birth-place of Asuramâya, “ as great a magician as he was an Astrologer and an Astronomer.” Moreover, Prof. Weber refuses to assign any great antiquity to the Indian Zodiac, and feels inclined to think that the Hindus never knew of a Zodiac at all till “ they had borrowed one from the Greeks.” † This statement clashes with the most ancient traditions of India, and must therefore be ignored. (Vide “ ''The Zodiac and its Antiquity ”'' ). We are the more justified in ignoring it, as the learned German Professor himself tells us in the introduction to his work ''( History of Sanskrit Literature ) ''that “ in addition to the natural obstacles which impede investigation (in India), there still prevails a dense mist of prejudices and preconceived opinions hovering over the land, and enfolding it as with a veil.” Caught in that veil, it is no wonder that Dr. Weber should himself have been led into involuntary errors. Let us hope that he knows better now.}}