very Hindu and Buddhist has
the right to brand as "dishonesty," whether conscious or unconscious.
Legends originate earlier than history and die out upon being sifted.
Neither of the fabulous events in connection with Buddha's birth, taken
exoterically, necessitated a great genius to narrate them, nor was the
intellectual capacity of the Hindus ever proved so inferior to that of
the Jewish and Greek mob that they should borrow from them even fables
inspired by religion. How their fables, evolved between the second and
third centuries after Buddha's death, when the fever of proselytism and
the adoration of his memory were at their height, could be borrowed and
then appropriated from the Christian legends written during the first
century of the Western era, can only be explained by a German
Orientalist. Mr. T.W. Rhys Davids (Jataka Book) shows the contrary to
have been true. It may be remarked in this connection that, while the
first "miracles" of both Krishna and Christ are said to have happened at
a Mathura, the latter city exists to this day in India--the antiquity of
its name being fully proved--while the Mathura, or Matures in Egypt, of
the "Gospel of Infancy," where Jesus is alleged to have produced his
first miracle, was sought to be identified, centuries ago, by the stump
of an old tree in thee desert, and is represented by an empty spot!
----------

What can be thought of Prof. Weber's endeavour when, "to determine more
accurately the position of Ramayana (called by him the 'artificial
epic') in literary history," he ends with an assumption that "it rests
upon an acquaintance with the Trojan cycle of legend .... the conclusion
there arrived at is that the date of its composition is to be placed at
the commencement of the Christian era in an epoch when the operation of
the Greek influence upon India had already set in!" (p. 194.) The case
is hopeless. If the "internal chronology" and external fitness of
things, we may add presented in the triple Indian epic, did not open the
eyes of the hypercritical professors to the many historical facts
enshrined in their striking allegories; if the significant mention of
"black Yavanas," and "white Yavanas," indicating totally different
peoples, could so completely escape their notice;* and the enumeration
of a host of tribes, nations, races, clans, under their separate
Sanskrit designations in the Mahbharata, had not stimulated them to try
to trace their ethnic evoluti