The Mohammedan scientist Al-Bīrūnī was the model Abrahamistic investigator of other cultures in whose mold even those of the modern era are cast, be they from the prathamonmāda or the dvītīyonmāda or their secular variants. He was quick to recognize and clear state the following:

“The heathen Greeks, before the rise of Christianity, held much the same opinions as the Hindus; their educated classes thought much the same as those of the Hindus; their common people held the same idolatrous views as those of the Hindus. Therefore I like to confront the theories of the one nation with those of the other simply on account of their close relationship, not in order to correct them. For what is not the truth (i.e. the true belief or monotheism) does not admit of any correction, and all heathenism, whether Greek or Indian, is in its pith and marrow one and the same belief, because it is a deviation from the truth.” Sachau’s translation.

From the Hindu, and more generally from the greater heathen, viewpoint (i.e. Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic or any other) the same is true of all Abrahamisms and their secular variants – “they are in their pith and marrow one and the same belief.” Hindus have been locked in a life and death struggle with the Abrahamisms ever since their first encounter with them, for by their very existence the Abrahamisms imply a death sentence for heathenism. In some cases like prathamonmāda the ambitions might be local (but also note their more expansive Kitos flareup that presaged the actions of the later unmāda-s), but there is hardly any doubt the later global manifestations also have global ambitions for ending heathenism. Again as we have pointed out many times before, even if one of these unmāda-s have local ambitions or even if they fight each other with greatest vehemence, when it comes to heathens, they have a certain resonance with each other as also their secular variants. In light of this it is notable and disappointing that most of the Hindu elite have a very poor understanding of the unified pith of Abrahamism. of course a major barrier in this regard is the low level of philological scholarship among the Hindu elite, especially in the old languages that purveyed the prathamonmāda and dvitīyonmāda. However, some level of understanding can be more readily achieved by means of the works of scholars from within the Abrahamosphere such as Jan Assmann and the Stroumsas.

One of the notable distinguishing entities of Abrahamism are the unmatta-s who are accepted as prophets by their traditions. The founder of tṛtīyonmāda realized that there was a “bug” in the formulation of the previous unmāda-s and wrote into his version of the unmāda-code that there could be no “unmatta” after him. Before him the founder of the dvitīyonmāda tried a different trick of declaring himself not just yet another unmatta but the eka-rākṣasa himself or at least his putra. Before him the prathamonmatta-s had the archetypal series of the such figures whose consistent moha-s were the defining scaffold upon which the latter unmāda-s could build themselves. As Stroumsa notes the the prathamonmatta-s did recognize the link between a sādhāraṇonmatta and a prophet, although they are careful to distinguish the two. Jeremiah 29.26 states:
“The lord (i.e. the eka-rākṣasa) made you a priest in place of Jehoiada, and you are now the chief officer in the temple. It is your duty to see that every man that is mad and makes himself a prophet is placed in chains with an iron collar round his neck.”

So right among the prathamonmatta-s we notice the concern for preventing competing unmatta-s from declaring themselves as a prophet, thereby implicitly accepting the link between the two. At that stage they are only calling upon them to be imprisoned not killed.

Again in Hosea 9.7 we encounter this problem. There the eka-rākṣasa has gotten extremely angry with the prathamonmatta-s for being unfaithful to him and he accuses them:
“The days of visitation are come, the days of recompense are come; Israel shall know it: the prophet is a fool, the spiritual man is mad, for the multitude of thine iniquity, and the great hatred.”

Here the prathamonmatta-s have angered the eka-rākṣasa because of seeing the prophet as an unmatta. So the internal evidence itself is quite clear that they did recognize the intimate link between being a prophet and an unmatta; moreover this is a point which angers the ekarākṣasa. Likewise we know from the records of the marūnmatta-s that their Mahāmada was also seen as an unmatta. Given that this danger was always there, the need arose for more stringent measures discriminating the sādhāraṇomatta from the unmatta who will be called a prophet. Thus, the Deuteronomy 13.2–6 gives the clear prescription regarding how this should be done:
“If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee, saying, “Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them,” thou shall not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams…And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death, because he hath spoken to turn you away from the lord your god…” translation by Stroumsa.

There are some notable points here: 1) the punishment has been stepped up. He is not merely to be “put in chains” but he has to be killed. This was the formulation that the founder of marūnmāda perfected. 2) One of the ways the sādhāraṇomatta is distinguished from the unmatta who becomes a true prophet is that he leads the flock to other gods. So he is breaking the basic principle of eka-rākṣasa-vāda, which is not just simple monotheism but the in built Mosaic distinction (vide Assmann) i.e. the fact that other gods are simply false. Hence, it is not any particular manifestation of madness that matters but the specific violation of the Mosaic distinction. Importantly, lists of such non-prophets are seen in a prathamonmatta scroll fragment from Qumran and their later commentarial tradition explicitly mentions their characteristic as having visions of other gods. 3) The use of dreams as a signal is strongly proscribed. In the heathen traditions of West Asia, the milieu in which eka-rākṣasatvam emerged, dreams played a notable positive role. The same is true of the Hindu traditions. In vaidika, śaiva and pāñcarātrika tradition the dream is an important means of religious communication or experience. The mantra-s received from a brāhmaṇa man or woman in a dream do not need special initiation. They are naturally sacred. But the typical dream can have a character different from the hallucinations experienced by prophet; hence, keeping with the process Mosaic exclusion it was very important for the prathamonmatta-s to exclude the religious experience of dreams due its potential to interfere with eka-rākṣasa-vāda. Indeed, Stroumsa points out that the prathamonmatta-s and dvitīyonmatta-s saw dreams as the handiwork of Shaitan.

Thus, mental illness is channelized through a memetic funnel of monotheism with the Mosaic distinction to spawn a true unmatta. Inherent to it is the construct that in addition to negating any heathen vision it also negates other parallel monotheistic visions, i.e. parallel Abrahamisms. Thus, dajjāl of the marūnmatta-s is seen as a prathamonmatta. But a heathen should not be too caught with this because it is purely an internal issue of Abrahamism that does change their equation vis-a-vis the heathen.

The importance of this funneling becomes apparent when one considers the systems that shared certain elements with Abrahamism but fell short of the real thing. While not in chronological order, to start with we will consider the case of Bardaisan, the Syrian scholar and his son Harmonius. Bardaisan, likely born a Babylonian heathen, converted to the pretamata in his youth. As a missionary in Edessa he met the Indian embassy with brāhmaṇa-s and bauddha-s on their way to Rome. He is said to have extensively interacted with them compiled what he learned in the process into a book. He was impressed by the brāhmaṇa-s and was particularly enamored by their worship of an image of a deva. He declared that this image of the brāhmaṇa-s was actually that of the cosmic Christ who was the same as the cosmic creator of Plato. He then melded the ideas he heard from the brāhmaṇa-s with those of Plato to create a new preta system:
“Above is god and below is darkness. In between are the four pure elements, white light, red fire, blue wind, and green water. When chance disturbed the primeval harmony of these pure elements, darkness entered the mixture and evil came into the world. Only the coming of Christ, the first thought or the Logos, was able to restore order in the resulting chaos.”

In addition he praised the laws of the brāhmaṇa-s, which avoided unnecessary death sentences and provided the opportunity for repentance via penance (in stark contrast to the prathamonmatta law) as being a superior system.

Some modern pretācarin-s have seen Bardaisan as adopting these heathen ideas as part of the usual preta strategy of acculturation of the heathens before complete conversion, in particular of his Greek and Iranian audience. However, clearly the early church did not see it as anything like that – Bardaisan was not a major success as a missionary with the Iranians or Greeks. The Romans quickly defeated the chief he had converted and broke up the preta intrusion. He humbly surrendered to the emperor and his own missionary activities met with hardly any success. If anything the church itself found him to be a heretic.
His compatriot pretācarin Ephrem firmly condemned him and sought to root out his teaching:
“And if he thinks he has said the last thing
He has reached heathenism,
O Bar-Daisan,
Son of the River Daisan,
Whose mind is liquid like his name!”
He went on to add: “There is such a reasonable sound to the man’s writings that common people do not see the madness beneath.”

The “reasonable sound” is his professing the preta-mata whereas the “madness” is the heathen thought he had adopted. If he was bad for the śavasādhaka-s, his son Harmonius made things worse by wholly incorporating reincarnation of the Indians, denial of the resurrection of the preta and worship of planets and Zodiacal deities. Thus, his “madness” failed Abrahamistic filter and fell precisely in the category which Deuteronomy 13.2–6 sees as fit for execution. Thus, Abrahamism has a certain internal “thermometer” which can sense whether a doctrinal patina is strategic acculturation which is good for takeover of heathens, or actually a dangerous counter-intrusion of heathenism into their own doctrine. This sensory process had been perfected in the midst of the prathamonmatta-s well before the pretācarin-s and Bardaisan. We know that with the rise of Neo-Platonism and Hermetic traditions, prathamonmatta-s were being absorbed into syncretic or even openly Hellenistic traditions on a large-scale. This led a quick response where the errant were killed or cut out.

Thus, Bardaisanism can be seen as a blunting of Abrahamism by heathenism and it paved the way in the Iranic empire for yet another such cult, which while acquiring partial Abrahamistic traits fell short of the real thing – Manichaeism. It emerged in the Abrahamistic system closely affiliated with a prathamonmatta-pretāśraya branch followed by Iranians. By accepting the preta, the founder of dvitīyonmāda as a deity and declaring himself as his follower, Mani started close to the dvitīyonmāda. But he multiplied the preta into several clearly distinct preta-s, a cosmic one like Bardaisan, an apocalyptic savior, and also a martyr figure. He then adopted various figures outside the prathamonmatta world as parallel prophets of other parts of the world namely, the tathāgata, Kṛṣṇa Devakīputra and Zarathustra. Adopting Indic reincarnation, like in Bardaisanism, Mani was declared to be the avatāra of not just the preta but also the tathāgata, Kṛṣṇa Devakīputra and Zarathustra. In those incarnations he had not revealed the whole stuff but now as Mani he was delivering the final complete message.

Thus, Mani’s cult reeks of the classic Abrahamistic neuro-atypical tendencies but contrary to its Abrahamistic roots it: 1) was willing to concede prophet-hood to very distinct figures outside of the Abrahamic prophetic lineage. 2) Rather than monotheistic funneling it embraced a certain polytheism by multiplying the preta figures and creating a hierarchy of divinities that moved it far away from the Mosaic distinction. 3) As it moved from the West Asian epicenter eastwards it increasingly adopted bauddha and āstika ideas rather than the other way around.

However, what it retained in common with dvitīyonmāda was aggressive proselytism and Mani had created the precursor of the idea of the “last prophet” which was to be the capstone of tṛtīyonmāda which followed it. However, lacking the key Mosaic distinction of Abrahamism it was overwhelmed by the unmāda-s and in China where it lingered it was absorbed by the Bauddhas – ironically in the only Manichaeist temple that survives today in China Mani is worshiped as a tathāgata.

That leads us to the Bauddha-mata which at that time was an exuberantly missionary religion – a notable departure from the Indo-European religious archetype, with the notable exception of Zarathustra’s cult. Its founder Siddhārtha probably had a neuro-atypical streak – his sudden renunciation of a successful family life, which is lionized in their tradition, looks suggestive, as also his extreme reactions to the known downsides of the human condition. He was rather eager to deliver his apparent insight to the lay, similar to a prophet or the preta from the Abrahamistic world – a marked departure from an āstika śramaṇa. Indeed this missionary zeal persisted strongly among his successors and they sought to spread his cult both eastwards and westwards. In the east there was considerable success in the domains of Burma, China, Korea, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam. But what happened in the west? We believe based on the available evidence that the symmetric missionary activity did take place there. However, there it came up against Abrahamism with which it resonated in part but only to get assimilated. In the process it did cause some splintering, which we see in Bardaisanism (only in part as the proper Hindu role is stronger there), Manichaeism and other “failed” gnostic syncreticisms. Thus, while sharing certain features with Abrahamism the Bauddha-mata failed in the west in all likelihood due its inability to cut the Gordian knot of the Mosaic distinction. Instead, it ended up conferring a new tool, namely universalist ambitions via missionary action to the dvitīyonmāda.

Before the tathāgata, Zarathustra departed from the IE religious archetype. Ironically, he rose within the Indo-Iranian tradition, which was perhaps closest to the original traditions among all the branches of IE, and he proudly declares his status as a zaotar (=hotṛ). While we have little evidence to exactly determine his possible neurological state, he did adopt an exclusivism, which parallels the Abrahamistic exclusivism centered on the deities of the heathen Semitic pantheon Yahveh or El. Importantly, he also displayed iconoclasm combined with a missionary spirit, which unlike that of the Bauddha-s had a prominently militant dimension. Here, indeed he came close to these Abrahamistic traits. However, centering his devotion on the Varuṇa cognate Ahura Mazda he could not escape the grip of their Āditya-background with the coupling to Mithra being almost impossible to break. Thus, he fell short of the Abrahamistic monotheism and ended up with a certain flavor of henotheism. Moreover, his cult was heavily “re-initialized” by the older Iranian religion after his death. Nevertheless, we posit that Zoroastrianism, while falling short of real Abrahamism, contributed the militant missionary facet (Holy war) and iconoclasm in the least to the early Abrahamism of the prathamonmatta-s. Thus, we see what Jan Assmann recognizes as the peculiar and even awkward juxtaposition of the older priestly religion alongside monotheism with the Mosaic distinction in the early prathamonmatta literature as being a possibly related to this infection of ideas from the Iranic side. In conclusion, while the monotheism of the prathamonmatta-s might have interacted with the cult of Zarathustra and received some features from it, the root Abrahamism can still be distinguished by the Mosaic distinction. Additionally it was probably also influenced in its early history by the monolatory of the Pharaoh Akhenaten. We posit that this distinction itself arose a result of a specific neurological manifestation of its early prophets that then like a memetic prion channelized emerging unmāda-s in its mold. This explains the importance of having a proper Abrahamistic lineage of prophets (common to all the three fundamental eka-rākṣasa-vāda-s with none of the universalizing accommodation of Mani).

In this regard, one should point out that on the ground this distinction was clear in West Asia. The Zoroastrians, both Iranians and those desert Arab groups who followed the Iranian religion, clearly distinguished themselves from Abrahamism which they termed the “religion of the book”. The pro-Iranian Arab heathens in Makka-viṣaya pointed to Mahāmada that the Zoroastrians had already defeated one of the “peoples of the book”, i.e. the Byzantines and they would likewise defeat the other such book cult i.e. that of tṛtīyonmāda too. Conversely, as Iranicists (e.g. Daryaee/Bosworth) have previously pointed out, al Ṭabarī mentions that Mahāmada while being the first tṛtīyonmatta was unhappy that the Zoroastrians had defeated the pretācarin-s because they were like him a “people of the book” (note the primal preta-marūnmattābhisaṃdhi). Accordingly, he called upon the ekarākṣasa to send him a prophesy that the marūnmatta-s would destroy the Iranians.

Finally, we come to the secular manifestations of Abrahamism. As we have noted earlier, in the European lands conquered by pretonmāda, heathen knowledge made come back starting with the Renaissance down to the the so-called enlightenment and was critical for the return of science in the west. But this alarmed the bed rock of Abrahamism on which western power had rested. The counter-attack by Abrahamism resulted in yet another assimilation of the heathen comeback with formulation of western secular thought, today often manifest in liberalism (a more extreme version of it is the socialism spectrum). This liberalism and its many branches are seen as very attractive by the deracinated Hindu elite. But we posit that it maintains the critical inheritance of Abrahamism, namely a secular version of the Abrahamistic foundational principle of the Mosaic distinction.

Here we may quote Jan Assmann duly:
“I use the concept of the “Mosaic distinction” to designate the most important aspect of this shift. What seems crucial to me is not the distinction between the one God and many gods but the distinction between truth and falsehood in religion, between the true god and false gods, true doctrine and false doctrine, knowledge and ignorance, belief and unbelief. This distinction is struck and then erased, only to be reintroduced on later occasions in an exacerbated or attenuated form.”

Accordingly, what we see is a comparable position in secularism/liberalism where there is a clear distinction of truth and falsehood. Any conversation with a secular/liberal will eventually throw up this tendency, where the secular lets it known that his position/doctrine is a the one true one with others being plainly and self-evidently false. In particular, the secular might situate his sole doctrinal truth vis-a-vis the heathen Hindu dharma. This may manifest as what the Hindu activist Malhotra might term as “western universalism (in reality secularized Abrahamism)” – it is universal because the alternatives are seen as intolerably false. Thus, when a deracinated Hindu accepts secularism/liberalism he has essentially opened the door for Abrahamism, which will eventually result in his framework being seen as false. As we we have discussed at length before Abrahamisms also have the quality of memetic viruses, so these can be seen as part of their strategy of attenuating the host response. Secularism/liberalism also captures the essence of the “underdog-felicity” which forms one of the the psychological underpinnings of Abrahamism – where you have tremendous feeling of felicity by being a, rooting for, or seeing yourself as an oppressed underdog. Physiologically, this feel-good effect might be explained by this cluster of Abrahamistic memes triggering an endorphin release or psychologically as easing your existing sense of guilt. In its extreme this underdog-felicity manifests as the urge for or the lionization of martyrdom, which is a strong unifying feature of Abrahamism. Liberalism/secularism runs off generating such felicity in its proponents when they enact its tenets.

Those who are attached to secularism/liberalism have wondered if such an evolutionary track might be followed by marūnmāda. We posit that it has already gone through such a phase over 1100-1200 years ago and has largely overcome it. Thus, today Dr. Abu Bakr shows the way ahead. The discovery of Sanskrit and its knowledge posed a heathen challenge to Abrahamism in Europe which resulted in an unfolding which cannot be easily discussed in public. Likewise Akbar’s apostasy and Dara Shukoh’s syncreticism represent parallel challenges to the tṛtīyonmāda. But those challenges were overcome too. So the heathen rather than clinging to fond hopes should be prepared for the real battlefield of the civilization clash where matters are decided by the blood of men.

Clinging to the inner coast of northern Europe lies Lithuania, a nation which at best only marginally figures in the Hindu historical and geographical consciousness. Conquered twice by the Soviet “empire” it had all but ceased to exist as an distinct entity until 1990 when it declared itself independent from the Soviets. This might be seen as a key event that heralded the collapse of the Soviet empire in an year from the Lithuanian declaration of independence. Lithuania is a worthwhile case study for Hindus for it was the last major pocket of old heathenism in Europe that resisted the Abrahamistic steamroller of the Christ cult.

To begin to understand the part of Lithuanian history and culture that is relevant to us let us look at a sampling of the core Lithuanian vocabulary and their meanings:
Relationships
brote= brother [attested in old eastern dialect]; mote= mother; sūnus= son; dukte= daughter; sesuo= sister
Organs
nosis= nose; akis= eye; padas= foot; sirdis= heart
Other nouns
dievas= god; saules= sun; diena= day; dausos/dangaus= sky; menuo= moon/month; aušti= dawn; naktis= night; vejas= wind; dūmai= smoke; medus= honey; ašis= axle; ratai= cart; ratas= wheel; duru= door; pilis= fort; zeminis= land; akmuo= stone; mesa=flesh; snipas= spy; gyvenimas= life
Animals
vyras= man; guovs= cow [attested in northern dialect]; pēkus= cattle; avis= sheep; vilkas= wolf; suns= dog; lāsis= salmon;
Descriptors
ziema= winter; gorme= heat [attested in old eastern dialect]; rudas=red; šimtas= hundred; juodu= pair; naujas= new; nuogas= naked; save/sau= self; visas= all; senas= old/ancient; jaunas= young; sausas= dry; paskui= afterwards
Pronouns
kas= who/what; kada= when; tu= you; tas= that; tatai= therefore; tad= therefore
Verbs
zinoti= know; mirti= die; vaziuoti= drive; sandarbiauti= cooperate; likti= remain; gyventi= live; seti= sow; duoti= give; buti= to be; esti= is; augti= grow; begti= run; kasti= bite; manyti= think; plaukti= swim

Anyone with even a basic familiarity with Sanskrit or other Indo-Aryan languages would be able to notice the homology between the two languages. As a Baltic language Lithuanian is related to all other Indo-European languages but shares certain features with Indo-Iranian which point to an ancient specific proximity between the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian branches of Indo-European. A more specific point noted by Indo-European linguists is that Lithuanian in particular is one of the most conservative extant Indo-European languages. For instance in the Encyclopedia of Indo-European the authors Adams and Mallory state:

“…Baltic as a whole, and Lithuanian in particular, is a remarkably conservative branch of Indo-European and so plays a greater role in the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European than the lateness [i.e. all surviving attestations are all younger than 1000 years] of its attestation might suggest…. East Baltic is generally a very conservative branch of Indo-European and Lithuanian in particular preserves an “archaic” aspect otherwise found in IE languages at least a couple of millenia older. Particularly the declension of the nouns and adjectives, with seven cases, singular and plural (and at least in dialects the dual as well) persists as a remarkably faithful witness to the situation in Proto-Indo-European. Only Old Indic attests a system that is less changed from what is usually reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European.”

Thus, among the languages that are still in active use today, next to Sanskrit (what the authors refer to above as Old Indic), Lithuanian is unique retaining more features of the ancient Indo-European language. Elsewhere, where there is memory of the old Indo-European language, such as Old Greek, Archaic Latin, or Avestan, they have long gone out of vogue and are only preserved in special contexts. Even among the Baltic branch of languages Lithuanian’s archaism is notable, thus in a sense it resembles the Indian situation where Sanskrit remains in use along side its rather divergent New-Indo-Aryan sisters/daughters. We believe that this is not a trivial or fortuitous point and will be a key matter of discussion further down in this article.

Now turning briefly to the pre-Christian Lithuanian religion we may note that the chief god the pantheon was Perkūnas whose name is a cognate of the Vedic Parjanya, the devatā of rain belonging to the Indra class (or Indra’s atmospheric ectype). Fragments of incantations to him survive in translation or the original. A few examples are provided below:

“You drive away the winter
and in all lands you give leaves and grass.
We worship you that you make our grain to grow,
and you would put down all weeds! (#1)”

“Check yourself, O Perkūnas, and do not send misfortune on my field!
and I shall worship the gods and give you this meat offering. (#2)”

“Perkūnas the god, do not strike the dweller of the land (of Lithuania), strike the white Russian like a red-haired dog! (#3)”

“In the name of the Sun, through the thunder of Perkūnas, the Thunderer, I command you, the Fever, I drive you away from people, animals, fowls, from every live property… If you do not obey, I shall dry you up with the ray of the Sun, I shall wear you out with the heat of the Sun, I shall make you drink the burning dew, I shall make you eat the enchanted bread. (#4)”

An interesting spell to Perkūnas is also found laterally transferred to the Finno-Ugric neighbors of the Lithuanians:
Father Perkons, we offer you an ox that has two horns and four cloven hoofs;
we would pray you for our plowing and sowing,
that our straw be copper-red and our grain be golden yellow.
Push elsewhere all the thick black clouds, over great fens, high forests and wildernesses
But unto us, plowers and sowers, give a fruitful season and sweet rain.
Holy Perkons guard our grain-field that it bear good straw below,
good ears above and good grain within. (#5)

Another such laterally transferred incantation has an allusions to the nine sons of Perkūnas:
Father Perkons,
has nine sons:
three that strike,
three that thunder,
three cast lightning. (#6)

The Lithuanian incantations to Perkūnas emphasizing the fertilizing and agricultural facets along with food offerings being made to him for the same remind us of similar themes pertaining to Parjanya, which we repeatedly encounter in the Ṛgveda:

yo garbham oṣadhīnāṃ gavāṃ kṛṇoty arvatām | parjanyaḥ puruṣīṇām ||
tasmā id āsye havir juhotā madhumattamam | iḻāṃ naḥ saṃyataṃ karat || RV 7.102.2-3
Parjanya is he who makes the fertilized zygote in cows, mares, plants and women [garbham oṣadhīnām; cf. #1].
In to his mouth we offer the sweetest oblation (cf. offering to Perkūnas in #2); he brings together for us food.

The western Lithuanian spell against the White Russian (#3) also reminds one of the spell of the Atri-s invoking Parjanya against evil-doers:

utānāgā īṣate vṛṣṇyāvato yat parjanya stanayan hanti duṣkṛtaḥ | RV 5.083.02cd
Even the guiltless fly away from him of bull-like might when thundering Parjanya strikes the evil-doers.

Finally, the incantation #4 reminds one of the medical incantation found in the Atharvaveda, wherein Parjanya is invoked as part of a medical procedure for certain diseases. For instance while treating someone who is dangerously ill the atharvan deploys the below mantra:

ā parjanyasya vṛṣṭyod asthāmāmṛtā vayam |
vy ahaṃ sarveṇa pāpmanā vi yakṣmeṇa sam āyuṣā || (AV-vulgate 3.31.11)
By means of Parjanya’s rain, we have stood up as immortals;
I, free from every evil, free from disease, join with life.

In the same sūkta, Sūrya is also invoked in parallel to the Lithuanian incantation #4.

Likewise, the laterally transferred Finno-Ugric incantation (#5) can be compared to the atharvan rain-spell:
abhi kranda stanayārdayodadhiṃ bhūmiṃ parjanya payasā sam aṅdhi |
tvayā sṛṣṭaṃ bahulam aitu varṣam āśāraiṣī kṛśagur etv astam || (AV-vulgate 4.15.6)
Roar forth, thunder, agitate the ocean, O Parjanya soak the earth with your sweet rain!
Send forth the plenteous showers released by you to him seeking refuge,
let the man with the lean cows return to his [shelter].

The sons of Perkūnas in the second laterally transferred text (#6) can be compared to the Marut-s who are associated with Parjanya in the atharvan rain-spell:

From Lithuanian folk tradition it can be gleaned that Perkūnas was sometimes conceived as bellowing bull – a epithet often used for Parjanya (Indra). In other cases he is said to spit fire, hurl an axe or occasionally a hammer. Indeed, such a hammer was said to be worshiped by the Lithuanians and is believed to have been the one with which Perkūnas recovered the sun, a legend with clear parallels in the śruti. This parallels the display of the Slavic image of his cognate Perun at Kiev. His idol is described as having a head made of silver with golden mustaches. In his left hand he is said to have held several arrows and and his right a bow. He also had a mace which was the equivalent of the axe or hammer of Perkūnas. In the neighboring Latvia the cognate Perkons was described in local lore as wielding a rod, a hammer, a sword, a spear, stones and arrows. However, like his Germanic cognate Thor, and like the Indo-Aryan Pūṣan he was said to ride a chariot with goats.

Not surprisingly the old religion which lingered on even after the Abrahamistic conquest was condemned by the Isaists. Below is an excerpt of such a condemnation in a lament of a converted Lithuanian from 500 years ago in the first western-style printed book from that country (that few of his compatriots took to the Isa-cult):
“…how uncultured and dark, unfamiliar with any piety and Christian religion our nation is in contrast with others, you can find very few men of the people who were capable of pronouncing at least the first words of the Lord’s prayer, to say nothing of the true and full knowledge of the Catechism. And what is more – and it is still more terrible to hear – many of them officiate patently at the pagan ritual and profess paganism openly, even nowadays: some worship trees, rivers, other grass snakes or something else, glorifying them as gods. Some of them vow to Perkūnas, others glorify Laukosargas to save their crop or Zemepatis the land god for their livestock. Those who are prone to evil intentions profess goblins and sprites as their gods.”

This excerpt however gives us an interesting tidbit about the worship of Zemepatis the cognate of the Indo-Aryan Kṣetrapati even in the 1500s. Likewise, we hear of the worship of Vejopatis, the cognate of Indo-Iranian Vāyu, in the southern Baltic domain even after Isaism had engulfed it. Some of the Lithuanian heathens who survived down to the 1900s were to face a great purge by Stalin during the Soviet conquest of Lithuania. A detailed discussion of the Baltic heathen religion and its position with respect to other old Indo-European religions is beyond scope of the current article. However, the above examples provide a flavor of the Baltic (old Lithuanian) religion and its relationship to the Indo-Iranian religions. Thus, it is not just the language but also the old religion that bears the mark of what appears to be a specific relationship.

While Armenia had fallen early to the evils of the Christ cult, its sweep across Europe started in right earnest only with the conversion of Constantine the Roman emperor. In the East its advance was stopped by the Zoroastrian empire of the Sassanians. The Germanics, Balts and Slavs of Eastern and Northern Europe were the hardest to conquer for the 2nd Abrahamism. However, starting in the 900s these frontiers were breached:
-In 966 CE Mieszko, the king of Poland was converted to the Catholic church. However, a pocket of Slavic heathens centered around Gniezno continued their struggle for another 100 years and recaptured holy sites ceded to the Isaists and also demolished a church there.
-In 988 CE Vladmir the Rus lord of Kiev was converted to the Orthodox church.
-In 997 CE the German missionary Adalbert began forays in to the Baltic territory of Prussia but he was promptly stopped by the heathen Balts and put to death.
-In 997 CE however the 2nd Abrahamism scored a victory further north by converting Olaf the king of Norway, but several parts of Norway still remained hard to convert and fell only much later.
-In 1000 CE Althing of Iceland was converted.
-Around 1000 CE St Stephen was put as the Christian king of Hungary.
-In 1008 CE Olaf of Southern Sweden was converted but the complete conversion of Sweden was not easily achieved and took much longer.
-In 1009 CE the German missionary St Bruno was sent to Lithuania to convert the Baltic heathens but the mission failed and the missionaries were evicted or killed.

It is notable that these advances of the 2nd Abrahamism temporally coincided roughly with the invasion of India by the 3rd Abrahamism under the Ghaznavid Turks. Thus in the initial Christian surge into unconverted Europe the Balts emerged as the most recalcitrant. Along with them, their neighbors, one group of western Slavs, the Wends, to the Northeast of Germany remained resolutely heathen. In 1068 CE German Christian holy warriors launched an attack on the Wends and destroyed Rethra the holy town of the Wends, which housed the great four-headed idol. The four heads in the four cardinal directions were those of Perun, Svarog, probably the goddess Mokosh and another deity. The Wends moved their capital along with the four-headed image to the Rügen island and continued the struggle against the Christians. In 1147 CE the Germans launched yet another crusade on the Wends but they were unable to complete their conquest as their leader Niklot firmly held out against the holy warriors despite loss of some territory and conversion of some pagan lands. In 1168 CE the bishop and the king of Denmark launched yet another crusade on the Wends that finally brought them to their knees and the surviving Slavic heathens were soon mopped up by the other Christian forces from Poland and Germany.

This conquest provide a foothold for the invasion of the Baltic territory which still remained pagan. In the early 1200s the Vatican sent orders for crusades against the Baltic heathens. Between 1215-1223 CE Estonia the Finno-Ugric heathen land was taken to the north of the Balts. In 1222 CE German and Polish warrior padres started their crusade against Prussia. But an year later the Prussians fought back and struck deep into German and Polish territory. But in 1230 CE further crusades were launched by the German Teutonic Christian monk-knights and continued till 1274 CE when the heathen Prussian Balts were finally crushed after 44 years of sea-saw encounters with the Christians. In the meantime the northern Baltic territories of Courland and Livonia were also taken and the Teutonic crusaders were established there. By 1249 CE Christianization had reached Finland. However, despite being surrounded all around the core Baltic land of Lithuania remained unrelentingly heathen and was the one bright spot in the war against the crusaders.

A painting by Kossak showing the abduction of children by the German crusaders. A practice very similar to their equivalents the Ghazis of the third Abrahamism.

In 1236 CE the heathen Lithuanians led by duke Vykintas scored a decisive victory against the German crusaders of the Order of the Brothers of the Sword in the great battle of Saule. The knights with their heavy armor drawn into battle in a swampy ground were surrounded by the mobile Lithuanian cavalry and unable to effectively move against their rapid attacks. As consequence majority of the crusader knights were wiped out. So massive was this victory that the even today despite Christianization the Lithuanians still remember the day of this victory. By around 1253 CE the Christians made major progress by converting the Lithuanian lord Mindaugas and crowning him as a Catholic king. On the other hand the Russian missionaries converted some members of the royalty to the Orthodox church. However, in 1260 CE the pagan Lithuanian dukes won a decisive victory against the combined Catholic army of the Teutonic and the surviving Order of the Sword crusaders. Perhaps, influenced by this event Mindaugas returned to the heathen fold. But he was assassinated shortly thereafter and the duke Traidenis restored heathenism removing the Orthodox converts too. From then on till 1387 CE Lithuanian remained heathen and even expanded against the Christian tide as the last great heathen power of Europe. Throughout this period the Lithuanian kingdom continued to fight against the Christian attempts to conquer them. Yet, like other heathen kingdoms, like in India, they were extremely tolerant allowing freedom of religion for all the three Abrahamisms in their dominion unlike the other contemporary states of Europe.

Thus, from 1283 CE onward despite a near continuous three front holy war: 1) waged by the German crusaders from the north and south i.e. Livonia and Prussia; 2) by Russian Orthodox church from the east; 3) The Hungarian and Polish crusades from the south, as the historian of Lithuania, S.C. Rowell points out, the expansion of the heathen Lithuanian state continued unabated reaching its peak under the Gediminid clan. Its expansion eastwards took it close to Moscow. In the southeast they took Kiev and in the South the Belarus city of Brest. The anger of the Orthodox church towards these heathen conquests is expressed in curses found in Orthodox martyrdom narratives such as: “These fire-worshipers observe the habit which their father, the good-hating and wily demon, handed down to them as law to cut their hair short and to shave their beards with razors.” This snippet points to the Lithuanians being seen as fire-worshipers, a term also repeatedly used by the Mohammedans to describe the Iranians and the Hindus. The shaving their beards and hair probably in the context of the fire-worship noticed by the Rus was related to the practice of the Indo-Aryan yajamāna-s. The Rus Orthodox church also misused the liberal religious policy of the heathen dukes by sending in their agents who tried engineer plots against the Gediminid Dukes. These agents were promptly killed and they were made martyr saints of that church.

In the Southeast the Lithuanian state also conquered territories originally held by the Mongol Golden Horde under duke Gediminas and his brothers. In 1313 CE the Mongol Khan Öz-Beg converted to Islam and started a systematic massacre of the Bauddha-s and shamanists in his Golden Horde. Several of these fled to the heathen Lithuanian territory and were incorporated into the entourage of their dukes. In 1347-48 CE, Janibeg the son of Öz-Beg launched a major Jihad on the Lithuanians. In course of this Jihad they suffered heavy losses including the capture of one of their powerful warriors Karijotas. When they were thus weakened the German crusaders attacked them with a great force in the west near the Streva river. 18,000 heathen warriors along with their noted commander Narimantas were killed in this battle reducing them even further. The Polish crusaders launched an attack at this moment hoping to bring down the Lithuanian state for good and captured yet another of their noted warriors Lubartas. The pope triumphantly sent the Lithuanians a message that the crusades would stop if they converted [In all this a Hindu may note how the preta-marūnmatta-saṃyojana works – a similar fate awaits them due their misapprehension of this situation]. Even as the Christians thought the fall of Lithuania to Abrahamism was at hand, the heathens regrouped and lead a major counter-attack the next year. Strengthened by Mongol Bauddha-s and shamanists fleeing from the Golden Horde they were able to route the Polish crusaders and reconquer the territories they had taken and further expand into the Rus land. By 1352 CE the Lithuanian heathens invaded the Polish-held Galich in southwest Rus and captured several forts from the crusaders. The unified Blue and White Hordes of the Mongols under Khan Tokhtamysh started asserting itself in the 1380s. The Khan invaded the Rus domains and crushed them in a series of campaigns in 1381-1382 CE, in the process burning down Moscow. He immediately followed it up with a great assault on Lithuanians in 1383 CE. Thus, despite their many victories, broken by the Mongol strike and incessantly attacked by the crusades the heathen Lithuanian finally succumbed to Christianity in 1387 CE.

The maximum extent of the heathen Lithuanian state

Gediminas established their capital at Vilnius in 1323 CE and from that period on the heathen Lithuanian state was one of the most powerful ones in Europe. Archaeological studies in Lithuania have revealed a heathen shrine and an observatory associated with the vaidilutė (female ritualist) Birutė in Palanga pointing to active heathen religious activity associated with astronomical phenomenon in this period. It resulted in what Rowell calls “pax lithuanica” which was constantly attacked by the crusades and the Jihads. In the context of these wars we might note the striking parallel of usage between the Christian terminology – frontes guerrarum paganorum and the Mohammedan term dar al-harb. This pax lithuanica being a heathen one played and important role in maintaining the trade contacts between the Islamizing Golden Horde and the Christian west. As also the schisms within Isaism namely the Catholic and the Orthodox churches and the Judaists who were able to operate in this space as a mercantile class. However, the same tolerance which was typical of other heathens, like us Hindus, was to contribute to their downfall because it allowed easy infiltration by the Abrahamists and also ability of the crusaders to recruit Isaists from within territories conquered by the Lithuanian heathens. Given that Lithuanian population was still largely heathen as of the 1500s (see above), if they had held out even for about 50 more years past the date of their conversion they had the potential to be a modern heathen state in Europe [Footnote 1]. But the main reason did not happen was the infiltration by the Christians taking advantage of the heathen tolerance, which allowed them to get entry into the elite circles.

This leads us to the final and key point of this article: Why were the Lithuanian heathens most successful in holding out against the Christian steamroller? The answer we present is related to the unusual archaism of their language and potentially religion. Thus, we posit that they were in many ways parallel to the Hindus. The Hindus were remarkably successful in preserving their Indo-Aryan archaism and their now withering Iranian cousins in preserving their Avestan traditions in face of several assaults. This relates to a well-developed ritualist caste with a powerful oral tradition and specifically a grammatically tradition that allowed preservation of the language, especially in ritual, close to its old Indo-European state. While this was potentially ancestral to the Indo-Europeans as suggested by the Roman ritualist guild, the combination with a rigorous grammatically oriented oral tradition is clearly attested best in the Indo-Aryans and then the Iranians [Notably, of the local Indian languages Tamil, a non-Aryan language, was the next best in its preservation of archaic tradition in India precisely because it adopted the Aryan linguistic methodology very early in its history]. Hence, we hypothesize that the Lithuanians had such a tradition which approached the Indo-Iranian state to certain degree [Totally contra-Rowell, who rather idiotically asserts that Germanic, Slav and Balt pagans built shrines to imitate Christians! A sign of how deep-rooted Abrahamistic prejudices are in academia].

In support of this we have evidence from whatever scraps of information survive regarding the heathen Lithuanian state that they had a well-organized ritualist guild along with the duchy elite with whom they intermarried – a parallel to the brahma-kṣatra elite of the Hindus. Their ritualists included the virgin vaidilutė [c.f. Roman Vestal] and vaidilos who recited incantation at rituals [The etymology of vaidilos is possibly related to veda and avesta]. The so called Krivi-s were not ritualists but a ritual item sent by the ritualists, likely a scepter that directed people to assemble for the ritual [Footnote 2]. There is evidence for specific widespread practices mediated by the ritualist class in addition to the fire-worship mentioned above: 1) The worship of the snake žaltys which was reared in a shed; this is paralleled by the Vaidika sarpa-bali, which is to performed annually by the ārya using the appropriate yajuṣ “namo astu sarpebhyo…”; 2) The worship of the water deities, the Upinis, and the associated holy boar – the parallel of the Indo-Aryan varāha and the Iranian varāza Dāmoish Upamana; 3) the consecration of twin horseheads on houses representing the cognate deities of the Aśvin-s.

Finally, we have contemporary or near contemporary accounts of the Christians that clearly makes the point of a powerful Lithuanian ritualist class. For example the German crusaders’ chronicle by Peter of Dusberg from 1326 CE states:
“In the midst of a perverse nation in Nadruvia, was to be found a certain place called Romowe. There lived in Romowe a certain man called Krivi, whom the people revered as pope, for just as the Lord Pope rules the universal church of the faithful, so not only the aforesaid peoples but also the Lithuanians and other nations of Livonia are ruled at his behest or command. Such as was his authority, that when he or a member of his clan spoke or he sent his messenger with a his rod or other recognized insignia to any of the heathen territories, he was held in reverence by noble and commoner alike. He guarded the sacred flame; he was sought out by the relatives of the dead to find out whether he had seen portents concerning their deceased kinsfolk. He received one third of any booty won by warriors in battle.” [Translation by Rowell]

Thus, even if elements of this account, such as the presence of just one such figure for all Balts, or him being the anti-pope, are Christian concoctions, the key point that he was an important figure is likely founded in truth. Notably, him being a fire-ritualist is conformed by the records of rival Christianity church from the same century. It is however possible that Peter conflated the ritual rod for his name as Krivi. Then the archives of the German crusaders mention how the heathen priests of the Balts claimed that they were able to see the spirit bodies of their dead warriors ascend to the god-realm at cremation. The German crusader Livländische Reimchronik also independently confirms that a priest collected a third of the booty from a battle as offering to the gods. Then we have another Christian Simon Grunau’s account similar to the one above from the 1500s. Also from the 1500s, the Lithunian records explicitly mention the heathen high-priest of Gediminas known as Lizdeika who is said to have performed rituals and “sorcery” for the duke. In support of this even after Christianization in the 1500s several highest level bureaucrats recorded their descent from this ritualist of Lizdeika, a phenomenon consistent with the existence of a powerful ritualist class whose descendants (some of whom still underwent cremations which is proscribed by the Isaist cult) were able to maintain influence despite the changes.

Thus, we suggest that this powerful Lithuanian ritualist class shared some features of the Indo-Aryan and Iranian ritualist castes such as a strong oral tradition with a grammatical apparatus that helped preserve the language in a relatively archaic form. Moreover, they were also likely specialists in royal and military rituals that specifically allowed them uphold the religion by urging the warriors or even directly leading warriors in battles against the Abrahamists. Their close connection with the military class and function as bureaucrats meant it was harder for the Christians to insert themselves as religious intermediaries for the military elite.

In conclusion one may ask how this might relate to the divergences of old Indo-European. We favor a clade that unites Greek and Armenian with Indo-Iranian (Greco-Armeno-Aryan). On the other side Balto-Slavic is a strong grouping. So how does on account for the special relationship of them with the Indo-Aryans? We posit that while the Tocharian, Germanic, Celtic and Italic branches left early from the Yamnaya zone in the steppes, the Balto-Slavic ancestors remained behind, even if they were closer to that part of tree with the above or a clades branching after them. Greco-Armeno-Aryan branch had split even earlier from all the above Yamnaya-based branches. Of them Greco-Armenian moved south separating from the Aryans. The Aryans expanded subsequently in the steppe zone (the details of when and in how many waves the reached India are still not entirely clear) and now interacted with the Balto-Slavics who remained behind. As a result they shared certain linguistic developments (like satemization and RUKI; also perhaps genetics like R1a1). They also shared specific religious developments such as the Parjanya-Perkūnas and other elements alluded to above. In addition to these we suggest that they also shared to a degree certain traditions of preserving and analyzing oral ritual incantations and a guild of ritual-specialists with the Indo-Iranians. This survived relatively intact in the Balts as they were fairly isolated after their initial entry into their new homelands and provided a certain resilience to their religion and language.

::::::::::::::
Footnote 1: A German missionary Melanchthon wrote the below verse in 1545 CE regarding the Balts confirms the above statement in the first Lithuanian Christian book:
“There is a savage race of rustics under the North Star
that has as yet no notion of true religion
but worships as deities blue-green snakes
and performs unspeakable rites of goat sacrifice“.

Rowell notes how Lithuanian leaders did perform such a sacrifice while concluding peace after war with the Christians. Further, cremations continued with heathen rites till ~1550 CE. Puhvel also notes that an antiquarian document from this period records a divinity Puschkaytus being worshiped in the region who might have been the cognate of Indo-Aryan Pūṣan and Greek Pan.

Footnote 2: The German Nobel prize winner Guenter Grass in his novel Hundejahre was still demonizing the old Baltic religion as of recently by presenting the Krivi, mistakenly considered a priest, as a Nazi. Note the parallel demonization of the Hindus as Nazis by the Abrahamosphere – the deeper significance of which very few Hindus realize to date.

The arbelos of Archimedes,
an object most wondrous;
it brought pleasure to us,
when stalked by enemies,
as the old yavana by Romans,
who ended for good his days.

What is the mystery of the scimitar and the axe which are worth the same?

In the 10th year of our life we became fascinated by the curves generated by the reflections of various utensils (and the water in them) in the kitchen. Being no Maxwell, we did not get far enough to develop a good theoretical understanding of the caustic curves as he had done around that age. But we did get some empirical feel for how most of these curves have a point (i.e. a cusp) where they become undifferentiatable. One of these was the cardioid. Playing with a device known as the spirograph, which immensely captivated us as a kid, we quickly discovered for ourselves that the cardioid could be constructed as the first integer epicycloid. About four years later we were interested in all manner of classic curves, beyond the obvious circle, appearing in biological forms. We observed appearances of the limacon in very disparate biological entities: 1) It appeared as the inner dark blue pattern on the peacock’s feather. 2) It was the outline of the cells of certain algae belonging to the pyramimonad clade. This got us interested in how a cardioid might emerge in biological systems, naively reasoning that it might form at the intersection of two signals moving along linear paths. It was then that we discovered for ourselves that the cardioid was the locus of the foot of the tangents to circle c from a point P on it.

Link to dynamic version

This then lead to our realization of an interesting relationship between the area of the cardioid and the generating circle c. Moreover, at that point we were enamored by the empirical recovery of the interesting relationship between the excess area of the cardioid with respect to the generating circle and the symmetric arbelos of that circle.

All this can be geometrically proved with minimal fuss by means of what has been termed a visual calculus discovered by the Armenian physicist named Mamikon. The foundation of this method pertains to forming a tangent cluster, namely the collation of all the tangent segments by bringing them together to a common point of origin by the translation transform (This is illustrated below).

Generalizing from the above, the basic theorem of Mamikon states that the area under the tangent segment sweep of a curve is equal to the area of the equivalent tangent cluster formed by collating the tangent segments to a common point of origin. Intuitively, since the tangents define the derivatives to the curve at a given point, the geometric construction of their collation to form the tangent cluster is effectively the visual equivalent of integration. Mamikon apparently first discovered this by studying the well known problem of the area of the circular ring (illustrated below). The area of the ring can be expressed using just the length of the tangent segment of the inner circle bounded by the outer one, independently of the radii of the inner and outer circles. The sweep of this tangent segment, which forms the ring, results in a tangent cluster which defines a circle with radius equal to the tangent segment. Thus, the area of the ring is equal to the area of that circle which has radius equal to the tangent segment. Thus, the Mamikon theorem also implies the bhujā-koṭi-karṇa nyāya (known in the west as the Pythagoras theorem).

This method of Mamikon can now be used to determine the area of the cardioid. As can be seen from the below construction:

Link to dynamic version

1) The sweep of the tangent segments of the generating circle c as formed by the intersection with their feet (i.e. perpendiculars dropped to them from the point P) defines the cardioid.
2) Now by transforming the tangent segments into a tangent cluster we get locus .
3) By definition of foot of tangent ; .
4) should be a semicircle and locus a circle.
5) Thus by Mamikon’s theorem the area of the claw of the cardioid PCP’B’= area of circle
6) We can see from the construction that the longest tangent segment, i.e. diameter of circle , is equal in length to the radius of circle c. Thus , we get
7) Thus area of circle one fourth area of circle c: .
8) Likewise, the mirror image claw of the cardioid has the same area. We can construct that area as an equivalent circle by reflecting circle on the X-axis.
9) Thus, the arbelos PBP’A has the same area as circle , circle and the claw of the cardioid PCP’B’
10) Thus, the area of the cardioid
Hence, the cardioid has 50% excess area over the generating circle.

If the claw of the cardioid were a scimitar and and the arbelos an axe-head we get a scimitar with same surface are as an axe-head.

Today Syria has been turned into a hellhole by the unmāda-traya. However, just before the irruption of the second Abrahamism to end the late Classical world, it was home to great men like Iamblichus. Hailing form a clan for priest-chiefs, Iamblichus taught at Apameia, a site which is today being ravaged by Mohammedan vandals aided and abetted by the sister Abrahamisms. After all one point where the Abrahamisms see eye to eye it is the destruction of the heathens and their sites. Iamblichus was a key link in a great chain of tradition from the yavana sage Pythagoras. Indeed, as Gregory Shaw pointed out in his paper “Platonic Siddhas”, Iamblichus could be seen as a siddha among the yavana-s. In the Lives of Philosphers, Eunapius Sardianus states that he performed certain secret rituals. Regarding that a rumor is thus provided:
“O master, most inspired, why do you thus occupy yourself in solitude, instead of sharing with us your more perfect wisdom? Nevertheless a rumor has reached us through your slaves that when you pray to the gods you soar aloft from the earth more than ten cubits to all appearance; that your body and your garments change to a beautiful golden hue; and presently when your prayer is ended your body becomes as it was before you prayed, and then you come down to earth and associate with us.” [Translated by WC Wright]

His epithet “most inspired” is clearly related to his status as the cognate of the siddha-s among the yavana-s. This is reflected in his ontology of the gods which can be compared in its theoretical foundations to that of tantra-s of the Hindu siddha-s. On one hand, he was the intellectual successor of Porphyry that famous critic of the second Abrahamism who had been thrashed by a mob of Christians in Palestine. On the other he was the teacher of Aedesius who in turn was the teacher of emperor Julian, who for a brief moment in history almost reversed the flow of the second Abrahamism. Iamblichus along with Proclus, that last sage among the yavana-s, preserved traditions of Pythagoras that mark the pinnacle of yavana knowledge, a height not scaled by other peoples of the ancient world. From the fragments of their work we hear of the yavana heroics in solving that ancient problem which goes back to the common ancestor of the yavana-s and the ārya-s the squaring of the circle or the quadrature of the circle. One of the last yavana heathen philosophers Simplicius, who was hounded by the śavapūjaka Justinian had to flee along with his fellow heathen yavana-s to the Sassanian court of Kushru. At the treaty of 533 CE concluded between the Iranians and the śavapūjaka-s it was enjoined that they should be allowed to return to their homes and practice their heathen rituals. However, we hear nothing of them thereafter suggesting they were either silenced by continued persecution or killed. It was this Simplicius who preserved a fragment of Iamblichus wherein we hear of the methods of the yavana mahāpuruṣa-s in achieving the famed quadrature.

Iamblichus points out that a method for squaring the circle was first presented by Sextus the Pythagorean and handed down to his successors. He says that Nicomedes achieved the same using a curve known as the quadratrix. The same was achieved by Archimedes using the Archimedean spiral. Whereas, Apollonius is said to have used the curve he termed the sister of the conchoid, which is the same curve as the quadratrix used by Nicomedes. Further, he mysteriously states that Carpus used a curve arise from double motion. Simplicius in his commentary adds that some mechanical devices were invented for this but not a theoretical proof. This indicates that between Iamblichus to Simplicius under the destruction of Classical knowledge by the śavapūjaka-s the know-how of these mechanical devices was already lost. In his commentary Proclus confirms that Nicomedes performed the quadrature using the quadratrix. On the other hand Pappus one of the last in the tradition of yavana mathematics states that the use of the quadratrix in quadrature was first due Dinostratus, the disciple of Plato who had performed the construction of the doubling the cubical altar of Apollo during the Delian plague sent by the god. The quadrature by Dinostratus using the quadratrix also links it to another classical yavana problem the trisection of the angle. Thus it can be used to simultaneous trisect an angle and square the circle. This construction has a certain magical quality to quality to it – a wonder in itself that shows why the yavana philosophers and our ārya ancestors linked it to religion.

The quadratrix deployment in the Dinostratus construction goes thus:
1) In the quadrant of the circle with center at A divide the vertical radius into n equal parts.
2) Divide the quadrant into the same number of equal parts n.
3) Mark the points of intersection of the radii dividing the quadrant into n equal parts and the horizontal parallel line dividing the vertical radius into n equal parts. The locus of these points is the quadratrix.
4) To trisect an let it cut the quadratrix at point H.
5) Then draw a parallel line to AC through H. It cuts the vertical radius at G.
6) Trisect the and mark the lower of it, .
7) Draw a parallel line to AC through J to cut the quadratrix and draw segment AT by connecting A to the this point of intersection with the quadratrix.
8) The is

1) To perform the quadrature mark the point where the quadratrix intersect the horizontal radius AC.
2) Draw the =radius of circle perpendicular to AC.
3) Draw the tangent line passing through C to the circle to be squared.
4) Draw the line AL and mark the point where it intersect the above tangent.
5) Double the along the tangent to get point N.
6) Create = radius of circle to be squared along the same tangent in the opposite direction.
7) Bisect the to obtain point O and construct a circle with O as center.
8) Extend AC to meet the above circle a R to deploy the geometric mean theorem.
9) CR is the side of the square CRSP with same area as the starting circle with center at A.

Continued…