Here is the epilogue of the book "Euclid and Jesus" by C. K. Raju. It provides a snapshot of history about the Christian dexterity in manipulating its metaphysics and infecting the discourses including mathematics with it.
"We can now put together all the pieces in chronological order. The tradition of mystery geometry or mathesis, which connected geometry to deep religious beliefs and practices , began in Egypt, in Africa, from where the Greeks learnt it.
That African tradition involved an underlying belief in the oneness of humanity, and of equity. This belief was propagated by the learned philosophers of Alexandria who maintained the Great Library of Alexandria. That library was seeded by Alexander’s loot of books, and it incorporated books from across the world. Some of these were translated into Greek by the philosophers. Egyptians encouraged learning for they regarded knowledge as the window to the soul and a means of virtue. But they imparted this real learning only to a tested few. The derived writings of Greeks like Plato spread this knowledge to all and sundry.
Early Christian beliefs were strikingly similar to those of the Egyptians and the philosophers (today called “Neoplatonic”). This similarity extended to beliefs about the soul, and even to the understanding of Jesus Christ (Iesu) as a mystical figure who resembles Osiris (Ausar). However, in the 4th c. CE Christian priests acquired state power. Christian doctrine was transformed to enable them to stay permanently in power. From a philosophy of love, Christianity was changed to a doctrine of doomsday and sin—notions which Christian priests could use as weapons to terrify people and rule over them.
The philosophers of Alexandria criticised the changes in religious beliefs which they saw as motivated by the Christian priests’ quest for power. Since the basis of church power was fragile, the priests were intolerant of this criticism, and retaliated violently. They physically attacked the philosophers, smashed their temples, and burnt all their books and libraries throughout the Roman empire. They smashed even the temple of Serapis and burnt down the Great Library of Alexandria.
Since the philosophers valued learning as the means to virtue, Hypatia sought to spread virtue using mathematics—the science of learning or the science of the soul. The present form of the Elements dates back to this process, initiated by Theon and completed by Hypatia. She aimed to demonstrate mathematics as the science of learning, which aroused the soul, proving the existence of past lives, as Socrates had argued. She aimed to explain, like Porphyry, that images (geometric figures, idols) were good since they facilitated learning; that God was not a powerful entity “out there” but was within (immanent); that all people were equal, in essence, just because all were equally a part of one God. The book Elements was specially addressed to Christians, for its first proposition has the fish-figure, the secret sign that Christians made upon meeting each other. All this made the priests afraid that their lies would be exposed; they gathered a mob and lynched Hypatia.
Her successor Proclus carried forward her valiant efforts. He wrote a commentary which made explicit the mysterious significance of the Elements . He argued that since mathematical truths were eternal truths, the world itself must be eternal, contrary to the Christian belief in creation and apocalypse.
The priests responded by declaring philosophy itself heretical and shut down all schools of philosophy in the Roman empire in 529. This triggered off the Dark Age of Christendom.
The philosophers stuck to their beliefs, and moved on to neighbouring Persia, which was not theocratic. This was just a short while after the communist revolution of Mazdak. He had advocated not only equity but also common ownership of all property, and attained huge popularity before being violently exterminated. Accordingly, the philosophers’ idea of equity found ready resonances, and the philosophers were well-received by the then king of Persia, Khusrau Anoshirvan.
Nevertheless, because they came from an enemy country, at war with Persia, they were relocated to Jundishapur, a camp for captured Romans. Here they founded a hospital instead of a temple, as an equally good way to demonstrate their principles. Khusrau too adopted the practice of seeking out knowledge from all over the world, especially knowledge of healing. The art of healing then was holistic, incorporating both soul and cosmos. Hence this brought to Persia the Pañcatantra fables, and astronomy texts from India, which were translated into Pahlavi. This emphasis on knowledge as virtue ushered in the Golden Age of Iran.
The Persian empire declined after Khusrau II, and was conquered by Arabs—whom it had earlier ruled. However, as was the case with Alexander’s barbarian invasion, military victory in one direction led to the flow of culture in the other direction. The Abbasid Caliphate at Baghdad relied on the Barmakids who continued the Persian methods of administration. Learned doctors (hakim -s) from Jundishapur found favour with Khalifas.
Subsequently, both Haroun al Rashid and al Mamun encouraged the philosophers. They too followed the tradition of importing knowledge from all over the world, culminating in the setting up of the Baghdad House of Wisdom (Bayt al Hikma). This championed the Islamic theology of reason (aql-i-kalam ) and rejected the literalist tradition as mindless and imitative (naqli ). The work of al Khwarizmi illustrates their mindset: though based on Indian arithmetic texts, it is not a direct translation of any specific Indian manuscript, but involves a creative reworking from several manuscripts. Thus, it is wrong to refer to these scholars as translators.
During this Islamic Golden Age, there was a great demand for books, and the Baghdad book bazaar did roaring business. The market encourages dishonesty, and this led to the proliferation of fakes. Manuscripts supposedly written by famous or ancient authors were passed off for a higher price. This particularly included books by Aristotle, a term which meant “ancient Greek sage”. This is how some 400 or more books came to be ascribed to Aristotle.
Constantinople was then a tributary of Baghdad, and imitated it. Consequently, many books were translated there from Arabic to Greek—this included the Indian Pañcatantra . The earliest text of the Elements , from 888 CE, probably derived from such a translation since all books unrelated to Christianity had been earlier declared heretical and burnt in Christendom. Had the text somehow survived underground in Christendom, it would not have been openly copied by an ambitious and prudent bishop, Arethas, though he could have imported knowledge—a tradition later also followed by the Roman Catholic pope Sylvester who imported “Arabic” numerals from Cordoba.
With the rise of the Umayyad Caliphate at Cordoba, the wealth and wisdom of the “Moors” came closer home to Western Christendom. The Christian priests now started eyeing Moorish wealth. They tried to acquire knowledge from Islamic sources, in various ways, and even sent a high-level delegation to Cordoba. During this time, Western Christianity had spread across Europe, by means of forcible conversions through the conquests of Charlemagne, instigated by the pope. With the elimination of its hate object—the pagans—the Christian church had become moribund, and the priests were in search of a new hate object and new conquests.
An opportunity arose with the decline of the Cordoba Caliphate in the 11th c. and its breakup into small taifas . An exploratory prototype Crusade had already been launched around 1060 against these wealthy but militarily weak taifas . The fall of Toledo was part of these Crusades even though that happened a few years before the official declaration of the first Crusade. Indeed, even to this day it is projected (somewhat hilariously) as “reconquest”, which puts it in the same category of religious warfare as the Crusades. Also the religious-war tactic of using an internal disaffected Christian population was used at Toledo just as it was used later at Jerusalem during the first Crusade. (This stock tactic was also explicitly advocated with respect to Indian [Syrian] Christians, and used by Vasco da Gama in his eventual alliance with them.)
In any case, the fall of Toledo brought its large library under Christian control. This presented both an opportunity and a problem. The opportunity was to grab the knowledge in those Arabic books, which knowledge could earlier be obtained only with great difficulty through delegations, spies and such like. The problem was that the sources of this knowledge were heretical. Delving into them was contrary to the centuries-old Christian practice of burning non-Christian books. Changing that book-burning Christian tradition was particularly difficult in the then-prevailing atmosphere of religious hysteria against Islam.
Eventually, after four decades, a simple solution was found: a fake ancestry was invented for this knowledge. It was given out that the knowledge in these books was all of early-Greek origin. The Arabs were portrayed as mere carriers of this knowledge, as were later-day “Greeks”, such as Theon or Hypatia, who opposed the church. The silliest imaginable artifices were used to concoct these early Greeks for the benefit of the overheated religious imagination: for example, the Arabic “uclides”, meaning “key to geometry”, was probably translated as the name of a Greek “Euclid” who authored the text called the Elements . This myth was then propagated for five centuries by identifying this fictitious “Euclid” with Euclid of Megara, a contemporary of Plato, who was innocent of any knowledge of geometry.
The laughable myth persists to this day that all world-knowledge was due to the theologically correct early Greeks. In addition to claiming a theologically correct origin for all world knowledge, the knowledge itself had to be made theologically correct. This was done in two steps. First, the Christian doctrine was again altered to suit the priests’ lust for power. Second, the incoming knowledge was reinterpreted to fit the changed Christian doctrine.
The priests who launched the Crusades initially aimed to conquer and convert Muslims violently, just the way pagans in Europe had been conquered and converted. However, after the first Crusade and beyond Spain, this tactic of propagating Christianity by military force failed because all the multi-nation forces of Christendom, put together, were militarily too weak then to conquer Muslims.
Accordingly, the only way left to convert Muslims was by persuasion, and the change in Christianity was designed to facilitate that. Since Muslims accepted only reason and not the Christian scriptures, the only way to persuade them was to use reason. Before that, however, reason had to be made part of Christianity. Accordingly, Christianity was changed into a doctrine of reason. This was done by “borrowing” the prevailing Islamic rational theology and “adjusting” it suitably. The resulting Christian rational theology of Aquinas and his schoolmen (post-Crusade theology) modified Islamic rational theology to make it compatible with the first (post-Nicene) alteration of Christianity.
Obviously, the post-Crusade idea of Christianity as a doctrine of reason did not fit any of the earlier ideas of Christianity as a doctrine of love, or a doctrine of doomsday and sin. A new gospel and a new messiah were required for this change.
When Christianity was first altered, in the 4th c., by changing reincarnation to resurrection, in order to bring in sin, doomsday, and eternal punishment, this had precipitated a religious war. Philosophers then had used mathematics to defend their notion of soul and to persuade Christians to stick to original Christianity. The Elements was written for that purpose. Reason was seen as a means to reach the soul within.
However, Christian priests now wanted to convert and dominate Muslims by argument. Accordingly, reason was disconnected from the soul, and reinterpreted as just a “universal” means of convincing argument. Mathematics too was disconnected from “pagan” religious beliefs about the soul, and reinterpreted as just a doctrine of reason, meaning a way to teach methods of argument to priests. Attributing the Elements to an unknown early Greek called “Euclid” facilitated this reinterpretation.
The belief that mathematics is just about convincing arguments or proof is thus a specifically Christian belief deriving from Crusading times, and linked to the priests’ agenda of world-power. When combined with the Christian belief in their own superiority, this led historians (even “enlightened” historians like Needham) to run down the idea of mathematics as calculation found in all other cultures. 229
After 350 years of bloody religious warfare, the Crusades effectively came to an end with the fall of Istanbul (Constantinople) to Mohammed the Conqueror in 1452. Constantinople, which had been the centre of Eastern Christianity for the preceding 11 centuries, had a large stock of books written in Byzantine Greek. Since Islam prohibits book burning, most of these books were sold off where there was a demand for them—in Europe. Thus, a flood of (Byzantine) Greek books from Constantinople arrived in Europe in the 15th c.
This was used to boost the Hellenization of history. No thought was given to the possibility that these later-day Byzantine Greek texts involved systematic translations from Arabic to Greek, such as the Arabic-to-Greek translation of the Pañcatantra or the Syriac-to-Greek translations of Ibn Shatir used by Copernicus. Instead, all of these texts were portrayed with religious fervour as “original Greek” sources. Although the Greek texts of the Elements did not mention any Euclid, the Latin translations of these Greek texts stated that the text was authored by “Euclid of Megara”.
A further fillip was given to this Hellenization of history by later-day racist historians, who portrayed all world knowledge, before Christianity, as the work of the “Greek” race . The learned Egyptians, from whom the Greeks learnt, were erased because they were blacks.
By way of “evidence”, these racist historians produced stray remarks from mounds of Byzantine Greek manuscripts, which already incorporated a variety of myths. For example, the key evidence for “Euclid” still is just an isolated passage in a late text attributed to Proclus. This forged passage fixes the date of “Euclid” by a reference to Euclid in another stray remark in another late text fancifully attributed to Archimedes and so on. Needless to say, the slightest critical examination shows up these textual remarks as interpolations or forgeries that have nil value as evidence. Nevertheless, this religious-racist myth of the Greek origin of knowledge continues to be propagated by planting racist images of Caucasian stereotypes of these Greeks on the Internet and in present-day school texts.
What difference does it make whether or not this “Euclid” existed? Now, those who think it does not matter should not object to removing “Euclid” from school texts and casting this toxic myth into the garbage bin where it belongs. Instead of mentioning “Euclid”, these school texts should state that people mindlessly believed false history about “Euclid” for centuries.
“Euclid” is not an isolated lie; it is just the proverbial tip of the iceberg, the top of a whole dung heap of lies about history which the church told to justify that Christians were superior. The belief in racial superiority originated from the belief in Christian superiority. The very same false history was later used by Western “philosophers” like Kant and Hume to justify racism and to claim that white-skinned people were superior—the political power from that claim persisted until very recently in South Africa. Those who claim “Euclid” no longer matters should allow (in school texts) that “Euclid” was actually a black woman from Africa raped on a church altar and then lynched by a mob closely related to the one which burnt down the library of Alexandria.
What blacks, browns, “yellows”, “reds”, Muslims and Hindus need to understand is this: the false history of “Euclid” is part of a systematic technique of building power through lies which attack your self-esteem. Self-esteem is an intangible, but, like time in the game of chess, this intangible can be more important than material resources. This technique of attacking self-esteem was persistently used by a vast institution—the church—which is at the very core of Western civilization which it has dominated for centuries with its lies.
A key aim of this book is to expose this technique of building political power through lies which are then propagated through the education system, and maintained by a vast organized network of scholars, paid for that purpose. This book would have accomplished its purpose if people understand this technique of propaganda, and learn that it is dangerous to trust the West in any matter, without independent confirmation—independent also of Western-approved stooges who act as indigenous “experts”! Distrust and scepticism of the West is needed to break out from mind control through indoctrination instilled by the present-day education system designed by the church. Scepticism and distrust of the West is the key first step towards true emancipation.
Now, church violence was not confined to genocide and slavery, or to the invasion and capture of colonised minds. This violence traditionally extended to women, as in the numerous hapless women who were declared witches and burnt at the stake to establish church morality. But Hypatia is special. The church murdered Hypatia twice. The first time physically, and the second time by erasing her from history. Hypatia is also special because if the authorship of the Elements is allowed to Hypatia, then the Elements must be regarded as a “pagan” religious text, contrary to altered Christianity, the way Proclus interpreted it.
Attributing the Elements to an unknown early Greek called “Euclid”, however, allowed the text to be reinterpreted in conformity with post-Crusade Christian theology. This reinterpretation negated all the points about mathematics dear to the philosophers, and projected the text as a universal means of persuasion, to fit the requirement of the priest. Eliminating “Euclid” changes the standard of secular and universal truth today, so it can no longer be determined in conformity with Christian metaphysics: for it was through this artifice of “Euclid” that “universal” reason has been made into a handmaiden of the church.
I hope this book has indicated how this handmaiden continues to be used today in the propaganda against Muslims through science. Those interested in further details should follow my more scholarly writings. However, the situation has changed since the Crusades. Then the Muslims were militarily dominant. Today, Muslim countries are so weak that they are being repeatedly invaded and their leaders killed, and puppet leaders installed. Worse, their persons have been invaded and their minds captured, creating a conflict within or a schism in the soul. Thus, they may call themselves Muslims, but they adhere to Christian metaphysics, and decide the validity of scientific theories by submitting them for Western certificates of approval. Indeed, that is today the government policy in Islamic countries, and one to which Muslim intellectuals in those countries are subjected. It is in the interests of Muslims to change those policies, for it is possible to reformulate both mathematics and science to free them from the influences of Christian metaphysics. Indeed, that has already been done, and hopefully this book will make more people aware of that.
Of course, Christians too should be aware that this “Christian” metaphysics differs fundamentally from early Christianity, as much as a doctrine of genocide differs from a doctrine of love. As this book has explained, original Christianity was repeatedly altered to suit the political and material interests of the church. So, the only grounds for this “Christian metaphysics” are that it contributes to the power of the church and its power-hungry priests. It is for Christians to decide whether they want to remain mentally enslaved to a church which has done such great damage to the original doctrine of universal love. They must understand that if they do, they would be partners in hate crimes against humanity.
For seven centuries, authorship of the Elements was attributed to “Euclid” to claim that the Elements was a model of clarity, and that all others (Egyptians, Indians, Chinese, etc.) did not understand the right way to do mathematics. Eventually, in the 20th c. the West came to the curious conclusion that even “Euclid” did not understand the right way to do mathematics, and had blundered in his very first theorem, and in a key theorem known as the Side-Angle-Side theorem. These theorems used empirical proofs. But instead of dismissing the myth of the metaphysical proofs in the Elements , Western mathematicians like Russell dismissed those empirical proofs in the Elements as a “tissue of nonsense” because they did not live up to the Western myth built around the Elements ! This is the hilarious basis of the current philosophy of formal mathematics, elaborated by Hilbert and Russell in the 20th c. This started being taught to children as the “new math” from the 1960s in the US.
Although not overtly motivated by any religious concerns, the religious biases in this formalist philosophy are apparent, and have been repeatedly pointed out over the last decade. Empirical proofs are universal, not metaphysical proofs; eliminating empirical proofs is contrary to all systems of Indian philosophy. Thus elevating metaphysical proofs above empirical proofs, as formal mathematics does, is a demand to reject all Indian philosophy as inferior. Curiously, like Indian philosophy, present-day science too uses empirical means of proof, so this is also a demand to reject science as inferior (to Christian metaphysics).
Logic is not universal either as Western philosophers have foolishly maintained: Buddhist and Jain logics are different from those currently used in formal mathematical proof. The theorems of mathematics would change if those logics were used. So, imposing a particular logic is a means of cultural hegemony. If logic is decided empirically, that would, of course, kill the philosophy of metaphysical proof. Further, it may result in quantum logic, similar to Buddhist logic. 230
This religious bias in present-day formal math extends also to the anti-Islamic postulates with which calculus is taught, as I have explained elsewhere. This business of metaphysical proof adds nothing to the practical applications of mathematics to science, for science, of course, accepts empirical proofs. So, it is quite possible to regard mathematics as an auxiliary physical theory.
But the dross of metaphysics does add to the difficulty of math, as Russell gleefully observed. The simple way out is to eliminate it. I hope this book has given some idea of how physical proofs can greatly simplify mathematics. Don’t expect the formal mathematicians in the system to support this proposition, for they would lose their jobs in the process. But watch out for my next book on how to teach calculus the easy way.
Colonial education globalised the church system of education. Many people today are concerned with the way that education system continues to indoctrinate people today. These people need to rise up and protest against this imposition. They need to point out that implanting religious biases through education is unconstitutional in many countries, and unethical everywhere. This book has hopefully helped them to understand those subtle biases in mathematics.
As for those young people who are victims of these biases, get rid of those biases even if they are forced on you by your parents. A simple way to do so is to ask questions. If the answers sound like story-telling, used to preserve lies, you know what trick is at work. Remember, they can’t capture your mind without your consent. Don’t give that consent: keep asking questions, and see how those stories fall apart.
After the Crusades, philosophy has been almost wholly taken over by priests, so priests and philosophers are friends once again. So, is that the end of the story? Did the priests ultimately win the epic struggle between priests and philosophers? No, for the battle goes on…. The new history has opened many future lines of development indicated above. This book has explained how mathematics and the Elements were reinterpreted, and how that has made mathematics—the science of learning—into such a difficult subject to learn today. Just as I am seeking to remedy those changes, others will seek to explore and remedy the parallel changes in Christian doctrine, and the Bible, which changed a mystery narrative of love into such a doctrine of hate and perpetual violence. The work of one Isaac Newton—who devoted a lifetime to document the alterations of the Bible—could be suppressed, but others will work at it. And the truth will surely emerge some day, not too far off.
The story is far from over, but remember that you will be one of the authors who completes it.
"
