Searching for Chandragupta

[Guest guest]

Dear Members,

 

I wish to draw attention to some unpleasant aspects of Indology

which nearly all historians prefer to shut their eyes to. In my

opinion it is very unfortunate that although not a single artifact

of a great king like Ashoka has been found from Patna, alleged to be

his capital, this is not discussed in this forum. In the case of

Chandragupta the situation is far worse, no relic of him is known

from anywhere in the world. This in fact turns Chandragupta into a

mythical figure. This must be the reason why Prof. F. R. Allchin

does not discuss Chandragupta in his recent book on the archaeology

of South Asia. He proposes fresh excavations at Patna but judging

from the experience of nearly a century this is unlikely to bear any

fruit. In fact barring Ashoka, no relic of any Maurya or Nanda king

is known. I have held that this must be due to the fact that Patna

was not Palibothra as Jones wrote. This has been justified using the

Chinese evidence which is about a thousand years late. The fact that

all dates in Indology can be controverted at will may only be due to

its false Jonesian foundation. A. Ghosh wrote that the history of

Pataliputra is known only from texts and great scholars like Prof.

B.M. Barua refused to associate Chandragupta with Eastern India. A

similar opinion has been expressed by Kulke and Rothermund in their

book on Indian history. The veteran British scholar N.G.L. Hammond,

discoverer of Vergina and one of the editors of the Cambridge

Ancient History agreed (private communication) that Patna is too far

East. If one accepts that ancient India was a far wider territory

than British India, Jones' idea can be clearly seen to be wrong.

Southeast Iran was India even during the time of Alexander the

Great.

It is in this India and Punjab that one can expect to find evidence

for Chandragupta.

Best regards,

 

Dr. Ranajit Pal

[Guest guest]

There are a few Maurya period inscriptions known that are not

attributed to Ashoka.

 

- Sohgaura copper-plate (Stolen, now believed to be in Europe)

- Mahasthan inscription (Bangladesh)

- Three inscription of Dasharath, grandson of Ashoka, have been found.

 

The first two could be from the time of Chandragupta.

 

Chandragupta is mentioned in Jain, Buddhist and Puranic texts.

 

Yashwant

 

 

 

 

INDOLOGY , " Dr. Ranajit Pal " <audiovision

wrote:

>

> Dear Members,

>

> I wish to draw attention to some unpleasant aspects of Indology

> which nearly all historians prefer to shut their eyes to. In my

> opinion it is very unfortunate that although not a single artifact

> of a great king like Ashoka has been found from Patna, alleged to

be

> his capital, this is not discussed in this forum. In the case of

> Chandragupta the situation is far worse, no relic of him is known

> from anywhere in the world. This in fact turns Chandragupta into a

> mythical figure. This must be the reason why Prof. F. R. Allchin

> does not discuss Chandragupta in his recent book on the archaeology

> of South Asia. He proposes fresh excavations at Patna but judging

> from the experience of nearly a century this is unlikely to bear

any

> fruit. In fact barring Ashoka, no relic of any Maurya or Nanda king

> is known. I have held that this must be due to the fact that Patna

> was not Palibothra as Jones wrote. This has been justified using

the

> Chinese evidence which is about a thousand years late. The fact

that

> all dates in Indology can be controverted at will may only be due

to

> its false Jonesian foundation. A. Ghosh wrote that the history of

> Pataliputra is known only from texts and great scholars like Prof.

> B.M. Barua refused to associate Chandragupta with Eastern India. A

> similar opinion has been expressed by Kulke and Rothermund in their

> book on Indian history. The veteran British scholar N.G.L. Hammond,

> discoverer of Vergina and one of the editors of the Cambridge

> Ancient History agreed (private communication) that Patna is too

far

> East. If one accepts that ancient India was a far wider territory

> than British India, Jones' idea can be clearly seen to be wrong.

> Southeast Iran was India even during the time of Alexander the

> Great.

> It is in this India and Punjab that one can expect to find evidence

> for Chandragupta.

> Best regards,

>

> Dr. Ranajit Pal

>