Fwd: [Indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) historical Buddha

March 15, 2009

{you will find the article here http://www.buddhistethics.org/15/prebish-article.pdf - kishore patnaik}---------- Forwarded message ----------

Steve Farmer <safSat, Mar 14, 2009 at 9:03 PM[indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) " historical " Buddha

Indo-Eurasian_research Cc: Steve Farmer <saf

The current _Journal of Buddhist Ethics_, which is open access,

contains a review of current views of the dates of the

putatively " historical " Buddha, as someone pointed out to

me this morning:

> Cooking the Buddhist Books: The Implications of the New Dating of

> the Buddha for the History of Early Indian Buddhism

>

> Charles S. Prebish

The separate issue of how historical the Buddha really was -- he (and

similar figures like the Mahavira) can alternatively be viewed as composites

(much like Laozi) of a frequent type of anti-ritualist and anti-

scriptural teacher common in later Brahmanical times (cf., e.g., Kautsa

in the _Nirukta_?), which I favor -- isn't discussed in the article, but only

the results of findings since Bechert's famous 1988 conference on

redating the Buddha, which also took his historicity for granted.

(On the composite view, the biographies of these figures

are late products, generated by exegetes who hoped to harmonize

the words and activities ascribed to these teachers in highly stratified

texts written over long periods; again similar processes can be

identified in Western doxographical traditions (dealing with the lives of

early Greek philosophers) and in the biographies generated

in Han times in similar ways for " Laozi " , " Confucius " , etc., or in

early Christian or Islamic times for " Jesus " or " Mohammed " , etc.

My suggestion is that rather than being revolutionary, what Prebish

describes here (and Bechert et al. earlier) may beg the most important

question revolving around the dates of the " historical " Buddha: you

can give rough dates to when traditions about half-mythical figures

take shape, but not to those figures themselves. When did " Laozi " (the

Old Master) live? The question has no answer or meaning, really.

For the paper, with link to the full paper as PDF, see below.

Steve

**********

http://www.buddhistethics.org/current.html

Journal of Buddhist Ethics 15, 2008

Cooking the Buddhist Books: The Implications of the New Dating of the

Buddha for the History of Early Indian Buddhism

Charles S. Prebish

Abstract

On the surface, new dating for the Buddha's death doesn't seem

terribly earthshaking, either for Indian Buddhist history or for

ancillary studies such as a consideration of Upa li and his lineage of

Vinayadharas. Yet it is. If there is a new date for the Buddha's

demise, virtually everything we know about the earliest Indian

Buddhism, and especially its sectarian movement, is once again called

into question. Dates for the first, second, and third canonical

councils -- once thought to be certain -- must now be reexamined. Kings

who presided at these events must be reconsidered. Most importantly,

the role of the great Indian King Asoka, from whose reign much of the

previous dating begins, needs to be placed under the scrutiny of the

historical microscope again.

-- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them!

March 15, 2009

This re-dating has been comprehensively discussed in K.D.Sethna's "Ancient India in a New Light" (Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi). A summary of some of its findings can be seen at http://www.boloji.com/history/033.htm The relevant portion is given below:

Sethna's 606 page tome, with a 15 page bibliography and a 23 page index, is an outstanding instance of ratiocination proceeding inexorably from a chronological absurdity fastened upon unerringly by the clear ray of his perception. Pulakesin II's Aihole inscription of 634 A.D. shows Indian chronology in vogue fixing 3102 B.C. as the date of the start of the Kaliyuga, while also referring to the Saka Era of 78 A.D. According to modern historians, this is the time of the Gupta Empire, when this system of chronology was made up by the Puranic writers. Now, according to the Puranas the Guptas come around the last quarter of the 4th century B.C. If the modern dating of the Guptas is accepted, it means that the Puranics, face to face with the Gupta kings, placed them in antiquity six hundred years in the past! It is peculiar that so obvious an absurdity should have escaped our own historians. Can we help concluding that we are still unable

to rid our minds of the overpowering influence of the dismissal by western scholars of our own ancient records: The Puranas? They believe in the historicity of Homer and excavate Troy, but will not allow that same probability to the Puranas simply because they speak of a civilized antiquity in a colonized country when the western man was living in caves, and that is unacceptable from a subject race. On the grounds of the reductio ad absurdum of the Puranics placing their contemporary monarchs six centuries in the past, Sethna proposes that the Guptas referred to in the Puranas are the descendants of that Chandragupta whom Megastlienes refers to as Sandrocottus, contemporaneous with Alexander. Consequently, the Mauryan Chandragupta and his grandson Asoka needs must recede considerably farther into die past.The rest of the book is a thrilling venture as Sethna daringly steers his slender craft through uncharted seas crossing one insuperable

barrier-reef after another to reach a destination in whose existence he firmly believes. The most important of these is the supposed linking of the Greeks with Asoka. Sethna's penetrating insight reveals that the Asokan "yona raja" Amtiyoka of Rock Edict XIII cannot refer to a Greek king and that the dating of this edict proposed by Bhandarkar is quite mistaken even on the basis of the current chronology. Next the Asokan inscription in Greek and Aramaic at Kandahar is analyzed and the conclusion arrived at that the two inscriptions are not contemporaneous; that the Greek comes much after the Aramaic and, indeed, explicates it: That the "Yavanani" script referred to by Panini is this Aramaic script going back to the pre-9th century B.C. period. The Kandahar II and Laghlman Aramaic inscriptions are then taken up and proven to be much before the 3rd century B.C. as theorized at present. Finally, examining the evidence for the reigns of the Sungas, Kanvas

and Satvahanas, Sethna arrives at 950 B.C. as the date of Asoka's accession.The next challenge is harmonizing this with the wide-spread variety in traditions regarding Buddhist chronology (Ceylonese, Chinese, Tibetan, Arab, Puranic and the Milinda-panha and Rajatarangini). Sethna infallibly locates a sure guiding light to steer clear of this welter of confusion: Buddha's death has to be determined in terms of Asoka's accession and not the other way about. Thus, with the latter being fixed in 950 B.C., the nirvana is 218 years before that in 1168 B.C. and the death of Mahavira would be in 1165 B.C.The argument of Ceylon being referred to in Asoka's inscriptions is demolished by Sethna who points out that this identification flouts all the literary and epigraphic data. "Tarnbapamni" and "Tambapamniya" are references to the far south in India.

Coming to the Asokan monuments, he shows that the affinities are with Mesopotamia not with Achaemenid art, and that they carry on in the tradition of the realistic treatment of the Indus seals, the assembly hall of Mohenjodaro and the high polish of Harappan jewellery. From the other end of the spectrum, Megasthenes is analyzed to reveal that the references point to the Bhagavata Vaishnavite cult practiced by the Gupta Dynasty, certainly not to what is known of the Mauryas.As in his work on the Aryan Origins, Sethna corrects major historical errors here too. One is regarding Fa-Hien who is widely accepted as having visited India during the reign of Chandragupta II. Sethna bluntly points out how generations of historians have simply assumed Fleet's chronology despite the pilgrim's records mentioning no king at all and the social conditions not tallying with whatever is known of the Gupta regime. Another such major twisting of

chronology which has been unquestioningly accepted by modern historians is exposed when Sethna examines Al-beruni's travelogue to show that Fleet misrepresented the Arab visitor's categorical description of the Gupta Era as celebrating the end of a dynasty that had come to be hated and not the beginning of the dynasty!

A third misconception is that the earliest Roman dinarius (whence the Gupta dinam is dated) in India is of the last quarter of the first century B.C. Sethna shows that the earliest denarii go back to 268 B.C. and it is around 264 B.C. that Ptolemy II sent an emissary from Egypt to India. Therefore, the reference to dinam in the Gadhwa Stone inscription of the Gupta Era 88 can certainly be in 277 B.C.

A fourth error corrected is that of identifying the Malawa Era of the Mandasor Inscription with the Vikrama Era. Sethna shows that all epigraphic evidence points to the identity of the Malawa Era with the Krita Era, and that the Vikrama Era has been gratuitously brought in just because it is convenient for the modern chronology of the Guptas. He shows that the Kumaragupta referred to here cannot chronologically be the Gupta monarch even following Fleet's calculations. By bringing in the other Mandasor inscription of Dattabhatta which refers to Chandragupta's son Govindagupta as alive in the Malawa year 535, Sethna shows that dating it by the Vikrama Era of 57 B.C. creates an impossible situation. He fixes the beginning of the Malawa Era at 711 B.C. This leads to two fascinating discoveries when linked with other Mandasor inscriptions: that the Malawa ruler Yasodharman (Malawa 589, i.e. 122 B.C.) might be the source of the legend of

Vikramaditya; and that Mihirakula whom he defeated was a Saka and not, as supposed by historians without adequate evidence, a Huna. Sethna exposes yet another Fleetian conjecture regarding Skandagupta battling the Hunas by contacting the epigraphist D.C. Sircar10 and getting the astonishing admission that there is no such reference in the Junagarh inscription!Some of the more remarkable findings in this work which need mention are: Devanampiyatissa of Ceylon dealt not with Asoka but with Samudragupta; the Kushana Dynasty imitated features of the Guptas on their coins instead of the other way about as historians argue: Al-beruni testifies to two Saka Eras, one of 57 B.C. probably commemorating Yasodharman's victory, and the other of 78 A.D. by Salivahana who was possibly of the Satavahana Dynasty; the Mehrauli Iron Pillar inscription is by Sandrocottus-Chandragupta-I

whose term for the invading Greeks is shown to be "Vahlika" (outsiders from Bactria) which fills in the puzzling gap in Indian records of mention of the incursions by Alexander and Seleucus. It is the founder of the Guptas and not of the Mauryan Dynasty who stands firmly identified as Megasthenes's Sandrocottus.

Pradip Bhattacharya PhD

Indian Administrative Service (Retd)ex-Additional Chief Secretary

International HRD Fellow (Manchester)Director, Administrative Training InstituteGovt. of West Bengal

Block FC, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700106, Ph: 91-33-23373960

Home: AD-64, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064, Indiaph: 91-33-23373511"I lift up my hands and I shoutBut no one listens.From dharma come wealth and pleasureWhy is dharma not practised?"--Vyasa, Mahabharatahttp://www.boloji.com/writers/pradipbhattacharya.htm

March 16, 2009

I discuss this in my presentation at ICIH2009 , under the paper title The pernicious efects of the misinterpreted Greek synchronism,in Greek Historyhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/12314897/The-Pernicious-Effects-of-the-Misinterpreted-Greek-Synchronism-in-Ancient-Indian-History

There are other papers of relevance to thisÂ topic in scribdIn particular i bring your attention to the fact that there was another Saka era in vogue till 57 BCE that of the Sakanripa kalaÂ which starts from 550 BCE, the date of the victory of Kurush II (Cyrus) of the Haxamanish dynasty (Aryamanush ?) . Sakanripa kalaÂ weas not used after the start of the Vikram era, because the invader could not retain his suzerainty over the NW of India.

Pl. see also the proposed chronology and the publicationslike the Astronomic dating and select vignettes and the souvenir volume (ICIH 2009) which is also availabelins oft copy on the scribd pagesee also some facts about Varahamihira - http://www.scribd.com/doc/13304268/Some-facts-about-Varahamihira

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:33 AM, Pradip Bhattacharya <kanakpradip wrote:

This re-dating has been comprehensively discussed in K.D.Sethna's " Ancient India in a New Light " (Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi). A summary of some of its findings can be seen at http://www.boloji.com/history/033.htm

Â The relevant portion is given below:

Sethna's 606 page tome, with a 15 page bibliography and a 23 page index, is an outstanding instance of ratiocination proceeding inexorably from a chronological absurdity fastened upon unerringly by the clear ray of his perception. Pulakesin II's Aihole inscription of 634 A.D. shows Indian chronology in vogue fixing 3102 B.C. as the date of the start of the Kaliyuga, while also referring to the Saka Era of 78 A.D. According to modern historians, this is the time of the Gupta Empire, when this system of chronology was made up by the Puranic writers. Now, according to the Puranas the Guptas come around the last quarter of the 4th century B.C. If the modern dating of the Guptas is accepted, it means that the Puranics, face to face with the Gupta kings, placed them in antiquity six hundred years in the past! It is peculiar that so obvious an absurdity should have escaped our own historians. Can we help concluding that we are still unable

to rid our minds of the overpowering influence of the dismissal by western scholars of our own ancient records: The Puranas? They believe in the historicity of Homer and excavate Troy, but will not allow that same probability to the Puranas simply because they speak of a civilized antiquity in a colonized country when the western man was living in caves, and that is unacceptable from a subject race. On the grounds of the reductio ad absurdum of the Puranics placing their contemporary monarchs six centuries in the past, Sethna proposes that the Guptas referred to in the Puranas are the descendants of that Chandragupta whom Megastlienes refers to as Sandrocottus, contemporaneous with Alexander. Consequently, the Mauryan Chandragupta and his grandson Asoka needs must recede considerably farther into die past.

The rest of the book is a thrilling venture as Sethna daringly steers his slender craft through uncharted seas crossing one insuperable

barrier-reef after another to reach a destination in whose existence he firmly believes. The most important of these is the supposed linking of the Greeks with Asoka. Sethna's penetrating insight reveals that the Asokan " yona raja " Amtiyoka of Rock Edict XIII cannot refer to a Greek king and that the dating of this edict proposed by Bhandarkar is quite mistaken even on the basis of the current chronology. Next the Asokan inscription in Greek and Aramaic at Kandahar is analyzed and the conclusion arrived at that the two inscriptions are not contemporaneous; that the Greek comes much after the Aramaic and, indeed, explicates it: That the " Yavanani " script referred to by Panini is this Aramaic script going back to the pre-9th century B.C. period. The Kandahar II and Laghlman Aramaic inscriptions are then taken up and proven to be much before the 3rd century B.C. as theorized at present. Finally, examining the evidence for the reigns of the Sungas, Kanvas

and Satvahanas, Sethna arrives at 950 B.C. as the date of Asoka's accession.The next challenge is harmonizing this with the wide-spread variety in traditions regarding Buddhist chronology (Ceylonese, Chinese, Tibetan, Arab, Puranic and the Milinda-panha and Rajatarangini). Sethna infallibly locates a sure guiding light to steer clear of this welter of confusion: Buddha's death has to be determined in terms of Asoka's accession and not the other way about. Thus, with the latter being fixed in 950 B.C., the nirvana is 218 years before that in 1168 B.C. and the death of Mahavira would be in 1165 B.C.

The argument of Ceylon being referred to in Asoka's inscriptions is demolished by Sethna who points out that this identification flouts all the literary and epigraphic data. " Tarnbapamni " and " Tambapamniya " are references to the far south in India.

Coming to the Asokan monuments, he shows that the affinities are with Mesopotamia not with Achaemenid art, and that they carry on in the tradition of the realistic treatment of the Indus seals, the assembly hall of Mohenjodaro and the high polish of Harappan jewellery. From the other end of the spectrum, Megasthenes is analyzed to reveal that the references point to the Bhagavata Vaishnavite cult practiced by the Gupta Dynasty, certainly not to what is known of the Mauryas.

As in his work on the Aryan Origins, Sethna corrects major historical errors here too. One is regarding Fa-Hien who is widely accepted as having visited India during the reign of Chandragupta II. Sethna bluntly points out how generations of historians have simply assumed Fleet's chronology despite the pilgrim's records mentioning no king at all and the social conditions not tallying with whatever is known of the Gupta regime. Another such major twisting of

chronology which has been unquestioningly accepted by modern historians is exposed when Sethna examines Al-beruni's travelogue to show that Fleet misrepresented the Arab visitor's categorical description of the Gupta Era as celebrating the end of a dynasty that had come to be hated and not the beginning of the dynasty!

A third misconception is that the earliest Roman dinarius (whence the Gupta dinam is dated) in India is of the last quarter of the first century B.C. Sethna shows that the earliest denarii go back to 268 B.C. and it is around 264 B.C. that Ptolemy II sent an emissary from Egypt to India. Therefore, the reference to dinam in the Gadhwa Stone inscription of the Gupta Era 88 can certainly be in 277 B.C.

A fourth error corrected is that of identifying the Malawa Era of the Mandasor Inscription with the Vikrama Era. Sethna shows that all epigraphic evidence points to the identity of the Malawa Era with the Krita Era, and that the Vikrama Era has been gratuitously brought in just because it is convenient for the modern chronology of the Guptas. He shows that the Kumaragupta referred to here cannot chronologically be the Gupta monarch even following Fleet's calculations. By bringing in the other Mandasor inscription of Dattabhatta which refers to Chandragupta's son Govindagupta as alive in the Malawa year 535, Sethna shows that dating it by the Vikrama Era of 57 B.C. creates an impossible situation. He fixes the beginning of the Malawa Era at 711 B.C. This leads to two fascinating discoveries when linked with other Mandasor inscriptions: that the Malawa ruler Yasodharman (Malawa 589, i.e. 122 B.C.) might be the source of the legend of

Vikramaditya; and that Mihirakula whom he defeated was a Saka and not, as supposed by historians without adequate evidence, a Huna. Sethna exposes yet another Fleetian conjecture regarding Skandagupta battling the Hunas by contacting the epigraphist D.C. Sircar10 and getting the astonishing admission that there is no such reference in the Junagarh inscription!

Some of the more remarkable findings in this work which need mention are: Devanampiyatissa of Ceylon dealt not with Asoka but with Samudragupta; the Kushana Dynasty imitated features of the Guptas on their coins instead of the other way about as historians argue: Al-beruni testifies to two Saka Eras, one of 57 B.C. probably commemorating Yasodharman's victory, and the other of 78 A.D. by Salivahana who was possibly of the Satavahana Dynasty; the Mehrauli Iron Pillar inscription is by Sandrocottus-Chandragupta-I

whose term for the invading Greeks is shown to be " Vahlika " (outsiders from Bactria) which fills in the puzzling gap in Indian records of mention of the incursions by Alexander and Seleucus. It is the founder of the Guptas and not of the Mauryan Dynasty who stands firmly identified as Megasthenes's Sandrocottus.

Pradip Bhattacharya PhD

Indian Administrative Service (Retd)ex-Additional Chief Secretary

International HRD Fellow (Manchester)Director, Administrative Training Institute

Govt. of West Bengal

Block FC, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700106, Ph: 91-33-23373960

Home: AD-64, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064, Indiaph: 91-33-23373511 " I lift up my hands and I shout

But no one listens.From dharma come wealth and pleasureWhy is dharma not practised? " --Vyasa, Mahabharatahttp://www.boloji.com/writers/pradipbhattacharya.htm

Â

-- à¤ªà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤£à¤®à¤¿à¤¤à¤¿à¤µà¥à¤°à¥à¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤®à¤¾à¤–à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯à¤¿à¤•à¥‹à¤¦à¤¾à¤¹à¤°à¤£à¤‚ à¤§à¤°à¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ à¤šà¥‡à¤¤à¥€à¤¤à¤¿à¤¹à¤¾à¤¸à¤ƒà¥¤Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies.us/icih_conf

webmaster925-271-4528 mobile:925-998-2529

March 16, 2009

I think Sethna's work has many absurdities. For example he confused the Hunas with the Sakas. He put the date of Lord Mahavira, the 24 th Jaina Tirthankara before that of Bhagavan Parshvanath, the 23 rd Jaina Tirthankara. SunilK. Bhattacharjya--- On Sun, 3/15/09, Pradip Bhattacharya <kanakpradip wrote:Pradip Bhattacharya <kanakpradipRe: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" Buddha Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 6:33 AM

This re-dating has been comprehensively discussed in K.D.Sethna's "Ancient India in a New Light" (Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi). A summary of some of its findings can be seen at http://www.boloji. com/history/ 033.htm The relevant portion is given below:

Sethna's 606 page tome, with a 15 page bibliography and a 23 page index, is an outstanding instance of ratiocination proceeding inexorably from a chronological absurdity fastened upon unerringly by the clear ray of his perception. Pulakesin II's Aihole inscription of 634 A.D. shows Indian chronology in vogue fixing 3102 B.C. as the date of the start of the Kaliyuga, while also referring to the Saka Era of 78 A.D. According to modern historians, this is the time of the Gupta Empire, when this system of chronology was made up by the Puranic writers. Now, according to the Puranas the Guptas come around the last quarter of the 4th century B.C. If the modern dating of the Guptas is accepted, it means that the Puranics, face to face with the Gupta kings, placed them in antiquity six hundred years in the past! It is peculiar that so obvious an absurdity should have escaped our own historians. Can we help concluding that we are still

unable

to rid our minds of the overpowering influence of the dismissal by western scholars of our own ancient records: The Puranas? They believe in the historicity of Homer and excavate Troy, but will not allow that same probability to the Puranas simply because they speak of a civilized antiquity in a colonized country when the western man was living in caves, and that is unacceptable from a subject race. On the grounds of the reductio ad absurdum of the Puranics placing their contemporary monarchs six centuries in the past, Sethna proposes that the Guptas referred to in the Puranas are the descendants of that Chandragupta whom Megastlienes refers to as Sandrocottus, contemporaneous with Alexander. Consequently, the Mauryan Chandragupta and his grandson Asoka needs must recede considerably farther into die past.The rest of the book is a thrilling venture as Sethna daringly steers his slender craft through uncharted seas crossing one insuperable

barrier-reef after another to reach a destination in whose existence he firmly believes. The most important of these is the supposed linking of the Greeks with Asoka. Sethna's penetrating insight reveals that the Asokan "yona raja" Amtiyoka of Rock Edict XIII cannot refer to a Greek king and that the dating of this edict proposed by Bhandarkar is quite mistaken even on the basis of the current chronology. Next the Asokan inscription in Greek and Aramaic at Kandahar is analyzed and the conclusion arrived at that the two inscriptions are not contemporaneous; that the Greek comes much after the Aramaic and, indeed, explicates it: That the "Yavanani" script referred to by Panini is this Aramaic script going back to the pre-9th century B.C. period. The Kandahar II and Laghlman Aramaic inscriptions are then taken up and proven to be much before the 3rd century B.C. as theorized at present. Finally, examining the evidence for the reigns of the Sungas, Kanvas

and Satvahanas, Sethna arrives at 950 B.C. as the date of Asoka's accession.The next challenge is harmonizing this with the wide-spread variety in traditions regarding Buddhist chronology (Ceylonese, Chinese, Tibetan, Arab, Puranic and the Milinda-panha and Rajatarangini). Sethna infallibly locates a sure guiding light to steer clear of this welter of confusion: Buddha's death has to be determined in terms of Asoka's accession and not the other way about. Thus, with the latter being fixed in 950 B.C., the nirvana is 218 years before that in 1168 B.C. and the death of Mahavira would be in 1165 B.C.The argument of Ceylon being referred to in Asoka's inscriptions is demolished by Sethna who points out that this identification flouts all the literary and epigraphic data. "Tarnbapamni" and "Tambapamniya" are references to the far south in India.

Coming to the Asokan monuments, he shows that the affinities are with Mesopotamia not with Achaemenid art, and that they carry on in the tradition of the realistic treatment of the Indus seals, the assembly hall of Mohenjodaro and the high polish of Harappan jewellery. From the other end of the spectrum, Megasthenes is analyzed to reveal that the references point to the Bhagavata Vaishnavite cult practiced by the Gupta Dynasty, certainly not to what is known of the Mauryas.As in his work on the Aryan Origins, Sethna corrects major historical errors here too. One is regarding Fa-Hien who is widely accepted as having visited India during the reign of Chandragupta II. Sethna bluntly points out how generations of historians have simply assumed Fleet's chronology despite the pilgrim's records mentioning no king at all and the social conditions not tallying with whatever is known of the Gupta regime. Another such major twisting

of

chronology which has been unquestioningly accepted by modern historians is exposed when Sethna examines Al-beruni's travelogue to show that Fleet misrepresented the Arab visitor's categorical description of the Gupta Era as celebrating the end of a dynasty that had come to be hated and not the beginning of the dynasty!

A third misconception is that the earliest Roman dinarius (whence the Gupta dinam is dated) in India is of the last quarter of the first century B.C. Sethna shows that the earliest denarii go back to 268 B.C. and it is around 264 B.C. that Ptolemy II sent an emissary from Egypt to India. Therefore, the reference to dinam in the Gadhwa Stone inscription of the Gupta Era 88 can certainly be in 277 B.C.

A fourth error corrected is that of identifying the Malawa Era of the Mandasor Inscription with the Vikrama Era. Sethna shows that all epigraphic evidence points to the identity of the Malawa Era with the Krita Era, and that the Vikrama Era has been gratuitously brought in just because it is convenient for the modern chronology of the Guptas. He shows that the Kumaragupta referred to here cannot chronologically be the Gupta monarch even following Fleet's calculations. By bringing in the other Mandasor inscription of Dattabhatta which refers to Chandragupta' s son Govindagupta as alive in the Malawa year 535, Sethna shows that dating it by the Vikrama Era of 57 B.C. creates an impossible situation. He fixes the beginning of the Malawa Era at 711 B.C. This leads to two fascinating discoveries when linked with other Mandasor inscriptions: that the Malawa ruler Yasodharman (Malawa 589, i.e. 122 B.C.) might be the source of the legend

of

Vikramaditya; and that Mihirakula whom he defeated was a Saka and not, as supposed by historians without adequate evidence, a Huna. Sethna exposes yet another Fleetian conjecture regarding Skandagupta battling the Hunas by contacting the epigraphist D.C. Sircar10 and getting the astonishing admission that there is no such reference in the Junagarh inscription!Some of the more remarkable findings in this work which need mention are: Devanampiyatissa of Ceylon dealt not with Asoka but with Samudragupta; the Kushana Dynasty imitated features of the Guptas on their coins instead of the other way about as historians argue: Al-beruni testifies to two Saka Eras, one of 57 B.C. probably commemorating Yasodharman' s victory, and the other of 78 A.D. by Salivahana who was possibly of the Satavahana Dynasty; the Mehrauli Iron Pillar inscription is by Sandrocottus-

Chandragupta- I

whose term for the invading Greeks is shown to be "Vahlika" (outsiders from Bactria) which fills in the puzzling gap in Indian records of mention of the incursions by Alexander and Seleucus. It is the founder of the Guptas and not of the Mauryan Dynasty who stands firmly identified as Megasthenes' s Sandrocottus.

Pradip Bhattacharya PhD

Indian Administrative Service (Retd)ex-Additional Chief Secretary

International HRD Fellow (Manchester)Director, Administrative Training InstituteGovt. of West Bengal

Block FC, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700106, Ph: 91-33-23373960

Home: AD-64, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064, Indiaph: 91-33-23373511"I lift up my hands and I shoutBut no one listens.From dharma come wealth and pleasureWhy is dharma not practised?"- -Vyasa, Mahabharatahttp://www.boloji. com/writers/ pradipbhattachar ya.htm

March 20, 2009

Dear Dr. Bhattacharyaji,Namaste,1)Sethna was right when he accepted the puranic chronology for the Guptas. However he committed a blunder by rejecting the puranic chronology for the Mauryas. His date of Ashoka is not supported by puranic data.2)He also committed a mistake by not recognizing that Samudragupta (Ashokaditya) was the Devanampiya piyadassi who was contacted by the Ceylon king Devanampiyatissa. Ashoka Maurya was just Piyadassi and he did not use Devanampiya, as the Buddhists did not invoke the devas around Ashoka Maurya's time. Amtiyoka was a contemporary of Samudragupta and not of Ashoka Maurya. Further in Ashoka's inscription there is no mention of Devanampiya.3)Sethna's rejection of the defeat of the (white) Hunas in 57 BCE in favour of the defeat of the Sakas at that

time was not correct. The defeat of the Sakas took place in 78 CE. This (white) Hunas were different from the Hunas connected with Turkey. The Vikrama Samvat of 57 BCE, mentioned by Alberuni was connected with the era started at the time of the defeat of the Hunas and this Vikram Samvat is still in use. Alberuni also mentioned about another Vikrama era, ie. the era of Sri Harsha (Vikramaditya), which started from 457 BCE.4)Sethna also got the date of Lord Buddha wrong as he did not trust the puranic dates. Lord Buddha was contemporary of Bimbisara.5)Sethna was gravely mistaken about the date of Lord Mahavira and he discarded all the Jain records and traditions. He thought Nigantha Nathaputtra, a contemporary of Lord Buddha, to be Lord MahaviraThis criticism is not for depreciating the efforts of Sethna. This criticism is for the greater cause of upholding the true chronology of Ancient Indian History.

Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Sun, 3/15/09, Pradip Bhattacharya <kanakpradip wrote:Pradip Bhattacharya <kanakpradipRe: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" Buddha Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 6:33 AM

This re-dating has been comprehensively discussed in K.D.Sethna's "Ancient India in a New Light" (Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi). A summary of some of its findings can be seen at http://www.boloji. com/history/ 033.htm The relevant portion is given below:

Sethna's 606 page tome, with a 15 page bibliography and a 23 page index, is an outstanding instance of ratiocination proceeding inexorably from a chronological absurdity fastened upon unerringly by the clear ray of his perception. Pulakesin II's Aihole inscription of 634 A.D. shows Indian chronology in vogue fixing 3102 B.C. as the date of the start of the Kaliyuga, while also referring to the Saka Era of 78 A.D. According to modern historians, this is the time of the Gupta Empire, when this system of chronology was made up by the Puranic writers. Now, according to the Puranas the Guptas come around the last quarter of the 4th century B.C. If the modern dating of the Guptas is accepted, it means that the Puranics, face to face with the Gupta kings, placed them in antiquity six hundred years in the past! It is peculiar that so obvious an absurdity should have escaped our own historians. Can we help concluding that we are still

unable

to rid our minds of the overpowering influence of the dismissal by western scholars of our own ancient records: The Puranas? They believe in the historicity of Homer and excavate Troy, but will not allow that same probability to the Puranas simply because they speak of a civilized antiquity in a colonized country when the western man was living in caves, and that is unacceptable from a subject race. On the grounds of the reductio ad absurdum of the Puranics placing their contemporary monarchs six centuries in the past, Sethna proposes that the Guptas referred to in the Puranas are the descendants of that Chandragupta whom Megastlienes refers to as Sandrocottus, contemporaneous with Alexander. Consequently, the Mauryan Chandragupta and his grandson Asoka needs must recede considerably farther into die past.The rest of the book is a thrilling venture as Sethna daringly steers his slender craft through uncharted seas crossing one insuperable

barrier-reef after another to reach a destination in whose existence he firmly believes. The most important of these is the supposed linking of the Greeks with Asoka. Sethna's penetrating insight reveals that the Asokan "yona raja" Amtiyoka of Rock Edict XIII cannot refer to a Greek king and that the dating of this edict proposed by Bhandarkar is quite mistaken even on the basis of the current chronology. Next the Asokan inscription in Greek and Aramaic at Kandahar is analyzed and the conclusion arrived at that the two inscriptions are not contemporaneous; that the Greek comes much after the Aramaic and, indeed, explicates it: That the "Yavanani" script referred to by Panini is this Aramaic script going back to the pre-9th century B.C. period. The Kandahar II and Laghlman Aramaic inscriptions are then taken up and proven to be much before the 3rd century B.C. as theorized at present. Finally, examining the evidence for the reigns of the Sungas, Kanvas

and Satvahanas, Sethna arrives at 950 B.C. as the date of Asoka's accession.The next challenge is harmonizing this with the wide-spread variety in traditions regarding Buddhist chronology (Ceylonese, Chinese, Tibetan, Arab, Puranic and the Milinda-panha and Rajatarangini). Sethna infallibly locates a sure guiding light to steer clear of this welter of confusion: Buddha's death has to be determined in terms of Asoka's accession and not the other way about. Thus, with the latter being fixed in 950 B.C., the nirvana is 218 years before that in 1168 B.C. and the death of Mahavira would be in 1165 B.C.The argument of Ceylon being referred to in Asoka's inscriptions is demolished by Sethna who points out that this identification flouts all the literary and epigraphic data. "Tarnbapamni" and "Tambapamniya" are references to the far south in India.

Coming to the Asokan monuments, he shows that the affinities are with Mesopotamia not with Achaemenid art, and that they carry on in the tradition of the realistic treatment of the Indus seals, the assembly hall of Mohenjodaro and the high polish of Harappan jewellery. From the other end of the spectrum, Megasthenes is analyzed to reveal that the references point to the Bhagavata Vaishnavite cult practiced by the Gupta Dynasty, certainly not to what is known of the Mauryas.As in his work on the Aryan Origins, Sethna corrects major historical errors here too. One is regarding Fa-Hien who is widely accepted as having visited India during the reign of Chandragupta II. Sethna bluntly points out how generations of historians have simply assumed Fleet's chronology despite the pilgrim's records mentioning no king at all and the social conditions not tallying with whatever is known of the Gupta regime. Another such major twisting

of

chronology which has been unquestioningly accepted by modern historians is exposed when Sethna examines Al-beruni's travelogue to show that Fleet misrepresented the Arab visitor's categorical description of the Gupta Era as celebrating the end of a dynasty that had come to be hated and not the beginning of the dynasty!

A third misconception is that the earliest Roman dinarius (whence the Gupta dinam is dated) in India is of the last quarter of the first century B.C. Sethna shows that the earliest denarii go back to 268 B.C. and it is around 264 B.C. that Ptolemy II sent an emissary from Egypt to India. Therefore, the reference to dinam in the Gadhwa Stone inscription of the Gupta Era 88 can certainly be in 277 B.C.

A fourth error corrected is that of identifying the Malawa Era of the Mandasor Inscription with the Vikrama Era. Sethna shows that all epigraphic evidence points to the identity of the Malawa Era with the Krita Era, and that the Vikrama Era has been gratuitously brought in just because it is convenient for the modern chronology of the Guptas. He shows that the Kumaragupta referred to here cannot chronologically be the Gupta monarch even following Fleet's calculations. By bringing in the other Mandasor inscription of Dattabhatta which refers to Chandragupta' s son Govindagupta as alive in the Malawa year 535, Sethna shows that dating it by the Vikrama Era of 57 B.C. creates an impossible situation. He fixes the beginning of the Malawa Era at 711 B.C. This leads to two fascinating discoveries when linked with other Mandasor inscriptions: that the Malawa ruler Yasodharman (Malawa 589, i.e. 122 B.C.) might be the source of the legend

of

Vikramaditya; and that Mihirakula whom he defeated was a Saka and not, as supposed by historians without adequate evidence, a Huna. Sethna exposes yet another Fleetian conjecture regarding Skandagupta battling the Hunas by contacting the epigraphist D.C. Sircar10 and getting the astonishing admission that there is no such reference in the Junagarh inscription!Some of the more remarkable findings in this work which need mention are: Devanampiyatissa of Ceylon dealt not with Asoka but with Samudragupta; the Kushana Dynasty imitated features of the Guptas on their coins instead of the other way about as historians argue: Al-beruni testifies to two Saka Eras, one of 57 B.C. probably commemorating Yasodharman' s victory, and the other of 78 A.D. by Salivahana who was possibly of the Satavahana Dynasty; the Mehrauli Iron Pillar inscription is by Sandrocottus-

Chandragupta- I

whose term for the invading Greeks is shown to be "Vahlika" (outsiders from Bactria) which fills in the puzzling gap in Indian records of mention of the incursions by Alexander and Seleucus. It is the founder of the Guptas and not of the Mauryan Dynasty who stands firmly identified as Megasthenes' s Sandrocottus.

Pradip Bhattacharya PhD

Indian Administrative Service (Retd)ex-Additional Chief Secretary

International HRD Fellow (Manchester)Director, Administrative Training InstituteGovt. of West Bengal

Block FC, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700106, Ph: 91-33-23373960

Home: AD-64, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700064, Indiaph: 91-33-23373511"I lift up my hands and I shoutBut no one listens.From dharma come wealth and pleasureWhy is dharma not practised?"- -Vyasa, Mahabharatahttp://www.boloji. com/writers/ pradipbhattachar ya.htm

March 20, 2009

While we need not agree with all that Sethnas says, the following points are very interesting.

1. That

the " Yavanani " script referred to by Panini is this Aramaic script

going back to the pre-9th century B.C. period.

2. Megasthenes is analyzed

to reveal that the references point to the Bhagavata Vaishnavite cult practiced

by the Gupta Dynasty, certainly not to what is known of the Mauryas.

3. A third misconception is

that the earliest Roman dinarius (whence the Gupta dinam is

dated) in India is of the last quarter of the first century B.C. Sethna shows

that the earliest denarii go back to 268 B.C. and it is around 264 B.C.

that Ptolemy II sent an emissary from Egypt to India. Therefore, the reference

to dinam in the Gadhwa Stone inscription of the Gupta Era 88 can

certainly be in 277 B.C

4.A fourth error corrected is that of identifying the

Malawa Era of the Mandasor Inscription with the Vikrama Era. Sethna shows that

all epigraphic evidence points to the identity of the Malawa Era with the Krita

Era, and that the Vikrama Era has been gratuitously brought in just because it

is convenient for the modern chronology of the Guptas. He shows that the

Kumaragupta referred to here cannot chronologically be the Gupta monarch even

following Fleet's calculations. By bringing in the other Mandasor inscription

of Dattabhatta which refers to Chandragupta' s son Govindagupta as alive in the

Malawa year 535, Sethna shows that dating it by the Vikrama Era of 57 B.C.

creates an impossible situation. He fixes the beginning of the Malawa Era at

711 B.C. This leads to two fascinating discoveries when linked with other

Mandasor inscriptions: that the Malawa ruler Yasodharman (Malawa 589, i.e. 122

B.C.) might be the source of the legend of Vikramaditya; and that Mihirakula

whom he defeated was a Saka and not, as supposed by historians without adequate

evidence, a Huna. Sethna exposes yet another Fleetian conjecture regarding

Skandagupta battling the Hunas by contacting the epigraphist D.C. Sircar10 and getting the astonishing

admission that there is no such reference in the Junagarh inscription!

the Kushana Dynasty imitated features of the Guptas on their

coins instead of the other way about as historians argue: Al-beruni testifies

to two Saka Eras, one of 57 B.C. probably commemorating Yasodharman' s victory,

and the other of 78 A.D. by Salivahana who was possibly of the Satavahana

Dynasty; the Mehrauli Iron Pillar inscription is by Sandrocottus- Chandragupta-

I whose term for the invading Greeks is shown to be " Vahlika "

(outsiders from Bactria) which fills in the puzzling gap in Indian records of

mention of the incursions by Alexander and Seleucus. It is the founder of the

Guptas and not of the Mauryan Dynasty who stands firmly identified as

Megasthenes' s Sandrocottus.

I think we can start discussions at this point and go ahead. Certainly, the " main stream " scholars will not agree with these contentions but then they need to reply or refute the points raised by him.

regards,

Kishore patnaik

March 20, 2009

" As in his work on the Aryan Origins...A third misconception is that the

earliest Roman dinarius (whence the Gupta dinam is dated) in India is of the

last quarter of the first century B.C. Sethna shows that the earliest denarii go

back to 268 B.C. and it is around 264 B.C. that Ptolemy II sent an emissary from

Egypt to India. Therefore, the reference to dinam in the Gadhwa Stone

inscription of the Gupta Era 88 can certainly be in 277 B.C. "

The book referenced:

The Problem of Aryan Origins by K.D. Sethna. The first edition was published in

1980. A second enlarged version (with five supplements) was published in 1992.

(Delhi: Aditya Prakashan, 1992.ISBN 81-85179-67-0)

The Gadhwa Stone inscription:

Fleet, John F. Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum: Inscriptions of the Early

Guptas. Vol. III. Calcutta: Government of India, Central Publications Branch,

1888, 38-39:

" (Line 3.)— . . . . . . . . . . . . headed by Mâtridâsa . . . . . . . . . . . .

.. . . . for the purpose of increasing [the religious merit] . . . . . . . . .

fashioned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the Brâhmans of the community of

a perpetual almshouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by ten dînâras, (or in

figures) 10. "

On the term dînâras:

The Minor Law Books (SBE33) by Julius Jolly [1889]

" Last, not least, the European term Dînâra, i.e. denarius The term Dînâra.or

& #948; & #951; & #957; & #940; & #961; & #953; & #959; & #957;, which is so important for the

purposes of Indian chronology, occurs repeatedly in the Nârada-smriti. In the

first passage (Introd. II, 34, p. 32), Dînâras are mentioned among other objects

made of gold, and it would seem that a gold coin used as an ornament is meant,

such as e.g. the necklaces made of gold mohurs, which are being worn in India at

the present day. 'A string of Dînâras' (dînâra-mâlaya) used as a necklace occurs

in a well-known Jain work, the Kalpa-sûtra of Bhadrabâhu 4. It is, however,

possible that the 'Dînâras or other golden things' may be gold coins simply, and

that Nârada means to refer to forged or otherwise counterfeit coins. The second

passage (Appendix v. 60, p. 232) is specially valuable, because it contains an

exact

p. xviii

statement of the value of a Dînâra which, it says, is called a Suvarna also. The

reception of Dînâras among the ordinary coins of that period shows that their

circulation in India must have commenced some time before the Nârada-smriti was

written. The first importation of gold Dînâras into India cannot be referred to

an earlier period than the time of the Roman emperors, and the gold Dînâras most

numerously found in India belong to the third century A.D. "

March 20, 2009

In this scenario where does Chanakya fit?

Kamlesh

On Behalf

Of kishore patnaik

Friday, March 20, 2009 9:44 AM

Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the

(putatively) " historical " Buddha

While we need not agree with all that

Sethnas says, the following points are very interesting.

1. That

the " Yavanani " script referred to by Panini is this Aramaic script

going back to the pre-9th century B.C.

period.

2.

Megasthenes is analyzed to reveal that the references point to the Bhagavata

Vaishnavite cult practiced by the Gupta Dynasty, certainly not to what is known

of the Mauryas.

3. A

third misconception is that the earliest Roman dinarius (whence the

Gupta dinam is dated) in India is of the last quarter of the first

century B.C. Sethna shows that the earliest denarii go back to 268 B.C.

and it is around 264 B.C. that Ptolemy II sent an emissary from Egypt to India.

Therefore, the reference to dinam in the Gadhwa Stone inscription of the

Gupta Era 88 can certainly be in 277 B.C

4.A

fourth error corrected is that of identifying the Malawa Era of the Mandasor

Inscription with the Vikrama Era. Sethna shows that all epigraphic evidence

points to the identity of the Malawa Era with the Krita Era, and that the

Vikrama Era has been gratuitously brought in just because it is convenient for

the modern chronology of the Guptas. He shows that the Kumaragupta referred to

here cannot chronologically be the Gupta monarch even following Fleet's

calculations. By bringing in the other Mandasor inscription of Dattabhatta

which refers to Chandragupta' s son Govindagupta as alive in the Malawa year

535, Sethna shows that dating it by the Vikrama Era of 57 B.C. creates an

impossible situation. He fixes the beginning of the Malawa Era at 711 B.C. This

leads to two fascinating discoveries when linked with other Mandasor

inscriptions: that the Malawa ruler Yasodharman (Malawa 589, i.e. 122 B.C.)

might be the source of the legend of Vikramaditya; and that Mihirakula whom he

defeated was a Saka and not, as supposed by historians without adequate

evidence, a Huna. Sethna exposes yet another Fleetian conjecture regarding

Skandagupta battling the Hunas by contacting the epigraphist D.C. Sircar10 and getting the

astonishing admission that there is no such reference in the Junagarh

inscription!

the Kushana Dynasty

imitated features of the Guptas on their coins instead of the other way about

as historians argue: Al-beruni testifies to two Saka Eras, one of 57 B.C.

probably commemorating Yasodharman' s victory, and the other of 78 A.D. by

Salivahana who was possibly of the Satavahana Dynasty; the Mehrauli Iron Pillar

inscription is by Sandrocottus- Chandragupta- I whose term for the invading

Greeks is shown to be " Vahlika " (outsiders from Bactria) which fills

in the puzzling gap in Indian records of mention of the incursions by Alexander

and Seleucus. It is the founder of the Guptas and not of the Mauryan Dynasty

who stands firmly identified as Megasthenes' s Sandrocottus.

I think we can start discussions at

this point and go ahead. Certainly, the " main stream " scholars will

not agree with these contentions but then they need to reply or refute the

points raised by him.

regards,

Kishore patnaik

..

March 21, 2009

Dear Kishoreji,IMHO the Huna king Mihirkula's father was contemporary of Baladitya and Bhanugupta. Yashodharman did defeat Mihirkula in 57 BCE and the Mandasor inscription cannot be ignored. The second Saka kala is the Sakanripakala (or as Sakendra kala as mentioned by Varahamihira) and it is dated to 551 BCE. Varahamihira mentions that the from the Yudhisthra's days (ie 3077 BCE) 2526 years elapsed to Sakendra kala, which is dated (3077 -2526) = 551BCE. According to the Mahabharata, Yudhisthira's Swargarohana occurred 25 years after the start of Kali yuga ie. in (3102 BCE - 25) = 3077 BCE.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Fri, 3/20/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote:

kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" Buddha Date: Friday, March 20, 2009, 6:44 AM

While we need not agree with all that Sethnas says, the following points are very interesting.

1. That

the "Yavanani" script referred to by Panini is this Aramaic script