Guest guest Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Mahamahopadhyay, Sri Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Singha Samanta, was the last great naked eye astronomer of the hindu school of astronomy. Dr. SKB has great interest in this domain. i have only been able to get this. More, by & by. Siddhanata Darpana, Ed. Bir Hanuman Sastri, [Odiya], Utkal University, 1976. Thank you, Dr.db - Sunil Bhattacharjya Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:23 AM Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" Buddha 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 <kanakpradip >Re: 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 Anything in Bengali or English will be better for me. Otherwise I can manage with the one in Hindi by Shri Arun Upadhyayaji, which I am yet to procure. However the oriya-knowing friends of ours in this forum will be benefitted by this information.Thank you anyway for the information.skb--- On Thu, 3/19/09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 wrote:oddisilab <oddisilab1 Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009, 9:44 AM Mahamahopadhyay, Sri Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Singha Samanta, was the last great naked eye astronomer of the hindu school of astronomy. Dr. SKB has great interest in this domain. i have only been able to get this. More, by & by. Siddhanata Darpana, Ed. Bir Hanuman Sastri, [Odiya], Utkal University, 1976. Thank you, Dr.db - Sunil Bhattacharjya Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:23 AM Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" Buddha 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 <kanakpradip@ >Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" BuddhaSunday, 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 I have some material on Samanta Chandrasekhar. I agree with those who say he belongs in the top ranks of Hindu Astronomy. I plan to include him in my book on the history of the Indian calendar. currently ttitled . The story of the THree Periodicities Astronomy, Time and the calendar in India  A historical perspective I would appreciate anyhting in English/ HindiOn Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, oddisilab <oddisilab1 wrote: Mahamahopadhyay, Sri Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Singha Samanta, was the last great naked eye astronomer of the hindu school of astronomy.  Dr. SKB has great interest in this domain.  i have only been able to get this. More, by & by.  Siddhanata Darpana, Ed. Bir Hanuman Sastri, [Odiya], Utkal University, 1976.  Thank you,  Dr.db  - Sunil Bhattacharjya Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:23 AM Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) " historical " Buddha 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  -- पà¥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¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies.us/icih_conf webmaster925-271-4528 mobile:925-998-2529 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2009 Report Share Posted March 21, 2009  Here is one more Ref. THE ORIGINAL WORK IS ::: Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Siddhanata Darpana, Indian Depository, Calcutta, 1899. Copy now possibly in the Indian Archives. Dr. db Bhubaneswar - Kosla Vepa Saturday, March 21, 2009 10:03 AM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara I have some material on Samanta Chandrasekhar. I agree with those who say he belongs in the top ranks of Hindu Astronomy. I plan to include him in my book on the history of the Indian calendar. currently ttitled . The story of the THree Periodicities Astronomy, Time and the calendar in India A historical perspective I would appreciate anyhting in English/ Hindi On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> wrote: Mahamahopadhyay, Sri Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Singha Samanta, was the last great naked eye astronomer of the hindu school of astronomy. Dr. SKB has great interest in this domain. i have only been able to get this. More, by & by. Siddhanata Darpana, Ed. Bir Hanuman Sastri, [Odiya], Utkal University, 1976. Thank you, Dr.db - Sunil Bhattacharjya Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:23 AM Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" Buddha 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 <kanakpradip >Re: 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 -- पà¥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¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies.us/icih_confwebmaster (AT) indicethos (DOT) org925-271-4528 mobile:925-998-2529 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 DEAR DR DP I HAVE A COPY OF SIDHANTA DARPANA IN ORIYA 1975 EDITION PUBLISHED BY //DHARMAGRANTHA STORE. PROPRIETER BIDYADHAR SAHOO. ALISHA BAZAR. CUTTACK2// DESCRIBER--PANDIT/JYOTISH SRI BIRA HANUMAN SASHTRI RETD PROF ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY SADASHIV SANSKRIT COLLEGE PURI AUTHOR, COMPILER AND EDITOR---JYOTIRBID PANDIT SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA PRINTED BY SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA AT ARUNODAYA PRESS ALISHA BAZAR CUTTACK 2. IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME BY LATE DR RADHANATH RATH, EDITOR SAMAJA IN 19/5/84. NEHRU PLANETARIUM IN BOMBAY AND VEDIC ASTRONOMICAL CENTER AHMEDAVAD HAD NOT DPSPLAYED THE NAME OF PATHANI SAMANTA AMONGST RECOGNISED ASTRONOMERS OF INDIA AS NO ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF SIDHANTA DARPAN A WAS AVAILABLE TO THEM TO JUDGE ITS MERIT.. I HAD SPOKEN ABOUT IT TO RADHANATH BABU AND AND HAD REQUESTED HIM TO REMOVE THIS DEFICIENCY WHICH WAS A BIG INJUSTICE TOPATHANI SAMANTA GALILIO OF ORISSA. HE DID NOT HAVE A TELESCOPE WHEN HE WROTE SIDHANTA DARPANA. ONE WAS PRESENTED TO HIM IN LATER STAGES OF HIS LIFE AND HE REMARKED IF ONLY I HAD THIS INSTRUMENT EARLIER WHENEVER I CAME TO BBSR I HAD TAKEN UP THE ISSUE WITH OFFICIALS OF PATHANI SAMANTA PLANATARUM REPEATEDLY NAD ALSO HAVE AN WORKING MODEL OF HIS INSTRUMENTS FOR DEMONSTRATION.. NO BODY TOOK UP THE ISSUE. DEEPAK CAN U START A CAMPAGNE AND MAKE THE DEMAND BEFORE THE CORRECT AUTHORITIES ALL OUR CHILDHOOD WE USED TO SING //KATHI KHANDE DHARI GANILA NAKHYATRA HARILA SAHASHRA BIDHI// BUT I NEVER SAW AN WORKING MODEL OF THE TWO WOODEN SCALES. HOWEVER THE 56 PAGE INTRODUCTION DATED FEBRUARY 1899 BY JOGESH CHANDRA RAY ARE IN ENGLISH. I CAN SEND THEIR XEROX COPY TO YOU DEEPAK IF IT WILL BE OF ANY USE TO PERSONS DISCUSSING SIDHANTA DARPANA. THE BOOK ALSO CONTAINS THE SANAD OF VICEROY AND GOVERGENERAL OF INDIA DATED 3RD JUNE 1893 CONFERING THE TITLE OF MAHAMAHOPADYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA IS A DESCENDENT OF KHANDAPADA RAYAL FAMILY. HIS REAL NAME IS SRI CHANDRASEKHARA SINGH HARICHANDAN MAHAPATRA SAMANTA. HE CALLED PATHANIA BY HIS PARENTS AS THEIR PREVIOUS ISSUES DID NOT SURVIVE. FROM PATHANIA HIS NAME BECAME PATHANI SAMANTA. ANOTHER INTERESTING FEATURE IS THAT MAHAMHOPADHYAYA WAS A TITLE COFERRED TO A WRITERS/POETS/ LITERATEURS OR PHILOSOPHERS. TO BE GIVEN THE TITLE OF MAMAMAHOPADHYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA WAS THE ONLY PERSON OUTSIDE THESE CATEGORIES TO BE CONFERRED THIS TITLE. HOPE THESE INFO WILL BE USEFUL C R DAS ____________________________<br><br>C. R. DAS<br>I Rue Des Vanneaux<br>77420 CHAMPS SUR MARNE<br>FRANCE.<br>Phone:0033-1-64686597.--- En date de : Sam 21.3.09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 a écrit : De: oddisilab <oddisilab1Objet: Re: Re : Samanta Chandra SekharaÀ: Date: Samedi 21 Mars 2009, 6h05  Here is one more Ref. THE ORIGINAL WORK IS ::: Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Siddhanata Darpana, Indian Depository, Calcutta, 1899. Copy now possibly in the Indian Archives. Dr. db Bhubaneswar - Kosla Vepa Saturday, March 21, 2009 10:03 AM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara I have some material on Samanta Chandrasekhar. I agree with those who say he belongs in the top ranks of Hindu Astronomy. I plan to include him in my book on the history of the Indian calendar. currently ttitled . The story of the THree Periodicities Astronomy, Time and the calendar in India A historical perspective I would appreciate anyhting in English/ Hindi On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> wrote: Mahamahopadhyay, Sri Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Singha Samanta, was the last great naked eye astronomer of the hindu school of astronomy. Dr. SKB has great interest in this domain. i have only been able to get this. More, by & by. Siddhanata Darpana, Ed. Bir Hanuman Sastri, [Odiya], Utkal University, 1976. Thank you, Dr.db - Sunil Bhattacharjya Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:23 AM Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" Buddha 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 <kanakpradip@ >Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" BuddhaSunday, 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 -- पà¥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¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies. us/icih_confwebmaster@indicetho s.org925-271-4528 mobile:925-998- 2529 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009  Thank you, Copy is also displayed at Bhubaneswar, Pathani Samanta Planetarium i think i have seen his Palm Leaf. You know i have been in conservation for now over 15 yrs. I will try to recollect and get to it. May be some time i request ask Shri J.B. Pattanaik to get your wish done. He will. Dr. Deepak Bhattacharya ============================= - chittaranjan das Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:54 PM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara DEAR DR DP I HAVE A COPY OF SIDHANTA DARPANA IN ORIYA 1975 EDITION PUBLISHED BY //DHARMAGRANTHA STORE. PROPRIETER BIDYADHAR SAHOO. ALISHA BAZAR. CUTTACK2// DESCRIBER--PANDIT/JYOTISH SRI BIRA HANUMAN SASHTRI RETD PROF ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY SADASHIV SANSKRIT COLLEGE PURI AUTHOR, COMPILER AND EDITOR---JYOTIRBID PANDIT SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA PRINTED BY SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA AT ARUNODAYA PRESS ALISHA BAZAR CUTTACK 2. IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME BY LATE DR RADHANATH RATH, EDITOR SAMAJA IN 19/5/84. NEHRU PLANETARIUM IN BOMBAY AND VEDIC ASTRONOMICAL CENTER AHMEDAVAD HAD NOT DPSPLAYED THE NAME OF PATHANI SAMANTA AMONGST RECOGNISED ASTRONOMERS OF INDIA AS NO ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF SIDHANTA DARPAN A WAS AVAILABLE TO THEM TO JUDGE ITS MERIT.. I HAD SPOKEN ABOUT IT TO RADHANATH BABU AND AND HAD REQUESTED HIM TO REMOVE THIS DEFICIENCY WHICH WAS A BIG INJUSTICE TOPATHANI SAMANTA GALILIO OF ORISSA. HE DID NOT HAVE A TELESCOPE WHEN HE WROTE SIDHANTA DARPANA. ONE WAS PRESENTED TO HIM IN LATER STAGES OF HIS LIFE AND HE REMARKED IF ONLY I HAD THIS INSTRUMENT EARLIER WHENEVER I CAME TO BBSR I HAD TAKEN UP THE ISSUE WITH OFFICIALS OF PATHANI SAMANTA PLANATARUM REPEATEDLY NAD ALSO HAVE AN WORKING MODEL OF HIS INSTRUMENTS FOR DEMONSTRATION.. NO BODY TOOK UP THE ISSUE. DEEPAK CAN U START A CAMPAGNE AND MAKE THE DEMAND BEFORE THE CORRECT AUTHORITIES ALL OUR CHILDHOOD WE USED TO SING //KATHI KHANDE DHARI GANILA NAKHYATRA HARILA SAHASHRA BIDHI// BUT I NEVER SAW AN WORKING MODEL OF THE TWO WOODEN SCALES. HOWEVER THE 56 PAGE INTRODUCTION DATED FEBRUARY 1899 BY JOGESH CHANDRA RAY ARE IN ENGLISH. I CAN SEND THEIR XEROX COPY TO YOU DEEPAK IF IT WILL BE OF ANY USE TO PERSONS DISCUSSING SIDHANTA DARPANA. THE BOOK ALSO CONTAINS THE SANAD OF VICEROY AND GOVERGENERAL OF INDIA DATED 3RD JUNE 1893 CONFERING THE TITLE OF MAHAMAHOPADYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA IS A DESCENDENT OF KHANDAPADA RAYAL FAMILY. HIS REAL NAME IS SRI CHANDRASEKHARA SINGH HARICHANDAN MAHAPATRA SAMANTA. HE CALLED PATHANIA BY HIS PARENTS AS THEIR PREVIOUS ISSUES DID NOT SURVIVE. FROM PATHANIA HIS NAME BECAME PATHANI SAMANTA. ANOTHER INTERESTING FEATURE IS THAT MAHAMHOPADHYAYA WAS A TITLE COFERRED TO A WRITERS/POETS/ LITERATEURS OR PHILOSOPHERS. TO BE GIVEN THE TITLE OF MAMAMAHOPADHYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA WAS THE ONLY PERSON OUTSIDE THESE CATEGORIES TO BE CONFERRED THIS TITLE. HOPE THESE INFO WILL BE USEFUL C R DAS ____________________________<br><br>C. R. DAS<br>I Rue Des Vanneaux<br>77420 CHAMPS SUR MARNE<br>FRANCE.<br>Phone:0033-1-64686597.--- En date de : Sam 21.3.09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> a écrit : De: oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in>Objet: Re: Re : Samanta Chandra SekharaÀ: Date: Samedi 21 Mars 2009, 6h05  Here is one more Ref. THE ORIGINAL WORK IS ::: Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Siddhanata Darpana, Indian Depository, Calcutta, 1899. Copy now possibly in the Indian Archives. Dr. db Bhubaneswar - Kosla Vepa Saturday, March 21, 2009 10:03 AM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara I have some material on Samanta Chandrasekhar. I agree with those who say he belongs in the top ranks of Hindu Astronomy. I plan to include him in my book on the history of the Indian calendar. currently ttitled . The story of the THree Periodicities Astronomy, Time and the calendar in India A historical perspective I would appreciate anyhting in English/ Hindi On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> wrote: Mahamahopadhyay, Sri Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Singha Samanta, was the last great naked eye astronomer of the hindu school of astronomy. Dr. SKB has great interest in this domain. i have only been able to get this. More, by & by. Siddhanata Darpana, Ed. Bir Hanuman Sastri, [Odiya], Utkal University, 1976. Thank you, Dr.db - Sunil Bhattacharjya Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:23 AM Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" Buddha 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 <kanakpradip@ >Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" BuddhaSunday, 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 -- पà¥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¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies. us/icih_confwebmaster@indicetho s.org925-271-4528 mobile:925-998- 2529 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009  Must be a very very small outfit with central or state govt. grants. How can one call itself as VEDIC ASTRONOMICAL CENTER and yet not know Samanta's name ? Convoluted ? or profoundly ignorant ? or incipiently careless ? - chittaranjan das Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:54 PM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara DEAR DR DP I HAVE A COPY OF SIDHANTA DARPANA IN ORIYA 1975 EDITION PUBLISHED BY //DHARMAGRANTHA STORE. PROPRIETER BIDYADHAR SAHOO. ALISHA BAZAR. CUTTACK2// DESCRIBER--PANDIT/JYOTISH SRI BIRA HANUMAN SASHTRI RETD PROF ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY SADASHIV SANSKRIT COLLEGE PURI AUTHOR, COMPILER AND EDITOR---JYOTIRBID PANDIT SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA PRINTED BY SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA AT ARUNODAYA PRESS ALISHA BAZAR CUTTACK 2. IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME BY LATE DR RADHANATH RATH, EDITOR SAMAJA IN 19/5/84. NEHRU PLANETARIUM IN BOMBAY AND VEDIC ASTRONOMICAL CENTER AHMEDAVAD HAD NOT DPSPLAYED THE NAME OF PATHANI SAMANTA AMONGST RECOGNISED ASTRONOMERS OF INDIA AS NO ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF SIDHANTA DARPAN A WAS AVAILABLE TO THEM TO JUDGE ITS MERIT.. I HAD SPOKEN ABOUT IT TO RADHANATH BABU AND AND HAD REQUESTED HIM TO REMOVE THIS DEFICIENCY WHICH WAS A BIG INJUSTICE TOPATHANI SAMANTA GALILIO OF ORISSA. HE DID NOT HAVE A TELESCOPE WHEN HE WROTE SIDHANTA DARPANA. ONE WAS PRESENTED TO HIM IN LATER STAGES OF HIS LIFE AND HE REMARKED IF ONLY I HAD THIS INSTRUMENT EARLIER WHENEVER I CAME TO BBSR I HAD TAKEN UP THE ISSUE WITH OFFICIALS OF PATHANI SAMANTA PLANATARUM REPEATEDLY NAD ALSO HAVE AN WORKING MODEL OF HIS INSTRUMENTS FOR DEMONSTRATION.. NO BODY TOOK UP THE ISSUE. DEEPAK CAN U START A CAMPAGNE AND MAKE THE DEMAND BEFORE THE CORRECT AUTHORITIES ALL OUR CHILDHOOD WE USED TO SING //KATHI KHANDE DHARI GANILA NAKHYATRA HARILA SAHASHRA BIDHI// BUT I NEVER SAW AN WORKING MODEL OF THE TWO WOODEN SCALES. HOWEVER THE 56 PAGE INTRODUCTION DATED FEBRUARY 1899 BY JOGESH CHANDRA RAY ARE IN ENGLISH. I CAN SEND THEIR XEROX COPY TO YOU DEEPAK IF IT WILL BE OF ANY USE TO PERSONS DISCUSSING SIDHANTA DARPANA. THE BOOK ALSO CONTAINS THE SANAD OF VICEROY AND GOVERGENERAL OF INDIA DATED 3RD JUNE 1893 CONFERING THE TITLE OF MAHAMAHOPADYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA IS A DESCENDENT OF KHANDAPADA RAYAL FAMILY. HIS REAL NAME IS SRI CHANDRASEKHARA SINGH HARICHANDAN MAHAPATRA SAMANTA. HE CALLED PATHANIA BY HIS PARENTS AS THEIR PREVIOUS ISSUES DID NOT SURVIVE. FROM PATHANIA HIS NAME BECAME PATHANI SAMANTA. ANOTHER INTERESTING FEATURE IS THAT MAHAMHOPADHYAYA WAS A TITLE COFERRED TO A WRITERS/POETS/ LITERATEURS OR PHILOSOPHERS. TO BE GIVEN THE TITLE OF MAMAMAHOPADHYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA WAS THE ONLY PERSON OUTSIDE THESE CATEGORIES TO BE CONFERRED THIS TITLE. HOPE THESE INFO WILL BE USEFUL C R DAS ____________________________<br><br>C. R. DAS<br>I Rue Des Vanneaux<br>77420 CHAMPS SUR MARNE<br>FRANCE.<br>Phone:0033-1-64686597.--- En date de : Sam 21.3.09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> a écrit : De: oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in>Objet: Re: Re : Samanta Chandra SekharaÀ: Date: Samedi 21 Mars 2009, 6h05  Here is one more Ref. THE ORIGINAL WORK IS ::: Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Siddhanata Darpana, Indian Depository, Calcutta, 1899. Copy now possibly in the Indian Archives. Dr. db Bhubaneswar - Kosla Vepa Saturday, March 21, 2009 10:03 AM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara I have some material on Samanta Chandrasekhar. I agree with those who say he belongs in the top ranks of Hindu Astronomy. I plan to include him in my book on the history of the Indian calendar. currently ttitled . The story of the THree Periodicities Astronomy, Time and the calendar in India A historical perspective I would appreciate anyhting in English/ Hindi On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> wrote: Mahamahopadhyay, Sri Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Singha Samanta, was the last great naked eye astronomer of the hindu school of astronomy. Dr. SKB has great interest in this domain. i have only been able to get this. More, by & by. Siddhanata Darpana, Ed. Bir Hanuman Sastri, [Odiya], Utkal University, 1976. Thank you, Dr.db - Sunil Bhattacharjya Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:23 AM Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" Buddha 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 <kanakpradip@ >Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" BuddhaSunday, 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 -- पà¥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¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies. us/icih_confwebmaster@indicetho s.org925-271-4528 mobile:925-998- 2529 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009  ERRATA !! Must be a very very small outfit without central or state govt. grants. Please kindly replace the mail. db - oddisilab Sunday, March 29, 2009 5:49 AM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara  Must be a very very small outfit with central or state govt. grants. How can one call itself as VEDIC ASTRONOMICAL CENTER and yet not know Samanta's name ? Convoluted ? or profoundly ignorant ? or incipiently careless ? - chittaranjan das Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:54 PM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara DEAR DR DP I HAVE A COPY OF SIDHANTA DARPANA IN ORIYA 1975 EDITION PUBLISHED BY //DHARMAGRANTHA STORE. PROPRIETER BIDYADHAR SAHOO. ALISHA BAZAR. CUTTACK2// DESCRIBER--PANDIT/JYOTISH SRI BIRA HANUMAN SASHTRI RETD PROF ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY SADASHIV SANSKRIT COLLEGE PURI AUTHOR, COMPILER AND EDITOR---JYOTIRBID PANDIT SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA PRINTED BY SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA AT ARUNODAYA PRESS ALISHA BAZAR CUTTACK 2. IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME BY LATE DR RADHANATH RATH, EDITOR SAMAJA IN 19/5/84. NEHRU PLANETARIUM IN BOMBAY AND VEDIC ASTRONOMICAL CENTER AHMEDAVAD HAD NOT DPSPLAYED THE NAME OF PATHANI SAMANTA AMONGST RECOGNISED ASTRONOMERS OF INDIA AS NO ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF SIDHANTA DARPAN A WAS AVAILABLE TO THEM TO JUDGE ITS MERIT.. I HAD SPOKEN ABOUT IT TO RADHANATH BABU AND AND HAD REQUESTED HIM TO REMOVE THIS DEFICIENCY WHICH WAS A BIG INJUSTICE TOPATHANI SAMANTA GALILIO OF ORISSA. HE DID NOT HAVE A TELESCOPE WHEN HE WROTE SIDHANTA DARPANA. ONE WAS PRESENTED TO HIM IN LATER STAGES OF HIS LIFE AND HE REMARKED IF ONLY I HAD THIS INSTRUMENT EARLIER WHENEVER I CAME TO BBSR I HAD TAKEN UP THE ISSUE WITH OFFICIALS OF PATHANI SAMANTA PLANATARUM REPEATEDLY NAD ALSO HAVE AN WORKING MODEL OF HIS INSTRUMENTS FOR DEMONSTRATION.. NO BODY TOOK UP THE ISSUE. DEEPAK CAN U START A CAMPAGNE AND MAKE THE DEMAND BEFORE THE CORRECT AUTHORITIES ALL OUR CHILDHOOD WE USED TO SING //KATHI KHANDE DHARI GANILA NAKHYATRA HARILA SAHASHRA BIDHI// BUT I NEVER SAW AN WORKING MODEL OF THE TWO WOODEN SCALES. HOWEVER THE 56 PAGE INTRODUCTION DATED FEBRUARY 1899 BY JOGESH CHANDRA RAY ARE IN ENGLISH. I CAN SEND THEIR XEROX COPY TO YOU DEEPAK IF IT WILL BE OF ANY USE TO PERSONS DISCUSSING SIDHANTA DARPANA. THE BOOK ALSO CONTAINS THE SANAD OF VICEROY AND GOVERGENERAL OF INDIA DATED 3RD JUNE 1893 CONFERING THE TITLE OF MAHAMAHOPADYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA IS A DESCENDENT OF KHANDAPADA RAYAL FAMILY. HIS REAL NAME IS SRI CHANDRASEKHARA SINGH HARICHANDAN MAHAPATRA SAMANTA. HE CALLED PATHANIA BY HIS PARENTS AS THEIR PREVIOUS ISSUES DID NOT SURVIVE. FROM PATHANIA HIS NAME BECAME PATHANI SAMANTA. ANOTHER INTERESTING FEATURE IS THAT MAHAMHOPADHYAYA WAS A TITLE COFERRED TO A WRITERS/POETS/ LITERATEURS OR PHILOSOPHERS. TO BE GIVEN THE TITLE OF MAMAMAHOPADHYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA WAS THE ONLY PERSON OUTSIDE THESE CATEGORIES TO BE CONFERRED THIS TITLE. HOPE THESE INFO WILL BE USEFUL C R DAS ____________________________<br><br>C. R. DAS<br>I Rue Des Vanneaux<br>77420 CHAMPS SUR MARNE<br>FRANCE.<br>Phone:0033-1-64686597.--- En date de : Sam 21.3.09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> a écrit : De: oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in>Objet: Re: Re : Samanta Chandra SekharaÀ: Date: Samedi 21 Mars 2009, 6h05  Here is one more Ref. THE ORIGINAL WORK IS ::: Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Siddhanata Darpana, Indian Depository, Calcutta, 1899. Copy now possibly in the Indian Archives. Dr. db Bhubaneswar - Kosla Vepa Saturday, March 21, 2009 10:03 AM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara I have some material on Samanta Chandrasekhar. I agree with those who say he belongs in the top ranks of Hindu Astronomy. I plan to include him in my book on the history of the Indian calendar. currently ttitled . The story of the THree Periodicities Astronomy, Time and the calendar in India A historical perspective I would appreciate anyhting in English/ Hindi On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> wrote: Mahamahopadhyay, Sri Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Singha Samanta, was the last great naked eye astronomer of the hindu school of astronomy. Dr. SKB has great interest in this domain. i have only been able to get this. More, by & by. Siddhanata Darpana, Ed. Bir Hanuman Sastri, [Odiya], Utkal University, 1976. Thank you, Dr.db - Sunil Bhattacharjya Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:23 AM Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" Buddha 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 <kanakpradip@ >Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" BuddhaSunday, 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 -- पà¥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¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies. us/icih_confwebmaster@indicetho s.org925-271-4528 mobile:925-998- 2529 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 It will be good if you can get the 56 pages of the Introducion in English and send the scanned copy of that so that we can read the same.skb--- On Sat, 3/28/09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 wrote:oddisilab <oddisilab1Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara Date: Saturday, March 28, 2009, 5:19 PM  Must be a very very small outfit with central or state govt. grants. How can one call itself as VEDIC ASTRONOMICAL CENTER and yet not know Samanta's name ? Convoluted ? or profoundly ignorant ? or incipiently careless ? - chittaranjan das Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:54 PM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara DEAR DR DP I HAVE A COPY OF SIDHANTA DARPANA IN ORIYA 1975 EDITION PUBLISHED BY //DHARMAGRANTHA STORE. PROPRIETER BIDYADHAR SAHOO. ALISHA BAZAR. CUTTACK2// DESCRIBER--PANDIT/ JYOTISH SRI BIRA HANUMAN SASHTRI RETD PROF ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY SADASHIV SANSKRIT COLLEGE PURI AUTHOR, COMPILER AND EDITOR---JYOTIRBID PANDIT SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA PRINTED BY SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA AT ARUNODAYA PRESS ALISHA BAZAR CUTTACK 2. IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME BY LATE DR RADHANATH RATH, EDITOR SAMAJA IN 19/5/84. NEHRU PLANETARIUM IN BOMBAY AND VEDIC ASTRONOMICAL CENTER AHMEDAVAD HAD NOT DPSPLAYED THE NAME OF PATHANI SAMANTA AMONGST RECOGNISED ASTRONOMERS OF INDIA AS NO ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF SIDHANTA DARPAN A WAS AVAILABLE TO THEM TO JUDGE ITS MERIT.. I HAD SPOKEN ABOUT IT TO RADHANATH BABU AND AND HAD REQUESTED HIM TO REMOVE THIS DEFICIENCY WHICH WAS A BIG INJUSTICE TOPATHANI SAMANTA GALILIO OF ORISSA. HE DID NOT HAVE A TELESCOPE WHEN HE WROTE SIDHANTA DARPANA. ONE WAS PRESENTED TO HIM IN LATER STAGES OF HIS LIFE AND HE REMARKED IF ONLY I HAD THIS INSTRUMENT EARLIER WHENEVER I CAME TO BBSR I HAD TAKEN UP THE ISSUE WITH OFFICIALS OF PATHANI SAMANTA PLANATARUM REPEATEDLY NAD ALSO HAVE AN WORKING MODEL OF HIS INSTRUMENTS FOR DEMONSTRATION. . NO BODY TOOK UP THE ISSUE. DEEPAK CAN U START A CAMPAGNE AND MAKE THE DEMAND BEFORE THE CORRECT AUTHORITIES ALL OUR CHILDHOOD WE USED TO SING //KATHI KHANDE DHARI GANILA NAKHYATRA HARILA SAHASHRA BIDHI// BUT I NEVER SAW AN WORKING MODEL OF THE TWO WOODEN SCALES. HOWEVER THE 56 PAGE INTRODUCTION DATED FEBRUARY 1899 BY JOGESH CHANDRA RAY ARE IN ENGLISH. I CAN SEND THEIR XEROX COPY TO YOU DEEPAK IF IT WILL BE OF ANY USE TO PERSONS DISCUSSING SIDHANTA DARPANA. THE BOOK ALSO CONTAINS THE SANAD OF VICEROY AND GOVERGENERAL OF INDIA DATED 3RD JUNE 1893 CONFERING THE TITLE OF MAHAMAHOPADYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA IS A DESCENDENT OF KHANDAPADA RAYAL FAMILY. HIS REAL NAME IS SRI CHANDRASEKHARA SINGH HARICHANDAN MAHAPATRA SAMANTA. HE CALLED PATHANIA BY HIS PARENTS AS THEIR PREVIOUS ISSUES DID NOT SURVIVE. FROM PATHANIA HIS NAME BECAME PATHANI SAMANTA. ANOTHER INTERESTING FEATURE IS THAT MAHAMHOPADHYAYA WAS A TITLE COFERRED TO A WRITERS/POETS/ LITERATEURS OR PHILOSOPHERS. TO BE GIVEN THE TITLE OF MAMAMAHOPADHYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA WAS THE ONLY PERSON OUTSIDE THESE CATEGORIES TO BE CONFERRED THIS TITLE. HOPE THESE INFO WILL BE USEFUL C R DAS ____________ _________ _______<br><br>C. R. DAS<br>I Rue Des Vanneaux<br>77420 CHAMPS SUR MARNE<br>FRANCE.<br>Phone:0033-1- 64686597.--- En date de : Sam 21.3.09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> a écrit : De: oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in>Objet: Re: Re : Samanta Chandra SekharaÀ: Samedi 21 Mars 2009, 6h05  Here is one more Ref. THE ORIGINAL WORK IS ::: Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Siddhanata Darpana, Indian Depository, Calcutta, 1899. Copy now possibly in the Indian Archives. Dr. db Bhubaneswar - Kosla Vepa Saturday, March 21, 2009 10:03 AM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara I have some material on Samanta Chandrasekhar. I agree with those who say he belongs in the top ranks of Hindu Astronomy. I plan to include him in my book on the history of the Indian calendar. currently ttitled . The story of the THree Periodicities Astronomy, Time and the calendar in India A historical perspective I would appreciate anyhting in English/ Hindi On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> wrote: Mahamahopadhyay, Sri Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Singha Samanta, was the last great naked eye astronomer of the hindu school of astronomy. Dr. SKB has great interest in this domain. i have only been able to get this. More, by & by. Siddhanata Darpana, Ed. Bir Hanuman Sastri, [Odiya], Utkal University, 1976. Thank you, Dr.db - Sunil Bhattacharjya Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:23 AM Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" Buddha 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 <kanakpradip@ >Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" BuddhaSunday, 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 -- पà¥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¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies. us/icih_confwebmaster@indicetho s.org925-271-4528 mobile:925-998- 2529 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 GLAD U R INVOLVED. HOPE WITH UR EFFORT SIDHANTA DARPAN WILL B TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH SO THAT OTHER STATES KNOW ABOUT HIS GRATENESS FOR THIS A COMBINED EFFORT OF ALL PROMINENENT ORIYAS WILL B REQD.ONLY JANAKI BABAU WILL NOT SUCCEED. CAN THE ASTRONOMER SOCIETY TAKE IT UP? AFTER THE ELECTIONS OF COURRSE. DID NOT KNOW THAT THAT THE PALM LEAF VERSION EXISTED. IF I HAD KNOWN IT I WOULD HAVE TRIED TO SEE IT. IS IT IN PATHANI SAMANTA/S HANDWRITING? REGARDS DAS____________________________<br><br>C. R. DAS<br>I Rue Des Vanneaux<br>77420 CHAMPS SUR MARNE<br>FRANCE.<br>Phone:0033-1-64686597.--- En date de : Sam 28.3.09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 a écrit : De: oddisilab <oddisilab1Objet: Re: Re : Samanta Chandra SekharaÀ: Date: Samedi 28 Mars 2009, 17h41  Thank you, Copy is also displayed at Bhubaneswar, Pathani Samanta Planetarium i think i have seen his Palm Leaf. You know i have been in conservation for now over 15 yrs. I will try to recollect and get to it. May be some time i request ask Shri J.B. Pattanaik to get your wish done. He will. Dr. Deepak Bhattacharya ============ ========= ======== - chittaranjan das Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:54 PM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara DEAR DR DP I HAVE A COPY OF SIDHANTA DARPANA IN ORIYA 1975 EDITION PUBLISHED BY //DHARMAGRANTHA STORE. PROPRIETER BIDYADHAR SAHOO. ALISHA BAZAR. CUTTACK2// DESCRIBER--PANDIT/ JYOTISH SRI BIRA HANUMAN SASHTRI RETD PROF ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY SADASHIV SANSKRIT COLLEGE PURI AUTHOR, COMPILER AND EDITOR---JYOTIRBID PANDIT SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA PRINTED BY SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA AT ARUNODAYA PRESS ALISHA BAZAR CUTTACK 2. IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME BY LATE DR RADHANATH RATH, EDITOR SAMAJA IN 19/5/84. NEHRU PLANETARIUM IN BOMBAY AND VEDIC ASTRONOMICAL CENTER AHMEDAVAD HAD NOT DPSPLAYED THE NAME OF PATHANI SAMANTA AMONGST RECOGNISED ASTRONOMERS OF INDIA AS NO ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF SIDHANTA DARPAN A WAS AVAILABLE TO THEM TO JUDGE ITS MERIT.. I HAD SPOKEN ABOUT IT TO RADHANATH BABU AND AND HAD REQUESTED HIM TO REMOVE THIS DEFICIENCY WHICH WAS A BIG INJUSTICE TOPATHANI SAMANTA GALILIO OF ORISSA. HE DID NOT HAVE A TELESCOPE WHEN HE WROTE SIDHANTA DARPANA. ONE WAS PRESENTED TO HIM IN LATER STAGES OF HIS LIFE AND HE REMARKED IF ONLY I HAD THIS INSTRUMENT EARLIER WHENEVER I CAME TO BBSR I HAD TAKEN UP THE ISSUE WITH OFFICIALS OF PATHANI SAMANTA PLANATARUM REPEATEDLY NAD ALSO HAVE AN WORKING MODEL OF HIS INSTRUMENTS FOR DEMONSTRATION. . NO BODY TOOK UP THE ISSUE. DEEPAK CAN U START A CAMPAGNE AND MAKE THE DEMAND BEFORE THE CORRECT AUTHORITIES ALL OUR CHILDHOOD WE USED TO SING //KATHI KHANDE DHARI GANILA NAKHYATRA HARILA SAHASHRA BIDHI// BUT I NEVER SAW AN WORKING MODEL OF THE TWO WOODEN SCALES. HOWEVER THE 56 PAGE INTRODUCTION DATED FEBRUARY 1899 BY JOGESH CHANDRA RAY ARE IN ENGLISH. I CAN SEND THEIR XEROX COPY TO YOU DEEPAK IF IT WILL BE OF ANY USE TO PERSONS DISCUSSING SIDHANTA DARPANA. THE BOOK ALSO CONTAINS THE SANAD OF VICEROY AND GOVERGENERAL OF INDIA DATED 3RD JUNE 1893 CONFERING THE TITLE OF MAHAMAHOPADYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA IS A DESCENDENT OF KHANDAPADA RAYAL FAMILY. HIS REAL NAME IS SRI CHANDRASEKHARA SINGH HARICHANDAN MAHAPATRA SAMANTA. HE CALLED PATHANIA BY HIS PARENTS AS THEIR PREVIOUS ISSUES DID NOT SURVIVE. FROM PATHANIA HIS NAME BECAME PATHANI SAMANTA. ANOTHER INTERESTING FEATURE IS THAT MAHAMHOPADHYAYA WAS A TITLE COFERRED TO A WRITERS/POETS/ LITERATEURS OR PHILOSOPHERS. TO BE GIVEN THE TITLE OF MAMAMAHOPADHYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA WAS THE ONLY PERSON OUTSIDE THESE CATEGORIES TO BE CONFERRED THIS TITLE. HOPE THESE INFO WILL BE USEFUL C R DAS ____________ _________ _______<br><br>C. R. DAS<br>I Rue Des Vanneaux<br>77420 CHAMPS SUR MARNE<br>FRANCE.<br>Phone:0033-1- 64686597.--- En date de : Sam 21.3.09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> a écrit : De: oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in>Objet: Re: Re : Samanta Chandra SekharaÀ: Samedi 21 Mars 2009, 6h05  Here is one more Ref. THE ORIGINAL WORK IS ::: Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Siddhanata Darpana, Indian Depository, Calcutta, 1899. Copy now possibly in the Indian Archives. Dr. db Bhubaneswar - Kosla Vepa Saturday, March 21, 2009 10:03 AM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara I have some material on Samanta Chandrasekhar. I agree with those who say he belongs in the top ranks of Hindu Astronomy. I plan to include him in my book on the history of the Indian calendar. currently ttitled . The story of the THree Periodicities Astronomy, Time and the calendar in India A historical perspective I would appreciate anyhting in English/ Hindi On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> wrote: Mahamahopadhyay, Sri Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Singha Samanta, was the last great naked eye astronomer of the hindu school of astronomy. Dr. SKB has great interest in this domain. i have only been able to get this. More, by & by. Siddhanata Darpana, Ed. Bir Hanuman Sastri, [Odiya], Utkal University, 1976. Thank you, Dr.db - Sunil Bhattacharjya Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:23 AM Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" Buddha 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 <kanakpradip@ >Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" BuddhaSunday, 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 -- पà¥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¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies. us/icih_confwebmaster@indicetho s.org925-271-4528 mobile:925-998- 2529 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009  Dear Shri SKB, It may be profitable for you to write to Dr. Roy, Director, Samanta Chandra Sekhara Planetarium, Acharya vihar, Bhubaneswar. His earlier phone Numbers were - 91-674-2581653/ 2541095 pp (you may also speak to Mr. Jaydev). Dr. Roy had the Mss displayed in his front lobby since the time of Dr. Prahallad Chandra Naik. You may also like to speak to my friend the Learned Dr. Patel, Superintendent Orissa State Museum, Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar - Mobile 9861945919, or land line - 91-674-2431597. He cannot give away anything to anybody, unless it is a govt. to govt. move, i know for sure. Since you are so much interested, today i will try to visit him. You may also write to The Learned Proprietor cum Publisher, Dharma Grantha Store, Cuttack City, Orissa. Very erudite in Indology. They will send you a copy, cost + packing + postage. simple. [it is a very well known address]. Should they have and should they agree, you may transfer the cost and ask can also ask them to deliver it to me (to reduce packing & postal cost + the risk of getting lost). I can get it scanned, and page by page mailed to you, over a period of time - as a special gesture. You can also get it delivered at your Poone add., when you get back to India. Cordially, Dr. db - Sunil Bhattacharjya Monday, March 30, 2009 5:40 AM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara It will be good if you can get the 56 pages of the Introducion in English and send the scanned copy of that so that we can read the same.skb--- On Sat, 3/28/09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> wrote: oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in>Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara Date: Saturday, March 28, 2009, 5:19 PM  Must be a very very small outfit with central or state govt. grants. How can one call itself as VEDIC ASTRONOMICAL CENTER and yet not know Samanta's name ? Convoluted ? or profoundly ignorant ? or incipiently careless ? - chittaranjan das Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:54 PM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara DEAR DR DP I HAVE A COPY OF SIDHANTA DARPANA IN ORIYA 1975 EDITION PUBLISHED BY //DHARMAGRANTHA STORE. PROPRIETER BIDYADHAR SAHOO. ALISHA BAZAR. CUTTACK2// DESCRIBER--PANDIT/ JYOTISH SRI BIRA HANUMAN SASHTRI RETD PROF ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY SADASHIV SANSKRIT COLLEGE PURI AUTHOR, COMPILER AND EDITOR---JYOTIRBID PANDIT SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA PRINTED BY SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA AT ARUNODAYA PRESS ALISHA BAZAR CUTTACK 2. IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME BY LATE DR RADHANATH RATH, EDITOR SAMAJA IN 19/5/84. NEHRU PLANETARIUM IN BOMBAY AND VEDIC ASTRONOMICAL CENTER AHMEDAVAD HAD NOT DPSPLAYED THE NAME OF PATHANI SAMANTA AMONGST RECOGNISED ASTRONOMERS OF INDIA AS NO ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF SIDHANTA DARPAN A WAS AVAILABLE TO THEM TO JUDGE ITS MERIT.. I HAD SPOKEN ABOUT IT TO RADHANATH BABU AND AND HAD REQUESTED HIM TO REMOVE THIS DEFICIENCY WHICH WAS A BIG INJUSTICE TOPATHANI SAMANTA GALILIO OF ORISSA. HE DID NOT HAVE A TELESCOPE WHEN HE WROTE SIDHANTA DARPANA. ONE WAS PRESENTED TO HIM IN LATER STAGES OF HIS LIFE AND HE REMARKED IF ONLY I HAD THIS INSTRUMENT EARLIER WHENEVER I CAME TO BBSR I HAD TAKEN UP THE ISSUE WITH OFFICIALS OF PATHANI SAMANTA PLANATARUM REPEATEDLY NAD ALSO HAVE AN WORKING MODEL OF HIS INSTRUMENTS FOR DEMONSTRATION. . NO BODY TOOK UP THE ISSUE. DEEPAK CAN U START A CAMPAGNE AND MAKE THE DEMAND BEFORE THE CORRECT AUTHORITIES ALL OUR CHILDHOOD WE USED TO SING //KATHI KHANDE DHARI GANILA NAKHYATRA HARILA SAHASHRA BIDHI// BUT I NEVER SAW AN WORKING MODEL OF THE TWO WOODEN SCALES. HOWEVER THE 56 PAGE INTRODUCTION DATED FEBRUARY 1899 BY JOGESH CHANDRA RAY ARE IN ENGLISH. I CAN SEND THEIR XEROX COPY TO YOU DEEPAK IF IT WILL BE OF ANY USE TO PERSONS DISCUSSING SIDHANTA DARPANA. THE BOOK ALSO CONTAINS THE SANAD OF VICEROY AND GOVERGENERAL OF INDIA DATED 3RD JUNE 1893 CONFERING THE TITLE OF MAHAMAHOPADYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA IS A DESCENDENT OF KHANDAPADA RAYAL FAMILY. HIS REAL NAME IS SRI CHANDRASEKHARA SINGH HARICHANDAN MAHAPATRA SAMANTA. HE CALLED PATHANIA BY HIS PARENTS AS THEIR PREVIOUS ISSUES DID NOT SURVIVE. FROM PATHANIA HIS NAME BECAME PATHANI SAMANTA. ANOTHER INTERESTING FEATURE IS THAT MAHAMHOPADHYAYA WAS A TITLE COFERRED TO A WRITERS/POETS/ LITERATEURS OR PHILOSOPHERS. TO BE GIVEN THE TITLE OF MAMAMAHOPADHYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA WAS THE ONLY PERSON OUTSIDE THESE CATEGORIES TO BE CONFERRED THIS TITLE. HOPE THESE INFO WILL BE USEFUL C R DAS ____________ _________ _______<br><br>C. R. DAS<br>I Rue Des Vanneaux<br>77420 CHAMPS SUR MARNE<br>FRANCE.<br>Phone:0033-1- 64686597.--- En date de : Sam 21.3.09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> a écrit : De: oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in>Objet: Re: Re : Samanta Chandra SekharaÀ: Samedi 21 Mars 2009, 6h05  Here is one more Ref. THE ORIGINAL WORK IS ::: Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Siddhanata Darpana, Indian Depository, Calcutta, 1899. Copy now possibly in the Indian Archives. Dr. db Bhubaneswar - Kosla Vepa Saturday, March 21, 2009 10:03 AM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara I have some material on Samanta Chandrasekhar. I agree with those who say he belongs in the top ranks of Hindu Astronomy. I plan to include him in my book on the history of the Indian calendar. currently ttitled . The story of the THree Periodicities Astronomy, Time and the calendar in India A historical perspective I would appreciate anyhting in English/ Hindi On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> wrote: Mahamahopadhyay, Sri Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Singha Samanta, was the last great naked eye astronomer of the hindu school of astronomy. Dr. SKB has great interest in this domain. i have only been able to get this. More, by & by. Siddhanata Darpana, Ed. Bir Hanuman Sastri, [Odiya], Utkal University, 1976. Thank you, Dr.db - Sunil Bhattacharjya Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:23 AM Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" Buddha 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 <kanakpradip@ >Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" BuddhaSunday, 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 -- पà¥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¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies. us/icih_confwebmaster@indicetho s.org925-271-4528 mobile:925-998- 2529 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009  Dear Ancient India & Specially SKB Yes, the Palm Leaf Mss is there exhibited in the palm Leaf Mss Gallery of the Orissa State Museum (in inaccessible closed glass chamber) along with a stylus and a khatuli (book resting tool). There is also kept a Sanskrit-English publication titled SIDDHANTADARPANAH by Mahamahopadhyya Samanta Sri Chandrasekhtra Simha. The Original SANAD signed by the Viceroy cum Gov. General of India is also displayed. This means the then India knew about the efforts and achievements of the Samanta. His name being ignored from the list of great astronomers of India, is a not to be condoned. Such errors do not happen in the west. Now how to reach this Mss ? Take a rail or air ticket to Bhubaneswar. inform me. i can book for you a convenient place to stay within walking distance. Come settle down and advance your objectives. Monday closed. Now how to advance your objectives ? Please pre-contact Dr. C.B. Patel, Superintendent Orissa State Museum, Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar - Mobile 9861945919, or land line - 91-674-2431597. The Planetarium also has much info. You can utilise it also. The earlier phone Numbers of Planatarium were - 91-674-2581653/ 2541095 pp (you may also speak to Mr. Jaydev). Dr. Roy a physicist is in charge. Cordially, Dr. Deepak Bhattacharya - oddisilab Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:46 AM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara Dear Shri SKB, It may be profitable for you to write to Dr. Roy, Director, Samanta Chandra Sekhara Planetarium, Acharya vihar, Bhubaneswar. His earlier phone Numbers were - 91-674-2581653/ 2541095 pp (you may also speak to Mr. Jaydev). Dr. Roy had the Mss displayed in his front lobby since the time of Dr. Prahallad Chandra Naik. You may also like to speak to my friend the Learned Dr. Patel, Superintendent Orissa State Museum, Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar - Mobile 9861945919, or land line - 91-674-2431597. He cannot give away anything to anybody, unless it is a govt. to govt. move, i know for sure. Since you are so much interested, today i will try to visit him. You may also write to The Learned Proprietor cum Publisher, Dharma Grantha Store, Cuttack City, Orissa. Very erudite in Indology. They will send you a copy, cost + packing + postage. simple. [it is a very well known address]. Should they have and should they agree, you may transfer the cost and ask can also ask them to deliver it to me (to reduce packing & postal cost + the risk of getting lost). I can get it scanned, and page by page mailed to you, over a period of time - as a special gesture. You can also get it delivered at your Poone add., when you get back to India. Cordially, Dr. db - Sunil Bhattacharjya Monday, March 30, 2009 5:40 AM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara It will be good if you can get the 56 pages of the Introducion in English and send the scanned copy of that so that we can read the same.skb--- On Sat, 3/28/09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> wrote: oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in>Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara Date: Saturday, March 28, 2009, 5:19 PM  Must be a very very small outfit with central or state govt. grants. How can one call itself as VEDIC ASTRONOMICAL CENTER and yet not know Samanta's name ? Convoluted ? or profoundly ignorant ? or incipiently careless ? - chittaranjan das Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:54 PM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara DEAR DR DP I HAVE A COPY OF SIDHANTA DARPANA IN ORIYA 1975 EDITION PUBLISHED BY //DHARMAGRANTHA STORE. PROPRIETER BIDYADHAR SAHOO. ALISHA BAZAR. CUTTACK2// DESCRIBER--PANDIT/ JYOTISH SRI BIRA HANUMAN SASHTRI RETD PROF ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY SADASHIV SANSKRIT COLLEGE PURI AUTHOR, COMPILER AND EDITOR---JYOTIRBID PANDIT SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA PRINTED BY SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA AT ARUNODAYA PRESS ALISHA BAZAR CUTTACK 2. IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME BY LATE DR RADHANATH RATH, EDITOR SAMAJA IN 19/5/84. NEHRU PLANETARIUM IN BOMBAY AND VEDIC ASTRONOMICAL CENTER AHMEDAVAD HAD NOT DPSPLAYED THE NAME OF PATHANI SAMANTA AMONGST RECOGNISED ASTRONOMERS OF INDIA AS NO ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF SIDHANTA DARPAN A WAS AVAILABLE TO THEM TO JUDGE ITS MERIT.. I HAD SPOKEN ABOUT IT TO RADHANATH BABU AND AND HAD REQUESTED HIM TO REMOVE THIS DEFICIENCY WHICH WAS A BIG INJUSTICE TOPATHANI SAMANTA GALILIO OF ORISSA. HE DID NOT HAVE A TELESCOPE WHEN HE WROTE SIDHANTA DARPANA. ONE WAS PRESENTED TO HIM IN LATER STAGES OF HIS LIFE AND HE REMARKED IF ONLY I HAD THIS INSTRUMENT EARLIER WHENEVER I CAME TO BBSR I HAD TAKEN UP THE ISSUE WITH OFFICIALS OF PATHANI SAMANTA PLANATARUM REPEATEDLY NAD ALSO HAVE AN WORKING MODEL OF HIS INSTRUMENTS FOR DEMONSTRATION. . NO BODY TOOK UP THE ISSUE. DEEPAK CAN U START A CAMPAGNE AND MAKE THE DEMAND BEFORE THE CORRECT AUTHORITIES ALL OUR CHILDHOOD WE USED TO SING //KATHI KHANDE DHARI GANILA NAKHYATRA HARILA SAHASHRA BIDHI// BUT I NEVER SAW AN WORKING MODEL OF THE TWO WOODEN SCALES. HOWEVER THE 56 PAGE INTRODUCTION DATED FEBRUARY 1899 BY JOGESH CHANDRA RAY ARE IN ENGLISH. I CAN SEND THEIR XEROX COPY TO YOU DEEPAK IF IT WILL BE OF ANY USE TO PERSONS DISCUSSING SIDHANTA DARPANA. THE BOOK ALSO CONTAINS THE SANAD OF VICEROY AND GOVERGENERAL OF INDIA DATED 3RD JUNE 1893 CONFERING THE TITLE OF MAHAMAHOPADYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA IS A DESCENDENT OF KHANDAPADA RAYAL FAMILY. HIS REAL NAME IS SRI CHANDRASEKHARA SINGH HARICHANDAN MAHAPATRA SAMANTA. HE CALLED PATHANIA BY HIS PARENTS AS THEIR PREVIOUS ISSUES DID NOT SURVIVE. FROM PATHANIA HIS NAME BECAME PATHANI SAMANTA. ANOTHER INTERESTING FEATURE IS THAT MAHAMHOPADHYAYA WAS A TITLE COFERRED TO A WRITERS/POETS/ LITERATEURS OR PHILOSOPHERS. TO BE GIVEN THE TITLE OF MAMAMAHOPADHYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA WAS THE ONLY PERSON OUTSIDE THESE CATEGORIES TO BE CONFERRED THIS TITLE. HOPE THESE INFO WILL BE USEFUL C R DAS ____________ _________ _______<br><br>C. R. DAS<br>I Rue Des Vanneaux<br>77420 CHAMPS SUR MARNE<br>FRANCE.<br>Phone:0033-1- 64686597.--- En date de : Sam 21.3.09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> a écrit : De: oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in>Objet: Re: Re : Samanta Chandra SekharaÀ: Samedi 21 Mars 2009, 6h05  Here is one more Ref. THE ORIGINAL WORK IS ::: Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Siddhanata Darpana, Indian Depository, Calcutta, 1899. Copy now possibly in the Indian Archives. Dr. db Bhubaneswar - Kosla Vepa Saturday, March 21, 2009 10:03 AM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara I have some material on Samanta Chandrasekhar. I agree with those who say he belongs in the top ranks of Hindu Astronomy. I plan to include him in my book on the history of the Indian calendar. currently ttitled . The story of the THree Periodicities Astronomy, Time and the calendar in India A historical perspective I would appreciate anyhting in English/ Hindi On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> wrote: Mahamahopadhyay, Sri Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Singha Samanta, was the last great naked eye astronomer of the hindu school of astronomy. Dr. SKB has great interest in this domain. i have only been able to get this. More, by & by. Siddhanata Darpana, Ed. Bir Hanuman Sastri, [Odiya], Utkal University, 1976. Thank you, Dr.db - Sunil Bhattacharjya Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:23 AM Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" Buddha 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 <kanakpradip@ >Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" BuddhaSunday, 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 -- पà¥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¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies. us/icih_confwebmaster@indicetho s.org925-271-4528 mobile:925-998- 2529 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009  Dearest Shri C R Das (now in Fr.) Yes, the Palm Leaf Mss is there exhibited in the palm Leaf Mss Gallery of the Orissa State Museum (in inaccessible closed glass chamber) along with a stylus and a khatuli (book resting tool). There is also kept a Sanskrit-English publication titled SIDDHANTADARPANAH by Mahamahopadhyya Samanta Sri Chandrasekhtra Simha. The Original SANAD signed by the Viceroy cum Gov. General of India is also displayed. This means the then India knew about the efforts and achievements of the Samanta. His name being ignored from the list of great astronomers of India, is a not to be condoned. Such errors do not happen in the west. Now how to reach this Mss ? Take a rail or air ticket to Bhubaneswar. inform me. i can book for you a convenient place to stay within walking distance. Come settle down and advance your objectives. Monday closed. Now how to advance individual objectives ? Please pre-contact Dr. C.B. Patel, Superintendent Orissa State Museum, Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar - Mobile 9861945919, or land line - 91-674-2431597. The Planetarium also has much info. You can utilise it also. The earlier phone Numbers of Planatarium were - 91-674-2581653/ 2541095 pp (you may also speak to Mr. Jaydev). Dr. Roy a physicist is in charge. Cordially, Dr. Deepak Bhattacharya =========================================================== - chittaranjan das Monday, March 30, 2009 10:50 PM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara GLAD U R INVOLVED. HOPE WITH UR EFFORT SIDHANTA DARPAN WILL B TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH SO THAT OTHER STATES KNOW ABOUT HIS GRATENESS FOR THIS A COMBINED EFFORT OF ALL PROMINENENT ORIYAS WILL B REQD.ONLY JANAKI BABAU WILL NOT SUCCEED. CAN THE ASTRONOMER SOCIETY TAKE IT UP? AFTER THE ELECTIONS OF COURRSE. DID NOT KNOW THAT THAT THE PALM LEAF VERSION EXISTED. IF I HAD KNOWN IT I WOULD HAVE TRIED TO SEE IT. IS IT IN PATHANI SAMANTA/S HANDWRITING? REGARDS DAS____________________________<br><br>C. R. DAS<br>I Rue Des Vanneaux<br>77420 CHAMPS SUR MARNE<br>FRANCE.<br>Phone:0033-1-64686597.--- En date de : Sam 28.3.09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> a écrit : De: oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in>Objet: Re: Re : Samanta Chandra SekharaÀ: Date: Samedi 28 Mars 2009, 17h41  Thank you, Copy is also displayed at Bhubaneswar, Pathani Samanta Planetarium i think i have seen his Palm Leaf. You know i have been in conservation for now over 15 yrs. I will try to recollect and get to it. May be some time i request ask Shri J.B. Pattanaik to get your wish done. He will. Dr. Deepak Bhattacharya ============ ========= ======== - chittaranjan das Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:54 PM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara DEAR DR DP I HAVE A COPY OF SIDHANTA DARPANA IN ORIYA 1975 EDITION PUBLISHED BY //DHARMAGRANTHA STORE. PROPRIETER BIDYADHAR SAHOO. ALISHA BAZAR. CUTTACK2// DESCRIBER--PANDIT/ JYOTISH SRI BIRA HANUMAN SASHTRI RETD PROF ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY SADASHIV SANSKRIT COLLEGE PURI AUTHOR, COMPILER AND EDITOR---JYOTIRBID PANDIT SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA PRINTED BY SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA AT ARUNODAYA PRESS ALISHA BAZAR CUTTACK 2. IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME BY LATE DR RADHANATH RATH, EDITOR SAMAJA IN 19/5/84. NEHRU PLANETARIUM IN BOMBAY AND VEDIC ASTRONOMICAL CENTER AHMEDAVAD HAD NOT DPSPLAYED THE NAME OF PATHANI SAMANTA AMONGST RECOGNISED ASTRONOMERS OF INDIA AS NO ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF SIDHANTA DARPAN A WAS AVAILABLE TO THEM TO JUDGE ITS MERIT.. I HAD SPOKEN ABOUT IT TO RADHANATH BABU AND AND HAD REQUESTED HIM TO REMOVE THIS DEFICIENCY WHICH WAS A BIG INJUSTICE TOPATHANI SAMANTA GALILIO OF ORISSA. HE DID NOT HAVE A TELESCOPE WHEN HE WROTE SIDHANTA DARPANA. ONE WAS PRESENTED TO HIM IN LATER STAGES OF HIS LIFE AND HE REMARKED IF ONLY I HAD THIS INSTRUMENT EARLIER WHENEVER I CAME TO BBSR I HAD TAKEN UP THE ISSUE WITH OFFICIALS OF PATHANI SAMANTA PLANATARUM REPEATEDLY NAD ALSO HAVE AN WORKING MODEL OF HIS INSTRUMENTS FOR DEMONSTRATION. . NO BODY TOOK UP THE ISSUE. DEEPAK CAN U START A CAMPAGNE AND MAKE THE DEMAND BEFORE THE CORRECT AUTHORITIES ALL OUR CHILDHOOD WE USED TO SING //KATHI KHANDE DHARI GANILA NAKHYATRA HARILA SAHASHRA BIDHI// BUT I NEVER SAW AN WORKING MODEL OF THE TWO WOODEN SCALES. HOWEVER THE 56 PAGE INTRODUCTION DATED FEBRUARY 1899 BY JOGESH CHANDRA RAY ARE IN ENGLISH. I CAN SEND THEIR XEROX COPY TO YOU DEEPAK IF IT WILL BE OF ANY USE TO PERSONS DISCUSSING SIDHANTA DARPANA. THE BOOK ALSO CONTAINS THE SANAD OF VICEROY AND GOVERGENERAL OF INDIA DATED 3RD JUNE 1893 CONFERING THE TITLE OF MAHAMAHOPADYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA IS A DESCENDENT OF KHANDAPADA RAYAL FAMILY. HIS REAL NAME IS SRI CHANDRASEKHARA SINGH HARICHANDAN MAHAPATRA SAMANTA. HE CALLED PATHANIA BY HIS PARENTS AS THEIR PREVIOUS ISSUES DID NOT SURVIVE. FROM PATHANIA HIS NAME BECAME PATHANI SAMANTA. ANOTHER INTERESTING FEATURE IS THAT MAHAMHOPADHYAYA WAS A TITLE COFERRED TO A WRITERS/POETS/ LITERATEURS OR PHILOSOPHERS. TO BE GIVEN THE TITLE OF MAMAMAHOPADHYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA WAS THE ONLY PERSON OUTSIDE THESE CATEGORIES TO BE CONFERRED THIS TITLE. HOPE THESE INFO WILL BE USEFUL C R DAS ____________ _________ _______<br><br>C. R. DAS<br>I Rue Des Vanneaux<br>77420 CHAMPS SUR MARNE<br>FRANCE.<br>Phone:0033-1- 64686597.--- En date de : Sam 21.3.09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> a écrit : De: oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in>Objet: Re: Re : Samanta Chandra SekharaÀ: Samedi 21 Mars 2009, 6h05  Here is one more Ref. THE ORIGINAL WORK IS ::: Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Siddhanata Darpana, Indian Depository, Calcutta, 1899. Copy now possibly in the Indian Archives. Dr. db Bhubaneswar - Kosla Vepa Saturday, March 21, 2009 10:03 AM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara I have some material on Samanta Chandrasekhar. I agree with those who say he belongs in the top ranks of Hindu Astronomy. I plan to include him in my book on the history of the Indian calendar. currently ttitled . The story of the THree Periodicities Astronomy, Time and the calendar in India A historical perspective I would appreciate anyhting in English/ Hindi On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> wrote: Mahamahopadhyay, Sri Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Singha Samanta, was the last great naked eye astronomer of the hindu school of astronomy. Dr. SKB has great interest in this domain. i have only been able to get this. More, by & by. Siddhanata Darpana, Ed. Bir Hanuman Sastri, [Odiya], Utkal University, 1976. Thank you, Dr.db - Sunil Bhattacharjya Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:23 AM Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" Buddha 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 <kanakpradip@ >Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" BuddhaSunday, 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 -- पà¥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¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies. us/icih_confwebmaster@indicetho s.org925-271-4528 mobile:925-998- 2529 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Such errors do not happen in the west. You are much too kind to the west. Most western astronomy books or even books on history of astronomy (i am not talking about book on India)do not mention even a single Indian astronomer by name. But if you mean that Indians look at each other thru Occidental lenses you are of course correctOn Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:23 PM, oddisilab <oddisilab1 wrote:  Dearest Shri C R Das (now in Fr.)  Yes, the Palm Leaf Mss is there exhibited in the palm Leaf Mss Gallery of the Orissa State Museum (in inaccessible closed glass chamber) along with a stylus and a khatuli (book resting tool). There is also kept a Sanskrit-English publication titled SIDDHANTADARPANAH  by Mahamahopadhyya Samanta Sri Chandrasekhtra Simha.  The Original SANAD signed by the Viceroy cum Gov. General  of India is also displayed. This means the then India knew about the efforts and achievements of the Samanta. His name being ignored from the list of great astronomers of India, is a not to be condoned. Such errors do not happen in the west.  Now how to reach this Mss ? Take a rail or air ticket to Bhubaneswar. inform me. i can book for you a convenient place to stay within walking distance. Come settle down and advance your objectives. Monday closed.   Now how to  advance individual objectives  ? Please pre-contact Dr. C.B. Patel, Superintendent Orissa State Museum, Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar - Mobile 9861945919, or land line - 91-674-2431597.  The Planetarium also has much info. You can utilise it also. The earlier phone Numbers of Planatarium were - 91-674-2581653/ 2541095 pp (you may also speak to Mr. Jaydev).    Dr. Roy a physicist is in charge.  Cordially,  Dr. Deepak Bhattacharya  =========================================================== - chittaranjan das Monday, March 30, 2009 10:50 PM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara GLAD U R INVOLVED. HOPE WITH UR EFFORT SIDHANTA DARPAN WILL B TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH SO THAT OTHER STATES KNOW ABOUT HIS GRATENESS  FOR THIS A COMBINED EFFORT OF ALL PROMINENENT ORIYAS WILL B REQD.ONLY JANAKI BABAU WILL NOT SUCCEED. CAN THE ASTRONOMER SOCIETY TAKE IT UP? AFTER THE ELECTIONS OF COURRSE. DID NOT KNOW THAT THAT THE PALM LEAF VERSION EXISTED. IF I HAD KNOWN IT I WOULD HAVE TRIED TO SEE IT. IS IT IN PATHANI SAMANTA/S HANDWRITING?  REGARDS DAS____________________________<br><br>C. R. DAS<br>I Rue Des Vanneaux<br>77420 CHAMPS SUR MARNE<br>FRANCE.<br>Phone:0033-1-64686597.--- En date de : Sam 28.3.09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 a écrit : De: oddisilab <oddisilab1Objet: Re: Re : Samanta Chandra SekharaÀ: Date: Samedi 28 Mars 2009, 17h41  Thank you,  Copy is also displayed at Bhubaneswar, Pathani Samanta Planetarium  i think i have seen his Palm Leaf. You know i have been in conservation for now over 15 yrs. I will try to recollect and get to it.  May be some time i request ask Shri  J.B. Pattanaik to get your wish done. He will.  Dr. Deepak Bhattacharya ============ ========= ======== - chittaranjan das Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:54 PM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara DEAR DR DP  I HAVE A COPY OF SIDHANTA DARPANA IN ORIYA 1975 EDITION PUBLISHED BY //DHARMAGRANTHA STORE. PROPRIETER BIDYADHAR SAHOO. ALISHA BAZAR. CUTTACK2//  DESCRIBER--PANDIT/ JYOTISH SRI BIRA HANUMAN SASHTRI                       RETD PROF ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY                       SADASHIV SANSKRIT COLLEGE                        PURI  AUTHOR, COMPILER AND EDITOR---JYOTIRBID PANDIT SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA  PRINTED BY SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA               AT ARUNODAYA PRESS                ALISHA BAZAR CUTTACK 2.  IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME BY LATE DR RADHANATH RATH, EDITOR SAMAJA IN 19/5/84.  NEHRU PLANETARIUM IN BOMBAY AND VEDIC ASTRONOMICAL CENTER AHMEDAVAD HAD NOT DPSPLAYED THE NAME OF PATHANI SAMANTA AMONGST RECOGNISED ASTRONOMERS OF INDIA AS NO ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF SIDHANTA DARPAN A WAS AVAILABLE TO THEM TO JUDGE ITS MERIT..  I HAD SPOKEN ABOUT IT TO RADHANATH BABU AND AND HAD REQUESTED HIM TO REMOVE THIS DEFICIENCY WHICH WAS A BIG INJUSTICE TOPATHANI SAMANTA GALILIO OF ORISSA. HE DID NOT HAVE A TELESCOPE WHEN HE WROTE SIDHANTA DARPANA. ONE WAS PRESENTED TO HIM IN LATER STAGES OF HIS LIFE AND HE REMARKED IF ONLY I HAD THIS INSTRUMENT EARLIER  WHENEVER I CAME TO BBSR I HAD TAKEN UP THE ISSUE WITH OFFICIALS OF PATHANI SAMANTA PLANATARUM REPEATEDLY NAD ALSO HAVE AN WORKING MODEL OF HIS INSTRUMENTS FOR DEMONSTRATION. . NO BODY TOOK UP THE ISSUE. DEEPAK CAN U START A CAMPAGNE AND MAKE THE DEMAND BEFORE THE CORRECT AUTHORITIES  ALL OUR CHILDHOOD WE USED TO SING  //KATHI KHANDE DHARI GANILA NAKHYATRA HARILA SAHASHRA BIDHI// BUT I NEVER SAW AN WORKING MODEL OF THE TWO WOODEN SCALES.  HOWEVER THE 56 PAGE INTRODUCTION DATED FEBRUARY 1899 BY JOGESH CHANDRA RAY ARE IN ENGLISH. I CAN SEND THEIR XEROX COPY TO YOU DEEPAK IF IT WILL BE OF ANY USE TO PERSONS DISCUSSING SIDHANTA DARPANA.  THE BOOK ALSO CONTAINS THE SANAD OF VICEROY AND GOVERGENERAL OF INDIA DATED 3RD JUNE 1893 CONFERING THE TITLE OF MAHAMAHOPADYAYA.  PATHANI SAMANTA IS A DESCENDENT OF KHANDAPADA RAYAL FAMILY. HIS REAL NAME IS SRI CHANDRASEKHARA SINGH HARICHANDAN MAHAPATRA SAMANTA. HE CALLED PATHANIA BY HIS PARENTS AS THEIR PREVIOUS ISSUES DID NOT SURVIVE. FROM PATHANIA HIS NAME BECAME PATHANI SAMANTA.  ANOTHER INTERESTING FEATURE IS THAT MAHAMHOPADHYAYA WAS A TITLE COFERRED TO A WRITERS/POETS/ LITERATEURS OR PHILOSOPHERS. TO BE GIVEN THE TITLE OF MAMAMAHOPADHYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA WAS THE ONLY PERSON OUTSIDE THESE CATEGORIES TO BE CONFERRED THIS TITLE.  HOPE THESE INFO WILL BE USEFUL C R DAS ____________ _________ _______<br><br>C. R. DAS<br>I Rue Des Vanneaux<br>77420 CHAMPS SUR MARNE<br>FRANCE.<br>Phone:0033-1- 64686597.--- En date de : Sam 21.3.09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> a écrit : De: oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in>Objet: Re: Re : Samanta Chandra SekharaÀ: Samedi 21 Mars 2009, 6h05  Here is one more Ref.  THE ORIGINAL WORK IS :::  Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Siddhanata Darpana, Indian Depository, Calcutta, 1899.  Copy now possibly in the Indian Archives.  Dr. db Bhubaneswar    - Kosla Vepa Saturday, March 21, 2009 10:03 AM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara I have some material on Samanta Chandrasekhar. I agree with those who say he belongs in the top ranks of Hindu Astronomy. I plan to include him in my book on the history of the Indian calendar. currently ttitled . The story of the THree Periodicities Astronomy, Time and the calendar in India  A historical perspective I would appreciate anyhting in English/ Hindi On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> wrote: Mahamahopadhyay, Sri Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Singha Samanta, was the last great naked eye astronomer of the hindu school of astronomy.  Dr. SKB has great interest in this domain.  i have only been able to get this. More, by & by.  Siddhanata Darpana, Ed. Bir Hanuman Sastri, [Odiya], Utkal University, 1976.  Thank you,  Dr.db  - Sunil Bhattacharjya Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:23 AM Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) " historical " Buddha 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 <kanakpradip@ >Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) " historical " BuddhaSunday, 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  -- पà¥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¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies. us/icih_confwebmaster@indicetho s.org925-271-4528 mobile:925-998- 2529 -- पà¥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¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies.us/icih_conf webmaster925-271-4528 mobile:925-998-2529 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Thank you Dr. DB This will be useful after my return. -skb--- On Mon, 3/30/09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 wrote: oddisilab <oddisilab1Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara Date: Monday, March 30, 2009, 6:16 PM  Dear Shri SKB, It may be profitable for you to write to Dr. Roy, Director, Samanta Chandra Sekhara Planetarium, Acharya vihar, Bhubaneswar. His earlier phone Numbers were - 91-674-2581653/ 2541095 pp (you may also speak to Mr. Jaydev). Dr. Roy had the Mss displayed in his front lobby since the time of Dr. Prahallad Chandra Naik. You may also like to speak to my friend the Learned Dr. Patel, Superintendent Orissa State Museum, Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar - Mobile 9861945919, or land line - 91-674-2431597. He cannot give away anything to anybody, unless it is a govt. to govt. move, i know for sure. Since you are so much interested, today i will try to visit him. You may also write to The Learned Proprietor cum Publisher, Dharma Grantha Store, Cuttack City, Orissa. Very erudite in Indology. They will send you a copy, cost + packing + postage. simple. [it is a very well known address]. Should they have and should they agree, you may transfer the cost and ask can also ask them to deliver it to me (to reduce packing & postal cost + the risk of getting lost). I can get it scanned, and page by page mailed to you, over a period of time - as a special gesture. You can also get it delivered at your Poone add., when you get back to India. Cordially, Dr. db - Sunil Bhattacharjya Monday, March 30, 2009 5:40 AM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara It will be good if you can get the 56 pages of the Introducion in English and send the scanned copy of that so that we can read the same.skb--- On Sat, 3/28/09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> wrote: oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in>Re: Re : Samanta Chandra SekharaSaturday, March 28, 2009, 5:19 PM  Must be a very very small outfit with central or state govt. grants. How can one call itself as VEDIC ASTRONOMICAL CENTER and yet not know Samanta's name ? Convoluted ? or profoundly ignorant ? or incipiently careless ? - chittaranjan das Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:54 PM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara DEAR DR DP I HAVE A COPY OF SIDHANTA DARPANA IN ORIYA 1975 EDITION PUBLISHED BY //DHARMAGRANTHA STORE. PROPRIETER BIDYADHAR SAHOO. ALISHA BAZAR. CUTTACK2// DESCRIBER--PANDIT/ JYOTISH SRI BIRA HANUMAN SASHTRI RETD PROF ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY SADASHIV SANSKRIT COLLEGE PURI AUTHOR, COMPILER AND EDITOR---JYOTIRBID PANDIT SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA PRINTED BY SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA AT ARUNODAYA PRESS ALISHA BAZAR CUTTACK 2. IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME BY LATE DR RADHANATH RATH, EDITOR SAMAJA IN 19/5/84. NEHRU PLANETARIUM IN BOMBAY AND VEDIC ASTRONOMICAL CENTER AHMEDAVAD HAD NOT DPSPLAYED THE NAME OF PATHANI SAMANTA AMONGST RECOGNISED ASTRONOMERS OF INDIA AS NO ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF SIDHANTA DARPAN A WAS AVAILABLE TO THEM TO JUDGE ITS MERIT.. I HAD SPOKEN ABOUT IT TO RADHANATH BABU AND AND HAD REQUESTED HIM TO REMOVE THIS DEFICIENCY WHICH WAS A BIG INJUSTICE TOPATHANI SAMANTA GALILIO OF ORISSA. HE DID NOT HAVE A TELESCOPE WHEN HE WROTE SIDHANTA DARPANA. ONE WAS PRESENTED TO HIM IN LATER STAGES OF HIS LIFE AND HE REMARKED IF ONLY I HAD THIS INSTRUMENT EARLIER WHENEVER I CAME TO BBSR I HAD TAKEN UP THE ISSUE WITH OFFICIALS OF PATHANI SAMANTA PLANATARUM REPEATEDLY NAD ALSO HAVE AN WORKING MODEL OF HIS INSTRUMENTS FOR DEMONSTRATION. . NO BODY TOOK UP THE ISSUE. DEEPAK CAN U START A CAMPAGNE AND MAKE THE DEMAND BEFORE THE CORRECT AUTHORITIES ALL OUR CHILDHOOD WE USED TO SING //KATHI KHANDE DHARI GANILA NAKHYATRA HARILA SAHASHRA BIDHI// BUT I NEVER SAW AN WORKING MODEL OF THE TWO WOODEN SCALES. HOWEVER THE 56 PAGE INTRODUCTION DATED FEBRUARY 1899 BY JOGESH CHANDRA RAY ARE IN ENGLISH. I CAN SEND THEIR XEROX COPY TO YOU DEEPAK IF IT WILL BE OF ANY USE TO PERSONS DISCUSSING SIDHANTA DARPANA. THE BOOK ALSO CONTAINS THE SANAD OF VICEROY AND GOVERGENERAL OF INDIA DATED 3RD JUNE 1893 CONFERING THE TITLE OF MAHAMAHOPADYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA IS A DESCENDENT OF KHANDAPADA RAYAL FAMILY. HIS REAL NAME IS SRI CHANDRASEKHARA SINGH HARICHANDAN MAHAPATRA SAMANTA. HE CALLED PATHANIA BY HIS PARENTS AS THEIR PREVIOUS ISSUES DID NOT SURVIVE. FROM PATHANIA HIS NAME BECAME PATHANI SAMANTA. ANOTHER INTERESTING FEATURE IS THAT MAHAMHOPADHYAYA WAS A TITLE COFERRED TO A WRITERS/POETS/ LITERATEURS OR PHILOSOPHERS. TO BE GIVEN THE TITLE OF MAMAMAHOPADHYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA WAS THE ONLY PERSON OUTSIDE THESE CATEGORIES TO BE CONFERRED THIS TITLE. HOPE THESE INFO WILL BE USEFUL C R DAS ____________ _________ _______<br><br>C. R. DAS<br>I Rue Des Vanneaux<br>77420 CHAMPS SUR MARNE<br>FRANCE.<br>Phone:0033-1- 64686597.--- En date de : Sam 21.3.09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> a écrit : De: oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in>Objet: Re: Re : Samanta Chandra SekharaÀ: Samedi 21 Mars 2009, 6h05  Here is one more Ref. THE ORIGINAL WORK IS ::: Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Siddhanata Darpana, Indian Depository, Calcutta, 1899. Copy now possibly in the Indian Archives. Dr. db Bhubaneswar - Kosla Vepa Saturday, March 21, 2009 10:03 AM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara I have some material on Samanta Chandrasekhar. I agree with those who say he belongs in the top ranks of Hindu Astronomy. I plan to include him in my book on the history of the Indian calendar. currently ttitled . The story of the THree Periodicities Astronomy, Time and the calendar in India A historical perspective I would appreciate anyhting in English/ Hindi On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> wrote: Mahamahopadhyay, Sri Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Singha Samanta, was the last great naked eye astronomer of the hindu school of astronomy. Dr. SKB has great interest in this domain. i have only been able to get this. More, by & by. Siddhanata Darpana, Ed. Bir Hanuman Sastri, [Odiya], Utkal University, 1976. Thank you, Dr.db - Sunil Bhattacharjya Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:23 AM Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" Buddha 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 <kanakpradip@ >Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" BuddhaSunday, 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 -- पà¥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¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies. us/icih_confwebmaster@indicetho s.org925-271-4528 mobile:925-998- 2529 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Thank you Dr. DB This will be useful after my return. -skb--- On Mon, 3/30/09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 wrote: oddisilab <oddisilab1Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara Date: Monday, March 30, 2009, 6:16 PM  Dear Shri SKB, It may be profitable for you to write to Dr. Roy, Director, Samanta Chandra Sekhara Planetarium, Acharya vihar, Bhubaneswar. His earlier phone Numbers were - 91-674-2581653/ 2541095 pp (you may also speak to Mr. Jaydev). Dr. Roy had the Mss displayed in his front lobby since the time of Dr. Prahallad Chandra Naik. You may also like to speak to my friend the Learned Dr. Patel, Superintendent Orissa State Museum, Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar - Mobile 9861945919, or land line - 91-674-2431597. He cannot give away anything to anybody, unless it is a govt. to govt. move, i know for sure. Since you are so much interested, today i will try to visit him. You may also write to The Learned Proprietor cum Publisher, Dharma Grantha Store, Cuttack City, Orissa. Very erudite in Indology. They will send you a copy, cost + packing + postage. simple. [it is a very well known address]. Should they have and should they agree, you may transfer the cost and ask can also ask them to deliver it to me (to reduce packing & postal cost + the risk of getting lost). I can get it scanned, and page by page mailed to you, over a period of time - as a special gesture. You can also get it delivered at your Poone add., when you get back to India. Cordially, Dr. db - Sunil Bhattacharjya Monday, March 30, 2009 5:40 AM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara It will be good if you can get the 56 pages of the Introducion in English and send the scanned copy of that so that we can read the same.skb--- On Sat, 3/28/09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> wrote: oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in>Re: Re : Samanta Chandra SekharaSaturday, March 28, 2009, 5:19 PM  Must be a very very small outfit with central or state govt. grants. How can one call itself as VEDIC ASTRONOMICAL CENTER and yet not know Samanta's name ? Convoluted ? or profoundly ignorant ? or incipiently careless ? - chittaranjan das Thursday, March 26, 2009 11:54 PM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara DEAR DR DP I HAVE A COPY OF SIDHANTA DARPANA IN ORIYA 1975 EDITION PUBLISHED BY //DHARMAGRANTHA STORE. PROPRIETER BIDYADHAR SAHOO. ALISHA BAZAR. CUTTACK2// DESCRIBER--PANDIT/ JYOTISH SRI BIRA HANUMAN SASHTRI RETD PROF ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY SADASHIV SANSKRIT COLLEGE PURI AUTHOR, COMPILER AND EDITOR---JYOTIRBID PANDIT SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA PRINTED BY SRI DAYANIDHI KHADIRATNA AT ARUNODAYA PRESS ALISHA BAZAR CUTTACK 2. IT WAS PRESENTED TO ME BY LATE DR RADHANATH RATH, EDITOR SAMAJA IN 19/5/84. NEHRU PLANETARIUM IN BOMBAY AND VEDIC ASTRONOMICAL CENTER AHMEDAVAD HAD NOT DPSPLAYED THE NAME OF PATHANI SAMANTA AMONGST RECOGNISED ASTRONOMERS OF INDIA AS NO ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF SIDHANTA DARPAN A WAS AVAILABLE TO THEM TO JUDGE ITS MERIT.. I HAD SPOKEN ABOUT IT TO RADHANATH BABU AND AND HAD REQUESTED HIM TO REMOVE THIS DEFICIENCY WHICH WAS A BIG INJUSTICE TOPATHANI SAMANTA GALILIO OF ORISSA. HE DID NOT HAVE A TELESCOPE WHEN HE WROTE SIDHANTA DARPANA. ONE WAS PRESENTED TO HIM IN LATER STAGES OF HIS LIFE AND HE REMARKED IF ONLY I HAD THIS INSTRUMENT EARLIER WHENEVER I CAME TO BBSR I HAD TAKEN UP THE ISSUE WITH OFFICIALS OF PATHANI SAMANTA PLANATARUM REPEATEDLY NAD ALSO HAVE AN WORKING MODEL OF HIS INSTRUMENTS FOR DEMONSTRATION. . NO BODY TOOK UP THE ISSUE. DEEPAK CAN U START A CAMPAGNE AND MAKE THE DEMAND BEFORE THE CORRECT AUTHORITIES ALL OUR CHILDHOOD WE USED TO SING //KATHI KHANDE DHARI GANILA NAKHYATRA HARILA SAHASHRA BIDHI// BUT I NEVER SAW AN WORKING MODEL OF THE TWO WOODEN SCALES. HOWEVER THE 56 PAGE INTRODUCTION DATED FEBRUARY 1899 BY JOGESH CHANDRA RAY ARE IN ENGLISH. I CAN SEND THEIR XEROX COPY TO YOU DEEPAK IF IT WILL BE OF ANY USE TO PERSONS DISCUSSING SIDHANTA DARPANA. THE BOOK ALSO CONTAINS THE SANAD OF VICEROY AND GOVERGENERAL OF INDIA DATED 3RD JUNE 1893 CONFERING THE TITLE OF MAHAMAHOPADYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA IS A DESCENDENT OF KHANDAPADA RAYAL FAMILY. HIS REAL NAME IS SRI CHANDRASEKHARA SINGH HARICHANDAN MAHAPATRA SAMANTA. HE CALLED PATHANIA BY HIS PARENTS AS THEIR PREVIOUS ISSUES DID NOT SURVIVE. FROM PATHANIA HIS NAME BECAME PATHANI SAMANTA. ANOTHER INTERESTING FEATURE IS THAT MAHAMHOPADHYAYA WAS A TITLE COFERRED TO A WRITERS/POETS/ LITERATEURS OR PHILOSOPHERS. TO BE GIVEN THE TITLE OF MAMAMAHOPADHYAYA. PATHANI SAMANTA WAS THE ONLY PERSON OUTSIDE THESE CATEGORIES TO BE CONFERRED THIS TITLE. HOPE THESE INFO WILL BE USEFUL C R DAS ____________ _________ _______<br><br>C. R. DAS<br>I Rue Des Vanneaux<br>77420 CHAMPS SUR MARNE<br>FRANCE.<br>Phone:0033-1- 64686597.--- En date de : Sam 21.3.09, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> a écrit : De: oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in>Objet: Re: Re : Samanta Chandra SekharaÀ: Samedi 21 Mars 2009, 6h05  Here is one more Ref. THE ORIGINAL WORK IS ::: Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Siddhanata Darpana, Indian Depository, Calcutta, 1899. Copy now possibly in the Indian Archives. Dr. db Bhubaneswar - Kosla Vepa Saturday, March 21, 2009 10:03 AM Re: Re : Samanta Chandra Sekhara I have some material on Samanta Chandrasekhar. I agree with those who say he belongs in the top ranks of Hindu Astronomy. I plan to include him in my book on the history of the Indian calendar. currently ttitled . The story of the THree Periodicities Astronomy, Time and the calendar in India A historical perspective I would appreciate anyhting in English/ Hindi On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 9:44 AM, oddisilab <oddisilab1 (AT) dataone (DOT) in> wrote: Mahamahopadhyay, Sri Samanta Chandra Sekhara, Singha Samanta, was the last great naked eye astronomer of the hindu school of astronomy. Dr. SKB has great interest in this domain. i have only been able to get this. More, by & by. Siddhanata Darpana, Ed. Bir Hanuman Sastri, [Odiya], Utkal University, 1976. Thank you, Dr.db - Sunil Bhattacharjya Tuesday, March 17, 2009 1:23 AM Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" Buddha 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 <kanakpradip@ >Re: Fwd: [indo-Eurasia] On New Datings of the (putatively) "historical" BuddhaSunday, 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 -- पà¥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¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies. us/icih_confwebmaster@indicetho s.org925-271-4528 mobile:925-998- 2529 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.