The dating of Chandragupta Maurya

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Here is a nice article I found on the internet today. It is from:

 

http://members.nbci.com/hknetworks/aryaninvasion-page.htm

 

A lot of the stuff there is speculative, but the following two sections deserve not.

 

12. Chandragupta, the Sandrocottus

Modern history tends to put Buddha around 500 B.C. This date apparently comes from the assumption that Chandragupta Maurya, Sandrocottus of the Greek records, was the contemporary of Alexander, who is known to invade India in 325 B.C. However, the Greek chronicles are strangely silent on the names of Chanakya (Chandragupta's Guru) who managed to install the Maurya on the Magadha throne, Bindusar (his son) and even Ashoka (his grandson) whose empire extended far wider than that of Chandragupta. The empire of Chandragupta, also known as the Magadha empire, was very powerful and had a long history but is nowhere mentioned by the Greeks. Even Buddha bhikkus and the flourishing religion of the Buddha are not mentioned in their literature. This imbroglio has been challenged by various scholars and is precisely summarized by K. Rajaram (in "A Peep into the Past History, Seminar Papers", Madras, 1982), "There are difficulties in calculating the date of the coronation of Asoka .. In the first instance, the very identification of Sandrokotus with Chandragupta Maurya is questioned. In the second one, the date of the death of the Buddha has not been fixed accurately and therefore, the date of Asoka based on it cannot be accurate." Indeed, the Sandrocottus of the Greeks was not a Maurya.

 

The Greek records mention Xandramas and Sandrocyptus as the kings immediately before and after Sandrocottus. These names in any way are not phonetically similar to Mahapadma Nanda and Bindusar, who were the predecessor and successor of Chandragupta Maurya, respectively. However, if Sandrocottus refers to Chandragupta "Gupta", the Xandramas reckons to be his predecessor Chandrashree alias Chandramas and Sandrocyptus to be Samudragupta. The phonetic similarity becomes quite apparent and also, with the assistance of other evidence, confirms the identity of Sandrocottus to Chandragupta Gupta.

 

In the Puranic and other literature, there is no allusion anywhere to an invasion or inroad into India by foreign peoples upto the time of Andhra kings; and the only person who bore the name similar to Sandrocottus of the Greeks, and who flourished at the time of Alexander, was Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty, who established a mighty empire on the ruins of the already decayed Andhra dynasty and existing 2811 years after the Mahabharata War, i.e., corresponding to 328 B.C. His date is currently placed in the fourth century A.D., which obviously does not stand. It is also interesting to note that the accounts in the life of Sandrokotus of the Greeks, and the political and social conditions in India at that time, match to those of in the era Chandragupta Gupta. With this observation, it is therefore that the Greek and Puranic accounts unanimously agree on the issue of the identity Chandragupta Gupta and Sandrocotus.

 

The ten kings of Shishunaga dynasty ruled for 360 years, beginning from 1994 B.C. and ending with 1634 B.C. At this time, an illegitimate son, Mahapadma-Nanda, of the last Shishunaga emperor, Mahanandi, came to the throne of Magadha. The total regal period of this Nanda dynasty was 100 years. After this, with the assistance of Arya Chaanakya, Chandragupta Maurya ascended the throne of Magadha, and that is in year 1534 B.C. This date can be arrived and confirmed using many independent accounts.

 

13. Ashoka Priyadarshi

This misplaced identification of this Sandrocottus with Chandragupta Maurya, which also is considered to be the "sheet anchor" of Indian chronology, has led to further chronological fallacies in the dating of Ashoka Maurya, the grandson of Maurya-Chandragupta. This Ashoka supposedly became a Buddhist as is confirmed from a variety of inscriptions and rock edicts found. It is interesting to note that these edicts are summoned in the name of one "Devanam Priyadarshi Raja" and the name Maurya Ashoka is nowhere mentioned. This identification of "priyadarshin" with Maurya Ashoka was entirely based upon Ceylonese Buddhist chronicles. However, as admitted by Wheeler and V.A. Smith, undeserved credit is given to ceylonese records which have been nothing but a hinderance of ancient Indian history. Also, the Buddhist histories recorded centuries later create a good deal of confusion in the genealogies and family of Ashoka. It is therefore very difficult to get a confirmed statement from these annals.

 

The names of kings found on Ashokan inscriptions namely, Amtiyoka, Tulamaya, etc. are ascribed to distant lands (Syria, Egypt, etc.). It is known that the kings mentioned bordered Ashoka's own lands. These alien kings are definitely not what they are construed to be. According to Agarwal, "In the Piyadassi inscriptions, the five names which are believed to the of the Greek kings are of the Jana-rajyas of the very country beyond the Indus." (Age of Bharata War, Delhi, 1979). Amtiyoka was a Bharatiya prince ruling Afghanistan around 1475 B.C., which then appears to be the approximate date of Priyadarshi Ashoka: the grandson of Maurya Chandragupta. It should also be noted that there is also no evidence of the time when these edicts were inscribed.

 

Maurya Ashoka is known be respectful and supportive of Brahmana and Shramana, equally alike and favoured none, as known from the Girnar rock edicts. Also, he is not recorded to have become a follower of Buddha, and nowhere it appears that he erected great stupas and vihar. Then the question of the Ashoka who had embraced Buddha's path arises. Kalhan's Rajatarangini (1.101-102) provides details of one Ashoka of the Kashmiri Gonanda dynasty who is said to have freed himself from sins by embracing the faith of Gautam Buddha and by constructing numerous Vihar and Stupa and by building the town Shrinagari with its 96 lakhs of houses resplendent with wealth. He was a peaceful ruler who had lost all his land and wealth because of his innate pacifism. This description of Gonandiya Ashoka matches with one of the inscriptional Ashoka.

 

However, according to Hultzsuch opinion, the major rock and pillar edicts differ in tone and message from those of the 8 minor rock inscriptions. Strangely enough, all 26 inscriptions appear to be carved out during the same period. If studied and analyzed carefully, a compelling inference needs to be drawn. The edicts with the proclamations in morality belong to Maurya Ashoka (1482-1446 B.C.) and those on the conversion of Buddhism are those of Gonanada Ashoka (1448-1400 B.C.).

 

Now that the correct identifications of Sandrocottus of the Greeks and Ashoka of the inscriptions are determined, it is therefore possible to bring about the datelines of Lord Buddha's life.

 

14. Gautam Buddha

Modern history tends to inform readers that Sri Gautam Siddharta was born around 550 B.C. and died after about 80 years. Kota Venkatachalam, writes in his book "The Age of Buddha, Milinda and King Amtiyoka and Yuga Purana" that, "Due to his wrong identification of Maurya Chandragupta as the contemporary of Alexander, the history of Bharat has been shifted by 12 centuries (and) it is the Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty who belongs to 327-320 B.C." Thus, due to the confusion in pinpointing properly the "sheet anchor" of Indian history, Lord Buddha's antiquity has been underestimated by about 1200 years. Now that Chandragupta Maurya reigned in 1550 B.C. (instead of 325 B.C.), the time when the latter flourished can be calculation to be around 1850 B.C. (instead of 550 B.C.).

 

All the Puranas and another historical compilation titled Kali Yuga-rajavruttanta, profess to describe the Magadha royal dynasties starting from the Bruhadratha to the Andhra lineages, after which the Magadha empire disintegrated. It is known from the Bhagavad Puraan that Gautam Siddharta was 23rd in the Ikshwaku lineage. However, the list of Ikshwaku kings are not available. In order to determine the date of Siddharta, it is necessary to find the contemporary kings in the Magadha genealogy. According to different accounts, the Buddha was a contemporary of Kshemajita, Bindusar and Ajatashatru, the 31st-33rd kings of the Shishunaga dynasty. The Buddha was 72 years old when the coronation of Ajatashatru tookplace, that is in 1814 B.C. Going backwards, the date of Buddha's birth becomes 1887 B.C. Since he lived for 80 years, the Buddha must have left the body in 1807 B.C.

 

This date can also be confirmed by purely referring to astronomical calculations, and what is correctly and exactly obtained as the date for Gautam Siddharta's nirvana is 27-3-1807 (Sathe, Age of Buddha). This date also explains the possibility of the existence of Buddhism in the second millennium B.C., as was rejected earlier. The astronomical computations of the indologist-astronomer Swami Sakhyananda suggests that Gautam Siddharta belonged to the Kruttika period, i.e., in between 2621-1661 B.C. In his book "Chronology of Ancient Bharat" (Part 4.Chap 2), Prof. K.Srinivasaraghavan states the approximate time of Gautam Siddharta to be 2259 years after the Bharata War (3138 B.C.). which turns out to be 1880 B.C.

 

Thyagaraja Aiyer in his book "Indian Architecture" observes," Here lies Indian Sramanacharya from Bodh Gaya, a Shakya monk taken to Greece by his Greek pupils and the tomb marks his death about 1000 B.C." If the Buddhist monk went to Greece in 1000 B.C., then Gautam Siddharta must have lived at least a few centuries earlier. Somayajulu places Chandragupta Maurya in the 14th century B.C (ref: Dates in Ancient History of India). This puts the Buddha three centuries earlier, i.e., in the 17th century B.C. A brief chronology of the events in Buddha's life:Born in 1887 B.C., Renunciation in 1858 B.C., Penance during 1858-52 B.C and Death in 1807 B.C.

 

There are various other calculations and evidences which point to the 1800 B.C. date. However, it is believed that, at least for this article, the presentation made above suffices to convince and ascertain the date of Gautam Siddharta. After determining these dates, the time location of yet another savant of ancient India, Mahaveer, becomes easy.

 

 

[animesh]

The ten kings of Shishunaga dynasty ruled for 360 years, beginning from 1994 B.C. and ending with 1634 B.C.

 

I could see the figure 360 years mentioned in Bhagwatam, but where is it written that Sisunaga dynasty began in 1994 BC? I think, it should be 1934 BC.

 

Yesternight I was going through Bhagwatam to find out when, according to Puranas, Chandragupta became king.

 

I remember having read in Padma Purana that Sukadev told Parikshit the stories of Bhagwatam 30 years after the commencement of Kali age. It is believed that Kali age commenced in 3102 BC. So, Parikshit listened to the stories of Bhagwatam in 3102 - 30 = 3072 BC.

 

According to verse 9.23.49 of Bhagwatam, Sukdev told Parikshit that the line of king Brhadratha (Jarasandha's father) would end 1000 years latter. So, the line of Brhadratha ended in 3072 - 1000 = 2072 BC. (Sukdev took just 7 days to finish the stories of Bhagwatam, so it really does not matter from which day of the dialogue, we count 1000 years).

 

According to first discourse of last (12th) canto of Bhagwatam, Paradyotanas followed Brahadratha's line and ruled for 138 years. Next came Sisunagas. So, Pradyotanas line ended and Sisunagas line began in 2072 - 138 = 1934 BC.

 

Sisunagas ruled for 360 years who were followed by Mahapadma (a Nanda). So, Mahapadma's line began in 1934 - 360 = 1574. Mahapadma and his sons ruled for 100 years and then, Chandragupt became king. So, Chandragupta became king in 1574 - 100 = 1474 BC.

[shvu]

 

Animesh,

 

Ashoka's date is clearly known beyond doubt by his inscriptions. He was in contact with most of the big empires of his time and his inscriptions mention their names. The inscriptions also say that his coronation was 200+ years after the Buddha's death. This gives the Buddha's date beyond doubt too.

 

Some Indian guys try to push Indian dates as far back as possible, having been inspired by the fancy dates that have been handed down in India by the older generations. They believe that the western scholars who dated ancient India were biased and their conclusions were incorrect and all this is based on stories from Puranas. Nothing could be more wrong, for the westerners have dated most of the famous old Indian personalities well before christ.

 

These self-styled scholars now are treating the Bhagavatam etc as historic records and trying to rewrite Indian history. They do this by writing articles and putting them on web pages on web sites like www.swordoftruth.com. They seem to think that the older, the better. Why, I don't know. They are so taken up with such an idea that the stories of the Puranas override all kinds of evidences. Any evidence to show otherwise will be rejected as false.

 

The 3102 BC date itself is highly dubious for it was not recorded anywhere until the time of Arya bhatta in 400 AD. That is not until 3400 years later! Add to it, the fact that there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever to show that there were people living in these areas at that time as described in the mahabharata.

 

The truth is, our Indian people had no sense of chronology at all. For them 'very old' and 'long ago' were good enough. How old, was something that they never bothered with. A lot of stuff was attributed to Vyasa to make it look authoritative. And any popular personality was connected to Vyasa or Suka. Gaudapada was Suka's disciple, Shankara debated with Vyasa, Madhva met Vyasa and is in fact serving him in person right now, according to his biography.

 

This should give people an idea of how the people in India viewed history. Read "Studies in Indian literature and philosophy" by Ludo Rocher and any history textbook of India.

 

Cheers

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Just refreshing old threads so we don't have to rewrite all this stuff again.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

This was from an older thread:

 

I was going through a trunk of old documents and came across a letter from Dr. Richard Thompson (Sadaputa) that mentioned some interesting and relevant points regarding the history of India. Here is an excerpt:

 

At present, indologists accept the identification of Sandrokottus of the Greek historians with Chandragupta Maurya. This identification makes Chandragupta Maurya a contemporary of Alexander the Great, who invaded India in 326 B.C. Dates in early Indian history are determined by working forwards and backwards from this date.

According to the Bhagavatam, 12th Canto, about 1,500 years elapsed from the time of king Parikshit to Chandragupta Maurya (and one verse would make this about 1,000 years). If Kaliyuga began in 3102 B.C., then Chandragupta Maurya must have lived in about 3100 - 1500 = 1600 B.C. There is a great discrepancy between this date and 326 B.C.

 

Some Indian scholars such as Kota venkatachelam have argued that Sandrakottus should be identified with Chandragupta I of the Gupta dynasty, which is presently accepted by most scholars as beginning in 319 A.D. By doing this, Venkatachelam is able to construct a chronology that agrees with the Puranas and the traditional date of Kali yuga. However, he has to challenge many accepted conclusions of modern indologists.

[laksri]

The Greek records mention Xandramas and Sandrocyptus as the kings immediately before and after Sandrocottus. These names in any way are not phonetically similar to Mahapadma Nanda and Bindusar, who were the predecessor and successor of Chandragupta Maurya, respectively. However, if Sandrocottus refers to Chandragupta "Gupta", the Xandramas reckons to be his predecessor Chandrashree alias Chandramas and Sandrocyptus to be Samudragupta. The phonetic similarity becomes quite apparent and also, with the assistance of other evidence, confirms the identity of Sandrocottus to Chandragupta Gupta.

 

 

=============================

It is supposed to have mentioned seven names of three successive Indian kings. Are these the same or sucessive names - Xandrammes, Sandrokottas and Sandrocyptus ?

=====================================

 

So I am going to be cautious even if that looks a good begining.

 

I am impressed by Aihole Inscription of Chalukya King Pulekeshi II of the 7th century, whose date is positively well known (fortunately). God bless Pulekeshi I and any other.

 

Inscription found in the Jain Temple at Aihole prepared by Chalukya King Pulekeshi. It means, 3735 (30+3000+700+5) years have elapsed in kaliyug, since mahAbhArat war. and 556 (50+6+500) years of shaka era is running

 

The verse inscribed is :

 

trinshatsu trisahas(t?)reshu bhAratAdAhavAditaha |

saptAbdashatayukteshu gateshwabdeshu panchasu ||

 

panchAshatsu kalau kAle shatasu panchashatesu ca |

samAsu samatItAsu shakAanAmapi bhUbhujAm ||

 

which shakA ?

most probobly the shalivahana. Luckily Pulekeshi is even otherwise trackable to famous north and south indian kings history, whose dates are also independentaly verifiable.

 

Now only question is how, did they know till that point. First it is wrong to infer, that they would expect the future generations to lose the date of the supreme lord sri krishna. Imagine sri rAmanuja went in search of original vritis for brahama sutra in kashmir. when people knew things were mixed up, at that time, they became cautious, they did not use unreliable material as evidence either for or against. Also when recording the satakopa's birth (nammAzwAr), they marked it as 43 days after lord sri krishna' ascent, because even 1000 years before when some scriptures had been lost, still these important dates were widely known and considered reliable and unquestionable. Probobly only after kali age let vandalism, looting and large scale destruction happen, we are forced to know the age of krishna ?

Even some call it mythology.

 

Another inscription is the Nidhanpur Copper Plate of bhAskaravarman. it is slightly different in talking of his ancestors to the age of bhagadattA of mahAbhAratha. It calculates back to roughly testify traditional dates of 3101 B.C.

 

Ofcourse not considering other evidence like "when the three yugas have elapsed and 60*60(3600) years have passed. I am 23 years old" quoted by AryabhattA.

 

So to go on, what is the motive of so many decent people to fudge kaliyugA in the 5th,6th and 7th century AD. They must be really astronomy oriented and not historical ?

 

But take a look at Surya Siddhanta, the accuracy of trignometory values, planets orbits, shadow calulations, the formulaes for eclipses even today with +/- 30 minute at worst. So these guys were good and but for some unknown reason they wanted to fudge. Especially they used the kaliyug as something like begining of Julian day, they calculate number of lunar cycles that has elapsed and number of days elapsed, because of comfort of some calculations based on that date probobly.

 

so did a influencial astronomer fudge it for and everybody accept in a large country followed it for calculation. But wait, why can't they calculated from any day they want but leave kaliyug alone, especially since linked to the ascent of sri krishnA.

 

I think there is nothing to gain by changing kali back for these or any other people in early AD's. But I hope they still had something to loose, would they be so stupid, I think not.

 

So as far I am concerned, we are the losers, if we don't believe the technical, inscriptional evidences which are speaking in one tone. Unless it is positively proved otherwise, we do not have any incentive to believe in chandra gupta mauryA's later date.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by laksri (edited 01-08-2002).]

[karthik_v]

Hare Krishna J N Das,

 

Thanks for the wonderful post. First of all, the association of Pataliputra (Patna) with the Palibothra of Megasthenes itself was done on pure linguistic grounds without necessary historical evidences. Second, if Ashoka (grandson of CG Maurya) ruled Pataliputra, why is that none of his edicts are found in Pataliputra? Is it not a little strange that Ashoka wouldn't inscribe anything in his own capital?

 

I am also forced to think that Megasthenes indeed visited Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty. Let us consider this following from Starbos' commentary o Megasthenes Indica:

 

All Indians live a simple life, and especially when they are on expeditions; and neither do they enjoy useless disturbances; and on this account they behave in an orderly manner. But their greatest self-restraint pertains to theft; at any rate, Megasthenes says that when he was in the camp of Sandrocottus, although the number in camp was forty thousand, he on no day saw reports of stolen articles that were worth more than two hundred drachmae; and that too among a people who use unwritten laws only. For, he continues, they have no knowledge of written letters, and regulate every single thing from memory, but still they fare happily, because of their simplicity and their frugality; and indeed they do not drink wine, except at sacrifices, but drink a beverage which they make from rice instead of barley; I and also that their food consists for the most part of rice porridge; and their simplicity is also proven in their laws and contracts, which arises from the fact that they are not litigious; for they do not have lawsuits over either pledges or deposits, or have need of witnesses or seals, but trust persons with whom they stake their interests; and further, they generally leave unguarded what they have at their homes. Now these things tend to sobriety; but no man could approve those other habits of theirs of always eating alone and of not having one common hour for all for dinner and breakfast instead of eating as each one likes; for eating in the other way is more conducive to a social and civic life.

Look at the mention of rice as the staple food. Rice was and is the staple food of those in the Gangetic belt and the South. Not of those in the northwest. Megasthenes doesn't even mention about wheat. So, it is probable that he visited Chandragupta, the Gupta, who ruled Pataliputra.

 

Present day Mauryas are a Harijan community found in Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana and western UP. Not in Bihar, where Pataliputra is located. So, it is probable that Chandragupta, the Maurya and his grandson Ashoka, ruled along the northwestern part of India.

 

This may raise another question. If Megasthenes indeed visited Chandragupta, the Gupta, then why does he not mention about Nalanda or Kalidasa. Valid. One explanation is that he did but those parts of his writings or no more extant. The other explanation is that he never visited India and all his decriptions are purely second hand, often erroneous. Consider the following from his wrting:

 

..he mentions horses with one horn and the head of a deer; and reeds, some straight up thirty fathoms in length, and others lying flat on the around fifty fathoms, and so large that some are three cubits and others six in diameter.

In any case, Megasthenes may not be a reliable source to provide window to India's ancient past.

 

The British who discounted Puranas, despite many irrefutable astronomical keys validating them, instead relied on Megasthenes. Strange!

 

 

 

[karthik_v]

I have another question for the members of this forum. In his edicts, does Ashoka mention Pataliputra as his capital?

[karthik_v]

Just to clarify the question I raised above, Minor edict # 5 talks of "the capital", which the British translated as Pataliputra. That is certainly contentious. Is there any other direct mention of Pataliputra?

[karthik_v]

Somebody mentioned in another thread that the edicts of Ashoka, seem to belong to 2 different people, going by its contents. I too feel that this may be true, though we can't be certain. Let us consider the major edict # 3:

 

Edict 3 - The Fifth Year Circuit:

 

Thus saith His Sacred and Gracious Majesty the King:

 

When I had been king for twelve years I issued this command:

 

Everywhere in my dominions, the royal officials (the Commissioner and the District Officer) must go on circuit around their lands every five years. They should do their normal business and they should give instruction in the Law of Piety. The law of Piety is as follows: "A meritorious thing is the listening to father and mother. A meritorious thing is generosity to friends, acquaintances, relatives, Brahmins, and ascetics. A meritorious thing is abstention from the slaughter of living creatures. A meritorious thing is careful spending and lack of greed."

Why should a Buddhist king demand special generosity to Brahmins?

 

Also see edict # 4:

 

Edict 4 - The Practice of Piety:

 

For a long time past, even for many hundred years, the [sacrificial] slaughter of living creatures has increased. For a long time, living things have been killed, relatives have been treated poorly, and both Brahmins and ascetics have been mistreated.

 

But now, by reason of His Sacred and Gracious Majesty the King's practice of piety, the reverberation of the war drums - or rather, the reverberation of the Law of Piety - is heard. The Law of Piety displays to the people of processional cars, elephants, illuminations, and other heavenly spectacles.

 

For the first time in hundreds of years, by reason of His Sacred and Gracious Majesty the King's instruction in the Law of Piety, people have stopped the [sacrificial] slaughter of living creatures. People are treating their relatives better, are behaving properly towards Brahmins and ascetics, are listening to father and mother, and are respecting their elders.

 

Thus, and in many other ways, the practice of piety has increased, and His Sacred and Gracious Majesty the King will cause such practices of piety to increase still more.

 

The sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of His Sacred and Gracious Majesty the King will promote the increase in the practice of piety until the end of the cycle [india had a sense of cyclical time]. The descendants of the king will live in piety and morality and will give instruction in the Law of Piety. For this is the best of deeds: giving instruction in the Law of Piety. The practice of piety is not for the immoral man.

 

So that people should follow the Law of Piety, the king has caused it to be written.

 

This has been written by command of His Sacred and Gracious Majesty the King after he had been king twelve years.

Again why would a Buddhist king lament the ill-treatment of Brahmins and rejoice at the restoration of respect for them?

 

Contrast this with minor edict A:

 

Edict A - The Fruit of Exertion:

 

Thus saith His Sacred Majesty:

 

For more than two and a half years I was a lay disciple. I did not exert myself strenuously. It is now more than a year since I joined the Order, and I have exerted myself strenuously. During that year the [Hindu] gods who were regarded as true all over India have been shown to be untrue.

 

For this is the fruit of exertion. This fruit is not attained by a great man only. Even the small man who chooses to exert himself may win immense heavenly bliss.

 

In order that all should seek bliss, the following royal suggestion has been made:

 

"Let small and great exert themselves."

 

My neighbors too should learn this lesson; and may such exertion long endure!

 

And this purpose will grow. Indeed, it will grow immensely. At least one-and-a-half times will it increase.

 

And this purpose must be written on the rocks, both afar and here; and wherever there is a stone pillar, it must be written on the stone pillar.

 

And according to this text, so far as your power extends, you must send out the suggestion everywhere.

Ignore that word Hindu in the bracket, which was the British interpretation, though not wrong. But, the aversion to the polytheistic religion is obvious. So, it could be possible that the major edicts were written by the Hindu Ashoka, the grandson of Chandragupta, the Maurya, while the minor edicts were written by the Buddhist Ashoka, the grandson of Chandragupta, the Gupta.

[karthik_v]

I realized a factual error in the above post of mine. Chandragupta, the Gupta's grandson was Vikramaditya and not Ashoka. So, the king who patronised Buddhism and inscribed the minor edicts could have been very different (I don't know what his could have been) from the Ashoka who inscribed the major edicts that talk of protecting the Brahmins.

[Kosla.Vepa]

 

Animesh,

 

Ashoka's date is clearly known beyond doubt by his inscriptions. He was in contact with most of the big empires of his time and his inscriptions mention their names. The inscriptions also say that his coronation was 200+ years after the Buddha's death. This gives the Buddha's date beyond doubt too.

 

Some Indian guys try to push Indian dates as far back as possible, having been inspired by the fancy dates that have been handed down in India by the older generations. They believe that the western scholars who dated ancient India were biased and their conclusions were incorrect and all this is based on stories from Puranas. Nothing could be more wrong, for the westerners have dated most of the famous old Indian personalities well before christ.

 

These self-styled scholars now are treating the Bhagavatam etc as historic records and trying to rewrite Indian history. They do this by writing articles and putting them on web pages on web sites like wwwdotswordoftruthdotcom. They seem to think that the older, the better. Why, I don't know. They are so taken up with such an idea that the stories of the Puranas override all kinds of evidences. Any evidence to show otherwise will be rejected as false.

 

The 3102 BC date itself is highly dubious for it was not recorded anywhere until the time of Arya bhatta in 400 AD. That is not until 3400 years later! Add to it, the fact that there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever to show that there were people living in these areas at that time as described in the mahabharata.

 

The truth is, our Indian people had no sense of chronology at all. For them 'very old' and 'long ago' were good enough. How old, was something that they never bothered with. A lot of stuff was attributed to Vyasa to make it look authoritative. And any popular personality was connected to Vyasa or Suka. Gaudapada was Suka's disciple, Shankara debated with Vyasa, Madhva met Vyasa and is in fact serving him in person right now, according to his biography.

 

This should give people an idea of how the people in India viewed history. Read "Studies in Indian literature and philosophy" by Ludo Rocher and any history textbook of India.

 

Cheers

This is exactly what i mean by altering the mind set of the Indic people. It is clear that Macaulay has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. The interesting aspect of this post is that no evidence is offered other than Ludi Rocher who (and his wife Roseanne) are members of the history establishment in the west that is to put it mildly very eurocentric. I wil give examples on request. The notion that any Occidental can make a better determination of Indian history than the most scholarly Indian themselves is part of the change that Macaulay has wrought. This is the reason why i wrote the South Asia file

 

the charge has been made that 'Some Indian guys try to push Indian dates as far back as possible,' Since when is that a federal crime ? The issue has niothing to do with wishes, it has to do with the integrity of the author who is making the claim.The real issue is whether such an author is making a valid claim. But to make such a determination, requires a lot of reading and thought. Far easier to dismiss the Indian author , with a flourish, as someone who wishes to push the dates back. My observation is that what a person wishes has nothing to do with history and is irrelevant to the argument. If every person on the planet was punished for having wishes, the entire population of the planet would be behind bars.

 

I am not making a moral judgement on those who exhibit such a high degree of Macaulayism, merely that the existence of such people in large numbers among indians simply makes my point. I am reminded of Napioleons dictum 'Attribute not to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence

the quote

 

Ashoka's date is clearly known beyond doubt by his inscriptions.

 

Oh yeah ! says who. Remember that the entire chronology as enunciated is wrong. when read carefully, the inscriptions say nothing about an absolute date which other inscriptions like the Aihole inscription in karnataka do. I woulsd like exact quotes that establish the date of Asoka to be in the 2ns/3rd century BCE.

 

I am in the process of writing a monograph on 'The Greek synchronism and its pernicious effects on Indian History' and how it has effected the Indic mind I am willing to serialize the draft copy of this forthcoming book in this site , should there be an interest in doing so.

 

In the meantime i strongly recommend getting The south asia file at the link above (sorry guys i am not allowed to post a link but do a Google on my name and you will see the citation . I will have several copies of the book on sale at ICIH2009 on January 9-11 at the India International centre which i am convening. I wihs i had more time to respond, but i am frightfully busy until the end of the conference. The book is available in black and white and in color. The B & W runs around 30$. It has plenty of reference material that is not easily available elsewhere.

[Kulapavana]

 

I am in the process of writing a monograph on 'The Greek synchronism and its pernicious effects on Indian History' and how it has effected the Indic mind I am willing to serialize the draft copy of this forthcoming book in this site , should there be an interest in doing so.

 

 

Sounds interesting. I would love to see a copy of your work.

[suchandra]

 

In the meantime i strongly recommend getting The south asia file at the link above

The South Asia File - a colonial paradigm of Indian History

by Kosla Vepa

 

 

 

http://www.lulu.com/content/2569530

[jinglebells]

 

The dating of Chandragupta Maurya

 

Did he date blondes or redheads?

[Avinash]

I wonder how you people are able to bring up such an old thread?