Story Of Vedic Civilisation

Queen_Kumaradevi_and_King Chandragupta I on a coin of their son Samudragupta

Historical Dates From Puranic Sources

Prof. Narayan Rao

http://sgm.pcriot.com/pdf/listpdf.php

Sheet Anchor Date

Professor Max Muller improved upon the work of Sir William Jones by trying to correlate the Indian history with Greek history. One ancient event the date of which is well known in the Christian era is the invasion of Alexander. However, there is no mention whatsoever of Alexander or anything connected with his invasion in any Purana or any other ancient Indian account including the Buddhist Chronicles.

Professor Max Muller then searched the Greek accounts and the narrations of the other classical European writers for the name of any Indian ruler who could be located. One such name is Sandrocottus. He is said to have succeeded Xandramese who was a contemporary of Alexander. Sir William Jones had suggested that Chandragupta of Mudra Rakshasa could be the Sandrocottus of Greek history. Professor Max Muller confirmed this identification. His main purpose was to arrive at a chronology acceptable to the intellectuals of the nineteenth century. In fact his motives and methods are best described in his own words. In his “History of Ancient

Sanskrit Literature (Allahabad Edition 1859 A.D)” Professor Max Muller writes as follows …

“There is but one means through which history of India can be connected with that of Greece, and its chronology be reduced to its proper limits. Although we look in vain in the literature of the Brahmanas or Buddhists for any allusion to Alexander’s conquest, and although it is impossible to identify any of the historical events, related by Alexander’s companions, with the historical traditions of India, one name has fortunately been preserved by classical writers who describe the events immediately following Alexander’s conquest, to form a connecting link between the history of the East and the West. This is the name of Sandrocottus or Sandrocyptus, the Sanskrit Chandragupta.

“We learn from classical writers Justin, Arrian, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Quintus Curtius and Plutarch, that in Alexander’s time, there was on the Ganges a powerful king of the name of Xandramese, and that soon after Alexander’s invasion, a new empire was founded there by Sandrocottus who was succeeded by Sandrocyptus. These accounts of the classical writers contain a number of distinct statements which could leave very little doubt as to the king to whom they referred.

“Indian historians, it is true, are generally so vague and so much given to exaggeration, that their kings are all very much alike, either all black or all bright. But nevertheless, if there ever was such a king of the Prasii, a usurper, residing at Pataliputra, called Sandrocottus; it is hardly possible that he should not be recognized in the historical traditions of India. The name of Chandragupta and the resemblance of this name with the name of Sandrocottus was first, I believe, pointed out by Sir William Jones. Dr.Wilford, Professor Wilson and Professor Lassen have afterwards added further evidence in confirmation of Sir William Jone’s conjecture; and although other scholars and particularly M.Troyer, in his edition of the Rajatarangini, have raised objections, we shall see that the evidence in favor of the identity of Chandragupta and Sandrocyptus is such as to admit of no reasonable doubt.”

From this identification, the coronation of Mourya Chandragupta around the year 327 B.C. was taken as the sheet anchor date for Indian chronology. Though most of the modern scholars of Indian history do not know it all the dates of ancient Indian history have been arrived at by calculating backward and forward from this sheet anchor date. For example Lord Buddha (according to some of the Buddhist chronicles) was born nearly 340 years before the coronation of Mourya Chandragupta. Accordingly his year of birth was fixed as 567 B.C.

Errors In Dating

Later as more and more Puranic and Buddhist documents were discovered those which did not confirm to the aforesaid chronology were either ignored or stated to be unreliable. For example among the different documents on Lord Buddha the Ceylonese chronicles have been accepted as most reliable though those were written much later in the Christian era in Pali language. The orientalists who have continued the research after Professor Max Muller have only tried to add to the earlier chronology without questioning its validity. Certain observations about the sheet anchor date are given in Appendix II.

Having worked out a chronology acceptable to the Europeans, the indologists started looking for archeological and other evidence to confirm it and this they thought they found in plenty in the form of stone inscriptions attributed to emperor Ashoka (and some other kings such as Kharabela). Here it must be emphasized that the European indologists deserve all the credit for their efforts to work out a detailed history of ancient India. Their failure to arrive at the correct dates and details of the events was only due to the firm belief among the intellectuals of their time that the universe is less than 6000 years old. Unfortunately, in the process they have altered certain verses and otherwise mutilated the texts of the Puranas in their editions, such as Wilson’s Vishnu Purana, which are today most widely read.

The Christian missionaries have also been unintentionally guilty of such vandalism as they have often destroyed some of the manuscripts of Puranas which fell in their hands. They were doing so with the firm belief that by such destruction they are saving the posterity from these sin provoking documents. However, sufficient number of the different versions of the different Puranas is still available in the monasteries in India, as well as the libraries in Great Britain, Germany, America and other countries for a complete and correct chronology of Indian history to be worked out.

In calculating the dates from the Puranas the following procedure should be adopted to rectify the errors and discrepancies.

1. Proper distinction should be made between the Puranas and the other ancient texts. For example, Abhigyana Shakuntalam, Mudra Rakshasa, Raghu Vansa, Harsha Charita etc. are magnificent literary works and not historical documents.

2. In some Puranas the dates are given in more than one era. In such cases comparison should be made to detect any possible error. Possible grammatical errors as well as the consistency and continuity of the verses should be carefully checked.

3  The dates of events worked out from different Puranas should be tallied and compared with the dates worked out from astronomical data.

The iron pillar in the Qutb complex near Delhi, India. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Indian History And Its Historians

Coin of the Gupta king Chandragupta II

Part IV :  Who Ruled North India During Megasthenes’ Visit ? (contd)

According to Puranic evidence, there had expired 1500 odd years after Parikshit, when Mahapadmananda was coronated. Between Parikshit and the Nandas, there were 3 royal dynasties, namely the Brihadratha, Pradyota and Sisunaga families. The ten kings of the Sisunaga dynasty ruled for 360 years, beginning from 1994 BC and ending with 1634 BC At this time, an illegitimate son, Mahapadma-Nanda, of the last Sisunaga emperor, Mahanandi, ascended the throne of Magadha. The total regnal period of this Nanda dynasty was 100 years. After this with the assistance of Arya Chanakya, Chandragupta Maurya ascended the throne of Magadha, in the year 1534 BC.

The Mauryas ruled for a total of 316 years, and were replaced by the Sungas. The Kanvas, who succeeded the Sungas, were themselves overthrown by one of the Andhra chiefs, which dynasty reigned for a period of 506 years. Then followed the reign of the Sri Guptas for a period of 245 years, a period also referred to as the (last of the) golden ages of Bharata. It was Samudragupta of the Sri Gupta dynasty, who was known as Asokaditya Priyadarshin. The inscriptions of Asoka belong to this Gupta emperor and not to the Asoka Maurya who came to power 218 years after the Buddha.

Narahari Achar of Memphis University has confirmed several of these dates, including that of the Buddha, using the Planetarium software that has its algorithms based on Celestial Mechanics. The method has established that the Puranic dates are correct based on the sky observations that were recorded by the ancients. This must be regarded as an independent verification since the principles of celestial mechanics were unknown to the ancient Indic.

The Hypotheses Of Sir William Jones

He made the following inferences from the work of Megasthenes, which were in retrospect colossal errors …

1. That the puranic chronology was completely erroneous.

2. That the Sandracottus mentioned in Megasthenes’ Indika was Chandragupta Maurya. He based this on two observations of Megasthenesa : one, that Pataliputra was situated at the confluence of two rivers which he wrongly read to be the Sone and the Ganges. There are two wrong inferences made in this statement : a) Megasthenes never mentions Pataliputra, but he uses the term Palibothra as the capital and b) Megasthenes mentions the two rivers as the Ganga and the Erannoboas, which was the Greek word for Yamuna. The equivalent Sanskrit name of Yamuna was Hiranyabahu, as prevailed in those times. While Megasthenes mentions the Sone elsewhere in his work, he clearly does not associate it with Palibothra. But Sir William deliberately chose to associate the capital Palibothra with the confluence of the Sone and the Ganga, and hence read it as Patliputra. 

We quote the following passage of Sunil Bhattacharya from his paper :

“Even though Megasthenes had specifically mentioned Sone separately, yet Sir Jones conveniently stated that Megasthenes mentioned about Sone negligently. But there was none in those days to protest against such horrendous accusation hurled at Megasthenes. Present day well-informed historians know that there was indeed the city of Pratisthanpur at the confluence of Ganga and Yamuna, which was also mentioned by the great poet Kalidasa of the 8th century BCE, in his drama “Vikramorvashiya”. The city of Pratisthanpur was destroyed completely about one thousand years ago by a devastating fire and from that time onward that city has been known as Jhusi (or Jhunsi), a name derived from the Hindi word  Jhulasna or “to burn.” Megasthenes stated that in those days all buildings / houses near rivers and the sea were made of wood and Palibuthra, being at the confluence of Ganga and Yamuna, was no exception; and that the structures with brick and clay were built only in places far away from the rivers and the sea. Thus it appears possible that the fire destroyed all the traces of the ancient wooden structures, if any of these at all survived till the time of the devastating fire. Jhusi is located towards the east of Allahabad, just across the river Ganga. Archaeologists have found grains and other artifacts in the mounds of Jhusi, which dates back to before the 4th century BCE. The Asoka pillar found in Jhusi had inscriptions of Samudragupta and it was shifted to the Allahabad Fort and the emperor Jahangir also made his inscription on it. The Asoka inscription on it was of Samudragupta, after he had converted to Buddhism and had assumed the name of Asokaditya. All the Gupta kings had their second names ending in “-aditya”. “

After studying the fragments of Megasthenes’ Indika in detail, Pandit Bhagavad Datta offers another similar plausible explanation, and concludes : “Yamuna was flowing thru Palimbothra, known in ancient times as Paribhadra, the capital of the Prassi kingdom. Palimbothra was 200 miles from Prayag on the way to Mathura. The Kshatriyas were known as Paribhadrakas or Prabhadrakas. Their King was Chandraketu. The capital city of Paribhadra was near Sindhu Pulinda, which is in Madhya desa and is today known as Kali-Sindha. The Karusha reservoir was between Sindhu Pulinda and Prayag.”

However, after Sir William’s announcement, notwithstanding the aforesaid facts, Max Mueller anointed the identification of Sandracottus with Chandragupta Maurya and proceeded to declare Alexander’s invasion, and the subsequent visit of Megasthenes, as the sheet anchor of Indian History, neither of which events are of great significance in Indian history.

Troyer did not agree with this conclusion and noted this fact in the introduction to his translation of Rajatarangini of Kalhana. He even communicated his views to Prof. Max Mueller in a letter but did not receive a reply. Max Mueller ignored the objections of Troyer and Colebrook, and hailed the discovery and Sir Jones’ inferences as authentic !

What Does Megasthenes Say About The Kings Who Ruled

1. He calls Sandracottus the king of the Prassi and he mentions the names of Xandramus as predecessor and Sandrocyptus as successor to Sandracottus. There is absolutely no resemblance in these names to Bindusara (the successor to Chandragupta Maurya) and Mahapadma Nanda, the predecessor.

2. He makes absolutely no mention of Chanakya or Vishnugupta, the Acharya who helped Chandragupta ascend the throne.

3. He makes no mention of the widespread presence of the Baudhik or Sramana tradition during the time of the Maurya empire.

4. He claims the capital is Palimbothra or Palibothra, and that the city exists near the confluence of the Ganga and the Eranaboas (Hiranyabahu). But the Puranas are clear that all the 8 dynasties after the Mahabharata war had their capital at Girivraja (Rajagriha), located in the foothills of the Himalayas. There is no mention of Pataliputra in the Puranas. So, the assumption made by Sir William that Palimbothra is Pataliputra has no basis in fact and is not attested by any piece of evidence. If the Greeks could pronounce the first P in (Patali) they could certainly have pronounced the second p in Putra, instead of bastardising it as Palimbothra. Granted the Greeks were incapable of pronouncing any Indian names, but there is no reason why they should not be consistent in their phonetics.

5. The empire of Chandragupta was known as Magadha Empire. It had a long history even at the time of Chandragupta Maurya. In Indian literature, this powerful empire is amply described by its name but the same is absent in Greek accounts. It is difficult to understand as to why Megasthenes did not use this name “Magadha” and instead used the word Prassi, which has no equivalent or counterpart in Indian accounts.

The Colossal Error In Indian Historiography

This is indeed a remarkable tale even when viewed from the different perspectives of the Indic and the Occidental. That a person with such a scant knowledge of Sanskrit would have the audacity to rewrite the entire history of the Indian Civilization, based merely on scraps and remnants of a travelogue, written by an individual who is not even highly regarded by more revered Greek historians, is astonishing and bespeaks a degree of hubris that matches the grandeur of the Himalayas. In fairness to Sir William, it must be said that he himself may be utterly surprised at the seriousness with which his speculations were received and subsequently anointed by scholars at home. This is in addition to the great weight that is given to Greek historians’ writing about India, despite their atrocious bastardisation of Sanskrit terms.

And even if Sir William believed he had a good cause to stand by, what of the Indics of the modern era ? Have the Indics taken leave of their senses ? Surely such a sloppy, baseless conjecture would be reason enough to discredit the thesis. The Indics should have cringed when they were told that the undecipherable scrap of paper left of “Indika” was more credible than the Puranas written in a language with very little ambiguity; but such are the depths to which the Indic has sunk. He is apt to believe the words of a conqueror, who is not qualified to tell the story with any degree of accuracy and who is himself qualifying his proposal as something of a speculation, than the words of the great Rishis of yore, who wrote in the precise language of Sanskrit.

There is a palpable sense of frustration when we see that more than 50 years after Independence we still teach the chronology that was erroneously derived from the torn fragments of Indika.

… to be continued 

Queen Kumaradevi and King Chandragupta I on a coin of their son Samudragupta

Read more of Kosla Vepa uploads.

Indian History And Its Historians

Part III :  WHO WAS RULING IN INDIA DURING THE VISIT OF MEGASTHENES

In order to examine these hypotheses we must digress to the characterisation of Megasthenes by Greek historians such as Arrian, Strabo and Diodorus.

Megasthenes (ca. 350 BC – 290 BC)

was a Greek traveler and geographer from Ionia in Asia Minor or present day Turkey. He became an ambassador of Seleucus of Syria to the court of Sandracottus ( mistakenly believed to be Chandragupta Maurya) of India, in Pataliputra. However the exact date of his embassy is uncertain. Scholars place it before 288 BC. Arrian explains that Megasthenes lived in Arachosia, with the satrap Sibyrtius, from where he visited India : “Megasthenes lived with Sibyrtius, satrap of Arachosia, and often speaks of his visiting Sandracottus, the king of the Indians.” Arrian, Anabasis Alexandri  

We have more definite information regarding the parts of India which Megasthenes visited. He entered the country through the district of the Pentapotamia of the rivers, of which he gave a full account (thought to be the five affluents of the Indus, forming the Punjab region), and proceeded from there by the royal road to Pataliputra. There are accounts of Megasthenes having visited Madurai (then, a bustling city and capital of Pandya Kingdom), but appears to have not been to any other part of the country. His observations were recorded in Indika, a work that served as a source to later writers such as Strabo and Arrian. He describes such geographical features as the Himalayas and the island of Sri Lanka.

Megasthenes also mentioned the country’s caste system, more in terms of profession, status and personality descriptor. But the problem from an Indic perspective is that very little of the Indika survives in tact today and we are left with second hand accounts of Greek historians. In fact McCrindle, in “Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arian,“ says that the Greek writers such as Megasthenes were not highly regarded and were prone to lying. Strabo was of the opinion that Megasthenes simply created fables and as such no faith could be placed in his writings. In Strabo’s own words : “Generally speaking the men who have written on the affairs of India were a set of liars. Deimachos is first, Megasthenes comes next.” 

Diodorus also held similar opinions about him. So who and what should we believe? It was Dr. Schwanbeck who, we are told, had collected all the fragments that were extant at that time, and who finally comes to the conclusion that Megasthenes can be largely vindicated of the charge of mendacity (that was leveled at a host of other Greek historians).

The Greek records mention Xandramas and Sandrocyptus as the kings immediately before and after Sandracottus. These names are not in any way phonetically similar to Mahapadma Nanda and Bindusara, who were respectively the predecessor and successor of Chandragupta Maurya. However, if Sandracottus refers to Chandragupta “Gupta”, Xandramas could be his predecessor Chandrashree alias Chandramas (the last of the main dynasty of Andhra Satavahana Kings) and Sandrocyptus to be Samudragupta. The phonetic similarity becomes quite apparent and other supporting evidence too confirms the identity of Sandracottus with Chandragupta Gupta. The correction also settles the ridiculous start of Vikram Era from 58 BC, while Vikramaditya himself is placed about four centuries later !

The Puranas transmit the Hindu tradition and historical records to successive generations. In fact we are told in the Mahabharata that ‘the Vedas are afraid of him who has not studied the Epics and the Puranas, for he would indeed kill them with his ignorance of the truth propounded in them.’

The Puranas are a class of literary texts, all written in Sanskrit verse, whose composition dates from the time of Veda Vyaasa, who lived at the time of the Mahabharata War. The Puranas are regarded by some as the Veda when studied under a magnifying glass. The word “Purana” means “old” and in fact Panini assigns the meaning “complete”( cognate with purna). Generally they are considered as following the chronological aftermath of the epics, though sometimes the Mahabharata, which is generally classified as an Itihaasa (history), is also referred to as a Purana.

Some scholars, such as van Buitenen, are inclined to view the Puranas as beginning around the time that the composition of the Mahabharata came to a close. Certainly, in its final form the Mahabharata shows puranic features, and the Harivamsa (appended to the Mahabharata), wherein the life of Krishna or Hari is treated at some length, has sometimes been seen as a purana. The special subject of the Puranas is the powers and works of the gods, and one ancient Sanskrit lexicographer, Amarasinha, regarded by some as a Jain and by others as a Buddhist, reputed to be a courtier of Vikramaditya, defined a purana as having five characteristic topics, or pancalaksana : 

• The creation of the universe, Sarga;

• Its destruction and renovation, Prati-sarga;

• The genealogy of gods and patriarchs, Vamsa;

• The reigns of the Manus, forming the periods called Manavantaras;

• The history of the Solar and Lunar races of kings, Vamsanucharita. 

No one purana exhibits in detail all five of these distinguishing inclusions, but some reagrd the Vishnu Purana as most close to the traditional definition. Vyasa composed the Puranas in 400,000 “Grantha”. A Grantha is a stanza consisting of 32 syllables. Of these, the Skanda Purana alone accounts for 100,000. It is perhaps the world’s biggest literary work. The remaining 17 Puranas add up to 300,000 Granthas. Apart from them, Vyasa composed the Mahabharata, which contains nearly 100,000 Granthas.

Each Purana is devoted to a particular deity. There are Saiva, Vaisnava and Sakta Puranas. The 18 Puranas are : Brahma Purana (Brahma), Padma Purana (Padma), Narada Purana (Naradiya), Markandeya Purana, Visnu Purana (Vaisnava), Siva Purana(Saiva), Bhagvata Purana, Agni Purana (Agneya), Bhavisya Purana, Brahma-Vaivarta Purana, Linga Purana, Varaha Purana (Varaha), Skanda Mahapurana, Vamana Purana, Kurma Purana (Kaurma), Matsya Purana (Matsya), Garuda Purana (Garuda) and Brahmanda Purana.

In the Puranic and other ancient texts, there is no allusion to any invasion or inroad into India by foreign people up to the time of Andhra kings. The only person who bore a name similar to “Sandracottus” mentioned by the Greeks, 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. His date from puranic records is 2811 years after the Mahabharata War, which corresponds to 328 B.C. His current place on the historical datline is 4^th Century AD, which is an obvious error. 

It is also interesting to note that the accounts in the life of Sandracottus of the Greeks, the political and social conditions in India at that time, match with those of Chandragupta Gupta era. Therefore, the Greek and Puranic accounts agree only with the identity of Chandragupta Gupta and Sandracottus. A complete picture of the Dynastic lists and the names of individual Kings of the Magadha Empire is furnished here below :

1. Birth of Bhishma ………………….. ………………………………..3396 B.C
2. Birth of Vedavyasa…………………. ………………………………3374 ,,
3. Age of Vysampayana…………………. ……………………………3300 ,,
4. Age of Yaajnavalkya………………… ……………………………..3280 ,,
5. Kanwa Rishi……………………….. …………………………………..3250 ..
6. Bodhayana (Sutrakara)………………. ………………………….3200 ,,
7. The Saptarshis (or the Great Bear) entered Magha…3176 ,,
8. Coronation of Yudhistira at Sakraprastha … …………..3176 ,, (before the War)

9. Yudhistira lost his Empire in the game of Dice……….. 3151 ..

10. Murder of Keechaka by Bhimasena……………………… 3139 ,,

11. Date of Mahabharata War…………….. ……… 3138 ,,

12. Coronation of Yudhistira……………. …………………………3138 ,,
13. Yudhistira Era begins………………. …………………………..3138 ,,
14. Birth of Parikshit…………………. ……………………………….3138 ,,

15. Coronation of Brihatkshana, king of Ayodhya ……… 3138 ,, (Ikshwaku Dynasty)
16. Coronation of Maarjaari / Somadhi, king of Magadha 3138 ,, (after the War)
17. Coronation of Gali (king of Nepal) …………………….. …3138 ,,  (after the War)
18. Coronation of Gonanda-II, king of Kashmir ………….3139 

19. Sri Krishna Nirvana ……………….. …………………………..3102 ,,

20. Kali Era begins (Cycle year Pramaadhi)…  3102 ,,

21. Submersion of Dwaraka-Nagara…………. ………………3102 ,,
22. Annihilation of Yadava Dynasty……….. …………………3102 ,,
23. Coronation of Parikshit……………… ………………………..3101 ,,
24. Jayabhyudaya Yudhistira Saka begins…… …………..3101 ,,
25. Yudhistira Kaala (or Death of Yudhistira)…………….3076 ,,

1 Death of Parikshit………………………. …………………………3041 B.C
2 Coronation of Janamejaya…………………. ………………….3041 .,
3 Janamejaya’s Gift Deed (Cycle year Plavanga).. ……3012 ,.
4 Age of Aryabhatta……………………….. ……………………….2742 .,
5 Yudhistira Saka of the Jains……………… ………………….2634 ,,

6 Birth of Buddha…………………………. ………..  1887 ,,

7 Niryana of Buddha……………………….. ………………………1807 ,,
8 Coronation of Mahapadma Nanda…………….. ………….1634 ,,

9 Coronation of Chandra Gupta Maurya……. 1534 ,,

10 Coronation of Asoka……………………… …………………..1472 ,,
11 The Yayana king ‘Amtiyoka’……. ………………………..1472-36  (of Maurya inscriptions)
12 Age of Panini……………………………………….. ……………1400 ,,
13 End of reign of Salisuka of the Maurya dynasty… 1320 ,,
14 Age of the Yavana king “Milinda” …….. ………………1320-1307 ,,
15 Nagarjuna Yogi………………………….. ……………………..1294 ,,
16 Kanishka……………………………….. ………………………….1294-1234 ,,
17 Coronation of Pushyamitra Sunga…………… …………1218 ,,
18 Age of Patanjali………………………… ……………………….1218 ,,
19 Malava-Gana-Saka………………………… ………………….725 ,,
20 Birth of Vardhamana-Maha·Vira…………….. ………..599 ,,
21 Birth of Kumarila Bhattacharya……………. …………..557 ,,
22 Saka Bhupa Kala (Cyrus Era)………………. ……………550 ,,
23 Niryana of Vardhamana Maha Vira…………… ………528 ,,
24 Kumarilabhatta pushed out from the terrace…. …525 ,,

25 Birth of Adi Sankara……………………. ….     509 ,,

26 Upanayana of Adi Sankara………………… ……………..504 ,,
27 Death of Siva Guru, Sankara’s Father……… ……… 501 ,,
28 Authurasanyaasa of Sankara……………….. ………….500 ,,
29 Krama sanyasa of Sankara…………………. ……………499 ,,
30 Death of Aryamba (Sankara’s mother)………. ……493 ,,
31 Niryana of Govinda Bhagavatpada…………… ……..493 ,,
32 Meeting of Sankara with Kumarilabhatta…….. …493 ,,
33 Death of Kumarila. (Self Immolation)………. ……..493 ,,

1 Sanyasa of Mandana Misra(Sureswaraeharya)…. 491 B.C.
2 Establishment of Dwaraka Peetha …………………… 491 B.C.
3 Sankara’s Visit to Nepal……………………………… …….488 B.C.
4 Jyothir Mutt in the Himalayas…………………………. 486 B.C.
5 Govardhana mutt (Puri)……………………………….. …485 B.C.
6 Sarada Mutt (Sringeri )………………………………. ……484 B.C.
7 Kamakoti Peetha(Conjeevaram)……………………..  482 B.C.
8 Niryana of Sri Sankara………………………………..      477 B.C.
9 Era of Sri Harsha………………. …………………..           457 B.C.

________________________________________________________
10 Coronation of Chandragupta of Gupta Dynasty…………….. 327 B.C.

________________________________________________________

11 Gupta Era Begins …………………………………….       327 B.C.
12 Invasion of Alexander ………………………………..    326 B.C.
13 Birth of Vikramaditya Ujjayani ………… ………….101 B.C. (Panwar dynasty)
14 End of Gupta dynasty …………………………………    82 B.C.

15 Coronation of Vikaamaditya at Ujjain…………….. 82 B.C.

16 Era of Vikramaditya………………. …………………      …………..57 B.C.

17 Kalidasa , Varahamihira and others, …………….. 57 B.C. (nine gems in Vikramaditya’ court)
18 Era of Salivahana……………………………………. …….78 A.D.
19 Bhattotpala…………………………………………. ……..338 A.D.
20 Bhaskaraoharya ……………………………………… ..486. A.D.
21 Coronation of Bhoja Raja (Panwar Dynasty.). 638 A.D.
22 Birth of Ramanujacharya………………………….. 1017 A.D.
23 Birth of Madhvacharya…………………………….. 1119 A.D.
24 Death of Ramanujacharya………………………… 1137 A.D.
25 Battle of Staneswar…………………………………… 1193 A.D. (Ghori vs Prithviraj)

[ Source : http://trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.in/2009/06/1-birth-of-bhishma.html ]

Readers are requested to have a good look at these precisely stated dates with details, and ask the question : Is there any reason for us to disbelieve the entire information ?

… to be continued

A symbol of the eight fold path “Arya Magga” (the noble path of the dhamma) in early Buddhism.

Read more of Kosla Vepa uploads.

Related articles

• Alternate History : The Great Indic Migration (vamadevananda.wordpress.com)
• Shiva Purana (rudrakshtherapy.wordpress.com)
• Alternate History : Dating The Epics (vamadevananda.wordpress.com)

Indian History And Its Historians

Part II :       Sir William Jones

 Founder, Royal Asiatic Society

The real pioneer of European Indology was Sir William Jones (1746 – 1794), reputedly a scholar, gifted linguist, founder of the Royal Asiatic Society and, by all accounts, a man of superior intellect. He was a judicial officer in the East India Company and, it appears, a confidante of Warren Hastings (1732-1818.).

Jones ostensibly became an ardent admirer of India. He wrote, “I am in love with Gopia, charmed with Crishen (Krishna), an enthusiastic admirer of Raama and a devout adorer of Brihma (Brahma), Bishen (Vishnu), Mahisher (Maheshwara); not to mentionthat Judishteir, Arjen, Corno (Yudhishtira, Arjuna, Karna) and the other warriors of the Mahabharataappear greater in my eyes than Agamemnon, Ajax and Achilles appeared when I first read the Iliad.”

The truth of the matter is that the proto-historical thought prevailing in entire Western world until 18^th Century was circumscribed by the Biblical premise : God’s creation was begun about 4000 BC ! Nobody was without this limiting perspective while interpreting historical evidence – written, oral or archeological. Jones remained true to the Biblical dogma of Genesis, which he took to be a literal account. His chronology for ancient India, including the dating of Chandragupta Maurya to the period of Alexander’s invasion of India was dictated at least in part by the Biblical dogma. 

Jones may not have had an ulterior motive in doing this, since these were the times prior to advent of Charles Darwin. All the same, his disinclination to apply a more critical eye while setting up a dateline benchmark on rather flimsy data gives us a reason to recall his prejudice for the deep Biblical, which in turn belief renders his intent suspect. In 1786, while delivering his third lecture, Sir William made the following statement which aroused the curiosity of many scholars and finally led to the emergence of comparative linguistics. Noticing the similarities between Sanskrit and the Classical Languages of Europe such as Greek and Latin he declared :

“The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine all three of them, without believing them to have sprung from some common source which, perhaps, no longer exists; there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanskrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family…” 

There is cognitive dissonance in this stance of Sir William who, on the one hand, praises the Sanskrit language and its significance while, at the same time, not inviting a single Indian to participate in the deliberations of the Royal Asiatic Society. In fact, Indians were effectively barred from such participation. He had a good understanding of Vedanta and its the fundamental nuance between existence and its perceptibility : that, matter cannot be denied but had no essence independent of our mental perception of it; that “existence and perceptibility are convertible terms.”

But we rushing ahead. We must understand the milieu of the times, to fathom the motivations of the individuals on the stage then, who took momentous decisions on our behalf. Who were these people who came to India so eagerly ? What motivated them to do so ? Prodosh Aich has documented the real story behind the study of Indology, the subject that Sir William was credited with initiating. There are many questions that he answers in the book Lügen mit Langen Beinen (Lies with Long Legs). 

For example, individuals who served in upper echelons of the British East India company were awarded the title Sir (or a Knighthood) before being sent to India, presumably to impress the Indians. A gentleman with the title “Sir” was a Knight of the British Empire, reminiscent of the Knights of King Arthur. A Knight did not belong to the hereditary nobility, except on rare occasions. In order to become a Lord and sit in the House of Lords, one had to own a substantial estate; but land was scarce in England and hence, while it was possible to impress the Indian by awarding a Sir, it rarely resulted in their elevated to Peerage. 

We mention this to emphasise that the vast majority of officials who came to India were from modest circumstances and only became wealthy after their stay in India. In other words, the instances were rare when the individual was already famous as an achiever or was a scholar of some repute before he came to India. So it was in the case of Sir William, whose primary motivation in coming to India was to attain wealth, at an accelerated pace than he could hope for in his own country. 

As to his mastery of languages, it appears to be considerably exaggerated. He is credited with knowing 32 languages ! He apparently knew Greek and Latin, and had learned Arabic and Persian. But so great was his ignorance of Indic languages that he was unable to distinguish any of the languages spoken in Bengal when he arrived in Calcutta, in 1782. He was advised by Charles Wilkins to learn Sanskrit, upon which he is quoted as saying ‘Life is too short and my necessary business too long for me to think at my age – he was 38 then – of acquiring a new language, when those which I have already learned have such a mine of curious and agreeable information.’ Thus began the study of Indo European languages as one family. Such a study falls under the rubric of a field known as Philology.

Philology is the study of ancient texts and languages. The term originally meant a love (Greek philo-) of learning and literature (Greek -logia). In the academic traditions of several nations, a wide sense of the term describes the study of a language together with its literature, historical and cultural contexts, which are indispensable for a complete understanding of the literary works. Philology thus comprises the study of the grammar, rhetoric, history, interpretation of authors, and critical traditions associated with a given language. Such a wide-ranging definition is becoming rare nowadays, and “philology” tends to refer to a study of texts from the perspective of historical linguistics.

Inadvertently, Sir William set in motion a chain of events beginning with the search for a Proto Indo-European language (PIE). What puzzles us is that it never occurred to him, as far as we are aware, that possibly Sanskrit itself could be the grand ancestor to all Indo-European languages. Untill then, Europeans had assumed that the oldest language related to the European languages was Hebrew. Given the anti-Semitic feelings that simmered underneath the surface in European hearts, there was a general relief among all when Sir William’s study informed them that the roots of their heritage lay elsewhere than in Hebrew. But even as it did, the pioneer realised that transferring that origin onto the “unwashed millions” of a subject people would perhaps be equally unacceptable. Indeed, it would have been prohibitive and preposterous to even think, much less admit, that India possessed the linguistic technology (in Panini’s Ashtadhyayi) to explain the grammar of their own languages. 

As may be the case, there are two major disservice that Jones did to the Indic Civilisation. One was the possible misdating of Chandragupta Maurya by several centuries and the other was postulating the assumption of a PIE, which implied an Urheimat (ancestral home) from where the Indo Europeans fanned out to the four corners of the Eurasian landmass. By so doing, he laid the seeds for a fractured historical narrative for the Indics, which was not supported by any Indian legend, tradition or folklore. In short, he saddled the Indics with perpetually having to refute dual falsehoods : a false chronology and an imposed ‘Aryan Invasion’ or what has been light heartedly called the “Aryan Tourist theory.”

When it came to synchronism, the only significant data that Sir William could utilise was the Greek invasion under Alexander. This was the earliest date that he could come up with, and the data he had was the notes kept by Megasthenes, the ambassador sent to India by Seleucus Nikator, one of the generals of Alexander who broke away from the main Alexandrian empire to set up his own Satrapy. 

We will assume for the moment that the accepted date of the invasion, when Alexander was in the Indus valley, is indeed 326 BCE. There are severe difficulties with this dating. At the outset, the name “Alexander” rings no bells in India; it does not appear in any Indian literary text and is therefore, from Indian perspective, a “manufactured” event … hardly a judicious choice for historical synchronism pertaining to this land. Sir William however is delighted with his discovery, of Megasthenes being the ambassador of Seleucus Nikator to the Maurya Empire. We quote Sir William from his discourse on February 28, 1793, while marking the tenth anniversary of the Asiatic Society :

“I cannot help mentioning a discovery which accident threw in my way, (I) thought my proofs must be reserved for an essay which I have destined for the fourth volume of your Transactions. To fix the situation of that Palibothra which was visited and described by Megasthenes, had always appeared a very difficult problem.”

“…but this only difficulty was removed, when I found in a classical Sanscrit book, near 2000 years old, that Hiranyabahu, or golden-armed, which the Greeks changed into Erannoboas, or the river with a lovely murmur, was in fact another name for the Son itself, though Megasthenes, from ignorance or inattention, has named them separately. This discovery led to another of greater moment; for Chandragupta, who, from a military adventurer, became, like Sandracottus, the sovereign of Upper Hindostan, (and) actually fixed the seat of his empire at Pataliputra, where he received ambassadors from foreign princes; and was no other than that very Sandracottus who concluded a treaty with Seleucus Nicator; so that we have solved another problem, to which we before alluded, and may in round numbers consider the twelve and three hundredth years before Christ.” 

Jones’ speech informs us of his fancies : that he has found a classical but nameless Sanskrit book of about 2,000 years before; that, Chandragupta Maurya was no other than the very Sandracottus who is described by Megasthenes to have made a treaty with Seleucus around 312 BC; and, to establish that Chandragupta belonged to the Maurya dynasty, he mentions about some poem by Somdev which speaks of the murder of Mahapadma of the Nanda dynasty and his eight sons by Chandragupta in order to usurp the kingdom. 

In this way Jones created an arbitrary and fictitious connection between Chandragupta Maurya and Sandracottus. He says in his speech, “A most beautiful poem by Somadev, comprising a very long chain of instructive and agreeable stories, begins with the famed revolution at Pataliputra, by the murder of King Nanda with his eight sons, and the usurpation of Chandragupta; and the same revolution is the subject of a tragedy in Sanscrit, entitled the Coronation of Chandra.” (p. Xxviii) These were the basic points of his speech that was called “the Discovery” of the identity of Chandragupta Maurya as Sandracottus.

But the problem is that such a formulation was completely erroneous in all historical aspects and there are several hypotheses that he makes that are no longer valid. What are these ?

… to be continued

Which Chandragupta : Maurya or Gupta ?

Read more of Kosla Vepa uploads.

Related articles

• Indian History And Its Historians (vamadevananda.wordpress.com)
• God Language Sanskrit (godlanguagesanskrit.wordpress.com)
• Proto Indo-European Homeland, first in the series … https://vamadevananda.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/alternate-history-4/

Journal : A Page From History

Source : http://archive.org/stream/chandraguptamaur035072mbp/chandraguptamaur035072mbp_djvu.txt

Chandragupta Maurya has been praised by Indian and foreign authors alike for bestowing prosperity upon his country. Thus, Visakhadatta, the author of the Mudrarakshasa, has treated him as a deity descended upon earth to restore peace in the country, then troubled by barbarians.

Among foreign writers the only one who has accused Chandragupta of tyranny is the Roman historian Justin. But his opinion is in contradiction with the earlier account of Megasthenes, who everywhere refers to the prosperity of the Indian people.

Chandragupta distinguished himself in many dimensions. He was the conqueror of a vast territory, the emancipator of his country, the capable administrator of a great empire, and the harbinger of peace to his people. Considered to be the first historical emperor of India, he was undoubtedly the mightiest ruler of his time and one of the most lustrous stars in the firmament of monarchy.

It is not easy to embark upon a comparison, but as it is one of the best ways of understanding a person, it would be worthwhile to compare Chandragupta with three of the world’s greatest kings : Alexander, Akbar and Napoleon.

Alexander the Great was undoubtedly a great conqueror. We are bound to be dazzled when we recall to mind his wide conquests in a brief space of time, for he died quite young. Yet the truth is that much of what Alexander accomplished had already been planned by his father, Philip, a man of uncommon ability. Alexander had found his field prepared by his father, and thus had little difficulty to face at the outset of his career. In the words of Mr. H. G. Wells ” the true hero of the history of Alexander is not so much Alexander as his father Philip/’

Moreover, the countries conquered by Alexander gained nothing by the change of masters. It may be argued that he had schemes of organisation which were frustrated by his early death. But this is hardly borne out by his career. His vanity was insuperable, and his purpose seems to have been to dazzle the world by his valour. His purpose accomplished, he literally drank himself to death.

Chandragupta, on the other hand, was a man of a different metal. As brave and couragous as Alexander himself, his sole purpose seems to have been to bring peace and honour to his country. He had no advantages of birth and was actually an exile at the outset of his career. He too was a young man when he came on the scene, but in a brief space of time he had not only conquered but thoroughly organized a vast empire, giving all the advantages of a good government to his people.

Akbar, the Moghul monarch, was indeed much like Chandragupta. He has often been compared with Asoka, but in many respects his genius was more aligned with that of Chandragupta. Like Chandragupta, he was a man of ‘blood and iron’. Like him again, he was a great conqueror and a great administrator. But it must be remembered that Akbar had inherited the resources needed for forming a great empire as against Chandragupta who struggled from poverty and exile to power.

The success of Akbar’s administration was more due to the personal qualities of his ministers than to his thorough organisation and even Dr. Vincent Smith has admitted that” Akbar’s machine of government never attained the standard of efficiency reached by the Mauryas eighteen or nineteen centuries before his time.”

Napoleon certainly was one of the most brilliant figures in history. He resembles Chandragupta in as much as he also rose by dint of merit, and not by virtue of his birth. In his early youth he dreamt of an independent Corsica, much as Chandragupta seems to have dreamt of the independence of his country. Later though, Napoleon intent coiled up around mere ambition for conquest, and he actually failed to maintain the consequent empire. In fact, his country gained nothing by his splendid exploits.

Chandragupta was thus, on the whole, an uncommon genius. He was the founder of the greatest Hindu dynasty, to which also belonged the most famous Buddhist and Jain monarchs.

*** * ***

Provision In Respect Of Slavery  in Arthashastra …

A Manual For Social, Political & Economic Administration

Author : Kautilya, Chandragupta’a Prime Minister

“In regard to slavery, Kautilya’s attitude stands apart as a glowing light of liberalism and humanity in a barbaric age. While his contemporary Aristotle was justifying slavery as a divine and a beneficient human institution not only sanctioned by nature, but justified by the circumstances of social existence, Kautilya denounced it and strove to abolish it, characterising it as a custom which could exist only among the savage Mlechchhas ( a term for Greeks in his time).

“He boldly enunciated that among Aryas (free-born) none should be unfree or enslaved. His definition of the Arya was not narrow. According to him, the Sudra was equally an Arya, along with members of the higher castes/’  Chanakya (as Kautilya, came to be known) was one of the pioneers to include the Sudra within the Aryan fold, and his motive must have been to strengthen Aryavarta, the country of Bharata.

“His view on other social matters are also generally liberal and commendable. He was, hence, not without admirers, for Kamandaka, the author of Nitisara, has praised him highly.”

* * *

According to Megasthenes, Greek King Seleukos Nikator’s ambassador in Chandragupta’s court, all Indians were free and not one of them was a slave. But in the light of Arthasastra, we have to modify this statement. As a matter of fact, slavery did exist but a perusal of Arthasastra makes it clear that it was so different from the slavery which prevailed in the west, that a Greek could hardly notice it.

It was forbidden to sell an Arya or freeman (including Sudra) into slavery except at the person’s own option and dire necessity.

“It is no crime/’ says Kautilya, “for Mlechchhas to sell or mortgage the life of their own offspring, but never shall an Arya be subjected to slavery/’ He then proceeds to say that if a man is enslaved for inevitable reasons, he should be soon redeemed.

“But in order to tide over family troubles, to find money for fines or court decrees, or to recover the (confiscated) household implements, if the life of an Arya is mortgaged, they (his kinsmen) shall as soon as possible redeem him (from bondage); and more so if he is a youth or an adult capable of giving help/’

Moreover, a slave in the west had no personal rights; his person was dead. In India, a dasa was little worse than a servant as long as he was not redeemed. His offsprings were free even during his period of bondage. A dasa could even earn independently if he had time from his master’s work, and could regain his Aryahood if his independent savings became equal to the value for which he was purchased.

If a man abused or caused hurt to his slave, or employed the latter to do an ignoble work, the slave became free. Thus it is clear that although there were dasas in India, the kind of slavery prevalent in the west was non-existent in India.