|
Who are We?
What do we do?
Latest News
Free Resources
Links
|
Misdating of Important Events
and Personalities in Indic History
The more I study this topic of Indic
History and Chronology the more i feel it is hopelessly
scrambled up beyond all recognition, thanks mainly due to
the efforts by Sir William Jones and Friedrich
Maximilian Mueller, presumably because they could not shake
loose from their preconceived notion of Indian
antiquity. Here are 2 examples. There are other examples of
misdating most notable being Aryabhatta I, the Buddha, and
Adi Sankara
|
Antiquity and Continuity of Indian History by Prasad
Gokhale (excerpt)
-
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.
-
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.).
|
|
|