coffee_rules Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 (edited) One thing that doesn't match in Greek accounts of Indian history with our Purana chronology is Chandragupta MauryA would have lived 1200 years before what Greek accounts say he did. This is because Greeks mention a Sandrokottos who William Jones identified as Chandragupta Maurya, but our Purana lineage is about 1200 years earlier (1500 bce) for Chandragupta Maurya with mentions of Kautilya or Chanakya helping him beat the Nanda dynasty and establish The Maurya kingdom. I have read this account from multiple reliable people to disparage it. This is why western academia doesn't believe in the chronology of our Puranas, but call it mythology. https://www.sanskritimagazine.com/history/who-was-sandrocottus-samudragupta-or-chandragupta-maurya/ http://indiafacts.org/who-was-sandrokottos-chandragupta-maurya-or-chandragupta-i-of-imperial-gupta-dynasty/ Quote Mentor It is well-known that Chandragupta Maurya was installed as the ruler of Magadha by his mentor Chāṇakya, who engineered a coup to depose the last Nanda ruler. Chāṇakya then played a larger than life role as the Prime Minister of Chandragupta, his son Bindusāra, and grandson Aśoka. If Chandragupta Maurya was the Sandrokottos of Greek accounts, then the absence of any mention of Chāṇakya in the Greek accounts is difficult to explain. The Severe Famine According to Jain sources, there was a great famine during the rule of Chandragupta Maurya [13]: “Traditional accounts celebrate the place, as the one whereto Bhadrabahu, known as the last Sruttakevalin and preceptor or spiritual guru of Emperor Chandragupta Maurya (321-296 BC) resorted to, leading thousands of lay followers, when the country around Pāṭaliputra had fallen under severe and prolonged famine condition. As such, he advised Chandragupta Maurya to make suitable arrangements for mobilization of people, and his Jain sangha, from famine-stricken region, to a safer place.” However, according to the Greek classical writer Diodorus, India had never experienced a famine [14]. If Sandrokottos was Chandragupta Maurya, Greek writers would have known about the severe famine and would not have written that famine had never visited India. The List of Kings Greek classical writers have noted that there were 153 kings between Father Bacchus and Alexander the Great or between Dionysos and Sandrokottos [15-17]. Sethna has tabulated the list of kings, but there are only 111 kings starting from Svāyambhūva Manu, the first king in Indian lists, to Chandragupta Maurya, while there are 146 kings, starting from Svāyambhūva Manu to Chandragupta I [18]. Even though we don’t exactly know who the Greeks had in mind when they talked about Father Bacchus or Dionysos, the evidence is clearly against Chandragupta Maurya being the contemporary of Alexander. Thus, based on the examination of the information provided by Greeks, we can safely say that evidence is better tilted in the favour of Chandragupta I of the Imperial Gupta Dynasty being the Sandrokottos of the Greek accounts instead of Chandragupta Maurya. However, what tilts the balance in the favour of Chandragupta Maurya being Sandrokottos is the second sheet anchor of Indian history. Also, there is no mention of Asoka in Greet accounts. A lot of Asoka's references are made up from different Buddhist accounts, his story of a tyrant to a recluse monk is a myth perpetrated by British historians. There are some inscriptions where even after Kalinga, he has killed a lot of people (Kharavela Hathigumpha inscription in Orissa). https://www.academia.edu/30677395/Who_was_the_Indian_King_Sandrokottus_A_Contemporary_of_Alexander_and_Seleucus_Nicator Quote Almost all western historians have agreed with William Jones and re-constructed the chronologyof ancient India considering the contemporaneity of Alexander and Chandragupta Maurya asSheet anchor. These western historians were generally Christians by birth. Therefore, they blindly believed that Jesus was born around 1 AD and considered the epoch of 1 AD as the sheet anchorof the world chronology. Thus, they have fixed the date of Alexander around 332-324 BCE.Accordingly, the date of Chandragupta Maurya has been brought forward by ~1285 years and fixed the date of Chandragupta Maurya’s accession in 324 BCE. Puranas give the date ofChandragupta Maurya around 1609-1575 BCE. Chandragupta I or Samudragupta as Sandrokottus Sh. Kota Venkatachalam concludes that “It is most likely that Chandragupta I and Samudragupta were the contemporaries of Alexandar and Seleucus Nicator; and were known to the Greeks under the name of Xandrames, Sandrokottus and Sandrocyptus.” He followed the traditionalPuranic chronology and fixed the date of Maurya dynasty around 1534-1218 BCE and the date ofGupta dynasty around 327-82 BCE. Chandraketu as Sandrokottus Pandit Bhagavaddatta speculated that Yamuna was flowing through Palibotha i.e., Paribhadra,the capital of the Prassi kingdom. Palibothra was 200 miles from Prayaga on way to Mathura. Thekshatriyas there were known as Prabhadrakas or Paribhadrakas. Their king was Chandraketu. Thecapital Paribhadra was near to Sindhu-Pulinda which is in Madhya Desha and is today termed asKali-Sindha. The Karusha Sarovara was between Sindhu-Pulinda and Prayaga. The Methodology of historians In fact, the methodology adopted by western historians was fallacious. They followed an unqualified epoch of 1 AD and fixed the date of Alexander. Thereafter, they fixed the date ofChandragupta Maurya based on the mistaken contemporaneity of Alexander and ChandraguptaMaurya and reconstructed the chronology of ancient India without any verification of thetraditional chronology. In reality, we have to arrive the complete chronology of ancient Greeceand ancient India independently. Thereafter, we have to establish the identity of the Indian kingSandrokottus, the contemporary of Alexander.Similarly, Sh. TSN Shastry and Sh. Kota Venkatachalam reconstructed the traditional chronologyof ancient India based on Puranas but simply believed that Alexander lived around 332-324 BCE.Thus, they proposed that Sandokottus must be identified with Chandragupta I or Samudragupta. Pandit Bhagavaddatta has also blindly accepted the date of Alexander around 332-324 BCE andproposed that King Chandraketu was the Sandrokottus. The Date of Chandragupta Maurya, Chandragupta I and Alexander I have already explained the chronological error in fixing the date of Buddha nirvana in my article “The Date of Buddha Nirvana” and also presented the true chronology of ancient India fromMahabharata war to early medieval era in my book “The Chronology of Ancient India: Victim of Concoctions and Distortions”. According to my research, Buddha attained nirvana in 1865 BCE. Thus, Chandragupta Maurya reigned around 1609-1575 BCE. I have also discussed the epoch ofthe Gupta era and fixed the epoch in 335 BCE. Therefore, Chandragupta I and Samudraguptareigned around 335-280 BCE. Edited February 25, 2020 by coffee_rules
coffee_rules Posted February 25, 2020 Author Posted February 25, 2020 (edited) Quote @Muloghonto wrote: It is a very contentious and complex issue because Jain and Buddhist chronology plus some puranic accounts converge on the idea that Chandragupta Maurya lived in the 400-300 BCE period. I suggest a new thread for this because this will eat up a whole thread if we get into this. Quick summary: For eg, Bhavishya Purana and Vayu Purana both mention that the simuka, the first ruler of the Andhras rose to power after deposing the Kanvas, who ruled for 70 years, who ruled after the Shungas who ruled 115 years, who ruled after the Mauryas, who ruled for 135 years, etc. Cross reference to Satavahanas more or less fixes this to 4th-5th century BCE for ChandraGupta M. Buddhsit long count calendar and Jain long count converges on 600s BCE - aka 7th century BCE for dates of Buddha, the Buddhist short count calendar puts it at 5th century BCE aka 500-400 BCE period. Yet, all Roman and Greek accounts potray a diverse local landscape politically that do not line up with old Magadha imperialism, which was specific to removal of local dynasties from power and investing power in the Amatyas- Governors. Their depiction is much more socially in line with the Gupta Era, where local rulers ruled in their own names but acknowledged overlordship of certain dynasties and imperial power was federated in India. So there are some mixed signals and there are some explanations that make sense but my opinion is, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Pillars of Ashoka are 265-255 BCE period. This is because Ashoka names 3 Greek Kings - all three independently verified, ruling over Egypt, Macedon and Syria during this period. According to some, "Megasthanes mentioned that Sakas or Skythians were living in northern side of India". Many greek scholars also wrote about Skythians. It seems like Saka Ksatrapas were ruling NWFP part of India during Megasthanes. But Sakas were contemporaries of Guptas and not Mauryas. The kings mentioned by Asoka inscriptions are Yavana kings - Antikina, Alikasundara, Maga, Turamaya and Gongakena. Western historians went by the similar names - Antiochus, Theos (Syria), Alexander of Epirus, Magas of Cyrene Ptolemy Philadelphos of Egypt and Gonatus of Macedonia. These are only because of similarity in names and no other evidence. Yavanas have ruled in NWFP during Asoka period and not Sakas. Quote This is the 10 year period when those rulers coincide in western records and they are well documented there. Question is, does ‘ Devanampriya Priyadassi/Priyadarshi’ decisively refer to Ashoka ? Apparently according to Orissa rock inscription in same script, almost certainly. This is is a big anchor of Indian history that I don’t think can be challenged. Very rarely do we have evidence of a king talking of 3 foreign kings and those three foreign kings are referred independently in their own people’s writing. This is literally historical gold- their times equivalent of the Aliens finding US declaration of war in WWII where some dude named Rosevelt is declaring war on people over there who’s dudes name is Hitler. Edited February 25, 2020 by coffee_rules
Muloghonto Posted February 28, 2020 Posted February 28, 2020 On 2/25/2020 at 12:43 PM, coffee_rules said: According to some, "Megasthanes mentioned that Sakas or Skythians were living in northern side of India". Many greek scholars also wrote about Skythians. It seems like Saka Ksatrapas were ruling NWFP part of India during Megasthanes. But Sakas were contemporaries of Guptas and not Mauryas. The kings mentioned by Asoka inscriptions are Yavana kings - Antikina, Alikasundara, Maga, Turamaya and Gongakena. Western historians went by the similar names - Antiochus, Theos (Syria), Alexander of Epirus, Magas of Cyrene Ptolemy Philadelphos of Egypt and Gonatus of Macedonia. These are only because of similarity in names and no other evidence. Yavanas have ruled in NWFP during Asoka period and not Sakas. Actually the sakas are contemporaries of the Shungas & kanvas- the contemporary of the Guptas were their offshoot the western kshatrapas. The northern kshatrapas came much earlier for eg.
Recommended Posts