Indian history has 2 important anchor points. The anchor points serves as "The proof" of a decisive dating of a king. Other kings can be dated in relation due to precednce. Both these anchors form part of the Epigraphic records. They are carved in rock.
Anchor-A) The 13th edict of Ashoka, links Devanampriya with Kalinga war and links Devanampriya with greek kings
Anchor-B) A minor edict at maski links, Devanampriya with Ashoka and say, he is follower of Budha.
From Greek records, the greek kings mentioned in 13th edicts are dated (so no confusion of saka error). As the line says king devanampriya is a contemporary, Devanampriyas year gets Anchored. As second edict links devanampriya with Ashoka and says he is a follower of Buddhism.
Budhist records talk of Mauryan emperror Ashoka ruling from pataliputra, who got converted to Budhism.
Some are arguing (and confusing) Devanmpriya with Pandyan ruler, Samudragupta etc. 1st objection is that, samudragupta was an Hindu ruler and he did not convert to Budhism. Pandyan ruler who was devanmpriya (not sure, what is the source), would have used tamil rather than pali to write edicts. Pandyans were Hindus and they never converted to Buddhism. So, these arguments falls flat.
Let us analyze each of these.
1) First to be considered is the 13th Rock Edict at Khalsi (read all edicts here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/dhammika/wheel386.html#fnt-28)
“And this (conquest) has been won repeatedly by Devanampriya both here and among all (his) borderers, even as far as at (the distance of) six hundred yojanas, where the Yona king named Antiyoka (is ruling), and beyond this Antiyoka, (where) four-4-kings (are ruling), (viz. the king) named Turamaya, (the king) named Antikini, (the king) named Maka, (and the king) named Alikasudara, (and) towards the south, (where) the Choḍas and Pāṇḍyas (are ruling), as far as Tāmraparṇī.”
This edict links a ruler called "Devanampriya with 4 greek rulers called
We can say, the Indian king "Devanampriya" was living in say 230BC (probable date of this edict). -> Point 1
2) Full text of 13th edict is as follows
"Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, conquered the Kalingas eight years after his coronation. One hundred and fifty thousand were deported, one hundred thousand were killed and many more died (from other causes). After the Kalingas had been conquered, Beloved-of-the-Gods came to feel a strong inclination towards the Dhamma, a love for the Dhamma and for instruction in Dhamma. Now Beloved-of-the-Gods feels deep remorse for having conquered the Kalingas.
Indeed, Beloved-of-the-Gods is deeply pained by the killing, dying and deportation that take place when an unconquered country is conquered. But Beloved-of-the-Gods is pained even more by this — that Brahmans, ascetics, and householders of different religions who live in those countries, and who are respectful to superiors, to mother and father, to elders, and who behave properly and have strong loyalty towards friends, acquaintances, companions, relatives, servants and employees — that they are injured, killed or separated from their loved ones. Even those who are not affected (by all this) suffer when they see friends, acquaintances, companions and relatives affected. These misfortunes befall all (as a result of war), and this pains Beloved-of-the-Gods.
There is no country, except among the Greeks, where these two groups, Brahmans and ascetics, are not found, and there is no country where people are not devoted to one or another religion. Therefore the killing, death or deportation of a hundredth, or even a thousandth part of those who died during the conquest of Kalinga now pains Beloved-of-the-Gods. Now Beloved-of-the-Gods thinks that even those who do wrong should be forgiven where forgiveness is possible.
Even the forest people, who live in Beloved-of-the-Gods' domain, are entreated and reasoned with to act properly. They are told that despite his remorse Beloved-of-the-Gods has the power to punish them if necessary, so that they should be ashamed of their wrong and not be killed. Truly, Beloved-of-the-Gods desires non-injury, restraint and impartiality to all beings, even where wrong has been done.
Now it is conquest by Dhamma that Beloved-of-the-Gods considers to be the best conquest. And it (conquest by Dhamma) has been won here, on the borders, even six hundred yojanas away, where the Greek king Antiochos rules, beyond there where the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonos, Magas and Alexander rule, likewise in the south among the Cholas, the Pandyas, and as far as Tamraparni. Here in the king's domain among the Greeks, the Kambojas, the Nabhakas, the Nabhapamkits, the Bhojas, the Pitinikas, the Andhras and the Palidas, everywhere people are following Beloved-of-the-Gods' instructions in Dhamma. Even where Beloved-of-the-Gods' envoys have not been, these people too, having heard of the practice of Dhamma and the ordinances and instructions in Dhamma given by Beloved-of-the-Gods, are following it and will continue to do so. This conquest has been won everywhere, and it gives great joy — the joy which only conquest by Dhamma can give. But even this joy is of little consequence. Beloved-of-the-Gods considers the great fruit to be experienced in the next world to be more important.
I have had this Dhamma edict written so that my sons and great-grandsons may not consider making new conquests, or that if military conquests are made, that they be done with forbearance and light punishment, or better still, that they consider making conquest by Dhamma only, for that bears fruit in this world and the next. May all their intense devotion be given to this which has a result in this world and the next."
The edict talks about "Kalinga" war and Devanampriya turning to Budhism because of it. The tone and text clearly means an apology for war and provides guidence for future rulers not to wage war, but win hearts of people through "Dharma", "Intelectualism" and "good work". -> Point 2
3) Minor Edict at Maski, Raichur, Karnataka says,
The Meaning is interpreted as
"Beloved-of-the-Gods speaks thus: It is now more than two and a half years since I became a lay-disciple, but until now I have not been very zealous. But now that I have visited the Sangha for more than a year, I have become very zealous. Now the people in India who have not associated with the gods do so. This is the result of zeal and it is not just the great who can do this. Even the humble, if they are zealous, can attain heaven. And this proclamation has been made with this aim. Let both humble and great be zealous, let even those on the borders know and let zeal last long. Then this zeal will increase, it will greatly increase, it will increase up to one-and-a-half times. This message has been proclaimed two hundred and fifty-six times by the king while on tour."
One can read the scientific paper from Indian author here....
http://www.ijhssi.org/papers/v4(3)/Version-3/F0433028031.pdf
The edict links Devanampriya with "Ashoka" -> Point 3
The edict Links, Devanampriya Ashoka with Buddhism (worshipper of Buddha).
-> Point 4
4) Megasthenes was the Greek ambassador sent by Seleucus Nicator in c. 302 B.C. to the court of the Indian king whom he and the Greek called "Sandrocottus". He was stationed in "Palimbothra", the capital city of the kingdom. It is not clear how many years Megasthenes stayed in India, but he did write an account of his stay, titled Indika. The manuscript Indika is lost, and there is no copy of it available. However, during the time it was available, many other Greek writers quoted passages from it in their own works. These quotations were meticulously collected by Dr. Schwanbeck in the nineteenth century, and this compilation is also available to us in English (J.M. McCrindle: Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian). These accounts supplied some information about India of the time of the Macedonian king Alexander. It mentioned seven names of three successive Indian kings. Attributing one name each for the three kings the names are Xandrammes, Sandrocottus and Sandrocyptus. Xandrammes of the previous dynasty was murdered by Sandrokottas whose son was Sandrocyptus.
Problem with chandragupta as contemporary of Alexander is that, he succeeded his father (ghatothkatch and his grandfather srigupta was also a king).Linking samudragupta as Ashoka is also mischievous, as some indologists wants to fit the date of devanampriya with mahabharata war (which is derived to be in 3101BC). Mahabharata war reference was fixed due to Aihole epigraphy of pulakeshi-2.
All the scholars have relied on this inscription found in the Jain Temple at Aihole prepared by one Chalukya King Pulakeshi. It says, according to scholars, that the temple was constructed in 30+3000+700+5 = 3735 years, after the Bharat War and 50+6+500 = 556 years of Shaka era in Kali era. Today Shaka era is 1910. Hence 1910- 556 = 1354 years ago the temple was constructed. Thus the year of inscribing this note is 634 AD. At this time 3735 years had passed from the Bharat War. So the date of the War comes to 3101 BC. This is also the date of Kali Yuga Commencement.
Aihole script can be read here https://cbkwgl.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/chalukya-pulakesis-aihole-inscription/)
Since some Greek texts derived from Megasthanese talk about 154 kings and 6451 years from beginning of kingdom in India, historians could not fit the dates. There are 2 problems in interpreting Aihole inscription
A) The epigraphy says Bharata war (It is interpreted as Mahabharata war, but it could also means some great war important to birth of Chalukyas/Rajaputs)
B) The saka used is assumed to be shalivahana saka, popular in south. Using which the dating of epigraphic record is arrived to be in 634AD. It could be or it could be referring to some other saka also. Even if it is shalivahana saka, there are controversies to fix the saka beginning to 78AD.
But, scholars are trying to prove mahabharata happened in 310BC or 5561 BC
(https://hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/mahabharat/mahab_vartak.html)
6) Regarding names Xandrammes, Sandrocottus and Sandrocyptus not matching phonetically with Nanda, Chandragupta and Bimbisara. Consider the following facts
a) Darius III (c. 380 – July 330 BC), The persian emperor Alexander targeted was, originally named Artashata and called Codomannus by the Greeks. Note how, greek names doesnot match Darius that one can find in persian records
b) Arthashastra is the famous book by chanakya. Does this name of darius has any influence from sanskrit?
c)Artaxerxes III was predecessor of Darious and Artaxerxes IV was the succcessor. After killing Darius, Bessus took the regal name Artaxerxes V and began calling himself the King of Asia.
The names of Nanda, chandragupta and Bindusara could have got changed due to codification (used in secret communications) while passing through persia. This is most probable, as Megasthenes was an ambassador and was reporting to greeks. So, he would have used the names, as familiar to greeks. As we do not have original reference of Indica from Megasthanese, this can not be proved decisively.
Point 1 - 4 is there for everybody to see. Where is the question of vested interest here? Why Western historians tweaking come here? These are hard proofs.
Anchor-A) The 13th edict of Ashoka, links Devanampriya with Kalinga war and links Devanampriya with greek kings
Anchor-B) A minor edict at maski links, Devanampriya with Ashoka and say, he is follower of Budha.
From Greek records, the greek kings mentioned in 13th edicts are dated (so no confusion of saka error). As the line says king devanampriya is a contemporary, Devanampriyas year gets Anchored. As second edict links devanampriya with Ashoka and says he is a follower of Buddhism.
Budhist records talk of Mauryan emperror Ashoka ruling from pataliputra, who got converted to Budhism.
Some are arguing (and confusing) Devanmpriya with Pandyan ruler, Samudragupta etc. 1st objection is that, samudragupta was an Hindu ruler and he did not convert to Budhism. Pandyan ruler who was devanmpriya (not sure, what is the source), would have used tamil rather than pali to write edicts. Pandyans were Hindus and they never converted to Buddhism. So, these arguments falls flat.
Let us analyze each of these.
1) First to be considered is the 13th Rock Edict at Khalsi (read all edicts here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/dhammika/wheel386.html#fnt-28)
“And this (conquest) has been won repeatedly by Devanampriya both here and among all (his) borderers, even as far as at (the distance of) six hundred yojanas, where the Yona king named Antiyoka (is ruling), and beyond this Antiyoka, (where) four-4-kings (are ruling), (viz. the king) named Turamaya, (the king) named Antikini, (the king) named Maka, (and the king) named Alikasudara, (and) towards the south, (where) the Choḍas and Pāṇḍyas (are ruling), as far as Tāmraparṇī.”
This edict links a ruler called "Devanampriya with 4 greek rulers called
- Amtiyoko refers to Antiochus II Theos of Syria (261–246 BCE), who controlled the Seleucid Empire from Syria to Bactria in the east from 305 to 250 BCE
- Turamaye refers to Ptolemy II Philadelphos of Egypt (285–247 BCE), king of the dynasty founded by Ptolemy I, a former general of Alexander the Great, in Egypt.
- Amtikini refers to Antigonus II Gonatas of Macedon (278–239 BCE).
- Maka refers to Magas of Cyrene (300–258 BCE).
- Alikasudaro refers to Alexander II of Epirus (272–258 BCE).
We can say, the Indian king "Devanampriya" was living in say 230BC (probable date of this edict). -> Point 1
2) Full text of 13th edict is as follows
"Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, conquered the Kalingas eight years after his coronation. One hundred and fifty thousand were deported, one hundred thousand were killed and many more died (from other causes). After the Kalingas had been conquered, Beloved-of-the-Gods came to feel a strong inclination towards the Dhamma, a love for the Dhamma and for instruction in Dhamma. Now Beloved-of-the-Gods feels deep remorse for having conquered the Kalingas.
Indeed, Beloved-of-the-Gods is deeply pained by the killing, dying and deportation that take place when an unconquered country is conquered. But Beloved-of-the-Gods is pained even more by this — that Brahmans, ascetics, and householders of different religions who live in those countries, and who are respectful to superiors, to mother and father, to elders, and who behave properly and have strong loyalty towards friends, acquaintances, companions, relatives, servants and employees — that they are injured, killed or separated from their loved ones. Even those who are not affected (by all this) suffer when they see friends, acquaintances, companions and relatives affected. These misfortunes befall all (as a result of war), and this pains Beloved-of-the-Gods.
There is no country, except among the Greeks, where these two groups, Brahmans and ascetics, are not found, and there is no country where people are not devoted to one or another religion. Therefore the killing, death or deportation of a hundredth, or even a thousandth part of those who died during the conquest of Kalinga now pains Beloved-of-the-Gods. Now Beloved-of-the-Gods thinks that even those who do wrong should be forgiven where forgiveness is possible.
Even the forest people, who live in Beloved-of-the-Gods' domain, are entreated and reasoned with to act properly. They are told that despite his remorse Beloved-of-the-Gods has the power to punish them if necessary, so that they should be ashamed of their wrong and not be killed. Truly, Beloved-of-the-Gods desires non-injury, restraint and impartiality to all beings, even where wrong has been done.
Now it is conquest by Dhamma that Beloved-of-the-Gods considers to be the best conquest. And it (conquest by Dhamma) has been won here, on the borders, even six hundred yojanas away, where the Greek king Antiochos rules, beyond there where the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonos, Magas and Alexander rule, likewise in the south among the Cholas, the Pandyas, and as far as Tamraparni. Here in the king's domain among the Greeks, the Kambojas, the Nabhakas, the Nabhapamkits, the Bhojas, the Pitinikas, the Andhras and the Palidas, everywhere people are following Beloved-of-the-Gods' instructions in Dhamma. Even where Beloved-of-the-Gods' envoys have not been, these people too, having heard of the practice of Dhamma and the ordinances and instructions in Dhamma given by Beloved-of-the-Gods, are following it and will continue to do so. This conquest has been won everywhere, and it gives great joy — the joy which only conquest by Dhamma can give. But even this joy is of little consequence. Beloved-of-the-Gods considers the great fruit to be experienced in the next world to be more important.
I have had this Dhamma edict written so that my sons and great-grandsons may not consider making new conquests, or that if military conquests are made, that they be done with forbearance and light punishment, or better still, that they consider making conquest by Dhamma only, for that bears fruit in this world and the next. May all their intense devotion be given to this which has a result in this world and the next."
The edict talks about "Kalinga" war and Devanampriya turning to Budhism because of it. The tone and text clearly means an apology for war and provides guidence for future rulers not to wage war, but win hearts of people through "Dharma", "Intelectualism" and "good work". -> Point 2
3) Minor Edict at Maski, Raichur, Karnataka says,
A reconstruction of the edict reads thus:
“For two and a half years I am a lay worshipper of Buddha. (For more than)...I have gone to...the Sangha...I have gone to...Before in Jambudvipa...now they have become mixed...This purpose is even able to be attained by a lowly person who is joined with dharma. It is not only to be seen that a high person might attain this. It is to be said to a lowly person and a high person...Doing thus...Thus (it will be) long standing and will increase (up to) one and half.”
The edict is highly fragmented.
"Beloved-of-the-Gods speaks thus: It is now more than two and a half years since I became a lay-disciple, but until now I have not been very zealous. But now that I have visited the Sangha for more than a year, I have become very zealous. Now the people in India who have not associated with the gods do so. This is the result of zeal and it is not just the great who can do this. Even the humble, if they are zealous, can attain heaven. And this proclamation has been made with this aim. Let both humble and great be zealous, let even those on the borders know and let zeal last long. Then this zeal will increase, it will greatly increase, it will increase up to one-and-a-half times. This message has been proclaimed two hundred and fifty-six times by the king while on tour."
One can read the scientific paper from Indian author here....
http://www.ijhssi.org/papers/v4(3)/Version-3/F0433028031.pdf
Apart from associating the title ‘Devanampriya’ with Ashoka, the inscription suggests the spread of Mauryan rule up to the Krishna valley of northeastern Karnataka. Some historians believe that Ashoka must have attached some special significance to the region because he chose to reveal his name.
The edict links Devanampriya with "Ashoka" -> Point 3
The edict Links, Devanampriya Ashoka with Buddhism (worshipper of Buddha).
-> Point 4
4) Megasthenes was the Greek ambassador sent by Seleucus Nicator in c. 302 B.C. to the court of the Indian king whom he and the Greek called "Sandrocottus". He was stationed in "Palimbothra", the capital city of the kingdom. It is not clear how many years Megasthenes stayed in India, but he did write an account of his stay, titled Indika. The manuscript Indika is lost, and there is no copy of it available. However, during the time it was available, many other Greek writers quoted passages from it in their own works. These quotations were meticulously collected by Dr. Schwanbeck in the nineteenth century, and this compilation is also available to us in English (J.M. McCrindle: Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian). These accounts supplied some information about India of the time of the Macedonian king Alexander. It mentioned seven names of three successive Indian kings. Attributing one name each for the three kings the names are Xandrammes, Sandrocottus and Sandrocyptus. Xandrammes of the previous dynasty was murdered by Sandrokottas whose son was Sandrocyptus.
Problem with chandragupta as contemporary of Alexander is that, he succeeded his father (ghatothkatch and his grandfather srigupta was also a king).Linking samudragupta as Ashoka is also mischievous, as some indologists wants to fit the date of devanampriya with mahabharata war (which is derived to be in 3101BC). Mahabharata war reference was fixed due to Aihole epigraphy of pulakeshi-2.
All the scholars have relied on this inscription found in the Jain Temple at Aihole prepared by one Chalukya King Pulakeshi. It says, according to scholars, that the temple was constructed in 30+3000+700+5 = 3735 years, after the Bharat War and 50+6+500 = 556 years of Shaka era in Kali era. Today Shaka era is 1910. Hence 1910- 556 = 1354 years ago the temple was constructed. Thus the year of inscribing this note is 634 AD. At this time 3735 years had passed from the Bharat War. So the date of the War comes to 3101 BC. This is also the date of Kali Yuga Commencement.
Aihole script can be read here https://cbkwgl.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/chalukya-pulakesis-aihole-inscription/)
Since some Greek texts derived from Megasthanese talk about 154 kings and 6451 years from beginning of kingdom in India, historians could not fit the dates. There are 2 problems in interpreting Aihole inscription
A) The epigraphy says Bharata war (It is interpreted as Mahabharata war, but it could also means some great war important to birth of Chalukyas/Rajaputs)
B) The saka used is assumed to be shalivahana saka, popular in south. Using which the dating of epigraphic record is arrived to be in 634AD. It could be or it could be referring to some other saka also. Even if it is shalivahana saka, there are controversies to fix the saka beginning to 78AD.
But, scholars are trying to prove mahabharata happened in 310BC or 5561 BC
(https://hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/mahabharat/mahab_vartak.html)
5) We have three versions of a statement by Megasthenes, which can bear upon our
problem.
Pliny (VI. xxl.4-5) reports about the Indians: "From the days of Father
Bacchus to Alexander the Great, their kings are reckoned at 154, whose
reigns extend over 6451 years and 3 months."
Solinus (52.5) says: "Father Bacchus was the first who invaded India,
and was the first of all who triumphed over the vanquished Indians. From
him to Alexander the Great 6451 years are reckoned with 3 months
additional, the calculation being made by counting the kings, who
reigned in the intermediate period, to the number of 153."
Arrian (Indica, I. ix.) observes: "From the time of Dionysus to
Sandrocottus the Indians counted 153 kings and a period of 6042 years,
but among these a republic was thrice established... and another to 300
years, and another to 120 years. The Indians also tell us that Dionysus
was earlier than Heracles by fifteen generations, and that except him no
one made a hostile invasion of India
(study:- http://www.motherandsriaurobindo.in/_StaticContent/SriAurobindoAshram/-09%20E-Library/-03%20Disciples/Amal%20Kiran%20(K%20D%20Sethna)/-01%20English/Ancient%20India%20in%20a%20New%20Light/-003_The%20Momentous%20Evidence%20of%20Megasthenes.htm)
6) Regarding names Xandrammes, Sandrocottus and Sandrocyptus not matching phonetically with Nanda, Chandragupta and Bimbisara. Consider the following facts
a) Darius III (c. 380 – July 330 BC), The persian emperor Alexander targeted was, originally named Artashata and called Codomannus by the Greeks. Note how, greek names doesnot match Darius that one can find in persian records
b) Arthashastra is the famous book by chanakya. Does this name of darius has any influence from sanskrit?
c)Artaxerxes III was predecessor of Darious and Artaxerxes IV was the succcessor. After killing Darius, Bessus took the regal name Artaxerxes V and began calling himself the King of Asia.
The names of Nanda, chandragupta and Bindusara could have got changed due to codification (used in secret communications) while passing through persia. This is most probable, as Megasthenes was an ambassador and was reporting to greeks. So, he would have used the names, as familiar to greeks. As we do not have original reference of Indica from Megasthanese, this can not be proved decisively.
Point 1 - 4 is there for everybody to see. Where is the question of vested interest here? Why Western historians tweaking come here? These are hard proofs.
No comments:
Post a Comment