Menander and Milinda

It is supposed that Menander was born at Kalasigrama near Kabul (in the region of the ancient Yavana kingdoms) as mentioned in the ‘Milinda Panha.’ His capital is said to have been Sakala or modern Sialkot in the Punjab. It seems this Menander handed over the administration to his son and became a Buddhist monk and gradually an Arhat. So, it is presumed that the story mentioned by Plutarch of the king over whose bones the neighbouring cities contested for possession might have been true of him. The story related by Kshemendra with reference to Menander is also narrated with reference to Kanishka, it seems. Also it seems that in connection with a Buddhist image in Indo—China it is stated that Menander and Kanishka were associated. The author, however declares his opinion of such legends as follows: "Ofcourse such legends are not always authentic; but the most interesting thing in this connection is the impression the foreign king must have made on the Indian Mind. "(Bhavan’s History Vol. II, p. 113).
There is no definite conclusion in the above account of Menander. This Menander is identified as the Milinda of Milinda Panha. He is, it seems assigned to the 2nd century B.C., but the author of the essay Dr. D.C. Sirkar prefers to assign him to 115-90 B.C. It seems some historians opine that the Yavana prince who invaded India in the time of Patanjali and carried his conquests upto Saketa and Madhyamika-Desa was only this Menander. But it is pointed out that in the interpolated Yugapurana chapter in Garga Samhita( Vide ··“Yugapurana" By Pandit Kota Venkatachalam·) that a Yavana invasion reached Eastern Bharat after the time of ‘king Salisuka’ of the Maurya dynasty and before Pushyamitra became king ie, before the coronation of Pushyamitra, conjectured to have taken place in 187 B·C· It seems historical scholars are unanimously of opinion that Menander’s time is about 165 B.C. So he might have been a contemporary of Pushya Mitra towards the end of his career but he could not have been the invader before Pushya-Mitra in 200 B.C.
‘Pushsyamitra, it is claimed, waged war with the Yavana prince Demetrius soon after he seized power and later, towards the end of his reign, with Menander according to some historians. It seems, in the Buddhistic religious literature of the North-west of Bharat, the Menander of Milinda Panha lived about 500 years after the demise of Lord Buddha. All these statements are of the nature of conjecture and hypothesis and there is nothing in it of ascertained historical fact or inference (Bhavan’s history Vol. II pp. 113, 114;) A foot~note on page 114 says "Hieun-Tsang speaks of the four traditions of the epoch of the Parinirvana of (1) about the 3rd century B.C. (2) about the middle of the 6th century .B.C· (3) about the middle of the 7th century B.C. and (4) about the middle of the 9th century B.C. The first, second and fourth epochs are either too early or too late for Menander. The third epoch would place the Yavana king between the middle of the 2nd century and the middle of the 1`st century B.C. It is interesting to note in this connection that Keilhorn suggested an epoch of the Parinirvana falling in 638 B.C., with which astronomical details of the date of an inscription (Northern Inscription no. 575) work out satisfactorily. ·
Hieun—Tsang gives four different traditions about Buddha Nirvana:-
1. At the end of the 3rd century B.C. i.e. about 200 B..C.
2. About the middle of the 6th century BC. i e about 550 B.C..
3. About the middle of the 7th century BC. i e about 650 B.C..
4. About the middle of the 9th century BC. i e about 850 B.C..
In Hieun-Tsang’s writings there is scope for the current provisionally accepted date of 486 B.C, If we count 500 years from the provisionally accepted date of Buddha Nirvana we get 14 A,D. So Menander should belong to after 14 AD.,ie. Ist century A.D. But even this is pure conjecture and based on the assumption of the identity of Menander with the Milinda of Milinda panha, Even the provisionally accepted date of Buddha Nirvana is itself based on the wrong assumption of the contemporaneity of Mourya Chandragupta and Alexander of 324 B.C. How can we expect the superstructure to yeild correct dates when the basic assumption is itself questionable and a mere conjecture. As soon as the hollowness of the original foundation ofthe entire structure is exposed and recognised the entire edifice topples down with a crash and the time for it is approaching.
It is wrong to identify Menander with Milinda. Menander even according to the author of the essay, Dr. Sirkar. belongs to the 2nd century B.C. It will he proved in the pages that follow that Milinda belongs to the end of the 14th century B.C.
Question: I . :-— The Age of the Yavana king "Milinda".
The Milinda Panha says that the Yavana king Milinda flourished (1) 500 years after the Nirvana of Buddha and (2) soon after the reign of the later Maurya king "Salisuka" and (3) probably before the accession of Pushyamitra (about 187 B.C.) (Vide Bhavan’s history Vol. II, p. 113).
On the basis of the above hypothesis of our modern historians, let us try to locate the date of king Milinda according to their axiomatic hypothesis that Chandragupta Maurya was the contemporary of Alexander in 324 B.C. and that the Nirvana of the Buddha occurred in 486 B.C. It is held by all that "The date of Buddha's death is thus the crucial point in fixing the chronology of the rulers of Magadha and other contemporary dynasties of the period. Although no finality attaches to this or any other conclusion, 486 B.C., may be accepted as a working hypothesis and most scholars now place Buddha's death within a few years of this date."’ (Vide Bhavan’s History Vol II. p 36)
"Recently E.J. Thomas has pointed out(B C. Law Vol II, pp 18-22) that according to the Sarvastic-vadins Asoka flourished one century after the Nirvana of Buddha and this tradition may be traced even in the Simhalese chronicles. According to this the date of Nirvana falls in the 4th century B.C., and a Japanese scholar quoted by Thomas, places this event in 386 B.C." (Vide foot note 1 on p. 36 of Bhavan’s History Vol. II.)
"0n the basis of 486 BC., as the date of Buddha’s death, the accession of Bimbisara falls in 545 B.C. as he ruled for 52 years and the Buddha died in the 8th year of his son’s reign ." (Vide Bhavan’s Histor isy Vol. II p. 37)
According to the chronology of the modern historians:
1. Coronation of Chandragupta Maurya.....324 B.C,
The Maurya period lasted only 137 years (as to their account)
(a) So the close of the reign of the ninth king of the dynasty ‘Salisuka,’.....204 B. C.
(b) coronation of Pushyamitra............ 187 B.C.
II. Time of Buddha Niryana ...............486 B.C.
500 years later is Milinda's Time... 14 A.D.
This is 218 years (204 B.C + 14 A.D. = 218) after 204 B.C.
So there is no agreement or possibility of reconciliation. This shows that" The unanimous opinion of historical scholars, 165 B.C., as the time of Milinda", as Dr. D.C. Sirkar stated (Bhavan’s H‘s.Vol.iI.P113) is totally wrong, according to their modern chronology.
Puranic Account
Hindu Royal Dynasties of Magadha And Their Reigning Periods According to the Puranas.
Name of the Dynasty || No. _of kings. || Years reigned. || From. B.C. - To B.C.
1. The Barhadradha Dynasty......22................1006 ............ 3138 ...... 2132
2. Pradyota Dynaaty..............5................ 138..............2132........1994
3. Sisunaga Dynasty............ 10................ 360 ..........,, 1994........1634
4. Nanda,...Dynasty.......... 9 or 2 reigns........ 100 ,,.......... 1634........1534
5. Maurya Dynasty.............. 12................ 316 ............ 1534........1218
6. Sunga Dynasty............... 10................ 300..............1218........ 918
7. Kanva Dynasty................ 4................. 85 ,............ 918........ 833
8. Andhra Satavahana Dynasty ...32................ 506 ............. 833........ 327
9.. Gupta Dynasty............... 7................ 245...............327......... 82
10. Panwar or paramara Dynasty
from Vikramaditya,.........24................1275...............B.C 82 —1193 A.D.
Then the Muslim Period.
Let us apply the three indications from Milinda-Panha for the time of Milinda, accepted and relied upon by the modern historians. The application of these three indications, on the
basis of their basic chronological assumptions, could not lead them to any definite or plausible conclusion. Let us apply the same tests to the Puranic chronology.
According to the Puranas:-
Coronation of Chandragupta Maurya .........1534 B.C
SaliSuka was the 9th king of the Maurya Dynasty
Chandragupta Reigned for .....34 years.
Bindusara reigned for ....... 28 years
Asolta reigned for ....... 36 years
Suparswa reigned for .......8 years
Dasaratha reigned for .......8 years
Indrapalita reigned for .......70 years
Harshavardhana reigned for .......8 years
Samagatha reigned for .......9 years
Salisuka reigned for ....... 13 years
Total..................214 years.
_ The close of Salisuka’s reign. 1320 B.C.
II. The time of Buddha Niryana according to the Puranas.... 1807 B.C.
Milinda- 500 years after 1807 B.C.
Milinda’s time.·—-—·- 1307 B.C.
After the close of the reign of Salisuka in 1320 B.C.
III. Coronation of Pushyamitra Sunga 1218 B.C. certainly long after 1307 B.C.
So Milinda's time may be located between 1320 B.C. to 1307 B.C.
There is no difficulty, no ambiguity, and no room for conjecture here.
So this is just an instance of the superiority of the Puranic chronology which is regular and complete from 3138 B.C., the year of the Mahabharata war. All the historical events of later times can be determined with definiteness and consistency if this Puranic chronology is accepted as the basis, without any need for conjecture or difficulty in reconciliation.