Kota Venkata Chelam - Ancient Indian History

APPRECIATION - by “ Arsha Vidyabhushana" JATAVALLABHULA PURUSHOTTAM, M. A.

2010-07-12T00:06:00.000+05:30

Arsha Vidyabhushana" JATAVALLABHULA PURUSHOTTAM, M. A.
Lecturer in Sans/crit , S. R. R. & C. V. R. COLLEGE, VIJAYAWADA

The venerable author of this book, Sri Kota Venkata Chelam Garu, has been working with single-minded devotion to salvage the ancient history of   India from the ravages of modern Indologists, both European and Indian. He has shown, in this and in his sixteen volumes preceding this, that a   fairly accurate history of our country can be constructed from the material available in the Puranas and other ancient literature and that the innumerable errors and deliberate distortions of facts in what now passes for Indian history are due to the prejudice of foreign Indologists against our Puranic and other indigenous literature and the consequent neglect of the historical material contained therein, during their attempts to construct Indian history.

The author and many others that are critical of these Indologists should have bowed at their feet if they had achieved the little bit that they have done in constructing our genuine history without the aid of the Puranas. All that is worth anything in the history they have written is drawn from the Puranas. Sir William Jones, who laid the foundation of Indian history, openly acknowledged his      indebtedness to the Puranas. It is no exaggeration to say that without the aid of the Puranas even the outlines of Indian history could not be drawn.

It is a pity that all old records in the world, except the Indian, were ransacked and given credence to, by our Indologists and it is this misplaced hope and trust that were responsible for the imperfectness and incorrectness of Indian history as it now obtains.   If the Indologists had shown to Indian literature at least half the respect that they have shown to foreign records, their labours would have been a thousand times more successful.

Why, then, should the Indologists discard the Puranic accounts generally? The reason is not far to seek. The European scholars who were accustomed to the Biblical idea of the age of the world and the chronology of Greek and Roman histories that are matters of less than three thousand years were stunned at the Puranic chronology that dealt with lakhs and crores of years, which sounded more astronomical than historical, to their ears. It is this that was mainly responsible for their attempt to cut down our chronology without any compunction. Crores of years were all of a sudden reduced to thousands and hundreds and dire historical facts were represented as primitive myths. Not a few of the early European Indologists were influenced by imperialistic motives in their attempt to minimise the hoary antiquity and greatness of India which was just then becoming a subject nation. A superiority complex in the subject nation might one day lead to a rebellion against its masters and an attempt to    regain its greatness.

The logic with which Sri Venkatachelam Garu has proved the genuineness of the three post-Mahabharata eras is irrefutable. The Yudhishtira Era, the Kali Era and the Saptarshi Era have been continuously and consistently followed in our country and the author asks what prevents the historians from pursuing the history of Bharat along these Eras. By summarily repudiating these Eras, the historians could effect a cut of 1200 years in the post-Mahabharata chronology. The author, in a closely reasoned discourse exposes the hollowness of the theories of our Indologists   in this regard.

Equally admirable is the author’s attack (in his work on Kashmir history) on the date of birth of Buddha so boldly asserted in our text-books on history. He unfolds to us evidence from a number of ancient sources which carries Buddha so far back as the 19th Century B.C.

By disproving the identity of Chandragupta Maurya with the Sandrokottas of the Greeks and by carrying back Chandragupta Maurya to the 16th century B.C., the author has cut at the sheet-anchor of the Indian chronology of European Indologists.

The author proves with incisive logic and glaring illustrations the hollowness of the common charge that Indians sadly lack historical literature. He shows that Magadha, Kashmir and Nepal have got historical records, which are as reliable as any other historical material in the   world.

The author has shown that the Yavanas, Sakas and some others, that were supposed to be nations or tribes outside India, were the original inhabitants of India in the provinces bearing the respective names of these peoples and that the so-called Yavana and Saka lands etc., outside India took their names from their inhabitants that migrated from India and occupied those lands. This is one of the original theories of the author.

The author has devoted a special chapter to correlate the evidence of the astronomical works with the Puranic accounts in order to support the   chronology he has established in the place of that propounded by Indologists. The author holds that the Mahabharata war took place in the 3138 B.C., and the Andhra dynasty reigned from 833 B.C. In both these dates he deviates from the lndologists’ view to the extent of some thousands and hundreds of years. So he feels it his duty to show strong evidence to support himself. He shows that the Brihat Samhita and Garga Samhita agree with the Puranas in the statement that the Saptarshi Mandala was in the constellation of Magha when Yudhishtira was reigning. He tells that the Puranas are definite that Andhra dynasty began 2300 years after the commencement of the Yudhishtira Era (i.e. in the beginning of the 24th century from the war of 3138 B.C.) and that the Saptarshi Mandala again came to Magha during the reign of the Andhra dynasty. The Great Bear takes 2700 years to make one cycle of the 27 stars.

It is thus clear that the scientific works on Astronomy as well as the Puranic accounts are in favour of the author in his bold deviation from    the dates established on the vague theories of the Indologists. This is all the more noteworthy when we remember that Sir William Jones pledged   his word to revise his views if astronomical evidence could be found to contradict them.

Many students of Indian history might have never dreamt that there was an ancient inscription--the Aihole inscription--of the Ist century B.C., which supports the author’s view that the Mahahharata war took place in 3138 B.C, and that Kalidasa existed in the Ist century B.C. The author shows that those scholars who would not accept these dates chose to read "Saptabda" in the place of "Sahabda" in the original inscription.

The author’s challenge in the fifth chapter not merely bristles with emotional fervour but is backed by intellectual strength and seasoned with a sense of responsibility.

The author may appear to be too critical towards the Indologists, here and there. But we should remember that in such contexts, he is only defending our ancient authors' historical literature which was most unsympathetically and disrepectfully dubbed by them as a forgery or concoction or interpolation, simply because it was not to their liking. The author, in most cases, has turned the tables against these Indologists and has shown that there were forgeries, concoctions, misrepresentations and misinterpretations by these very scholars. After all, the historian's duty is to present the truth and expose the falsehood, as Kalhana, our ancient historian, has said in his Rajatarangani Sloka:

" శ్లాఘ్యః సఏవ గుణవాన్ రాగద్వేష   బహిష్కృతా
భూతార్థకథనేయస్య స్ధేయస్యేవ సరస్వతీః   "   (Rajatarangini I-6)

The present volume is a mine of information which may benefit all sorts of readers, particularly those in the field of Indological research.      There is a common notion among our research scholars in Indian history that it is a sacrilege to question the chronology determined by the European Indologists. These scholars forget that the early European Indologists themselves were conscious of the weakness of their theories and   most of the dates that they assigned were, in their own opinion, tentative. The subsequent scholars, with superstitious loyalty to their predecessors, accepted the latters’ theories as gospel truths. Thus what were once guesses or tentative hypotheses were later
considered to be sacred gospels. Sri Venkatachelam Garu’s works cannot deter those students and scholars of our ancient history who bear in mind the following memorable words of the late justice Kasinath Triyambak Telang, who is noted for his sobriety and openmindedness in Indological      research. "It appears to me, I confess, that it is these ‘likings’ and ‘satisfactions’ and ‘foregone conclusions’ lying in the back of most of    the logical artillery which European scholars have brought to bear upon the chronology of our ancient literature, it is this that is temporarily doing damage to its antiquity...Not only hypotheses were formed on the weakest possible collection of facts, but upon such hypotheses further superstructures of speculation are raised. And when it is done, the essential weakness of the base is often effectually kept out of view."

JATAVALLABHULA PURUSHOTTAM

11-7-1954

Kavisamrat Sri Viswanatha Satynnarayana in Preface to The Plot in Indian Chronology by Pandit Kota Venkata Chelam

2010-07-03T16:42:00.003+05:30

    About fifty years of the life of Sri Kota Venkata Chelam , the author of this book, have been spent in untiring quest after truth, regarding   the ancient history of India. He has ransacked the indigenous literature dealing with our history as also the great bulk of the eastern and western books, the writings of the western Indologists, and has refuted the illogical arguments of the western historians, and established the   truth of the correctness of the historical data detailed in our Puranas. English education has banished sound scholarship in our ancient lore and also genuine zeal to probe into its secret depths. Now-a-days scholarship means being at home with what is written by the western scholars. The   western scholars have discredited the hoary past of our ancient culture and tried their very best to bring down the dates to suit their purpose. A thousand changes they have made in the dates and in the names of the kings. The whole thing is confusion worse confounded.

    It requires a Himalayan effort and unquenchable thirst on the part of a real nationalist to lay bare the scheme and the conspiracy that was responsible for throwing dust upon the veracity of the Puranic account. At present it is not possible to know the true history our ancient India. Sound scholarship in Sanskrit and the same in English are generally divorced from each other, and the special merit of this book is that it is based on a critical examination of the original Sanskrit texts and attempts to point out the defects in the Indological literature in English.

    A corrrect approach to the study of Indian history, to start with, is to understand clearly the three great Eras that were in vogue in ancient India. Sir William Jones, and the other historians like Dr. Wilson, General Cunningham, Prof. Max Muller, Dr. Hultzsch, Dr. Buhler and Dr. Stein have all   accepted that the Kali Era began in 3102 B.C., on Feb. 20th by 2 Hr. 27’ 30". Thirty six years before this year the Mahabharata war was waged.    That means the Mahabharata war took place in 3138 B.C. . Thirty six years after the beginning of the Kali Era i.e., 3076 B.C. Dharmaraja and his brothers renounced their kingdom and repaired to the land of the gods.   That year was the beginning of the Saptarshi Saka or the Loukika Era which continues to be in vogue since that time in Kashmir.   These are the three Sakas according to which all calculations in our Puranas and historical records are made. The western historians had known the existence of these three Eras and yet they wrote that no possibilities to ascertain the dates of incidents and kings ever existed in our Puranas. The present author has quoted the very same historians and proved the validity of the dates in the Puranas.

    The whole confusion began when the western scholars, rather wilfully ousted Gupta Chandra-Gupta and made Maurya Chandra-Gupta usurp his place. Gupta Chandra- Gupta Flourished in 327 B.C., and was the contemporary of Alexander. Maurya Chandra-Gupta lived in 1534 B.C. But the western historians wrongly identified Alexander’s contemporary with Maurya Chandra-Gupta. This Himalayan blunder upset the whole scheme and brought terrible chaos into our Puranic dates. And now if this little correction is made, every detail in our ancient Puranas is found to be correct. If this correction is not accepted the vast bulk   of the Hindu, Jain and Buddhistic literature appears to be a spurious account of facts and dates. One can know from this that the western         scholars have found our historical dates incorrect because they have confounded between the Chandraguptas of the Gupta and Mauryan dynasties.

     The author of this book has proved to the hilt that this confounding is wilful and Sir William Jones, the first historian of India, has changed   this date to effect a sort of similitude between the Biblical and the Hindu conceptions ot time. Even Max-Muller, known to be a great lover of    Hindu culture, accepted what Jones has written, saying in so many plain words, that he accepted this to bring harmony between the Greek and Hindu Chronology. Twelve centuries of time after the Mahabharata war and ten centuries before that are struck off like this and the history we get now is put upon this wrong base. The whole plot is revealed in this book; and the spurious arguments advanced by the Western historians have been proved here to be the results of prejudicial minds. The author of this book has spared no pains to prove the correctness of the Puranic data. He quotes copiously from Astronomical texts, which in the Puranas are based on the movements of the Great Bear and asserts that it is 5092 years since the Mahabharata war to this day (in 1954; 3102+36+1954=5092) and that it is 2811 years since the Mahabharata war to the end of the Andhra dynasty or the beginning   of the Gupta dynasty, and the interval is 1500 years between the Mahabharata war and the coronation of Mahapadmananda, and the period elapsed     between the coronation of Mahapadmananda and the beginning ol the rule ot the Andhras is 836 years. It is proved beyond doubt that the            traditional calculations of our ancient sages are correct to the decimal and the history of the Kalialiyuga kings written in different Puranas is genuine.

    In short the author has successfully cleared the doubts that are made to linger in our minds regarding our ancient history and set right the differences that arose because of the western scholars' wrong conjectures in the histories of Magadha, Kashmir and Nepal. Mihirakula and Toramana are said to be Hunas. They were kshtriya kings.   They flourished before the Christian Era. They are said to have lived centuries later.   And this is a case where a discrepancy of 1200 years is shown to the discredit of the author of Kashmir history (Kalhana). The western scholars   have not only bungled facts and tampered with texts, but they even went to the extent of hurling abuse at our ancient historians and sages. The   whole mischief is plainly revealed in this book. This book has thrown light upon many other things. The author has discussed at large the many   debatable points in Indian history. Aflter reading the 6th chapter of this book none can contend that the Chandragupta of Megasthanies is the     Chandragupta of Kautilya. The chapter is a store house of erudition and a brilliant attack upon his antagonists. The facts marshalled herein are irrefutable.

    The seventh chapter discusses Asoka's edict wherein is proved that the Yona kings are not Greeks of the 3rd century B.C., and the kings who ruled Abhisara, Uraga, Simhapura, Divyakataka and Uttara Jyotisha in the 15th century B.C., are Yavana Kshatriyas and that the present Greece was called Ionia at that time because it was occupied by these Yavana Kshatriyas and that the present      Greeks are a mixed race. These new facts are to be studied and noted by one and all.

    The 8th chapter is like a treatise upon the science of unearthing, reading and interpreting inscriptions. What mischief could be played in this field is portrayed with illustrations. Where there is no date, a historian with no respect for truth says there is one as is done in the case of Kharavela’s Hati-gumpha inscription. A date was given and it is found in all the text books. This colossal untruth is proved in this chapter.

    The 10th chapter is a detailed account of the history of the tampering made in the Aihole inscription. The author gave us the original and showed how the letters of the inscription were changed to suit the date of the modern historians. It was changed from B.C. to A.D. The author basing his arguments even upon this inscription proved that the date   of the Mahabharata war is 3138 B.C., and the other era used in the same inscription is the Cyrus Era of 550 B.C. It is the duty of a good historian exactly to find out what era is used in what inscription.

    Long before Sri Venkatachelam garu, a great Western scholar Prof. M. Troyer had raised his voice of protest against the modern historians. Many other oriental scholars have written many books disproving the accounts of the western historians. Mr. T. S. Narayana Sastry is one of them, and the present author has borrowed much from him in the ninth chapter of this book to prove by astronomical calculation the date of the Mahabharata war, which took place in 3138 B.C. He has studied our Puranas, and the English books written by the western historians and their Indian followers and spent all his time and much of his money to set right this great wrong done to our nation. But to what extent he will be successful God only knows. Faith is instinctive. It is not a child of conviction and conviction is born of argument.   In this sad     process self interest is an interlude. God is great. If there will come a day when Indians realise the wrong done to their history, this book will be of very great value.

    I am no historian and I am asked to write this preface. Perhaps the author saw in me a zeal akin to his to see the resuscitation of our ancient glory which has suffered much at the hands of the enemies to our culture.

                                                                                       V.Satyannarayana

                                                                                                30-3-54

Ayanamsa and Indian Chrononogy --- The Age of Varahamihira , Kalidasa etc.,

2010-02-26T18:08:00.013+05:30

An Astronomical Proof
by V. Thiruvenkatacharya, M.A.L.T., Madras Educational Service (Rtd.)

Extracted from the Journal of Indian Hidtory Vol. XXVIII, Part II, No.83

Astronomers have played no small part in fixing up the Chronology of Indian History; but I consider that the lost word on the subject has not been said; this is mainly due to the complexity of the meterials dealt with. The late Swamikannu Pillai, having fixed 536 A.D. as the year of zero Ayanamsa, came to the conclusion that Varahamihira lived in the sixth century A.D. But his method requires reconsideration on purely astronomical grounds and the object of this article is a reconsideration of the subject in a different light. The results arrived at may not be new, but I am sure that the method adopted is entirely original; I commend this article to the attention of oriental scholars for their critical study.

We have seen that the epoch of Panchasiddhantika of Varahamihira is 427 Saka i.e., 127 B.C. In the same book, he gives some more points for the verification of the correctness of this date.

आश्लेषार्धाद्दक्षिणमुत्तरमयनँ रवेर्धनिष्टाद्यँ|
नूनँ कदाचिदासित येनोक्तँ पूर्वशास्त्रेषु ||
ఆశ్లేషార్ధాద్దక్షిణముత్తరమయనం రవేర్ధనిష్ఠాద్యం |
నూనం కదాచిదాసీత్ యేనోక్తం పూర్వశాస్త్రేషు ||
सांप्रतमयनं सवितुः कर्कटकाद्यं युगादितश्चान्त्यं |
उक्ताभावो विक्रुतिः प्रत्यक्षपरीषणैर्व्यक्तिः ||
సాంప్రతమయనం సవితుః కర్కటకాద్యం యుగాదితశ్చాన్త్యం |
ఉక్తాభావో వికృతిః ప్రత్యక్షపరీక్షణైర్వ్యక్తిః ||

"Old books state that once Dakshinayana began when the sun reached the mid-point of Aslesha and Uttarayana when the sun reached the beginning of Dhanishta. But now the ayanas begin when the sun reaches the beginning of Karkataka and Makara signs. This can be varified by actual observation." But in Chapter III of Panchasiddantika,Varahamihira states as follows :-

आश्लेषार्धादासीद्यदा निबृत्तिः किलोष्णकिरणस्य |
युक्तमयनं तदासीत सांप्रतमयनं पुनर्वसुतः ||

ఆశ్లేషార్ధాదాసీద్యదా నివృత్తిః కిలోష్ణకిరణస్య |
యుక్తమయనం తదాసీత్ సాంప్రతమయనం పునర్వసుతః ||

"Once the sun changed his course from the mid-point of Aslesha; but now from Punarvasu."

The beginning of Karkataka coincides with the end of the third pada of Punarvasu. So what does "from Punarvasu"(punarvasuthah) mean? Punarvasuthah cannot mean the end of third pada or the beginning of fourth pada. The two statements have to be reconciled. It can be done in one of the following ways.

(a) Either that the author, even though of the same name, of Panchasiddhantika, is different from that of Bhrihatsamhita,

(b) Or that Brihatsamhita being a non-Karana grantha, Varahamihira gave only a rough position, whereas in the Panchasiddhantika he gave the actual longitude, the end of Punarvasu as the point at which the southward motion of the sun began. It is also to be remembered that Punarvasuthah cannot mean the beginning of Punarvasu, but must mean only the end of it, since otherwise he would have stated definitely the beginning of Punarvasu just in the same way he mentioned dhanishtadyam.

So, let us now find what the date of the epoch is when Dakshinayana began when the sun reached the end of Ponarvasu, that is, when the Nirayana longitude of the sun was 93° 20’

This change in the dates of the beginning of Dekshinayana and Uttarayana is due to the well-known astronomical phenomenon, called the Precession of the Equinoxes.

According to Newcomb, Ball and other authorities, the value of the rate of the Precession of the Equinoxes per year, Ayanagathi is 50".2585 in 1909 A.D., while its rate for a year in the past, n years earlier than 1909 A.D. is given by 50".2585-(n x 0.000225") per annum. Swamikannu Pillai found by calculation, from nautical almanac that when the apparent vernal equinox (Sayana) occured at Lanka, the date was March 21.2143 and that the beginning of the Indian Sidereal year Nirayana at Lanka was April 12.9492. The difference, between the two momemts equal to 22.7349 days, is the time taken by the sun to travel along the ecliptic from 0° tropical longitude or sayana to 0° Indian sidereal longitude or Nirayana in the year 1909 A.D. Then Swamikannu Pillai shows that 536 A.D. is the year of zero ayanamsa and therefore the epoch of Panchasiddhantika. There are the following drawbacks in the whole argument :-

(a) It was considered that Dakshinayana began when the Sun reached the beginning of Karkataka instead of the end of Punarvasu.

(b) At least at the time of Verahamihira , the Indian Sidereal year-- so designated at present -- was really a tropical year and the value for the precession of the equinoxes must be taken as 50".2585-nx0.000225" and not as 54.7505 as assumed by Swamikannu Pillai.

Calculation of Ayanamsa:- Now 22.7349 days in time-interval for Ayanamsa is equal to 22.4136 degrees and adding 3°20', the equivelent for Punarvasu fourth pada, we get, on simplification 25°45’ as the space interval for ayanamsa between the time of Varahamihira and year 1909 A.D. But the interval from 427 Saka (=124 B.C. or -123 astronomical) and 1909 A.D. is equal to 2032 years and taking the cumulative value for n years as 50".2585xn - (n(n+1)/2)x0.000225" substituting 2032 for n in this formula, we get 28°15' as the ayanamsa, whereas we have seen that the value must be 25°45'. How is this difference to be reconciled?

The ayanamsa for one year is 50".25 and so it works out roughly to be 72 (apporx.= 3600/50.25) years for one degree. Now 28°15'-25°45' = 2°30’ will correspond to about 180 years(2.5x72=180) and are we to shift the epoch of Panchasiddhantika to a date 180 years later, that is, to 180-122 = 58 A.D.? No. that will not be the correct procedure; but unfortunately that has been the method adopted almost uniformly in dealing with Indian Chronology. A different method will now be followed.

The discrepancy resolved :- It has been already noted that Kaliyuga began at midnight of 17-18th February, 3102 B.C. But most of the ephemrides reckon on February 15.579 as the epoch of Kaliyuga, that is, they have used a bija or correction. Since the day begins at mean sunrise at Lanka for Indian Siddhantas, midnight of 17-18th February, 3102 B.C. corresponds to February 17.75 of 3102 B.C. The value of correction used is 17.75-15.57 = 2.18 days and the Indian Sidereal year began in 1909 A.D., dot on April 12.95+2.18 days=April 15.13.(vide Swamikannu Pillai's Ephemeris.) So the interval between the moment of apparent vernal equinox and the beginning of the Indian Sidereal year is 24.91 days but not 22.73 days as assumed by Swamikannn Pillai. The time interval of 24.91 days corresponds to a space interval of 24°30' and so the space interval of ayanamsa between the epoch of Panchasiddhantika and 1909 A.D. is 24°39'+3°20'=27°59', where as according to our calculation, it ought to be 28°15' with an error of 16 minutes which falls within the limits of probable error and so can be considered as insignificant. So ayanamsa calculations lead us to the conclusion that the epoch of Panchasiddhantika is 124 B.C. and not 505 A.D. as wrongly presumed hitherto. As Varahamihira makes no mention of ayanamsa, it is presumed that it was zero in his time.

The epoch of Bhattotpala:- Bhattotpala finished his commentary on Brihatjataka in Saka 888 and he mentions that the ayanamsa in his days was 7 days or to be more accurate 6½ degrees (sardhashatkamsah) according to one reading. The commentary on Brihatjataka must have been finished in 888-549 = 339 A.D. The interval between the epoch of Panchasiddhantika and the completion of the commentary on Brihatjataka is 888-427 = 461 years. Therefore the value of the annual rate precession of the equinoxes is 6½°/461=390x60/461 seconds = 50.8 seconds, which may be considered as a fairly accurate value. The early Indian astronomers, are really to be congratulated on their proficiency in astronomical calculations. All these results prove conclusively the unsustainability of the theory that the Indian astronomers were wholly indebted to the Greeks for their knowledge of astronomy. Hipparchus lived about 160 B.C. and Ptolemy made observations between 127 A.D. to 151 A.D.

Some deductions :- It is easy to draw some important and interesting deductions from the above results. Amarasimha (or is it Amaraja?) has stated that Varahamihira died in Saka 509 at the age of 82 years. So he must have been born in 427 Saka, the epoch of Panchasiddhantika. It may be safely assumed that this versatile Hindu astronomer lived between 427 and 509 Saka or 123 B.C.to 41 B. C. This fixes the period of Kalidasa and other poets (nine gems of the court of Vikramarka. vide Jyotirvidabharana 22-10 & 20.)

Later astronomers:- All the later astronomers, including Bhaskaracharya have given the epoch of zero ayanamsa some year in the fifth century of Salivahana Saka. For example, the author of Ganakanandam gives 421 (499 A.D.) as the year of zero Ayanamsa, with 54 seconds as the rate per year, whereas Bhaskara gives 412 (490 A.D.) as the year of zero ayanamsa but with 60 seconds as the rate per year.

Let us consider the following table as regards the year of zero ayanamsa:——

Varahamihira.......427 Saka (sapthasvivedasamkhya)

Kalidasa...........445 Saka (sarambhodhiyuga)

Bhaskaracharya,Suryadaivagna....412 Saka
(Author of Ganakanandam)........421 Saka by calculation.

This shows that all these astronomers are agreed that some year in the fifth century of some Saka as the year of zero ayanamsa. What is that Saka? Varahamihira, Kalidasa and Bhattotpala seem to refer to the Saka with its enoch in 551 B.C. as their Saka. But the later astronomers thought that the Saka was Salivahana Saka and by actual calculation arrived at the year of zero ayanamsa. That accounts for the difference in the rates of ayanamsa among the later astronomers. Further this is the only method that can be adopted, as the point with which the first point of Aries coincided during the time of Varahamihira is an imaginary point which cannot be located by the later astronomers, when once the first of Aries had moved away from that point. Again it is to be noted that at the time of Varahamihira the summer solstice seems to have coincided with the end of Punarvasu and not at the beginning of Karkata (cancer.) That is the only inference I can draw from pure calculations from the available data.

Does Bhaskara Use Salivahana Saka? :- Yes. There is no doubt about it. Let us consider the following:-

"gathobdadri nandau (974} mite saka kale."

On actual calculation, I found that 1052 A.D. corresponding to 974 Salivahana Saka, was a year with a Kshaya month, whereas the Saka of 551 B.C. does not satisfy this test. So the proof is unequivocal.

Conclusion: But the week days mentioned by Varahamihira and Bhattotpala do not satisfy the Salivahana Saka and so the Saka referred to by them cannot be Salivahana Saka but only the Saka with 551 B.C. as the epoch. Bhaskara and others refer only to Salivahana Saka. I leave it to scholars to judge on their merits the conclusions of this discussion in which I have attempted to remove some of the existing discrepancies in Indian Chronology. It has been shown clearly that in 124 B.C., the epoch of Panchasiddanthika, the ayanamsa was zero. In conclusion, let me end with a statement of Quetelet, the eminent French statistician
"Never reject data, contrary to your theory"

Varahamihira and His Sakakala by Sri V. Thiruvenkatacharya

2010-02-24T16:21:00.014+05:30

Pandit Venkata Chelam, in an appendix to his book Chronology of Kashmir History writes:
In this as well as many other publications of mine, I had several occasions not only to refer to but also to prove the genuineness of the Saptarshi Era and the Kali era. In fact many of the questions dealt with by me in my works have a bearing on these eras. The validity of much of what I have said on several problems of Chronology, depends on the genuineness or otherwise of these eras. My esteemed friend Sri. V. Venkatacharya M.A.,L.T., has written masterly thesis on the saptarshi era in which he proved its validity and genuineness with incisive logic and incontrovertible astronomical evidence.
I have great pleasure in publishing hereunder the thesis, which he kindly sent to me with a wish that it might be published as an appendix in the present volume. I am deeply thankful to him for this favour.

Varahamihira and His Sakakala
A necessity for rectification of Chronology of Indian History,
by Sri V.Thiruvenkataclnarya, M, A., L.T., Madras Educational Service (Retired)
Astronomical data the sheet-anchor of Indian Chronology.

There are a number of astronomical references in our ancient literature which give the lie direct to the existing pet theories of historians. One of the references is as follows and it is given by Varahamihira.
"The Great Bear- Saptarshis - was in the constellation Magha, when Yudhishthira was ruling; add 2526 years to his kala to get the Saka kala." .... (Brs. 13-3)

So, if 2526 years are added to (algebraically) 3077 B.C., we come to 551 B.C. Is there any era corresponding to 551 B.C. It is the object of this article to discover this era. But considering that the Saka mentioned by Varaharnihira to be Salivahana Saka, Indian historians have brought down the date of the Mahabharatha-War to about 2448 B.C.; others have assigned even much later dates to the same.

(a) The date of Varahamihira :
What does Varahamihira give as his date? In Panchasiddhantika, he gives the following data:- "Subtract 427 from Saka Kala, when the sun is half-setting at Yavanapuri at the beginning of Chaitra Sukla Prathipadi (that is when the Chaitra new moon ends), it is the beginning of Wednesday."

‘Wednesday’ is the reading given in some books, I have consulted; but in the text edited by Dr.Thibaut. सोम, సోమ(Monday) is put down instead of Wednesday. Sankara Balakrishna Dikshit gives भौम, భౌమ(Tuesday) as his reading.( Indian Antiquary Vol. XIX, page 45)-Original Surya Siddhanta by Sankara Balakrishna Dikshit). Which are we to take? Dr. Thebaut,unfortunately, does not give the alternative readings, whereas S. B. Dikshit gives them, but prefers Tuesday to Wednesday. But both of them took Saka Kala as Salivahana Saka, which naturally led to textual modifications. Dikshit had to resort to many arguments and suggest alterations simply because he was under the impression that Salivahana Saka was meant whenever 'Saka' was used. His arguments and conclusions are defective, untenable and fallacious.

Now let us take the week days of Chaitra Sukladau for each of the Saka years 427 current and elapsed. I am following Swamikannu Pillai's Ephemeris for the calculations:-

Salivahana Saka:

(i)427 (elapsed) Chaitra Sukla Prthipath begins at 10gh 10 v.gh. on Friday, March 3, A.D. 506.

(ii) 427 (current) Chaitra Sukla Prathipath begins at 4gh. 2 v.gh. on Saturday, Feb. 19-A. D. 505, but ends on Sunday 20-2-505 A.D. as pointed at by S. P. Dikshit.

Vikrama Saka:

(iii) 427 (elapsed) Chaitra Sukla Prathipath begins at 49gh. 50 v.gh. on Wednesday, March 2, 371 A.D.

Saka 551 B.C.:

(iv) 427-(elapsed) Chaitra Sukla Prathipath begins at 59gh. 56 v.gh. on Tuesday, i.e. early morning of Wednesday or 2-3-124 B.C. 3-3-124 B.C, is a Wednesday with Chaitra Sukla Prathipath fully current.

The results speak for themselves and do not require an advocate to prove that Varahamihira did not mean either the Salivahana Saka or Vikrama Saka when he used the word Saka, but meant some Saka commencing with 551 B.C.. which I, for the saka of convenience, designate as the Andhra Saka. It is very clear from the above tabulation, that the epoch chosen by Varahamihira is Tuesday-Wednesdey mid-night 3-3-124 B.C, corresponding to Chaitra Sukladau of Saka 427 (elapsed). आदौ (ఆదౌ) means the beginning and the beginning of Chaitra Sukla Prathipadi. i. e., the ending of Chaitra new moon, is to be taken as the moment of epoch. According to Hindu astronomy, when the Sun is half—setting at Yavanapuri, it is midnight at Ujjain a town on the standard meridian for India. Therefore, the first thithi of the bright fortnight of Chaitra, must begin at mid—night Tuesday—Wednesday at Ujjain. The moment of epoch we get in (iv) of the table given earlier is 15 ghatis earlier and the error is not serious and is within the limits of probability. Finally it is clear that the Saka of 551 B. C. is the Saka used by Varahamihira.

Thinking that Saka-Kala mentioned by Varahamihira is nothing other than Salivahana Saka, oriental scholars have assigned 427+78 = 505 A.D. as the period of Varahamihira. whereas according to the present scheme, his period must be about 124 B.C.(551-427). This result refutes the existing theory of all oriental scholars that the Indians were indebted to the Greeks for their knowledge of Astronomy; for Hipparchus, the first Greek astronomer, lived about 160 B.C. and Ptolomy came later and worked from 127 A.D. to 151 A.D.

What has been proved now helps us to clarify the doubts of Dr. Thibaut expressed by him in his introduction to Panchasiddhantika, page XXX:-

"There may have been special circumstances rendering the year 427 Saka a more convenient starting point than a later year; but I am not far the present able to point out any such."

"I consider it altogether improbable that any of the three treatises should have originated so late as 505 A.D."
Yes. These treatises were written about 600 years earlier, i.e, in 123 B. C.

(b) The date of Bhattotpala:-

Bhattotpala is a commentator of the treatises Brihatjataka and Brihat Samhita of Varahamihira. At the end of his commentary on Brihatjataka, Bhattotpala states as, follows:-

चैत्रमासस्य पंचम्याँ सितायाँ गुरुवासरे|
वस्वष्टाष्टमिते शाके कृतेयॅँ विवृतिर्मया||

ఛైత్రమాసస్య పంచమ్యాం సితాయాం గురువాసరే |
వస్వష్టాష్టమితే శాకే కృతేయం వివృతిర్మయా||

"This commentary was written by me in the year 888 of the Saka on Thursday, Suklapaksha Panchami of the Chaitra month."

Neither 888 of Salivahana Saka nor Vikrama Saka tally with the week day. This matter can be easily verified from Swamikannu Pillai’s Ephemeris. Salivahana 888 (elapsed) Chaitra Sukla Panchami corresponds to 18th March 967 A.D. but the week day is Monday and not Thursday.

Vikrama Sake 888 (elapsed), Chaitra Sukla Panchami corresponds to 10th March 832 A.D. but the week day is Sunday and not Thursday. 888 current (Vikrama Saka) Chaitra Sukla Panchami ends with 56gh. 43 v.gh. on Sunday 19-2-831 A.D.

But 23-2-338 A.D. falls on Chaitra Sukla Panchami with Thursday as the week day. So. if 888 of the Saka mentioned by Bhattotpala corresponds to 338 A.D. when did the Saka begin? The era began in 550 (888-338) astronomical or 551 B.C. So, we may take 551 B.C. as the starting year of the Saka mentioned by Bhattotpala and Varahamihira.

From the sloka "आसन मघासु मुनय:", "ఆసన్ మఘాసు మునయ:" we get 551 B.C. plus 2526=3077 B.C. as the year of Yudhishtira kala which began after the expiry of 25 years of Kali, that is, in the 26th year of Kali.

3077 B.C. plus 25 = 3102 B.C. is the beginning of Kali yuga tallying with the traditional date given in the Puranas. Astronomical and puranic dates lead us to the same conclusion. What more is necessary to establish the validity of our arguments.

The late Nadimpalli Jagannadho Rao of Narsaraopet, Guntur Dt. has made a lot of research in this field and published the results of all his researches in a Telugu Book under the title "Andhra Mahasamrajyam". In his research he found that three or four published editions of Bhattotpala’s works contained the sloka as given above, whereas in some editions published by Sudhakara Dwivedi the sloka is corrected as follows:-

फाल्गुनस्य द्वितीयायामसितायाँ गुरोर्दिने |
वस्वष्टाष्टमिते शाके कृतेयॅँ विवृतिर्मया||
ఫాల్గునస్య ద్వితీయాయా మసితాయాం గురొర్దినే |
వస్వష్టాష్టమితే శాకే కృతేయం వివృతిర్మయా ||

Jagannadha Rao’s contention is that Pandit Sudhakara Dwivedi purposely changed the original sloka since Chaitra Sukla Panchami of 888 Salivahana Saka is not a Thursday as required. But I kept an open mind till now as I could not come to a definite decision as to which version is the modified version.

Fortunately in an old edition of Bhattotpala’s commemtary on Brihatjataka in Grantha characters, published in South India and so more reliable, I found the version “ चैत्रमासस्य " etc. So I have come to the conclusion that Sudhakara Dwivedi's version is the modified version and has to be rejected.

Some scholars feel otherwise as regards the dates of completion of the commentaries by Bhattotpala on Brihat Jataka and Bribatsamhita ---

They state that, according to Bhattotpala, the commentary on Brihat Jataka was completed on Chaitra Suddha Panchami, Thursday of Sake 888 elapsed and that the commentary on Brihat Samhita was completed on Phalguna Krishna Dwitiya, Thursday of Sake 888 elapsed. The following results of mine calculated with the help of the tables of Swamikannu Pillai’s ephemeris are given below :-

Sukla Panchami of Chaitra month :

(i) Salivahana Saka 888 elapsed :- Chaitra Sukla Panchami begins on Monday, 18th March 967 A.D. at 15 ghatis and ends on Tuesday. Week day is not a Thursday.

(ii) Salivahana Saka 888 current:— Chaitra Sukla Panchami ends on Wednesday, 28th February 966 A.D. The week day is not a Thursday.

(iii) (Cyrus Saka or) Andhra Saka 888 elapsed:- Chaitra Sukla Panchami begins at 16 gh.12 v.gh. on 19-3-34O A.D. Wednesday and continues on 20-3-340 A.D. Thursday which is the required week-day.

Krishna Dwitiya of Phulguna month :

(i) Salivahana Saka 888 elapsed :- Phalguna Krishna Pratipathi ends on Tuesday, 17th February 968 A.D. at 51 ghatis; Dwitiya falls on Wednesday, 18th February 968 A.D. The week day is not a Thursday.

(ii) Salivahana Saka 888 current:- Phalguna Krishna Pratipathi ends on Thursday, 28th February 967 A.D. at 11 gh. 24 v.gh. So, we might take that Dwitiya falls on Thursday in this case.

(iii) Andhra Sake (or Cyrus era) 888 elapsed :- Phalguna Krishna Dwitiya begins at 16 gh. 12 v.gh. on 19th February 341 A.D. Thursday, which is the required week-day.

This table gives an unequivocal proof that the Saka referred to by Bhattotpala is not the Salivahana Saka but the forgotten Andhra Saka (Cyrus era) which began in 550 B.C., as this satisfies both the dates whereas Salivahana Saka satisfies only one date.

Thoramana was neither a Huna nor father of Mihirakula

2010-01-24T15:07:00.003+05:30

The westerners wrote that Thoramana was a Huna and father of Mihirakula. But Rajatarangini gives the following information. As given in this book’s list of the kings, as related in the third Taranga, 'Meghavahana’ was the 80th king in the pure Kshatriya Gonanda Dynasty, the 81st ruler was Pravarasena or Sreshtasena or Tunjeena. Hiranya and Thoramana were the two sons of Pravarasena I. The first Hiranya was the king and the second Thoramana was the Yuvaraja. When ‘Thoramana’ had the image of “Bala" removed from the coins and substituted his figure on them and put them in circulation, the king Hiranya came to know of this and put his brother "Thoramana’ in prison where he died. These coins having the figure of ‘Thoramana’ were useful to the foreign historians to advertise that he was a king, but, in fact, Thoramana did not reign at all as a monarch. The wife of ‘Thoramana’ was called “Anjana Devi", the daughter of Vrajendra of Ikshvaku dynasty. As she was pregnant by the time of Thoramana’s confinement, she was kept in concealment in the house of a potter. She gave birth to a son and he was named after his grandfather and was known as Pravarasena II. Thoramana died in the prison and afterwards Hiranya died leaving no heir to the throne. As the state fell into anarchy, the ministers requested Emperor Vikramaditya of Ujjain to send them a king to rule over Kashmir. Then he sent his state-poet ‘Matrigupta’ as king who reigned for five years. On hearing the demise of Vikramaditya, in great grief Matrigupta abdicated the throne. Afterwards, Thoramana’s son, Pravarasena II became the king of Kashmir. All this was vividly described in Rajatsrangini and so, it is evident that Thoramana was a pure Kshatriya prince and of Royal race. This prince lived between 16 B.C. and 14 A.D., but was no-where mentioned to have ruled.

But the westerners styled him a Huna and made him father of Mihirakula. Now arises a suspicion, that Huna Mihirakula and Thoramana might hdve been altogether separate individuals, and if so, they have to produce evidence that they ruled in western India. The future historians have to take note of this fact. Mihirakula was the 64th ruler in the list of the kings of Kashmir. He was the descendant of the dynasty of Gonanda III of 1182 B.C,, who was the 53rd king in the list. As Mihirakula was of the 12th generation to Gonanda III, Mihirakula reigned from 704 B.C. to 634 B.C. In this family the 81st ruler was Pravarasena I, whose sons were Hiranya and Thoramana. Their date was from 16 B.C. to 14 A.D.. So there was an interval of seven centuries between Mihirakula and Thoramana. While the facts are so patent, the alien historians proclaim that the two monarchs were son and father, belonging to a foreign stock of the Huma race. We area asked to justify their misrepresentations and reconcile their absurd conclusions. In this manner, the western scholars transposed royal dynasties, distorted the Indian History and directed it in a wrong track. Thus they wrought all possible harm they could do. So we trust that even now, our historians open their eyes and attempt to write an accurate Bharat history, after a study of native sources.

Mihirakula

Vikramaditya's time - some more evidence

2010-01-20T16:38:00.008+05:30

Evidence -3. Jyotisha Phalaratnamala

The scholar Sri Krishna Misra, lived in the court of Vikramaditya of 57 B.C. In his book "Jyotishaphala-Ratnamala," a work on Astrology, in the first Chapter , sloka 10 he said as follows:-

"Let that Vikramarka, the Emperor, famous like the Manus, who protected me and my relations for seventy years, having endowed upon me one crore of gold coins flourish for ever with success and prosperity?

This Verse shows that Vikramarka was then alive. Having consolidated his empire, Vikramarka went to Nepal; he made the king, Amsuvarma a feudatory, and as a symbol of his over-lordship founded his Saka in Nepal in 57 B.C.. (Vide "The Ind. Ant. Vol.XIII." PP 411 ff). Afterwards, Vikramarka returned to Ujjain, became a patron of poets and scholars and spent his time with literary debates and discourses at court.

He received dedications of works like ‘Jyotirvidabharana’ and others, in Kali 3068 or 33 B.C. if after the founding of the Era, or 57 B.C., Sri Krishnamisra was protected for 70 years; this means B.C 57+70= 13 A.D. So it is evident that Vikramarka lived till 13 A.D. When he was a patron of a scholar for 70 years, this reveals that Vikramarka enjoyed longevity. Having been crowned king in his 20th year, it would take 24 years to conquer the whole of Bharata-Varsha and to consolidate the Empire, by winning over the Vassals by the four diplomatic devises of Sama, Dana, Bheda and Danda or by the exercise of fears and favours. He should be (20+24) 44 years old at the time of the initiation of his Saka in Nepal. If he supported a scholar for 70 years after the start of the Era, he should be aged, 44+70= 114 years at the dedication of Jyotishaphala Ratnamala, and when he made Matrigupta, the king of Kashmir, he was aged 115 years. Then after a reign of five years’ period, Matrigupta heard the demise of Vikramarka, abdicated the throne and became a recluse. Thus, it is evident, that the Emperor Vikramarka lived for 115+5= 12O years. Sloka 1-11 says as follows:-
‘This book consisting of two thousand Poems, of various and diverse charming metres, comprising of thirty two chapters, is written to embellish the renown and reputation of the Emperor, Vikramarka." (1-11)

Evidence - 4: Commentary on Satapatha Brahmana

Further. as regards this Vikramaditya, the "Sukla Yajurveda Madhyandina Satapatha Brahmana Bhashya" with Sri Hari Swamy Bhashya and with Sayanacharya Dviveda Ganga Bhashya, published by Kshema Raja Sri Krishna Das of Bombay, in Lakshmi Venkateswar Steam Press, Kalyan, Bombay, printed in 1997, Samvat 1862 Salivahana Saka, in 1940 A.D., in five volumes contains the following passage:-
To this Bhashya the Preface was written by Sree Madanna Sastry Sunuh Sridhara Sarma. While writing the preface, he wrote about the commentator "Hariswamy" to this effect :-

Substance of three slokas:-
"A resident of Ujjain,one who belongs to Parasara Gotra, the son of Naga Swamy,holding the offices of "Dharmadhyaksha’, (Justice of Vaidika Dharma) and "Danadhyakska" (Distributor of gifts) adorning the title of "Sarvavidyanidhana Kavindracharya Saraswati" (Treasure of all sciences and Learning, Professor of Poets or poet Laureate, the goddess of the Muses) in the court
of Vikramaditya, the king of Avanti, by name "Hari Swamy", has written this commentary or Bhashya to Satapatha Brahmana."
End of the 9th Chapter in the first, Haviryajna Khanda.

The author of the Preface says thus:-
One or two or three of the above poems which contain the above substance were attached to the end of every chapter, as follows:-
1. Satapatha Brahmana, 1 kanda, 7 chapter 4 Brahmana has first two Slokas.
2. Satapatha Brahmana, 1 kanda, 8 chapter 4 Brahmana has last two Slokas.
3. Satapatha Brahmana, 1 kanda, 9 chapter 1 Brahmana has second Sloka only.
4. Satapatha Brahmana, 1 kanda, 9 chapter 2 Brahmana has second Sloka only.
5. Satapatha Brahmana, 1 kanda, 9 chapter 3 Brahmana at the end of 1 Khanda has all three slokas.
6. Satapatha Brahmana, 4 kanda, 7,8,9 chapters, at the end of 7,8,9 chapters has all three slokas.

The readers may see the whole book.

The commentary of Hari Swamy is available from 8th kanda, 4th chapter, 4th Brahmana to the end of the kanda to 8 chapter, and to 12 and 13 kandas. Prof. Weber, 1855 A.D. printed in Berlin, Satapatha Brahmana with Hari swamy and Dviveda Ganga Bhashyams; but he omitted in his edition the verses contained in Hari Swamy commentary which commemorate the praise of Vikramarka.

Historical Evidence-5 Rajatarangini:- Matrigupta and Vikramaditya

On the eve of the demise of the 82 king in the list of the Kashmir monarchs, Hiranya leaving no heir to the throne, the country fell into anarchy; the cabinet of the ministers, in Kashmir sent a prayer to their over-lord, Emperor Vikramaditya and requested him to depute a ruler. Then, out of his favour towards Matrigupta, a Scholar-poet of the court, Vikramaditya installed Matri-Gupta with the sovereignty of his vassal state, Kashmir. This information is rendered in Rajatarangini
in slokas which mean as follows:-

(When the 82nd Kashmir king Hiranya died issueless 14 A.D), "In Ujjain there reigned with alias ‘Harsha’, the Emperor Vikramaditya as the over-lord, having brought the whole of Bharata Varsha under one umbrella? (R.T.3-125).
"In order to destroy the Mlechchas, (the tormentors of the country), Hari will incarnate on the Earth. As if to lighten the burden of Hari, Vikrarnaditya destroyed the sakas who were called mlechchas " (sakas were excommunicated kshatriyas of Indian origin.) (R.T. 3-128)
"Matrigupta, the far-famed in all the quarters as poet and he who was accessible to virtuous men came to Vikramaditya." (3-129)
Vikramaditya thought like this:- "The state of Kashmir was deprived of a ruler." (3-186). "Thongh many great kings desire the sovereignity, they should be rejected and Kashmir should be bestowed upon this deserving person (Matrigupta.) (3-187)
"Having decided like this that night, secretly, Emperor Vikramaditya sent messengers to the ministers of Kashmir? (3-188)
"He, who bears the name of Matrigupta and shows you my mandate, without doubt you should crown him king." To this effect a royal command was sent to the ministers of Kashmir? (3-189).
"Having sent the message with the royal orders, the emperor spent the rest of the night." (3-190).
On the next morning, after sunrise Vikramaditya said to Matrigupta "Do you know the state of Kashmir? you go to Kashmir and give this inscription to the Chief ministers." ( 3-207).
Having gone to Kashmir, when Matrigupta gave the mandate to the Chief Ministers, “They received the order with due obeisance and the ministers opened it in a secret place. After reading it, the ministers with humility spoke to the bearer of the letter, Matrigupta like this:-(3-235)
"When asked if the illustrious name Matrigupta was his, Matrigupta, with a smile, replied in the affirmative." (3-236)
"Then the whole place was filled with rejoicings and it shone like an ocean dashing with waves? (3-238) .
"Afterwards having seated Matrigupta on a golden throne facing eastwards, the Kashmir ministers celebrated his coronation as king of Kashmir." (3-239).
Thereupon, Matrigupta reigned for five years with justice and made the subjects happy and prosperous. Lateron, "he invaded against Trigarta region and conquered it; on his return he learnt the tidings of the Emperor Vikrarmaditya’s ascent to Heaven" (3-285).
That day Matrigupta (the king of Kashmir) was overpowered with grief; spent the day in having hot sighs with neither bathing, nor food, nor sleep and sat with head bent down with sorrow." (3-286)
"On the next day, Matrigupta, having left Kashmir, set out on a journey." Then, Toramana’s son and heir to the Kashmir throne, Pravarasena II heard of the abdication of Matrigupta. He came to Matrigupta and requested him not to renounce the crown and promised that he would relinquish his claim and surrender it in favour of Matrigupta. In spite of the fervent appeals of Pravarasena II, Matrigupta went to Benares, became an ascetic and devoted the remainder of his life in spiritual contemplation and religious rites.

Evidence 6. Nepala-Raja~Vamsavali:

In the year 3044 Kali or 57 B.C., Vikramaditya visited his vassal state Nepal and established his Era there (Vikrama. Saka). This information is published in the Indian Antiquary Vol. XIII. Pages 411 onwards.

Evidence 7. Ptolemy's Ancient India: "Ozene:- This is a transliteration of Ujjayini, the Sanskrit name of the old and famous city of Avanti, still called Ujjain. It was the capital of the celebrated Vikramaditya, who having expelled the Skythions and thereafter established his power over the greater part of India, restored the Hindu monarchy to its ancient splendour. It was one of the seven sacred cities of the Hindus, and the first Meridian of their astronomers. (Ptolemy’s Ancient India By Mr. Crindle page 154)

Evidence 8. Mahavamsa (a Buddhist Cronicle):

We learn from the Mahavamsa (a Buddhist Chronicle) that about B.C. 95, a certain Buddhist high priest took with him 40,000 deciples from the Dakkhinagiri temple at Ujjain to Ceylon to assist there in laying the foundation stone of the great Dagaba at Anuradhapura. Half a century later than this is the date of the expulsion of the Skythions by Vikramaditya, which forms the era in Indian Chronology called Samvat(57 B.C.). (Quoted BY Mr. Crindle in Ptolemy’s Ancient India. P.P.. 154, 155)

Evidence 9. Sir William Jones' Works.- Vol. IV:

Sir William Jones, the pioneer in the historical field, never doubted the historicity of Vikramaditya but frequently spoke of him as a historical person and a powerful emperor with several feudatories and this is thus a matter of great importance. (Vide Sir William Jones’ works Vol. IV. pp. 36 to 46 written in 1788 A.D. Ed. 1807.)

By the time of Jones (1778 A..D.) Vikramaditya was still green in the memory of the Indians and everywhere Jones heard accounts of that illustrious Emperor. The Panchangas(Almanacs) were mentioning his name and Era year after year. The necessity to deny the historicity of Vikramaditya to shield his wrong theory never struck him. This was an after thought of the later western scholars of the second half of the 19th century.

Evidence 10. Memoir of Central India BY C. H. Payne M,A, pp, 7, 8.:

"During the period that Dhunji’s family held Malwa we find no particular mention of them until about seven hundred and thirty years before Christ, when Dhunji’s successor is said to have shaken off his dependence on the sovereign of Delhi (i.e. Magadha Emperors). From this time we lose all trace of the kingdom of Malwa until near our own era, when Vikramaditya, a prince whom all Hindu authors agree in describing as the encourager of learning and the arts, obtained the Sovereignty."

Evidence 11. Esoteric Buddhism:

Mr. A.P. Sinnet in his Esoteric Buddhism (VIII Ed 1903, I Ed. being in 1883--p. 185) says that Vikramaditya lived in 80 B.C. The theory that Vikramaditya was a mythical person was not yet born then. It was only a later day invention.

Evidence 12. Tradition of the country:

Oral traditions handed down from age to age throughout the length and breadth of Bharat, stories about Vikrarnaditya and Salivahana afford equally valuable material for the historicity of Vikramaditya and Salivahana

Astronomical Evidence.

Evidence 13. Our National Almanacs:

A.D. 1951, English Calender year will be 2007 `Vikrama Sake and Kali Saka 5051-5052. If from 5051 Kali Saka, the Vikrama Saka, 2007, is subtracted (5051-2007=) 3044 Kali Saka or 57 B C. will be the starting point of Vikrama Saka. In the Indian Almanacs, from the past to the present, year after year Vikrama Saka is mentioned and the calculation is made.

Evidence 14. Siddhanta Siromani:

In "Siddhanta Siromani" written by himself, Bhaskaracharya, while discussing the calculation of time prevalent during his period, spoke about Vikrama and Kali Sakas, as given below:-

S.S. Kalamanadhyaya 28 Sloka:- This means that 3179 years in Kaliyuga will be the end of Vikrama Saka, The beginning of Vikrama Sake will be Kali 3044 year or 57 B.C., and the end of Vikrama Era will be the beginning of Salivahana Saka. When a new Era begins, the previous Era is considered to come to a close· So 3179 Kali will be 78 A.D., and this is the beginning of Salivahana Saka. If we deduct from Kali 3179 the Vikrama Saka start of Kali 3044, we get a period of 135 years.

Therefore, this calculation, beyond doubt, confirms the truth of the existence of Vikramaditya in 57 B.C., and the starting of his Era, together with the living of Salivahana in 78 A.D. and the establishing of his Saka. Salivahana was the great Grandson of Vikramarka. So it is evident that Vikramaditya was born in Kali 3001 year or 101 B.C., his coronation took place in Kali 3020 year or 82 B.C., and the Vikrama Saka was founded in 3044 Kali or 57 B.C., having got dedications of works in Kali 3068 (33 B.C.) and in Kali 3114 (13 A.D.) from Kalidasa and others. He made Matrigupta, king of Kashmir in Kali 3115 year or 14 A.D. Vikramaditya went to heaven in Kali 3120 year or 19 A.D.

Vikramaditya in Kalidasa's Jyotirvidhabharana
Date of Vikramaditya

Vikramaditya of First Century B.C.--Kalidasa's Jyotirvidabharana

2010-01-17T19:20:00.009+05:30

Contemporary Evidence. 2. Jyotirvidabharana. By Kalidasa.

It is a wonder that while there is definite evidence from ancient records regarding the date of Vikrama and Kalidasa, historians have unnecessarily made this a matter of controversy and have established wrong theories. Jyotirvidabharana is an astrological work by Kalidasa. In that work the great poet says that he was writing it to enhance the fame of Vikramaditya of the Paramara dynasty (Panwar dynasty), his patron king. This work was commented upon by Bhavamuni in Vikrama Samvat 1768 year or 1711 A.D. In the following sloka Vikrama is mentioned as a great donor and as a patron of scholars.

Jyotirvidabharana. Sloka No. 4—89

In this book Kalidasa defines the much disputed word "Saka". He says that whoever kills the Sakas in large numbers would be called a Sakakaraka, i.e., the founder of an era and that he would be an emperor and a founder of a new Era, ousting the previous era.

Sloka No. 10-109

The poet further says that there were six founders of eras in every Kaliyuga, namely, 1. Yudhishtira, 2. Vikrama, 3. Salivahana, 4. Vijayabhinandana, 5. Emperor Nagarjuna, 6. Bali.

Sloka No. 10-110,111

The lengths of the periods of these eras is respectively as follows:

S.No.	Era	Period of Era	From	To
1	Yudhistira Era	3044	Kali 1	Kali 3044 (57 B.C.)
2	Vikrama Era	135	3044	3179 (78 A.D.)
3	Salivahana Era	18000	3179	21,179 (21,257 A,D.)
4	Vijayabhinanda Era	10000	21179	31179 (31,257 A.D.)
5	Nagarjuna Era	400000	31179	431179 (4,31,257 A.D.)
6	Bali Era	821	431179	432000 (4,32,078 A.D)

With regard to Yudhistira Saka it should be remembered that 3044 does not include the 36 year's rule of Yudhistira in Dwapara yuga. When we add up the figures given above we get the total figure of 4,32,000, which is exactly the duration of Kaliyuga.
After Kali yuga, Krita yuga will begin.
( The above Eras will rotate with the same name and duration in every Kali yuga )

The capitals of the above mentioned Emperors who were Era founders in Kali are mentioned in Slokas 10-112,113.

Emperor and Era founder	Capital
Yudhistira	Hastinapura
Vikrama	Ujjain
Salivahana	Dhara on the Salera Molera hills
Vijayabhinandana	Chitrakuta
Nagarjuna	Rohitaka
Bali	Bhrigukachcha

In his commentary on the sloka 10—113 the commentator gives some particulars of the dynasties of these emperors from other books.

Yudhistira was born of the Lunar family, Vikrama (the Rajaput king) of the Paramara (or Panwar) family. Salivahana of the same family. Vijayabhinandana of Gohilla family, Nagarjuna of Sisodara family, Bali of the family of the Avatar Kalki (in the end of Kaliyuga).

Thereafter begins the Kritayuga of the 29th Mahayuga. Then, there will be kings of the Solar dynasty. (10-113).

From the 43rd sloka in the 17th chapter the following particulars are known about Vikrama. 1. He constructed Several temples. 2. He established an era (aaptasakah) after driving away the Sakas. 3. He established several Deities according to the Vedic ritual. ( Sloka no. 17-43.)

The Poet says that as Vikrama observed and made others observe the Varna-Dharma in entirety, there was full-blown prosperity and that others who took up "Neeti" for a limited purpose would get only the fruit to that limited extent. (Sloka 20-45)

The following countries are said to have been included in his Empire. The people of these countries are said to sing the praise of Vikrama for protecting the Varnasrama Dharma in his empire.

The provinces included in his empire are :- Kambhoja, Gauda, Andhra, Malava, Anarta, Surashtra, Gurjara etc. (Sloka 20-46)

From the Rajatarangini and Nepala Raja Vamsavali it is known that Vikrama ruled over Kashmir and Nepal. Thus it is clear that the whole of India was brought under the empire of Vikrama.

This work Jyotirvidabharana, says Kalidasa, he began to write in the month Vysakha of 3068 Kali Era (or 33 B.C.) and was completed in the month Kartika of the same year. This is the clearest evidence of the contemporaneity of Kalidasa and Vikrama in the first century before Christ. At the end of several chapters Kalidasa extols Vikramaditya to whom the work is dedicated. In the beginning of the 22nd chapter Kalidasa described, to some extent, the Emperor Vikrama and in the 6th sloka he says that this book of 22 chapters and 1474 slokas is written with the purpose of invoking good to Vikramaditya, the Emperor of Bharat.

In sloka (22-1), Kalidasa mentions one important trait of Vikramaditya. He uses the adjective "abhiprajaanandakara" to Emperor Vikramaditya which means "he who pleases the people devoted to him."

In the 7th sloka of Chapter 22 Kalidasa gives some particulars of Vikrama's empire, which are as follows:-
1. It extended over the whole of Bharata-Varsha of 180 Big jyotisha yojanas (approximately 1800 miles)in length and breadth. ( 1 Big yojana = 9 5/6 English miles )
2. The Bharata-Varsha shines forth with the culture of the Vedas and Dharma Sastras. This book is dedicated for the good of Vikramaditya, the emporer of Malwa, by me ( Kalidasa ).

In the 8th and 9th slokas of Chapter 22 Kalidasa gives a list of poets and pundits adorning the court of Vikrama.
1. Sanku, 2. Vararuchi, 3. Mani, 4. Angudatta, 5. Jishnu, 6. Trilochana, 7. Hari (Hariswamy, the commentator of Sukla Yajurveda and the head of the departments of Dana and Dharma (Daanaadhyakshaa and Dharmaadhyakshaa), 8. Ghata karpara, 9. Amarasimha, 10. Satyacharya, 11.Varahamihira, 12. Srutasena, 13. Badarayana, 14. Manittha, 15. Kumara Simha and astrologers like 16. Myself (Kalidasa), and others. (Slokas 22-8,9)

In his commentary on sloka 9 of Chapter 22, the commentator quotes the famous slokas, which perhaps have come down traditionally, which mean as follows :-
These slokas say:- Even a sanyasi desirous of seeing Vikrama is prevented by the door-keeper. But he who has four slokas in his hand may freely pass through the gate. May he be given 10 lakh coins and 14 Sasanas of gifts.

A poet humourously says to Vikrama like this: "'O! king! Saraswati resides in your mouth and Lakshmi in your hand. Yet, why is your fame angry? For she is wandering in other countries. Scholars praise you as a donor of everything at all times; it is a false praise. Because your enemies are never given the back, (You never turn back in the battle-field) and others’ wives are not given your chest.

In 22-10 Kalidasa mentions the nine Gems of scholars
adorning the court of Vikrama. viz.
1. Dhanvantari. 2. Kshapanaka 3. Amarasimha. 4. Sanku.
5. Vetalabhatta. 6. Ghatakarpara. 7. Kalidasa. 8. the renownd
Varahamihira and 9. Vararuchi.

In 22-11 Kalidasa gives a further accountg of the court of Vikrama.
There were 800 Vassal kings, one crore of good soldiers, 16 great scholars, 16 astrologers, 16 efficient doctors, 16 bhattas and 16 scholars of Vedik lore; Vikrama sitting on his throne was illuminated by these scholarly courtiers.
In 22-12 the following particulars are given about the army of Vikramaditya :-
His army continuously spread over 18 yojanas (small jyotisha yojanas, 1 small jyotisha yojana= 4 11/12 english miles) and consisted of the following:—
1. There were 3 crores of soldiers.
2. Ten crores of various vehicles.
3. 24,300 elephants.
4. 4,00,000 (four lakhs) of ships,
This was the army that accompanied him in his expeditions. In this respect there was no emperor to be compared to Vikrama in those days, says Kalidasa.

Sloka 13 of the 22nd chapter says that Vikrama annihilated innumerable Sakas (who were Mlechcha Kshatriyas) and established the Era. Every day he made gifts of pearls, jems, gold, cow, horse, elepahnts to the four castes. Hence he was called "Suvarnaanana".

Sloka 15 of 22 saya that Vikrama captured the fortresses of kings and after humiliating them returned their fortresses to them. In prosperity he was "Indra", in 'Gambhirya' he was the 'Ocean'; in charitableness he was 'Kalpavriksha; in beauty he was 'Cupid'; in supporting the world he was the Meru. He was Moon to the lotuses of wicked persons ( he was a terror to the wicked).

Sloka 16 of chapter 22 says that Ujjyini, the capital of Vikrama gives salvation to the inhabitants on account of the persence of Lord "Siva" in the name of 'Mahakala'.

Sloka 17 of chapter 22 says that Vikrama of iresistable valour defeated the Saka king of the province of Rumma (Roomaka in North-West India), brought him to Ujjain, took him round the city as a captive and released him.

Sloka 18 of 22 says that while Vikrama was ruling with Avanti (Ujjain) as capital, all people were prosperous and happy and everywhere the Vedic Dharma prevailed.

Slokas 19 and 20 of chapater 22 give the following particulars :-
In the court of Vikrama, I, Kalidasa was the friend of the king, while there were many poets and scholars like Sanku and astrologers like Varahamihira.
I (Kalidasa), wrote three Kavyas of which the first was Ragahuvamsa, a treatise on Vedic ritual and Jyotirvidabharana.

Sloka 21 of chapter 22 definitely gives the date of composition of Jyotirvidabharana. It is to be noted that Kalidasa gives both the date of commencement and the date of closing of the composition of Jyotirvidabharana. As for the date of commencement he gives Vysakha 3068 of Kali Era (33 B.C.) and as the date of closing he gives the month Kartika of the same year.

Sloka 22 of chapter 22 mentions that Kalidasa is the author of Jyotirvidabharana and that Chapter 22 contains the contents of the book and the description of heroic emperor Vikrama

Jyotirvidabharana ends with this.

The commentator of Jyotirvidabharana gives the succession of his Jaina Gurus. Seven names are given which perhaps deserve mention,while many other intervening names are omitted.
1. Vardhamana Mahavira,
2. Chandraprabha,
3. Dharmaghosha,
4. Vidyaprabha,
5. Lalitaprabhu,
6. Vinayaprabha,
7. Mahimaprabhu

Bhavaratna, the commentator is the deciple of Mahimaprabhu. Hw wrote his Subodhika, the commentary on Jyotirvidabharana, for the satisfaction of the astronomers, in 1768 of Vikrama era (or 1711 A.D.), which was completed on Sunday, the 3rd day of light fort-nightof Vysakha. His father was 'Mandana' and his mother was 'Valha-Devi', and his residence was Sri-Pattana (Srinagar?).

The date of Emperor Vikramaditya

2010-01-17T17:54:00.007+05:30

1. Puranic Evidence, (Bhavishya Maha Purana)

In the Rajatarangini Kalhana mentions that Vikramaditya, the emperor of India, whose capital was Ujjain sent Metrigupta to be the ruler of Kashmir, which was included in the empire of the former. We give below all the authoritative evidences that go to show the existence of Vikramaditya during 1st century B.C., and request the historians to peruse them carefully.The above slokas mean to this effect:- "After the completion of three thousand years in Kali (101 B.C.),for the destruction of the Sakas and the propagation of the Aryan Dharma, by the command of Siva, from the abode of the Guhyakas in Kailasa, a personage will be born (to Gandharva Sena, the king of Ujjain). The father gave the child the name of Vikramaditya and rejoiced. Even as an infant he was very wise and gladdned the hearts of the parents. At an early age of five years. he retired to a forest to do penance,. Having spent twelve years in meditation, he achieved spiritual eminence and returned to his city called "Ambavati" or Ujjain. On the eve of his ascending the throne adorned with thirty two golden statues, came a learned Brahmin and he delayed the coronation ceremony with a purpose to teach the king a history consisting of several episodes, wherein the rights and duties of a monarch are enumerated. Then the Brahmin taught the prince all the rights and responsibilities he owed to himself and to his subjects and gave him a befitting and an efficient training worthy of an adventurous Sovereign. Afterwards, in Kali 3020 year or B.C. 82 Vikramaditya was crowned king. Then he expelled the Sakas and drove them as far as Bactria, conquered the whole of Bharata country from Setu to the Himalayas, and received tribute from the feudatory kings.

The limits of his empire was described in the Bhavishya Purana:— In the west the other bank of the Sindhu River; in the South the Setu; Badarinarayana in the Himalayas formed the North limit and the city of Kapilavastu, the boundary in the East. These were the limits of Vikramaditya's Empire.

Meaning :- "By the grace and command of Siva, Gandharvasena’s son, Vikramaditya reigned as Emperor, for hundred years. His son "Devabhakta" after ruling for ten years, was killed in a battle by the cruel Sakas."(Kali 3130 or 29 A.D.)

We deem it our duty to make minor alterantions to periods of Kings of Kashmir

2010-01-15T18:48:00.009+05:30

Ancient records and old inscriptions should be the sources for history. The narratives constructed on the basis of personal predilections and racial prejudices should be considered as romances woven out of idle fancies but do not deserve the name of history. There might be lapses and slips in the traditional records maintained by the chroniclers from generation to genaration. In the absence of the printing press, certain errors might have crept in due to the negligence of the scribes or the lack of comprehension on the part of the writers. When similar slight mistakes occur, the duty of the modern research scholar will be to mend them in such a way as to maintain the trend of the popular tradition but not to mangle and mutilate the original with insertions and interpolations, so that it might appear a monstrasity. On the flimsy ground of a contradiction here and there, the historian should not condemn it as a legend and reject the first three Tarangas as Dr. Buhler did. Further, it will be highly blameworthy and injudicious to overhaul the old history and to write a new one so as to suit their misconceptions of modernity. As regards Kalhana and his Rajatarangini, the western writers played the game of ‘run with the hare and hunt with the hound'. Dr. Buhler, who rejected the first three Tarangas, expresses that "with this key, it wiil become possible to fix the chronology of the latter Kashmirian kings with perfect accuracy" and in doing so Buhler blows hot and cold in the same breath. We are not able to reconcile how Buhler could accept the authenticity of ‘Saptarshi Era' made use of by Kalhana and recognise ‘The last three books of his chronicle', while at the same time he rejects the authority of the first three Tarangas, (i. e. the whole history of the Gonanda dynasty consisting of 89 kings, covering a period of 3702 years from 3450 B.C., to 252 A. D.).

Rajatarangini gives a detailed description about Matrigupta as fo1lows:- On hearing the death of Vikramaditya, king of Ujjain and son of Gandharvasena in Kali 3120 or 19 A.D., Matrigupta abdicated the throne of Kashmir and went to Benares to lead the life of a recluse. Then Toramana’s son Pravarasena II administered the kingdom and remitted the Surplus income of Kashmir to Matrigupta, in spite of the refusal of the latter to accept the amount. So Matrigupta gave it as gifts to the poor. The Bhavishyad Purana also related that Kali 3120 or 19 A.D., to be the last date of Vikramaditya. Hence the same was the date of the abdication of Matrigupta and there is no scope to alter it. As the initial year of the rule of Gonanda III, 1182 B.C., was fixed as a demarcation mile-stone there is no chance to change it. From that year to the end of Andha Yudhistira, a period of 1014 years, might have been subjected to an addition of 104 years by others; which being deducted ( 1014-104 =) 910 years should be taken as the difference between Gonanda-III and Andha Yudhistira. As in the same way, others have meddled with the reigning periods of the kings, we have to adjust them. While giving the history from the beginning of the reign of Gonanda III, the 53rd king to the 73rd ruler Andha Yudhistira, the book did not speak of the reigning period of the latter (Andha Yudhistira ). The sum—total of the remaining monarchs comes to only 967 but not 1014 years and we get a detriment of 47 years. (We may assign this period of 47 years to Andha Yudhistira ). If we take Andha Yudhistira’s reigning period to be 47 years, the total will be 967+47 = 1014 years, the intervening period of monarchs from No. 53 to No. 73. Then the difference will be 1014-910 = 104 years, excess and this is adjusted by reducing the periods of the kings in the following manner :-

1. No.65 monarch's period of 63 years to 40 years -- reduction 23 years
2. No.68 monarch's period of 60 years to 35 years -- reduction 25 years
3. No.71 sovereign's period of 57 years to 35 years -- reduction 22 years
4. No.73 sovereign's period of 47 years to 13 years -- reduction 34 years
-------------------------------------------------Total reduction 104 years

In this way we are obliged to adjust the excess period of 104 years, if not, Matrigupta, the state-poet of Vikramaditya who was sent as ruler of Kashmir, will come to a later date of about 104 years, after the expiry of Vikramaditya in 19 A.D., and this will be contrary to history. Out of regard to facts mentioned in ancient chronicles, to see that it is not contradictory and with a desire to delete the insertions and interpolations introduced by some mischief-makers to discredit and damage the old records, we deem it our duty to make the above minor alterations and slight changes, to vindicate the value of historic truth and to bring home to the minds of the present and future generations the unchallengeable fact that Vikrarnaditya and Matrigupta were contemporaries in the Ist century after Christ.

Rajatarangini informs us that the descendants of the Andhra Satavahana family ruled for Kali 4113 or 1012 A.D., in Kashmir. We already know that these reigned during that period over the region south of the Vindhyas. In the list of the kings, the 83rd was Matrigupta and the beginning of his reign was 14 A.D.. From this date to the 128th king, Sangrama Raja, the interval ought to be (1012-14=) 998 years but we get only 658 years in Rajatarangini as it stood now. The difference is a decrease of 340 years. (998-658= 340 years). Without the least shadow of doubt, Kalhana declared that the interval between the date of Gonanda III and that of his time 1148 A. D., was 2330 years and he might have given the dates to be in keeping with his statement. But, it looks as if the Rajatarangini was polluted by contact with the foreign chroniclers whose sole purpose was to tarnish the glory and splendor of the ancient history of a subject nation. After having announced that 2330 years elapsed from the date of Gonanda III to his date Saka era 1070 or 1148 A. D., will Kalhana commit a reduction of 340 years while narrating the history of the Kings? Or, the historian who gave the accurate details of the kings and their lives, together with the years, months and days, can he be so careless as not to verify, if the calculation came to the total period of 2330 years? We eannot hold that Kalhana would commit such a mistake. He would have mentioned correct periods on the basis of his records and source-books and calculated accurately so that the total would come to 2330 years. But some later writers might have meddled and tampered with the dates; so as to prove that it is contradictory; to achieve their object they enhanced 104 years during the time of Andha Yudhistira, and reduced 340 years from 2330 years, fixed by Kalhana so as not to make Matrigupta contemporary of Vikramaditya; these increasings and diminishings were made with a motive to support their theory of modernity. If we calculate the periods of Kings from Gonanda III :-

From 53rd King Gonanda III to 73 Andha Yudhistira---1014 Years
From 74 Pratapaditya------ to 79 Sandhimati--------- 192 years
From 80 Meghavahana -------to 89 Baladitya---------- 332 years
From 90 Durlabha-to 106 Sukhavarma of Karkota Family-260 years
From 107 Avantivarma------to 116 Unmattavanti-------- 84 Years
From 117 Yasaskara -------to 126 Ditta Devi---------- 76 years
From 127 Samgramaraja---- to 132 Harsha-------------- 98 years
From 133 Uchchala---------to 136 Jayasimha----------- 38 years
---------------------------------------------------------------
Date when Rajatarangini was written 1143 A.,D.--2094 years
_______________________________________________________________

If from Kalhana’s total 2330, the total as per above table 2094 is subtracted 2330-2094 = 236 years reduction is obtained. This difference we cannot attribute to the inability of Kalhana as it wil1 be doing injustice to him and it ought to be due to the tampering of interested interpolators. As the contemporaneity of Matrigupta and Vikramaditya does not accord in this, the excess of 104 years, which occurred during the period of 1014 years to the end of Andha Yudhistira, should be added to the above 236 years reduction and we get a total 236+104= 340 years detriment. So to have an accurate and correct calculation, these 340 years are to be distributed among the reigning periods of the successors of Matrigupta, so as to arrive at the grand total period of 2330 years, as mentioned by Kalhana. It seems that 260 years were set apart to the 17 kings of the Karkotaka family, from 90 to 106 rulers and the residue was deducted from this. The 260 years for 17 kings will roughly come to 15 years for each ruler. If we add the period of 340 years to 260 years mentioned as the reigning period of the above 17 kings, the total comes to (340+260=) 600 years. We have distributed the aggregated period among the rulers of the Karkota family as given below:-

Kings of KarKingskota Family
No. of King	Period in the Book in Years	Adjusted period in Years
92	9	59
93	4	34
96	7	57
97	4	44
99	31	51
100	12	52
101	7	57
102	12	52
103	36	56
	Total =122	Total = 462

122+340=462 years.
The total of of Karkota race 260+340= 600 years have been adjusted and each king got an average of 35 1/3 years only, as the previous kings of other dynasties got.

Kings of Taranga VIII

2009-12-19T11:43:00.003+05:30

Agni Vamsi or Brahma-Kshatra Kings From 1110 to 1148 A.D. Total 38 years (4 kings. )

Name of King	Years Reigned	Kashmirabda or Laukikabda	Christian Era A.D.
133. Uchchla - 134. Sankaraja	10	4186-4196	1110-1120
135. Sussala	8	4196-4204	1120-1128
136. Jayasimha	20	4204-4224	1128-1148

Kalhana mentioned that Jayasimha was the ruler of Kashmir when he wrote the Rajatarangini in the Saka 1070 years. If we add 78 to 1070, we get the Christian Era 1148 A.D.. It appears that Jayasimha ruled for some time more ( till 1154 A.D.)

The Sum total of all the reigns after Gonanda III, the 53rd. king.
53rd king to 73rd ---- 910 years
74th king to 79th ---- 192 years
80th .. .. . 89th ---- 332 years
90th .. .. . 106th---- 600 years
107th .. ... 116th----- 84 years
117th .. ... 126th----- 76 years
127th .. ... 132nd----- 98 years
133rd .. ... 136th----- 38 years
Total ----------------2330 years .
Befere Gonanda III--- 2268 years.
Grand Total-----------4598 years

Kalhana's time is 1148 A.D.; 4593-1148 = 345O B.C.
i.e., From 3450 B.C. we have the history of Kashmir.

Kalhana’s father was a tributary to the king of Kashmir, besides being the Prime Minister. This family might have been a branch of the Satavahana dynasty.

Rajatarangini relates that the Lohar kings, who were subordinate to the kings of Kashmir, belonged to Andhra Satavahana race. The 120th king in the list, Parvagupta, was a descendant of Satavahana dynasty; since he got the crown of Kashmir, the Brahmin kings of Gupta family became rulers of Kashmir. The Brahmin king of Lohar was the son-in-law of Bhima Sahi, the Hindu Brahmana Sahi king in Kabul. His daughter ‘Didda Devi’ was married to Kshemagupta, the son of Parvagupta. The 127th king in the list, "Sangrama Raja", was the nephew or brother’s son to Didda Devi; and was son of Lohar king. Rajatarangini clearly mentions that he was a descendant of Satavahana family. The Puranas pronounced that the Andhra Satavahana race spilt-up into several offshoots and spread all over the land. These Andhra Brahmin families held sovereignty not only over the South but also over the North; in, Kashmir, Lohar etc.
The Sahi family ruled over an area by the name of "Dhakkan Territory", in Simhapura, Divyakataka, and Uttara Jyotisha regions; these Yavana states were conquered and consolidated into one kingdom and ruled. Its modern name is Afghanistan.

Kings in Taranga VII. - Satavahana Dynasty

2009-12-18T12:39:00.002+05:30

Lohar Family ·
From 1012 A.D. to 1110 A.D. Total 98 years. ( 6 kings)

Name of King	Years Reigned	Kashmirabda or Laukikabda	Christian Era A.D.
127. Sangramaraja, Brother’s son of Didda; contemporary to Trilochana Pala of Kabul 1000 to 1021 A.D.	15	4088-4103	1012-1027
128. Hariraja	22 days	-	-
129. Anantadeva	35 years	4103-4138,	1027-1062
Anantadeva again	16	4138-4154	1062-1078
130. Kalasa or Ranaditya(Pandit and Poet ) Patron of Pandits and Poets	10	4154-4164	1078-1088
131. Utkarsha, 132. Harsha	22	4164-4186	1088-1110

These six kings ruled for 98 years.

Kings in Taranga VI. - Brahmin Kings.

2009-12-16T22:19:00.002+05:30

Gupta Brahmin Dynasty From 936 A.D. to 1012 A.D.
Total 76 years (10 kings)

Name of King	Years Reigned	Kashmirabda or Laukikabda	Christian Era A.D.
117. Yasaskara	9½	4012-4021½	936-945½
118. Varnata--1 month; 119. Sangramadeva-- 5 months	½	4021½—4022	945½-946
120. Parvagupta	2	4022-4024	946-948
121. Kshemagupta	9	4024-4033	948-957
122. Abhimanyugupta, minor, by mother Didda or Diththa Devi, wife of above Kshemagupta. Didda was contemporary to Bhima Sahi of Kabul, descendent of Lalya Sahi. Didda was grand daughter of Bhima Sahi(Daughter's daughter).	14	4033-4047	957-971
123. Nandigupta, second son of Didda, minor, by mother Didda	1	4047-4048	971 -972
124. Tribhuvanagupta, 3rd son of Didda, minor, by mother Didda.	2	4048-4050	972-974
125. Bhima gupta, fourth son of Didda and minor, by mother Didda.	5	4050-4055	974-979
126. Didda or Diththa, herself reigned,Daughter of Simharaja of Lohar, wife of 121. Kshemagupta.	33	4055-4088	979-1012

This Lohar family belongs to the Andhra Satavahana dynasty. This Simharaja, father of Didda, is the son-in—law of Bhima Sahi of Kabul who belonged to the Thomara Dynasty, one of the four Agni Vamsis. These ten Brahrnin kings ruled for 76 years.

Kings of Taranga V. - Utpala Dynasty

2009-12-15T12:44:00.002+05:30

From 852 A.D. to 936. - Total 84 years. (8 kings)

Name of King	Years Reigned	Kashmirabda or Laukikabda	Christian Era A.D.
107. Avantivarma (In his court f1ourished many poets like Anandavardhan, Ratanakara )	28	3928-3956	852-880
108. Sankaravarma (Contemporary to Lalya Sahi, Brahmin king of the Yavanas in Uttara Jyotisha, Divya Kataka and Simhapura, now forming part of Afghanistan	20	3956-3976	880-900
109. Gopalavarma, minor, whose mother Sugandha ruled	2	3976-3978	900-902
110. Sankata, 111. Sugandha, 112. Suravarma	2	3978-3980	902-904
113. Partha	14	3980-3994	904-918
114. Nirjitavarma	2	3994-3996	918-920
115. Chakravarma ( murdered )	14	3996-4010	920-934
116. Unmattavanti	2	4010-4012	934-936

These 8 Kings ruled for 84 years.

Kings in Taranga IV - Karkotaka Dynasty

2009-12-12T11:45:00.002+05:30

From 252 A.D. to 852 A, D. Total 600 years ( 17 kings).

Name of King	Years Reigned	Kashmirabda or Laukikabda	Christian Era A.D.
90 Durlabha vardhana (Son-in·-law of No.89 king)	36	3328-3364	252-288
91 Durlabhaka or Pratipaditya	50	3364-3414	288-338
92. Chandrapida or Varnaditya	59	3414-3473	338-397
93. Tarapida or Udayaditya	34	3473-3507	397-431
94. Lalitaditya or Mukatapida( Poet )	36	3507-3543	431-467
95. Kuvalayaditya	1	3543-3544	467-468
96. Vajraditya or Bapyayika or Lalitapida	57	3544-3601	468-525
97. Prithivyapida	44	3601-3645	525-569
98. Sangramapida	7 days	3645	569
99. Jayapida ( Pandit and poet R.T. IV-404;489;497;548 slokas)	51	3645-3696	569-620
100. Lalitapida	52	3696-3748	620-672
101. Sangramapida II	57	3748-3805	672-729
102. Chipyata-Jayapida	52	3805-3857	729-781
103. Ajitapida	56	3857-3913	781-837
104. Anangapida	3	3913-3916	837-840
105. Utpalapida	5	3916-3921	840-845
106. Sukhavarma	7	3921-3928	845-852

Total 17 kings ruled for 600 years.

Karkotaka Dynasty ends.

Kings in Taranga III in Kalhana's Rajatarangini

2009-12-10T13:34:00.004+05:30

Dynasty of Andha Yudhistira who belonged to Gonanda Dynasty. From 30 B.C., to 252 A.D., 10 kings,
Total years 332.

Name of King	Years reigned	Kashmirabda or Loukikabda	Christian Era, B.C.,A.D.
80. Meghavahana	34	2996-3030	80-46 B.C.
81. Pravarasena or Sreshtasena or Tunjina	30	3030-3060	46-16 B.C.
82. Hiranya, elder brother of Toramana, died issueless. (Toramana died in prison. His wife and his son were in exile.)	30	3060-3090	16 B.C.-14 A.D
83. Matrigupta (He was sent by Vikramaditya of Ujjain as king of Kashmir in 14 A.D.)	5	3090-3095	14 A.D.-19
84. Pravarasena II (Toramana's son )	60	3095-3155	19 A·D.-79
85. Yudhistira II (contemporary to Salivahana, founder of the Era 78 A.D.)	39	3155--3194	79 A.D.-118
86. Lakshmana (Narendraditya)	13	3194-3207	118 A.D.- 131
87. Tunjina or Ranaditya (Poet)	42	3207-3249	131 A.D.- 173
87. Vikramaditya	42	3249-3291	173 A.D.- 215
89. Baladitya	37	3291-3328	215 A.D.- 252

With this king the Gonanda Dynasty ends.

Ten kings ruled for 332 years.

Kings in Taranga II in Kalhana's Rajatarangini

2009-12-10T12:34:00.002+05:30

Dynasty of Pratapaditya.
From 272 B.C. to 80 B.C. Total 192 years (6 kings.)

Name of King	Years reigned	Kashmirabda or Laukikabda	Christian Era B.C.
74.*Pratapaditya	32	2804-2836	272-240
75. Jalaukasa	32	2836-2868	240-208
76. Tunjina	36	2868-2904	208-172
77. Vijaya	8	2904-2912	172-164
78. Jayendra	37	2912-2949	164-127
79. Sandhimati	47	2949-2996	127-80

From Nos. 74 to 79 six kings ruled for 192 years.

note:- In Rajatarangi it is stated that this Pratapaditya is a relative of Vikramaditya, was brought by the ministers from a distant land and placed on the Kashmir throne. He ruled Kashmir from 272 to 240 B.C. Vikramaditya referred to here must be Sri Harsha Vikramaditya of Ujjain of 457 B.C. Kalhana says here that this Vikramaditya, the relative of the Pratapaditya was not the Sakari Vikramaditya (of 57 B.C. )

Kings of Kashmir - (continued)

2009-12-09T22:36:00.003+05:30

Dynasty of Gonanada III. From 1182 B.C. to 272 B.C.
Total 910 years. (21 Kings, from no.53 to no. 73)

Name of the king	Years reigned	Kashmirabda or Laukikabda	Christian Era
53 Gonanda III	35	1894-1929	1182-1147
54 Vibhishana	54½	1929-1983½	1147-1092½;
55 Indrajit	35½	1983½-2019	1092½-1057
56 Ravana	30	2019-2049	1057-1027
57 Vibhishana II	35½	2049-2084½	1027-991½
58 Kinnara or Nara	39½	2084½-2124	991½-952
59. Siddha	60	2124-2184	952-892
60 Utpalaksha.	30½	2184-2214½	892-861½
61 Hiranyaksha	37½	2214½-2252	861½-824
62. Hiranyakula	60	2252-2312	824-764
63 Vasukula	60	23l2-2372	764-704
64 Mihirakula	70	2372-2442	704-634
65 Baka	40	2442-2482	634-594
66 Kshitinamdana	30	2482-2512	594-564
67 Vasunamdana (Poet)	52	2512-2564	564-512
( Author of Smara Sastra )
68 Nara	35	2564-2599	512-477
69 Aksha	60	2599-2659	477-417
70 Gopaditya	60	2659-2719	417-357
(Built the temple of Adi Sankara called Sankaracharya or Thakti Sulaiman in B.C. 367-366. He founded several temples
and Agraharams. He was a poet.)
71 Gokarna	35	2719-2754	357-322
72. Kinkhila or Narendraditya	37	2754-2791	322-285
73. Andha Yudhistira	13	2791-2804	285-272

(He was called Andha Yudhistira by the people, because of his having small eyes; in fact he was not blind.)

The Total period from Gonanda III to Andha Yudhistira was 910 yrs.

Kings of Kashmir as per list of Rajatarangini

2009-12-07T18:52:00.020+05:30

Serial Number	Name of the King	Years reigned	Before Loukikabda (3076 B.C.)	Before Christ.
1-5	Names not known	212	374-162	3450-3238
1	Gonanda I	50	162-112	3238-3188
2	Damodara I	48	112-64	3188-3140
3	Yasovati ( wife of 2 and mother of 4)	½	64-63½	3140-3139½
4	Gonanada II	56½	63½-7	3139½-3083

No.4 king Gonanda II ruled for 56½ years, 1½ years before Mahabharata War and 55 years after the war.

Kings 5 to 39 : According to Kalhana names are not known. But Mulla Ahmed’s history of Kashmir written in the Persian language gives the list of the lost 35 kings of Kashmir from No.5-39 of the list given in Kalhana’s Rajntharangini. Gonanda II (the 4th king in the list of the Kings of Kalhana's Rajatarangini) was Killed in a battle by Parikshit, king of Hastinapura in 3083 B.C. As Gonanda II left no heir, Parikshit incorporated Kashmir into his empire. He ruled it from Hastinapura for 42 years. At the time of his death, in 3041 B.C., Parikshit gave Kashmir to his second son "Harnadeva". 23 kings of the Pandava dynasty and twelve other kings ruled for 1331 years from 3083-1752 B.C.
No. Name
5. Parikshit ruled for 42 year from 7 B.L. to 35 A.L. or 3083-3041 B.C.
6. Hernadeva
7. Rama deva
8. Vyasadeva
9. Drunadeva
10. Simhadeva
11. Gopaladeva
12. Vijayananda
13. Sukhadeva
14. Ramananda
15. Sandhiman
16. Marahandeva & Kamandeva.
17. Chandradeva
18. Anandadeva
19. Drupadadeva
20. Harnamdeva
21. Sulkandeva
22. Sinaditya
23. Mangaladitya
24. Khimendra
25. Bhimasena
26. Indrasena
27. Sundarasena
28. Galgendra
29. Baladeva
30. Nalasena
31. Gokarna
32. Prahlada
33. Bambru
34. Pratapaseela
35. Sangrama chandra
36. Larik chandra
37. Biramchamdra
33. Babighana
39. Bhagavanta
The above 34 kings from no.6 to no.39 ruled for 1289 years , A.L. 35 to 1324, or B.C 3041 to 1752.

	B.L.	A.L.	B.C
40. Lava	39	1324-1363	1752-1713
41. Kusa or Kusesaya	39	1363-1402	1713-1674
42. Khagendra	39	1402-1441	1674-1635
43. Surendra ( Issueless)	39	1441-1480	1635-1596
44. Godhara ( Another
Kshatriya family)	39	1480-1519	1596-1557
45. Suvarna	39	1519-1558	1557-1518
46. Janaka	39	1558-1597	1518-1479
47. Sachinara (His
Paternal uncle
Sakuni’s great	31	1597-1628	1479-1448
grand-son)
43. Asoka or Dharmasoka
( Gonanda Dynasty)	48	1628-1676	1448-1400
He lost his king-
dom and Mlechchas
occupied it and he
fled to forest. His son
49. Jaelauka- (recon-
quered and reigned )	56	1676-1732	1400-1344
50. Damodara II	50	1732-1782	1344-1294
50. Hushka, Jushka
and Kanishka.	60	1782-1842	1294-1234
52. Abhimanyu	52	1842-1894	1234-1182

Total reign 2236 years.

52. Gonanda III Crowned in 1894 After Laukikabda Kala or 1182 B.C.

Gonanda I was a poet. Dharma-Asoka was the 48th king of Kashmir, counting from Gonanda I. He belonged to the Gonanda dynasty. Kalhana says that this king freed himself from sins by embracing Buddha's religion and built the city of Srinagar, with ninety-six lakhs of houses, resplendent with wealth. He appears to have been a poet.( R.T. 1-101 )

Kalhana would not have authored the four verses 49, 50, 51 and 54 in first Taranga

2009-11-22T21:43:00.014+05:30

In the context of the discussion of the reigning periods of the Kashmir kings, we come across four Verses 49, 50, 51 and 54, in the first Taranga. As these verses run counter to all Puranas, the history of Bharat, popular tradition, annual almanacs and astronomical calculations, we cannot attribute their author-ship to Kalhana. None of the ancient scholars gave expression to such contradictory statements, revolting to Aryan tradition. Nay--, even the modern historians, as long as they were not anglicised and proselytized by Occidentalists, did not commit the sin of misrepresentation or making irreconcilable utterances. In such a case how can we venture to father these Verses, bristling with contradictions, to Kalhana, a historian born and bred up in Vedic tradition, and a chronicler, endowed with gifts of scholarship, impartial judgement and supreme reverence to truth. So it is evident that Kalhana had nothing to do with these four verses, is our strong conviction and conclusion.

Several scholars account for their existence in many ways. Some think that they were surreptitious insertions of those to whom the greatness and glory of Ancient Aryan culture and civilisation was an eye-sore and heart-burn; or they were interpolations of ignoramuses who mistook Saka Era for Salivahana Era. Those, to whom the above possibilities did not strike are of opinion that Kalhana wrote these verses and criticise him for this blunder. The biased and the prejudiced, take advantage of these verses and propagate them as the real view of Kalhana. Below we give those slokas with their substance:-

The ignorant say that Bharata battle took place at the
end of Dvaparayuga; but some speak that this is false. So
I fix the date (1-49). If the periods of the reigns of the
several kings of Kashmir are summed up and the total is
deducted from the Kali Era calculation, we arrive at the
age of Bharata Kings, without remainder. (1-50). Kuru
Pandavas ruled after 653 years lapsed in kali Era. (1—51)
"We are to consider that those 52 kings reigned for 1266
years." (1-54)

There was no Indian who did not believe in the fact that Bharata battle was fought at the end of Dvapara until our country came into contact with the westerner. These western perverted notions did not take root at the time of Kalhana, that is, 4249 Kali Era or 1148 A.D. All over the country, the Puranas and the Mahabharata were read and held in high esteem by the people. Kalhana was a great Sanskrit scholar, who had an unshaken belief in the Puranas and he closely followed the ancient Aryan traditions. The readers of Rajatarangini can know Kalhana's faith and belief in our ancient learning and religion. How could such an orthodox scholar speak in a manner quite contradictory to Puranic litrature, that Bharata fight happened after 653 years in Kali Era and that Kuru Pandavas lived at that time. As such we can not give credence to this statement. So the above cited four Verses should be either insertions or later interpolations, by some one who intended only to dim the prestige and renown of the great fight, by transposing the dates and bringing the event nearer to our Iron age. It serves no other purpose.

The Vishnu Purana mentions as follows:·

In other words, the day on which Lord Sri Krishna went to Heaven, that day began Kali Era. In the face of the concordant evidence of all the Puranas and Bharatam, how could a sane critic and seasoned historian, of Kalhana's calibre, who was wedded to the principles of investigation, impartiality and independence, venture to chronicle that the incarnation of Sri Krishna occurred after a lapse of 653 years in Kali Era. When all the sacred books unanimously proclaim that Kali Era commenced on the day of Sri Krishna's demise, why should a truth-loving Sanskrit scholar Kalhana depart from the path of truth trodden by the ancients?

Further, the following Verses in Rajatarangini 1-55, and 56, evidently express the opinion of Kalhana. In these two slokas, Kalhana mentioned about the beginning of traditional nomenclature of time calculation in Kashmir as "5aptarshi Era or Yudhishtira Kala Era" or Loukikabda.
One hundred years is the period of passage of the Saptarshi Mandala from One Star to another. Its movement was decided by the Samhitakaras as follows, and I take it as my authority here. (1-55). When the circle of the Seven sages resided in the century of Magha star, Yudhistira or Dharma Raja, the eldest of the Pandavas was the ruling sovereign. If we add 2526 years to the Saka-Kala prevalent, we get the commencement of that monarch’s (Swargarohana) time, that is, of "Yudhishtira Kala Era or Saptarshi Era or Loukikabda. (1-56). It means that an Era came into being, after a lapse of 2526 years in Yudhishtira Kala Era. Yudhishtira Kala Era 3076 B.C. minus 2526 = 550 B.C. and in this year an Era came into existence. In the sloka 56, is the expression "Yutah Sakakalah" and the question arises to what Saka Kala or Era the reference is made.

Kalhana related that he accepted the statements of the Sanhitakaras as fundamental evidence to reach his findings. (Vide RT. 1--55). "Who are the Samhitaharas?" is the moot case. Originally the above verse, 1-56, is from "Garga Samhita". Varaha Mihira cited this in his Brihat Samhita, I have proved that Varaha Mihira was one of the Nine gems in the court of Vikramarka who lived in 57 B.C. (Vide Kali Saka Vijnanam Part 1, By this author). This ancient Garga was four or five centuries anterior in time. Even Western scholars agreed that either Vikarma Era or Salivahana Era was not prevalent at the time of Garga. So the Sake Era related in the sloka is neither Vikrama nor Salivahana Era and this fact is approved by all the historians. That is the age of the Persian Emperor, Cyrus, which began in 550 B.C. That Era being current in Punjab, N.W. Bharat, Kashmir and North India in Vrudda Garga’s time, found access into the Samhitas. This age was in vogue under the four appellations of "Saka-Kala, Sakanripa-Ka1a, Sakendra Kala or Sakabhupa Kala". The above sloka 1--56, mentioned in Rajatarangini and cited in Brihat Samhita of Varaha Mihira, was explained by Bhattotpala in the commentary of Brihat Samhita, named Chintamani.

The commentary means:- "When Yudhishtira was the ruling monarch, the Seven Sages (Saptarshis) resided in Magha star". In the same way, the Senior Garga mentioned that "the Seven Sages were in the Magha star at the transition age of Dwapara into Kali. In Yudhishtira-kala Era or Louklkabda elapsed 2526 years. To this figure, that is 2526 years, should be added the age of the Saka Nrupa Kala which was in use at that time: (Sakanripakaloyuktah karyah). When calculated in this manner, the total amount of years, will be the period that elapsed from the commencement of Yudhishtira Kala Era or Laukikabda 3076 B.C. The quotient got when the dividend of the years is divided by the divisor 100, should be the number and we must take that so many Stars from Magha elapsed, in the cycle of the Seven Sages. Divided in the above manner, the remainder should be deemed as the number of the expired years in the then existing star. As Magha is the star into which the entrance of the Cycle of the Seven Sages took place, the calculation should be from the Magha Star and the number of the stars will denote the lapse of so many centuries." Here Bhattotpala cited the sentence of senior Garga as authority in his commentary·

In the above quoted Sloka 1--55 of Rajatatangini Kalhana stated as ‘“Tatchchare samhitakarairevam dattotra nirnayah", which means that he accepted as authority, the calculations of Senior Garga and Varaha Mihira, concerning the movements of the Seven Sages." Among the Samhitakaras, the opinion of Senior Garga was mentioned in the commentary as "Kali Dvapara Sandhautu stitaste Pitrudaivatam " which clearly expresses, that the ancestral celestial group of Seven Sages-sphere was in the Magha Star at the time of the transition period of Kali and Dwapara, that is at 3102 B.C. Kalhana, in sloka 1-55 of Rajatarangini asserted that he had taken as standard the statements of the Samhita-karas and how could he write the self-contradictory Verses 1-49, 50, 51 and 54, which mention that the seven sages Cycle was in Magha at the time of 653 years in Kali. So it is evident that these four verses were forged insertions of some one and deserve to be deleted from Rajatarangini. Moreover, the first sloka, in the list of the Rulers, related in the end of VIII Taranga of Second Volume of Rajatarangini makes a misrepresentation and ought to be expunged.

Kalhana and his Rajatarangini

2009-11-16T14:58:00.009+05:30

Champakapura was a small State in Kashmir. The king of this state was paying tribute to the monarchs of Kashmir.

The king of Champakapura was the prime-minister of the Sovereign of Kashmir. His son Pundit 'Kalhana' was the author of " Rajatarangini ", the History of Kashmir. Kalhana was a great Sanskrit Scholar. His work “ Rajatarangini ", being printed, the whole book is available now, for our perusal. It is printed in Deva Nagari script, in two volumes, consisting of eight Tarangas. The author himself expressed that he wrote a critical systematic history of the Kings in 1148 A D., after a scrutiny of twelve ancient histories, inscriptions, the eulogies of the hierarchy of the past generation of the kings by the heralds and officers of the State and that he cleared all his doubts, in the light of his researches.

Kalhana, the author speaks about the sources and the purpose of his writing Rajatarangini as follows: When I say that I am writing the history written by my ancients, the readers should not disregard my work, without comprehending my motive expressed herein (R.T. 1-8)
The Pandits living in those times, wrote the lives of their contemporary monarchs, on the basis of first-hand knowledge, having practically seen and personally known, they wrote them in seperate Volumes and made their exit from this world. But later chroniclers compiled them and in doing so added some information which they gathered from heresy and informal talks. (R.T. 1-9)

In doing so there is neither dexterity not intellect. Therefore, in writing this ancient history, my main purpose is to remedy such errors and correct those contradictions, with the help of old records, gift-deeds and inscriptions that are at my disposal (R.T. 1-10)

So the purpose of ‘Kalhana’ was, with the aid of old histories and inscriptions, to purge the later compilation of its mistakes and to expunge the fictitious incidents. But this important and valuable information was left untouched by the Western critics.

So we must realize that the motive of Kalhana was to present to his readers a correct chronological history of the kings of kashmir; but not to reject one king and replace another; not to change the places and periods of this or that monarch, as the Western historians now did in modern editions of the same history.

Further Kalhana mentions:
Suvrata abridged and condenced the detailed ancient histories for easy reference and wrote a history, namely " Raja Katha ". The language being concise and difficult, this book was not within the comprehension of the readers. Another scholar, Kshemendra wrote a history, " Nripavali "; though this is free from language faults, it does not give us correct old histories and as such it cannot be accepted as accurate history.

The author, Kalhana, says that he rewrites the history written by his predecessors. So the events mentioned in Rajatarangini have an authenticity, based upon the records of the ancients who were alive at the time of the respective monarchs and they are not the outcome of the idle fancy of ‘Kalhana'. As such in this book are not visible, the safe shelter of the modern writers of history, namely, the stock phrases like, ‘It is possible, it is probable, it may be taken as granted, or we may guess, conjecture or surmise’ and so on. He did not transgress the limits of information found in the writings of his predeccssors, nor did he reject those incidents, on the score of myth or fiction. In case there were any doubts he took great pains to verify and clear them with the information from other sources, like the records of the eleven ancient chroniclers, and one of Nilarmuni and the grants and inscriptions of the old kings. In this way, Kalhana sifted the evidence available at his disposal with great care, caution and patience and arrived at correct accurate historical meterial for his Rajatarangini.

Prof. P. Gwasha Lal B. A. writes:- "The histories of Kashmir of the following historians are said to be standard works: Kalhana Pundit, Jonaraja Pundit, Srinara. Prajyabhatta, Haider Malik, Mohamud Azim, Narayana Kaul, Birbal Kachooroo, Divan Kirparam. Of these Kalhana‘s Rajatarangini is almost a revelation. Among the master-pieces of the world, his history (Kalhana's) is also one."
‘Such a book as Rajatarangini is unique in the literature of the world.'(P. 8. of ‘A Short History of Kashmir By P Gwashalal B. A. )

Mr, V.A. Smith has the following to say on Kalhana’s work "The Sanskrit book which comes nearest to the European notion of a regular history is the Rnjatqrqngini of Kalhana a metrical chronical of Kashmir, written in the twelfth century by the son of a minister of the Raja." (page 54 Oxford Student's His. of India, Ed. 1915 By V. A. Smith.)

Moreover Kalhana expresses as follows:
My doubts and suspicions were set at rest, when I perused the records of Eleven Chroniclers and the Purana ( or history ) of Nilamuni; the edicts and inscriptions of the ancient monarchs together with their recorded praises and eulogies and other Sastras (Sciences) helped a great deal in clearing all my doubts. (R.T. 1-14,15)

Then he proceeds:
No mention of fifty-two kings was made, as they led a life contrary to the Holy Hindu Scriptures. Of these Nilamuni wrote about four monarchs, Gonanda etc. A great sacred Brahmin scholar by name " Helaraja " wrote a history by name " Parthivavali " or ' Kings Assembly ' consisting of twelve thousand slokas and verses. Then, 'Padma Mihira',on the lines of Helaraja, wrote the lives of eight rulers, Lava and others, the predecessors of Asoka. The history of Asoka and others, five sovereigns, were written by a chronicler Sri-Chchavillakara. Of the history of the 52 monarchs, commencing from Gonanda, the contemporaries of Kuru Pandavas in the beginning of Kali Era, the history of 17 kings were added but the history of 35 monarchs were lost in oblivion , as they discarded Vedic-Rites. (R.T. 1-16-19)

Kalhana says that the books wherein ancient events are narrated give pleasure to good people. So he asserts that the duty of an impartial historian is to record, without bias the lives of the kings, though they enhance or belittle the prestige of the Mother-land.

The beginning of Gonanda III’s rule goes back to 2330 years, of his own time (the time of the author Kalhana) and he was writing the history of the Kashmir Rulers from that time and Kalhana said that the period of his writing the "Rajatarangini" was Loukikabda 24 (i.e., 4224) or (Salivahana) Saka 1070(i.e, 78+1070 A.D.) or 1148 A.D. Prior to Gonanda III, 52 kings who discarded the Vedic Dharma ruled for 2268 years according to popular tradition. Kalhana affirmed that he wrote the past history after a close study of 11 Chroniclers and the Purana of Nilamuni who existed before his time .

Dr. Buhler's writings Inconsistent, absured and Self-contradictory

2009-10-21T08:14:00.003+05:30

Bhumivarma, founder of the Solar dynasty, the fifth dynasty of kings of Nepal, secured the throne for himself and ruled over the country in Kali 1389 or B.C. 1713. The 27th King of Nepal of the Solar dynasty, Sivadevavarman, was crowned in Kali 2764 or B.C. 338 according to Nepala Rajavamsavali or chronology of the dynastic lists of the kings of Nepal.

Inscription no 12 and again Nos. 13, and 14, in all 3 inscriptions, have been discovered so far, indicating the date of his coronation. By the time of the coronation of Sivadevavarma, the Sri Harsha era of 457 B,C., was in vogue in Nepal and hence the dates of his coronation is given by Sivadevavarma in the same era in these inscriptions. In inscription numbered 12. the date of his coronation is given as Sri Harsha Samvat 119. Inscription numbered 13 is dated Sri Harsha Samvat 143 and the inscription numbered 14 is dated Sri Harsha Samvat 145.

Sri Harsha Samvat 119 is the same as (457-119 =) 338 B.C. The date given in the Nepala Raja Vamsavali Kali 2764, also works out to (3102 - 2764 =) 338 B. C. So the date is confirmed as Kali 2764 or Sri Harsha samvat 119 or B.C, 338 and cannot be disputed. In the face of such clear evidence, with a view to bring forward the time of Sivadevavarma and thereby to reduce the antiquity of, and shift forward, the entire history of Nepal, the Sri Harsha era mentioned in the inscriptions is identified as the Sri Harsha Siladitya era of 606 A. D. and the date in the inscription given as Sri Harsha Samvat 119 is deduced to be the same as 606 + 119 = 725 A.D., and the date of the coronation of Sivadevavarma is therefore located in 725 A.D. by Dr. Buhler, the European orientalist, in his history of Nepal. This finding is accepted as authoritative and a proved fact by the modern scholars of the history of ancient Bharat.

As a matter of fact. Sri Harsha Siladitya had never founded an era. There is no evidence of any kind to show that he did. Alberuni mentions Sri Harsha era and equates it to 457 B.C. But he has not mentioned any Sri Harsha Siladitya era. Hieun·tsang, the Chinese pilgrim, who stayed in his (Harsha Siladitya's) court for 5 or 6 years as an honored visitor, or his court poet, Banabhatta, the author of Sri Harsha Charitra, never reports that Sri Harsha Siladitya, established an era. There is no evidence of any Siladitya era of 606 A.D., in any historical composition or inscription discovered so far not even any reference to such an era. It is entirely a creation of Dr. Buhler, with his obvious intention to distort history.

There is another absurd inconsistancy on the part of Dr. Buhler which deserves careful attention. The 31st king, i,e. the 4th after Sivadeva Varma in the list of the kings of Nepal, is Amsuvarma, the founder of the sixth or Thakore dynasty. According to the history of Nepal as recorded in the Nepala Raja Vamsavali this Amsuvarma was crowned 237 years after Sivadeva Varma i.e., 338-237 = 101 B.C. Dr. Buhler has deduced, as a result of his study and interpretation and application of the writings of Hieun·tsang, that Amsuvarma (actually of 101 B.C.) was crowned in 637 A.D. and this not only reduced the antiquity but upset the order of the kings in the chronology of Nepal. In this zeal and anxiety to reduce the antiquity of the history of the country he has been blind to the inconsistency in his determinations. The 31st king in the list, Amsuvarma who reigned 237 years later, is placed 88 years earlier than the 27th king in the list, Sivadeva varma, placed in 725 A.D. This is a telling example of the standards of efficiency with which European orientalists have studied and used the inscriptions in their reconstruction of the history of ancient Bharat. We are obliged to pause and enquire how dangerous it is to rely on the findings and the writings of such historical scholars.

It is such historians that have discounted the reliability for historical research of the true and accurate history of Nepal and the history of Kashmir, available in the Rajavamsavali and Rajatarangini, and the history of Imperial Magadha available in the Puranas, sneered at them and rejected them as unworthy of the attention and respect of students of history, not for any thing really wrong with the splendid historical writings of the land but on account of their own bias and prejudice. Historical scholars of Bharat who swear by inscriptions should wake up to the truth and recognize how the inscriptions available have been grossly abused by European orientalists in their reconstruction of the ancient history of Bharat and realize that inscriptions can never constitute independent evidence for historical purposes, and that they can serve at best only, to corroborate the evidence of genuine, historical writings. In fact, it is the other way round. Such of the inscriptions as do not tally with and go contrary to the indigenous historical treatises of ancient times and the traditions of the country should be rejected as likely to have been tampered with or even forged. All the inscriptions discovered so far have to be subjected to a critical study and scrutiny afresh by the patriotic historical scholars of Bharat, with an open mind, free from blind respect for the western orientalists, in order to reconstruct the true history of our ancient country.

According to the history of Nepal, available in the Nepala raja Vamsavali, Amsuvarma was crowned in 101 B.C., and ruled for 68 years, up to 33 B.C. During his reign, Emperor Vikramaditya of the Panwar dynasty reached Nepal in the course of his march of conquest and induced Arnsuvarman, without war, to incorporate Nepal as a feudatory kingdom within his empire, thereby completing the extension of his over-lordship over the entire continent of Bharat. As a matterof fact the inauguration of Vikrama Era of 57 B.C. or 3044 Kali was celebrated in Nepal. (Vide Indian Antiquary, Vol XIII, D. 411 ff.)

In the history of Kashmir, available in Kalhana’s Rajatharangini, it is recorded that Vikramaditya of Ujjaini ruled as emperor or overlord over the whole of Bharat. Jyotirvidabharana of Kalidasa vouches that Emperor Vikramaditya founded an era of his own, in commemoration of his Emperorship. Puranas, cherished as genuine historical writings in the country, regular historical treatises like the history of Kashmir (Kalhana’s Rajatarangini), the history of Nepal (Nepalaraja vamsavali), have all described the conquests of Emperor Vikramaditya elaborately. Yet, these European orientalists and their Indian disciples whose faith in them is unshakable strangely deny the very existence of the Great Historical figure Vikrama. The author urges upon the readers, in this connection , the desirability of a careful pursual of the following publications by himself(Pandit Kota Venkata Chelam). 1. Chronology of Kashmir History reconstructed. 2. Chronology of Nepal History Reconstructed 3. Age of Buddha, Milinda, Amtiyoka and Yugapurana. 4. Chronology of ancient Hindu history 1 and 2 parts.

Mandasar Insctiptions No. 164 and No. 165

2009-10-20T02:22:00.007+05:30

"May that very long banner of (the God) Sulapani destroy the glory of your enemies; (that banner) which bears (a representation of ) the bull, marked by the fingers (dipped in some dye and then) placed on him by (Parvati) the daughter of the mountain (Himalaya), who causes the distant regions in which the demons are driven wild with fear by (his) terrible bellowings, to shake; and who makes the glens of (the mountain) Sumeru to have their rocks split open by the blows of his horns."

"(L2)-He, to whose arm, as if to (the arm) of (the God) Sarangapani, the fore-arm of which is marked with callous parts caused by the hard string of (his) bow, (and which is stead-fast in the successful carrying of wows for the benefit of mankind, the earth be took itself (for succor) when it was afflicted by kings of the present age, who manifested pride; who were cruel through want of proper training; who from delusion, transgressed the path of good conduct (and) who were destitute of virtuous delights."

In line 6,there is the reference of Mihirakula. "He to whose two feet respect was paid, with the complementary presents of the flowers from the hair on the top of (his) head, by even that (famous) king Mihirakula, whose forehead (was) pained through being bent low down by the strength of (his) arm in (the act of compelling) obeisance."

There are nine lines in this inscription.

No.165 Mandasor Duplicate Pillar inscription of Yasodharman: There are nine lines. In the 6th line, there is the name Mihirakula and in the seventh the name of Yasodharman noted. The text of both the inscriptions is the same."

These two inscriptions Nos. 164, 165 are, indeed, forged ones, with no date. To fix the date which suits their purpose, they complicated the problem by introducing the story of the pilgrimages of Fa-Hian and Hieun-Tsang. besides extraneous and irrelevant arguments and information.

The No. 163 Mandasor inscription speaks of the existence of a person by name "Daksha", who had a great well dug, during Malava Samvat 589, the time of kings Yasodharma and Vishnuvardhan.(Ind. Ant. Ed. 1886 Vol. XV. P. 222 ff). That inscription at the bottom says that it is engraved by 'Govinda'. On the basis of this, the name 'Govinda' was inserted in No. 164 inscription and it was concluded that these two inscriptions were of about the same date; and our western scholars decided that the time of Mihirakula was 589 Malva samvat. They interpreted Malava Samvat to be the same as Vikrama Samvat; have deducted B.C. 57, from 589, and imagined that the date of Mihirakula was 532 A.D. On the strength of this imaginary date, by calculating backwards and forwards, by increasing and diminishing the kings, the foreign historians have brought, the five thousand years old history of the Kashmir kings to a very recent date, This is an inexcusable and intolerable impudent interpolation perpetrated by western chroniclers.

To refute the above conclusion of the western historians, it may be argued that the so called engraver "Govinda" of the inscription No. 164 may be the grandson or great grand-son or grand-father or the great grand-father of 'Govinda’ of the inscription No 163, or some other person of the same name. Then the two inscriptions differ in age. How can the date 589 of Malava-Gana-Saka of the 163 Mandasor inscription be borrowed for the undated 164 inscription?

Earlier we have shown reasons and proved that the Malava-Gana-Saka Samvat mentioned in No. 163 Mandasor inscription is not the Vikrama Era of 57 B.C. The full name of the so-called Malava-Saka is "Malava-Gana-Saka," which means the Saka promulgated by the people of Malava and its beginning was in 725 B.C. But Vikrama-Saka was the era brought into existence in 57 B.C., by Vikramaditya king of Ujjain. The name ‘Malavaganasaka’ was abbreviated into ‘Malava Saka’ and it is alleged that it was Vikrama-Saka fixed by the astrologers of Malawa; and it was stated that both are identical. Further they expressed that, in B.C., 1st century there was no king by the name of Vikramaditya, and, if there was one, he was the same as Chandra-Gupta II of the Gupta Dynasty (according to them 5th Century A.D.) who propagated this era and calculated it from 57 B.C. With such illogical and irrational arguments the westerners led our historians far astray from the right track. When the date of Chandra-Gupta II of Gupta line was B.C. 269-233; they have changed it to 5th century A.D. On the authority of the statements found in the inscriptions of Malava-Gana-Saka we have shown that it was different from Vikrama Saka and it was used in the Malwa inscriptions during the reigning periods of the Great Gupta Emporers, who flourished between 327 - 82 B.C.

The History and date of Mihirakula by Dr. Fleet.

2009-10-13T04:47:00.007+05:30

"The dates that have been proposed for Mihirakula and Baladitya are
(1) by the late Mr. Fergusson A.D. 180 to 200 A.D,
(2) by General Cuningham, during the century from A.D. 450 to 550 A D.,
and (3) by Mr. Beal, 420 A.D.

Mr. Fergusson based his date on the opinion, which he then held but afterwards abandoned, that the reign of Kanishka ended A.D. 21; coupled with the statement of Rajatarangini, that twelve reigns intervened between Kanishka and Mihirakula.

General Cunningham’s date was based partly on Fahian's silence regarding Baladitya’s samgharamas and other buildings at Nalanda and partly on the similarity of the architectural style of Baladitya's temple with that of a temple near the Bodhi tree at Buddha-Gaya, which, he had already shown, must have been built about A.D. 500.

And Mr. Beal based his date
(a) upon his erroneous identification of the Buddha-Gupta of Hiuen Tsang’s account with the Buddha-Gupta of the Eran inscription; which, coupled with his adoption of the theory that the Gupta era commenced A.D. 190, gave to Buddha Gupta the date of 349 to 368 A.D., and for his "Grandson" Baladitya a period of fifty years later;

(b) on the fact that, in Fa Hien's time ( 399-414 A.D. ) Buddhism was still flourishing and there were five hundred Sangharamas in the neighborhood of the Swat river; whereas in Hiuen Tsang’s time all the convents were ruined and desolate; which shewed that Mihirahula's persecution, during which Simha was killed, must have taken place at any rate after that period;

(c) on the current testimony of the Chinese accounts, which state that a life of Vasubandhu, the 21st patriarch, was written by Kumarajiva in 409 A.D., and that history of the patriarchs including Simha, was translated in China in 472 A.D.,

and (d) on the fact that the twenty-eighth patriarch, Bodhidharma, was certainly alive in 520 A.D., as he arrived in China, from South India in that year; which, allowing one hundred years for the four patriarchs between him and Simha, brought us again to 420 A.D. the period already arrived at on grounds (a) and(b)."

"The real date, however, of Mihirakula and Baladitya with of course, the margin of a few years either way, is now fixed with certainty by the duplicate pillar inscription of Yasodharman, from Mandasor, which I publish in page 253 ff below. This inscription records that this powerful king Yasodharman had worship done to his feet by king Mihirakula "whose forehead was pained through being bent down by the strength of his arm, in the act of compelling obeisance," i.e. that he subjugated Mihirakula. And, another Mandasor inscription, published by me at page 222 ff, above, has already given us the date of Malva Samvat 589 (A.D. 532-33) expired for Yasodharaman, we now know very closely the time of the overthrow of Mihirakula’s power in, at any rate, western and Central India."

"As regards the beginning of his reign, we have only to notice that Mihirakula’s Gwalior inscription is dated in his fifteenth year. Considering all that he did subsequently in Kashmir and Gandhara, it will he admitted that this date must be very near the end of his Indian career. His fifteenth year therefore, must fall somewhere about 532-33 A.D., the recorded date of Yasodharman; and in all probability a year or two before it. And we shall probably be very near the mark indeed,if we select A.D. 515 for the commencement of his career." (P.245 to 252, Vol.XV Ind.Ant.,Ed.1886,Text in page 252).

Dr. Fleet changed Mihirakula into a Huna king and brought him to a recent date of 6th cen. A.D. In order to maintain the modernity, he invented an inscription, and created a non existent monarch, by name, Yasodharma, who vanquished Mihirakula and humiliated him to his feet. It is clear that this is a forged inscription which was published in Indian Antiquary Vol XV, p,253, as No. 164, of Dr, Fleet’s Sanskrit and old Kanarese inscriptions. A duplicate of this same inscription was invented, as No. 165, being engraved on the second stone pillar.

In case there existed, at any time. a supreme sovereign who conquered the whole of Bharat from the Himalayas to Setu (Rameswaram) and reigned as the Emperor, the Puranas would have certainly praised his deeds of prowess and valour. But the narratives of the Kaliyuga kings in all the Puranas have described the monarchs from the date of the Bharata battle 36yrs B.K. or 3138 B.C., to Kali 4295 or 1193 A.D, No mention of Yasodharma was made in any one of the above books, Even Rajatarangini, which gave a graphic account of Mihirakula, was silent about Yasodharman, who by the strength of his arms, could extract homage from Mihirakula. Rajatarangini related that Mihirakula was a tyrant who invaded against Simhala (Ceylon), conquered and killed the king, he gave the kingdom to another, and, on his return journey, slew the kings of Chola, Karnata and Lata countries; and imprisoned many enemy rulers in his fortress. If there was a great hero who could defeat and destroy a despot like Mihirakula, Rajatarangini would, indeed, have showered praises and encomiums upon the saviour of humanity. In the absence of even the slightest reference to such a peerless hero or his victories, it is evident that the much boasted victor of the whole of India, Yasodharma, was a mere figment of the fancy of the foreign historians, who by the strength of their fantastic imagination gave to airy nothings a local habitation and a name. There is not even a single line in Rajatarangini to show that Mihirakula persecuted Buddhists and destroyed their Sangharamas. In this matter, Buddhist writings are not to be trusted. It is not true that he reigned in Central and Western India.

Mandasar Insctiption No. 164 :-

" The inscription refers itself to the reign of a powerful king named Yasodharman, who is evidently identical to with the Yasodharman of the Mandasor inscription of Malva Samvat 589, No. 163 (page 222 ff Ind, Ant XV) and whose dominions are here described as including the whole of the northern part of India, from the river a Lauhitya, or the Brahmaputra, to the western ocean and from the Himalayas to the mountain Mahendra. We have an important allusion in the statement that he possessed countries which not even the Guptas and Hunas could subdue and a still more important record, in connection with the general history of the period, to the effect that homage was done to him by even the famous king Mihirakula. It is not dated. But Yasodharman’s date is now known from Mandasor inscription of Malwa Samvat 589 (A.D. 532-33) expired No. 163 above , which mentions him and Vishnuvardhana; and the present inscription having been engraved by the same person, Govinda, must fall with a few years on either side of that date. The object of it is to record the erection of the column for the purpose of reciting the glory and power of Yasodharman and, since the present tense is used almost throughout, and also verses 7 and 8 speak of the column as being set up by Yasodharman himself, the inscription must be one of his own time, not posthumous."

King Mihirakula's date

2009-10-12T07:23:00.004+05:30

Dr.E.Hultzsch. writes about Mihirakula’s Date:-
"King Mihiralzula's initial date as deduced from Rajatarangini itself is Kaliyuga Samvat 2397 expired,or B.C. 704; and the end of his reign, seventy years later, Prof. H.H. Wilson brought him down to 200 B.C., (loc. cit. p. 81). And Gen. Sir A. Cunningham arrived at the conclusion that he should be placed in A.D. 163 (loc, cit. 18). With the help, however, of newly discovered inscriptions, which are the really safe guide, Dr, Fleet (ante. Vol XV, p252) has now shown that his true date was in the beginning of the sixth century A.D.. that as nearly as possible the commencement of his career was in 515 A.D., and that A.D. 530 or very soon after was the year in which his power in India was overthrown after which he proceeded to Kashmir and established himself there,

This illustrates very pointedly the extent of the adjustments that will have to be made in Kalhanas earlier details; and furnishes us with a definite point from which chronology may be regulated backwards and forwards for a considerable time. A Similar earlier point is provided by Kalhana's mention, in Taranga I, verse 18, of the Turushka king Kanishka, who, according to his account was anterior by two reigns to B.C. 1182, the date of the accession of Gonanda III, but who is undoubtedly the king Kanishka, from the commencement of whose reign in all probability runs the Saka era commencing in 77 A.D. And a still earlier point is furnished by Kalhana's mention of king Ashoka in Taranga I verse 101. Accordinging to Kalhana, he stood five reigns before 1182 B.C. (2nd paper of E. Hultzsch pp. 65 to 97 of Ind.Ant, Vol XVIII)"

Mihirakula, the king of Kashmir, was the 12th ruler, in the family of Gonanda III, who ruled as 53rd king, in 1182 B.C., that is, he was the 64th ruler in the list of the Kashmir Kings, a Kshatriya belonging to Gonanda dynasty. His father was Vasukula, the 63rd ruler and his son was Baka, the 65th king. Hultzsch accepted that he ruled for 70 years and his date was Kali 2397 years or 704 B.C., as was related in Rajatarangini. But he mentioned that Wilson put him in 200 B.C. (loc·cit.p 18), Cunningham brought him to 163 A.D. (loc-cit. p 18) and later on Dr.Fleet, on the authority of an inscription (Ant·Vol. XV, p. 252) fixed Mihirakula as a Sovereign during the 6th century A.D and that the inscriptions are sure guides and certain sources of historical facts. This shows how the Kshatriya king Mihirakula who existed in 704 B.C., was altered into a Huna king of the 6th century A.D., by the western writers. Further they said that Thoramana who existed during 16 B.C., - 14 A.D,, was the father of Mihirakula. The readers can understand now, how these occidental chroniclers tried their level best to diminish the glory of the history of Bharat.

A scrutiny of that inscription shows that it was an invention and many inscriptions published in the Indian Antiquary are fabrications. Even these eminent erudite and enlightened western scholars, as they claimed themselves to be, rejected some incriptions as forged and spurious and the above one is the child of their fancy. As they could not find the date of that inscription mentioned in it, they borrowed the date of Mandasar No. 163 inscription and decided that Mihirakula existed in 6th century A.D. Then they adjusted the kings and altered their dates, forwards and backwards, from Mihirakula’s forged date of 532 A.D., and manufactured a modern history of Kashmir to beguile the gullible readers. In this attempt, the westerns deleted the history of Kashmir kings for about a period of 12 centuries. The same process of deception and diminution of about 1200 years, they performed in Nepal and Magadha Histories also.

Later we give a quotation from Dr. Fleet for the convenience of the readers. Its perusal will convince them what a line of absurd arguments, illogical reasonings, and invented self-contradictory statements, Dr, Fleet adopted to hoist a false pet theory of the modernity of Indian history and recency of Mihirakula’s date.

The Ancient History of Malva State - Malawa Gana Saka

2009-10-08T08:13:00.002+05:30

Before the Bharata battle, Malwa was an independent kingdom. Since the Bharata War, it was incorporated in Hastinapura Empire and was a feudatory State. In the year of dissolution of Hastinapura Empire, in Kali 1468 or 1634 B.C., "Maha Padma Nanda" became Emperor of Bharat, in Magadha. He invaded against sub-ordinate rulers, killed Kshatriya kings and installed non—kshatriya monarchs in their places. So, the Puranas described him as "Sarva Kshatrantako Nripah" or the Destroyer of all the Kshatriya rulers.

In 850 B.C., a Brahmin by name,"Dhunji’ with the help of the people, united the Malavas and became king. But he was obliged to be a vassal of the Sovereigns of Magadha Empire. In 730 B.C., a descendant of the Dhunji family declared Malava an Independent State. "In Indian Manuscripts, we find Malwa noticed as a separate province eight hundred and fifty years before the Christian Era, when Dhunji, to whom a divine origin is attributed, is said to have established the power of the Brahmins and to have been the founder of a powerful dynasty.

"The family of Dhunji is said to have reigned three hundred and eighty seven years before Putraj, the fifth in descent dying without issue. Adab Panwar, a prince of a Rajput clan still numerous in Malwa, asended the throne. establishing the Panwar Dynasty which continued to hold sway for upwards of one thousand and fifty eight years.”

" During the period that Dhunji’s family held Malwa, we find no particular mention of them until about seven hundred and thirty years before Christ, when Dbunji’s successor is said to have shaken off his dependence on the Sovereign of Magadha. From this time we lost all trace of the kingdom of Malwa until near our own era, when Vikramaditya, a prince whom all Hindu authors agree in describing as encourager of learning and the arts, obtained the Sovereignty". (memoir of central India by Ch. Payne,M.A., pp. 7 ,8) (Vide Kota Venkatachelam’s Kali Saka Vijnanam, part III, pp. 40.)

When Malawa asserted independence in 730 B.C., there was a quarrel with Satavahana Emperor "Sri Satakarni" of Magadha. He was the fifth king in the list of "Aandhra Emperors". Some time might have elapsed to make him accept the independence of Malawa. By 725 B.C. Malawa had its independence recognised and it entered into friendly alliance with the rulers of Magadha. From that date, the Malwa people might have established an Era which concerned their community and termed it "Malwa-Gana-Saka". According to this 493rd year equal to 232 B,C., would be 95th year of Gupta Saka. During that year, the Mandasor inscription might have been written by the orders of Kumara Gupta I. As related in the Puranas, according to the movement of the Saptarshi Mandala after the Andhra Satavahanas, the Guptas came to rule from 327 B.C. So, the year 493 (272 B.C) mentioned in Mandasor inscription would be "Malava—gana~Saka" but not "Vikrarna Saka" which was otherwise called 'Samvat' but nowhere as "Malva-grana-Saka". Vikramaditya was born after expiry of three thousand years in Kali; as stated in the Puranas, "Purne Trimsat Sate Varshe".
So the king by name Vikramaditya was born in 101 B.C. He was crowned king of Ujjain, in 82 B.C., and he founded his era in 57 B.C., after expelling the Sakas from the country. As Vikrama Saka was established in 57 B.C., and was promulgated by the Sovereign, its founder, the previously existing 'Malava-gana-saka’ went out of use. There were not many signs of its reference after the advent of Vikramarka. (For full Particulars please see "'The Indian Eras" by this author, Kota Venkata Chelam)

4. Gupta inscriptions

2009-10-08T07:09:00.008+05:30

Dr.Fleet,the infallible archaeologist, has given us a huge volume on the subject of inscriptions, Corpus Inscriptionem Indicarum Vol III. And a most valuable volume, in one respect, it is; it gives an excellent collection of the Early Gupta inscriptions.But Dr.Fleet's conclusions from them are quite wrong; his claim to have discovered the Gupta Era as beginning in 319-320 A.D., is based entirely, as I shall show presently, upon an egregious misinterpretation.

Now, most of the Gupta inscriptions are either not dated or else they are dated in the Gupta Era; and so they do not disclose when the Gupta Era began. Dr. Fleet knows this; and he relies entirely upon one record, no. 18; the Mandasor inscription of Kumaragupta and Viswavarman. The inscription is of a temple constructed by the weavers of Malwa when Kumaragupta was ruler of the earth and Viswavarman was governor of Malwa; the temple was repaired in the time of Bhanuvarman, son and successor of Viswavarman.

The date of the construction is given as 493 expired or 494th year of some Era; and the date of repair as 524th similariy. In the 494th year therefore Kumaragupta was king. The text of the inscription reads excellent sanskrit poetry; and it gives the year 493 expired "Malavagana Stitya" which means "according to the calculation current among the Malawas."

But the original Malavngana Stitya Dr. Fleet translates as "from the establishment of the tribal constitution of the Malawas." And he quotes a parrallel inscription (No. 35 of Yasodharman) in which the Sanskrit verse gives the date as 589 years (expired) "Malawa Gana-Stiti-Vasaat—Kaalajnaanaaya Likhitheshu" i.e. "in the years written according to the method of calculation of the Malawas for chronological (or astronomical) purpose". But here again Dr. Fleet translates the line as "from the (establishment of) the Supremacy of the Tribal Constitution of the Malawas"; adding in a foot—note that he does not quite catch the significance of Vasaat! ( Malava-Gana Sthithi Vasaat = According to the established malava Gana Saka ). But in the name of sanity, what is this fiction of the "tribal constitution of the Malawas". Dr. Fleet does not enlighten us. When was this tribal constitution established? No evidence is adduced on the point. But we are asked to believe that this was in 57 B. C. And so this Mandasor inscription, we are told, gives 494-57 or 437 A.D. as the date of Kumaragupta. This must be KumaraGupta I who lived in 127 of thc Gupta Era and so Q.E.D., the Gupta Era began in 320 A.D.! All this however, in simple English, is nothing but quibbling.

The Sanskrit words in the inscriptions are quite plain; they give the year according to the Malava Gana—Saka (725 B.C) in common use among the astronomers (Kalajnas) of Malawa. Malawa-Gana-Saka 725 B.C.-494 = 231 B.C.; or 96 Gupta Era (accordiug to the Puranas). The inscription (no.18) therefore gives the date 96 G.E. or 231 B.C. for Kumaragupta I who reigned between 94-136 of the Gupta Era, which began in 327 B.C. (or between 233-191 B.C.) The province Malawa attained its independence in 725 B.C., in commemoration of which the Malawa-Gana-Saka (or Era) was started in 725 B.C., by the people of Malawa. The western Indologists deliberately ignored this fact and wrongly identified this Era with Vikrama Era of 57 B.C., and consequently brought down all inscriptions of Malawa-Gana-Era to the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. Thus the Gupta Era which actually commenced in 327 B.C. was pushed forward to 319-320 A.D. So, a close examination of Malawa-Gana Saka is of great historical value.

3. The Aihole inscription

2009-10-07T01:46:00.010+05:30

An inscription has been discovered in the temple of Siva in the village of Iballi in the Dharwar district, recording a gift deed. The date of the inscription is mentioned in it as 3735 years after the Mahabharata war or 556 years of the Saka era, = 634 A.D., i.e., 556 + (78 A.D. corresponding to Salivahana Saka). The inscription is by Pulakesin II. The text has been published in the Indian Antiquary Vol. V pp. 67-71.)

The same has again been published in No. 34 of the Kavya Mala series, as the 16th document with the title "the stone inscription of Sri Pulakesin II of the Chalukya dynasty". The author has examined with the kind help of Sri Rallabhandi Subbarao Pantulu, Retired History Professor in the Govt. Arts college, Rajahmundry and Honorary Secretary of the Andhra Historical Research Society, the text published in the Indian Antiquary as well as the photographic copy of the inscription itself which are reproduced below:-

This has been published in the Prachina Lekha Mala with a little alteration in the 2nd line.
The text of the inscription should read when arranged in the prose order:-

Bhaarataa daahavaaditah, Kalau Kaale, Trimsatsu trishasreshu + saptaabda sata yukteshu + Sateshu Abdeshu panchasu panchaasatsu + shatsu + panchasataasucha, samaasu samatitaasu sakaanaamapi bhuubhujaam"

and when rendered into English:—
(37 years elapsed) after the Mahabharata war (up to the beginning of the Kali 1st year) and in Kali 30+3000+700+500=4230, and after 50+6+500=556 years after (the destruction of the Saka kings).

But this reading cannot yield any cogent meaning. So a mistake is inferred in the carving of the letters of the inscription and two alterations have been suggested and incorporated in the translation and in the text as published in the Praachina lekha Maala,
1. "Saptabda" is altered into "satabda" and
2. “Sateshu" into "gateshu."
with these alterations the inscription is made to yield the following meaning:

3135 after Kali or 556 after the Saka kings.

According to this reading of the text:
Since 556 of the Saka era is equal to 634 A.D., 3135 of Kali=556 of Saka era or 634 A.D.; Kali 1 is 3135-634= 2501, and the Mahabharata war is located in 2538 B.C.(= 38 years before Kali 1 according to this calculation,2501 B.C.)

This does not tally with any determination of any school of historians of Ancient India, eastern or western, ancient or modern.

So we suggest that two alterations are unnecessary. One, the second of "Sateshu" into "gateshu" is enough.

Then the inscription means that 37+(30+3000+700+5)—(50 +6+500)=37+3735=3772 after the Bharata war minus 556 of Saka era or 634 A.D. Therefore the year of the Mahabharata war=3772—634=3138 B.C.,which tallies with our determination based on other indisputable historical and inscriptional evidence.

The expression 'Sakanamapi Bhubhujam' in the inscription has been interpreted by modern Indian historians, as 'from the time of coronotion of the Saka princes'. That is not correct. The expression is to be interpreted not as we please but according to the traditional usage in the country.

Kalidasa has explained the expression thus in his Jyotirvidabharana ,Chapter X verse 109.

It means "who-ever kills the Sakas in large numbers would be called a "Saka Kaaraka", an emperor, and founder of a new era, ousting the previous era".

Salivahana who destroyed large numbers of the Mlechchas, the Sakas, and Protected the country, became the founder of an era after his name in Kali 3179 (A.D. 78), and emperor of Bharat. After the founding of his era, the vogue of the era of his grand-father, emperor Vikrama diminished.

Beginning of the Salivahana era	Kali 3179	78 A.D.
Time elapsed in the (Salivahana) saka era	556	556
	3735	634 A.D.
	less 3101 B.C.
	634 A.D.

This inscription had been discovered in 1880 A.D. But this date 3138 B.C. has been used all these years in our history as the sheet anchor of Ancient Hindu Chronology.

Dr. FIeet‘s translation of the inscription in the Indian Antiquary Vol V. p. 73 is as follows.
"Three thousand seven hundred and thirty years having elapsed since the war of the Bharatas and (three thousand) five hundred and fifty years having elapsed in the Kali Age and five hundred and Six years of the Saka kings having elapsed, this stone temple of Jinendra, the abode of glory, was conatructed by the order of the learned Ravikirti etc, etc."
This rendering also does not hold good.

It is clearly revealed in this inscription that after the Mahabharata war, by the year Saka 556(=634 A.D.) 3772 years and after Kali 3735 years had elapsed, i.e. the year of the Mahabharata war is 3772—634=3138 B.C. and the Ist year of the Kali era is 3735-634=3101 B. C.
Even after such clear inscriptional evidence has been available, to locate the date of the Bharata war in 3138 B.C, in exact conformity with the evidence of the Puranas that modern historians should ignore it all and persist in holding and propagating, even to this day, the erroneous view, foisted upon us by interested and prejudiced European orientalists, that the Bharata war took place in 1500 B.C., is significant and disgraceful. Even in the history published in volumes by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, under the general editorship of Dr. Munshi, the date of the Mahabharata war is given as 1500 B.C. If these modern historians have real faith in the inscriptions as they vociferously profess they should now change the views they had held previously, in view of the inscriptional evidence advanced above and endeavour to reconstruct the ancient history of Bharat from 3138 B.C., according to the Puranas.

The true histories of Magadha, Kashmir and Nepal, available in the Puranas and other indigenous literature of ancient times, proclaim unequivocally and with one voice, that the Bharata war took place 36 years before Kali(of 3102 B.C.) or in 3138 B.C.. Inscriptional evidence in support of the determination is now available.

2. Maurya Inscriptions of Ashoka

2009-09-29T06:56:00.004+05:30

35 inscriptions of Asoka have been discovered so far. But in none of them is the time of Asoka himself given. Only the year of the reign of Asoka is mentioned every now and then— eg:'in the 7th year of the reign of Emperor Asoka'. It is therefore not possible to determine the time of Asoka with the help of these inscriptions. Nor is any direct evidence forth—coming in the shape of literature, inscriptions, coins or buildings, for fixing with certainty the time of Chandragupta Maurya, the grandfather of Asoka, the vaunted sheet-anchor of the modern construction of Ancient Indian history.

If we consider the alleged evidence in the writings of the Chinese pilgrim, Hieun-tsang, it is admitted and declared by General Cunningham as well as the editors of the history published by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan that his writings are unreliable and contain more false than true statements. We have reproduced these opinions of the worth of the alleged writings of Hieun-tsang as evidence for historical purposes in connection with our discussion of Hieun-tsang. The alleged statemcnts in his writings, advanced in support of their theories of the time of Chandragupta Maurya by the modern historians must have been interpolated into his writings by themselves for their own purposes. These could not have been written by Hieun-tsang. There could be no reason for Hieun-tsang who visitcd India 22 centuries after the time of Chandrngupta Maurya to refer to the great emperor of such remote past. At least Hieun-tsang’s evidece is after all based on hearsay and popular tradition. Such evidence could never annul or disprove the indigenous history by native writers based on the court records of the emperor.

These modern historians have willfully neglected and ignored the authoritative historical literature of the country and therefore to buttress their unwarranted determination of the time of Asoka as the 3rd century B.C., they were obliged to resort to several fictitious statements, as:

" The Yona princes mentioned in Asoka‘s inscriptions as ruling on the frontiers of his kingdom have been identified as Greek princes of the 3rd century B.C., ruling in Syria, Egypt, Macedonia, Epirus and Cyrene by the European orientalists." But none of these kingdoms could have been on the borders of his empire.

The Buddhist historical and religious literature (like Mahavamsa) claims missionaries to have been sent by the emperor to the neighboring countries or the northern border like the Yona Kingdoms on the north-West, Kashmir, Nepal, Bhutan, Sinkiang, Tibet, Khotan, Kucha, Kusthan etc., and never so far as Greece or the Greek kingdoms of those times.

In fact the words Greek or Greece are mentioned nowhere in the inscriptions. We find only the term Yona. Yonas are not Greeks. They were Indians of Kshatriya Origin. Asoka’s empire extended only up to Takshasila in the West and to the Himalayas in the North. To the west of Takshasila there spread the Yona kingdoms of 1. Abhisara. 2. Urasa or Uraga 3.Simhapura, 4. Divyakataka. and 5. Uttarajyotisha. These five Yona kingdoms were in existence even in very ancient times. The humanitarian activities and missions of Asoka could have extended only to such kingdoms on the borders of his empire and not at all so far as Asia Minor, Greece and Egypt. No Greek kingdoms were on the borders of his empire. So it is an erroneous interpretation. Indian historians had been set on a wrong track by these erroneous identifications and they have not been able to escape from their meshes and discover the truth so far.

Yonas, Kshatriyas of Indian Origin, came to occupy, in very ancient times, the region now known as Greece, and gave it the name of Ionia. They had mixed up by intermarriage with the Greeks who were later immigrants into the country. Their descendents were therefore given mixed Ionian and Greek names. Hence names slightly resembling the names of the Yavana or Yona princes on the borders of Asoka’s empire, could be found among the Greek kings of the 3rd century B.C.

S.No.	Yavana name	Iono - Greek name resembling it
1	Amtiyoka or Atiyoga	Antiochus Theos
2	Amtikini	Antigonus Gonatus
3	Alikasudara	Alexander
4	Tulamaya	Ptolemy Philadalphos
5	Maka	Mages

Thus among the Iono-Greek names came to prevail Yona names with Greek admixture and terminations. On account of such resemblance, to claim these names in the inscriptions to be Greek names and to identify them, on that assumption, with the Greek princes of the 3rd century and advance it as proof of the correctness of their own determination of the time of Asoka according to their basic conjecture of the contemporenity of Alexander the Great and Chandragupta Maurya is unwarranted and presumptuous. The Greeks had never been in India or its neighbourhood in such times. The inscriptions could refer only to the Yona princes on the borders of the empire of Asoka (of the 15th ceutury B.C.) and it is absurd to identify them with the Iono Greek princes of the 3rd century B.C. By the time of Asoka 1472 B.C., there was no Greece, no Greeks and no Greek kingdoms.

In the writings of the Greek historians of the 3rd century B.C., there is no mention of Asoka or his humanitarian missions as we should expect if he had really belonged to the 3rd century before Christ and his humanitarian activities had extended to such remote lands as modern Greece. The Greeks had never heard of the religion of Buddha or the mission of Asoka, declares Prof. Bury in his history of Greece.
"The Greeks donot mention Asoka" (ibid. p. 181)
Megasthenes, in his account of India has not said a word about Buddha or his system." (Buddhist India by Rhys Davids. p,178).

It is a fact that Buddhism was preached and prevail even today in all the kingdoms of Central Asia between Afghanistan, and China, including Sugadha, Kucha, Kusthana or Khotan, Sinkiang Tibet, Mongolia, Manchuria, Korea and China,-- a length of roughly 800 yojanas (one yojana = 4.92 English Miles) or about 4000 miles.

It is plausibie to infer that the region of Asoka’s missionary work beyond the northern frontiers of his empire extended from Afghanistan in the west to the eastern borders of China. Buddism prevailed in those regions for a long time and prevails even now to a considerable extent. But there is no trace of the prevalance of Buddhism at any time in Syria, Egypt or Macedonia etc.

Inscriptions - 1. Kharavela Inscription

2009-09-27T07:59:00.002+05:30

Most of the Inscriptions, advanced as infallible evidence in support of their conclusions and determinations by the European orientalists, and their disciples among the modern historians of ancient India, are liable to criticism of the following eight kinds: 1. Misreading, 2. Misinterpretation. 3. Misrepresentation. 4. Misapplication, 5. Forgery, 6. Destruction,7. Rejection of genuine inscriptions as spurious, 8. Neglecting or ignoring of genuine inscriptions.

To support the alleged contemporaneity of Alexander the Great and Chandragupta Maurya and consequently the time of Chandragupta Maurya in 324 B.C:

The Kharavela inscription or Hatigumpha 1345 is advanced very often. This inscription does not contain any date within it. We do not know when it was inscribed. There are 17 lines in it. Only 4 of these 17 lines are legible and in a fit condition to attempt deciphering. They refer to the boyhood, of Kharavela and the stage when he was the heir apparant. Most of the letters in the other lines are defaced and hence do not admit of reading with definiteness. One or two of the letters are considered to be deciphered and others are imagined to fit in with their preconceived determinations and the whole line is published and interpreted as evidence to support their conclusions, by the European orientalists and their disciples.

It is alleged that in the 16th line of the inscription the date of the inscription is referred to as the 165/164 year after Raja Muria and this is interpreted as 324-165=159 B.C., on the assumptions that (1) the Raja Muria referred to is Chandragupta Maurya. (2) his time is 324 B.C., then, taking this date of the inscription, thus arrived at, of 159 B.C., as proved fact and (3) alleging that the inscription mentions the names of Nandaraja, Sungaraja and Kanwaraja, (4) it is inferred by these research scholars that Kharavela was acontemporary of three kings of three diffenent dynasties and (5) they also belong to 159 B. C. All this is mostly their own wild imagination as there is no number like 165 mentioned directly or by implication in any part of the 16th line or any other line.

E.J.Rapson writes in this connection:-
"This is one of the most celebrated and also one of the most perplexing of all the historical monuments of India. Unfortunately it has been badly preserved. Of its 17 lines only the first 4 remain in their entirety.-
All the other lines are more or less fragmentary. Many passages are irretrievably lost, while others are practically obliterated and can only be restored conjecturally."

Even the fundamental question whether the inscription is dated or not is still in dispute. Some scholars contend that a passage in the sixteenth line can only be interpreted to mean that the inscription was engraved in the 165th year of the Maurya kings or of the Maurya king, while others deny the existance of any such date." (Vide, Cambridge His. of India, Vol I, Ed. 1922 p.534)

N.B.:- No date is given in the original or in the translation, of Prof. Jayaswal or in the Telugu translation of Mahamahopadhya Kalaprapurna, Dr. Sri Chilukuri Narayarzarao Pantulu M.A.,Ph.D., Anantapur, published by Mr. R.Subbarao Pantulu in his Kalinga History of 1930, (Vide Kalinga_Desa Charitra in Telugu appendix p.25) by Mr. R.Subbarao Pantulu. M. A., B.Ed. Hon., General Secretary, Andhra Historical Research Society, Rajahmundry.)

Text of the 16th line of the Kharavela inscription as read by Jayaswal aud R.D. Benerjee:—

"Kharavela erected four pillars, ornamented with bells with precious stones embedded in them, brought over the Anga Sapthikam with four parts and sixty four limbs, bestroyed in the time of Raja Muria, (Kharavela is) a monarch of Security, progress and prosperity, a just king who enjoyed many triumphs."

There is nothing in the above lines to indicate any date. The sentence, ‘brought over the Anga Sapthikam with sixty-four limbs', has been interpreted fancifully to mean one hundred and sixty-four and tacked on to Raja Muria in another sentence and , a reference to the year one hundred and sixty-four after Raja Muria has thus been imagined and accepted as the date of the inscription (164 years after Maurya Chandragupta).

As a matter of fact only the first four lines of the inscription, which yet remain complete and legible, can be accepted as of historical value. The rest of the lines of the alleged text of the inscription and their significance alike belong to the wild imagination ol the western scholars. In the clear, and therefore acceptable, part of the inscription there is no mention either of Raja Muria, or Nandivardhana or Pushyamitra Sunga, or Satakarni, or the year 165/I64. Imaginary fabrications cannot pass for history. (for full discussion on the inscription please See pp. 139-149 of "The Plot in Indian Chronology" By this author.(Pandit Kota Venkata Chelam) )

Mr. V.A. Smith in his Early History of India writes:- Scions of the Satavahana Race apper to have established minor Kingdoms in different parts of the Deccan,"Early His. of India By V.A. Smith P. 226).

"Descendents of the great Asoka continued as unrecorded local subordinate Rajas in Magadha for many centuries; the last of them, and the only one whose name has been preserved being Purnavarma, who was nearly contemporary with the Chinese piligrim, Hiuen-Tsang in the seventh century," (V.A Smith’s His. of India P. 204)

"Later Mauryas reigned in Konkan between the western Ghats and the sea" (Vide V.A. Smith‘s History P 205.)

"Petty Maurya dynasties, apparently connected in some unknown way with the imperial line, ruled in the Konkan between the western ghats and the sea and some other parts of western India, during the sixth, seventh and eight centuries, and are frequently mentioned in inscriptions." (V.A. Smith’s His. P. 205).

"The early Pallava dynasty, and as late as the seventh century, the Chalukya Monarchs subdued Maurya Chiefs in the Konkan. A tradition recorded in an inscription of the twelfth century states that Kuntala, a province which included the Western Deccan and the north of Mysore, was ruled by the Nandas." (Early His. of India. By V. A. Smith P. 158). (For the Maurya survivals in western India, see Dr. Fleet in Bombay Gazetteer 1896, Vol. I. Part II, P. 202-204.)

Thus it is evident the Kharavela inscription does not in any way serve or contribute to fix the time of Emperor Chandragupta, founder of the Maurya dynasty of Magdha. It is far-fetched to translate as ‘Brihaspathi Mitra’ the name alleged to be found in line 12 as "Bahupathi Mitra" and then to interpret this name ‘Brihaspati Mitra’ as ‘Pushpamithra Sunga'. According to the chronology of the Puranas Pushpamithra Sunga belongs to 1218-1158 B.C., where as the Kharavela inscription belongs to the 6th, 7th or 8th century after Christ. Princes of the Maurya, Sunga, Kanwa and Sathavahana dynasties of Imperial Magadha could have nothing to do with it. It might be connected with the later descendents of the Maurya, Sunga, Satavahana and Nanda dynasties who ruled over petty principalities in the Deccan or others, borrowing their names, patronymics and titles.

Alexander's contemporary wrongly identified

2009-09-25T07:21:00.003+05:30

The Greek historians who accompanied the army of Alexander the Great during his invasion of Western Bharat have mentioned the names of three successive kings of the country at about the time, in their writings. The names recorded by them clearly were Xandrames, Sandrocottus and Sandrocyptus. But European orientalists of recent times have been able to reduce the antiquity of the history and culture of Bharat by a wrong identification of the kings. They have wrongly identified the three names with those of Mahapadmananda, Chandragupta and Bindusara, successive kings of Magadha and hence determined (wrongly) the time of Chandragupta Maurya, held he was the actual contemporary of Alexander in 326 B.C., and his coronation to have taken place in 324 B.C. From this date thus arrived at as the basis, counting forward and backward for the times of the kings of the Royal dynasties of Magadha mentioned in our puranas, reducing the periods of the reigns of kings and, dynasties mentioned therein arbitrarily to suit their own convenience, constructed a false history and chronology of ancient Bharat. The Puranas definitely and specifically date the Mahabbarata War in 3138 B. C., and record the names of kings, and the periods of their reigns, from that time onwards, in unbroken succession; and according to their version the coronation of Chandragupta should have taken place in 1534 B.C. By assigning it to 324 B.C. instead, and making this the basic date for their chronology, the entire chronology of ancient Bharat has been shifted forwards by 1210 years. On the other hand, if the name referred to as Xandrames were to be identified as the Greek version of Chandramas in Sanscrit or Chandrasri, the last of the Andhra dynasty, and the other two, Sandracottus and Sandrocyptus, with Chandragupta and Samudragupta of the Gupta dynasty of the kings of Magadha, that succeeded the Andhra dynasty, and locating Chandragupta I of the Gupta dynasty as the contemporary of Alexander in 326 B.C., and counting back along the dynastic lists of the puranas the date of the Mahabharata War should work out to 3138 B.C., tallying with the independent determinations of its time on the basis of astronomical calculations and the Kali era, the calamity of shifting forward the ancient chronology and reducing the antiquity of Indian culture could not have occurred. But the European orientalists deliberately rejected the more plausible and correct alternative and fastened upon the less plausible and incorrect alternative for their own reasons. Sandrocottus is the 2nd name of the three. The last king of the Andhra dynasty was Chandramas (note the close correspondence of it to the Greek Xandrames). His minor son, who came to the throne after him, was killed and succeeded by Chandragupta, the founder of the Gupta dynasty. His son and successor on the throne was Samudragupta (note again the closer similarity of this name to Sandrocyptus than of the altogether different word Bindusara, the successor of Chandragupta in the Maurya dynasty. So Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty was, it is clear the contemporary of Alexander the great and not Chandragupta of the Maurya dynasty. By the wrong identification of the European orientalists of this basic figure (of Alexander’s contemporary in India), all the chronology built upon it has been vitiated. How can the chronology built upon such untenable foundations tally with the chronology in thc Puranas? If there is no agreement between the two, it is the chronology of the Europian orientalists, and the current accepted history of ancient Bharat that should be held wrong and rejected and not the chronology of tho Puranas. For the reconstruction of the true history of ancient Bharat the current history and the chronology in it has to be revised into conformity with the information available in the puranas. The starting point in the ancient literature of Bharat, of the ancient history of India, is the Mahabharata war of 3138 B.C. The starting point of the socalled ancient history of Bharat of the European orientalists and their Indian disciples now current and accepted uncritically is the date of Alexander’s invasion 324 B. C. The difference between the two is 2810 years.

1. Modern historians assign the Mahabharata war variously, some to 1500 B.C., others to 1900 B.C. They have not been able to show any direct inscriptional evidence for their determinations which is completely contrary to the evidence of indigenous tradition and historical and scientific writings of ancient times, annual calenders and daily repeated measure and progress of time.

2. They (the modern historians) are not able to show any direct inscriptional evidence for their hypothesis that Alexander and Chandragapta Maurya were contemporaries much less have they advanced any evidence of ancient historical records. The Greek historians who accompanied Alexander in his invasion of Bharat noted only the Greek (version of a) name Sandrocottus. The identification of this Sandrocottus with Maurya Chandragupta is entirely the inference and conjecture of recent European historians of ancient India. How can we accept it as a historical fact to serve as a basis and starting point ?.

3. Mr. E. J. Rapson is of opinion that Chandramas would be the equivalent in Sanskrit of the Greek appellative Xandrames. (Vide his Ancient India pp. 469, 470)
To identify the Greek word Xandrames as the equivalent of Dhanananda or Mahapadma nanda is inconceivably absurd.
The last of the kings of Magadha of the Andhra dynasty was named Chandramas or Chandrasri. His minister was Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty. His son Samudragupta was a commander in the Magadha army and led the forces in battle. The last Andhra king Chandrasri and his son Puloma who succeeded him to the throne were incompetent, and Chandragupta who was already the virtual ruler of the kingdom, seized the throne for himself, putting the minor Puloma to death.
If we work out the times of the reigns of the successive rulers of the different dynasties of Magadha according to the Puranas from the time of the Mahabharata War of 3138 B.C., the Andhra dynasty comes to a close in 327 B.C., and the rule of the Gupta dynasty commences. Then, in 327 B.C, the Andhra Empire of Magadha expired and the Gupta Empire began. At this juncture occurred the invasion of Alexander. The Greek historians who visited the land in the company of Alexander noted the names of the three successive princes on the throne of Magadha, Chandrasri, the last of the Andhra dynasty, Chandragupta the first of the Gupta dynasty that succeeded and Samudragupta, his son, a renowned warrior who extended his empire to the farthest limits. That, according to the Puranas, Chandragupta Maurya came to the throne in 1534 B.C., is admitted even by Sir William Jones. (Vide the fourth volume of his writings - in the chapter on the chronology of the Hindus)
In these circumstances, to identify Xandrames as Mahapadmananda and Sandrocyptus as Bindusara, with no conceivable similarity or correspondence to justify an identification is outrageous. With such identifications at the basis, the entire current history of ancient Bharat has been vitiated and its antiquity reduced. The king mentioned by the Greek historians could be only Chandramas, the last Andhra king and Chandragupta and Samudragupta of the Gupta dynasty and not Nanda and the Maurya kings.

4.There is clear proof available in the Puranas for the determination of the date of the Mahahharata war in B.C. 3138. The puranas date the commencement of the Kali era, 36 years after the Mahabharata war. The Kali era began in 3102 B.C. And hence the time of the Mahabharata war is fixed as 3138 B.C. Another era, the Saptarshi era, is mentioned, beginning 26 years after Kali i.e., in 3076 B.C. at the time of the ascent to heaven of Yudhishtira; it is otherwise known as the Laukikabda. Dr. Buhler, the European Orientalist says of this Saptarshi era:-
"I do not doubt for a moment that the calculation which throws the beginning of the Saptarshi era back to 3076 B.C., is worth no more than that which fixes the beginning of the Kaliyuga in 3101 B.C. But it seems to me certain that it is much older than Kalhana’s time because his equation 24=1070 agrees with it. It may therefore be safely used for reducing with exactness the Saptarshi years, months and days, mentioned in his work to years of the Christian era. etc. (Vide pp. 264-268 of the Indian Antiquary Vol. VI}.
Most of the wel-known European Orientalists, Sir William Jones, Dr. Buhler, General Cunningham, Dr. Fleet. Dr. Hultzsch, Dr. Wilson and others admit the first year of the Kali era in 3101 B.C., and of the Saptarshi era in 3076 B.C. The Kali era actually commenced at 2-27’-30" on the 20th of Feb. 3102 B.C., and has been used for reckoning time in all the indigenous calenders published from year to year and current in the different regions of the country.

(a) All ancient Indian historical writings vouch definitely that the Kali era begins in 3102, the Saptarshi era in 3076 B.C. and the date of the Mahabharata war is 36 years before Kali

(b) Some of the prominent among the European orientalists also have expressed their approval of this determination.

(c) According to the native calenders of the country prepared annually from year to year of the Kali era, the current year 1956 A.D. is the 5058th of Kali or 36+5058=5094 years after the Mahabharata war. So the Mahabharata war must have occurred in 5094-1956=3138 B.C.

(d) The Puranas give us the dynastic lists of kings and the duration of their reigns, from the time of the Mahabharata war, i.e., the chronology of the ancient history of Bharat from the year 3138 B. C.

(e) Nepal Rajavamsavali: The dynastic lists of the kings of Nepal begins with 3102 B.C., and gives us lists of kings before and after it?

(f) Rajatharangini, a history of Kashmir begins with the Saptarshi era i.e., 3076 B.C. These three eras, or standards for reckoning the passage of time and determining the chronology of the kings, have been in vogue in the country in their respective regions. We find in the Puranas, an additional clue for verification, in the observation that according to calculations based on the positions and movement of the Saptarshis or the constellation of the Great Bear, the time elapsed from the time of the Mahabharata war to the close of the reign of the Andhra dynasty in Magadha works out to 2811 years.

(g) There can be no doubt that the European orientalists were aware of these three indigenous eras. We have reproduced above the sentences relating there to, of one of them, Dr. Buhler. Similar extracts from Vol. IV of the writings of Sir William Jones assigning the Kali era to 3102 B.C., is given here-under. "Now the Hindu Astronomers agree, that the 1st January 1790 was in the year 4891 of the Kaliyuga or their fourth period, at the beginning of which, they say, the equinoctial points were in the first degree of Mesha and Tula, but they are also of opinion that the vernal equinox oscillates from the third of Mina to the twenty seventh of Mesha and back again in 7200 years, which they divide into four padas, and consequently that moves in the two intermediate Padas from the first to the twenty-seventh of Mesha and back again in 3600 years; the colure cutting their ecliptic in the first of Mesha, which coincides with the first of Aswani, at the beginning of every such Oscilatory period. (Vide "Sir William Jones works Vol. IV, page 52)

(h) With a view to reduce and discount the antiquity of the history and culture of Bharat, these European Orientalists have wilfully ignored these important indigenous eras of whose existence they were definitely aware and further initiated a false propaganda that the Hindus have no date in their ancient literature for the reconstruction of the ancient history of their country.
"No date or public event can be fixed before the invasion of Alexander. (Vide "History of India", 5th edition; p. 11 by Elphinstone; Max Muller's history of Ancient Sanskrit Literature pp 3-8 of the 1859 Ed., and p. 9 of the Allahabad edition; and Dr. Fleet's article in "Epigraphy in the Indian Empire"-—Imperial gazetteer of India —-Vol. II, pp. 3-6.)

(i) Thus the European orientalists have injured us doubly by their false propaganda (1) that we the people of Bharat have no eras of our own for reckoning time with the help of which the correct chronology of our ancient history can be evolved and (2) therefore there is no alternative to their procedure of starting with the date of Alexander’s invasion, of 326 B.C., for determining of ancient Indian history.

(j) A true account of the ancient history of our country could be evolved on the basis of any of the three above mentioned, wellknown eras and according to such an account based on any of the indigenous eras and indigenous historical writings of ancient times and the lists of kings and periods of their reigns recorded therein, Alexander's invasion in 326 B.C., occurs in the reign of Chandragupta, the founder of the Gupta dynasty of Magadha; and the coronation of Chandrugupta Maurya occurs in 1534 B.C.

(k) Obviously with a view to reduce the antiquity of the history of ancient India, the European orientalists wilfully ignored the ancient indigenous eras of the country of whose existence they were fully aware, alleged on top of that, that we had no indigenous eras to proceed upon; paid no attention to Xandrames, the first of the three names mentioned by the Greek historians who accompanied Alexander to India, identified only the second name Sandracottus but wrongly, delibarately, with Chandragupta Maurya instead of with Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty, fully aware of the greater plausibility of the other alternative; and thus shifted the time of Cixundiaguptu Maurya from 1534 B.C. to 324B.C., and making it the basis or sheet·anchor for the determination of other reigns and events, constructed a fanciful and false history of ancient India. They have no direct evidence, inscriptional or literary (historical) for their alleged contemporaneity of Alexander and Chandragupta Maurya. It is based on no authentic or authoritative evidence but merely on the strength of their conjecture, concoction and bluff dogged iteration. While on the one hand they cry hoarse over the lack of inscriptional evidence to confirm the facts recorded in our puranas, these gentlemen, it is strange to reflect, ignore the need for such direct inscriptional evidence to substantiate their conjectures and theories.

(l) To set up their wrong doctrines and theories the western historians have been producing some alleged inscriptional evidence. Our native historical scholars have been taught to insist upon such inscriptional evidence for every historical event. So we propose to enquire. in detail, into the nature of some instances of such inscriptional evidence,to prove to our readers, the unreliability and futility of such evidence and the conclusions based on such evidence.

Pataliputra Empire -- The Gupta Emporers - Part 2

2009-09-16T08:21:00.007+05:30

3. Chandragupta II: Son of the Great Emperor Samudragupta by his senior queen Dattadevi, called after his grand father in accordance with the Hindu custom and who had been already as crown prince with his noble father in the cares of Government, came to the throne peacefully and without contest under the title of Vikramaditya—(Sun in prowess) in the year 58 of the Gupta Era, founded by his grandfather, corresponding to Kali 2833 or 269 B.C. and ruled the Pataliputra Empire for 36 years from 2869-2905 A.Y, 2833-2869 Kali or 269 to 233 B.C. (Vide K.R.V.).

Chandragupta II was a man of mature age at the time of his accession and found himself in a position to undertake the extension of the wide dominion bequeathed to him by his ever victorious father. His chief military achievement was his advance to the Arabian sea through Malva and Guzarat, and his subjugation of the peninsula of Saurashtra or Kathiawar, which had been ruled for more than a century by the Sakas or the Persians known to European scholars as the western Satraps. Our knowledge of his campaign in the Vanga countries (modern Bengal) is confined to the assertion made in the elegant poetical description on the celebrated iron pillar of Delhi which states ‘when warring in the Vanga countries, he (Chandra Gupta II) breasted and destroyed the enemies confederate against him. The same document also states that he "crossed the Seven mouths of the Sindhu and vanquished in battle a nation called Bahlika", which apparently occupied part of Punjab at that time.

4. Kumara gupta I, son of Chandragupta II by his queen Dhruvadevi, came to the throne of his father under the title of Mahendraditya in the 94 of the Gupta Era, corresponding Kali 2869 or 233 BC. He ruled the Pataliputra Empire for 42 years from 2905 to 2947 A.Y,, 2869 to 2911 or Gupta Era 94 to 136 or B.C. 233 to 191. (Vide K.R.V.). He, like his grandfather, is said to have celebrated the Horse Sacrifice, as an assertion of his paramount sovereignty and to have successfully driven out the Huna hoards who began to burst through the north-western passes.

5. Skanda Gupta, son of Kumara Gupta I by the senior queen Ananta Devi assumed the title of Paraakramaaditya and came to the throne of his father in the year Kali 2911 or Gupta Era 136 or B.C. 191. He ruled the Pataliputra Empire for 25 years, from 2947 to 2972 A.Y., Kali 2911 to 2936 or Gupta Era 136 to 161 or B.C. 191 to 166 B.C. The year of his succession is said to have been marked by the bursting of the embankment of the Sudarsana lake, which is said to have been repaired by Chakrapaalita, son of Parnadatta, who had been appointed as Governor of Saurashtra in the year 137 of the Gupta Era. The Hunas, in his time, appear to have spread in a destructive flood all over western India and Skanda Gupta is said to have restored the falling fortunes of his family, to have conquered the Pushyamitras and faught successfully with the Hunas. Skanda Gupta had no heir of his own, and adopted Narasimha Gupta, son of his half brother ‘Stira Gupta’ (or Pura Gupta as Mr. V.A· Smith calls him), the son of Kumara Gupta I by the junior queen Anandadevi, and breathed his last in the year 161 of the Gupta Era corresponding to 2972 A.Y., Kali 2936 or 166 B.C. When he passed away, the Great Gupta Empire practically perished, though the Great dynasty continued to remain for 2or 3 more generations.

6. Narasimha Gupta, the nephew and adopted son of Skanda Gupta and the natural son of Stira Guapta by his queen Vatsadevi, came to the throne of his adopted father Skanda Gupta in the year 161 of the Gupta Era, corresponding to 2972 A.Y. 2936 Kali or 166 B.C. As he was a minor at the time of his appointment to the throne, his father ruled the Empire as guardian of his minor son for a brief period of 5 years under the title of Sri Prakaasaaditya from 2972 to 2977 A.Y., 2936 to 2941 Kali or 166 to 161 B.C. He is said to have restored the purity of the coinage which suffered a decline in the amount of pure gold or Suvarna, on account of the difficulty which the treasury of Skanda Gupta experienced in
meeting the cost of the Huna war. Narasimha Gupta, who attained his age in the year 166 of the Gupta Era, actually came to the throne in that year, and reigned Pataliputra for a further period of 35 years from 2977 to 3012 A.Y., 166 to 201 G.E., 2941 Kali to 2976 Kali or 181 to 126 B.C., under the title of ‘Baalaaditya’. But as Stiragupta or Sri Prakaasaaditya reigned only as a guardian to his minor son, the Kaliyuga Rajavrittanta does not count Stira gupta as seperate king, and assigns to Narasimhagupta or Balaaditya a total period of (5+35) 40 years for his reign.

Narasimha gupta is said to have removed his capital to Ayodhya. He built a brick stupa more than 300 ft. for Buddhists at Nalanda, in Magadha, which was remarkable for the delicacy of its decorations and inscriptions and the lavish use of gold and gems in its furniture. He is said to have rigorously resisted the tyranny of the Hunas, and to have successfully put down the pride of the Kalingas who had risen against him. In all his victories Narasimha gupta, Baalaaditya, is associated with one Yasodharman, a petty Raja of Central India who is a subordinate to the Gupta Emperors.

7. Kumara Gupta II, son of Narasimha Gupta by his queen Mahadevi or Srimatidevi, came to the throne of his father in the year 201 of the Gupta Era, corresponding to 3012 A.Y, 2976 Kali or 126 B.C. He is said to have reigned for 44 years from 3012 to 3056 A.Y., 201 to 245 G.E., Kali 2976 to 3020 Kali or 126 B.C. to 82 B.C. (Vide K.R.V.). In an Aphsad inscription of Adityasena, Isanavarman is said to be a contemporary of Kumaara Gupta II, who is said to have defeated him in the year 245 of the Gupta Era, which shows that his death must have taken place either in that year, corresponding to 3020 Kali or 82 B.C, or subsequent to that period. According to K R.V. Kumaara Gupta’s death took place in that very year; which tallies with the number of years of reign` assigned to him. He assumed, like his predecessors, the tltle of Kramaaditya and he seemed to have had a hard task in resisting the Hunas who came like swarms of locusts and utterly destroyed the Gupta Empire about 82 B.C.

So, far as is known the line of the Imperial Guptas or Sri Guptas terminates with kumaara Gupta II. Bhatarka, one of his generals is said to have conqured Guzarat and held it as a dependency of the Gupta Empire. After the over-throw of the Great Gupta Dynasty, three different dynasties of Guptas, known as the later Guptas seem to have retained power in three different parts of the empire, in Eastern Malva, Eastern Magadha and Oudh. Though they all claimed imperial dignity, yet none possessed any very great extent of territories. The most notable member of the later Gupta Dynasty founded by Krishna Gupta, was Adityasena, the 8th king of that dynasty, who asserted his independence after the death of the paramount sovereign Harsha or Harsbavardhana Silaaditya of Kanyakubja--the patron of Bana--in 648 A.D., and even presumed to celebrate the Horse Sacrifice in token of his claim to supreme rank. The last known Raja of the Dynasty was Jivita Gupta, who reigned early in the 8th century after Christ about the end of that century, or in 863 A.D. Magadha passed under the sway of the Pala kings of Bengal.

Pataliputra Empire -- The Gupta Emporers - Part 1

2009-09-15T01:08:00.010+05:30

Kali 2775-3020 : B.C. 327-82 : Total 245 years.

S.No	Name of the Emperor	Years reigned	Kali	B.C.	Gupta Era
1	Chandra Gupta I	7	2775-2782	327-320	1 – 7
2	Samudra Gupta	51	2792-2833	320-269	7 – 58
3	Chandra Gupta II	36	2833-2869	269-233	58 – 94
4	Kumara Gupta I	42	869-2911	233-191	94 – 136
5	Skanda Gupta	25	2911-2936	191-166	136 – 161
6	Narasimhagupta being minor by gaurdian Stiragupta … 5 years Narasimha Gupta himself after attaining majority	40	2936-2976	166-126	161 – 201
7	Kumara Gupta II	44	2976-3020	126-82	201 – 245

From the account of the Great Gupta Dynasty as given in Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta(K.R.V), it is clear that the Gupta Dynasty consisted of only seven kings, and every one of them had a title ending with the word "Aaditya", and that they reigned as Emperors of India for a total period of 245 years from 327 B.C. to 82 B.C.
(Vide: Age of Sankara Part I B. Ed. 191 by T.S. Narayana Sastry, B.A.B.L., High Court Vakil, Madras.)

1. Chandragupta I, otherwise known as ‘Vijayaditya’ on account of his valour, founded the mighty Empire of the Guptas, annexed a part of Magadha to his own territory (Tirhut and Ayodhya) having Pataliputra as his capital. He was the son of Ghatotkacha Gupta and grandson of Sri Gupta, from whom the Dynasty founded by Chandra Gupta took its name. The Great Guptas originally belonged to the Surya Vamsi Kshatriya caste, who settled themselves as locai chiefs at Sri Parvata near Nepal, from which circumstance they come to be known in history as Parvatiyas. These and the Lichchavis of Vaisali were associated with the kings of Nepal. They were Kshatriyas of the Aryan Descent of Nepal. Both of them belonged to a warlike caste. The Lichchavis were chiefly noted for the beauty of their girls, and kings were proud to have them as queens. Some of the later kings of the Aandhra Dynasty had taken their daughters for their wives and many of the Lichchavis had settled themselves in the big cities of Magadha such as Girivraja and Pataliputra etc., as officers of state under the Aandhra kings, and Sri Gupta and Ghatotkacha Gupta had already entered into the service of Sivasri Satakarni, the 27th king of the Aandhra Dynasty as his generals, and won many great victories in battles for him and his succession to the throne was effected by most violent means of regicide. Chandrapupta, the grandson of Sri Gupta, by his personal valo`r added greatly to the dominions of the Aandhra kings, and his political importance as commander-in-chief of Yajnasri Saatakarni and Vijaya Sri Saatakarni, won for him the hand of Kumaradevi, the daughter of the king of Nepal, by whom he got a most brave and warlike son by name ‘Samudragupta’. It is said that Chandragupta had already married a princess of the Lichchavis, whose sister was given in marriage to Chandra Sri Satakarni. By his Lichchavi princes Chandra Gupta had another son by name ‘Kacha’ or ‘Ghatotkacha Gupta’ and certain it is that this Lichchavi connection elevated him from the rank of a general as enjoyed by his father and grand—father to the rank of commander- in-chief, and Chandra Gupta, the king’s syala (Rashtriya Syala) as he was called, seems to have controlled the state even during the life time of his nominal master Chandra Sri, who was completely in the hands of his Rashtriya Syala. It is stated that the queen of Chandra Sri had fallen in love with her sister’s husband; and Chandragupta had by some stratagem murdered the king Chandrasri and under the pretext of acting as guardian to his minor son Puloman III, and in the course of seven years, Chandragupta made himself master of the whole situation, put to death the last scion of the Aandhra kings and proclaimed himself as Emperor of Magadha in the year Kali 2775 or 2811 from the Great Mahabharata battle i.e., in B.C. 327. He is said to have established an Era known after his name, as the Gupta Era (327 B.C.). Oriental scholars, on the supposed synchronism of Saudrocottus of the Greeks with Chandragupta Maurya, wrongly state that the first year of the Gupta Era, which continued in use for several centuries, ran from 319-320 AD., although there is absolutely nothing to support their assumption.

Chandragupta, designated as the First, to distinguish him from his grandson of the same name, is described to have extended his own dominion along the Gangetic valley as far as the junction of the Ganges and Jumna, annexing a part of Magadha, a populous and fertile territory which included a greater part of Aryavartha. This king is said to have struck coins in the joint names of himself, his Lichchavi queen and the Lichchavi clan to which he was the chief.

It is said Chandragupta, before his death selected as his successor Kacha, or more fully Ghatotkacha; his son by the Lichchavi princes and Samudra Gupta, his eldest son by Kumaradevi, the daughter of the king of Nepal, who had already distinguished himself in many adventures against Mlechcha invaders who attacked his maternal grandfather’s territories, coming to know of the treachery intended to be practised by his unscrupulous father, collected large bands of warriors from Nepal and from the Mleccha sects of North-west India, marched against his father’s capital, and by putting to death his father and his half brother Kacha succeeded to the throne of Pataliputra to which he was rightly entitled in the year Kali 2782 or 320 B.C.

2. Samudra Gupta, son of Chandra-Gupta I by his wife Kumaradevi, known also as Asokaditya reigned Magadha Empire with Pataliputra as his capital as the supreme Emperor of India for a long period of 51 years from Kali 2782 to Kali 2833 or from B.C. 320 to 269. B.C. The account given of him by his poet laureate Harisena makes him no doubt the greatest of all Indian Emperors, and he most fairly and fittingly claims the title of ‘Indian Napolean’ given to him by Mr. V A. Smith. Source: http://www.cngcoins.com Samudragupta.1.Left: AV Dinar (7.71 gm). Lyrist Type. seated left, playing lyre set on his knees; footstool below / The goddess Laksmi, seated left on wicker stool, holding diadem and cornucopiae. 2.Right AV Dinar (7.61 gm). Standard Type. Samudragupta, nimbate, standing left, holding standard; Garuda standard behind, crescent above / The goddess Laksmi seated facing on throne, holding diadem. MACW 4779.

He was a most aggressive and ambitious monarch and resolved to increase his dominions at the expense of his neighbors. When his fighting days were over, he employed a learned poet to compose an account of his achievements which he caused to be engraved on one of the stone-pillars set up more than a thousand years ago by Asoka, king of Kashmir, wrongly now ascribed by oriental scholars to Asokavardhana, the grandson of Chandra-Gupta Maurya. In that pillar inscription at Allahabad, Samudra Gupta is said to have uprooted Achyuta and Nagasena, to have captured and liberated Mahendra of Kosala. Vyaghra Raja of Mahakanthara, Mantaraja of Kerala, Mahendra of Pishtapura, Swamidatta of Kottara, Damana of Erandapalla, Vishnugopa of Kanchi, Nilaraja of Avamukta, Hastivarman of Vengi, Ugrasena of Palakka, Kubera of Devarashtra, Dhananjaya of Kusthalapura, and all the other kings of the region of the South; to have exterminated Rudradeva, Matila, Nagadatta. Chandravarman, Ganapatinaga, Nandin, Balavarman, and many other kings of Aryavarta; and to have overthrown the Devaputras, Sahis, Shahanushahis, Sakas, Marundas, Yavanas, and the people of Simhala and all other dwellers in islands.

Harishena classifies his lord’s compaigns geographically under four heads: as those directed against 1. eleven kings of the south; 2. nine named kings of Aryavartha, besides many others not specified, 3. the chiefs of the wild forest tribes, and 4. the rulers of the frontier kingdoms and republics. He also explains Samudra Gupta’s relation with various Indigenous powers who settled themselves in the western parts of India from the frontiers of Persia, such as the Sakas, the Tusharas, the Yavanas who were Yavana Kshatriyas of Abhisara, Ursa etc., and who were degraded as Mlechchas by discarding the Vedic Dharma, but not the Greeks as the modern historians think, the Marundas who began to pour into the country from the north-western parts of India crossing the Indus, almost from the beginning of the Aandhra Dynasty. It is said that the kingdoms of Samataata, Kaamarupa and Davaka and other border countries in the East, as well as those of Malava and Khandesa acknowledged his supremacy, and even the Sakas of Sakastan,Yavanas of modern Afganistan and Devaputras, submitted to him. Only the kingdom of Nepal, then, as now retained its autonamy under the suzerainty of the paramount Power; and perhaps, out of his regard for his maternal grandfather and meternal uncles, who were most attached to him, Samudra·Gupta did not attempt to subdue that mountainous kingdom. At his time, the Yaudheyas occupied the banks of the Sutlej. the Malavas occupied Guzerat, Madrakas the central parts of Paunjab, and Pauravas, the Northern parts of Punjab. The reader may remember in Alexander’s time these regions were similarly occupied by autonomous Kshatriya sects then _ called Malloi, Kathaloi, Paurae and so forth. We are distinctly told that Samudra Gupta maintained diplomatic relations with the kings of Gandhara and Kabul, with Sakas, and Yavanas (who were Hindu Mlechcha sects); and the greater sovereign of the same race who ruled on the banks of the oxus, as well as with Ceylon and other distant islands. Speaking about the limits of his Empire Mr. V. A. Smith says :-
"The dominion under the direct Government of Samudragupta in the middle of the fourth century thus comprised all the most populous and fertile countries of Northern India. It extended from the Hooghly on the East, to the Jumna and the Chambal on the west, and from the foot of tie Himalays on the North to the Narmada on the South."
"Beyond these wide limits the frontier kingdoms of Assam and the Gangetic delta, as well as those on the southern slopes of the Himalayas, and the free tribes of Rajaputana and Malwa, were attached to the empire by bonds of subordinate alliance; while almost all the kingdoms of the South had been overrun by the emperor’s armies and compelled to acknowledge his irresistble might."

"To proclaim the universality of his dominions, Samudragupta is said to have revived the ancient rite of the Horse Sacrifice (Aswamedha) which had remained long in abeyance since the time of Yudhishtira, and which was only performed at the time of Pushpamitra, the contemporary of Patanjali (13 th century B.C.). The ceremony was duly carried out with appropriate splendour, and acccmpanied by lavish gifts to Brahmans, comprising it is said, millions of coins and gold pieces. "Specimens of the gold medals struck for this purpose", says Mr V. A. Smith, “bearing a suitable legend and the effigy of the doomed horse standing before the altar; have been found in small numbers."

Speaking of the personal accomplishments of Samudragupta, the learned writer of the "Early History of 1ndia" states:-

"Although the courtly phrases of the oflicial eulogist cannot be accepted without a certain amount of reservation, it is clear that Samudragupta was a ruler of exceptional capacity, and unusually varied gifts. The laureate’s commemoration of his hero’s proficiency in song and music is curiously confirmed by the existence a few rare gold coins which depict his majesty comfortably seated on a high backed couch, engaged in playing the Indian lyre. The allied art of poetry was also reckoned among the accomplishments of this versatile monarch, who is said to have been reputed a king of poets; and to have composed numerous metrical works worthy of the reputation of a professional author. We are further informed that the king took much delight in the society of the learned, and loved to employ his acute and polished _ intellect in the study and the defence of the sacred scriptures, as well as in the lighter arts music and poetry,"

It is only Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta that has continued to narrate the history of the various Hindu Dynasties upto the Muhammadan conquest, and it ends with the description of Arjuna Bhoja or Arjunavarma Deva, the 7th successor of Bhojaraja Deva the famous Bhoja of Samskrit Literature belonging to the family of Paramara Parameswara Sri Krishnaraja Deva-who reigned from 4250 A.Y. to 4299 A.Y. or in other words from 1112 A.D. to 1161 A.D. The Bhavishya Mahapurana gives another line of Paramara Dynasty, beginning from the founder Paramara, Kali 1710 or 392 B.C. Vikramaditya, Kali 3000 or B.C. 101 to Gangasimha, the last king who fought in the battle of Kurukshetra with Muhammud Gori in Kali 4295 or 1193 A.D.

We entirely agree with the following remarks made by Mr. Vincent A. Smith, regarding the recovery of the history of Samudra Gupta:-
"By a strange irony of fate this great king- Warrior, poet, and musician——who conquered nearly all India, and whose alliance extended from the Oxus to ceylon, is unknown even by name to the historians of India. His lost fame has been slowly recovered by the minute and laborious study of inscriptions and coins during the last 70 years; and the fact that it is now possible to write a long narrative of the events of his memorable reign is perhaps the most conspicuous illustration of the success gained by patient archaelogical research in piecing together the fragments from which alone the chart of the authentic early history of lndia can be constructed."

We only regret to note that the learned writer and his numerous collegues in India and elsewhere, even after the recovery of the complete account of Samudragupta, should not have directed their attention to the so-called identification of Sandrocottus with Chandragupta Maurya and come to a conclusion by an unprejudiccd and impartial comparison of the two accounts, in the light of the new materials furnished to them by archaelogy, though not by a comparative study of the Puranas which furnish them meterials from which alone the chart of the authentic history of Ancient India can be safely constructed and acted upon. We have discussed more fully about this vexed point in the previous chapters of this book.(Ancient Hindu History by Pandit Kota Venkata Chelam)

The Aandhra(Saatavahana or Saatakarni) Dynasty of Magadha-The eighth dynasty

2009-09-11T06:01:00.004+05:30

Kali 2269-2775 Kali, B.C. 833-327 B. C,
Total nouber of kings - 32 :: Period of reign - 506 years.

S.No.	Name of the King	Years reigned	Kali Era	B.C.
1	Sindhuka or Sisuka or
	Srimukha	23	2269-2292	833-810
2	Sri Krishna Satakarni	18	2292-2310	810-792
3	Sri Malla Satakarni	10	2310-2320	792-782
4	Purnothsanga	18	2320-2338	782-764
5	Sri Satakarni	56	2338-2394	764-708
6	Skandhasatambhin	18	2394-2412	708-690
7	Lambodara	18	2412-2430	690-672
8	Apitaka	12	2430-2442	672-660
9	Meghaswati	18	2442-2460	660-642
10	Sataswati	18	2460-2478	642-624
11	Skanda Satakarni	7	2478-2485	624-617
12	Mrugendra Satakarni	3	2485-2488	617-614
13	Kuntala Satakarni	8	2488-2496	614-606
14	Soumya Satakarni	12	2496-2508	606-594
15	Satasatakarni	1	2508-2509	594-593
16	Puloma Satakarni or Puloma-I	36	2509-2545	593-557
17	Megha Satakarni	38	2545-2583	557-519
18	Arishta Satakarni	25	2583-2608	519-494
	In this king’s reign in 509 B.C. Sree Sankara was born.
19	Hala Satavahana	5	2608-2613	494-489
20	Mandalaka	5	2613-2618	489-484
21	Purindrasena	21	2618-2639	484-463
.	In this king's reign in 477 B.C. Sri Sankara attained Nirvana
22	Sundara Satakari	1	2639-2640	463-462
23	Chakora Satakarni	½	2640-2640½	462-461½
23a	Mahendra Satakarni	½	2640½-2641	461½-461
24	Siva Satakarni	28	2641-2669	461-433
25	Goutami Putra Sri Satakarni	25	2669-2694	433-408
26	Puloma II	32	2694-2726	408-376
27	Siva Sri Satakarni	7	2726-2733	376-369
28	Sivaskanda Satakarni	7	2733-2740	369-362
29	Yajna Sri Satakarni	19	2740-2759	362-343
30	Vijaya Sri Satakarni	6	2759-2765	343-337
31	Chandra Sri Satakarni	3	2765-2768	337-334
32	Puloma III (minor)	7	2768-2775	334-327

The eighth of the dynasties that ruled over Magadha is the 'Aandhra Dynasty'. From the time of the king Aandhra who gave his name to the Aandhra country and the people, the Aandhra Kingdom was ruled by Aandhra kings seperately. The Known history of Aandhra kings dates from Kali 2269 or B.C. 833.

1. Simhaka Sri Satakarni or Srimukha, or Sindhuka, an Aandhra in the service of Susarma, the last prince of the Kanwa dynasty of the Emperors of Magadha, rose gradually to be minister of state and commander of the armed forces and enlisted an Aandhra army in the service of the Magadha king and finally, perhaps with the help of his Aandhra army, killed Susarma, the king, and usurping his place, became the ruler of the Magadha Empire, which extended at that time all over Bharat from the Himalayas to Cape Comerin.

He traced his origin to the pure Aandhra Dynasty of kings founded by Saatavahana at Deccan with Pratishstana as his capital. His family name is Balin (K.R.V.), Balika (B.P)or Balipuchchaka (Vi.P). He is said to have been employed as minister under the last two kings of the Kanva Dynasty, who appear to have been puppets in his hands. With the aid of the Aandhra forces in his service, he slew Susarman, the last king of the Kanva Dynasty and made himself master of the whole of the kingdom of Magadha not only by usurping the throne of the Kanvas, but also all that remained of the later Sungas who were ruling a small portion of the kingdom of Magadha simultaneously with the Kanvas with Vidisa as their capital.

The Satavahanas (Aandhra Emperors) The Aandhra emperors that ruled over Magadha are described with the patronyms of Saatavahana and Saatakarna in our Puranas. The same titles are found in their inscriptions also. The Aandhra dynasty of, Magadha is known as the Aandhra Satavahana dynasty. Saata means a lion. Saatavahana therefore means one with the lion for his conveyance. The kings with the image of a Saatavahana as their emblem on their flag are Saatavahana kings. The Aandhras as a race show special, regard and love for the lion. A woman riding on the lion, ‘Simhastha’ is a popular deity in their religious literature and in the images of goddesses carved on the walls in their religious institutions.

In the Devi Bhagavata, goddess Katyayani is described as mounted on a lion while proceeding against the demons to destroy them. Everywhere in Aandhra on the walls of temples, the compound walls of private premises, by the side of the main gate of a building we find frequently the image of a lion. The Aandh· ras as the race be said to have imbibed, by admiration leading to imitation, the qualities of the lion among the animals such as strength, valour, grandeur and magnanimity. They show· an affinity to the lion in every way.

On page 129 of the ‘Goshti’ of March 1941, we find "Ever since the time of the Amaraavati Sculptures down to the recent time of ‘Sata silpi’ the lion seems to be emblem and the ideal of the Aandhra race. The god Narasimha, half man half-lion, is the deity of several popular shrines in Aandhra. The Aandhras enjoy even to this day a reputation for impulsiveness, enthusiasm and zest for noble action, like the lion. The privilege of being seated on the lion, the throne or seat of power is the ambition of every Aandhra. Many of them are named after their popular deity ‘Narasimha’. The peacock is the national emblem of the Burmese. The fish is the emblem of the people of Bengal as well as of Oudh. The parrot of the Tamilians. King Rajaraja assumed a cow with iet calf as his emblem. The Vijayanagara rulers adopted the Adivaraha( An Avatara of Vishnu) as their emblem. The Kalingas favoured the elephant. In the same manner the Saatavahanas, Aandhra emperors of Magadha had the warrior seated on the lion for their emblem" (Ghosti paper).

2. Krishna Satakarni, Krishna, Sri Saantakarni(Vi.P.,B.P.) or Sri Saatakarni(Va.P.,Br.P) , the younger brother of Srimukha, ruled for 18 years.
This king, vulgarly known as Kanha, is said to have extended his kingdom as far as the town of Nasik, near the source of Godavary in the Western Ghats.

3. Sri Malla Satakarni, son of Krishna reigned for ten years

19. Haala, son of Arishta Saatakarni reigned for 5 years, from 2644 to 2649 A.Y, or 494 to 489 B.C. We learn from Chitsukha's Brihat Sankaravijaya and Sadasivendra's Jagadguru Ratnamala that Sri Adi Sankaracharya, the author of the famous Bhashyas on the Prasthanatraya, was a contemporary of this king.King Hala's association with literary tradition possesses special interest, as marking a stage in the Hindu Literature. He is said to have bestowed special attention to the development of the Prakrit or Vernacular literature of the country. The Katantra grammer, arranged with special reference to the needs of students more familiar with the Vernacular speech than with the so-called classical language is attributed to one of the ministers of this king. Haala himself is credited with the composition of the Anthology of erotic verses, called the 'Sapta-Sataka' or 'The Seven centuries written in the ancient Maharashtri dialect.

21. Purindrasena (K.R.V. and M.P.), Purlishasena, Purikashena, Putrikashena(Va.P.) son of Mandalaka, grandson of Haala reigned for 21 years from 2654 to 2675 A.Y., or 484 to 463 B.C. In this king's time the Saptarshi Mandala (or the Great Bear) completed one cycle of 2700 years commencing from the entrance in Magha in 3176 B.C. and begins its 2nd cycle from Magha again in 476 B.C.

26. Puloman II (M.P), Vasishti-putra Sri Puloma Satakarni (K.R.V.), son of Gautamiputra Satakarni reigned for 32 years from 2730-2762 A.Y., or 408-376 B.C. With the end of this king , 376 B.C., the first cycle of the Saptarshi Era of 3076 B.C. came to a close.

27. Siva Sri Satakarni or Sivasri vaasishtiputra Saatakarni reigned for 7 years from 2762 to 2769 A.Y., or 376 to 369 B.C. It is said in all the Puranas that the 2nd cycle of the Saptarshi or the Loukika Era commenced with the reign of this 27th king of the Aandhra Dynasty.

The 32 kings of the Aandhra dynasty reigned for a period of 506 years; and while they are still on the throne their kingdom passed into the hands of the Guptas, who are known as Sri Parvatiya Andhra-Bhrutya kings. Chandragupta, son of Ghatotkcha Gupta and grandson of Sri Gupta, who appears to have come from Sri Parvata or Nepal, and originally entered the service of Vijayasri Satakarni as one of his generals and with whose help, he managed his tottering kingdom. The last two kings of the Aandhra Dynasty- Chandrasri and his son enjoyed little power, and were mere puppets in the hands of their generals, Ghatotkacha Gupat and his son Chandragupta, the latter of whom, under the guise of protecting the country on behalf of Puloman III, the minor son of Chandra Sri, murdered the prince and ascended the throne of Magadha under the title of Maharajadhiraja in the year 2811 of the Yudhistira Saka or 2775 Kali or 327 B.C., just when Alexander the Great was attempting to enter into the Great continent of India through the Hindukush Mountains.

The Kanva Dynasty--The seventh dynasty of Magadha

2009-09-08T08:19:00.008+05:30

From 2220 to 2305 A.Y. :: From B.C. 918 to 833 ...Total 85 years.

S.No.	Name of King	Years reigned	A.Y.	B.C.
1	Vasudeva Kanva	39	2220-2259	918-879
2	Bhumimitra	24	2259-2283	879-855
3	Narayana	12	2283-2395	855-843
4	Susarma	10	2395-2305	843-833
	Total	85	years

Vasudeva, the first ruler of the Kanva Dynasty was a descendant of Kanvayana Brahmin family. As he was a minister of Devabhuti, the last king of the Sunga Dynasty, he is described in some of the Puranas as the Srungabritya and his Dynasty as Srungabrutya Dynasty.(Vide M.P. chapter 270 and Va.P. Ch. 99)

It appears from these Puranas that Vasudeva, the Brahmin minister of Devabhuti had not altogether done away with the family of his master, for there are statements in these Puranas that the Andhra kings who came next, annexed not only the kingdom of the Kanvas but also what remained of the once powerful Sunga Dynasty. So it is most likely that Vasudeva ruled the kingdom with Girivraja as his capital and the descendants of his master ruled a portion of the country with Vidisa, the modern Vilasa as their capital. He is said to have ruled the kingdom of Magadha with justice and efficiency for a period of 39 years, from 2220 to 2259 A.Y. or 918 to 879 B.C. (Vide M.P. and Va.P. ad K.R.V.)

The last Kanwa king Susarma was killed by his general and minister by name Sindhuka or Srimukha (an Andhra Brahmin) who ascended to the throne of Magadha in 833 B.C.
Thus ends the Kanva or Kanvayana, Sungabhritya or Sringabhritya or the seventh dynasty.
(Vide "Age of Sankara" Part I. B.)

Kings of the Sunga Dynasty,the Sixth Dynasty of Magadha`

2009-09-07T00:57:00.030+05:30

From 1920 A.Y. to 2220.A.Y., :: From B.C. 1218 to 918.....Total years 300

Sl.No... Name of King...	Years reigned	From-To Kali.	From-To B.C.
1. Pushyamitra or Pushpamitra	60	1884-1944	1218-1158
2. Agnimitra	50	1944-1994	1158-1108
3. Vasumitra	36	1994-2030	1108-1072
4. Sujyeshta	17	2030-2047	1072-1055
5. Bhadraka or Andhraka	30	2047-2077	1055-1025
6. Pulindaka	33	2077-2110	1025-992
7. Ghoshavasu	3	2110-2113	992-989
8. Vajramitra	29	2113-2142	989-960
9. Bhagavata	32	2142-2174	960-928
10. Devabhuti or Kshemabhumi	10	2074-2184	928-918
Total	300 years

1. Pushyamitrah(Vi.P.,B.P., K.R.V.,and one version of Va.P.) or Pushpamitra(M.P., Br.P. and one version of Va.P.) , the commander-in-Chief of Brihadradha (the last king of the Maurya dynasty) murdered him and ascended the throne of Magadha and became Emperor. He performed "Aswamedha Sacrifice". He reigned for 60 years from 1920 to 1980 A.Y.(After the coronation of Yudhistira) or 1218 to 1158 B.C.(Vide Vayu Purana, Brahmanda Purana, and Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta).
The sentence "Ihapushpamitram yajayamah" is found in the Mahabhashya (commentary on the sutras of Panini) of Patanjali and therefore it is inferred by V.A.Smith and other historians (Vide Early History of India P.228) that Patanjali was a contemporary of Pushyamitra Sunga and attended the Aswamedha Sacrifice performed by him. But the author need not have been present at the Sacrifice which he mentions incidentally by way of comparison (as an illustration of a principle) in a treatise on grammer. Nor does it follow necessarily that Pushyamitra was alive at that time his sacrifice is mentioned by way of comparision.

Even if we grant both the assumptions and the consequent contemporaneity of Pushyamitra Sunga and Patanjali it is wrong to assign both of them to the 2nd century B.C.( as the European historians of India and their Indian followers do.) If we accept the chronology according to our Puranas of the dynasties of kings from the time of the Mahabharata war (3138 B.C.) and by the reference of Patanjali Maha-Bhashyam in Rajatarangani(Kashmir history), Pushyamitra Sunga, the first Sunga king who performed the Aswamedha reigned from 1218 B.C. to 1158 B.C. So Patanjali must have belonged to twelfth or the 13th century B.C., and not the 2nd century B.C.
Brihadraha, the last king of the imperial Maurya dynasty of Magadha was a man of dissolute character (given to women) and neglected the administration of the kingdom. Hordes of Sakas and Yavanas of North-Western India( not Greeks) grew bold enough to cross the Indus and the people (east of Indus) were exposed to danger to their lives and property and honour. So, his General and Minister Pushyamitra put him to death and proclaimed himself Emperor. He was a brahmin of the Sama Veda branch. He performed Aswamedha Yajna, won great honour for himself and became the founder of the Sunga dynasty of Magadha. The Barhat Stupa(Pillar) in Central India between Allahabad and Jubbalpur was built by kings of this dynasty.

3. Vasumitra, son of Agnimitra reigned for 36 years. According to Kalidasa, Vasumitra is clearly described as the son of Agnimitra by Dharini (wife of Agnimitra) and as the grandson of Pushpamitra. He is said to have conquered a Yavana force(,these are the degraded Yavana sub-sect of Suryavamsi Kshatriyas of Bharat,they are not the Greeks of Europe) on the bank of the river Sindhu and recovered the sacrificial horse left by his grand father, and to have been instrumental in carrying through the Royal Sacrifice to its successful completion, like Amsuman in the case of Great king Sagara.

The K.R.V. gives the following interesting account.
" Devahuti ( or Devabhuti), the last king of the Sunga dynasty, having been addicted to a life of pleasure and sexual enjoyment from his boyhood, entrusted the kingdom to the care of his Brahmin minister Vasudeva, and he himself retired to Vidisa, noted in those days for its dancing girls, where he began to lead a most licentious and immoral life with his voluptuary companions, corrupting the fair maidens of the city to satisfy his lust and becoming an object of hatred to his own subjects. On hearing the extraordinary beauty of the daughter of his Brahmin minister Vasudeva, who has been living with her husband, he sent for them to come to Vidisa and live by his side, and on one day, after secretly disposing of her husband, the king seduced her in the disguise of her husband and the poor girl, who was most true and devoted to her husband, coming to know of the treachery practiced by the king, at once gave up her life. On hearing the sad news of the fate of his daughter and of her innocent husband, Vasudeva contrived to send to the king a damcing woman, fully furnished with poison, dressed as one of the chief queens and had him killed by her hand. People hailed the death of their licentious king with joy, and made Vasudeva, his upright minister, to take charge of the kingdom and rule the country henceforth. ( Age of Sankara, Part I. B.,pp. 83,84).

The European Orientalists now generally give to:-
1. The Nanda dynasty a total period of 45 year.
2. The Maurya dynasty a total period of 137 years.
3. The Sunga dynasty a total period of 112 years
(Vide Age of Sankara, part I B. pages 70 ff., by T.S.Narayana Sastry, B.A.B.L., High court Vakil, Madras)

Maurya Dynasty--The Fifth dynasty of Magadha

2009-09-01T01:00:00.023+05:30

Correct Reigning periods of kings of Maurya Dynasty
Reigned for 316 years at 'Girivraja' as capital of Magadha Kingdom
From 1604 After Yudhistira(A.Y.) to 1920 A.Y. :: From B.C.1534 to 1218

S.No.	Name of King	Years reigned	From-To A.Y.	From-To B.C.
1	Chandragupta Maurya	34	1604-1638 A.Y.	1534-1500 B.C.
2	Bindusara	28	1638-1660 A.Y.	1500-1472 B.C.
3	Asoka	36	1666-1702 A.Y.	1472-1436 B.C.
4	Supersva or Suyasa
	(Kunala or Kusala)	8	1702-1710 A.Y.	1436-1428 B.C.
5	Dasaratha or Bandhu Palitha	8	1710-1718 A.Y.	1428-I420 B.C.
6	Indrapalita	70	1718-1788 A.Y.	1420-1350 B.C
7	Harshavardhana	8	1788·1796 A.Y.	1350-1342 B.C.
8	Sangata	9	1796-1805 A.Y.	1342-1333 B.C.
9	Salisuka	13	1805-1818 A.Y.	1333-132O B.C.
10	Soma Sarma or Deva Sarma	7	1818-1825 A.Y.	1320-1313 B.C.
11	Satadhanva	8	1825-1833 A.Y.	1313-1305 B.C.
12	Brihadradha or Brihadaswa	87	1833-1920 A.Y.	1305-1218 B.C.
Total		316 years

_ Meaning of the Above Sloka:-"These twelve Maurya kings Chandragupta etc., will rule for 316 years."
Note: Also see "History of Classical Literature" By Dr. M. Krishnamacharya and "Age of Mahabharata war" By Sri Nadimpalli Jagannadha Rao; and the manuscript copy of Matsya Purana in the library of T, S. Narayana Sastri. B.A, B.L., Madras. Author of the Book °‘Age of Sankara".

"The greatest mistake that has ever been committed in the field of the Chronology of Ancient India-nay the greatest harm that has ever been done to the cause and progress of the ancient Indian History and Literature-is the so called identification of Sandrocottus, Sandrocyptus, of the Greek writers of Alexander’s history with Chandragupta Maurya, the first king of the Maurya Dynasty, and of the so-called identification of Xandrames or Andramen with Nanda, the father of the said Chandragupta Maurya. We have shown from the various Hindu, Jain and Buddhistic accounts contained in the various Puranas, Kaliyugaraja vrittanta, Brihatkatha etc., and Mahavamsa, Dipavamsa, Asokavadana, Parisistaparva etc., that this Chandragupta Maurya, the son of Mahapadma or Dhana Nanda by his Sudra wife 'Mura', came to the throne of his father in the year 1604 of the Yudhistira Saka, corresponding to 1534 B.C., which is not the date of the invasion of India by Alexander the Great, that event being placed by all Greek historians in 328-327 B.C. The Greecian Empire itself had not come into existence at this early period of 1534 B.C. And Alexander the Great flourished nearly 1200 years after this period. There is absolutely no allusion to any foreign invasion into India in any of these Buddhistic and Hindu accounts about this period. The description given by the Greek writers about Sandrocottus and his father Xandrames are quite inapplicable to Chandragupta Maurya and could only apply to Samudragupta, and his father Chandragupta, the founder of the Gupta Dynasty (Andhra Britya Dynasty) which was raised on the ruins of the Andhra Dynasty, which came to an end about 2771 A.Y. or 368 B.C., according to the true interpretation of all the Puranas and Hindu accounts.

We know from the various Puranas that no less than eight great dynasties ruled at Magadha from the time of Yudhistira’s coronation up to the rise of the Gupta Dynasty for 2771 years from 1 A.Y. to 2771 A.Y. (corresponding to 3139-3138 B.C to 328-327 B.C.).
I. Barhadradha Dynasty......1006 years
II. Pradyota Dyniasty .........138 years
III. Saisunaga Dynasty........ 360 years
VI. Nanda Dynasty.............100 years
V. Maurya Dynasty........... 316 years
VI. Sunga Dynasty.............300 years
VII. Kanva Dynasty..............95 years
VIII.Andhra Dynasty............456½ years
Total period..................2771½ years

Subsequent to the downfall of the Andhra Dynasty,came a humble protage of the last Andhra king by name Chandragupta (Sandrocottus of the Greeks) to the throne of Magadha. His son Samudragupta (Sandrocyptus of the Greeks) conquered the whole of India; and became a Universal monarch and his biographer Harisena has truly depicted him as the greatest of all Indian Emperors, to whom even foreign powers paid tributes. It is most likely that these two monarchs, Chandragupta I and Samudragupta were contemporaries of Alexander and Seleukos Nikator, and were known to the Greeks under the names of Xandrames (Chandramas), Sandrocottus and Sandrocyptus, and they come according to the ancient Indian Chronology to the period of Alexander and his followers. The Puranas especially refer to the invasion of Sakas and yavanas at the close of the Andhra Dynasty and these are no other than the Persians under Darius and the Greeks under Alexander. The Sakas or Persians were finally turned out of India by Sri Harsha Vikrama of Ujjain in 457 B.C., and Alexander and his followers by Samudragupta in 324 B.C." (Vide "Age of Sankara Part I, B. Appendix pages 35 ff,)

The founder of the Maurya Dynasty was Chandragupta Maurya.
"According to all the Puranas including the Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta, Chandragupta is described as the son of Mahapadma Nanda by a Sudra wife named Mura from whom he and his Dynasty took their names. He was, therefore, called Maurya and the dynasty founded by him the Maurya Dynasty. He owed his sovereignity to Chanakya, a Brahmin sage, an Indian Machiavel, the author of an excellent treatise, on Polity, who not only placed Chandragupta on the throne of Magadha by rooting out the nine Nandas, but trained him up in all the necessary arts and sciences. Chandragupta appears to have been merely a puppet in his hands and no great deeds are attributed to him as are ascribed to Sandrocottus by the Greek historians of Alexander the Great."
"The Buddhistic accounts such as Mahavamsa and Dipavamsa give a description of the first three kings only of this dynasty. The accounts given of Chandrsgupta’s origin and parentage are various and contradictory. But all the Buddistic works are agreed on one point that Chandragupta owed his sovereignty entirely to Chanakya alias Kautilya; and not 'called to royalty by the power of the gods and by prodigies’ as stated by Justin with reference to his Sandrocottus. Nor is there any reference either in the Hindu or the Buddhistic accounts to Chandragupta Maurya’s "Having traversed India with an army of 6,00,000 men and conquered the whole" as stated by Plutarch. This and the other descriptions given by the various Greek writers will be found to apply on all fours to Chandragupta and Samudragupta of the Gupta Dynasty and not to this Chandragupta Maurya at all" (Vide Age of Sankara Part 1, B. pp. 53. ff.)
"Chandragupta Maurya, according to the majority of the Puranas, Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta and Mahavamsa reigned for 34 years from 1604 to 1638 after Yudhistira’s coronation (in 3138 B.C.) or from 1534 to 1500 B.C.

T.S.Narayana Sastry writes:- "Fortunately in my library(T.S.Narayana Sastry's Library) I possess a manuscript copy of Matsya Purana in Grantah Character, which gives a complete list of the Maurya kings with years of individual reigns.and I give the same below:-

The Buddhistic accounts of Asoka as given by the two great schools of Buddhism -Mahayana and Hinayana- not only differ from each other but also from the accounts given of Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya, by the Puranic accounts of theHindus. There is a great deal of confusion in those Buddhistic works as regards the very family and geneology of Asoka, the Buddhist king; and one can easily trace that the life and times of Asoka must have been constructed by Buddhistic writers who flurished several hundreds of years after him, by jumbling up the lives of three different kings viz.,

1. of Asoka(Dharmasoka), the third in ascent from Kanishka belonging to the first Gonanda Dynasty of Kashmir kings as described in the first book of Kalhana's Rajatarangini, who is said to have freed himself from sins by embracing the faith of Gautama Buddha and by constructing numerous Viharas and Stupas, and by building the town of Srinagari with its ninety-six lakhs of houses resplendent with wealth.

2. of Asokavardhana (Chandra Asoka), the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya, as described in the Puranas; and

3. of Samudragupta or Asoka the Great,(Mahasoka), the son of Chandragupta, the founder of the Gupta Dynasty, as narrated by his biographer Harisena, and in the Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta and as corroborated by his numerous coins and inscriptions recently unearthed by European scholars themselves.

The Asokavadana(according to the prose version in the Divyavadana) omits Chandragupta and Bindusara, the father of Asoka, is represented as being the son of Nanda. The metrical Ashokavadana, on the other hand, substitutes Mahipala for Ajatasatru, and exhibits numerous other variations, which make these Buddhistic accounts absolutely worthless and untrustworthy.

The conquests ascribed to Asoka in various Buddhistic accounts are no doubt taken from the conquests of Samudragupta or Asoka the Great, and the embassy of the Ceylon king is also traceableto the same origin. The story of his having embraced the faith of Buddha, of his having built Stupas and Viharas, of his having reconstructed the city of Pataliputra and of his having introduced several reforms in the affairs of the kingdom and in the matter of the appointment of the officers of the state, are all taken from the accounts of Asoka and his successors as given by Chavillakara and by Kalhana in his Rajatarangini." (Vide: Age of Sankara Part I,B. p. 59 ff.)

The Nanda Dynasty-The fourth dynasty of Magadha

2009-08-29T23:18:00.007+05:30

The Nanda Dynasty
From I504 to 1604 A.Y. : : From 1634 to 1534 B.C. Total No. of years = 100.
1. Mahapadma otherwise known as Nanda, an illegitimate son of Mahanandin, the last of the kings of Saisunaga dynasty, ruled Magadha for 88 years from 1504 to 1592 A.Y., 1634 to 1546 B.C.
2. Sumalya and his seven brothers, the sons of Nanda, ruled Magadha jointly for a total period of 12 years from 1592 to 1604 A.Y, or 1546 to 1534 B.C.
According to the Puranas, the founder of this dynasty, Mahapadma Nanda is said to be the son of Mahanandin, the last of the Sisunaga family, born to a Sudra woman married by him and he is said to have assumed the surname of Nanda. Like Parasurama, he is said to have annihilated all the Kshatriyas of his time and became the mightiest and the most powerful of all the kings of Aryavartha. He had eight sons accordingto Puranic accounts, the eldest of whom Sumalya ascended the throne in succession of his father, along with the rest of his brothers according to their seniority and they ruled the country for a total period of 12 years, They were put to death by a brahmin named Chanakya, surnamed Kautilya (Vishnugupta), who thereupon placed an illegitimate son of Mahapadma, by name Chandragupta, on the throne of Magadha.
According to Buddhistic accounts, Mahapadma is known as Dhana Nanda, in consequence of his avaricious habit in hoarding up wealth. It is said that levying taxes on skins, Gums, trees, stones etc., he hoarded up money to the extent of eighty Kotis, and buries up in the bed of the Ganges. Diverting the main stream for a time by an anicut or dam thrown across the Ganges, and making a large hole in a rock in the bed of the river sufficient to contain the money, he deposited his wealth in the rock, and sealed it up with molten lead. The river was then restored to its natural course and his treasure was secured thus in a very strong place. During his life time, he continued to hoard up and to deposit the collections from time to time under the bed of the river. He and his eight sons known as the nine Nandas were put to death by the Brahmin Chanakya, surnamed Kautilya, who hated him (for his maladministration), and who took possession of the wealth in the bed of the Ganges.
All the Hindu accounts (Vishnu Purana, Bhagavata Purana, Vayu Purana, Matysa Purana, Brahmanda Purana, Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta) are unanimous in giving to these nine Nandas a total period of 100 years for their reign.
It will be clear from the accounts in the above various important Puranas, which are practically identical with one another, that the founder of this Dynasty was Mahapadma, well-known otherwise as Dhana Nanda, that he was the son of Mahanandin, the last of the Saisunaga Dynasty, that he was born to that king from a Sudra wife, that he was most avaricious and powerful, that he extirpated the Kshatriya rulers of his time like a second Parasurama, the destroyer of the Kshatriyas in the olden times,Tretaayuga, that he subjugated the different lines of Kings of the Solar and Lunar dynasties who began to rule in the various parts of Northern India from the time of the Mahabharata War commencing from 1 A.Y., corresponding to the coronation of Yudhistira in the year 3138 B. C., that he became a paramount king and Emperor of the whole of India between the Himalaya and the Vindhya mountains, by putting an end to the ancient families of kings, such as Aikshvakus, Panchalas, Kauravyas, Haihayas, Kalakas,Ekalingas, Surasenas, aithilas etc., who ceased to rule as a seperate dynasty ever since that time; that he ruled the kingdom under one umbrella for a period of 88 years; that his 8 sons jointly ruled the kingdom for a short period of 12 years, that these nine Nandas, including the father and his eight sons ruled Magadha altogether for a total period of 100 years from 1504 to l604 A.Y., corresponi ding to 1634 to 1534 B.C., that these Nandas were extirpated by the Brahmin Chanakya, well known as "Kautilya" on account of his crooked and Machiavelian policy, and that he placed his (Mahapadmanda’s) protege Chandragupta, an illeginiate son of Mahapadma Nanda by his Sudra wife ‘Mura' on the throne of his father.
The account given of these nine Nandas in the various puranas is sufficiently corroborated by the various Jain and Buddhistic accounts snch as Jaimini Bharata, Mahavira’s life, Parisishtaparva, Mahavamsa, Dipavamsa and Asokavadana, though, the Buddhistic Mahavamsa dubs the last of these nine Nandas only by the name of Dhana. All these records of the Jains and the Buddhists, though hopelessly muddled and full of contradictory stories, are uniform in extending the duration of the Nanda Dynasty to 155 years. While such is the case, it is really a great pity that Mr. Vincent. A. Smith should have chosen to give these nine Nandas a total period of only 45 years for their reigns, and alas! these European scholars, who accuse the Indians for want of their historical accuracy, should supply the dates for the ancient periods of Indian History purely out of their fertile imaginations and pre—conceived notions.
Thus ends the Nanda Dynasty.

Saisunaga Dynasty- The Third Dynasty of Magadha after the great war.

2009-08-29T10:21:00.007+05:30

(From 1144 to 1504 A.Y.--From 1994 to 1634 B.C.) Total No. of Years 360.

1. Sisunaga........reigned for 40 years,from 1994 to 1954 B.C.
2. Kakavarna...................36............1954....1918
3. Kshsmadharma or
Kshsmavarma....................26............1918...1892
4. Kshemajit...................40............1892...1852
5. Vidhisara or Bimbisara or
Vindhyasena...................38............1852...1814
6. Ajatasatru..................27............1814...1787
7. Darsaka or Vamsaka..........35............1787...1752
8. Udayana or Udasina..........33............1752...1719
9, Nandivardhana or Kakavarma..42............1719...1677
10. Mahanandi..................43............1677...1634

1. Sisunaga (K.R.V., .B.P., and Br.P): Sisunaka (Va.P.,and M.P) or or Sisunabha (Vi.P) is the founder of the Sisunaga Dynasty of the Magadha kings. By conquest Sisunaga (the king of Benaras) succeeded to the throne of Magadha held hitherto by the_Pradyota Dynasty. He reigned for 40 years from 1144 to 1184 A.Y., 1994 to 1954 B.C. He is said to have placed his son as king of Kasi, while he himself reigned at Girivraja or Rajagriha, the capital of Magadha.

2. Kaakavarna or Sakavarna (Va.P), son of sisunaga ruled Magadha for 36 years from 1184 to 1220 A. Y., 1954 to 1918 B. C.

3. Kshemadharman or Kshemavarman (Va. P.): Son of Kakavarna reigned for 26 years from 1220 to 1246 A. Y. 1918 to 1892 B.C. The K.R.V., calls him Kshemakarman and gives him areignof 26 years with which B.P. and one version of M.P. agree. The Va.P., and Br.P., give him only a reign of 20 years. One version of M.P., gives him a reign of 36 years.

4. Kshattrowjas (Vi.P., Br.P., and K.R.V.) or Kshemajit (M,P.) or Kshetrajna (B.P): Son of Kshemadharman reigned for 40 years from 1246 to 1286 A.Y., 1892 to 1852 B.C. The M.P gives him only a reign of 24 years. While all the other Puranas including K.R.V. assign to him 40 years.

5. Vidhisara (Vi.P.,Va.P., Br.P., B.P., and K.R.V) or Vindhyasena (M·P) or Vimbisara (Buddhistic Accounts) Son of Kshattrawjas reigned for 38 years from 1286 to 1324 A.Y., 1852 to 1814 B.C. The M.P.,and one version of Va.P., give him only a reign of 28 years, while all the other authorities give him a reign of 38 years. Further, while the Mahavamsa and the Asokavadana call him Bimbisara, the Parisishta parva of Hemachandra calls him Srenika , and all these Buddhistic and jain authorities are agreed in describing Bimbisara or Srenika as being 5 years junior to Gautama Buddha, who is said to have attained his Nirvana in the 8 th year of the reign of his successor Ajatasathru. These works_also describe Gautama Buddha as having become an ascetic in his 29 th year. Mr. Vincent A. Smith calls him Bimbisara and adds that he built Rajagriha annexed Anga and was a contemporary of Gautama Buddha.

6. Ajatasathru : Son of Vidhisara, reigned for 27 years from 1324 to 1351 A.Y., 1814 to 1787 B.C. While M.P., B,P., and K.R.V., give him a reign of 27 years; Va.P., and Br.P., give him only a reign of 25 years. The Mahavamsa, on the other hand, gives him a reign of 32 years, and his father Bimbisara, a reign of 52 years. . There is evidently some confusion in the order of kings as found in some of the versions of Va.P., and M.P. The order—Ajatasathru, Vidhisara and Kshattrawjas as found in one version of the Va.P., is evidently a mistake for Kshattrawjas, Vidhisara and Ajatasatru, for the reading in the other version is clearly otherwise.

7. Darbhaka, Darsaka (Va·P.) or Arbhaka (Vi.P): Son of Ajatasatru ruled for 35 years from 1351 to 1386 A.Y, 1787 to 1752 B.C. The M.P., calls him Vamsaka and gives him only areign of 24 years. Mr. V.A. smith calls him Karshaka but we are not able to ascertain the source from which he has derived this name.

8. Udayana (Vi.P., K.R.V., and Brihatkatha), Udayin (Va.P. and Br.P ,), Udasin (M P.) Ajaya (Br.P) or Udayasva (one version of Va.P and M.P), Udayi Bhaddaka (M.V.) Udayibhadra—A.A):
Son of Darbhaka reigned for 33 years from 1386 to 1419 A.Y. 1752 to 1719 B.C. The Vayu Purana and other authorities distinctly say that this king Udayana or Udayin built the city of Kusumapura (Pataliputra) in the 4 th year of his reign on the southern bank of the Ganges, with which the accounts given in the Brihatkatha, Kathasaritsagara and Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta entirely agree.
Mr. V. A. Smith ascribs the building of the fort of Pataliputra to the reign of Ajatasatru, the grand father of Udayana or Udaya as he styles him; while all the authorities ascribe the very foundation of the city of Kusumapura (Pataliputra) to Udayana. The story of Ajatasatru having built the fort of Pataliputra, must, like the dates arbitrarily assigned by him to these various kings, be taken cum-grano-salis.

9. Nandivardhana : Son of Udayana ruled for 42 years from 1419 to 1461 A. Y. 1719 to 1677. The M. P., and Br. P., give him only a reign of 40 years. The Buddhistic accounts make a mess of things between Udayana and Nandivardhana, whom they evidently call by the name Kalasoka.

10. Mahanandin: Son of Nandivardhana ruled for 43 years from 1461 to 1504 A.Y., 1677 to 1634 B. C. All the authorities are unanimous in aseribing a reign of 43 years. One vérsion of the Br.P., gives 63 years which is evidently a mistake for 43 years. There is again a good ideal of confusion here in the Buddhistic accounts. We find the names of the following 4 kings, Viz., 1. Sahalin, 2. Tulakuchi, 3. Mahamandala and 4. Prasenajit inserted between Kalasoka and Mahanandin, whom they simply call Nanda. (Vide Asokavadana).
Thus ends the Saisunaga Dynasty, the third dynasty.

Magadha Empire. After the Mahabharata war in 3138 B.C)

2009-08-28T08:01:00.008+05:30

Barhardradha Dynasty continues after Mahabharata War
(22 kings from 3138 B.C. to 2132 B.C. for a total of 1006 years)

The Puranas commence the list of the Barhadradha Dynasty only from Marjari, son of Sahadeva and grandson of Jarasandha, and counts from him 22 kings, as all of them evidently give the dynasties of kings only from the time of the Mahabharata war, from which date our regular history commences.

These Puranas in summing up the total number of years which these 22 kings of Barhardradha Dynasty ruled over Magadha after the Mahabharata war, put it roughly at full 1000 years or over 1000 years, instead of exactly putting it as 1006 years, the actual number of years for which these 22 kings ruled Magadha, as stated in giving the years for which period each of these individual kings reigned.

S.No..Name of the King....Years reigned....B.C. to B.C.
1...... Marjari or Somapi.....58...........3138...3080
2...... Srutasrava............64...........3080...3016
3...... Apratipa or Ayutayu...36...........3016...2980
4...... Niramitra.............40...........2980...2940
5...... Sukrutta or Sukshatro.58...........2940-·-2882
6...... Brihatkarma...........23...........2882...2859
7...... Syenajit..............50...........2859...2809
8...... Srutamjaya............40...........2809...2769
9...... Mahabala or Vibhu.....35...........2769...2734
10..... Suchi.................58...........2734...2676
11..... Kshemya...............28...........2676...2648
12..... Anuvrata or Suvrata...64...........2648...2584
13..... Dharmanetra or Sunetra.35..........2584...2549
14..... Nirvruti..............58...........2549...2491
15..... Suvrata...............38...........2491...2453
16..... Drudhasena. or Mahasena.58.........2453...2395
17..... Sumati or Mahanetra...33...........2395...2362
18..... Suchala or Subala. ...22...........2362...2340
19..... Sunetra...............40...........2340...2300
20..... Satyajit..............83...........2300...2217
21..... Veerajit or Viswajit..35...........2217...2182
22..... Ripumjaya.............50...........2182...2132

Pradyota Dynasty
(The Pradyota Dynasty begins From 1006 to 1144 A, Y. From 2132 to 1994 B. C. (Total Years-- 138) according to a majority of the Puranas.)
Pradyota or Pradyotana(Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta,K.R.V.) or Balaka(Matsya Purana,M.P) is the son of Munika(Vayu Purana and Vishnu Purana) or Sunaka(Brahmanda Purana and Bhavishya Purana) or Pulaka(M.P and K.R.V.), the minister of Ripunjaya, the last king of the Barhadradha Dynasty, whom he treacherously killed. Instead of crowning himself as the king, which was clearly against the wishes of the people, Munika cleverly managed to place his son Pradyota on the throne of Magadha by getting the only daughter of the last king married to him in the year 2132 B.C., 1006 years after the Great war.
According to all the Puranas he is said to have baffled all the Kshatriyas of his time and placed his son Pradyota openly as the Emperor of the whole Northern India, by subjugating the Vitihotras of Avanti as well, whose dynasties there after came to a close.(Vide Va. P., Ch. XC1X.309-314, M. P. Ch. CCLXX, 1-5, Br. P., III,Ch. LXXIV,123- 127, B.P., Skandha XII, Ch. II, 1 to 4, and Vi.P., IV, Ch._ XXIV, 1-8). According to Matsya(M.P.), the first king of this Dynasty is called ‘Baalaka and the Dynasty is called ‘Balaka Dynasty’

1. Pradyota or Balaka....reigned for 23 years from 2132 B.C. to 2109 B.C.
2. Paalaka or Palaaka....reigned for 24 years from 2109 B.C. to 2085 B.C.
3. Visaakhayupa..........reigned for 50 years from 2085 B.C. to 2035 B.C.
4. Janaka( or Suryaka)...reigned for 21 years from 2035 B.C. to 2014 B.C.
5. Nandivardhana.........reigned for 20 years from 2014 B.C. to 1994 B.C.

Royal Dynasties After the Mahabharata War of 3138 B.C.

2009-08-21T07:36:00.006+05:30

Hindu Imperial Royal Dynasties After the Mahabharata War of 3138 B.C.
Megadha kingdom-Puranic Chronology

S.No.	Dynasty	No. of Kings	Years reigned	From–To years B.C.
1	Barhadradha	22	1006	3138-2132
2	Prajyota	5	138	2132-1994
3	Sisunaga	10	360	1994-1634
4	Nanda (9 Nandas reigns 2)	2	100	1634-1534
5	Maurya	12	316	1534-1218
6	Sunga	10	300	1218--918
7	Kanva	4	85	918--833
8	Andhra	32	506	833--327
9	Maha-Gupta (Pataliputra Empire)	7	245	327---82
Ujjain Empire
S.No.	Dynasty	No. of Kings	Years reigned	From–To years A.D.
10	Penwar Dynasty	24	1275	82 B.C.--1193 A.D.
11	Miscellaneous Rulers--Muslims, Andhra kings, Mahrattas, Sikhs,British etc.,at an average reign of 34½ years per king	22 kings	753	1193-1947 A.D.
12	Independent India		8	1947-1955 A.D.

Total...........................5092 years elapsed after Mahabharata war upto 1955 A.D.

The Kings of Magadha - before the Great Mahabharata War

2009-08-19T08:50:00.014+05:30

The following list of Magadha kings is given according to Matsya Purana. As the reigning periods of the earlier Magadha kings (before the Mahabharata war) are not available in any one of the Puranas, the reigning periods of the earlier kings of Nepal are adopted for the Magadha kings as they were contemporary rulers with them.
Before the Great War ---- Barhadradha Dynasty:
From about 1058 before Kali(B.K.) or 1021 B.Y.(Before the coronation of Yudhistira) or 4159 B.C. to 36 B.K.(Before the commencement of Kaliyuga) or 3138 B. C.
( Total 1021 years )
S.No..Name of the king..Before Kali..years reigned..Before Christ
1. Name not known, last
but one king in Kuru’s·.......1058-970...... 88......4159-4071
family
2.,Last king of Kuru’s
Family. Name not..............970-898........72......4071-3999
known
3. Sudhanva I.................898-818........80......3999-3919
4 .Suhotra....................818-725........93......3919-3826
5. Chyavana...................725-687........38......3826-3788
6. Krimi or Kriti.............687-650........37......3788-3751
7. Chaidya or Uparichar-
ravasu or Pratipa.............650-608........42......3751-3709
8. Brihadradha I. (Foun-
der of the Magadha
kingdom with Giri-
vraJa as Capital............608-536........72......3709-3637
9. Kusagra ...................536-466........70......3637-3567
10. Rishabha..................466-396........70......3567-3497
11. Satyahita.................396-336........60......3497-3437
12, Punya or Pushpavanta......336-293........43......3437-3394
13. Satyadhruti...............293-250........43......3394-3351
14. Sudhanva II...............250-207........43......3351-3308
15. Sarvn.....................207-164........43......3308-3265
16. Bnuvana or Sambhava.......164-121........43......3265-3222
17. Jarasandha or Bruhad-
radha II......................121-79.........42......3222-3180
18. Sahadeva...................79-37-36......42......3180-3138-37
After the Mahabharata War, 36 years before Kali or 3138 B.C.
19. Somapi or Somadhi( or Marjari) was crowned as king in Girivraja(capital of Magadha)..36 years Before Kali(B.K.)...reigned from 36 B.K.-to-22 A.K(After Kali) for 58 years, that is from 3138 to 3080 B.C.

Barhadradha Dynasty
1. Barhardradha I :-
According to Maha Bharata, Brihadradha-I, the founder of Barhadradha Dynasty was the eldest son of Uparichara Vasu , the seventh in the descent from the Great Kuru, son of Samvarna, a descendant of the Lunar Dynasty (Chandravamsajah) of kings. He founded the kingdom of Magadha probably about 3709 B.C. or 571 years before the Great war of Mahabharata at Kurukshetra between the Pandavas and the Kauravas, which battle according to Mahabharata, the important Puranas, and all other ancient Hindu, Bauddha and Jaina authorities and traditions, took place. 36 years before the commencement of the Kaliyuga—the present Yuga, which began immediately after the departure of Sri Krishna, son of Vasudeva by Devaki, from this world on the 20th February, 3102 B. C., in the year Pramadhin of the Southern School of Hindu astronomers. (Vide Indian Eras By this author, Kota Venkata Chelam)
Brihadradha married the two beautiful twin daughters of the king of Kasi; and by the blessing of a Rishi, he obtained a most powerful son by name Jarasandha. The king, after installing his mighty son Jarasandha on the throne of Magadha retired into a forest and led an ascetic life. In this context the Mahabharata gave the next prominent dynasty of Jarasandha, leaving some generations of kings in the interval between Brihadradha I and Jarasandha (or Briliadradhal II). - (Vide_Mahabharata, Sabha Parva. Adhyayas 14 to 19).
N.B:- The Matsya Purana enumerates all the names of kings between Brihadradha-I and Jarasandha or Brihadradha-II Jarasandha, son of Bhuvana was the 15 th in descent from Kuru and the tenth from Brihadradha-I, the founder of the Magadha Dynasty of kings. The following table shows the order of descent according to Matsya Purana. (Chapter 59):-
1. Samvarna
2. Kuru (The founder of the Kaurava Dynasty who removed his capital from Prayaga to Kurukshetra.)
3. Sudhanvan, Parikshit, Prajana, Jaghnu or Johnu or Yaju
4. Suhotra.
5. Chyavana
6. Krimi (or Kriti)
7. Chaidya or Uparicharavasu or Pratipa
8. (1) Brihadradha-I thefounder of the Magadha Dynasty.(3709 B.C.)
9. (2) Kusaagra
10. (3) Vrishabha or Rishabha.
11· (4) Pushpavat or Punyavat
12. (5) Pushpa or Punya
13. (6) Satyadhrithi or Satyahita.
14. (7) Sudhnvan II or Dhanusha.
15. (8) Sarva
16. (9) Bhuvana or Sambhava.
I7. (10)Brihadradha II or Jarasandha.
18. (11)Sahadeva (Sahadeva died in the Maha-Bharata War)
According to this account, the commencement of the Barhadradha Dynasty of Magadha kings should be placed at about (571) B.Y.(Before the coronation of Yudhistira) or 3709 B.C.,allowing on an average at least 52 years for each king. i.e., The eleven kings from 8th to 18th King Sahadeva reigned Magadha from 3709 B.C. to 3138 B.C.

Gift Deed of Janamejaya --- An Early Inscription of Kali Era

2009-08-16T09:11:00.010+05:30

According to the Mahabharata (2nd Aswasa of Adiparva) Parikshit ruled for 60 years from the first year of the Kali (3101 B. C.) Era and died stricken by the curse of a Rishi(3041 B. C), when the coronation of Janamejaya his son, took place in Kali 61,(3041 B. C.).
An inscription (plate) of a gift deed by Emperor Janemejaya. (Indian Antiquary P. P. 333-334) runs thus:-This is the first inscription known which used the Jayabhyudaya Yudhistira Saka, which had its origin in Kali first year; (Both thé Eras started in the same cycle year Pramadhi. This gift deed refers to a gift of land for the worship of Sri Sita and Rama on the bank of the Thungabhadra River, by Janamejaya (son of Parikshit) in the 89th year of Jayabhyudaya Yudhistira Saka i. e. Kali 89 i. e. B. C. 3012. The year Plavanga mentioned in the inscription tallies with the 89th year of Kali. Kali Era starts in the year 3102 B. C., the 20th Feb. at 2-27’-30" hours. i.e. in the cycle year of Pramadhi the 1st day of the bright half of the month of Chaitram at 2-27-30 hours. Similar gift by the same Emperor Janamejaya was made on the same day to Sri Goswamy Anandalinga Jangama of Ushamutt through his disciple Jnanalinga Jangama for the worship of God Kedaranath in Kedara Kshetra situated in north Himalaya. The Inscription (plate) of the above gift which is preserved in the mutt even to this day runs thus:
......and so on.
In those times sacrifices were much in vogue and the Aswamedha and Sarpayaga performed by Janamejaya have become famous. Satanika, the eldest of the five sons of Janamejaya succeeded him to the throne. In his time in Naimisaranya the Satrayaga was performed by Saunaka and other Rishis, which is supposed to take one thousand years. The kings of this dynasty ruled till Kali 1468 (or 1634 B.C.), and in their time the vedic religion was patronised and protected. In the several Yagnas performed in those days many animals were sacrificed and the common men were disgusted with the sacrifices of animals. Then in Kali 1215 or 1887 B.C. Buddha was born, to Suddhodna, the 23rd king of the Ikshvaku Royal dynasty of Kosala and preached a new religion in opposition to and in disregard of the Vedas.
There is no prominent event in the history of the Ikshvaku Royal dynasty except for the birth of Buddha in 1887 B.C. In Kali 1468(B.C. 1634) Kshemaka, the last Emperor of the royal dynasty of Hastinapura and Sumitra, the last king of the royal Ikshvaku dynastyof Kosala Kingdom both died childless. So the king of Magadha became Emperor and founder of the Imperial dynasty of Magadha.(Capital of Magadha was 'Girivraja')

Hastinapura Empire

2009-08-16T07:39:00.006+05:30

The Mahabharata war brought into the field all the vassal kings in the country, some fighting on the side of the Kauravas and others on the side of the Pandavas. The Kauravas were completely annihilated. The Victorious Yudhistira became the Emneror. He sent his brothers to the various vassal states and got the sons or the nearest heirs of the dead vassal kings on the throne. Ayodhya and Magadha were the biggest among those states. Brihadbala the king of Ayodhya, who fought on the side of the Kauravas was killed in the war by Abhimanue. After him his son Brihatshana was enthroned. Somadhi or Marjari the son of the Magadha king Sahadeva who was killed in the war was likewise coronated after the death of his father.
List of the Emperors of Hastinapura after the Mahabharata war....3138 to 1604 B. C.
Name of the king .....Date of Coronation
1. Yudhistira.........Before Kali 36......3138 B.C-
2. Perikshit.................. Kali 1...... 3101 B.C.
3. Jenamejaya................ Kali 61......3041 B.C.
4. Satanika
5. Aswamedhadat
6. Adhisima krishna
7. Nichaknu
8. Ushna
9. Chitraradha
10. Suchiradha
11, Vrishnimanta
12. Sushena
13. Suneedha
14. Nrupegakshu
15. Sukhibala
16. Pariplava
17. Sunaya
18. Medhavi
19. Ripunjaya
20. Urva
21. Thigma
22, Bruhadradha
23. Kasudana
24, Sataneeka II
25. Udayana_
26. Kihinara
27. Dandapani
28, Niramitra
29. Kshemaka
.....................................Kali 1468...... 1634 B.C.
These Emperors reigned for 1504 years from the Mahabharata War (3138 B C ) and the dynasty ends with the 29th king Khemaka in Kali 1468 or 1634 B.C.

Historial Literature of India

2009-08-15T04:52:00.010+05:30

1. A.Stein writes in his introduction to Rajatarangini Westminister edition Vol. I. P. 3:-- "It has often been said of the india of the_Hindus that it possessed no history. The remark is true if we apply it to history as a science and art, such as classical culture in its noblest prose-works has bequeathed it to us. But it is manifestly wrong if by history is meant either historical development or the materials for studying it. India has never known, amongst its Sastras, the study of history such as Greece and Rome cultivated or as modern Europe understands it. Yet the materials for such study are equally at our disposal in India. They are contained not only in such original sources of information as Inscriptions, Coins and Antiquarian remains, generally, advancing research has also proved that written records of events or of traditions concerning them have by no means been wanting in ancient India."
2. H. Wilson in his admirable introduction to his translation of the Visnu Purana, while dealing with the contents of the Third book observes that a very large portion of the contents of the Itihasas and Puranas is genuine and old and writes:-
"The arrangement of the Vedas and other writings considered by the Hindus--being, in fact, the authorities of their religious rites and beliefs--which is described in the beginning of the Third Book, is of much importance to the history of the Hindu Literature and of the Hindu religion. The sage Vyasa is here represented not as the author but the arranger or the compiler of the Vedas, the Itihasas and the Puranas. His name denotes his character meaning the ‘arranger’ or ‘distributor’; and the recurrence of many Vyasas, many individuals who remodelled the Hindu scriptures, has nothing in it, that is improbable. except the fabulous intervals by which the if labours are separated. The rearranging, the re-fashioning, of old materials is nothing more than the progress of time would be likely to render necessary. The last recognised compilation is that of Krishna Dvaipayana, assisted by Brahmans, who were already conversant with the subjects respectively assigned to them. They were the members of the college or school supposed by the Hindus to have flourished in a period more remote, no doubt, than the truth, but not at all unlikely to have been instituted at some time prior to the accounts of I ndia which we owe to Greek writers and in which we see enough of the system to justify our inferring that it w as then entire. That there have been other Vyasas and other schools since that date, that Brahmsns unknown to fame have remodelled some of the Hindu scriptures, and especially the Puranas, cannot reasonably be counted, after dispassionately weighing the strong internal evidence, which all of them afford, of their intermixture of unauthorized and comparatively modern ingredients. But the same internal testimony furnishes proof equally decisive, of the anterior existence of aneient meterials; and it is, therefore, as idle as it is irrational, to dispute the antiquity or the authenticity of the contents of the Puranas, in the face of abundant positive and circumstantial evidence of the prevalence of the doctrines, which they teach, the currency of the legends which they narrate, and the integrity of the institutions which they describe at least three centuries before the Christian Era. But the origin and development of their doctrines, traditions and institutions were not the work of a day; and the testimony that establislies their existence three centuries before Christianity, carries it back to a much more remote antiquity, to an antiquity, that is, probably, not surpassed by any of the prevailing fictions, institutions or beliefs of the ancient world." (Willson’s Vishnu Purana, London Ed. P.P.LXII and LXIII.)
Again in dealing with the contents of the Fourth Amsa of the Visnu Purana, the Professor remarks:-
‘The Fourth Book contains all that the Hindus have of their ancient History. It is a tolerably comprehensive list Of dynasties and individuals; it is a barren record of events. It can scarcely be doubted, however, that much of it is a genuine chronicle of persons, if not of occurrences. That it is discredited by palpable absurdities in regard to the longevity of the princes of the earlier dynasties, must be granted; and the particula rs preserved of some of them are trivial and fabulous. Still there is an artificial simplicity and consistency in the succession of persons, and a possibility and probability in some of the transactions, which give to these traditions the semblance of authenticity, and render it likely that these are not altogether without foundation. At any rate,in the absence of all other sources of information the record, such as it is, deserves not to be altogether set aside. It is not essential to its celebrity or its usefulness, that any exact chronological adjustment of the different reigns should be attempted. Their distribution amongst the several Yugas, undertaken by Sir William Jones, or his Pandits, finds no countenance from the original texts, rather than an identical notice of the age in which a particular monarch ruled or the general fact that the dynasties prior to Krishna precede the time of the Great War and the beginning of the Kali Age, both which events are placed five thousand years ago.......This, may or may not, be too remote but it is sufficient, in a subject where precision is impossible, to be satisfied with the general impression, that, in the dynasties of Kings detailed in Puranas, we have a record, which, although it cannot fail to have suffered detriment from age, and may have been injured by careless or injudicious compilation, preserves an account not wholly undeserving of confidence, of the establishment and succession of regular monarchies, amongst the Hindus, from as early an era and for as continuous a duration, as any in the credible annals of mankind. (Do. Book LXIV, LXV)
And lastly, in discussing the general nature of the Puranas , and of their values as hishorical records, he_says:-
"After the date of the Great War, the Vishnu Purana, in common with other Puranas, which contain similar lists, specifies Kings and Dynasties with greater precision; and offers political and chronological particulars to which, on the score of probability there is nothing to obiect. In truth, their general accuracy has been incontrovertibly established. Inscriptions on columns of stone, on rocks, on coins deciphered only of late years through the extraordinary ingenuity and perseverence of Mr. James Princep, have verified the names of races and titles of princes - the Gupta and the Andhra Rajas mentioned in the Puranas." (Wilson’s Vishnu Purana Page LXX.)
3. In his Rajasthan. Col. Tod says :- "Those who expect from a people like the Hindus a species of composition of precisely the same character as the historical works of Greece and Rome, commit the very egregious error of overlooking the peculiarities which distinguish the natives of india from all other races, and which strongly discriminate their intellectual productions of every kind from those of the West. Their philosophy, their poetry, their architecture are marked with traits of originality; and the same may be expected to pervade their history, which, like the arts enumerated, took a character from its intimate association with the religion of the pe0ple."
"ln the absence of regular and legitimate historical records there are, however, other native works, (they may, indeed, be said to abound) which in the hands of a skilful and patient investigator, would afford no despicable materials for the histOry of India. The first of these are the Puranas and geneological legends, of the princes which, obscured as they are by the mythological details, allegory, and improbable circumstances, contain, many facts that serve as beacons to direct, the research of the historian."
"Another species of historical records is found in the accounts given by the Brahmins of the endowments of the temples their dilapidation and repairs which furnish occasions for the introduction of historical and chronological details In the legends respecting places of pilgrimage and religious resort, profane events are blended with superstitious rites and ordinances local ceremonies and customs. The controversies of the Jains furnish, also, much historical information, especially with reference to Guzerat and Nehrwala during the Chaulac Dynasty. From a close and attentive examination of the Jain records, which embody all that those ancient sectarians knew of science, many chasms in Hindu history might be filled up."
"Every MATHA or religious college of any importance preserves the succession of its heads. Among the Jains, we have the PATTAVALIS or successions of pontiffs, for a full and lucid notice of some of which we are indebted to Dr. Hoernle: they purport to run back to even the death of the last TIRTHAMKARA Vardhamana-Mahavira."(528 B. C.)
"The preservation of pedigrees and successions have evidently been a national characteristic for very many centuries. And we cannot doubt that considerable attention was paid to the matter in connection with the royal families and that Vamsavalis or Rajavalis, lists of the lineal successions of kings, were compiled and kept from very early times. We distinctly recognise the use of such VAMSAVALIS, giving the relationships and successions of kings, but no chronological details beyond the record of the total duration of each reign with occasionally a coronation date recorded in an era, in the copper-plate records. We trace them, for instance in the introductory passages, of the grants of the Eastern Chalukya Series ( See SII, I 35; EI, V. 131) which from the period A.D. 918 to 925 onwards, name the successive kings beginning with the founder of the line, who reigned three centuries before that time, but do not put forward more than the length of the reign of each of them; and, from certain differences in the figures for some of the reigns, we recognise that there were varying versions of those VAMSAVALIS. We trace the use of the VAMSAVALIS again in the similar records of the, Eastern Gangas of Kalinga, which, from A.D. 1058 onwards (EI, IV, 183), give the same deta ils about the kings of that line with effect from about A.D. 99O and one of which, issued A.D. 1296 ( JASB, L XV 229), includes a coronation date of A.D. 1141 or 1142. There has been brought to light from Nepal a long Vamsavali (by Pandit Bhagavan Lal Indraji P.H.D. Hon. and M.R.A.S.) which purports to give an_unbroken list of the rulers of that country, with the lengths of their reigns and an occasional landmark in the shape of the date of an accession stated in an era, back from A.D. 1768 to even so fabulous an antiquity as six or seven centuries before the commencement of the Kali age in B.C. 31Q2."
(Quoted By M. Krishnamachariar in his History of Classical Sanskrit Literature, Introduction 38 ff.)
4. In his Rajatarangini KALHANA mentions certain previous writers.—"Suvrata, whose work, he says, was made difficult by misplaced learning; Kshemendra who drew up a list of kings, of which, however, he says, no part is free from mistakes; Nilamuni, who wrote the NILAMATAPURANA, Helaraja, who composed a list of kings in twelve thousand verses; and Srimihira or Padmamihira and the author SRI CHCHAVILLAKARA. His own work, he tells us, was based on eleven collections of RAJAKATHAS or stories about kings and on the work of Nilamuni.
"Tamrasasana, or ‘Copper chapters‘ consist sometimes of a single plate but mare usua11y of_severa1 plates strung together on a large signet—ring_ which bears generally the seal of the authority who issued the particular chapter. The stone records usually describe themselves by the name of Silasasana or ‘Stone-chapters', Sila-lekha or 'Stone-writings',or Prasasti or "Eulogies'. They are found on rocks, on religious columns such as those which bear some of the edicts( insription recording grants, chiefly of grants and allowances engrossed on copper plates) of Priyadasi and others which were set up in front of temples as "flagstaffs" of the Gods; on battle-columns of victory such as the two at Mandasor, on the walls and beams, sand pillars of caves and temples, on the pedestals of images, and on slabs built into the walls of temples or set up in the courtyards of temples or in conspicuous places in village sites or fields. And they are often accompanied by sculptures which give the seal of authority issuing the. record, or mark its sectarian nature, or illustrate some scene referred to in it.
_ "The Chronolgy of Classical Sanskrit Literature starts with Mahabharata war and Kaliyuga. Kaliyuga commenced on 20th February 3102 B.C., just on the day on which Sri Krishna departed to his divine abode. The Kuru-pandava war was fought 37 years before kali, that is in 3139 B.C. Onwards from the commencement of Kaliyuga, Puranas contain accounts of various kingdoms that flourished from time to time and successive dynasties that ruled and fell during the course of about 35 centuries. To an impartial observer the tenor of these accounts warrants their accuracy and to the mind of the Hindu-- the Hindus of those bygone ages when scepticism had not called tradition superstition—-life here is evanescent and life’s endeavour must be the attainment of beatitude eternal. Ancient sages (Rishis perceived the divine hymns of the Vedas and passed them on for the edification of posterity. Since the advent of Kali, a prospective crop of vice and folly was predicted and to wean the erring world from such sin and misery, Vyasa formulated Puranas with the object of Vedopabrhana, that is, supplemented the exposition of Vedic teachings, and that in the garb of a language and narrative that would be easily assimilated by the masses. To such philosophical minds, the rise and fall of kings and kingdoms was not worth remembrance, save as another realistic means of illustrating the tenets of philosophy, e.g., the truth of the divine essence, Brahman, the unreality at sensual pleasures, the liberation of individual soul and the attainment of eternity in beatitude or oneness with the Spirit Divine and above all the inevitable occurrence of God’s mandates shortly termed Destiny or otherwise called Kaala or Niyati.
If this is the object of Puranic literature, it is a sacrilege to charge the author or authors of them, whoever it was, with having fabricated scriptural testimony for attributing an antiquity to Indian literature and Indian civilization, which it did not possess; for even if they had been, as many orientaists have said, made up late after the Christian era, the authors would not have anticipated this method of political history of the 18th and 19th centuries A. D. The Puranic lists of dynasties of kings and kingdoms furnish details of dates to an extent that even in days of historical records may be surprising, for they mention even months and days in their computation. Whatever those ancient authors did or wrote, they did it with sincerity and accuracy, ‘truth’ being the basis of accuracy. Our educational institutions are saturated with the teachings of modern scholars on the untruth of these Puranic accounts, but it is still hoped that time will come when truth will triumph and display a real orientation of ancient Indian History.
(P. P. XXXVIII — XLIV History of Classical Sanskrit Lit. By_M,· Krishnnmachariar) (38 to -44 pages)
( F, E. Pargiter has given an admirable summary of Early Indian Traditional History, as recorded in Puranas in JRAS (1914) 267 et seq.) _

Asoka’s time from the Puranas

2009-08-09T04:07:00.006+05:30

The Mahabharata War........... 3138 B.C.
The Reign of the Barhadrathas. 1006 years
.............................._________
...............................2132 B.C.
The Reign of Pradyotas......... 138 years
...............................________
.............................. 1994
The Reign of Sisunegas........ 360 years
...............................______
...............................1634
The Reign of Nandas............100 years
...............................______
The coronation of Chandragupta}1534 B.C.
Maurya........................}
Chandragupta's reign.. 34 years.
Bindusara’s reign .....28 years
total..................62 years.. 62
...............................________
Asoka’s ooronationn.............1472 B.C.
Asoka’s reign 1472 -1436 B.C......36 years, that is in the 15th century B.C.
Asoka’s inscriptions therefore belong to the 15th century B.C. At that time there were no Greek states in the region of modern Greece and the Greeks as a people were unknown. The Greeks were not Yavanas, the Yevanas were not Greeks. The Greeks of modern history of the 3rd century B.C. should properly be called Iono-Greeks, being a race of mixed descent from the Ionian settlers and the conquering Greek tribes from the north. Their names were also Iono-Greek (mixed) names.
The Yona names of.........................|| The Iono-Greek names with, which
Asoka"s inscriptions......................|| they have been indentified.
Amtiyoka.................................... Antiyo¢hus-Theos II of Syria
Tulamaya.................................... Ptolemy Philadelphos of Egypt
Amtikine.................................... Antigonos Gonatus
Maka........................................ Magas
Alikya Sudale............................... Alexander (Of Epirus)
In the names of the Greek kings identified with Yona Prakrit names of the Asokan inscriptions there is a samilarity only in the beginning but the rest is all a Greek name. There is no clear justification for the identification. Moreover these kingdoms are nowhere near the frontiers of Bharat or Asoka’s empire. Syria is at a distance of 1750 miles from the North-western Frontier-- beyond Ramatha, Hara, Huna, Sakasthan, Iran, iraq which intervene. Egypt is at a distance of 2400 miles, beyond Iran, Iraq, and the Red Sea.
Macedonia--nearly 3000 miles away, (ie about 6OQ yojanas only) to the Yavana kingdoms mentioned in the inscriptions are described as states beyond the borders of Asoka’s empire. If we take the boundary of his empire to have extended up to Taxila,on the north-west, the Bharatiya Yavana kingdoms of Abhisara, Uraga, Simhapura, Divyakataka, Uttara-jyothisha, the five Yavana states would be on the frontiers (North and North-west of Asoka’s empire. But it is absurd to argue that ‘Cyrene’, the Greek colony in Africa, which lay thousands of miles away from the frontiers of India, was a border State of "Asokan Empire. ‘Cyrene’ lay to the west of Lybia, a non-Greek territory, and it could never have been described as a border state of Asoka’s kingdom. Frontier states of adjacent countries should be touching the frontier borderline. In this sense Egypt, Syria and Macedonia and other Greek states of the 3rd century B.C., cannot have been the Frontier states of the supposed Asoka’s empire of the 3rd century B.C.
Only if we identify the Bharatiya Yavana. states of the 15th century B.C., (i.e modern Afganistan), as the frontier states of the inscriptions, the length of the entire range of Buddhist-religious influence on the north of Asoka's empire mentioned in the inscriptions will work out--from modern Afghanistan to the east coast of China -- nearly 800 yojanas as mentioned in Asoka’s inscriptions.
So "Amtioka" was a Bheratiya Yavana prince not an Iono-Greek or Greek Prince. He was the contemporary of Asoka. His age was from I472-36 B.C.. The "Yavana" of Northwest Bharat became Ionian in Asia minor and Greece and mixing with the Greek the Ionian became Iono-Greek and then by order of the Government of Ionia or Greece the Iono-Greek became “Greek" and the Country "Greece.°’

Age of Amtiyoka

2009-08-04T06:58:00.007+05:30

Question II of Dr, Sirkar:- About the age of ‘Amtiyoka’, the Yavanah monarch mentioned in the edicts of Asoka.
The above mentioned ‘Amtiyoka’ belonged to a branch of Bharatitya Yavana Kshatriyas. He was the ruler of ‘Simhapura’ one of the five Yavana kingdoms 1. Abhisara. 2, Uraga 3. Simhapura 4. Divyakataka 5. Uttarajyotisha. The other four rulers were subordinate to him. These five kingdoms were all beyond the borders of Asoka’s empire on the North-west and a group stretching in sequence from west to northeast. Now we find them included 1. in Kashmir, 2. in the North- west Frontier Province and 3, 4. 5, in Afghanistan. They were very small kingdoms. The people of these regions were Yavana Kshatriyas and martial people who lived on their arms i.e. served as mercenary soldiers under any ruler who paid them. Their women were very beautiful and they were employed as body-guards in the royal (harems) households of several Indian princes.
These mercenary soldiers were very loyal to the masters under whom they served and sacrifized their lives if necessary for the safety of their masters. They were Kshatriyas of Solar descent. But they were excommunicated from the Aryan Kshatriya fold on account of their disregarding and discarding the Vedic rituals and observances.(Manu 10-43, 45) They were regarded as Mlechchas. When they could not secure employment under wealthy masters who could maintain them, they used to live upon theft and banditry, raiding peaceful villages and carrying away loot to their mountain regions, They were cruel, indulging in violence, theft, and abducting women. Their homelands were rocky regions, infertile and unsuitable for cultivation. Later in the 12th century AD. they were converted to Islam. Even in very recent times, so late as 1948 A.D. it was the people of these regions that invaded Kashmir and looted the villages on the border.
The kingdoms surrounding the Yavana states were:—
On the East —- Kashmir and Gandhara,
On the South -- Gandhara,
On the West -- Ramatha, Amara Parvata, Hara, Huna.
Of these Ramatha was inhabited by a Kshatriya race known as Ramathas or Romakas or Rummas, Amara—Parvata by another Kshatriya sub-sect known as Barbaras, Hara by Haras (or Hurs) and Huna by Hunas, all kshatriyas. In course of time these Bharatiya Yavana kshtriyas, as they increased in numbers migrated further west and established their colonies there. Rome was such a colony of the Ramathas or Romakas. The Barbaras colonised in the North and East of Africa now called the Barbary States. The Hurs settled down in the North-West-Frontier-States and became Muhammadans and in Rajastan etc., they are now found among Hindus. The Hunas first settled down in Central Asia, but later as they became too numerous spread and came to the west, raiding countries in central Asia and India, sometimes in Europe also and settled down in various countries in Asia and Europe and established many kingdoms of their own mixing with the natives of those regions and evolving into the several nations of Europe of modern times.
Modern Europe might as well be termed a composite Huna kingdom.
"That the Europeans became in time many races and tribes and that they, mixing with the barbarians became themselves savages have been clearly proved by the researches of the European scholars themselves." (Vide Kallar’s "The Lake Dwellers" and Taylor’s "The origin of the Aryans.")
On the North:—1. Saka or Sakasthan (modern Drangiana comprising the river valley region at the bend of the river Helmond. 2. Aryanaka(Aria)-Capital Herat. 3. North Bahlika. Capital Balkh 4. Darada (or Daradastan)
The above four were to the north of the Yavana kingdoms; towards the west of the Yavana kingdoms were located in order- Ramatha, Hara, Huna, Sakasthana, then Iran, then Iraq and Syria and beyond the Red Sea and Suez, Egypt to the North-west.
The Yavana kingdoms mentioned in Asoka’s edicts were comprised in Modern Afghanistan 1. in the eastern part of it, stretching from South to North-east up to Kashmir. The kingdoms of Saka, Bahlika and Darada, to the north of the Yavana kingdoms were in those days independent states. So the names of the states or the people of the states who were also other branches of Kshatriyas, the Sakas, Bahlikas and Daradas just like the Yavana Kshatriyas, have not been mentioned in the Inscriptions of Asoka. So we have to infer that Asoka’s empire extended only upto "Taxila" on the North-west and the influence of his religious zeal and humanitarian activities extended to the Yavana, Gandhara and Kambhoja states on the border of his empire (mentioned in the inscriptions). Even Kashmir is nowhere mentioned in his inscriptions. So Kashmir must have been an independent state of Bharat beyond the frontiers of his empire. To the west and to the north of modern Afghanistan existed in his time the states of Ramatha, Hara, Huna, and Saka, North Bahlika and Darada. These are nowhere mentioned in the inscriptions and no inscriptions (Edicts) of his have been discovered in those regions. Only the Yavana, Kambhoja and Gandhara states have been mentioned as the states beyond the frontiers of his empire on the north-west and so it is clear his empire extended to the east of these Bharatiya mlechcha states. The Yavana prince across the border of his empire ‘Amtiyoka’ mentioned in his inscriptions could be only one of the princes of the Bhratiya Yavana Kshatriya states viz. "Simhapura." The other four princes mentioned along with him in the inscriptions should be identified as the rulers of the other four Yavana states 1. Abhisara 2. Urasa 3, Divya Kataka and 4. Uttarajyotisha (Bharatiya Yavana states). From the western region of modern Afghanistan (comprising in those days these five Bharatiya Yavana states) to the eastern end of China the distance is 800 yojanas as mentioned in the inscriptions, and throughout this region touching on the western and northern borders of Bharat Buddhism was propagated, to the north of northern Latitude 30°, from the meridian of 62° east to the meridian of 120° east the distance works out to 58° x 69 (1 degree = 69 mi1es) = 4002 miles = 800 yojanas (1 Jyotisha Yojana being equal to about 5 English miles) the distance mentioned in the inscriptions of Asoka.
"By the 3rd century B.C., the Greeks had established their empire and Greek kings were ruling in Egypt. Syria_ etc. There were historians among them who wrote long and regular histories of Egypt, Syria and Macedon etc., who carefully mentioned in them even the most trifling details of any interest. Nowhere in those histories do we find any mention of Asoka of Bharat or of any religious or humanitarian missionaries sent to their countries or of any institutions for the medical treatment of men and animals established by him or his missionaries in their countries. All the above facts prove that the contemporary of Alexander was Gupta Chandra Gupta (327 B.C.) and not Chandragupta Maurya (1534 B.C.)” (Vide The Plot in Indian Chronology. p. 7, by this Author.) Of the Yona provinces (mentioned in the inscriptions of Asoka) Dr. Bhandarkar says in his ‘Asoka’ p. :29:- They formed part of Asoka’s Empire and had therefore nothing to do with the dominions of his neighbours. There was a Greek colony of the pre-Alexandrian period on the north-western confines of India and it was established between the rivers Kophen and the Indus."
Prof, Rhys Davids, the Pali scholar, expresses the opinion that "The story of the spread of Buddhism in Asoka’s time is better preserved in the Simhalese chronicles than in his edicts, They make no mention of any such missions to the Greek kingdoms of the west". (Quoted by Dr. Bhandarkar in his ‘Asoka, p. 158.)’
Dr. Bhandarkar further explains Rhys Davids thus:- In other words what Prof. Rhys Davids means is "that Buddhism could not have extended to the Greek dominions of western Asia— and as the Simhalese chronicles speak of the Buddhist faith being preached in Asoka’s time only in the bordering regions of India, that must be accepted as more probeable and more accurate”. (Vide Bhandarkar’s ‘Asoka’ p, 159)

It is a fact. that Buddhism was preached and prevails even today in all the kingdoms of Central Asia between Afghanistan. and China, including Sugadha, Kucha, Kusthana or Khotan, Sinkiang, Tibet, Mongolia, Manchuria, Korea and China, a length of roughly 800 yojanas.
"Megasthenes, in his account of India has not said a word about Buddha or his system". (Buddhist India By Rhys Davids, p. 178)
"The Greeks do not mention Asoka" (ibid. p. 181)
It is plausible to infer that the region of Asoka's missionary work beyond the northern frontiers of his empire extended from Afghanistan in the west to the eastern borders of China. Buddhism prevailed in those regions for a long time and prevails even now to a considerable extent. But there is no trace of the prevalence of Buddhism at any time in Syria, Egypt or Macedonia etc. The states to which missionaries were sent in the time of Asoka, for propagating the religion, are mentioned in the "Mahavamsa", a Buddhist treatise.
"When the Thera, Moggali-putra. the illuminator of the religion of the conqueror, had brought the 3rd council to an end, and when, looking into the future, he had beheld the founding of the religion in the adjacent countries, then in the month of Karthika he sent forth "Theras’ one here and one there. The Thera Majjhamtika he sent to Kashmira and Gandhara, the There Matadeva he sent to Mahisha-mandala(west of Magadha). To Vanavasa he sent the Thera named ‘Rakkita"' and to Aparamtika the Yona named ‘Maha Dhamma Rakkita', but ‘Thera Maharakkita’ he sent into the country of the Yona. He sent the ‘Thera Majjhima' to the Himalaya country, (i.e. Northern border) and to Savana Bhumi (Karna Suvarna in Burma) he sent the two Theras Sona and Uttara. The great Thera Mahinda, the Theras Itthiya, Uttiya. Sambala, and Boddhasala, his disciples, these five Theras he sent forth with the charge "Ye shall found in the loveiy island of Lanka the lovely religion of the conqueror. (Vide the Mahavamsa, chapter XII, p. 82) As stated in the above passage of Mahavamsa the adjacent countries of Asoka’s empire were the following:- (1) Kashmira (2) Gandhara (3) Mahishamandala (4) Vanavasa (5) Aparantika (il Yona country means (Abhisara, Ursa, Simhapura. Divya Kataka, Uttarajyotisha) (7) Himalayan country (i.e. Nepal etc.) These seven kingdoms were independent kingdoms. Tney were not included in the empire of Asoka. They were adjacent and neighbouring countries touching and contiguous to the north-western and northern borders of Asoka’s empire. It is wrong to identify them with the Greek kingdoms of Western Asia, Eastern Europe and Egypt. The 3rd council was held in the time of Asoka and the states mentioned in Mahavamsa in the passage quoted above were all adjacent to the northern border to the empire of Asoka. The coronation of Asoka took place 335 years after the demise of the Buddha in 1807 B C. ie. in 1472 B.C. The States to which Moggaliputra Bhikshu sent missionaries for the propagation of Buddhism include LankaYona, Kashmir, Gandhara and the north Himalayan states, Sugadha, Kucha, Kustana, Sinkiang, Tibet, Mangolia, China etc. The other states mentioned are all within Western Bharat. Ramatha, Hara, Huna, Saka, Bahlika, and Darada were all to the West and North of the Yona states and modern Afghanistan. These states are nowhere mentioned in the inscriptions of Asoka or the Mahavamsa as states to which any missionaries were sent, Yona is mentioned immediately after Kashmir and Gandhara. There is no mention anywhere of Egypt, Syria or Macedonia etc. Moreover the word ‘Greek’ is not found any where in the inscriptions of Asoka or Buddhistic religions treatises or any Hindu Purana or Sanskrit literary work.
In this connection Prof. Rhys Davids (the Pali scholar) in his "Buddhist India" page 196, 197 writes:-
"Now when Cunningham opened the Topes (brick burial mounds) at and near Sanchi he discovered under them several of the funeral urns containing ashes from the funeral pyres of the distinguished persons in whose honour the Topes had been built. One of the urns has inscribed round the outside of it, in letters of the 3rd Century B.C., the simple legend: "Of the good man, Kassapa-gotta, the teacher of all the Himalaya region". Round the inside of the urn is the legend: "Of the good man Majjhima". In another Tope close by at Sonari two urns bear the separate inscriptions "Of the good man, Kassapa-gotta, son of Koti, teacher of all the Himalaya region." and: ‘ Of the good man Majjhima, the son of Kodini'. In the same Tope was a third urn with the inscription: "Of the good man Gotiputta, of the Himalaya, successor of Dundubhissara."
"I see no better explanation than the very simple one that these men really went as missionary teachers to the Himalaya region, and that the fact that they had done so was handed down in unbroken tradition, till the Chroniclers put it down for us. They make no mention of any such missions to the Greek kingdoms in the distant West." (Vide ‘Buddhist India, By Rhys Davids pp ,196, 197.)
"It is difficult to judge of Asoka’s claim that his Dhamma was followed by the peoples of the kingdoms mentioned by him. Greece knew nothing about Buddhism previous to the rise of Alexandria in the Christian Era. Buddha is first mentioned by Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150 -218). Centuries later Alberuni observed that ‘in former times, Khorasan, Persia, Iraq. Mosul and the country up to the frontier of Syria was Buddhisticc'. (Sachau, Alberuni's India p. 21.). That Indian culture spread to these regions during this period can hardly be doubted, but its extent cannot be, estimated till more positive evidence is available? (Vide Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan’s History Vol. II, page 616)
"We have evidence to show that Buddhism, and along with it Indian culture, was spread among the Parthians, the Yuch-chi, the Sogdians and various other peoples of central Asia before the beginning of the Christian Era. Even the Sassanians of the third century A.D. regarded Bactriana as virtually an Indian country and the Oxus, a river of Buddhists and the Brahmanas. The Greek writers always cite Bactriana with India and state that thousands of Brahmanas and Samanas(Buddhist monks) resided there. The recent explorations in Chineoe Turkestan have revealed the existence of a large number of flourishing cities with rich sanctuaries, and introduced us to a new world of Indian Culture which calls for a more detailed study"
"The Tarim basin, to which all the three routes led, is popularly known as Chinese Turkestan, and corresponds to the modern province of Sinkiang. This region lies immediately to the west of China.
“It was subsequently a meeting ground of diverse peoples and cultures, such as Indians, Persians, Turks, Chinese, Tibetans. Buddhists, Jews. Christians and Manichaeans. Two roads passing along its northern and southern fringes led from the west of China. Kashgar, on the western border. may be regarded as the starting point of both these routes which met on the Chinese frontier in east at a place called Yu-men-kuan or the Jade Gate, not far from the hills of Tunhwang which contain the caves ofthe thousand Buddhas."
"Along the southern route there were Indian colonies at Shule or Sailadesa (Kashgar), So-Khiu or Chokkuka (Yarkand), Khotamna(Khotan), and also at Domoko,Niya. Dandan-Oilik, Endere, Lou-lan, Rawak and Miran; and along the northern route at Po-lu-kia or Bharuka (Aqsu district, near Uch-Turfan). Kuchi (modern Kucha), Yen-ki (or Yen·chi) or Agni-desa (modern Qara-Shahr), and Turfan, in addition to various other localities. Future Explorations would no doubt considerably add to this number.
"Buddhism was the prevailing religion in all these localities. This is proved not only by the discovery of images and the remains of Buddhist stupas, Shrines and Viharas built after Indian models, but also by a large number of Buddhist texts, written in Sanskrit and Prakrit as well as in local languages of Central Asia, and in Indian scripts, both Brahmi and Kharoshthi. Large numbers of secular documents have also been discovered. These are written in Indian languages and scripts on wodden tablets, leather, paper and silk. (Vide Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan’s History Vol II, page 638.)
"Khotan was very important centre of Buddhism. Its famous monastery, Gomati-Vihara, was one of the biggest institutions of Buddhist learning in Central Asia. A number of able Indian scholars lived there, and many Chiense pil- grims, instead of coming to India for special instruction (Bagchi, India and China. pp. 14-15)
"There were other Indian colonies on the southern route like Khotan but, beyond archaeological remains. we have no historical information about any of them.
"On the northern route, Kuchi (modern Kucha) was the leading centre of Indian culture. (Cf. S. Levi’s account of Kucha in JRAS, 1914. pp. 959 ff.) Its ancient rulers bore Indian names such as Suvarnapushpa. Haripushpa, Haradeva. Suvarnadeva, etc.. It was a flourishing city with anumber of large Buddhist monasteries and splendid buildings. Kuchi had received Buddhism from India at a very early period and the whole of the local civilization was Buddhist. The lite- rature discovered at Kochi throws interesting light on the method of studying Sanskrit, the sacred language taught in the local monasteries. The students began with learning the alphabet. and many alphabetical tables have been dug out traced by more or less skilled hands."
"Sanskrit grammar was then studied according to the Katantra system, presumable because it was more fitted than Panini for non·Indians. Then the students made verbatim translations from Sanskrit into Kuchean. In addition to famous religious texts like Udanavarga, we have actual examples of astronomical and medical texts treated in this manner. This incidentally shows how, in addition to religion and its handmaid art, Indian astronomy, or rather astrology, and medi- cine were spread in this region. There was an extensive Kuchean literature, but all the works are based upon Sanskrit originals. At Ming-Oi, west of Kuchi, Brahmi fragments in Sanskrit have been found which belong to the second century A.D., (CII,II. Part 1,, p. Lxxiii). Kochi was also an important centre for the propaganda of Buddhism in other countries."
"Beyond Kuchi, ‘Qara Shahr’ was also an important Indian colony. It was known as Agnidesa and its kings had Indian names like Indrarjuna. Chandrarjuna, etc. Like Kuchi it also played an active part in the spread of Buddhism to China and other countries. Another important site is Bazaklik. It was an important Buddhist centre with hundreds of temples which had wall-paintings of Indian monks in yellow robes with names written in Brahmi to distinguish them from other monks in violet robes, with names written in Chinese and Tibetan"
"It is not possible here to refer in detail to all ancient Sites which were colonised by the Indians and the antiquities discovered in them. Taken as a whole, the artistic remains architecture, sculpture and painting and the large number of written texts, discovered in Central Asia, constitute a massive and most enduring monument of Indian culture and civili- zation which must have been widely spread all over the region in the early centuries of the Christian Era. Although Buddhism was the prevailing religion, Brahmanical culture was not altogether absent. This is proved by the seals with effigies of Kubera and Trimukha, discovered at Niya, and the painted Ganesha at Endere. Both Hinayana and Mahayana forms of Buddhism were prevalent, but by far the largest number of paintings and sculptures belong to the latter." (Ibid pp. 641-642)
"According to Chinese tradition, Buddhist missionaries from India proceeded to China as early as 217 B.C., but this can hardly be accepted as historical. According to another account, a Chinese general, who led a military expedition to Central Asia in 121 B.C, brought a golden statue of the Buddha, and thus the Chinese first came to know of Buddhism. This is also very doubtful. It is, however, definitely known that in the year 2 B.C., the Yueh—chi rulers in Oxus valley presented some Buddhist texts to the Chinese count." (ibid page 645)
"The official account of the intrcduction of Buddhism into China places the event in A.D. 65. In that year the Han emperor Ming-ti saw a golden man in a dream and was told by his courtiers that it was the Buddha. He accordingly send ambassadors to the west, who brought with them two Indian monks named Dharmaratna (Bagchi (op. cit) gives the name Dharmaraksha on pp. 7 and 32 and Dhar· maratna on p. 217. The last is also given in Le Canon Bouddhiqueen China, p. 4) and Kasyapa Matanga. These missionaries brought a load of sacred texts and relics on a white horse. Hence the monastery built for them by Imperial order at the captial city was called “The White Horse Monastery". The two monks spent the rest of their lives in China, translating Buddhist texts into Chinese and preaching Buddhism among the people."
"This story is probable, substantially correct. But Buddhism must have also passed into China by the other overland route from India through Burma. There are good grounds to believe that Buddhist missionaries came by this route and were already active in China by the middle of the first century A.D." (Ibid pages 645.)
According to Asokan inscriptions and Mahavamsa Buddhism was preached in the countries adjacent to the western and northern borders of Asokan empire i.e. the five Yona provinces (Uttarajyotisha. Divya A, Simha- pura, Urasa, Abhisara). Kashmir, Sakastan, Daradastan, Bactria, Kucha. Kustana, Yarkand, Khotan, Sinkiang and China, a distance of 800 yojanas (i. e 4000 miles) from the west of Afganistan to China in the east in the time of Asoka. (15th century B.C.)
So "Amtiyoka" was a Bharatiya Yavana prince, not an Iono-Greek or Greek prince. He was the contemporary of Ashoka. His age was from 1472-36 B.C. The "Yavana" of Northwest Bharat became Ionian in Asia minor and Greece and mixing with the Greek the Ionian becae Iono-Greek and then by the order of the Government of Ionia or Greece, the Iono-Greek became "Greek" and the country became "Greece".

Menander and Milinda

2009-08-01T08:31:00.008+05:30

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.

Menander

2009-08-01T07:14:00.002+05:30

That Menander was a great Indo·Greek prince was recorded by the historian Straho whose authority for the statement was a reference to him by the ancient writer Appalodorus. Periplus is another book assigned to 70-80 A.D., but of unknown authorship. But it is stated in this Periplus that coins with Greek letters and devices were current in the neighbourhood of Breach on the west coast of India in the first century A.D, ‘These coins resembled the
insignia of Appolodorus and Menander, Greek Potentates who were in power after Alexander. Hence it is inferred that the neighbourhood of Broach might have been included in the Greek
dominions in the times of Demetrius, Appolodorus and Menander. All this is entirely in the sphere of conjecture. It seems Appolodorus and Menander are mentioned in the list of Bharatiya
Yavana princes in the writings of Justin, the historian. But his writings are now extinct and not available for verification. It seems Plutarch also mentioned Menander as renowned for justice and that when he passed away the various cities in the neighbourhood contested for the privilege of hoiding his remains. This Menander is further identified with Milinda of the Milinda Panha(questions of Milinda), a Buddhist text containing the several questions raised by Milinda and the answers furnished to them by the Buddhist monk Nagasena at the end of which the prince, satisfied embraced Buddhism. This prince is spoken of as ‘Milindra’ in
Avadana-Kalpa-lata by Kshemendra. In the Shinkot inscription the name is given as ‘Menadra‘ and so it may be identified as ‘Minendra’or ‘Menandra’. This name might be read into the
devices on the coins, we are told. _
Later, in the 12th century A,D. all the inhabitants of the North Western Frontier Province and the states of Gandhara, Hara, Huna, Ramatha, Saka. Yavana etc. in the region of Modern Baluchistan, consisting of excommunicated Kshatriya groups were also converted to Islam and the entire region together with Sindhu now forms Western Pakistan.

Waves of Indian emigration in the remote past were responsible for the civilisations of ancient Greece,Egypt,Rome,Africa and America

2009-07-10T14:32:00.005+05:30

It is clear from the writings of the Greek historians that long before the time of Alexander's invasion of India in 326 B.C., there were five Yona kingdoms in the North-Western reigon of Bharat. Also long before the Greeks entered Greece and settled down there. there was a Yona(Yavana) people occupying the east, west and south of Greece and enjoying a higher civilisation than all the other peoples of Europe of those times. (i.e. before 1000 B.C.) who could build big cities (Mycenae and Tiryns), iron fortresses surrounded by high walls and towers reaching the skies-- like the Dasyus described in the Rigveda.
"The Illiad is a story of prehistoric Greece, and yet the life it describes, the customs, the objects are not those of the early Greeks at all, but those of a civilisation at a much higher level. We know that when the Greeks first emerged into the light of history (1000 B.C.) they were a crude and simple people. They had neither walled cities, nor beautiful places nor mighty fleets, nor powerful kings. How does it happen. then that this tale, written at that early time about a still earlier time, deals with walls that resist a ten year’s siege, a fleet that numbers a thousand ships, palaces that gleam with the splendour of the sun and the moon? Did Greece go backward? Was it once such a land as Homer describes and was all the glory afterwards swallowed up in darkness? (vide Lost Worlds. Adventures in Archaeology by Anne Terry White, P. 18)
"It proves beyond doubt that long before the birth of Greek history a wonderful People had lived along the western coast of Greece. Perhaps this people had lived there for thousands of years before the Greeks drifted down from the north. But who were these artists who had built Myccnae and Tiryns? What were their relations with the Greeks ?" (Ibid P;i36) ’ “
In fact it can be easily seen from the writings of western antiquarians that waves of Indian emigration in the remote past were responsible for the civilisations of ancient Greece, Egypt, Rome. Africa and America. ‘
“The early civilisation, the early arts. the indubitably early literature of India are equally the civilisation. the arts, and literature of Egypt, and of Greece; for, geographical evidences conjoined to historical facts and religious practices, now prove beyond all dispute that the latter countries are the colonies of the former."' (India in Greece. P. 74)
"We have a right to more than suspect that India, eight thousand years ago, sent a colony of emigrants who "carried their arts and high civilisation into what is now known to us as Egypt. The Egyptians came, according to their records, from a mysterious land (now known to be on the shore of the Indian Ocean;) the sacred Punt, the original home of their gods who followed thence after their people who had abandoned them to the Valley of the Nile, led by Amen, Hor, Hathor, (Brahma, Hari, Rudra). This region was the Egyptian "Land of the Gods." (vide History of Egypt by Prof. Brugsch Bey.)
Rome: "The oldest form is not "Romani" but “Ramnes."(Rama) so dassder name order ‘Rama’" (vide History of Rome by Theodor Mominsen, Part I, Introduction by Edward Agustus Freeman, P. XXI.)
The seventeen kingdoms mentioned earlier(in posting on North-Western India or Uttarapatha) were included in "Uttarapatha" in ancient times, which is now covered by the four states 1. Bactria, 2. Afghanistan. 8. Baluchistan and 4 the North-western Frontier province. Of these North Bahlika.(Bactria) with the province ‘Darada’ is now part of Russian Turkistan. Afganistan was under the rule of Hindu princes till 1026 A,D., when it passed under Mohammad of Ghazni and all the people, most of them of Yavana Kshatriya descent, were converted to Islam.
The earliest members of the human race inhabited the region of Brahma-Varta on the banks of the river Saraswati and called themselves Aryans and their country Aryavarta and spread gradually from there to the east,'The Prachya Desa’, and to the south, 'the Dekshinapatha’ and to the north, Uttarrpatha and to the west ‘the Paschaddesa'. The boundaries of these regions were :-
1. Arya-Vartha.
East------------ Allahabad (Prayaga)
South------------The Vindhya Mountain range,
West-------------The Indus
North------------The Himalayas,
2. Prachya Desa :
East-------------The Burma border
South------------The Bay of Bengal
West-------------The Ganges.
North------------The Himalayas.
3. Dakshinapatha :
East-------------The Bay of Bengal.
South------------The Indian ocean
West-------------The Arabian Sea.
North------------The Vindhyas,
4. Uttarapatha :
East-------------The Indus.
South------------The Arabian Sea.
West-------------Iran
North------------Sinkiang and Samarkhand (Sagdiana)
5. Paschaddesa :
Comprises Kunti Bhoja, Anarta. Aparamatsya, Surastra, Asmeera.
East-------------Malwa, Karusha etc.
South------------Arabian sea & Vindhyas.
West-------------Arabian sea & Sindhu River.
North------------Sindhu Rashtra
The Bharata-varsha was known as divided into five parts even in very ancient times. "Uttarapatha" was other-wise known as "Mlechcha Khanda".

North-Western India or "Uttarapatha"

2009-07-09T17:23:00.010+05:30

(click on the image to see an enlarged map)
The Mahabharata War occurred in 3138 B.C. By that time India or Bharata Varsha consisted of two parts, Sindhusthan, the region to the east of the Indus and Mlechcha-sthan, to the west of the river. Sindhusthan is known as Bharata-Khanda. This is the distinction embodied in the description ‘Bharata Varshe’ ‘Bharata Khande’ in the mention of the place and the time by all Bharatiyas at the commencement of their ordinary daily as well as extraordinary and occassional ritual observances. Of the Indian continent, known as a whole as Bharata Varsha, the part inhabited by the Bharatiyas who belonged to the traditional cultural fold was known as Bharata-Khanda or "Sindhusthan." The part to the west of the Indus which was inhabited and resorted to by all the Bharatiyas who had disregarded the traditional cultural restrictions and observances and left the parent fold, was known as "Mlechcha-sthan."

The land of the Aryans was known as ‘Sindhusthan’;(or Hindustan, Prakrit form). The land beyond the Indus was called by them ‘Mlechchasthan.’ The boundaries of this Mlechchasthan or "Uttarapatha" were :-
To the east ..........The river Indus.
To the South .........The Arabian Sea.
To the West ..........Iran.
To the North..........Sagdiana (Southern Persia.)
The regions known as Daradasthan, Bactria (Capital Balkh), Aria (Capital Herat) to the north of Modern Afghanistan were all within the borders of the ancient Bharata-varsha.
The part designated "Mlechchasthan" was originally known as “Uttarapatha.” The Aryan race originated in the region called "Brahmavartha" situated between the rivers Saraswathi and Drushadwati. From there, as they grew in numbers in course of time, they spread gradually over the entire region of Aryavartha enclosed between the Himalayas and the Vindhya
mountains.
After covering the entire Aryavartha, the land to which the Aryans further spread proceeding westward to the North was known as "Uttarapatha" and the land beyond the Vindhyas, to which they spread proceeding Southwards- was known as "Dakshinapatha! The word ‘patha’ in Sanskrit indicates the path or direction and the names themselves indicate the meanings attached to them (Nortlrward direction and Southward direction.) The Kingdoms comprised in Uttarapatha were:-
Ancient Name................Modern Name.
1. Gramaniya................Gedrosia.
2. The Sindhu Valley........Included in the above.

3. Amaraparvatha............}To the north-west of Gedro-
4. Ramatha..................}sia, which together with
5. Hara ....................}Gedrosia now Constitute
6. Huna.....................}modern Beluchisthan.

7. Saka stan................}In the Helmand river valley
8, Suttala..................}now known as Drangiana.

9. Aryanaka.................} Aria Capital Herat.

10. North Bahlika.........} Bactria- Capital Balkh. A
..........................}colony of the Bahlikas, unor-
..........................}thodox Kshatriyas who inha.
..........................}bited the region of the Indus
..........................}and its tributaries and later
..........................}migrated to north and named
..........................}it North Bahlika.

11. Darada................}Dardisthan-Now included in
..........................}Russian Turkisthan.

12. Uttarajyotisha to the....}Forming the central region
South of Sakasthan...........}of modern Afghanisthan to
No. 7........................}the north-east of which up to
.............................}Kashmir were located13,14,
.............................}15,16,the Yavana kingdoms.

13. Divya Kataka .........}Included in modern Afgha-
14. Simhapura.............}nisthan.
15. Uraga or Urasa........}.

16. Abhisara..............}Included in Kashmir.

17. Gandhara..............}Included now partly in Afganisthan and partly in the
..........................}N. W. Frontier Province.

Gandhara was originally and from the beginning an Aryan kingdom. But in course of time, after the Mahabharata War, it became gradually a Mlechcha state. Between the two states of
Simhapura and Uraga, now included in Afghanistan, and through them, the Hindu kush Mountain range runs northward. In this state of Simhapura are to be found the mountain-peak known an "Kohi·Mor" and the town
"Nysa" at its £oot. The region to the northwest of the Kohi-mor peak is called Kafir-i-sthan. In the same Hindukush mountains and in the neighbourhood of‘Nysa’ is another peak known as ‘Meru’. The Yavana legends (of
ancient Greece) describe Dionysius of Greek mythology as having been born in this place 'Nysa’ from the thigh of ‘Zeus’ (Sun-God) i.e.: Suryavamsi Kshatriya and engaged in religious austarities on this ‘Meru’. All ovr this mountain the “Ivy" (sacred to the
Greeks )grew plentifully. It is said the great Alexander when he came upon this mountain in the course of his march for conqueat and found the sacred (to them) 'ivy’ on it,felt immencely delighted (Vide EJ. Rapson·· Cambridge History of India Vol I,pp. 353, 354 ).
E.J.Rapson writes in Vol I. of his Cambridge History of India:“On the lower spurs of three-peaked ‘Kohi·Mor’ dwelt a people who told the Yavanas. or, so the invaders understood them. that they were descendants of the western people, who had come into those parts with their god Dionysius; for Dionysius, the Greeks believed, had gone conquering across Asia, at the head of his revellers. in the old heroic days. The Greeks always experienced a keen joy of recognition, when they could connect foreign things with the figures of their own legends, and they were delighted with the suggestion. The assonance of names lent itself immediately to confirm the theory as easily as it does to confirm
the adventurous speculations of modern Archaeologists. In the legend the name of ‘Nysa` was specially connected with Dionysius. It was the name of his Nurse or of the place where he was born or of his holy hill and the name of this little town in the Hindukush, as it was pronounced to Alexander. had a similar sound.
Again the legend said that Dionysius had been born from the thigh (Meros) of Zeus, and a neighbouring summit the Greeks discovered, was called "Meru". What could be clearer? And when they saw the sacred plants of the god. the Vine and ivy, running wild over the mountain, as they knew them at home.(See Holdich,Gates of India p. 133) no doubt could be left".
Modern travellers have come upon certain fair Kafir tribes in this region whose religious processions with music and dance have a Bacchanalian look. and the Nysaeans discovered by Alexander, they suggest may have been the ancestors of these Kafirs; their processions may have led the Greeks to connect them with Dionysius."
"Hostilities, at any rate, with these interesting kinsmen, could not be thought of, and the Nysaeans were themselves prepared to act in character; three hundred of them on their mountain horses joined the army of the Greek king and followed him to lattle in the plains of the Punjab." (Rapson’s Cambridge History of India, Vol.I pp 353- 354)
Prof. J. B. Bury writes:- "lt was perhaps not far from Jelalabad that the army came to a city which was called "Nysa". The name immediately awakened in the minds of all the Greeks the memory of their god Dionysius. For Mount "Nysa" was the mythical place where he had been nursed by nymphs when he was born from the thigh of Zeus. The mountain was commonly supposed to be in Thrace; but an old hymn placed it "near the streams of Nile," it had no place on the travellers chart. But here was an actual "Nysa;" and close to the town was a hill whose name resembled Meros; the Greek word for "thigh" and whose slopes were covered with the ‘god's own ivy'. Therefore *Nysa,’ they said, was founded by Dionysius, the god had fared eastward to subdue India; and now Alexander was marching on
his tracks. Every where on their further march the Greeks and Macedonians were alert to discover traces of the progress of the bacchic god.” (History of Greece. Chap. XVIII, page 801 by J. B. Bury,D.Litt., L.Ld., F.B.A.. Ed. 1916 )
There is an obvious inconsistency in the above statement of the learned J.B. Bury. If Dionysius, who was born at °Nysa’ and had performed austerities on Mount ‘Meru,’ had proceeded to other lands for invasion, he must have proceeded to the west and not the West. To The east of the Yavana kingdoms there lies the river Indus and beyond the Indus there were then vast kingdoms ruled by powerful kings. Compared with these eastern kingdoms
the extent of even all the Yavana kingdoms put together is inconsiderable. Moreover the Yavanas were dependent on arms for their livelihood, and many of them were employed as
mercenary soldiers in the service of the kings of the east and south of India. The Yavanas crossed the river Indus occasionally for raids but it is not mentioned anywhere in the Sanskrit or any other western Indian literature that they had invaded the kingdoms beyond the river. So the suggestion implied in the statements of Bury as well as Rapson that Dionysius proceeded from the west for invasion to the east does not appear plausible. Dionysius who was born in western Bharat and who performed austerities on Mount ‘meru’ must have been only a Bharatiya Yavana. He might have proceeded to the west on an invading
march up to Greece, established a Yavana colonial kingdom there called ‘Ionia.’ and those people were known as ‘Yaunas or ‘Ionians.' Such an account is supported by the evidence of Indian Puranas as well as the legends and myths of ancient Greece. There were no yavana or Ionian colonies to the east of the river ‘Indus’ in India;.