• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • 2
    CommentGo Back
Download
 
IDENTIFICATION OF THE HISTORICALDATES FROM PURANIC SOURCES
PROF. NARAYAN RAOINTRODUCTION
According to the modern Indian history books Lord Buddha is believed to have beenborn in the Sixth century B.C. and Chandragupta Mourya is believed to have beenthe ruler of Magadha Empire soon after the invasion of Alexander in the year 327B.C. There is a common misconception among the laymen as well as the historiansthat these and the other dates given in the official version of Indian history areproven facts.However, a careful and critical examination of the sources from which these dateshave been derived show that these dates are only as true as the creation of theuniverse in (or around) the year 4006 B.C.Most people including the historians believe that the dates mentioned above andthe other dates of Indian history have been derived mainly from archaeologicalevidences, inscriptions on stone pillars and accounts of the foreign travelers. But nocomplete history, whether correct or incorrect, can be written from suchdiscontinuous sources.History has to be written mainly from historical accounts. The modern pioneers of Indian history namely Sir William Jones, Professor Max Muller, Professor Wilson andthe other indologists of early nineteenth century knew this and the first sources theylooked for Indian history were the scriptures known as Itihasa and Purana such asMahabharata, Bhagavata Purana, Vishnu Purana, Vayu Purana, Matsya Purana andBhavishya Purana. The Puranas give the dates of the historical events in Kaliyugabda, Vikram Sambat,Sakabda and other Indian eras still in use at present. From these narrations it ispossible to get the dates of all important historical events in the Christian era.
DAWN OF INDOLOGY 
However, Sir William Jones and the European orientalists of early nineteenth centuryran into a serious difficulty in determining the chronology from the Puranas. It mustbe recalled that during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries
it was firmlybelieved by the Scientists
and other learned men
that the
 
universe was
 
created in or around the year 4006 B.C
. The theory of evolution suggested byDarwin and the idea of the universe being millions, or even billions, of years, oldwere not accepted by the Scientists till late nineteenth century. The earlierEuropean orientalists could not possibly believe in the chronology of the Puranaswhich places the age of the universe at a few billion years (in contrast to thescientifically accepted age of less than 6000 years). Their misgivings werestrengthened because of the following.
1.
 The narrations of the events of the first three eras, namely Krita Yuga, Treta Yugaand Dwapara Yuga, in the Puranas appear more mythical than factual.
2.
All the narrations of the events after the battle of Kurukshetra are written in futuretense. All narrations are made in a mythological language involving the Gods(rather unnecessarily) in the events. This could be very confusing to scholars notfamiliar with the Indian traditions.
3.
 There are some discrepancies in the accounts of the different Puranas partly due tothe errors in copying, proof reading etc. including modern printing and partly due todeliberate alterations to suit the purposes of the royal families in whose courts thescriptures were maintained. These could be corrected by comparing the differentPuranas as well as the different versions of the same Purana. This could be hardlyexpected to have been done in an unbiased manner by the early Europeanorientalists who were exploring a field hitherto completely unknown. The laterorientalists, like Pargiter, could not do a proper evaluation as they were alreadybiased by the earlier work.
4.
Many translations, or rather narrations, of the Puranas in the Vernacular languagescontain accounts much in variation from the original Sanskrit texts from whichthose are purported to have been derived. Kamban Ramayana and RamcharitManas of Tulsidas are two such examples. In addition there are famous literary workslike "Abhigyana Shakuntalam", "Mudra Rakshasa" and "Harsha Charita" which aremore popular but can be very misleading for the purpose of chronology. Thus the European orientalists like Professor Max Muller and
Sir William Jonescame to the obvious, but grossly erroneous, conclusion that though theaccounts of the Puranas are based on a hard core of historical facts, thechronology is all wrong.
Having thus dismissed the straightforward method of determining the chronology of Indian history, the orientalists started looking for other sources including their ownconjectures. Sir William Jones actually suggested a chronological table of eventsstarting with the year 4006 B.C. which he believed to be the year of creation of Swayambhuba Manu. This chronological table taken from the "Complete works of Sir William Jones" is given in Appendix I.
Though most of the modern historians do not know it, the chronology theyuse is a modified version of the table given in Appendix I.
SHEET ANCHOR DATE
 
Professor Max Muller improved upon the work of Sir William Jones by trying tocorrelate the Indian history with Greek history. One ancient event the date of whichis well known in the Christian era is the invasion of Alexander. However, there is nomention whatsoever of Alexander or anything connected with his invasion in anyPurana or any other ancient Indian account including the Buddhist Chronicles.Professor Max Muller then searched the Greek accounts and the narrations of theother classical European writers for the name of any Indian ruler who could belocated. One such name is Sandrocottus. He is said to have succeededXandramese who was a contemporary of Alexander.
Sir William Jones hadsuggested that Chandragupta of Mudra Rakshasa could be theSandrocottus of Greek history.
Professor Max Muller confirmed this identification. His main purpose was to arrive ata chronology acceptable to the intellectuals of the nineteenth century. In fact hismotives and methods are best described in his own words. In his "History of AncientSanskrit Literature (Allahabad Edition 1859 A.D)" Professor Max Muller writes asfollows.
“There is but one means through which history of India can be connected with that of Greece, and its chronology be reduced to its proper limits. Although welook in vain in the literature of the Brahmanas or Buddhists for any allusion to Alexander's conquest, and although it is impossible to identify any of the historicalevents, related by Alexander's companions, with the historical traditions of India,one name has fortunately been preserved by classical writers who describe theevents immediately following Alexander's conquest, to form a connecting link between the history of the East and the West. This is the name of Sandrocottus or Sandrocyptus, the Sanskrit Chandragupta.We learn from classical writers Justin, Arrian, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo,Quintus Curtius and Plutarch, that in Alexander's time, there was on the Ganges a powerful king of the name of Xandramese, and that soon after Alexander's invasion,a new empire was founded there by Sandrocottus who was succeeded by Sandrocyptus.These accounts of the classical writers contain a number of distinct statements which could leave very little doubt as to the king to whom they referred.Indian historians, it is true, are generally so vague and so much given toexaggeration, that their kings are all very much alike, either all black or all bright.But nevertheless, if there ever was such a king of the Prasii, a usurper, residing at Pataliputra, called Sandrocottus; it is hardly possible that he should not berecognized in the historical traditions of India. The name of Chandragupta and theresemblance of this name with the name of Sandrocottus was first, I believe, pointed out by Sir William Jones. Dr.Wilford, Professor Wilson and Professor Lassen haveafterwards added further evidence in confirmation of Sir William Jone's conjecture;and although other scholars and particularly M.Troyer, in his edition of theRajatarangini, have raised objections, we shall see that the evidence in favor of theidentity of Chandragupta and Sandrocyptus is such as to admit of no reasonabledoubt".
From this identification, the coronation of Mourya Chandragupta around the
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
maxiver

Surely. Sandrocottus was not the Chandragupta Maurya but he even was not Chandragupta of gupta dynasty either. Samudragupta's allahabad eddicts have no mention of any war with hellinic kingdoms. Andhra dynasty may be contemporary of Alexander ( Puranic timeline) but is not immediately succeeded by Guptas.

reply09 / 28 / 2009
maxiver

Not satisfactory. Sir, i think more research is required.

reply09 / 28 / 2009
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...