Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

This is a broad, catch-all category of works that fit best here and not elsewhere. If you haven't found it someplace else, you might want to look here.

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:47 am

Part 1 of 4

Chandragupta Maurya
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 5/26/21



Highlights:

Chandragupta's life and accomplishments are described in ancient … Hindu, Buddhist and Jain texts, though they significantly vary in detail…

His main biographical sources in chronological order are:

• Hindu texts such as the Puranas and Arthashastra; later composed Hindu sources include legends in Vishakhadatta's Mudrarakshasa, Somadeva's Kathasaritsagara and Kshemendra's Brihatkathamanjari.

• Buddhist sources are those dated in 4th-century or after, including the Sri Lankan Pali texts Dipavamsa (Rajavamsa section), Mahavamsa, Mahavamsa tika and Mahabodhivamsa.

7th to 10th century Jain inscriptions at Shravanabelgola; these are disputed by scholars as well as the Svetambara Jain tradition. The second Digambara text interpreted to be mentioning the Maurya emperor is dated to about the 10th-century such as in the Brhatkathakosa of Harisena (Jain monk), while the complete Jain legend about Chandragupta is found in the 12th-century Parisishtaparvan by Hemachandra….

The Greek and Roman texts do not mention Chandragupta directly…

Hindu sources are inconsistent. One medieval commentator states Chandragupta to be the son of one of the Nanda's wives with the name Mura. Other sources describe Mura as a concubine of the king. Another Sanskrit dramatic text Mudrarakshasa uses the terms Vrishala and Kula-Hina to describe Chandragupta. The word Vrishala has two meanings: one is the son of a Shudra; the other means the best of kings. A later commentator used the former interpretation to posit that Chandragupta had a Shudra background. However, historian Radha Kumud Mukherjee opposed this theory, and stated that the word should be interpreted as "the best of kings". The same drama also refers to Chandragupta as someone of humble origin... According to the 11th-century texts of the Kashmiri Hindu tradition – Kathasaritsagara and Brihat-Katha-Manjari – the Nanda lineage was very short. Chandragupta was a son of Purva-Nanda, the older Nanda based in Ayodhya. The common theme in the Hindu sources is that Chandragupta came from a humble background and with Chanakya, he emerged as a dharmic king loved by his subjects.

The Buddhist texts such as Mahavamsa describe Chandragupta to be of Kshatriya origin. These sources, written about seven centuries after his dynasty ended, state that both Chandragupta and his grandson Ashoka – a patron of Buddhism – were from a branch of the Shakya noble family, from which Gautama Buddha descended from. These Buddhist sources attempt to link the dynasty of their patron Ashoka directly to the Buddha. The sources claim that the family branched off to escape persecution from a king of the Kosala Kingdom and Chandragupta's ancestors moved into a secluded Himalayan kingdom known for its peacocks. The Buddhist sources explain the epithet Moriya comes from these peacocks, or Mora in Pali (Sanskrit: Mayura). The Buddhist texts are inconsistent; some offer other legends to explain his epithet. For example, they mention a city named "Moriya-nagara" where all buildings were made of bricks colored like the peacock's neck. The Maha-bodhi-vasa states he hailed from Moriya-nagara, while the Digha-Nikaya states he came from the Moriya clan of Pipphalivana. The Buddhist sources also mention that "Brahmin Chanakya" was his counselor and with whose support Chandragupta became the king at Pataliputra.

The 12th-century Digambara text Parishishtaparvan by Hemachandra is the main and earliest Jain source of the complete legend of Chandragupta. It was written nearly 1,400 years after Chandragupta's death. Canto 8, verses 170 to 469, describes the legend of Chandragupta and Chanakya's influence on him. Other Digambara Jain sources state he moved to Karnataka after renouncing his kingdom and performed Sallekhana – the Jain religious ritual of peacefully welcoming death by fasting. The earliest mention of Chandragupta's ritual death is found in Harisena's Brhatkathakosa, a Sanskrit text of stories about Digambara Jains. The Brhatkathakosa describes the legend of Bhadrabahu and mentions Chandragupta in its 131st story. However, the story makes no mention of the Maurya empire, and mentions that his disciple Chandragupta lived in and migrated from Ujjain – a kingdom (northwest Madhya Pradesh) about a thousand kilometers west of the Magadha and Patliputra (central Bihar). This has led to the proposal that Harisena's Chandragupta may be a later era, different person.

None of the ancient texts mention when Chandragupta was born….

The texts do not include the start or end year of Chandragupta's reign. According to some Hindu and Buddhist texts, Chandragupta ruled for 24 years. The Buddhist sources state Chandragupta Maurya ruled 162 years after the death of the Buddha. However, the Buddha's birth and death vary by source… Similarly, Jain sources composed give different gaps between Mahavira's death and his accession. As with the Buddha's death, the date of Mahavira's death itself is also a matter of debate, and the inconsistencies and lack of unanimity among the Jain authors cast doubt on Jain sources. This Digambara Jain chronology, also, is not reconcilable with the chronology implied in other Indian … sources….

The early life of Chandragupta Maurya is unclear and varies by source. According to the Sinhalese Buddhist tradition, Chandragupta's mother was pregnant when his father - who was the chief of the Moriya clan - was killed in a battle. His mother escaped to Pataliputra with the help of her brothers. For Chandragupta's safety, his maternal uncles helped a cowherd adopt him. When Chandragupta grew up, the cowherd sold him to a hunter who employed him to tend cattle.

According to the Digambara legend by Hemachandra, Chanakya was a Jain layperson and a Brahmin. When Chanakya was born, Jain monks prophesied that Chanakya will one day grow up to help make someone an emperor and will be the power behind the throne. Chanakya believed in the prophecy and fulfilled it by agreeing to help the daughter of a peacock breeding community chief deliver a baby boy. In exchange, he asked the mother to give up the boy and let him adopt him at a later date. The Jain Brahmin then went about making money through magic, and returned later to claim young Chandragupta, whom he taught and trained. Together, they recruited soldiers and attacked the Nanda kingdom. Eventually, they won and proclaimed Patliputra as their capital.

The Buddhist and Hindu sources present different versions of how Chandragupta met Chanakya. Broadly, they mention young Chandragupta creating a mock game of a royal court that he and his cowherd friends played near Vinjha forest. Chanakya saw him give orders to the others, bought him from the hunter, and adopted Chandragupta. Chanakya taught and admitted him in Taxila to study the Vedas, military arts, law, and other sastras.

After Taxila, Chandragupta and Chanakya moved to Pataliputra, the capital and a historic learning center in the eastern Magadha kingdom of India. They met Nanda there according to Hindu sources, and Dhana Nanda according to Pali-language Buddhist sources. Chandragupta became a commander of the Nanda army … An alternate version states that it was the Nanda king who was publicly insulted by Chanakya. Chandragupta and Chanakya escaped and became rebels who planned to remove the Nanda king from power. The Mudrarakshasa also states that Chanakya swore to destroy the Nanda dynasty after he felt insulted by the king….

According to the Buddhist text Mahavamsa Tika, Chandragupta and Chanakya raised an army by recruiting soldiers from many places after the former completed his education at Taxila. Chanakya made Chandragupta the leader of the army. The Digambara Jain text Parishishtaparvan states that this army was raised by Chanakya with coins he minted and an alliance formed with Parvataka…

The Buddhist Mahavamsa Tika and Jain Parishishtaparvan records Chandragupta's army unsuccessfully attacking the Nanda capital. Chandragupta and Chanakya then began a campaign at the frontier of the Nanda empire, gradually conquering various territories on their way to the Nanda capital. He then refined his strategy by establishing garrisons in the conquered territories, and finally besieged the Nanda capital Pataliputra. There Dhana Nanda accepted defeat, and was killed by Buddhist accounts, or deposed and exiled by Hindu accounts….

Historically reliable details of Chandragupta's campaign into Pataliputra are unavailable and legends written centuries later are inconsistent. Buddhist texts such as Milindapanha claim Magadha was ruled by the Nanda dynasty, which, with Chanakya's counsel, Chandragupta conquered to restore dhamma. The army of Chandragupta and Chanakya first conquered the Nanda outer territories before invading Pataliputra. In contrast to the easy victory in Buddhist sources, the Hindu and Jain texts state that the campaign was bitterly fought because the Nanda dynasty had a powerful and well-trained army.

The conquest was fictionalised in Mudrarakshasa, in which Chandragupta is said to have first acquired Punjab and allied with a local king named Parvatka under the Chanakya's advice before advancing on the Nanda Empire. Chandragupta laid siege to Kusumapura (now Patna), the capital of Magadha, by deploying guerrilla warfare methods with the help of mercenaries from conquered areas.

According to the Digambara Jain version by Hemachandra, the success of Chandragupta and his strategist Chanakya was stopped by a Nanda town that refused to surrender. Chanakya disguised himself as a mendicant and found seven mother goddesses (saptamatrika) inside. He concluded these goddesses were protecting the town people. The townspeople sought the disguised mendicant's advice on how to end the blockade of the army surrounding their town. Hemacandra wrote Chanakya swindled them into removing the mother goddesses. The townspeople removed the protective goddesses and an easy victory over the town followed. Thereafter, the alliance of Chandragupta and Parvataka overran the Nanda kingdom and attacked Pataliputra with an "immeasurable army". With a depleted treasury, exhausted merit, and insufficient intelligence, the Nanda king lost.

These legends state that the Nanda king was defeated, but allowed to leave Pataliputra alive with a chariot full of items his family needed. The Jain sources attest that his daughter fell in love at first sight with Chandragupta and married him. With the defeat of Nanda, Chandragupta Maurya founded the Maurya Empire in ancient India…

Two poetic anthologies from the Tamil Sangam literature corpus -– Akananuru and Purananuru –- allude to the Nanda rule and Maurya empire. For example, poems 69, 281 and 375 mention the army and chariots of the Mauryas, while poems 251 and 265 may be alluding to the Nandas. However, the poems dated between 1st-century BCE to 5th-century CE do not mention Chandragupta Maurya by name, and some of them could be referring to a different Moriya dynasty in the Deccan region in the 5th century CE. According to Upinder Singh, these poems may be mentioning Mokur and Koshar kingdoms of Vadugars (northerners) in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, with one interpretation being that the Maurya empire had an alliance with these at some point of time….

The king's epithets mentioned in the Sanskrit play Mudrarakshasa include "Chanda-siri" (Chandra-shri), "Piadamsana" (Priya-darshana), and Vrishala. Piadamsana is similar to Piyadasi, an epithet of his grandson Ashoka…

There are no records of Chandragupta's military conquests and the reach of his empire. It is based on inferences from … the religious Indian texts written centuries after his death….

There is uncertainty about the other conquests that Chandragupta may have achieved…If the Jain tradition about Chandragupta ending his life as a renunciate in Karnakata is considered correct, it appears that Chandragupta initiated the southern conquest….

"We shall now turn to the Buddhist traditions which describe the 'Nandins' as of unknown lineage and testify to the noble lineage of Chandragupta without any doubts about it. Chandragupta is described as a scion of the Kshatriya clan of Moriyas, an offshoot of the noble and sacred sept of the Sakyas who gave the Buddha to the world. According to the story, these Moriyas" ...

There are varying accounts in the historic [???], legendary, and hagiographic literature of various Indian religions about Chandragupta's rule, but Allchin and Erdosy' are suspect; they state, "one cannot but be struck by the many close correspondences between the (Hindu) Arthashastra and the two other major sources the (Buddhist) Asokan inscriptions and (Greek) Megasthenes text"….

Kautilya tells us about a die-striking (punch-marking) system but is unaware of casting coins in mould…

The evidence of arts and architecture during Chandragupta's time is mostly limited to texts such as those by … Kautilya….

Archeological discoveries in the modern age, such as those Didarganj Yakshi discovered in 1917 buried beneath the banks of the Ganges suggest exceptional artisanal accomplishment. (It used to be dated to the 3rd century BCE, as it has the fine Mauryan polish associated with Mauryan art. But this is also found on later sculptures and it is now usually dated to approximately the 2nd century CE, based on the analysis of shape and ornamentation, or the 1st century CE. The treatment of the forelock in particular is said to be characteristically Kushan.)…

The circumstances and year of Chandragupta's death are unclear and disputed. According to Digambara Jain accounts that, Bhadrabahu forecasted a 12-year famine because of all the killing and violence during the conquests by Chandragupta Maurya. He led a group of Jain monks to south India, where Chandragupta Maurya joined him as a monk after abdicated his kingdom to his son Bindusara. Together, states a Digambara legend, Chandragupta and Bhadrabahu moved to Shravanabelagola, in present-day south Karnataka. These Jain accounts appeared in texts such as Brihakathā kośa (931 CE) of Harishena, Bhadrabāhu charita (1450 CE) of Ratnanandi, Munivaṃsa bhyudaya (1680 CE) and Rajavali kathe. Chandragupta lived as an ascetic at Shravanabelagola for several years before fasting to death as per the Jain practice of sallekhana, according to the Digambara legend.

In accordance with the Digambara tradition, the hill on which Chandragupta is stated to have performed asceticism is now known as Chandragiri hill, and Digambaras believe that Chandragupta Maurya erected an ancient temple that now survives as the Chandragupta basadi….

Along with texts, several Digambara Jain inscriptions dating from the 7th–15th century refer to Bhadrabahu and a Prabhacandra. Later Digambara tradition identified the Prabhacandra as Chandragupta, and some modern era scholars have accepted this Digambara tradition while others have not, Several of the late Digambara inscriptions and texts in Karnataka state the journey started from Ujjain and not Pataliputra (as stated in some Digambara texts).

Jeffery D. Long – a scholar of Jain and Hindu studies – says in one Digambara version, it was Samprati Chandragupta who renounced, migrated and performed sallekhana in Shravanabelagola. Long states scholars attribute the disintegration of the Maurya empire to the times and actions of Samprati Chandragupta – the grandson of Ashoka and great-great-grandson of Chandragupta Maurya. The two Chandraguptas have been confused to be the same in some Digambara legends.

Scholar of Jain studies and Sanskrit Paul Dundas says the Svetambara tradition of Jainism disputes the ancient Digambara legends….The Svetambaras texts describe Bhadrabahu was based near Nepalese foothills of the Himalayas in 3rd-century BCE, who neither moved nor travelled with Chandragupta Maurya to the south; rather, he died near Pataliputra…

The 12th-century Svetambara Jain legend by Hemachandra presents a different picture. The Hemachandra version includes stories about Jain monks who could become invisible to steal food from royal storage and the Jain Brahmin Chanakya using violence and cunning tactics to expand Chandragupta's kingdom and increase royal revenues. It states in verses 8.415 to 8.435, that for 15 years as king, Chandragupta was a follower of non-Jain "ascetics with the wrong view of religion" (non-Jain) and "lusted for women". Chanakya, who was a Jain follower, persuaded Chandragupta to convert to Jainism by showing that Jain ascetics avoided women and focused on their religion. The legend mentions Chanakya aiding the premature birth of Bindusara, It states in verse 8.444 that "Chandragupta died in meditation (can possibly be sallekhana.) and went to heaven". According to Hemachandra's legend, Chanakya also performed sallekhana.

According to V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar – an Indologist and historian, several of the Digambara legends mention Prabhacandra, who had been misidentified as Chandragupta Maurya particularly after the original publication on Shravanabelagola epigraphy by B. Lewis Rice. The earliest and most important inscriptions mention Prabhacandra, which Rice presumed may have been the "clerical name assumed by Chadragupta Maurya" after he renounced and moved with Bhadrabahu from Patliputra. Dikshitar stated there is no evidence to support this and Prabhacandra was an important Jain monk scholar who migrated centuries after Chandragupta Maurya's death. Other scholars have taken Rice's deduction of Chandragupta Maurya retiring and dying in Shravanabelagola as the working hypothesis, since no alternate historical information or evidence is available about Chandragupta's final years and death.

-- Chandragupta Maurya, by Wikipedia


Now the age of Vicramaditya is given; and if we can fix on an Indian prince contemporary with Seleucus, we shall have three given points in the line of time between Rama, or the first Indian colony, and Chandrabija, the last Hindu monarch who reigned in Bahar; so that only eight hundred or a thousand years will remain almost wholly dark; and they must have been employed in raising empires or states, in framing laws, improving languages and arts, and in observing the apparent motions of the celestial bodies. A Sanscrit [Sanskrit] history of the celebrated Vicramaditya was inspected at Benares by a Pandit, who would not have deceived me, and could not himself have been deceived; but the owner of the book is dead, and his family dispersed; nor have my friends in that city been able, with all their exertions, to procure a copy of it. ...

I cannot help mentioning a discovery which accident threw in my way, though my proofs must be reserved for an essay which I have destined for the fourth volume of your Transactions.
To fix the situation of that Palibothra (for there may have been several of the name) which was visited and described by Megasthenes, had always appeared a very difficult problem, for though it could not have been Prayaga, where no ancient metropolis ever stood, nor Canyacubja, which has no epithet at all resembling the word used by the Greeks; nor Gaur, otherwise called Lacshmanavati, which all know to be a town comparatively modern, yet we could not confidently decide that it was Pataliputra, though names and most circumstances nearly correspond, because that renowned capital extended from the confluence of the Sone and the Ganges to the site of Patna, while Palibothra stood at the junction of the Ganges and Erannoboas, which the accurate M. D'Anville had pronounced to be the Yamuna; but this only difficulty was removed, when I found in a classical Sanscrit book, near 2000 years old, that Hiranyabahu, or golden armed, which the Greeks changed into Erannoboas, or the river with a lovely murmur, was in fact another name for the Sona itself; though Megasthenes, from ignorance or inattention, has named them separately. This discovery led to another of greater moment, for Chandragupta, who, from a military adventurer, became like Sandracottus the sovereign of Upper Hindustan, actually fixed the seat of his empire at Pataliputra, where he received ambassadors from foreign princes; and was no other than that very Sandracottus who concluded a treaty with Seleucus Nicator; so that we have solved another problem, to which we before alluded, and may in round numbers consider the twelve and three hundredth years before Christ, as two certain epochs between Rama, who conquered Silan a few centuries after the flood, and Vicramaditya, who died at Ujjayini fifty-seven years before the beginning of our era.

Since these discussions would lead us too far, I proceed to the History of Nature...

But I should be led beyond the limits assigned to me on this occasion, if I were to expatiate farther on the historical division of the knowledge comprised in the literature of Asia; and I must postpone till next year my remarks on Asiatic Philosophy, and on those arts which depend on imagination; promising you with confidence, that in the course of the present year, your inquiries into the civil and natural history of this eastern world will be greatly promoted by the learned labours of many among our associates and correspondents.
 

-- Discourse X. Delivered February 28, 1793, P. 192, Excerpt from "Discourses Delivered Before the Asiatic Society: And Miscellaneous Papers, on The Religion, Poetry, Literature, Etc. of the Nations of India", by Sir William Jones

Delu is said to have been a prince of uncommon bravery and generosity; benevolent towards men, and devoted to the service of God. The most remarkable transaction of his reign is the building of the city of Delhi, which derives its name from its founder, Delu. In the fortieth year of his reign, Phoor, a prince of his own family, who was governor of Cumaoon, rebelled against the Emperor, and marched to Kinoge, the capital. Delu was defeated, taken, and confined in the impregnable fort of Rhotas.
Image
Sirhind / Patiala / Delhi / Kannauj / "Pataliputra"

Phoor immediately mounted the throne of India, reduced Bengal, extended his power from sea to sea, and restored the empire to its pristine dignity. He died after a long reign, and left the kingdom to his son, who was also called Phoor, and was the same with the famous Porus, who fought against Alexander.

The second Phoor [Porus], taking advantage of the disturbances in Persia, occasioned by the Greek invasion of that empire under Alexander, neglected to remit the customary tribute, which drew upon him the arms of that conqueror. The approach of Alexander did not intimidate Phoor [Porus]. He, with a numerous army, met him at Sirhind, about one hundred and sixty miles to the north-west of Delhi, and in a furious battle, say the Indian historians, lost many thousands of his subjects, the victory, and his life. The most powerful prince of the Decan, who paid an unwilling homage to Phoor, or Porus, hearing of that monarch's overthrow, submitted himself to Alexander, and sent him rich presents by his son. Soon after, upon a mutiny arising in the Macedonian army, Alexander returned by the way of Persia.

Sinsarchund, the same whom the Greeks call Sandrocottus, assumed the imperial dignity after the death of Phoor, and in a short time regulated the discomposed concerns of the empire. He neglected not, in the mean time, to remit the customary tribute to the Grecian captains, who possessed Persia under, and after the death of, Alexander. Sinsarchund, and his son after him, possessed the empire of India seventy years. When the grandson of Sinsarchund acceded to the throne, a prince named Jona, who is said to have been a grand-nephew of Phoor, though that circumstance is not well attested, aspiring to the throne, rose in arms against the reigning prince, and deposed him.


-- The History of Hindostan, In Three Volumes, Volume I, by Alexander Dow, Esq., Lieutenant-Colonel in the Company's Service, 1812

Sir William Jones (1746-1794) deliberately identified 'Sandrocottus" mentioned by the Greeks as #ChandraguptaMaurya and declared that he was the contemporary of Alexander in 327-326 BCE...

Puranas tell us that Chandragupta Maurya ascended the throne by defeating the last Nanda king around 1500 BCE....

Therefore, #Samudragupta was the contemporary of Alexander in 327-326 BCE not Chandragupta Maurya...

The Greek scholars recorded the names of kings of India as Xandrames, and Sandrocottus. Western historians deliberately identified these names with those of Mahapadmananda or Dhanananda and Chandragupta Maurya. Xandrames was said to be the father of Sandrocottus. According to John W. McCrindle, Diodorus distorted the name "Sandrocottus" into Xandrames and this again is distorted by Curtius into Agrammes...

Seleucus Nikator also sent Deimachos on an embassy to Allitrocades or Amitrocades, the son of Sandrocottus. Western historians identified Allitrocades or Amitrocades to be Bindusara, the son of Chandragupta and concocted that Bindusara was also known as "Amitraghata". None of the Indian sources ever referred Bindusara as Amitraghata. Western historians deliberately created the word "Amitraghata" with some sort of resemblance...

Megasthenes described the system of city administration of Pataliputra but there is no similarity between the system described by Megasthenes and the system of city administration given in Kautilya Arthasastra. Megasthenes also stated that there was no slavery in India but Kautilya Arthasastra's Chapter 65 named "Dasakalpa" is solely devoted to the status of slaves among the Aryans and the Mlecchas. Probably, the slavery system that existed during Mauryan era has gradually declined by Gupta era. Thus, Megasthenes cannot be contemporary to Chandragupta Maurya.

Megasthenes not only often visited Palibothra but also stayed in the court of Sandrocottus for a few years. But he did not even mention about Kautilya or Chanakya who was the real kingmaker and also the patron of Chandragupta. No Greek scholar ever mentioned about Kautilya. Therefore, Megasthenes cannot be the contemporary to Chandragupta Maurya.

Greek scholars often mentioned that Sandrocottus was the king of the country called as Prasii (Prachi or Prachya). Pracha or Prachi means eastern country. During the Nanda and Mauryan era, Magadha kings were ruling almost entire India. Mauryan Empire was never referred in Indian sources as only Prachya desa or eastern country. Prachya desa was generally referred to Gupta Empire because Northern Saka Ksatrapas and Western Saka Ksatrapas were well established in North and West India. Megasthenes mentioned that Sandrocottus is the greatest king of the Indians and Poros is still greater than Sandrocottus which means a kingdom in the North-western region is still independent and enjoying at least equal status with the kingdom of Sandrocottus...

The Greek historian Plutarch mentioned that Androkottus (Sandrocottus) marched over the whole of India with an army of 600 thousand men. Chandragupta Maurya defeated Nandas under the leadership of Chanakya. There was no need for him to go on such expedition to conquer the whole of India because he has already inherited the Magadha kingdom of Nandas covering entire India. Actually, it was Samudragupta who overran the whole of India as details given in Allahabad pillar inscription.

According to Greek historians like Justinus, Appianus etc., Seleukos made friendship with Sandrocottus and entered into relations of marriage with him. Allahabad pillar inscription tells us that Samudragupta was offered their daughters in marriage (Kanyopayanadana ... ) by the kings in the North-west region. There is nothing in Indian sources to prove this fact with reference to Chandragupta Maurya...

The Jain work "Harivamsa" written by Jinasena gives the names of dynasties and kings and the duration of their rule after the nirvana of Mahavira. Jinasena mentions nothing about Mauryas but he tells us that Gupta kings ruled for 231 years. Western historians fixed the date of Mahavira-nirvana in 527 BCE which means Mauryas ruled after Mahavira-nirvana but Jaina Puranas and Jaina Pattavalis had no knowledge of Mauryas after Mahavira-nirvana. Thus, Mauryas ruled prior to Mahavira-nirvana. Therefore, Sandrocottus can only be identified with Samudragupta.

If Sandrocottus was indeed Chandragupta Maurya, why do none of the Greek sources mentioned about Asoka, the most illustrious and greatest of Mauryan kings? It is evident that Greek sources had no knowledge of Asoka. Therefore, the ancient Greeks were contemporaries to Gupta kings not Mauryas...

Interestingly, there is no reference of Alexander's invasion in Indian literary sources because it was actually a non-event for Indians...

Strabo once stated:


"Generally speaking, the men who have hitherto written on the affairs of India were a set of liars. Deimachos holds the first place in the list; Megasthenes comes next; while Onesikritos and Nearchos with others of the same class, manage to stammer out a few words of truth."...


If Samudragupta is accepted as Sandrocottus the contemporary Indian king of Alexander and the epoch of Saka coronation era in 583 BCE, there will be no conflict in the traditional Indian records and epigraphic records.

-- Who was Sandrocottus: Samudragupta or Chandragupta Maurya?, The Chronology of Ancient India, Victim of Concoctions and Distortions, by Vedveer Arya]

Recounting the scenario after the Hyphasis mutiny (Arr. 5.25, Diod. 17.93-5, Curt. 9.2.1-3.19), Badian writes with an air of definiteness:
For the moment, he tried to use the weapon that had succeeded before. He withdrew to his tent, for three days. But this time it did not help. The men were determined, and as Coenus had made clear, they had the officers’ support. Alexander could not divide them. All that remained was to save face.

Badian not only finds Alexander in an awkward position, but also casually notes his subsequent declaration that he would go on nonetheless and his ordering of sacrifices for crossing the river. Alexander’s vow to fight against the Prasii in the face of stiff opposition from both the soldiers and officers does appear somewhat comical but here lies a trap—where was their capital Palibothra? Could it really have been at Patna, so far removed from the northwest—the centre of early India?...

Through the mist of vague reports and geographical misconceptions, it is difficult to probe into the Hyphasis revolt, which came as a serious jolt to Alexander. After this, even though there were safer routes, Alexander chose to return to Iran through the desert of Gedrosia, suffering heavy losses in soldiers and civilians from lack of water, food and the extreme heat. That the motive behind this voyage has appeared so perplexing is due to two crucial lapses—the false location of Palibothra, capital of the Prasii, and the concomitant failure to recognise the mysterious Moeris of Pattala who played a determinant role....

Image
Territory of Gedrosia, among the eastern territories of the Achaemenid Empire.

The reports of Alexander’s historians clearly indicate that southeast Iran was within Greater India in the fourth century BC. As Prasii was in the Gedrosia area, the question arises—did the army refuse to fight the Prasii or only to march eastwards?... if the reluctance was to confront the Prasii, it appears sensible due to their formidable strength. As Moeris had fought beside Porus, the Prasiian army cannot have been left intact, though it could still have been a fighting force. It is probable that Moeris and his agents fomented discord among Alexander’s officers and soldiers... From this point onwards, if not earlier, Eumenes, Perdikkas and Seleucus may have been in touch with Moeris.

Only Justin (Just. xii, 8) reports that Alexander had defeated the Prasii. Palibothra, the Prasiian capital was famous for peacocks....

Curiously, Arrian writes that Alexander was so charmed by the beauty of peacocks that he decreed the severest penalties against anyone killing them (Arrian, Indica, xv.218). The picture of Alexander amidst peacocks appears puzzling: where did he come across the majestic bird? Does this fascination lead us to Palibothra? The height of absurdity is reached when we are told that eighteen months after the battle with Porus, Alexander suddenly remembered his ‘victory over the Indians’ in the wilderness of Carmania and set upon to celebrate it with fabulous mirth and abandon. Surprisingly it did not jar with the common sense of anyone why this was not celebrated in India. The ‘victory over the Indians’ in southeast Iran can lead to only one judicious conclusion—this was India in the fourth century BC. Moreover, if Alexander had indeed defeated the Indians, who could have been their leader but Moeris or Maurya? This clearly indicates that Alexander had indeed conquered the Prasii in Gedrosia.

Bosworth writes that the name of the place where the victory was celebrated was Kahnuj...
As the winter deepened, Alexander approached the Carmanian capital, which Diodorus (xvii.106.4) names Salmus. It was, according to Nearchus (Arr. Ind. 33.7), five days' journey from the coast. The site remains a mystery, but it was probably at the western side of the valley of the Halil Rud, in the general vicinity of the modern town of Khanu. The army was in an area of relative plenty but close enough to the coast to receive news of the progress of Nearchus' fleet. There Alexander sacrificed to commemorate his Indian victory and the emergence from the Gedrosian desert, and he held a musical and athletic festival, a drunken and festive affair, notable for the general acclaim achieved by Alexander's favourite Bagoas when he entered the winning chorus.

-- A. B. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great (Cambridge 1988), p. 150

Image
Kahnuj (Persian: كهنوج‎, also Romanized as Kahnūj) is a city and capital of Kahnuj County, Kerman Province, Iran.

Image
Patali (Persian: پاتلي‎, also Romanized as Pātalī; also known as Kheyrābād-e Pātelī) is a village in Jahadabad Rural District, in the Central District of Anbarabad County, Kerman Province, Iran.

It is therefore clear that Alexander did not run away from the Prasii, as Badian imagines, but had in fact pursued Moeris, their leader, through Gedrosia. The palace at Kahnuj where Alexander rejoiced must have been the fabled one which, according to Aelian, excelled those at Susa and Ekbatana (Aelian, xiii.18).

Nearchus certainly had other tasks than scientific fact-finding; the army was ordered to keep close to the shore and the navy moved in tandem. This orchestration and the large number of troops and horses on ships (quite unnecessary for a scientific mission) show that the navy was not only carrying provisions for the army which was engaged in a grim and protracted battle with a mighty adversary, but that the troops on the ships were also ready to support the army if needed. This is why the navy waited for twenty-four days near Karachi. The names Pataliputra and Pattala and Moeris and Maurya leave little to imagination.

Yet Badian fails to recognise that Moeris was Chandragupta Maurya of Prasii... Badian has no idea that the food crisis was due to the collusion of Alexander’s officers with Moeris. As a general, Alexander can hardly be blamed for imposing a levy in order to arrange for the supplies for his army; this is the reason why the people of Pattala had fled. In his unseemly haste to cast Alexander in a stereotype, Badian overturns the whole episode and goes on to compare him with Chengiz Khan.


-- An Altar of Alexander Now Standing at Delhi [EXPANDED VERSION], by Ranajit Pal


Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] was a ruler of Paropamisadae (modern north-west Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan), between the Hindu Kush mountains and Indus Valley during the 4th century BCE. ...

Sisikottos/Sisocostus appears twice in Arrian's Anabasis and once in Historiae Alexendri Magni by Curtius. Many scholars suggest that Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] was a ruler of some frontier hill state south of Hindukush, it is however, more appropriate to call him a military adventurer or a corporation leader coming from the warlike background of the fierce Kshatriya clan of the Ashvakas from Massaga or Aornos (Pir-Sir) or some other adjacent territory of the Ashvakas. No ancient evidence is available which attests Shashigupta's royal background prior to his appointment by Alexander as ruler of the Ashvakas of the Aornos country....

Some scholars identify him with Chandragupta Maurya...

In all probability, Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] was a professional soldier and led a corporation of mercenary soldier to help Persians especially Bessus, the Iranian Satrap of Bactria but once his case was lost, Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus], along with band of warriors (obviously as mercenary soldiers), threw his lot with the invaders and thereafter, rendered a great help to Alexander during latter's campaigns of Sogdiana and later also of the Kunar and Swat valleys.

In May 327 BCE, when Alexander the Great invaded the republican territories of the Alishang/Kunar, Massaga and Aornos on the west of Indus, Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] had rendered great service to the Macedonian invader in reducing several Kshatriya chiefs of the Ashvakas of the Alishang/Kunar and Swat valleys. He appears to have done this in an understanding with Alexander that after the reduction of this territory, he would be made the lord of the country. And Arrian definitively confirms that after the reduction of the fort of Aornos in Swat where the Ashvakas had put up a terrible resistance, Alexander entrusted the command of this extremely strategic fort of Aornos to Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] and made him the Satrap of the surrounding country of the eastern Ashvakas.

Towards the end of battle of Hydaspes (Jhelum), Arrian mentions a certain Meroes and attests him to be an Indian and an old friend of Porus (or Poros). Arrian further attests that he was finally chosen by Alexander to bring the fleeing Porus back for concluding peace treaty with Macedonian invader. It is notable that at the time of Porus's war with Alexander, Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus], the satrap of the eastern Ashvakas had very cordial relations with Porus. In fact, he was on good terms both with Porus as well as Alexander and was finally chosen by Alexander to effect peace negotiations between him (Alexander) and Porus when Taxiles i.e. the ruler of Taxila had failed in this endeavour. It is more than likely, as several scholars have speculated, that Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] may have alternatively been known also as Meroes (equivalent to the Sanskrit Maurya) after his native-land Meros (Mor or Mer in Prakrit, perhaps Mt Meru of Sanskrit texts). Another possibility is that name Meroes (Maurya?) may have been derived from "Mer" (hill or mountain) or "Mera" (hillman) on account of the fact that Sisicottos or Shashigupta was obviously a hilllman or mountaineer.

They relate that in the most primitive times, when the people of the country were still living in villages, Dionusos made his appearance coming from the regions lying to the west, and at the head of a considerable army. He overran the whole of India, as there was no great city capable of resisting his arms. The heat, however, having become excessive, and the soldiers of Dionusos being afflicted with a pestilence, the leader, who was remarkable for his sagacity, carried his troops away from the plains up to the hills. There the army, recruited by the cool breezes and the waters that flowed fresh from the fountains, recovered from sickness. The place among the mountains where Dionusos restored his troops to health was called Meros...

Such, then, are the traditions regarding Dionusos and his descendants current among the Indians who inhabit the hill-country.


-- Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian; Being a Translation of the Fragments of the Indika of Megasthenes Collected by Dr. Schwanbeck, and of the First Part of the Indika of Arrian, by J.W. McCrindle


A few months later when Alexander was still in Punjab and was engaged in war with the Glausais of Ravi/Chenab, the Ashvakas had assassinated Nicanor, the Greek governor of lower Kabul valley and also issued a threat to kill Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] if he continued to cooperate with the invaders. While Phillipos was appointed to Nicanor's place, no further reference to Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] by this name exists in classical sources. It appears likely that as a shrewd politician & statesman cum military general, Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] had sensed the pulse of time and therefore, after deserting Alexander’ camp, he had thrown his lot with the emerging powerful group of insurgents. Thence afterward, Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] seems to appear under an alternative name -- Moeres or Moeris of the classical chroniclers. It is notable that Moeres, Moeris, Meris and Meroes are all equivalent terms. Arrian writes Meroes while Curtius spells it as Moeres or Moeris. Chieftain Moeris of lower Indus delta (Patala) referenced by Curtius seems precisely to be the same person as Meroes of north-west, attested to be old friend of Porus by Arrian. Alexander was apparently annoyed at this development and pursued Shashigupta who appears to have fled with his followers to lower Indus. He probably appears there as Moeres of Curtius, a chief of Patala. It is but natural that after joining the band of insurgents, Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] alias Meroes or Moeres became a leader of the group of rebels and started his struggle for realizing his bigger goals for bigger regal power.

According to these scholars, it is very conspicuous that Shashigupta (Sisikottos) and Chandragupta (Sandrokotos) both names literally mean "moon-protected". "Shashi" part of Shashigupta has exactly the same meaning in Sanskrit as the "Chandra" part of Chandragupta—both mean "the moon". Thus, the two names are exact synonyms. Scholars say that it is not an uncommon practice in India to substitute one's given name with a synonym. Thus, it appears very likely, as many scholars believe, that Chandragupta may have been an alternative name for Shashigupta and both names essentially refer to same individual. This view is further reinforced if we compare the early lives of Shashigupta and Chandragupta. Both men are equally remarkable, both are military adventurers par excellence, both are rebellious and opportunists, both are equally ambitious, both are far-sighted and shrewd statesmen, and lastly but more importantly, both emerge in history precisely at the same time and at the same place in north-west India. Plutarch's classic statement that Andrakottos had met Alexander in his youth days probably alludes to the years when Sisikottos had gone to help Iranians against Alexander at Bactria in 329 BCE. J. W. McCrindle concludes from Plutarch's statement that Chandragupta was native of Punjab rather than Magadha. Appian's statement: "And having crossed Indus, Seleucus warred with Androkottos, the king of the Indians, who dwelt about that river (the Indus)" clearly shows that Chandragupta was initially a ruler of Indus country....

Dr Seth concludes: "If Chandragupta is identical to Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus], then we find no difficulty in assuming that he indeed belonged to the Kshatriya clan of the Ashvakas whose influence extended from the Hindukush to eastern Punjab at the time of Alexander's invasion. With Mauryan conquest of other parts of India, these Ashvakas settled in other parts of India as well...In the region lying between Hindukush and Indus, Alexander received terrible resistance from the Kshatriya tribe called Ashvakas".

Some scholars believe that the insurgency against the Greek rule in north-west had first started probably in lower Indus. If this is true, then Moeris of Patala may indeed have been the pioneer in this revolution and he may be assumed to be the same person as Meroes of north-west i.e. Chandragupta Maurya, alternatively known also as Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] originally a native of the Swat/Kunar valleys west of Indus. Other scholars like Dr B. M. Barua, Dr H. C. Seth etc. also identify Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] with Chandragupta. As noted above, Dr J. W. McCrindle calls Chandragupta a native of Panjab. American archaeologist David B. Spooner thinks that Chandragupta was an Iranian who had established a dynasty in Magadha. Based on the classical evidence, Dr H. R. Gupta thinks that Chandragupta as well as Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] both belonged to northwest frontiers and both, perhaps belonged to two different sections of the Ashvaka Kshatriyas. Dr Chandra Chakravarti also relates Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] and Chandragupta to northwest frontiers and states that Shashigupta [Sisikottos; Sisocostus] belonged to Malkand whereas Chandragupta Maurya was a ruler of Ujjanaka or Uddyana (Swat) territory of the Ashvakas.


-- Shashigupta [Sasigupta] [Sisikottos] [Sisocostus] [Sandrocottus] [Chandragupta Maurya] [Moeris] [Meroes] [Maurya], by Wikipedia


Image
Medieval stone relief at Digambara pilgrimage site Shravanabelagola, Karnataka. It has been interpreted as Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta Maurya,[1] but some disagree.[2]

1st Mauryan Emperor
Reign: c. 324 or 321 – c. 297 BCE[3][4]
Coronation: c. 324 or 321 BCE
Predecessor: Dhana Nanda
Successor: Bindusara (son)[5]
Spouses: Durdhara (according to Jain tradition)
Issue: Bindusara
Dynasty: Maurya



Chandragupta Maurya (reign: 321–297 BCE) was the founder of the Maurya Empire in ancient India. He was taught and counselled by the philosopher Chanakya, who had great influence in the formation of his empire. Together, Chandragupta and Chanakya built one of the largest empires on the Indian subcontinent. Chandragupta's life and accomplishments are described in ancient Greek, Hindu, Buddhist and Jain texts, but they vary significantly. In Ancient Greek and Latin accounts, Chandragupta [???] is referred [to] as Sandrokottos or Androcottus.

According to Eratosthenes, and Megasthenes who lived with Siburtios the satrap of Arachosia, and who, as he himself tells us, often visited Sandrakottos the king of the Indians...

According to Megasthenes the mean breadth (of the Ganges) is 100 stadia, and its least depth 20 fathoms. At the meeting of this river and another is situated Palibothra, a city eighty stadia in length and fifteen in breadth. It is of the shape of a parallelogram, and is girded with a wooden wall, pierced with loopholes for the discharge of arrows. It has a ditch in front for defence and for receiving the sewage of the city. The people in whose country this city is situated is the most distinguished in all India, and is called the Prasii. The king, in addition to his family name, must adopt the surname of Palibothros, as Sandrakottos, for instance, did, to whom Megasthenes was sent on an embassy....

Megasthenes says that those who were in the camp of Sandrakottos, wherein lay 400,000 men, found that the thefts reported on any one day did not exceed the value of two hundred drachmae, and this among a people who have no written laws, but are ignorant of writing, and must therefore in all the business of life trust to memory....

The wild men could not be brought to Sandrakottos, for they refused to take food and died. Their heels are in front, and the instep and toes are turned backwards...

But even Megasthenes, so far as appears, did not travel over much of India, though no doubt he saw more of it than those who came with Alexander the son of Philip, for, as he tells us, he resided at the court of Sandrakottos, the greatest king in India, and also at the court of Poros, who was still greater than he....

From the time of Dionysos to Sandrakottos the Indians counted 153 kings and a period of 6042 years, but among these a republic was thrice established * * * * and another to 300 years, and another to 120 years.

-- Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian; Being a Translation of the Fragments of the Indika of Megasthenes Collected by Dr. Schwanbeck, and of the First Part of the Indika of Arrian, by J.W. McCrindle, M.A.


Chandragupta Maurya was a pivotal figure in the history [???] of India, laying the foundations of the first government to unite most of South Asia. Chandragupta, under the tutelage of Chanakya, created a new empire based on the principles of statecraft, built a large army, and continued expanding the boundaries of his empire until ultimately renouncing it for an ascetic life in his final years.

Prior to his consolidation of power, Alexander the Great had invaded the North-West Indian subcontinent before abandoning his campaign in 324 BCE due to a mutiny caused by the prospect of facing another large empire, presumably the Nanda Empire. Chandragupta defeated and conquered both the Nanda Empire, and the Greek satraps that were appointed or formed from Alexander's Empire in South Asia. Chandragupta first gained regional prominence in the Greater Punjab region in the Indus. He then set out to conquer the Nanda Empire centered in Pataliputra, Magadha. Afterwards, Chandragupta expanded and secured his western border, where he was confronted by Seleucus I Nicator in the Seleucid-Mauryan War. After two years of war, Chandragupta was considered to have gained the upper hand in the conflict and annexed satrapies up to the Hindu Kush. Instead of prolonging the war, both parties settled on a marriage treaty between Chandragupta and Seleucus I Nicator.

Chandragupta's empire extended throughout most of the Indian subcontinent, spanning from modern day Bengal to Afghanistan across North India as well as making inroads into Central and South India. According to the Jain accounts dated to 800 years after his death, Chandragupta abdicated his throne and became a Jain monk, traveled away from his empire to South India and committed sallekhana or fasting to death. Contemporary Greek evidence however avers that Chandragupta did not give up performing the rites of sacrificing animals associated with Vedic Brahminism, an ancient form of Hinduism; he delighted in hunting and otherwise leading a life remote from the Jain practice of Ahimsa or nonviolence towards living beings...[6][7]

The Greek writers relate that the father of Sandrocottus was a man of low origin, being the son of a barber, whom the queen had married after putting her husband the king to death. He is called by Diodorus Siculus (16.93, 94) Xandrames, and by Q. Curtius (9.2) Aggrammes, the latter name being probably only a corruption of the former. This king sent his son Sandrocottus to Alexander the Great, who was then at the Hyphasis, and he is reported to have said that Alexander might easily have conquered the eastern parts of India, since the king was hated on account of his wickedness and the meanness of his birth. Justin likewise relates, that Sandrocottus saw Alexander, and that having offended him, he was ordered to be put to death, and escaped only by flight. Justin says nothing about his being the king's son, but simply relates that he was of obscure origin, and that after he escaped from Alexander he became the leader of a band of robbers, and finally obtained the supreme power...The name of Sandrocottus is written both by Plutarch and Appian Androcottus without the sibilant, and Athenaeus gives us the form Sandrocuptus (Σανδρόκυπτθς), which bears a much greater resemblance to the Hindu name than the common orthography. (Plut. Alex. 62 ; Justin, 15.4 ; Appian, Syr. 55 ; Strab. xv. pp. 702, 709, 724 ; Athen. 1.18e.; Arrian, Arr. Anab. 5.6.2; Plin. H. N. 6.17.)

-- Sandrocottus, by William Smith, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology


Chandragupta's reign, and the Maurya Empire, set an era of economic prosperity, reforms, infrastructure expansions, and tolerance. Many religions thrived within his realms and his descendants' empire. Buddhism, Jainism and Ajivika gained prominence alongside Vedic and Brahmanistic traditions, and minority religions such as Zoroastrianism and the Greek pantheon were respected. A memorial for Chandragupta Maurya exists on the Chandragiri hill along with a 7th-century hagiographic inscription.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Thu Sep 30, 2021 6:47 am

Part 2 of 4

Biography

Chandragupta's life and accomplishments are described in ancient and historical [???] Greek, Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain texts, though they significantly vary in detail.[8] The historical [???] sources which describe the life of Chandragupta Maurya vary considerably in detail. Chandragupta was born about 340 BCE and died about 297 BCE. His main biographical sources in chronological order are:[9]

Image
Statue of Chandragupta Maurya at Parliament of India

Greek and Roman sources, which are the oldest surviving records that mention Chandragupta or circumstances related to him; these include works written by Nearchus, Onesicritus, Aristobulus of Cassandreia, Strabo, Megasthenes, Diodorus, Arrian, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch and Justin.

The Greek writers relate that the father of Sandrocottus was a man of low origin, being the son of a barber, whom the queen had married after putting her husband the king to death. He is called by Diodorus Siculus (16.93, 94) Xandrames, and by Q. Curtius (9.2) Aggrammes, the latter name being probably only a corruption of the former. This king sent his son Sandrocottus to Alexander the Great, who was then at the Hyphasis, and he is reported to have said that Alexander might easily have conquered the eastern parts of India, since the king was hated on account of his wickedness and the meanness of his birth. Justin likewise relates, that Sandrocottus saw Alexander, and that having offended him, he was ordered to be put to death, and escaped only by flight. Justin says nothing about his being the king's son, but simply relates that he was of obscure origin, and that after he escaped from Alexander he became the leader of a band of robbers, and finally obtained the supreme power...The name of Sandrocottus is written both by Plutarch and Appian Androcottus without the sibilant, and Athenaeus gives us the form Sandrocuptus (Σανδρόκυπτθς), which bears a much greater resemblance to the Hindu name than the common orthography. (Plut. Alex. 62 ; Justin, 15.4 ; Appian, Syr. 55 ; Strab. xv. pp. 702, 709, 724 ; Athen. 1.18e.; Arrian, Arr. Anab. 5.6.2; Plin. H. N. 6.17.)

-- Sandrocottus, by William Smith, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology


• Hindu texts such as the Puranas and Arthashastra; later composed Hindu sources include legends in Vishakhadatta's Mudrarakshasa, Somadeva's Kathasaritsagara and Kshemendra's Brihatkathamanjari.

[N]either the Vedas, the Upanishads, nor the Purans, profess to be historical compositions; and the ascribing this character to the latter, in particular, is a most erroneous opinion, for, with the exception of the genealogies of the princes of the solar and lunar races, the Purans contain nothing which has the slightest semblance of history ... It is true that each Puran contains a description of the division of time according to the Hindu system; but the chronology of no event is fixed more precisely than by referring it generally to such a Kalpa, or Manvantara, or Yug, as the particular year is never mentioned. The attempting, therefore, to extract either chronology or history from such data, must be an operation attended with equal success as the extraction of sunbeams from cucumbers by the sages of Laputa" -- Vans Kennedy 1831: 130.

-- Frederick Eden Pargiter: Excerpt from The Puranas, by Ludo Rocher


• Buddhist sources are those dated in 4th-century or after, including the Sri Lankan Pali texts Dipavamsa (Rajavamsa section), Mahavamsa, Mahavamsa tika and Mahabodhivamsa.

• 7th to 10th century Jain inscriptions at Shravanabelgola; these are disputed by scholars as well as the Svetambara Jain tradition.[10][11] The second Digambara text interpreted to be mentioning the Maurya emperor is dated to about the 10th-century such as in the Brhatkathakosa of Harisena (Jain monk), while the complete Jain legend about Chandragupta is found in the 12th-century Parisishtaparvan by Hemachandra.

In the first fifteen pages of the Introduction to his Inscriptions at Sravana-Belgola (published in 1889), Mr. Rice has arrived at the conclusions, that the settlement of the Jains at that place was brought about by the last of the Sruta-Kevalins, Bhadrabahu, and that this person died there, tended in his last moments by the Maurya king Chandragupta...

It is clear that there are local traditions, of some antiquity, connecting the names Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta with Sravana-Belgola....

So far, we stand on safe ground, in respect of the names of a Bhadrabahu and a Chandragupta; provided that we only bear in mind that, as yet, we have nothing to enable us to identify any particular Bhadrabahu and any particular Chandragupta....

No, 105, of A.D, 1398, dealing similarly with the succession from Kondakunda, enumerates, before him, a number of teachers, in respect of whom, for present purposes, it is only necessary to say that the Kevalin Gautama, and five Sruta-Kevalins, ending with Bhadrabahu, are mentioned, but the name of Chandragupta does not occur at all....

These inscriptions undoubtedly mention Bhadrabahu, the last of the Sruta-Kevalins, and allot to him a disciple named Chandragupta. And all that we have to note here, is, that, except through the connected mention of a Chandragupta, they afford no grounds for identifying him with the Bhadrabahu of the inscriptions quoted in the last paragraph but two above; that they furnish no reasons for asserting that the Sruta-Kevalin Bhadrabahu ever visited Sravana-Belgola, or even came to Southern India at all; and that they give no indications of Chandragupta having been anything but an ordinary Jain teacher.

And now we come to the actual reasons that led Mr. Rice to assert the alleged facts which, in the interests of plain and reliable history, it is desirable either to substantiate or to disprove. They are to be found, partly in a compendium of Jain history called the Rajavalikathe, and partly in Mr. Rice’s rendering of another inscription at Sravana-Belgola, No. I in his book.

The essence of what the Rajavalikathe tells us is this (loc. cit. pp. 3-6): — "The Bhadrabahu who came to be the last of the Sruta-Kevalins, was a Brahman’s son, and was born at Kotikapura in Pundravardhana. He interpreted sixteen dreams of Chandragupta, the king of Pataliputra; the last of which indicated twelve years of dearth and famine. On the commencement of the famine, Chandragupta abdicated in favour of his son Simhasena, and, taking initiation in the Jain faith, joined himself to Bhadrabahu....After a time, Simhasena’s son, Bhaskara, came to the place, and did obeisance to Chandragupta, and built the city of Belgola near the hill. And eventually, Chandragupta himself died there.”...

— it is sufficient to point out two things. One is, that, whatever be the sources on which it is based, this Jain compendium is a composition of the present century (loc. cit. p. 3). And the other is that, by a further extract from the same work, we learn (ibid, p. 9) that the Chandragupta in question was not the well-known grandfather of Asoka, — the Sandrokottos of the Greeks, — at all, but a son, otherwise quite unknown, of Asoka’s son Kunala. Mr. Rice himself noticed this little difficulty, and got round it by suggesting (ibid. p. 10) that ‘the introduction of two Chandraguptas seems to be due to some confusion in the traditions, and is an unnecessary variation, perhaps intended to conceal the defection of Asoka (from Jainism to the Buddhist faith).' But, by such a process as this, — accepting as reliable an account that is perfectly valueless for historical purposes, and then directly perverting its statement, on a point of leading importance, by deliberately substituting a man’s grandfather in the place of his grandson, — almost anything whatever in the way of imaginary history might be evolved.

It is unnecessary to follow Mr. Rice through the process by which, using what seems to be an actual fact, viz. that Bhadrabahu, the last of the Sruta-Kevalins, was a contemporary of the great Chandragupta, he arrived (loc. cit. pp. 12, 14) at about B.C. 297 for the date of the events recorded, on his interpretation, in the inscription that still remains to be considered or through the steps by which he established a connection of the real Chandragupta with Southern India through the Early Guptas, the Mauryas of the Konkan, and the Gatta chieftains of the Kanareso country (ibid. pp. 10-14). We will turn now to the inscription itself.

The real purport of the inscription, No. 1 in the Sravana-Belgola volume, is as follows: — After the time when (the Jain Tirthamkara) Mahavira attained parinirvana, there was a certain Bhadrabahusvamin, who belonged to a lineage that had been made illustrious by a succession of great saints who came in continuous order from the venerable Paramarshi Gautama, and his disciple Loharya, and Jambu, Vishnudeva, Aparajita, Govardhana, Bhadrabahu, Visakha, Prosthhila, Krittikarya,3 [Mr. Rice gives “Kshatriksrya." I do not overlook the fact that the name occurs as “Kshatriya" in No. 165 in Mr. Rice’s book, and in the extract from the Maghanandi-Sravakachara given ante, Vol. XII. p 22, and as “Khattiya,” explained by “Kshatriya,” in the pattavali of the Sarasvati-Gachchha (ante, Vol, XX. p. 348). But Mr. Rice’s lithograph distinctly has the name that I give. — Since writing these remarks, I have seen impressions of the inscription, which I owe to the kindness of Dr. Hultzsch. They shew that the name really is Krittikarya.] Jayanaman, Siddhartha, Dhritishena, Buddhila, and other Gurus. At Ujjayini, the Bhadrabahusvamin, thus introduced, mastered the science of prognostication, became a knower of the past, the present, and the future, and announced a period of distress that would last for twelve years; and the entire sangha set out from the north and migrated to the south, and, by the directions of the saint, came to a country containing many hundreds of villages, and rich in people, wealth, gold, grain, cows, buffaloes, and goats. Then, on the mountain Katavapra4 [The original says, “on this mountain named Katavapra”; i.e. on the hill on which the inscription is engraved; i.e. on Chandragiri itself.] the Acharya Prabhachandra, perceiving that the end of his life was very near, and being much afraid of journeying any farther, dismissed the whole samgha, with the exception of one unnamed disciple, and engaged in samnyasa until he died."

In interpreting this record, Mr. Rice made two important mistakes. (1) He took the Bhadrabahusvamin who announced the period of distress, to be identical with Bhadrabahu I, the Sruta-Kevalin, who is mentioned in his proper place between Govardhana and Visakha. But, according to the inscription itself, seven of the Dasa-Parvins, and after them a break of unspecified duration, intervened between the two Bhadrabahus, — in perfect accordance with the lists of Northern India. And (2), in consequence of a mislection in line 6, he translated the inscription as meaning that the Acharya who died at Katavapra, was Bhadrabahusvamin himself, i.e,, as the result of his identification, Bhadrabahu I., the Sruta-Kevalin, and that the disciple who tended him was Prabhachandra; to which he attached a note that Prabhachandra was explained to him as the clerical name assumed by Chandragupta.5 [See also Introd. pp 6, 7, where, however, he says only that, "according to No. 1,” i.e. the present inscription, Chandragupta “appears” to have taken the name of Prabhachandra on retiring from the world, in conformity with custom.] But all this is distinctly not the case; the reading, in line 6, is, — not acharyyah Prabhachandren=am=avanitala, “the Acharya, with6 [The passage was supposed to include the word ama, in the sense of saha, — The inscription was first brought to notice by Mr. Rice in 1871, in this Journal, Vol. III., p. 153 (see also Mysore Inscriptions, pp. lxxxvi., lxxxvii., 302); and the first extract from the Rajavalikatne was also given. But Mr. Rice did not then find the name Prabhachandra in the inscription. And in respect of the extract from the Rajavalikathe, he then wrote — “This is a strange story. How much of it may be accepted as historical is not easy to say.”] Prabhachandra also, [dismissed the sangha, and engaged in samnyasa till he died],” — but acharyyah Prabhachandro nam=avanitala, "the Acharya, namely Prabhachandra, [dismissed the samgha and engaged in samnyasa till he died].”

In short, so far from recording that the Sruta-Kevalin Bhadrabahu died at Sravana Belgola, tended by a disciple named Prabhachandra, who might be assumed to be king Chandragupta of Pataliputra, the inscription simply states that an Acharya named Prabhachandra died there, during or shortly after a migration of the Jain community to the south, which was caused by an announcement of famine made, at Ujjain, by a certain Bhadrabahusvamin who came after an interval of unspecified duration, — but plainly a long one, — after the Sruta-Kevalin Bhadrabahu, And thus the only possible substantial foundation for the fabric reared up by Mr. Rice ceases entirely to exist.

We may now proceed to examine the real historical bearings of this inscription. It is not dated. But the lithographic Plate which is given by Mr. Rice, shews that the engraving of it is to be allotted to approximately the seventh century A.D.: it may possibly be a trifle earlier; and equally, it may possibly be somewhat later.7 [While recognising, approximately, the period to which the characters really belong, Mr. Rice (loc. cit. p. 15) arrived at the conclusion that, “if this interesting inscription did not precede the Christian era, it unquestionably belongs to the earliest part of that era and is certainly not later than about 100 A.D." But there are no substantial grounds for this view, which depends chiefly upon Mr. Rice’s acceptance as genuine, of the spurious Western Ganga grants. Unfortunately, much of what would otherwise be valuable work by him, is always vitiated in the same way.] And, interpreting the record in the customary manner, viz. as referring to an event almost exactly synchronous with the engraving of it, we can only take it as commemorating the death of a Jain teacher named Prabhachandra, in or very near to the period A.D. 600 to 700. Who this Prabhachandra was, I am not at present able to say. But he cannot be Prabhachandra I. of the pattavali of the Sarasvati-Gachchha (ante, Vol. XX. p. 351), unless the chronological details of that record, — according to which Prabhachandra I., became pontiff in A.D. 396, — are open to very considerable rectification. And I should think that he must be a different person, for whose identification we have to look to southern records not as yet available.


-- Bhadrabahu, Chandragupta, and Sravana-Belgola, by J.F. Fleet, Bo.C.S., M.R.A.S., C.I.E.

The Greek and Roman texts do not mention Chandragupta directly, except for a 2nd-century text written by the Roman historian Justin. They predominantly mention the last Nanda Empire, who usurped the king before him. Justin states Chandragupta was of humble origin and includes stories of miraculous legends associated with him, such as a wild elephant appearing and submitting itself as a ride to him before a war. Justin's text notes Chandragupta and Chanakya defeated and removed Nanda from his rule.[12] Megasthenes' account, as it has survived in Greek texts that quote him, states that Alexander the Great and Chandragupta [???] met, which if true would mean his rule started earlier than 321 BCE. He is described as a great king, but not as great in power and influence as Porus in northwestern India or Agrammes (Dhana Nanda) in eastern India.[13]

But even Megasthenes, so far as appears, did not travel over much of India, though no doubt he saw more of it than those who came with Alexander the son of Philip, for, as he tells us, he resided at the court of Sandrakottos, the greatest king in India, and also at the court of Poros, who was still greater than he.

-- Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian; Being a Translation of the Fragments of the Indika of Megasthenes Collected by Dr. Schwanbeck, and of the First Part of the Indika of Arrian, by J.W. McCrindle, M.A.


The pre-4th century Hindu Puranic texts mostly mirror the Greek sources.[???] These texts do not discuss the details of Chandragupta's ancestry, but rather cover the ancestry of the last Nanda king. The Nanda king is described to be cruel, against dharma and shastras, and born out of an illicit relationship followed by a coup.[14] The Chanakya's Arthasastra refers to the Nanda rule as against the spiritual, cultural, and military interests of the country, a period where intrigue and vice multiplied.[14] Chanakya states that Chandragupta returned dharma, nurtured diversity of views, and ruled virtuously that kindled love among the subjects for his rule. [14]

Chanakya: most of what is known about him comes from semi-legendary accounts.

-- Chanakya, by Wikipedia


Hindu sources are inconsistent. One medieval commentator states Chandragupta to be the son of one of the Nanda's wives with the name Mura.[14] Other sources describe Mura as a concubine of the king.[15] Another Sanskrit dramatic text Mudrarakshasa uses the terms Vrishala and Kula-Hina to describe Chandragupta.[16] The word Vrishala has two meanings: one is the son of a Shudra; the other means the best of kings. A later commentator used the former interpretation to posit that Chandragupta had a Shudra background. However, historian Radha Kumud Mukherjee opposed this theory, and stated that the word should be interpreted as "the best of kings".[16] The same drama also refers to Chandragupta as someone of humble origin, like Justin.[16] According to the 11th-century texts of the Kashmiri Hindu tradition – Kathasaritsagara and Brihat-Katha-Manjari – the Nanda lineage was very short. Chandragupta was a son of Purva-Nanda, the older Nanda based in Ayodhya. [17][18][19] The common theme in the Hindu sources is that Chandragupta came from a humble background and with Chanakya, he emerged as a dharmic king loved by his subjects.[20]

The Buddhist texts such as Mahavamsa describe Chandragupta to be of Kshatriya origin.[21] These sources, written about seven centuries after his dynasty ended, state that both Chandragupta and his grandson Ashoka – a patron of Buddhism – were from a branch of the Shakya noble family, from which Gautama Buddha descended from.[22] These Buddhist sources attempt to link the dynasty of their patron Ashoka directly to the Buddha.[23] The sources claim that the family branched off to escape persecution from a king of the Kosala Kingdom and Chandragupta's ancestors moved into a secluded Himalayan kingdom known for its peacocks. The Buddhist sources explain the epithet Moriya comes from these peacocks, or Mora in Pali (Sanskrit: Mayura). [22][3] The Buddhist texts are inconsistent; some offer other legends to explain his epithet. For example, they mention a city named "Moriya-nagara" where all buildings were made of bricks colored like the peacock's neck.[24] The Maha-bodhi-vasa states he hailed from Moriya-nagara, while the Digha-Nikaya states he came from the Moriya clan of Pipphalivana.[21] The Buddhist sources also mention that "Brahmin Chanakya" was his counselor and with whose support Chandragupta became the king at Pataliputra. [24]


Image
7th-century Bhadrabahu inscription at Shravanabelagola (Sanskrit, Purvahale Kannada script). This is the oldest inscription at the site, and it mentions Bhadrabahu and Prabhacandra. Lewis Rice and Digambara Jains interpret Prabhacandra to be Chandragupta Maurya, while others such as J F Fleet, V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar, and Svetambara Jains state this interpretation is wrong. [2][10][11]

The 12th-century Digambara text Parishishtaparvan by Hemachandra is the main and earliest Jain source of the complete legend of Chandragupta. It was written nearly 1,400 years after Chandragupta's death. Canto 8, verses 170 to 469, describes the legend of Chandragupta and Chanakya's influence on him. [21][25] Other Digambara Jain sources state he moved to Karnataka after renouncing his kingdom and performed Sallekhana – the Jain religious ritual of peacefully welcoming death by fasting.[26][27] The earliest mention of Chandragupta's ritual death is found in Harisena's Brhatkathakosa, a Sanskrit text of stories about Digambara Jains. The Brhatkathakosa describes the legend of Bhadrabahu and mentions Chandragupta in its 131st story.[28] However, the story makes no mention of the Maurya empire, and mentions that his disciple Chandragupta lived in and migrated from Ujjain – a kingdom (northwest Madhya Pradesh) about a thousand kilometers west of the Magadha and Patliputra (central Bihar). This has led to the proposal that Harisena's Chandragupta may be a later era, different person.[28][2][29]

Date

None of the ancient texts mention when Chandragupta was born. Plutarch claims that he [???] was a young man when he met Alexander during the latter's invasion of India (c. 326-325 BCE).

62. As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. 1 For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at-arms and horsemen and elephants. [2] For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand fighting elephants. And there was no boasting in these reports. For Androcottus, who reigned there not long afterwards, made a present to Seleucus of five hundred elephants, and with an army of six hundred thousand men overran and subdued all India.

[3] At first, then, Alexander shut himself up in his tent from displeasure and wrath and lay there, feeling no gratitude for what he had already achieved unless he should cross the Ganges, nay, counting a retreat a confession of defeat. But his friends gave him fitting consolation, and his soldiers crowded about his door and besought him with loud cries and wailing, until at last he relented and began to break camp, resorting to many deceitful and fallacious devices for the enhancement of his fame. [4] For instance, he had armour prepared that was larger than usual, and mangers for horses that were higher, and bits that were heavier than those in common use, and left them scattered up and down. Moreover, he erected altars for the gods, which down to the present time are revered by the kings of the Praesii when they cross the river, and on them they offer sacrifices in the Hellenic manner. Androcottus, when he was a stripling, saw Alexander himself, and we are told that he often said in later times that Alexander narrowly missed making himself master of the country, since its king was hated and despised on account of his baseness and low birth.

-- Plut. Alex. 62, Bernadotte Perrin, Ed.


Assuming the Plutarch account is true, Raychaudhuri proposed in 1923 that Chandragupta may have been born after 350 BCE.[30] According to other Greco-Roman texts, Chandragupta [???] attacked the Greek-Indian governors after Alexander's death (c. 323 CE) with Seleucus I Nicator entering into a treaty with Chandragupta years later.[31] Seleucus Nicator, under this treaty, gave up Arachosia (Kandahar), Gedrosia (Makran), and Paropanisadai (Paropamisadae, Kabul) to Chandragupta, in exchange for 500 war elephants. [13]

The texts do not include the start or end year of Chandragupta's reign.[32] According to some Hindu and Buddhist texts, Chandragupta ruled for 24 years.[33] The Buddhist sources state Chandragupta Maurya ruled 162 years after the death of the Buddha.[34] However, the Buddha's birth and death vary by source and all these lead to a chronology that is significantly different than the Greek-Roman records [???]. Similarly, Jain sources composed give different gaps between Mahavira's death and his accession.[34] As with the Buddha's death, the date of Mahavira's death itself is also a matter of debate, and the inconsistencies and lack of unanimity among the Jain authors cast doubt on Jain sources. This Digambara Jain chronology, also, is not reconcilable with the chronology implied in other Indian and non-Indian [???] sources.[34]

Historians such as Irfan Habib and Vivekanand Jha assign Chandragupta's reign to c. 322-298 BCE.[35] Upinder Singh dates his rule from 324 or 321 BCE to 297 BCE.[5] Kristi Wiley states he reigned between 320 and 293 BCE.[10]

Early life

The early life of Chandragupta Maurya is unclear and varies by source. According to the Sinhalese Buddhist tradition, Chandragupta's mother was pregnant when his father - who was the chief of the Moriya clan - was killed in a battle. His mother escaped to Pataliputra with the help of her brothers. For Chandragupta's safety, his maternal uncles helped a cowherd adopt him. When Chandragupta grew up, the cowherd sold him to a hunter who employed him to tend cattle.[36][37]

According to the Digambara legend by Hemachandra, Chanakya was a Jain layperson and a Brahmin. When Chanakya was born, Jain monks prophesied that Chanakya will one day grow up to help make someone an emperor and will be the power behind the throne.[38][25] Chanakya believed in the prophecy and fulfilled it by agreeing to help the daughter of a peacock breeding community chief deliver a baby boy. In exchange, he asked the mother to give up the boy and let him adopt him at a later date.[21][25] The Jain Brahmin then went about making money through magic, and returned later to claim young Chandragupta,[25] whom he taught and trained. Together, they recruited soldiers and attacked the Nanda kingdom. Eventually, they won and proclaimed Patliputra as their capital.[25]


Career

Influence of Chanakya (Kautilya)

Chanakya


Image
Chandragupta's guru was Chanakya, with whom he studied as a child and with whose counsel he built the Empire. This image is a 1915 artistic portrait of Chanakya.

The Buddhist and Hindu sources present different versions of how Chandragupta met Chanakya. Broadly, they mention young Chandragupta creating a mock game of a royal court that he and his cowherd friends played near Vinjha forest. Chanakya saw him give orders to the others, bought him from the hunter, and adopted Chandragupta.[39] Chanakya taught and admitted him in Taxila to study the Vedas, military arts, law, and other sastras.[39][40]

After Taxila, Chandragupta and Chanakya moved to Pataliputra, the capital and a historic learning center in the eastern Magadha kingdom of India. They met Nanda there according to Hindu sources, and Dhana Nanda according to Pali-language Buddhist sources.[41] Chandragupta became a commander of the Nanda army,
but according to Justin, Chandragupta offended the Nanda king ("Nandrum" or "Nandrus") who ordered his execution.[38] An alternate version states that it was the Nanda king who was publicly insulted by Chanakya.[42] Chandragupta and Chanakya escaped and became rebels who planned to remove the Nanda king from power.[43][note 1] The Mudrarakshasa also states that Chanakya swore to destroy the Nanda dynasty after he felt insulted by the king.[42]

Justin likewise relates, that Sandrocottus saw Alexander, and that having offended him, he was ordered to be put to death, and escaped only by flight.

-- Sandrocottus, by William Smith, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology

The passage regarding Candragupta's date is found in Justinius, Epitoma Pompet Trogi, xv 4 and Mr. McCrindle translated it as follows:2 [Mendelsohn's edition (Leipzig, 1879), I. 426.]

"[Seleucus] carried on many wars in the East after the division of the Macedonian kingdom between himself and the other successor of Alexander, first seizing Babylonia, and then reducing the Bactrians, his power being increased by the first success. Thereafter he passed into India, which had, since Alexander's death, killed his prefects, thinking that the yoke of slavery had been shaken off from its neck. The author of its freedom had been Sandrocottus, but when victory was gained he had changed the name of freedom to that of bondage. For, after he had ascended the throne, he himself oppressed with servitude the very people which he had rescued from foreign dominion. Though of humble birth, he was impelled by innate majesty to assume royal power. When king Nandrus,1 [McCrindle's translation, 114.] whom he had offended by his boldness, ordered him to be killed, he had resorted to speedy flight. Sandrocottus, having thus gained the crown, held India at the time when Seleucus was laying the foundations of his future greatness. Seleucus came to an agreement with him, and, after settling affairs in the East, engaged in the war against Antigonus."

-- History of Classical Sanskrit Literature, by Kavyavinoda, Sahityaratnakara M. Krishnamachariar, M.A., M.I., Ph.D., Member of the Royal Asiatic Society of London (Of the Madras Judicial Service), Assisted by His Son M. Srinivasachariar, B.A., B.L., Advocate, Madras, 1937

The Roman text by Justin mentions a couple of miraculous incidents that involved Sandracottus (Chandragupta [???]) and presents these legends as omens and portents of his fate. In the first incident, when Chandragupta [Sandrocottus!!!] was asleep after having escaped from Nandrum, a big lion came up to him, licked him, and then left. In the second incident, when Chandragupta [Sandrocottus!!!] was readying for war with Alexander's generals, a huge wild elephant approached him and offered itself to be his steed.[45]
Chandragupta as Leader of Revolution.

The Greek withdrawal from India was not an automatic process. It was forced by a revolution, a war of independence declared by Chandragupta as its leader. The assassinations of the Greek governors are not to be looked upon as mere accidents or isolated events. They were the preliminary incidents of a planned scheme of attack against Greek rule. The two years, 325 B.C. 323 B.C., that intervened between the death of Philip and that of Philip's master were busy years for those who were planning India's freedom. What was then happening may be gathered from the following words of Justin [XV. 4], our only source of evidence for this fateful episode in India's history: "India, after the death of Alexander, had shaken, as it were, the yoke of servitude from its neck and put his governors to death. The author of this liberation was Sandrocottus. This man was of humble origin but was stimulated to aspire to regal power by supernatural encouragement; for, having offended Alexander (Alexandrum which some scholars replace by the name Nandrum or Nanda) by his boldness of speech, and orders being given to kill him, he saved himself by swiftness of foot; and, while he was lying asleep, after his fatigue, a lion of great size, having come up to him, licked off with his tongue the sweat that was running from him, and after gently waking him, left him. Being first prompted by this prodigy to conceive hopes of royal dignity, he drew together a band of robbers and instigated the Indians to overthrow the existing (Greek) government. Sometimes after, as he was going to war with the generals of Alexander, a wild elephant of great bulk presented itself before him of its own accord and, as tamed down to gentleness, took him on his back and became his guide in the war and conspicuous in fields of battle. Sandrocottus, having thus acquired a throne, was in possession of India when Seleucus was laying the foundations of his future greatness". Stripped of its miraculous elements, the passage is a record of important history. It declares definitely that Chandragupta was the hero of this Indian war of independence. It also exhibits Chandragupta's plan of action which was first to dispose of what may be called the tall poppies of Greek India, its provincial governors who were Alexander's generals. We have already seen how this plan was given effect to by the assassination of the two most important Greek Satraps, Nicanor and Philip. It may be taken for granted that the removal of these two Greek governors practically meant the overthrow of Greek rule in India. Alexander when living was unable to take any effective steps against this defiance of his authority, and, after his death in 323 B.C., there was disruption in his empire, and India was left alone by the generals who partitioned. the empire. Thus it may be assumed that the death of Alexander meant the death of Greek rule in India. We have already seen how the provisions of the second partition of Alexander's empire in 321 B.C. practically point to the Greek recognition of the independence of India which was achieved by Chandragupta about 323 B.C., and, certainly, before 321 B.C.

If may be further noted that even if the reading Alexander is taken for the word Nandrum in the above passage of Justin, it will be quite in accord with the probabilities of the situation. The hero of Indian independence must have impressed Alexander with the promise of his future and roused his suspicion and enmity. This only added a private cause to the national cause of Chandragupta's hostility to Greek rule.

-- Mookerji, Radha Kumud (1988) [first published in 1966], Chandragupta Maurya and his times (4th ed.), Motilal Banarsidass, p. 32.

Before the war with Antigonus was commenced by Ptolemy and his allies, Seleucus, on a sudden, leaving the Greater Asia,10 [In opposition to Asia Minor.] came forward as a fresh enemy to Antigonus. The merit of Seleucus was well known, and his birth had been attended with extraordinary circumstances. His mother Laodice, being married to Antiochus, a man of eminence among Philip’s generals, seemed to herself, in a dream, to have conceived from a union with Apollo, and, after becoming pregnant, to have received from him, as a reward for her compliance, a ring, on the stone of which was engraved an anchor and which she was desired to give to the child that she should bring forth. A ring similarly engraved, which was found the next day in the bed, and the figure of an anchor, which was visible on the thigh of Seleucus when he was born, made this dream extremely remarkable. This ring Laodice gave to Seleucus, when he was going with Alexander to the Persian war, informing him, at the same time, of his paternity. After the death of Alexander, having secured dominion in the east, he built a city, where he established a memorial of his two-fold origin; for he called the city Antioch from the name of his father Antiochus, and consecrated the plains near the city to Apollo. This mark of his paternity continued also among his descendants; for his sons and grandsons had an anchor on their thigh, as a natural proof of their extraction.

After the division of the Macedonian empire among the followers of Alexander, he carried on several wars in the east. He first took Babylon, and then, his strength being increased by this success, subdued the Bactrians. He next made an expedition into India, which, after the death of Alexander, had shaken, as it were, the yoke of servitude from its neck, and put his governors to death. The author of this liberation was Sandrocottus, who afterwards, however, turned their semblance of liberty into slavery; for, making himself king, he oppressed the people whom he had delivered from a foreign power, with a cruel tyranny. This man was of mean origin, but was stimulated to aspire to regal power by supernatural encouragement; for, having offended Alexander by his boldness of speech, and orders being given to kill him, he saved himself by swiftness of foot; and while he was lying asleep, after his fatigue, a lion of great size having come up to him, licked off with his tongue the sweat that was running from him, and after gently waking him, left him. Being first prompted by this prodigy to conceive hopes of royal dignity, he drew together a band of robbers, and solicited the Indians to support his new sovereignty. Some time after, as he was going to war with the generals of Alexander, a wild elephant of great bulk presented itself before him of its own accord, and, as if tamed down to gentleness,11 [Veluti domita mansuetudine (As if tamed by meekness) stands in Wetzel’s text, and I believe in all others. Scheffer asks whether there is mansuetudo (meekness) not domita (tamed). Dübner, the editor of a small edition with French notes (Par. 18mo. 1847), says that Cuper, de Elephantis, p. 47, proposes to read domitus ad mansuetudinem (tamed with gentleness.).] took him on its back, and became his guide in the war, and conspicuous in fields of battle. Sandrocottus, having thus acquired a throne, was in possession of India, when Seleucus was laying the foundations of his future greatness; who, after making a league with him, and settling his affairs in the east, proceeded to join in the war against Antigonus. As soon as the forces, therefore, of all the confederates were united, a battle was fought,12 [At Ipsus in Phrygia.] in which Antigonus was slain, and his son Demetrius put to flight.

But the allied generals, after thus terminating the war with the enemy, turned their arms again upon each other, and, as they could not agree about the spoil, were divided into two parties. Seleucus joined Demetrius, and Ptolemy Lysimachus. Cassander dying, Philip, his son, succeeded him. Thus new wars arose, as it were, from a fresh source, for Macedonia.

-- Justinus (XV. 4)

Building the empire

Main articles: Conquest of the Nanda Empire and Maurya Empire

According to the Buddhist text Mahavamsa Tika, Chandragupta and Chanakya raised an army by recruiting soldiers from many places after the former completed his education at Taxila. Chanakya made Chandragupta the leader of the army.[46] The Digambara Jain text Parishishtaparvan states that this army was raised by Chanakya with coins he minted and an alliance formed with Parvataka.[47][48] According to Justin, Chandragupta [Sandrocottus!!!] organized an army. Early translators interpreted Justin's original expression as "body of robbers", but states Raychaudhuri, the original expression used by Justin may mean mercenary soldier, hunter, or robber.[49]

The Buddhist Mahavamsa Tika and Jain Parishishtaparvan records Chandragupta's army unsuccessfully attacking the Nanda capital. [47] Chandragupta and Chanakya then began a campaign at the frontier of the Nanda empire, gradually conquering various territories on their way to the Nanda capital.[50] He then refined his strategy by establishing garrisons in the conquered territories, and finally besieged the Nanda capital Pataliputra. There Dhana Nanda accepted defeat, and was killed by Buddhist accounts,[51] or deposed and exiled by Hindu accounts.[52]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Fri Oct 01, 2021 2:26 am

Part 3 of 4

Conquest of the Nanda empire

Greco-Roman writer Plutarch stated, in his Life of Alexander, that the Nanda [???] king was so unpopular that had Alexander tried, he could have easily conquered India.[43][53]

Androcottus, when he was a stripling, saw Alexander himself, and we are told that he often said in later times that Alexander narrowly missed making himself master of the country, since its king was hated and despised on account of his baseness and low birth.

-- Plut. Alex. 62, Bernadotte Perrin, Ed.


After Alexander ended his campaign and left, Chandragupta's army conquered the Nanda capital Pataliputra around 322 BCE with Chanakya's counsel.[38]

Historically reliable details of Chandragupta's campaign into Pataliputra are unavailable and legends written centuries later are inconsistent. Buddhist texts such as Milindapanha claim Magadha was ruled by the Nanda dynasty, which, with Chanakya's counsel, Chandragupta conquered to restore dhamma.[54][55] The army of Chandragupta and Chanakya first conquered the Nanda outer territories before invading Pataliputra. In contrast to the easy victory in Buddhist sources, the Hindu and Jain texts state that the campaign was bitterly fought because the Nanda dynasty had a powerful and well-trained army.[56][55]

The conquest was fictionalised in Mudrarakshasa, in which Chandragupta is said to have first acquired Punjab and allied with a local king named Parvatka under the Chanakya's advice before advancing on the Nanda Empire.[57] Chandragupta laid siege to Kusumapura (now Patna), the capital of Magadha, by deploying guerrilla warfare methods with the help of mercenaries from conquered areas.
[58][59] Historian P. K. Bhattacharyya states that the empire was built by a gradual conquest of provinces after the initial consolidation of Magadha.[60]

According to the Digambara Jain version by Hemachandra, the success of Chandragupta and his strategist Chanakya was stopped by a Nanda town that refused to surrender.[61] Chanakya disguised himself as a mendicant and found seven mother goddesses (saptamatrika) inside. He concluded these goddesses were protecting the town people.[61] The townspeople sought the disguised mendicant's advice on how to end the blockade of the army surrounding their town. Hemacandra wrote Chanakya swindled them into removing the mother goddesses. The townspeople removed the protective goddesses and an easy victory over the town followed. Thereafter, the alliance of Chandragupta and Parvataka overran the Nanda kingdom and attacked Pataliputra with an "immeasurable army".[61] With a depleted treasury, exhausted merit, and insufficient intelligence, the Nanda king lost.[61]

These legends state that the Nanda king was defeated, but allowed to leave Pataliputra alive with a chariot full of items his family needed.[62] The Jain sources attest that his daughter fell in love at first sight with Chandragupta and married him.[61][21] With the defeat of Nanda, Chandragupta Maurya founded the Maurya Empire in ancient India.[3][63]


Conquest of north-west regions

The Indian campaign of Alexander the Great ended before Chandragupta came into power. Alexander had left India in 325 BCE and assigned the northwestern Indian subcontinent territories to Greek governors.[64][65] The nature of early relationship between these governors and Chandragupta [???] is unknown. Justin mentions Chandragupta [Sandrocottus !!!] as a rival of the Alexander's successors in north-western India.[35] He states that after Alexander's death, Chandragupta [Sandrocottus !!!] freed Indian territories from the Greeks and executed some of the governors.[66] According to Boesche, this war with the northwestern territories were in part fought by mercenaries hired by Chandragupta and Chanakya, and these wars may have been the cause of the demise of two of Alexander's governors, Nicanor and Philip.[67] Megasthenes served as a Greek ambassador in his court for four years.[63]

"The following statements," continues Muller, "contain all that is related about Megasthenes: —

"Megasthenes the historian, who lived with Seleukos Nikator',— Clem. Alex. p. 132 Sylb. (Fragm. 42); 'Megasthenes, who lived with Sibyrtios the satrap of Arachosia, and who says that he often visited Sandrakottos, king of the Indians,'— Arrian, Exp. Alex. V. vi. 2 (Fragm. 2);— 'To Sandrokottos, to whom Megasthenes came on an embassy,' — Strabo, xv. p. 702 (Fragm. 25);— 'Megasthenes and Deimachos were sent on an embassy, the former to Sandrokottos at Palimbothra, the other to Allitrochades his son; and they left accounts of their sojourn in the country,' — Strabo, ii. p. 70 (Fragm. 29 note); Megasthenes says that he often visited Sandrokottos, the greatest king (maharaja: v. Bohlen, Alte Indian, I. p. 19) of the Indians, and Poros, still greater than he: — Arrian, Lid. c. 5 (Fragm. 24). Add the passage of Plinitis, which Solinus (Polyhistar. c. (50) thus renders:—'Megasthenes remained for some time with the Indian kings, and wrote a history of Indian affairs, that he might hand down to posterity a faithful account of all that he had witnessed. Dionysius, who was sent by Philadelphus to put the truth to the test by personal inspection, wrote also as much.'

"From these sources, then, we gather that Megasthenes was the representative of Seleukos at the court of Sibyrtios, satrap of Arachosia, and that he was sent from thence as the king's ambassador to Sandrokottos at Palimbothra, and that not once, but frequently — whether to convey to him the presents of Seleukos, or for some other cause. According to the statement of Arrianus, Megasthenes also visited king Poros, who was (Diod. xix. 14) already dead in 317 B.C. (Olymp. CXV. 4.) These events should not be referred to the period of Seleukos, but they may very easily be placed in the reign of Alexander, as Bohlen (Alte Indien, vol. I. p. 68) appears to have believed they should, when he says Megasthenes was one of the companions of Alexander. But the structure of the sentences does not admit of this conclusion. For Arrianus says, 'It appears to me that Megasthenes did not see much of India, but yet more than the companions of Alexander, for he says, that he visited Sandrokottos, the greatest king of the Indians, and Poros even greater than he ([x]).' We should be disposed to say, then, that he made a journey on some occasion or other to Poros, if the obscurity of the language did not lead us to suspect it a corrupt reading. Lassen (De. Pentap. p. 44) thinks the mention of Poros a careless addition of a chance transcriber, but I prefer Schwanbeck's opinion, who thinks it should be written [x], 'and who was even greater than Poros.' If this correction is admitted, everything fits well.

"The time when he discharged his embassy or embassies, and how long he stayed in India, cannot be determined, but he was probably sent after the treaty had been struck and friendship had sprung up between the two kings. If, therefore, we make the reign of Sandrokottos extend to the year 288, Megasthenes would have set out for Palimbothra between 302 and 288. Clinton (F. H. vol. III., p. 482) thinks he came to the Indian king a little before B.C. 302."


-- Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian; Being a Translation of the Fragments of the Indika of Megasthenes Collected by Dr. Schwanbeck, and of the First Part of the Indika of Arrian, by J.W. McCrindle, M.A.


Image
Chandragupta had defeated the remaining Macedonian satrapies in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent by 317 BCE.

War and marriage alliance with Seleucus

According to Appian, Seleucus I Nicator, one of Alexander's Macedonian generals who in 312 BCE established the Seleucid Kingdom with its capital at Babylon, brought Persia and Bactria under his own authority, putting his eastern front facing the empire of Chandragupta [Sandrocottus!!!].[68][69] Seleucus and Chandragupta [Sandrocottus!!!] waged war until they came to an understanding with each other. Seleucus married off his daughter to Chandragupta [Sandrocottus!!!] to forge an alliance.[69]
The geographical position of the tribes is as follows: along the Indus are the Paropamisadae, above whom lies the Paropamisus mountain: then, towards the south, the Arachoti: then next, towards the south, the Gedroseni, with the other tribes that occupy the seaboard; and the Indus lies, latitudinally, alongside all these places; and of these places, in part, some that lie along the Indus are held by Indians, although they formerly belonged to the Persians. Alexander [III 'the Great' of Macedon] took these away from the Arians and established settlements of his own, but Seleucus Nicator gave them to Sandrocottus upon terms of intermarriage and of receiving in exchange five hundred elephants. — Strabo 15.2.9

"He carried on many wars in the East after the division of the Makedonian kingdom between himself and the other successors of Alexander, first seizing Babylonia, and then reducing Baktriane, his power being increased by the first success. Thereafter he passed into India, which had, since Alexander's death, killed its governors, thinking thereby to shake off from its neck the yoke of slavery. Sandrokottos had made it free: but when victory was gained he changed the name of freedom to that of bondage, for he himself oppressed with servitude the very people which he had rescued from foreign dominion. Sandrokottos, having thus gained the crown, held India at the time when Seleukos was laying the foundations of his future greatness. Seleukos came to an agreement with him, and, after settling affairs in the East, engaged in the war against Antigonos (302 B.C.).' — -- Justinus (XV. 4)

'He (Seleukos) crossed the Indus and waged war on Sandrokottos, king of the Indians who dwelt about it, until he made friends and entered into relations of marriage with him.' -- Appianus [c. 95 – c. AD 165)] (Syr. c. 55)

Chandragupta [Sandrocottus!!!] or his son may have married a daughter of Seleucus, or perhaps there was diplomatic recognition of intermarriage between Indians and Greeks.

-- Seleucus I Nicator, by Wikipedia

Having punished with a stern hand the misrule of his satraps, Macedonian and Persian alike, Alexander began to carry out schemes which he had formed. He had unbarred and unveiled the Orient to the knowledge and commerce of the Mediterranean peoples, but his aim was to do much more than this; it was no less than to fuse Asia and Europe into a homogeneous unity. He devised various means for compassing this object. He proposed to transplant Greeks and Macedonians into Asia, and Asiatics into Europe, as permanent settlers. This plan had indeed been partly realised by the foundation of his numerous mixed cities in the Far East. The second means was the promotion of intermarriages between Persians and Macedonians, and this policy was inaugurated in magnificent fashion at Susa. The king himself espoused Statira, the daughter of Darius; his friend Hephaestion took her sister; and a large number of Macedonian officers wedded the daughters of Persian grandees. Of the general mass of the Macedonians 10,000 are said to have followed the example of their officers and taken Asiatic wives.

-- Chapter XVIII: The Conquest of the Far East, Excerpt from "History of Greece for Beginners", by J. B. Bury, M.A.

R. C. Majumdar and D. D. Kosambi note that Seleucus appeared to have fared poorly after ceding large territories west of the Indus to Chandragupta. The Maurya Empire added Arachosia (Kandahar), Gedrosia (Balochistan), and Paropamisadae (Gandhara).[70][71][a] According to Strabo, Seleucus Nicator gave these regions to Chandragupta along with a marriage treaty, and in return received five hundred elephants.[72] The details of the engagement treaty are not known.[73] According to one version, the marriage treaty involved an Indian princess, while a different version states a Seleucid princess married into the Mauryan family.[74]

Chandragupta sent 500 war elephants to Seleucus, which played a key role in Seleucus' victory at the Battle of Ipsus.[75][76][77] In addition to this treaty, Seleucus dispatched Megasthenes as an ambassador to Chandragupta's court, and later Antiochos sent Deimakos to his son Bindusara at the Maurya court at Patna.[78]

The Mahavamsa states Chandragupta married a daughter of Seleucus. As well, an Indian Puranic source, the Pratisarga Parva of the Bhavishya Purana, also described the marriage of Chandragupta with a Greek ("Yavana") princess, daughter of Seleucus (Suluva in Indian sources).

-- Seleucus I Nicator, by Wikipedia

Southern conquest

After annexing Seleucus' provinces west of the Indus river, Chandragupta had a vast empire extending across the northern Indian sub-continent from the Bay of Bengal to the Arabian Sea. Chandragupta began expanding his empire southwards beyond the Vindhya Range and into the Deccan Plateau.[38] By the time his conquests were complete, Chandragupta's empire extended over most of the subcontinent.[79]

Two poetic anthologies from the Tamil Sangam literature corpus -– Akananuru and Purananuru –- allude to the Nanda rule and Maurya empire. For example, poems 69, 281 and 375 mention the army and chariots of the Mauryas, while poems 251 and 265 may be alluding to the Nandas.[80] However, the poems dated between 1st-century BCE to 5th-century CE do not mention Chandragupta Maurya by name, and some of them could be referring to a different Moriya dynasty in the Deccan region in the 5th century CE.[81] According to Upinder Singh, these poems may be mentioning Mokur and Koshar kingdoms of Vadugars (northerners) in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, with one interpretation being that the Maurya empire had an alliance with these at some point of time.[82]
The Sangam literature historically known as 'the poetry of the noble ones' connotes the ancient Tamil literature and is the earliest known literature of South India. The Tamil tradition and legends link it to three literary gatherings around Madurai and Kapāṭapuram (Pandyan capitals): the first over 4,440 years, the second over 3,700 years, and the third over 1,850 years before the start of the common era. Scholars consider this Tamil tradition-based chronology as ahistorical and mythical. Most scholars suggest the historical Sangam literature era spanned from c. 300 BCE to 300 CE, while others variously place this early classical Tamil literature period a bit later and more narrowly but all before 300 CE. According to Kamil Zvelebil – a Tamil literature and history scholar, the most acceptable range for the Sangam literature is 100 BCE to 250 CE, based on the linguistic, prosodic and quasi-historic allusions within the texts and the colophons.

The Sangam literature had fallen into oblivion for much of the second millennium of the common era, but were preserved by and rediscovered in the monasteries of Hinduism, particularly those related to Shaivism near Kumbakonam, by the colonial era scholars in the late nineteenth century. The rediscovered Sangam classical collection is largely a bardic corpus....

This collection contains 2381 poems in Tamil composed by 473 poets, some 102 anonymous. Of these, 16 poets account for about 50% of the known Sangam literature, with Kapilar – the most prolific poet – alone contributing just little less than 10% of the entire corpus.These poems vary between 3 and 782 lines long. The bardic poetry of the Sangam era is largely about love (akam) and war (puram), with the exception of the shorter poems such as in paripaatal which is more religious and praise Vishnu, Shiva, Durga and Murugan.

-- Sangam literature, by Wikipedia


Names and titles

Greek writer Phylarchus (c. 3rd century BCE), who is quoted by Athenaeus, calls Chandragupta [Sandrocottus !!!] "Sandrokoptos". The later Greco-Roman writers Strabo, Arrian, and Justin (c. 2nd century) call him "Sandrocottus".[83] In Greek and Latin accounts, Chandragupta is known as Sandrakottos (Greek: Σανδράκοττος) and Androcottus (Greek: Ανδροκόττος). [84][85] However, some recent authors have disputed the identification of "Sandrokottus" of Greek accounts with Chandragupta Maurya.[86][87]

The king's epithets mentioned in the Sanskrit play Mudrarakshasa include "Chanda-siri" (Chandra-shri), "Piadamsana" (Priya-darshana), and Vrishala.[83] Piadamsana is similar to Piyadasi, an epithet of his grandson Ashoka.[88]

T]he name Asoka is rare even in his edicts. Only Jones’s blunder obscured that, apart from Piyadassi and Devanampiya, Devadatta was also a name of Asoka. The name dmydty in Asoka's famous Taxila pillar Aramaic inscription refers to Devadatta. The line l dmy dty `l’, which Marshall and Andreas translated as ‘for Romedatta’, in fact refers to Damadatta or Devadatta (‘M’ and ‘B’ were often interchanged). Tarn notes that Diodorus of the Greeks can be the same as Devadatta of the Indians.

In fact, Devanampiya, his most common name in the edicts, has the same meaning as Devadatta. Its literal Sanskrit rendering, ‘beloved of the Gods’, is only a secondary sense aimed at his subjects in the sub-continent. Like the Greek word nÒmoj (nomos), the word Nam in Persian means ‘law’, another Persian word for which is Dat. Thus Devanam has the same meaning as Devadat; Piya stands for a redeemer (like Priam of Troy). This clearly shows that Asoka was the same as Diodotus I. After embracing Buddhism, Asoka had to change his name Devadatta as it was the name of Gotama’s hated adversary. In the eighth rock edict he states that his ancestors were also Devanampiyas, which shows that it is a cognomen, not a title—thus even Chandragupta could have been a Devadat or Diodotus (of Erythrae). The term Deva, as known from the Shahnama,(div) the Avesta and Xerxes’ daiva inscription, initially meant a clan, not god. Ignorance of this has led to senseless translations of Asoka's edicts as ‘Gods mingled with men’....

Significantly, Asoka is also sometimes a Parthian, sometimes a Bactrian, and sometimes even a descendant of the Achaemenids. Many Parthian Kings assumed the title Arsaces, which was also written as Assak. The similarity of Assak with Asoka may appear fortuitous, but it is not so. Another Parthian royal title, Priapati(us) also resembles Piadassi, Asoka’s title. Asoka’s hold on Bactria is beyond dispute, and great scholars like Wheeler note the strong Achaemenian imprint on his architecture....

Armed with this definition of Parthia, one can turn to an invaluable clue in Asoka’s edicts on the Mauryas and the Bactrian Greeks. In the Minor Rock Edict I, Asoka explicitly calls himself the ‘king of Pathavi’—an unmistakable allusion to Parthia (Parthava of the Achaemenian records). The word Pathavi has been confused by uninformed writers with Prithvi, the Sanskrit word for the Earth, and the statement has been dismissed as just another instance of royal vainglory. This, however, is disproved comprehensively by the fact that his name, Asoka Vardhana, links him with Parthian Kings like Vardanes. Rostovtzeff’s suggestion of Parthian influence becomes only natural if one notes that the king of Pathavi was Asoka. Smith is certain that Seleucus surrendered to Chandragupta the districts of Aria (Herat area), Gedrosia (Baluchistan area), Arachosia (Kandahar region) and Paropamisadae (Kabul region). But, despite his great erudition, Tarn maintained rashly that Asoka received no part even of the Paropamisadae. Tarn’s view became untenable in the light of the discovery of Asoka’s Kandahar edict, and even he had to concede that Asoka ‘established some sort of suzerainty over Paropamisadae’. Asoka’s own claim of being the king of Pathavi in a way lays the controversy to rest. The Parthian Prince An-shih-kao, who dedicated his life to the spread of Buddhism, is clearly Diodotus.

-- An Altar of Alexander Now Standing at Delhi [EXPANDED VERSION], by Ranajit Pal

The word "Vrishala" is used in Indian epics and law books to refer to non-orthodox people. According to one theory, it may be derived from the Greek royal title Basileus, but there is no concrete evidence of this: the Indian sources apply it to several non-royals, especially wandering teachers and ascetics.[89]

Image
A modern statue depicting Chandragupta Maurya, Laxminarayan Temple, Delhi

Empire

There are no records of Chandragupta's military conquests and the reach of his empire. It is based on inferences from Greek and Roman historians and the religious Indian texts written centuries after his death. Based on these, the North-West reach of his empire included parts of present-day Afghanistan that Seleucus I Nicator ceded to him including Kabul, Kandahar, Taxila and Gandhara.[70][90] These are the areas where his grandson Ashoka left the major Kandahar rock edict and other edicts in the Greek and Aramaic languages.[91][92]

In the west, Chandragupta's rule over present-day Gujarat is attested to by Ashoka's inscription in Junagadh. On the same rock, about 400 years later, Rudradaman inscribed a longer text sometime about the mid 2nd–century.[93] Rudradaman's inscription states that the Sudarshana lake in the area was commissioned during the rule of Chandragupta through his governor Vaishya Pushyagupta and conduits were added during Ashoka's rule through Tushaspha. The Mauryan control of the region is further corroborated by the inscription on the rock, which suggests that Chandragupta controlled the Malwa region in Central India, located between Gujarat and Pataliputra.
[94]
The Junagadh rock inscription of Rudradaman,... is a Sanskrit prose inscribed on a rock by the Western Satraps ruler Rudradaman I. It is located near Girnar hill near Junagadh, Gujarat, India. The inscription is dated to shortly after 150 CE. The Junagadh rock contains inscriptions of Ashoka, Rudradaman I and Skandagupta....

The Rudradaman inscription is near the top, above the Ashoka edict...

The first sixteen lines are extensively damaged in parts and are incomplete, with evidence suggesting willful damage as well as natural rock peeling. The lost text constitutes about 15 percent of the total text. The last four are complete and in a good state of preservation. According to Kielhorn, the alphabet is an earlier form of the "decidedly southern alphabet"...The first eight lines offer a historical record of water management and irrigation conduits at the Sudarshana Lake from the era of Chandragupta Maurya (321-297 BCE) to the time when the inscription was written around 150 CE. The last twelve lines praise king Rudradaman I...

James Prinsep, known for his work with the Brahmi script, first edited and translated this inscription in April 1838....

The inscription is significant as a historical record of public works in ancient India, nearly 500 years before the inscription was created. It mentions the construction of a water reservoir named Sudarshana nearby, during the reign of the Maurya Empire founder Chandragupta Maurya by Vaishya Pushyagupta. Later, during the reign of Ashoka, it mentions a Yavana king named Tushaspha building conduits. According to Dilip Chakrabarti, a professor of South Asian archaeology at the Cambridge University, the inscription is an evidence of historical record keeping tradition in ancient India because Rudradaman otherwise would not have known the names of people involved in the project in 4th-century BCE, or who later worked on the water reservoir in following centuries, before Rudradaman promoted his Sanskrit inscription in 150 CE.

-- Junagadh rock inscription of Rudradaman, by Wikipedia

There is uncertainty about the other conquests that Chandragupta may have achieved, especially in the Deccan region of southern India.[94] At the time of his grandson Ashoka's ascension in c. 268 BCE, the empire extended up to present-day Karnataka in the south, so the southern conquests may be attributed to either Chandragupta or his son Bindusara. If the Jain tradition about Chandragupta ending his life as a renunciate in Karnakata is considered correct, it appears that Chandragupta initiated the southern conquest.[95]

Maurya with his counsellor Chanakya together built one of the largest empires ever on the Indian subcontinent.[3][27][96] Chandragupta's empire extended from Bengal to central Afghanistan encompassing most of the Indian subcontinent except for parts that are now Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Odisha.[97][27]

Chanakya... is traditionally identified as Kauṭilya or Vishnugupta, who authored the ancient Indian political treatise, the Arthashastra, a text dated to roughly between the 4th century BCE and the 3rd century CE....His works were lost near the end of the Gupta Empire in the 6th century CE and not rediscovered until the early 20th century....

There is little documented historical information about Chanakya: most of what is known about him comes from semi-legendary accounts.
Thomas Trautmann identifies four distinct accounts of the ancient Chanakya-Chandragupta katha (legend):

Version of the legend / Example texts

Buddhist version / Mahavamsa and its commentary Vamsatthappakasini (Pali language)
Jain version / Parishishtaparvan by Hemachandra
Kashmiri version / Kathasaritsagara by Somadeva, Brihat-Katha-Manjari by Ksemendra
Vishakhadatta's version / Mudrarakshasa, a Sanskrit play by Vishakhadatta


Buddhist version

The legend of Chanakya and Chandragupta is detailed in the Pali-language Buddhist chronicles of Sri Lanka. It is not mentioned in Dipavamsa, the oldest of these chronicles. The earliest Buddhist source to mention the legend is Mahavamsa, which is generally dated between 5th and 6th centuries CE....Its author is unknown, and it is dated variously from 6th century CE to 13th century CE. Some other texts provide additional details about the legend; for example, the Maha-Bodhi-Vamsa and the Atthakatha give the names of the nine Nanda kings said to have preceded Chandragupta.

Jain version

The Chandragupta-Chanakya legend is mentioned in several commentaries of the Shvetambara canon. The most well-known version of the Jain legend is contained in the Sthaviravali-Charita or Parishishta-Parvan, written by the 12th-century writer Hemachandra. Hemachandra's account is based on the Prakrit kathanaka literature (legends and anecdotes) composed between the late 1st century CE and mid-8th century CE. These legends are contained in the commentaries (churnis and tikas) on canonical texts such as Uttaradhyayana and Avashyaka Niryukti.

Kashmiri version

Brihatkatha-Manjari by Kshemendra and Kathasaritsagara by Somadeva are two 11th-century Kashmiri Sanskrit collections of legends. Both are based on a now-lost Prakrit-language Brihatkatha-Sarit-Sagara.

Mudrarakshasa version

Mudrarakshasa ("The signet ring of Rakshasa") is a Sanskrit play by Vishakhadatta. Its date is uncertain, but it mentions the Huna, who invaded northern India during the Gupta period. Therefore, it could not have been composed before the Gupta era. It is dated variously from the late 4th century to the 8th century. The Mudrarakshasa legend contains narratives not found in other versions of the Chanakya-Chandragupta legend. Because of this difference, Trautmann suggests that most of it is fictional or legendary, without any historical basis.

-- Chanakya, by Wikipedia

Rule

After unifying much of India, Chandragupta and Chanakya passed a series of major economic and political reforms. Chandragupta established a strong central administration from Pataliputra (now Patna).[98] [Mookerji 1988, pp. 13–18. Mookerji, Radha Kumud (1988) [first published in 1966], Chandragupta Maurya and his times:

"We shall now turn to the Buddhist traditions which describe the 'Nandins' as of unknown lineage and testify to the noble lineage of Chandragupta without any doubts about it. Chandragupta is described as a scion of the Kshatriya clan of Moriyas, an offshoot of the noble and sacred sept of the Sakyas who gave the Buddha to the world. According to the story, these Moriyas ...]


Chandragupta applied the statecraft and economic policies described in Chanakya's text Arthashastra.[99] [Boesche 2003, pp. 7–18. "Kautilya's Arthaśāstra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India":

Kautilya's Arthasastra was one of the greatest political books of the ancient world. Max Weber recognized this. “Truly radical ‘Machiavellianism,’ in the popular sense of that word,” Weber said in his famous lecture “Politics as a Vocation,” “is classically expressed in Indian literature in the Arthasastra of Kautilya (written long before the birth of Christ, ostensibly in the time of Chandragupta [Maurya]): compared to it, Machiavelli’s The Prince is harmless.”]


[100][101] There are varying accounts in the historic [???], legendary, and hagiographic literature of various Indian religions about Chandragupta's rule, but Allchin and Erdosy' are suspect; they state, "one cannot but be struck by the many close correspondences between the (Hindu) Arthashastra and the two other major sources the (Buddhist) Asokan inscriptions and (Greek) Megasthenes text".[102]

The Maurya rule was a structured administration; Chandragupta had a council of ministers (amatya), with Chanakya was his chief minister.[103][104] The empire was organised into territories (janapada), centres of regional power were protected with forts (durga), and state operations were funded with treasury (kosa).[105] Strabo, in his Geographica composed about 300 years after Chandragupta's death, describes aspects of his rule in his chapter XV.46–69. He had councillors for matters of justice and assessors to collect taxes on commercial activity and trade goods. He routinely performed Vedic sacrifices,[106] Brahmanical rituals,[107] and hosted major festivals marked by procession of elephants and horses. His officers inspected situations requiring law and order in the cities; the crime rate was low.[108]
Megasthenes described the system of city administration of Pataliputra but there is no similarity between the system described by Megasthenes and the system of city administration given in Kautilya Arthasastra. Megasthenes also stated that there was no slavery in India but Kautilya Arthasastra's Chapter 65 named "Dasakalpa" is solely devoted to the status of slaves among the Aryans and the Mlecchas. Probably, the slavery system that existed during Mauryan era has gradually declined by Gupta era. Thus, Megasthenes cannot be contemporary to Chandragupta Maurya.

Megasthenes not only often visited Palibothra but also stayed in the court of Sandrocottus for a few years. But he did not even mention about Kautilya or Chanakya who was the real kingmaker and also the patron of Chandragupta. No Greek scholar ever mentioned about Kautilya. Therefore, Megasthenes cannot be the contemporary to Chandragupta Maurya.


-- Who was Sandrocottus: Samudragupta or Chandragupta Maurya?, The Chronology of Ancient India, Victim of Concoctions and Distortions, by Vedveer Arya

According to Megasthenes, Chandragupta's [Sandrocottus !!!] rule was marked by three parallel administrative structures. One managed the affairs of villages, ensuring irrigation, recording land ownership, monitoring tools supply, enforcing hunting, wood products and forest-related laws, and settling disputes.[109] Another administrative structure managed city affairs, including all matters related to trade, merchant activity, visit of foreigners, harbors, roads, temples, markets, and industries. They also collected taxes and ensured standardized weights and measures.[109] The third administrative body overlooked the military, its training, its weapons supply, and the needs of the soldiers.[109]

Chanakya was concerned about Chandragupta's safety and developed elaborate techniques to prevent assassination attempts. Various sources report Chandragupta frequently changed bedrooms to confuse conspirators. He left his palace only for certain tasks: to go on military expeditions, to visit his court for dispensing justice, to offer sacrifices, for celebrations, and for hunting. During celebrations, he was well-guarded, and on hunts, he was surrounded by female guards who were presumed to be less likely to participate in a coup conspiracy. These strategies may have resulted from the historical context of the Nanda king who had come to power by assassinating the previous king.[110]

During Chandragupta's reign and that of his dynasty, many religions thrived in India, with Buddhism, Jainism and Ajivika gaining prominence along with other folk traditions.[111][112]
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Sat Oct 02, 2021 12:37 am

Part 4 of 4

Infrastructure projects

Image
Silver punch mark coin of the Maurya empire, with symbols of wheel and elephant (3rd century BCE)

The empire built a strong economy from a solid infrastructure such as irrigation, temples, mines, and roads.[113][114] Ancient epigraphical evidence suggests Chandragupta, under counsel from Chanakya, started and completed many irrigation reservoirs and networks across the Indian subcontinent to ensure food supplies for the civilian population and the army, a practice continued by his dynastic successors.[102] Regional prosperity in agriculture was one of the required duties of his state officials.[115]

The strongest evidence of infrastructure development is found in the Junagadh rock inscription of Rudradaman in Gujarat, dated to about 150 CE. It states, among other things, that Rudradaman repaired and enlarged the reservoir and irrigation conduit infrastructure built by Chandragupta and enhanced by Asoka.[116] Chandragupta's empire also built mines, manufacturing centres, and networks for trading goods. His rule developed land routes to transport goods across the Indian subcontinent. Chandragupta expanded "roads suitable for carts" as he preferred those over narrow tracks suitable for only pack animals.[117]

According to Kaushik Roy, the Maurya dynasty rulers were "great road builders".[114] The Greek ambassador Megasthenes credited this tradition to Chandragupta [Sandrocottus !!!} after the completion of a thousand-mile-long highway connecting Chandragupta's [Sandrocottus !!!] capital Pataliputra [Palibothra !!!] in Bihar to Taxila in the north-west where he studied. The other major strategic road infrastructure credited to this tradition spread from Pataliputra in various directions, connecting it with Nepal, Kapilavastu, Dehradun, Mirzapur, Odisha, Andhra, and Karnataka.[114] Roy stated this network boosted trade and commerce, and helped move armies rapidly and efficiently.[114]


Megasthenes transformed India from a site of freakish difference and symmetrical opposition, to be wondered at or assimilated by imperial expansion, into a space of similarity and submerged cultural identity. India is now good to think with. The land has become an analogue of the Seleucid state and the Indica a text for working through issues of Seleucid state formation.

While Chandragupta Maurya's multiethnic, polyglot, expansionist kingdom certainly resembled the Seleucid state in outline and probably generated parallel mechanisms of territorial control, Megasthenes' ethnography went beyond this to emphasize consonance with the Seleucid world: certain of India's characteristics, appearing for the first time in ethnography, resemble Seleucid state structures too closely to be anything but observations or fabrications of similarity. The strongest case is the existence of autonomous, democratically governed cities within Megasthenes' Indian kingdom. The coexistence of independent and dependent cities within the same realm is one of the most striking characteristics of the Seleucid empire; it is unattested for the Mauryan kingdom. Megasthenes seems to have deliberately constructed a parallel system of irregular political sovereignty to better support the analogy between the two states. Other parallels include royal land ownership, the capital-on-the-river, the construction of roads and milestones, and various duties of the monarch.


-- Chapter 1: India – Diplomacy and Ethnography at the Mauryan Empire, Excerpt from "The Land of the Elephant Kings: Space, Territory, and Ideology in the Seleucid Empire", by Paul J. Kosmin

Chandragupta and Chanakya seeded weapon manufacturing centres, and kept them as a state monopoly of the state. The state, however, encouraged competing private parties to operate mines and supply these centres.[118] [Roy, Kaushik (2012), Hinduism and the Ethics of Warfare in South Asia: From Antiquity to the Present]

The Economic, Political and Military Background, Excerpt from Hinduism and the Ethics of Warfare in South Asia: From Antiquity to the Present
Roy, Kaushik
2012

THE ECONOMIC, POLITICAL AND MILITARY BACKGROUND

After late in the sixth century BCE, Magadha emerged as the most powerful mahajanapada. Bimbisara, the ruler of Magadha (546-494 BCE), was known as seniya (one with sena). D. N. Jha asserts that Bimbisara was probably the first ruler in India with a regular standing army. Bimbisara annexed Anga. Bimbisara's son and successor, Ajatasatru, not only fortified Rajagriha (the capital of Magadha) with a forty-kilometer-long wall but also sent one of his ministers (a Brahmin named Vassakara) to sow dissension among the Lichchhavi tribes.20 [Jha, Early India, pp. 84- 6, 90.]Ajatasatru was able to overthrow the Vajjis through the policy of bheda followed by Vassakara.21 [KA, Part III, by Kangle, p. 11.] Kautilya's concept of kutayuddha was probably shaped by such historical events.

In 413 BCE, Shishunaga, the viceroy/governor of Benaras, became the ruler, and in 321 BCE the Shishunaga dynasty was overthrown by Mahapadma Nanda. Mahapadma, a Sudra, not only annexed Kalinga but also increased the strength of the army.22 [Jha, Early India, p. 87.] The Vishnu Purana and the Brahmanda Purana say that the Nandas ruled for 100 years.23 [Mital. Kautilaa Arthasastra Revisited. p. 60.] Alexander crossed the Hindu Kush mountain range in 327 BCE, but he then left after a brief sojourn in north-west India. Hence, no direct confrontation between the Greeks and the Nanda Empire occurred.

Chandragupta, like Mahapadma Nanda, was a Sudra. Chandragupta's mother, Mura, was probably the daughter of a Persian merchant. Reflecting the historical reality, the Arthasastra, unlike the vedas, never argue that the vijigishu should always come from the Kshatriya rank. Chandragupta seized Magadha around 32I BCE. By 312 BCE, he had completed the conquest of north and north-west India. If we believe the Mudraraksa (a fictional political drama in Sanskrit, by Vishakadatta, composed between the fourth and the seventh century CE), Chandragupta probably first acquired Punjab and then, with the help of Chanakya, moved towards the Nanda Empire. Paurava, who was ruling as a client ruler on behalf of Alexander, was killed before 318 BCE. The Mudraraksa tells us that Chandragupta, with the aid of some mercenaries from the north-west frontier tribes, laid siege to Kusumapura, the capital of Magadha. In the Questions of Milinda there is a reference to Bhaddasala. a general belonging to the Nandas, who fought against Chandragupta. Chandragupta defeated Seleucus in 305 BCE in a series of encounters along the river Indus. Megasthenes came to the Maurya court as an ambassador around 302 BCE and resided in India for four years. Around 297 BCE, Chandragupta passed away.24 [Kane, History of Dharmasastra, vol. I, Part I, pp. 173-4, 184, 186, 217-18.]

As regards the nature of the Maurya Empire, historians [???] are divided into two camps. While R. K. Mookerji25 [R. K. Mookerji, Chandragupta Maurya and His Times (n.d.; reprint, New Delhi: Motilal Banrasidas, 1960).] and D. N. Jha argue that it was a centralized empire, Gerard Fussman26 [Gerard Fussman, 'Central and Provincial Administration in Ancient India: The Problem of the Mauryan Empire', Indian Historical Review, vol. 14, nos. 1-2 (1988), pp. 43-72.] and Burton Stein27 [Burton Stein, A History of India (1998; reprint, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 78- 83.] claim that the Maurya Empire was a decentralized political entity. Some factual statements point to the fact that the Maurya Empire was a centralized bureaucratic polity. The Mauryas, like the Romans, were great road builders, and all the roads led to Pataliputra. Megasthenes noted that the thousand-mile- long royal highway connected Pataliputra to Taxila.28 [Mital, Kautilya Arthasastra Revisited, p. 29.] Pataliputra was connected to Nepal via Vaishali. From there a road passed through Champaran to Kapilavastu, Kalsi (DehraDun District), and Hazara up to Peshawar. Another network of roads connected Pataliputra to Sasaram, Mirzapur and central India. Yet, another road connected Pataliputra to Kalinga, Andhra and Karnataka, the southernmost limit of the empire.29 [Jha, Early India, p. 102.] These roads, besides facilitating trade and commerce, also functioned as military highways.

Jha claims that the Maurya economy was a sort of command economy. The Maurya polity exercised rigid control through a number of superintendents who presided over all trade and commercial activities. The metallurgy and mining industries were highly developed and were state monopolies. The monopoly rights of the state over mineral resources gave it exclusive control over the manufacture of metal weaponry.30 [Ibid., pp. 102.-5.] However, at times, mining was leased out to contractors. India produced high-quality steel, and the metal workers of Asia Minor adopted the techniques of Indian steel making.31 [Mital, Kautilya Arthasastra Revisited, p. 32.] Kautilya tells us about a die-striking (punch-marking) system but is unaware of casting coins in mould.32[Sil, Kautilya's Arthasastra, p. 25.]

Cunningham held that the most ancient coins, those of Dhanadeva and Visikhadeva, are ‘certainly not older than the second century B.C.’, and this determination may be accepted, so far as the inscribed coins are concerned. Of course many of the punch-marked and cast coins without legends may be much older. The coins of both — Visikhadeva and Dhanadeva were simply cast in moulds, and evidently are of much the same date. Either prince may be regarded as the predecessor of the other. The coins, Nos. 8-11, doubtfully ascribed to Sivadatta, are also cast; as are the curious little pieces, Nos. 12 and 13 (PL XIX, 14), exhibiting the fish, svastika, ‘taurine, and an object which seems to me to be intended for a steelyard balance, but is described by Cunningham as an axe....

The simple process of making coins by casting in a mould seems to be little inferior in antiquity in India to that of stamping bars or ingots. Comparatively few of the numerous cast coins of ancient India are blank on the reverse. Most of them have a device or legend, or both, on each face, and were made by joining two moulds together. All the cast coins are of copper, including in that term various alloys. The most ancient examples probably are to be found among the rude pieces which are abundant in Oudh, Benares, and the neighbouring districts.

Cunningham considered the chaitya and tree coin of C.A.I., Pl. 1, 29, to be ‘rather rare’; but I should be disposed to call it ‘rather common’. Six examples of it have been catalogued, ranging in weight from 27-5 to 61 grains. No. 16 with the legend Kumhama is novel, and I cannot explain the meaning of the word. No. 19 is the largest rectangular cast coin that I have seen.

The circular cast coins, no doubt, were, to a large extent, contemporary with the rectangular ones. The types ‘chaitya and elephant’ and ‘chaitya and bull’ served as models for the much improved anonymous coins struck by some of the Western Satraps between 225 and 236 A.D. (C.M.I, p. 7, with correction of date of No. 10 from 129 to 158, Rapson); and this fact helps us to fix a posterior limit for the cast coinage in Ujjain and the neighbourhood. Of course, in different parts of India the practice varied greatly, and the old-fashioned methods of coining must have lingered in some places longer than in others; but in the Panjab and upper Gangetic provinces the cast coins are, I should think, probably all earlier than 100 A.D. They must have been driven out of circulation largely by the abundant copper issues of the Kushan kings. In Malwa (Avanti, Ujjain), as remarked above, the cast coinage may have lasted until 200 A.D., or even a little later.


-- Coins of Ancient India: Catalogue of the Coins in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, Volume 1, by Vincent A. Smith, M.A. F.R.N.S., M.R.A.S., I.C.S. Retd.

The Magadhan state functioned as a cash economy.33 [D. D. Kosambi, The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India in Historical Outline (n.d.; reprint, New Delhi: Vikas, 2001), p. 154.] Money was used for trade as well as for paying the state's civilian and military officials.34 [Jha, Early India, p. 102.]

Megasthenes tells us that soldiers were paid and equipped by the state. Hence, it seems that the Mauryas maintained a standing army and not merely a militia.35 [Biren Bonnerjea, 'Peace and War in Hindu Culture', Primitive Man: Quarterly Journal of the Catholic Anthropological Conference, vol. 7, no. 3 (1934), p. 36.] On the other hand, opines P.C. Chakravarti, the existence of armed trade and craft guilds with their private militias points to the fact that the Maurya Empire was a weak state. Not only did the private militias of these armed srenis provide protection to these organizations from brigands and highwayman, but during emergencies the ruler also hired them to fight internal as well as external enemies. These armed guilds occasionally engaged in private warfare and, in a way, constituted semi-autonomous states within a state.36 [P.C. Chakravarti, The Art of War in Ancient India (1941; reprint, New Delhi: Low Price Publications, 1989), pp. 6, 8.] It seems that the Mauryan Empire was not uniformly administered and was partially centralized and partially decentralized.

Romila Thapar takes a middle position and claims that
the level of control exercised by the Maurya central government over different regions varied with distance. The inner core of the Maurya Empire was the metropolitan state of Magadha, which was ruled directly by the emperor from Pataliputra. Beyond the metropolitan state was the outer core of the empire, which comprised north and central India. The outer core region was divided into several provinces ruled by viceroys appointed by the emperor at Pataliputra. Most of the viceroys were princes of the royal family. The control of the central government at Pataliputra over the outer core region was substantial, but less than its control over the metropolitan state. Beyond the outer core was the periphery, which was comprised of north-west India and Deccan (the region south of the Narmada River). The periphery was ruled by several hereditary vassal chiefs and tribal leaders who accepted the political suzerainty of the Mauryan emperor at Pataliputra. It goes without saying that the control exercised by the central government at Pataliputra over the distant periphery was weakest. The central government did not interfere in the internal affairs of the vassal kingdoms, but it did control the foreign and military policies of the vassal chiefs.37 [Romila Thapar, The Mauryas Revisited (1987; reprint, Calcutta: K. P. Bagchi & Company, 1993).] This three-tier model of Thapar seems to be the most appropriate one for explaining the structure of the Maurya Empire. It is to be noted that the Arthasastra also speaks of regions ruled directly by the vijigishu; the janapadas (fertile agricultural land dotted with urban centres), which were ruled by chiefs and officials appointed by the vijigishu and hereditary vassal chiefs; and the forest regions under indirect control of the vijigishu. As a basis of comparison, the Shang Empire of China seems to have been more centralized than the Mauryan Empire because the former political entity had the capacity to conscript the common people for civil engineering projects and distributed grain through a system of centrally administered state granaries).38 [Thomas M. Kane, Ancient China on Postmodern War: Enduring Ideas from the Chinese Strategic Tradition (London/New York: Routledge, 2007), p. 29.]

Buddhism focused mainly on moksa. The arthasastra school, asserts Sil, emerged as a reaction to Buddhism. The arthasastra tradition emphasizes materialism rather than morality. The arthasastra writers divide the goals of human life into chatuvarga (four categories): dharma (morality), artha (wealth), kama (desires) and moksa. And of these four, artha occupies the most prominent place. Kautilya himself says that material well-being is supreme, because spiritual well-being and sensual pleasures depend on material well-being. The arthasastra means the sastra (theory) of artha. The meaning of artha changes with circumstances; broadly, it refers to wealth and territory with human population. Kautilya's Arthasastra does not really deal with the theory of the generation of wealth but is a treatise on statecraft. Kautilya says that the source of the livelihood of men is wealth and that the means for the attainment and protection of artha constitutes the theory of politics. Kautilya aims to educate the prince on the acquisition of material welfare (labha) and its maintenance through good governance.39 [Sil, Kautilya's Arthasastra, pp. 20-1.] The objective of Kautilya's theory is to lay bare the study of politics, wealth and practical expediency. The subjects covered are administration, law, order and justice, finance, foreign policy, internal security and defence against external powers.40 [Rashed Uz Zaman, 'Kautilya: The Indian Strategic Thinker and Indian Strategic Culture', Comparative Strategy, vol. 25, no. 3 (2006), p. 235.] The arthasastra tradition, claims Ashok S. Chousalkar, is based on the Lokayata philosophy, which emphasized analysis of concrete facts. [!!!] The Lokayatas deduced their conclusions from human behaviour and attempted an inductive investigation of the polity.41 [Ashok S. Chousalkar, A Comparative Study of Theory of Rebellion in Kautilya and Aristotle (New Delhi: Indological Book House, 1990), p. 65.] In the following sections, Kautilya's philosophical ideas are compared to and contrasted with both Western and Chinese philosophies.

They considered economic prosperity essential to the pursuit of dharma (virtuous life) and adopted a policy of avoiding war with diplomacy yet continuously preparing the army for war to defend its interests and other ideas in the Arthashastra.[119][120]

Arts and architecture

The evidence of arts and architecture during Chandragupta's [Sandrocottus !!!] time is mostly limited to texts such as those by Megasthenes and Kautilya.

The edict inscriptions and carvings on monumental pillars are attributed to his grandson Ashoka. The texts imply the existence of cities, public works, and prosperous architecture but the historicity of these is in question.[121]

Archeological discoveries in the modern age, such as those Didarganj Yakshi discovered in 1917 buried beneath the banks of the Ganges suggest exceptional artisanal accomplishment.[122][123] The site was dated to 3rd century BCE by many scholars[122][123] but later dates such as the Kushan era (1st-4th century CE) have also been proposed.
Image

The Didarganj Yakshi [???] is one of the finest examples of very early Indian [???] stone statues. It used to be dated to the 3rd century BCE, as it has the fine Mauryan polish associated with Mauryan art. But this is also found on later sculptures and it is now usually dated to approximately the 2nd century CE, based on the analysis of shape and ornamentation, or the 1st century CE. The treatment of the forelock in particular is said to be characteristically Kushan....

The statue's nose was damaged during a travelling exhibition, The Festival of India, en route to Smithsonian Institution and the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., leading to a decision not to send it abroad again.


-- Didarganj Yakshi, by Wikipedia

The competing theories state that the art linked to Chandragupta Maurya's dynasty was learnt from the Greeks and West Asia in the years Alexander the Great waged war; or that these artifacts belong to an older indigenous Indian tradition.[124] Frederick Asher of the University of Minnesota says "we cannot pretend to have definitive answers; and perhaps, as with most art, we must recognize that there is no single answer or explanation".[125]

Succession, renunciation, and death (Sallekhana)

Image
1,300 years Old Shravanabelagola relief shows death of Chandragupta after taking the vow of Sallekhana. Some consider it about the legend of his [???] arrival with Bhadrabahu.[2][10][11]



Image
A statue depicting Chandrgupta Maurya (right) with his spiritual mentor Acharya Bhadrabahu at Shravanabelagola.

Image
Chandragupta Maurya having 16 auspicious dreams in Jainism

The circumstances and year of Chandragupta's death are unclear and disputed.[2][10][11] According to Digambara Jain accounts that, Bhadrabahu forecasted a 12-year famine because of all the killing and violence during the conquests by Chandragupta Maurya. He led a group of Jain monks to south India, where Chandragupta Maurya joined him as a monk after abdicated his kingdom to his son Bindusara. Together, states a Digambara legend, Chandragupta and Bhadrabahu moved to Shravanabelagola, in present-day south Karnataka.[126] These Jain accounts appeared in texts such as Brihakathā kośa (931 CE) of Harishena, Bhadrabāhu charita (1450 CE) of Ratnanandi, Munivaṃsa bhyudaya (1680 CE) and Rajavali kathe.[127][128][129] Chandragupta lived as an ascetic at Shravanabelagola for several years before fasting to death as per the Jain practice of sallekhana, according to the Digambara legend.[130][26][131]

In accordance with the Digambara tradition, the hill on which Chandragupta is stated to have performed asceticism is now known as Chandragiri hill, and Digambaras believe that Chandragupta Maurya erected an ancient temple that now survives as the Chandragupta basadi.[1] According to Roy, Chandragupta's abdication of throne may be dated to c. 298 BCE, and his death to c. 297 BCE.[58] His grandson was emperor Ashoka who is famed for his historic pillars and his role in helping spread Buddhism outside of ancient India.[132][133]

Regarding the inscriptions describing the relation of Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta Maurya, Radha Kumud Mookerji writes,

The oldest inscription of about 600 AD associated "the pair (yugma), Bhadrabahu along with Chandragupta Muni." Two inscriptions of about 900 AD on the Kaveri near Seringapatam describe the summit of a hill called Chandragiri as marked by the footprints of Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta munipati. A Shravanabelagola inscription of 1129 mentions Bhadrabahu "Shrutakevali", and Chandragupta who acquired such merit that he was worshipped by the forest deities. Another inscription of 1163 similarly couples and describes them. A third inscription of the year 1432 speaks of Yatindra Bhadrabahu, and his disciple Chandragupta, the fame of whose penance spread into other words.[134]

A limited hangout is a form of deception, misdirection, or coverup often associated with intelligence agencies involving a release or "mea culpa" type of confession of only part of a set of previously hidden sensitive information, that establishes credibility for the one releasing the information who by the very act of confession appears to be "coming clean" and acting with integrity; but in actuality by withholding key facts is protecting a deeper crime and those who could be exposed if the whole truth came out. In effect, if an array of offenses or misdeeds is suspected, this confession admits to a lesser offense while covering up the greater ones.

A limited hangout typically is a response to lower the pressure felt from inquisitive investigators pursuing clues that threaten to expose everything, and the disclosure is often combined with red herrings or propaganda elements that lead to false trails, distractions, or ideological disinformation; thus allowing covert or criminal elements to continue in their improper activities.

Victor Marchetti wrote: "A 'limited hangout' is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting - sometimes even volunteering - some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further."


-- Limited Hangout, by Wikipedia


While recognising, approximately, the period to which the characters really belong, Mr. Rice (loc. cit. p. 15) arrived at the conclusion that, “if this interesting inscription did not precede the Christian era, it unquestionably belongs to the earliest part of that era and is certainly not later than about 100 A.D." But there are no substantial grounds for this view, which depends chiefly upon Mr. Rice’s acceptance as genuine, of the spurious Western Ganga grants...

We may now proceed to examine the real historical bearings of this inscription. It is not dated. But the lithographic Plate which is given by Mr. Rice, shews that the engraving of it is to be allotted to approximately the seventh century A.D.: it may possibly be a trifle earlier; and equally, it may possibly be somewhat later. And, interpreting the record in the customary manner, viz. as referring to an event almost exactly synchronous with the engraving of it, we can only take it as commemorating the death of a Jain teacher named Prabhachandra, in or very near to the period A.D. 600 to 700. Who this Prabhachandra was, I am not at present able to say. But he cannot be Prabhachandra I. of the pattavali of the Sarasvati-Gachchha (ante, Vol. XX. p. 351), unless the chronological details of that record, — according to which Prabhachandra I., became pontiff in A.D. 396, — are open to very considerable rectification.

-- Bhadrabahu, Chandragupta, and Sravana-Belgola, by J.F. Fleet, Bo.C.S., M.R.A.S., C.I.E.


Along with texts, several Digambara Jain inscriptions dating from the 7th–15th century refer to Bhadrabahu and a Prabhacandra. Later Digambara tradition identified the Prabhacandra as Chandragupta, and some modern era scholars have accepted this Digambara tradition while others have not, [2][10][11] Several of the late Digambara inscriptions and texts in Karnataka state the journey started from Ujjain and not Pataliputra (as stated in some Digambara texts).[10][11]

Jeffery D. Long – a scholar of Jain and Hindu studies – says in one Digambara version, it was Samprati Chandragupta who renounced, migrated and performed sallekhana in Shravanabelagola. Long states scholars attribute the disintegration of the Maurya empire to the times and actions of Samprati Chandragupta – the grandson of Ashoka and great-great-grandson of Chandragupta Maurya. The two Chandraguptas have been confused to be the same in some Digambara legends.[135]

Scholar of Jain studies and Sanskrit Paul Dundas says the Svetambara tradition of Jainism disputes the ancient Digambara legends. According to a 5th-century text of the Svetambara Jains, the Digambara sect of Jainism was founded 609 years after Mahavira's death, or in 1st-century CE.[136] Digambaras wrote their own versions and legends after the 5th-century, with their first expanded Digambara version of sectarian split within Jainism appearing in the 10th-century.[136] The Svetambaras texts describe Bhadrabahu was based near Nepalese foothills of the Himalayas in 3rd-century BCE, who neither moved nor travelled with Chandragupta Maurya to the south; rather, he died near Pataliputra, according to the Svetambara Jains.[10][137][138]

The 12th-century Svetambara Jain legend by Hemachandra presents a different picture. The Hemachandra version includes stories about Jain monks who could become invisible to steal food from royal storage and the Jain Brahmin Chanakya using violence and cunning tactics to expand Chandragupta's kingdom and increase royal revenues.[25] It states in verses 8.415 to 8.435, that for 15 years as king, Chandragupta was a follower of non-Jain "ascetics with the wrong view of religion" (non-Jain) and "lusted for women". Chanakya, who was a Jain follower, persuaded Chandragupta to convert to Jainism by showing that Jain ascetics avoided women and focused on their religion.[25] The legend mentions Chanakya aiding the premature birth of Bindusara,[25] It states in verse 8.444 that "Chandragupta died in meditation (can possibly be sallekhana.) and went to heaven".[139] According to Hemachandra's legend, Chanakya also performed sallekhana. [139]

Image
The Footprints of Chandragupta Maurya on Chandragiri Hill, where Chandragupta (the unifier of India and founder of the Maurya Dynasty) performed Sallekhana.

According to V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar – an Indologist and historian, several of the Digambara legends mention Prabhacandra, who had been misidentified as Chandragupta Maurya particularly after the original publication on Shravanabelagola epigraphy by B. Lewis Rice. The earliest and most important inscriptions mention Prabhacandra, which Rice presumed may have been the "clerical name assumed by Chadragupta Maurya" after he renounced and moved with Bhadrabahu from Pataliputra. Dikshitar stated there is no evidence to support this and Prabhacandra was an important Jain monk scholar who migrated centuries after Chandragupta Maurya's death.[2] Other scholars have taken Rice's deduction of Chandragupta Maurya retiring and dying in Shravanabelagola as the working hypothesis, since no alternate historical information or evidence is available about Chandragupta's final years and death.[2]

28. History. It has been said that the Hindus possess no national history. Max Muller accepts this proposition as a postulate, builds on it and explains the so-called absence of anything like historical literature among the Hindus to their being a nation of philosophers. "Greece and India are, indeed, the two opposite poles in the historical development of the Aryan man. To the Greek, existence is full of life and reality, to the Hindu, it is a dream, a delusion. The Greek is at home where he is born, all his energies belong to his country, he stands or falls with his party, and is ready to sacrifice even his life to the glory and independence of Hellas. The Hindu enters this world as a stranger, all his thoughts are directed to another world, he takes no part even where he is driven to act, and when he sacrifices his life, it is but to be delivered from it."1 [ASL, 9.]...

H. 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 and Puranas is genuine 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 their labours are separated. The re-arranging, 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 India which we owe to Greek writers and in which we see enough of the system to justify our inferring that it was then entire. That there have been other Vyasas and other schools since that date, that Brahmans unknown to fame have re-modelled 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 ancient materials, 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 establishes 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."

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 particulars 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."


-- History of Classical Sanskrit Literature, by Kavyavinoda, Sahityaratnakara M. Krishnamachariar, M.A., M.I., Ph.D., Member of the Royal Asiatic Society of London (Of the Madras Judicial Service), Assisted by His Son M. Srinivasachariar, B.A., B.L., Advocate, Madras, 1937


Legacy

A memorial to Chandragupta Maurya exists on Chandragiri hill in Shravanabelagola, Karnataka.[140] The Indian Postal Service issued a commemorative postage stamp honouring Chandragupta Maurya in 2001.[141]

See also

• List of Indian monarchs
• List of Jain Empires and Dynasties
• Mauryan art
• Shashigupta

Notes

1. Some early printed editions of Justin's work wrongly mentioned "Alexandrum" instead of "Nandrum"; this error was corrected in philologist J. W. McCrindle's 1893 translation. In the 20th century, historians Hem Chandra Raychaudhuri and R. C. Majumdar believed "Alexandrum" to be correct reading, and theorized that Justin refers to a meeting between Chandragupta and Alexander the Great ("Alexandrum"). However, this is incorrect: research by historian Alfred von Gutschmid in the preceding century had clearly established that "Nandrum" is the correct reading supported by multiple manuscripts: only a single defective manuscript mentions "Alexandrum" in the margin.[44]
1. According to Grainger, Seleucus "must ... have held Aria" (Herat), and furthermore, his "son Antiochos was active there fifteen years later". (Grainger, John D. 1990, 2014. Seleukos Nikator: Constructing a Hellenistic Kingdom. Routledge. p. 109).

References

Citations


1. Mookerji 1988, p. 40.
2. Dikshitar 1993, pp. 264–266.
3. Chandragupta Maurya, Emperor of India Archived 10 March 2018 at the Wayback Machine, Encyclopædia Britannica
4. Upinder Singh 2016, p. 330.
5. Upinder Singh 2016, p. 331.
6. Majumdar, R. C.; Raychauduhuri, H. C.; Datta, Kalikinkar (1960), An Advanced History of India, London: Macmillan & Company Ltd; New York: St Martin's Press, If the Jaina tradition is to be believed, Chandragupta was converted to the religion of Mahavira. He is said to have abdicated his throne and passed his last days at Sravana Belgola in Mysore. Greek evidence, however, suggests that the first Maurya did not give up the performance of sacrificial rites and was far from following the Jaina creed of Ahimsa or non-injury to animals. He took delight in hunting, a practice that was continued by his son and alluded to by his grandson in his eighth Rock Edict. It is, however, possible that in his last days he showed some predilection for Jainism ...
7. The authors and their affiliations listed in the title page of the reference (which has the Wikipedia page An Advanced History of India) are: R. C. Majumdar, M.A., Ph.D. Vice-Chancellor, Dacca University; H. C. Raychaudhuri, M.A., Ph.D., Carmichael Professor of Ancient Indian History and Culture, Calcutta University; and Kalikinkar Datta, M.A., Ph.D. Premchand Raychand Scholar, Mount Medallist, Griffith Prizeman, Professor and Head of the Department of History, Patna College, Patna
8. Mookerji 1988, pp. 2-14, 229-235.
9. Mookerji 1988, pp. 3-14.
10. Wiley 2009, pp. 50–52.
11. Fleet 1892, pp. 156–162.
12. Mookerji 1988, pp. 5-7.
13. Upinder Singh 2017, pp. 264–265.
14. Mookerji 1988, pp. 7–9.
15. Edward James Rapson; Wolseley Haig; Richard Burn; Henry Dodwell; Mortimer Wheeler, eds. (1968). The Cambridge History of India. 4. p. 470. "His surname Maurya is explained by Indian authorities as mean 'son of Mura,' who is described as a concubine of the king.
16. Mookerji 1988, pp. 9–11.
17. Mookerji 1988, p. 13.
18. Mookerji 1988, pp. 15-18.
19. note
20. Mookerji 1988, pp. 7–13.
21. Mookerji 1988, p. 14.
22. Mookerji 1988, pp. 13-15.
23. Thapar 1961, p. 12.
24. Mookerji 1988, pp. 13-14.
25. Hemacandra 1998, pp. 155–157, 168–188.
26. Jones & Ryan 2006, p. xxviii.
27. Kulke & Rothermund 2004, p. 59-65.
28. Jaini 1991, pp. 43–44.
29. Upādhye 1977, pp. 272–273.
30. Raychaudhuri 1923, p. 142.
31. Raychaudhuri 1923, p. 137.
32. Raychaudhuri 1923, p. 138.
33. Thapar 1961, p. 13.
34. Raychaudhuri 1967, pp. 134–142.
35. Habib & Jha 2004, p. 15.
36. Mookerji 1988, p. 16.
37. Raychaudhuri 1967, p. 143.
38. Mookerji 1988, p. 6.
39. Mookerji 1988, pp. 15–17.
40. Modelski, George (1964). "Kautilya: Foreign Policy and International System in the Ancient Hindu World". American Political Science Review. Cambridge University Press. 58 (3): 549–560. doi:10.2307/1953131. JSTOR 1953131.; Quote: "Kautilya is believed to have been Chanakya, a Brahmin who served as Chief Minister to Chandragupta (321–296 B.C.), the founder of the Mauryan Empire."
41. Mookerji 1988, pp. 19–20.
42. Mookerji 1988, p. 18.
43. Habib & Jha 2004, p. 14.
44. Trautmann 1970, pp. 240-241.
45. Mookerji 1988, p. 32.
46. Mookerji 1988, p. 22.
47. Hemacandra 1998, pp. 175–188.
48. Raychaudhuri 1967, pp. 144-145.
49. Raychaudhuri 1967, p. 144.
50. Mookerji 1988, p. 33.
51. Malalasekera 2002, p. 383.
52. Mookerji 1988, pp. 33-34.
53. Stoneman 2019, p. 155.
54. Thapar 2013, pp. 362–364.
55. Sen 1895, pp. 26–32.
56. Mookerji 1988, pp. 28–33.
57. Roy 2012, pp. 27, 61-62.
58. Roy 2012, pp. 61–62.
59. Grant 2010, p. 49.
60. Bhattacharyya 1977, p. 8.
61. Hemacandra 1998, pp. 176–177.
62. Mookerji 1988, p. 34.
63. Roy 2012, p. 62.
64. Mookerji 1988, pp. 2, 25-29.
65. Sastri 1988, p. 26.
66. Mookerji 1988, pp. 6-8, 31-33.
67. Boesche 2003, pp. 9–37.
68. Mookerji 1988, pp. 2-3, 35-38.
69. Appian, p. 55.
70. Mookerji 1988, pp. 36–37, 105.
71. Walter Eugene, Clark (1919). "The Importance of Hellenism from the Point of View of Indic-Philology". Classical Philology. 14 (4): 297–313. doi:10.1086/360246.
72. "Strabo 15.2.1(9)". Archived from the original on 3 February 2009. Retrieved 14 July 2017.
73. Barua 2005, pp. 13-15.
74. Thomas McEvilley, "The Shape of Ancient Thought", Allworth Press, New York, 2002, ISBN 1581152035, p.367
75. India, the Ancient Past, Burjor Avari, p. 106-107
76. Majumdar 2003, p. 105.
77. Tarn, W. W. (1940). "Two Notes on Seleucid History: 1. Seleucus' 500 Elephants, 2. Tarmita". The Journal of Hellenic Studies. 60: 84–94. doi:10.2307/626263. JSTOR 626263.
78. Mookerji 1988, p. 38.
79. Raychaudhuri 1967, p. 18.
80. Zvelebil 1973, pp. 53-54.
81. Mookerji 1988, pp. 41–42.
82. Upinder Singh 2016, pp. 330–331.
83. Raychaudhuri 1967, p. 139.
84. Thapar 2004, p. 177.
85. Arora, U. P. (1991). "The Indika of Megasthenes — an Appraisal". Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 72/73 (1/4): 307–329. JSTOR 41694901.
86. Roy, Raja Ram Mohan (24 November 2015). India before Alexander: A New Chronology. Mount Meru publishing.
87. Arya, Vedveer (24 January 2020). The Chronology of India: From Mahabharata to Medieval Era - Vol I. Aryabhata Publications.
88. Raychaudhuri 1967, pp. 139-140.
89. Raychaudhuri 1967, p. 140.
90. Kulke & Rothermund 2004, p. 61.
91. Dupree 2014, pp. 285–289.
92. Dupont-Sommer, André (1970). "Une nouvelle inscription araméenne d'Asoka trouvée dans la vallée du Laghman (Afghanistan)". Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. 114 (1): 158–173. doi:10.3406/crai.1970.12491.
93. Salomon 1998, pp. 194, 199–200 with footnote 2.
94. Habib & Jha 2004, p. 19.
95. Kulke & Rothermund 2004, p. 64.
96. Boesche 2003, p. 7-18.
97. Mookerji 1988, pp. 1-4.
98. Mookerji 1988, pp. 13–18.
99. Boesche 2003, pp. 7–18.
100. MV Krishna Rao (1958, Reprinted 1979), Studies in Kautilya, 2nd Edition, OCLC 551238868, ISBN 978-8121502429, pages 13–14, 231–233
101. Olivelle 2013, pp. 31–38.
102. Allchin & Erdosy 1995, pp. 187–194.
103. Modelski, George (1964). "Kautilya: Foreign Policy and International System in the Ancient Hindu World". American Political Science Review. 58 (3): 549–560. doi:10.2307/1953131. JSTOR 1953131.; Quote: "Kautilya is believed to have been Chanakya, a Brahmin who served as Chief Minister to Chandragupta (321–296 B.C.), the founder of the Mauryan Empire."
104. Upinder Singh 2017, p. 220.
105. Allchin & Erdosy 1995, pp. 189–192.
106. Eraly 2002, pp. 414–415.
107. Sastri 1988, pp. 163–164.
108. Mookerji 1988, pp. 62–63, 79–80, 90, 159–160.
109. Sastri 1988, pp. 120–122.
110. Allan 1958, pp. 25–28.
111. Obeyesekere 1980, pp. 137–139 with footnote 3.
112. Albinski 1958, pp. 62–75.
113. Allchin & Erdosy 1995, pp. 187–195.
114. Roy 2012, pp. 62–63.
115. Allchin & Erdosy 1995, pp. 192–194.
116. Allchin & Erdosy 1995, p. 189.
117. Allchin & Erdosy 1995, pp. 194–195.
118. Roy 2012, pp. 63–64.
119. Roy 2012, pp. 64–68.
120. Olivelle 2013, pp. 49–51, 99–108, 277–294, 349–356, 373–382.
121. Harrison 2009, pp. 234–235.
122. Guha-Thakurta 2006, pp. 51–53, 58–59.
123. Varadpande 2006, pp. 32–34 with Figure 11.
124. Guha-Thakurta 2006, pp. 58–61.
125. Asher 2015, pp. 421–423.
126. Habib & Jha 2004, p. 20.
127. Mookerji 1988, pp. 39–40.
128. Samuel 2010, pp. 60.
129. Thapar 2004, p. 178.
130. Mookerji 1988, pp. 39–41, 60–64.
131. Bentley 1993, pp. 44–46.
132. Mookerji 1962, pp. 60–64.
133. Bentley 1993, pp. 44-46.
134. Mookerji, Radhakumud (1966). Chandragupta Maurya and His Times. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. ISBN 978-81-208-0405-0.
135. Long 2013, pp. 60–61.
136. Dundas 2003, pp. 46–49.
137. Dundas 2003, pp. 46–49, 67–69.
138. Jyoti Prasad Jain 2005, pp. 65–67.
139. Hemacandra 1998, pp. 185–188.
140. Vallely 2018, pp. 182–183.
141. Commemorative postage stamp on Chandragupta Maurya Archived 27 April 2013 at the Wayback Machine, Press Information Bureau, Govt. of India
142. Ghosh 2001, pp. 44–46.
143. The Courtesan and the Sadhu, A Novel about Maya, Dharma, and God, October 2008, Dharma Vision LLC., ISBN 978-0-9818237-0-6, Library of Congress Control Number: 2008934274
144. Bhagwan Das Garga (1996). So Many Cinemas: The Motion Picture in India. Eminence Designs. p. 43. ISBN 978-81-900602-1-9.
145. Screen World Publication's 75 Glorious Years of Indian Cinema: Complete Filmography of All Films (silent & Hindi) Produced Between 1913-1988. Screen World Publication. 1988. p. 109.
146. Hervé Dumont (2009). L'Antiquité au cinéma: vérités, légendes et manipulations. Nouveau Monde. ISBN 978-2-84736-476-7.
147. "Chanakya Chandragupta (1977)". IMDb. Archived from the original on 11 March 2016. Retrieved 20 February 2016.
148. "Television". The Indian Express. 8 September 1991. Archived from the original on 11 May 2018. Retrieved 22 August 2017.
149. "Chandragupta Maurya comes to small screen". Zee News. 13 January 2011. Archived from the original on 3 March 2016.
150. "Chandragupta Maurya on Sony TV?". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 4 January 2016.
151. TV, Imagine. "Channel". TV Channel. Archived from the original on 25 July 2011.
152. "Real truth behind Chandragupta's birth, his first love Durdhara and journey to becoming the Mauryan King". 17 October 2016. Archived from the original on 28 October 2017.
153. "'Chandraguta Maurya' to launch in November on Sony TV". Archived from the original on 13 November 2018. Retrieved 18 November 2018.
154. "Civilization VI – The Official Site | News | CIVILIZATION VI: RISE AND FALL - CHANDRAGUPTA LEADS INDIA". civilization.com. Archived from the original on 27 July 2018. Retrieved 26 July2018.

Sources

• Albinski, Henry S. (1958), "The Place of the Emperor Asoka in Ancient Indian Political Thought", Midwest Journal of Political Science, 2 (1): 62–75, doi:10.2307/2109166, JSTOR 2109166
• Allan, J (1958), The Cambridge Shorter History Of India, Cambridge University Press
• Allchin, F. R.; Erdosy, George (1995), The Archaeology of Early Historic South Asia: The Emergence of Cities and States, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-37695-2
• Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars
• Asher, Frederick (2015), Brown, Rebecca M.; Hutton, Deborah S. (eds.), A Companion to Asian Art and Architecture, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 978-1-119-01953-4
• Barua, Pradeep (2005), The State at War in South Asia, 2, Nebraska Press, ISBN 9780803240612, via Project MUSE (subscription required)
• Bentley, Jerry (1993), Old World Encounters: Cross-Cultural Contacts and Exchanges in Pre-Modern Times, Oxford University Press
• Bhattacharyya, P. K. (1977), Historical Geography of Madhyapradesh from Early Records, Motilal Banarsidass
• Boesche, Roger (2003), "Kautilya's Arthaśāstra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India" (PDF), The Journal of Military History, 67 (1): 9, doi:10.1353/jmh.2003.0006, ISSN 0899-3718, S2CID 154243517
• Brown, Rebecca M.; Hutton, Deborah S. (22 June 2015), A Companion to Asian Art and Architecture, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 9781119019534
• Dikshitar, V. R. Ramachandra (1993), The Mauryan Polity, Motilal Banarsidass Publ., ISBN 978-81-208-1023-5
• Dundas, Paul (2003), The Jains, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-26605-5
• Dupree, Louis (2014), Afghanistan, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-1-4008-5891-0
• Eraly, Abraham (2002), Gem In The Lotus, Penguin, ISBN 978-93-5118-014-2
Fleet, J.F. (1892), Bhadrabahu, Chandragupta and Shravanabelagola (Indian Antiquary), 21, Archaeological Society of India
• Ghosh, Ajit Kumar (2001), Dwijendralal Ray, Makers of Indian Literature (1st ed.), New Delhi: Sahitye Akademi, ISBN 978-81-260-1227-5
• Grant, R.G. (2010), Commanders, Penguin
• Guha-Thakurta, Tapati (2006), Chatterjee, Partha; Ghosh, Anjan (eds.), History and the Present, Anthem Press, ISBN 978-1-84331-224-6
• Habib, Irfan; Jha, Vivekanand (2004), Mauryan India, A People's History of India, Aligarh Historians Society / Tulika Books, ISBN 978-81-85229-92-8
• Harrison, Thomas (2009), The Great Empires of the Ancient World, Getty Publications, ISBN 978-0-89236-987-4
• Hemacandra (1998), The Lives of the Jain Elders, translated by R.C.C. Fynes, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-283227-6
• Jain, Jyoti Prasad (2005), Jaina Sources of the History of Ancient India: 100 BC - AD 900, Munshiram Manoharlal
• Jaini, Padmanabh S. (1991), Gender and Salvation, University of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-06820-9
• Jones, Constance; Ryan, James D. (2006), Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Infobase Publishing, ISBN 978-0-8160-7564-5
• Long, Jeffery D (2013), Jainism: An Introduction, I.B.Tauris, ISBN 978-0-85771-392-6
• Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (2004), A History of India (4th ed.), London: Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-15481-9
• Majumdar, R. C. (2003) [1952], Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-81-208-0436-4
• Malalasekera, Gunapala Piyasena (2002), Encyclopaedia of Buddhism: Acala, Government of Ceylon
• Mandal, Dhaneshwar (2003), Ayodhya, Archaeology After Demolition: A Critique of the "new" and "fresh" Discoveries, Orient Blackswan, ISBN 9788125023449
• Mookerji, Radha Kumud (1962), Aśoka (3rd Revised., repr ed.), Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass (reprint 1995), ISBN 978-81208-058-28
• Mookerji, Radha Kumud (1988) [first published in 1966], Chandragupta Maurya and his times (4th ed.), Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 81-208-0433-3
• Obeyesekere, Gananath (1980), Doniger, Wendy (ed.), Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions, University of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-03923-0
• Olivelle, Patrick (2013), King, Governance, and Law in Ancient India: Kauṭilya's Arthaśāstra, Oxford UK: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199891825
• Raychaudhuri, H. C. (1923), Political History of Ancient India: From the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty, Oxford University Press (1996 reprint, with B. N. Mukerjee Introduction)
• Raychaudhuri, H. C. (1967), "India in the Age of the Nandas / Chandragupta and Bindusara", in K. A. Nilakanta Sastri (ed.), Age of the Nandas and Mauryas (Second ed.), Motilal Banarsidass (1988 reprint), ISBN 978-81-208-0466-1
• Roy, Kaushik (2012), Hinduism and the Ethics of Warfare in South Asia: From Antiquity to the Present, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-107-01736-8
• Salomon, Richard (1998), Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the other Indo-Aryan Languages, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-535666-3
• Samuel, Geoffrey (2010), The Origins of Yoga and Tantra. Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century, Cambridge University Press
• Sastri, Kallidaikurichi Aiyah Nilakanta (1988), Age of the Nandas and Mauryas, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-81-208-0466-1
• Sen, R.K. (1895), "Origin of the Maurya of Magadha and of Chanakya", Journal of the Buddhist Text Society of India, The Society
• Singh, Upinder (2016), A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century, Pearson Education, ISBN 978-93-325-6996-6
• Singh, Upinder (2017), Political Violence in Ancient India, Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-97527-9
• Stoneman, Richard (2019), The Greek Experience of India: From Alexander to the Indo-Greeks, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0-691-18538-5
• Thapar, Romila (1961), Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, Oxford University Press
• Thapar, Romila (2004) [first published by Penguin in 2002], Early India: From the Origins to A.D. 1300, University of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-24225-8
• Thapar, Romila (2013), The Past Before Us, Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-72651-2
• Trautmann, Thomas R. (1970), "Alexander and Nandrus in Justin 15.4.16.", Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 51 (1/4)
• Upādhye, Ādinātha Neminātha (1977), Mahāvīra and His Teachings, Bhagavān Mahāvīra 2500th Nirvāṇa Mahotsava Samiti
• Vallely, Anne (2018), Kitts, Margo (ed.), Martyrdom, Self-Sacrifice, and Self-Immolation: Religious Perspectives on Suicide, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-065648-5
• Varadpande, Manohar Laxman (2006), Woman in Indian Sculpture, Abhinav, ISBN 978-81-7017-474-5
• Wiley, Kristi L. (16 July 2009), The A to Z of Jainism, Scarecrow, ISBN 978-0-8108-6821-2
• Zvelebil, Kamil (1973), The Smile of Murugan: On Tamil Literature of South India, BRILL, ISBN 90-04-03591-5

Further reading

Library resources about
• Bongard-Levin, Grigory Maksimovich (1985). Mauryan India. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers. OCLC 14395730.
• Kosmin, Paul J. (2014), The Land of the Elephant Kings: Space, Territory, and Ideology in Seleucid Empire, Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-72882-0
• Mani, Braj Ranjan (2005), Debrahmanising history: dominance and resistance in Indian society, Manohar, ISBN 978-81-7304-640-7
• Roy, Kaushik (2015), Warfare in Pre-British India–1500BCE to 1740CE, Routledge
• Sagar, Krishna Chandra (1992), Foreign Influence on Ancient India, Northern Book Centre, ISBN 9788172110284

External links

• Maurya and Sunga Art, N R Ray
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Sat Oct 02, 2021 8:24 am

Bhadrabahu, Chandragupta, and Sravana-Belgola
by J.F. Fleet, Bo.C.S., M.R.A.S., C.I.E.
The Indian Antiquary
May, 1892

Image
Medieval stone relief at Digambara pilgrimage site Shravanabelagola, Karnataka. It has been interpreted as Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta Maurya, but some disagree....

[Chandragupta's] main biographical sources in chronological order are: ... 7th to 10th century Jain inscriptions at Shravanabelgola...

Image
7th-century Bhadrabahu inscription at Shravanabelagola (Sanskrit, Purvahale Kannada script). This is the oldest inscription at the site, and it mentions Bhadrabahu and Prabhacandra. Lewis Rice and Digambara Jains interpret Prabhacandra to be Chandragupta Maurya, while others such as J F Fleet, V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar, and Svetambara Jains state this interpretation is wrong....

The earliest mention of Chandragupta's ritual death is found in Harisena's Brhatkathakosa, a Sanskrit text of stories about Digambara Jains. The Brhatkathakosa describes the legend of Bhadrabahu and mentions Chandragupta in its 131st story. However, the story makes no mention of the Maurya empire, and mentions that his disciple Chandragupta lived in and migrated from Ujjain – a kingdom (northwest Madhya Pradesh) about a thousand kilometers west of the Magadha and Patliputra (central Bihar). This has led to the proposal that Harisena's Chandragupta may be a later era, different person....

Image
1,300 years Old Shravanabelagola relief shows death of Chandragupta after taking the vow of Sallekhana. Some consider it about the legend of his [???] arrival with Bhadrabahu....

Image
A statue depicting Chandrgupta Maurya (right) with his spiritual mentor Acharya Bhadrabahu at Shravanabelagola....

The circumstances and year of Chandragupta's death are unclear and disputed. According to Digambara Jain accounts that, Bhadrabahu forecasted a 12-year famine because of all the killing and violence during the conquests by Chandragupta Maurya. He led a group of Jain monks to south India, where Chandragupta Maurya joined him as a monk after abdicated his kingdom to his son Bindusara. Together, states a Digambara legend, Chandragupta and Bhadrabahu moved to Shravanabelagola, in present-day south Karnataka. These Jain accounts appeared in texts such as Brihakathā kośa (931 CE) of Harishena, Bhadrabāhu charita (1450 CE) of Ratnanandi, Munivaṃsa bhyudaya (1680 CE) and Rajavali kathe. Chandragupta lived as an ascetic at Shravanabelagola for several years before fasting to death as per the Jain practice of sallekhana, according to the Digambara legend....

Regarding the inscriptions describing the relation of Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta Maurya, Radha Kumud Mookerji writes,


The oldest inscription of about 600 AD associated "the pair (yugma), Bhadrabahu along with Chandragupta Muni." Two inscriptions of about 900 AD on the Kaveri near Seringapatam describe the summit of a hill called Chandragiri as marked by the footprints of Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta munipati. A Shravanabelagola inscription of 1129 mentions Bhadrabahu "Shrutakevali", and Chandragupta who acquired such merit that he was worshipped by the forest deities. Another inscription of 1163 similarly couples and describes them. A third inscription of the year 1432 speaks of Yatindra Bhadrabahu, and his disciple Chandragupta, the fame of whose penance spread into other words.


Along with texts, several Digambara Jain inscriptions dating from the 7th–15th century refer to Bhadrabahu and a Prabhacandra. Later Digambara tradition identified the Prabhacandra as Chandragupta, and some modern era scholars have accepted this Digambara tradition while others have not. Several of the late Digambara inscriptions and texts in Karnataka state the journey started from Ujjain and not Pataliputra (as stated in some Digambara texts)....

Scholar of Jain studies and Sanskrit Paul Dundas says the Svetambara tradition of Jainism disputes the ancient Digambara legends. According to a 5th-century text of the Svetambara Jains, the Digambara sect of Jainism was founded 609 years after Mahavira's death, or in 1st-century CE. Digambaras wrote their own versions and legends after the 5th-century, with their first expanded Digambara version of sectarian split within Jainism appearing in the 10th-century. The Svetambaras texts describe Bhadrabahu was based near Nepalese foothills of the Himalayas in 3rd-century BCE, who neither moved nor travelled with Chandragupta Maurya to the south; rather, he died near Pataliputra, according to the Svetambara Jains....

According to V. R. Ramachandra Dikshitar – an Indologist and historian, several of the Digambara legends mention Prabhacandra, who had been misidentified as Chandragupta Maurya particularly after the original publication on Shravanabelagola epigraphy by B. Lewis Rice. The earliest and most important inscriptions mention Prabhacandra, which Rice presumed may have been the "clerical name assumed by Chadragupta Maurya" after he renounced and moved with Bhadrabahu from Pataliputra. Dikshitar stated there is no evidence to support this and Prabhacandra was an important Jain monk scholar who migrated centuries after Chandragupta Maurya's death. Other scholars have taken Rice's deduction of Chandragupta Maurya retiring and dying in Shravanabelagola as the working hypothesis, since no alternate historical information or evidence is available about Chandragupta's final years and death.

Image
The Footprints of Chandragupta Maurya on Chandragiri Hill, where Chandragupta (the unifier of India and founder of the Maurya Dynasty) performed Sallekhana.

-- Chandragupta Maurya, by Wikipedia


In the first fifteen pages of the Introduction to his Inscriptions at Sravana-Belgola (published in 1889), Mr. Rice has arrived at the conclusions, that the settlement of the Jains at that place was brought about by the last of the Sruta-Kevalins, Bhadrabahu, and that this person died there, tended in his last moments by the Maurya king Chandragupta, — the Sandrokottos of the Greek historians, — the grandfather of Asoka. These conclusions, if they could be accepted as correct, would possess considerable interest. And it is worth while, therefore, to examine the grounds upon which they are based.

It is clear that there are local traditions, of some antiquity, connecting the names Bhadrabahu and Chandragupta with Sravana-Belgola. Thus: — Of the two hills at Sravana-Bolgola, the smaller one, Chandragiri, is said to derive its appellation from the fact that Chandragupta was the name of the first of the saints who lived and performed penance there (Introd. p. 1). On this hill there is a cave which is known as the cave of Bhadrabahusvamin; and also a shrine which is called the Chandragupta-basti (ibid. p. 2, and map). Two inscriptions, said to be of the ninth century, found near the Gautama-kshetra of the river Kaveri at Seriugapatam, speak of the hill at Sravana-Belgola as having its summit marked by the impress of the feet of Bhadrabahu and the Munipati Chandragupta (ibid. p. 2, note 6). At Sravana-Belgola itself, inscription No. 17, of about the seventh century A.D., mentions “the pair Bhadrabahu, together with the Munindra Chandragupta.” And inscription No. 71, of considerably later date, refers to worship being done to the foot-prints of Bhadrabahu.

So far, we stand on safe ground, in respect of the names of a Bhadrabahu and a Chandragupta; provided that we only bear in mind that, as yet, we have nothing to enable us to identify any particular Bhadrabahu and any particular Chandragupta.

We turn next to inscriptions at Sravana-Belgola, which undoubtedly mention Bhadrabahu, the last of the Sruta-Kevalins. No. 40, of A.D. 1163, speaks of “Gautama" [the first of the Kevalins], “in whose line arose ‘‘Bhadrabahu, the last among the Sruta-Kevalins; his disciple was Chandragupta, whose “glory was such that his own gana of Munis was worshipped by the forest-deities:"1 [It may be mentioned, in connection with an altogether different matter of some interest, that, in the further succession of disciples, this inscription mentions one whose original name was Devanandin; who was called Jinendra-Buddha, on account of his great learning; who was called Pujyapada, because his feet were worshipped by gods; and who composed the Jainundra-grammar.] and then, after a break, it takes up a line of succession, placed in the lineage (anvaya) of Chandragupta, beginning with the Munisvara Kondakunda,2 [I give this name as it stands in Mr. Rice’s texts, — Kondakunda, in Nos. 40, 54, and 105, and Kundakunda in No. 108. The variation in the vowel of the first syllable is not material. There is a question as to the proper consonants in the second and fourth syllables. For several variants of the name, see Dr. Hultzsch’s South-Indian Inscriptions, Vol. I. p. 158, note 2. In the pattavali of the Sarasvati-Gachchha, it appears as Kundakunda (ante, Vol. XX. pp. 351, 356).] whose original name was Padmanandin. No. 54, of A.D. 1128, again mentions Gautama, the 'Sruto-Kevalins, Bhadrabahu (apparently the 'Sruta-Kevalin of that name), and Chandragupta, “who, by being his disciple, acquired such merit as to be served for a long time by the forest-deities;” and then, like the preceding, after a break, it takes up the succession beginning with Kondakunda. No, 105, of A.D, 1398, dealing similarly with the succession from Kondakunda, enumerates, before him, a number of teachers, in respect of whom, for present purposes, it is only necessary to say that the Kevalin Gautama, and five Sruta-Kevalins, ending with Bhadrabahu, are mentioned, but the name of Chandragupta does not occur at all. And No. 108, of A D. 1433, mentions Gautama; in his line, the Yatindra Bhadrabahu, the last of the 'Sruta-Kevalins; his disciple, Chandragupta; and, in the line of the latter, the Munindra Kundakunda, whose succession is then continued, as in the other records.

These inscriptions undoubtedly mention Bhadrabahu, the last of the Sruta-Kevalins, and allot to him a disciple named Chandragupta. And all that we have to note here, is, that, except through the connected mention of a Chandragupta, they afford no grounds for identifying him with the Bhadrabahu of the inscriptions quoted in the last paragraph but two above; that they furnish no reasons for asserting that the Sruta-Kevalin Bhadrabahu ever visited Sravana-Belgola, or even came to Southern India at all; and that they give no indications of Chandragupta having been anything but an ordinary Jain teacher.

And now we come to the actual reasons that led Mr. Rice to assert the alleged facts which, in the interests of plain and reliable history, it is desirable either to substantiate or to disprove. They are to be found, partly in a compendium of Jain history called the Rajavalikathe, and partly in Mr. Rice’s rendering of another inscription at Sravana-Belgola, No. I in his book.


The essence of what the Rajavalikathe tells us is this (loc. cit. pp. 3-6): — "The Bhadrabahu who came to be the last of the Sruta-Kevalins, was a Brahman’s son, and was born at Kotikapura in Pundravardhana. He interpreted sixteen dreams of Chandragupta, the king of Pataliputra; the last of which indicated twelve years of dearth and famine. On the commencement of the famine, Chandragupta abdicated in favour of his son Simhasena, and, taking initiation in the Jain faith, joined himself to Bhadrabahu. Bhadrabahu, having collected a body of twelve thousand disciples, migrated to the south, and came to a hill in the Karnataka country. There he perceived that his end was approaching; and so, giving upadesa to Visakhcharya, he committed all the disciples to his care, and sent them on to the Chola and Pandya countries. He himself remained on the hill, and died in a cave there, tended only by Chandragupta, who performed the funeral rites, and abode there, worshipping the foot-prints of the deceased saint. After a time, Simhasena’s son, Bhaskara, came to the place, and did obeisance to Chandragupta, and built the city of Belgola near the hill. And eventually, Chandragupta himself died there.”

In connection with this account, — the value of which most people will be able to appreciate for themselves, — it is sufficient to point out two things. One is, that, whatever be the sources on which it is based, this Jain compendium is a composition of the present century (loc. cit. p. 3). And the other is that, by a further extract from the same work, we learn (ibid, p. 9) that the Chandragupta in question was not the well-known grandfather of Asoka, — the Sandrokottos of the Greeks, — at all, but a son, otherwise quite unknown, of Asoka’s son Kunala. Mr. Rice himself noticed this little difficulty, and got round it by suggesting (ibid. p. 10) that ‘the introduction of two Chandraguptas seems to be due to some confusion in the traditions, and is an unnecessary variation, perhaps intended to conceal the defection of Asoka (from Jainism to the Buddhist faith).' But, by such a process as this, — accepting as reliable an account that is perfectly valueless for historical purposes, and then directly perverting its statement, on a point of leading importance, by deliberately substituting a man’s grandfather in the place of his grandson, — almost anything whatever in the way of imaginary history might be evolved.

It is unnecessary to follow Mr. Rice through the process by which, using what seems to be an actual fact, viz. that Bhadrabahu, the last of the Sruta-Kevalins, was a contemporary of the great Chandragupta, he arrived (loc. cit. pp. 12, 14) at about B.C. 297 for the date of the events recorded, on his interpretation, in the inscription that still remains to be considered or through the steps by which he established a connection of the real Chandragupta with Southern India through the Early Guptas, the Mauryas of the Konkan, and the Gatta chieftains of the Kanareso country (ibid. pp. 10-14). We will turn now to the inscription itself.

The real purport of the inscription, No. 1 in the Sravana-Belgola volume, is as follows: — After the time when (the Jain Tirthamkara) Mahavira attained parinirvana, there was a certain Bhadrabahusvamin, who belonged to a lineage that had been made illustrious by a succession of great saints who came in continuous order from the venerable Paramarshi Gautama, and his disciple Loharya, and Jambu, Vishnudeva, Aparajita, Govardhana, Bhadrabahu, Visakha, Prosthhila, Krittikarya,3 [Mr. Rice gives “Kshatriksrya." I do not overlook the fact that the name occurs as “Kshatriya" in No. 165 in Mr. Rice’s book, and in the extract from the Maghanandi-Sravakachara given ante, Vol. XII. p 22, and as “Khattiya,” explained by “Kshatriya,” in the pattavali of the Sarasvati-Gachchha (ante, Vol, XX. p. 348). But Mr. Rice’s lithograph distinctly has the name that I give. — Since writing these remarks, I have seen impressions  of the inscription, which I owe to the kindness of Dr. Hultzsch. They shew that the name really is Krittikarya.] Jayanaman, Siddhartha, Dhritishena, Buddhila, and other Gurus. At Ujjayini, the Bhadrabahusvamin, thus introduced, mastered the science of prognostication, became a knower of the past, the present, and the future, and announced a period of distress that would last for twelve years; and the entire sangha set out from the north and migrated to the south, and, by the directions of the saint, came to a country containing many hundreds of villages, and rich in people, wealth, gold, grain, cows, buffaloes, and goats. Then, on the mountain Katavapra4 [The original says, “on this mountain named Katavapra”; i.e. on the hill on which the inscription is engraved; i.e. on Chandragiri itself. ] the Acharya Prabhachandra, perceiving that the end of his life was very near, and being much afraid of journeying any farther, dismissed the whole samgha, with the exception of one unnamed disciple, and engaged in samnyasa until he died."

In interpreting this record, Mr. Rice made two important mistakes. (1) He took the Bhadrabahusvamin who announced the period of distress, to be identical with Bhadrabahu I, the Sruta-Kevalin, who is mentioned in his proper place between Govardhana and Visakha. But, according to the inscription itself, seven of the Dasa-Parvins, and after them a break of unspecified duration, intervened between the two Bhadrabahus, — in perfect accordance with the lists of Northern India. And (2), in consequence of a mislection in line 6, he translated the inscription as meaning that the Acharya who died at Katavapra, was Bhadrabahusvamin himself, i.e,, as the result of his identification, Bhadrabahu I., the Sruta-Kevalin, and that the disciple who tended him was Prabhachandra; to which he attached a note that Prabhachandra was explained to him as the clerical name assumed by Chandragupta.5 [See also Introd. pp 6, 7, where, however, he says only that, "according to No. 1,” i.e. the present inscription, Chandragupta “appears” to have taken the name of Prabhachandra on retiring from the world, in conformity with custom.] But all this is distinctly not the case; the reading, in line 6, is, — not acharyyah Prabhachandren=am=avanitala, “the Acharya, with6 [The passage was supposed to include the word ama, in the sense of saha, — The inscription was first brought to notice by Mr. Rice in 1871, in this Journal, Vol. III., p. 153 (see also Mysore Inscriptions, pp. lxxxvi., lxxxvii., 302); and the first extract from the Rajavalikatne was also given. But Mr. Rice did not then find the name Prabhachandra in the inscription. And in respect of the extract from the Rajavalikathe, he then wrote — “This is a strange story. How much of it may be accepted as historical is not easy to say.”] Prabhachandra also, [dismissed the sangha, and engaged in samnyasa till he died],” — but acharyyah Prabhachandro nam=avanitala, "the Acharya, namely Prabhachandra, [dismissed the samgha and engaged in samnyasa till he died].”


In short, so far from recording that the Sruta-Kevalin Bhadrabahu died at Sravana Belgola, tended by a disciple named Prabhachandra, who might be assumed to be king Chandragupta of Pataliputra, the inscription simply states that an Acharya named Prabhachandra died there, during or shortly after a migration of the Jain community to the south, which was caused by an announcement of famine made, at Ujjain, by a certain Bhadrabahusvamin who came after an interval of unspecified duration, — but plainly a long one, — after the Sruta-Kevalin Bhadrabahu, And thus the only possible substantial foundation for the fabric reared up by Mr. Rice ceases entirely to exist.

We may now proceed to examine the real historical bearings of this inscription. It is not dated. But the lithographic Plate which is given by Mr. Rice, shews that the engraving of it is to be allotted to approximately the seventh century A.D.: it may possibly be a trifle earlier; and equally, it may possibly be somewhat later.7 [While recognising, approximately, the period to which the characters really belong, Mr. Rice (loc. cit. p. 15) arrived at the conclusion that, “if this interesting inscription did not precede the Christian era, it unquestionably belongs to the earliest part of that era and is certainly not later than about 100 A.D." But there are no substantial grounds for this view, which depends chiefly upon Mr. Rice’s acceptance as genuine, of the spurious Western Ganga grants. Unfortunately, much of what would otherwise be valuable work by him, is always vitiated in the same way.] And, interpreting the record in the customary manner, viz. as referring to an event almost exactly synchronous with the engraving of it, we can only take it as commemorating the death of a Jain teacher named Prabhachandra, in or very near to the period A.D. 600 to 700. Who this Prabhachandra was, I am not at present able to say. But he cannot be Prabhachandra I. of the pattavali of the Sarasvati-Gachchha (ante, Vol. XX. p. 351), unless the chronological details of that record, — according to which Prabhachandra I., became pontiff in A.D. 396, — are open to very considerable rectification. And I should think that he must be a different person, for whose identification we have to look to southern records not as yet available.


As regards Bhadrabahusvamin, all that should have been of necessity plain at the time when Mr. Rice dealt finally with this inscription, is, that he is not the Sruta-Kevalin Bhadrabahu. Now that Dr. Hoernle has published the patttavali of the Sarasvati-Gachchha, he is easily capable of identification. He is undoubtedly Bhadrabahu II., the last but one of the Minor-Angins who is represented as becoming pontiff in B.C. 63 (ante, Vol. XX. pp. 349-51.)

The same pattavali enables us to locate properly the Chandragupta of the Sravana-Belgola traditions and inscriptions. Such of them as make him a disciple of the Sruta-Kevalin Bhadrabahu, are plainly mistaken. He is evidently Guptigupta, the disciple of Bhadrabahu II., — otherwise named Arhadbalin and Visakhacharya, — who, according to the same record, became pontiff in B.C. 31 (ante, Vol. XX. pp. 350, 351). And this brings us to a point in which the local traditions are possibly more correct than the northern records. The pattavali in question tells us that one of Guptigupta’s disciples, Maghanandin, established the Nandi-Samgha or Balatkara-Gana, as a division of the Mula-Samgha itself. Both names of the gana, as well as that of the Mula-Samgha, are of frequent occurrence, in connection with teachers belonging to it, in inscriptions in the Kanarese country; where, however, the gana is perhaps mentioned most often as the Balatkara-Gana. This appellation for it is attributed by Dr. Hoernle to Guptigupta’s name of Arhadbalin. A gana of his own is allotted to Chandragupta, i.e. to Guptigupta, by inscription No. 40 at Sravana-Belgola (see the words quoted from it, on page 156 above), which ultimately deals with the Desi-Gana as a division of the Nandi-Gana in the Mula-Samgha, placing it in the lineage (anvaya) of Kondakunda, just as the lineage of the latter is placed in the lineage of Chandragupta, i.e. of Guptigupta. And the fact that the Inscription with which we have been dealing, and others on the Chandragiri hill which similarly record the deaths of Jain ascetics, lie in such a position that they have to be read with the face directed towards the front of the so-called Chandragupba-basti, indicates plainly that some peculiar sanctity or reverence attached to the parson commemorated by that shrine. There can be little doubt that the ascetics in question belonged to the same sect with that person; that he was the traditional founder of the sect; and that the tradition at Sravana-Belgola was that the Balatkara-Gana was really founded by the Chandragupta of the inscriptions, i.e. by Guptigupta, the disciple of Bhadrabahu II.8 [In connection with a division of the Nandi-Samgha, “the body of saints of Guptigupta” is mentioned in the Kadab grant, which purports to be dated in Saka-Samvat 785 (ante, Vol. XII. p. 11). And inscription No. 105 in Mr. Rice’s book, dated Saka-Samvat 1820, speaks of Arhadbalin, apparently as establishing a four-fold division of the samgha.]  

The migration to the south, whether it really started from Ujjain, or from elsewhere, may well be a historical fact.9 [It appears to be mentioned also in the Upasarga kevaligala-kathe; see ante, Vol. XII, p. 99, -- "the whole assemblage of the saints having come by the region of the south, and having arrived at the tomb of the venerable one, &c."] It may be open to argument, whether the inscription intends to imply that it was led by Bhadrabahu II. But at any rate this is not distinctly asserted. And I think that the contrary is indicated, (1) by the description of Bhadrabahu as ‘‘a knower of the past, the present, and the future (traikalya-darsin)," which rather points to his predicting a future period of distress, than to his simply announcing the commencement of immediately impending distress; and (2) by the statement that the rich land at which the samgha arrived was reached “by the directions of the saint (arshena = rishi-vachanena)," which points to instructions given at the time of predicting the distress, — or at any rate to advice given to people who were leaving him, — rather than to personal guidance. On the other hand, the inscription, whether correctly or not, does make the migration contemporaneous with Prabhachandra; for it says that, at the mountain Katavapra, he perceived that the end of his life was very near and became “much afraid of travelling any further (adhvanah su-chakitah)," and so dismissed the samgha and remained there till he died. If, then, the record does mean to imply that Bhadrabahu II. led the migration, or even that it took place in his time, it is wrong, either in that respect, or in placing the death of Prabhachandra during the migration; because of the intervention of several centuries at least10 [I assume that the pattavali of the Sarasvati-Gachchha is at least approximately correct in respect of the date which it gives for Bhadrabahu II.] between the period of Bhadrabahu II, and the death of Prabhachandra as determined, with close approximation, by the palaeography of the record.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Thu Oct 07, 2021 9:53 am

Part 1 of 2

"Sandrocottus", Excerpt from "History of Classical Sanskrit Literature"
by Kavyavinoda, Sahityaratnakara M. Krishnamachariar, M.A., M.I., Ph.D., Member of the Royal Asiatic Society of London (Of the Madras Judicial Service), Assisted by His Son M. Srinivasachariar, B.A., B.L., Advocate, Madras
1937

...

The Introduction deals with several topics of general interest allied to the study of Classical Sanskrit Literature… Of foremost importance, there is the subject of Indian Chronology. India has its well written history, and the Puranas exhibit that history and chronology. To the devout Hindu, and to a Hindu who will strive to be honest in the literary and historical way, Puranas are not 'pious frauds.' In the hands of many Orientalists, India has lost (or has been cheated out of) a period of 10-12 centuries in its political and literary life, by the assumption of a faulty Synchronism of Candragupta Maurya and Sandrocottus of the Greek works, and all that can be said against that "Anchor-Sheet of Indian Chronology" has been said in this Introduction…[for] our "Professors of Indian History," that have given a longevity and a garb of truth to it by repetition, there is to my mind no excuse or expiation, if at all it be a confession of neglect and a recognition of India's glorious past in its entire truth…

Of the several kingdoms and dynasties of which Puranas have recorded political history, there is the kingdom of Magadha. For our present purposes of sifting and settling the chronology of India up to the Christian era, the history of Magadha is particularly relevant, for it is at Magadha, 'Chandragupta' and 'Asoka' ruled, and it is on these names that the modern computation of dates has been based for everything relating to India's literary history, and it is those two names that make the heroes of the theory of Anchor Sheet of Indian Chronology.

The Kingdom of Magadha was founded by Brhadratha, son of Uparicara Vasu, the 6th in descent from Kuru of the Candra Vamsa. That happened 161 years before Mahabharata war. Tenth in descent from Brhadratha was Jarasandha. Jarasandha perished at the hand of Kamsa, and in his place Sahadeva was installed on the throne. Sahadeva was an ally of Pandavas and was killed in the war, that is in 3139 BC. His son Marjari (or Somadhi or Somavit) was his successor and the first king of Magadha after the war. From him 22 kings of this Barhadratha dynasty ruled over Magadha for 1006 years, or roughly stated, for 1000 years…

The following is the description of the Nanda Dynasty as given in the Kaliyuga Rajavrttanta: —...

"It will be clear from these numerous extracts quoted in full from the 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 Kshattriya rulers of his time like a second Parasurama, the destroyer of the Kshattriyas in the olden times, 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 the Coronation of Yudhishthira in the year 3139 BC, 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, Maithilas etc., who ceased to rule as separate dynasties 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 1635 to 1535 BC, that these Nandas were extirpated by the Brahman Chanakya, well known as Kautilya, on account of his crooked and Machiavellian policy, and that he replaced his protege Chandragupta, an illegitimate son of Mahapadma Nanda by his Sudra wife Mura on the throne of his father."

But Vincent A. Smith chooses to assign to these nine Nandas a total period of only 45 years for their reigns.

Candragupta came to the throne as the son of Mura, so he was a Maurya, and the dynasty which he started was Maurya dynasty. Candragupta's son was Bindusara, and Bindusara's son was Asoka or Asokavardhana…

Thus Candragupta reigned from 1535 to 1501 BC, for 34 years, Bindusara from 1501 to 1473, for 28 years, and Asoka from 1473 to 1437 BC, for 36 years. And in all there were twelve Kings of Maurya dynasty, the last of whom was Brhadratha.

Regarding this dynasty the readings and versions of the Puranas are hopelessly confused and incorrect but the passages quoted, of which the authenticity is doubtless, show that the Maurya dynasty lasted for 316 years from 1535 to 1219 BC.


Pusyamitra was the commander-in-chief of Brhadratha. He removed his master and ascended the throne. Thus he started the Sunga dynasty. According to Matsya Purana, there were ten kings of this dynasty who ruled in all for 30 years from 1219 BC to 919 BC…

Thus, these 32 kings of the Andhra Dynasty reigned for a total period of 506 years, although in summing up their total period of reigns, it states in round figures that they ruled for full 500 years (instead of 506 years); and their kingdom passed into the hands of Candragupta, son of Ghatotkaca 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 to maintain his tottering kingdom….

Sandrocottus.

It was Sir William Jones, the Founder and President of the Society instituted in Bengal for inquiry into the History and Antiquities, the Arts, Sciences and Literature of Asia, who died on 27th April 1794, that suggested for the first time an identification to the notice of scholars. In his 'Tenth Anniversary Discourse,' delivered by him on 28th February 1793, on "Asiatic History, Civil and Natural," referred to the so-called discovery by him of the identity of Candragupta, the Founder of the Maurya Dynasty of the Kings Magadha, with Sandrocottus of the Greek writers of Alexander's adventures, thus:

"The Jurisprudence of the Hindus and Arabs being the field, which I have chosen for my peculiar toil, you cannot expect, that I should greatly enlarge your collection of historical knowledge, but I may be able to offer you some occasional tribute, and I cannot help mentioning a discovery which accident threw in my way, though my proofs must be reserved for an essay, which I have destined for the fourth volume of your Transactions. To fix the situation of that Palibothra, (for there may have been several of the name) which was visited and described by Megasthenes, had always appeared a very difficult problem, for, though it could not have been Prayaga where no ancient metropolis ever stood, nor Canyacubja which has no epithet at all resembling the word used by the Greeks, nor Gaur, otherwise called Lacshmanavati, which all know to be a town comparatively modern, yet we could not confidently decide that it was Pataliputra, though names and most circumstances nearly correspond, because that renowned capital extended from the confluence of the Sone and the Ganges to the site of Patna, while Palibothra stood at the junction of the Ganges and Erranaboas, which the accurate M. D'Anville had pronounced to be "Yamuna", but this only difficulty was removed when I found in a Classical Sanskrit book near two thousand years old, that Hiranyabahu or golden-armed, which the Greeks changed to Erranaboas, or the river with a lovely murmur, was in fact another name for the Sona itself, though Megasthenes from ignorance or inattention, has named them separately.1 [Asiatic Researches, IV. 10-11.] This discovery led to another of greater moment, for Chandragupta, who, from a military adventurer, became like Sandracottus, the sovereign of Upper Hindustan, actually fixed the seat of his empire at Pataliputra, where he received ambassadors from foreign princes, and was no other than that very Sandracottus who concluded a treaty with Seleucus Nicator, so that we have solved another problem to which we before alluded, and may in round numbers consider the twelve and three hundredth years before Christ as two certain epochs between Rama who conquered Silan a few centuries after the flood, and Vicramaditya who died at Ujjayini fifty-seven years before the beginning of our era."…


Earlier in the same discourse Sir William had mentioned his authorities for the statement that Candragupta became sovereign of upper Hindusthan, with his Capital at Pataliputra. "A most beautiful poem," said he "by Somadeva, comprising a long chain of instructive and agreeable stories, begins with the famed revolution at Pataliputra by the murder of king Nanda with his eight sons, and the usurpation of Chandragupta, and the same revolution is the subject of a tragedy in Sanskrit entitled 'The Coronation of Chandra.'"1 [Ibid 6.] Thus he claimed to have identified Palibothra with Pataliputra and Sandrokottus with Candragupta, and to have determined 300 BC "in round numbers" as a certain epoch between two others which he called the conquest of Silan by Rama: "1200 BC," and the death of Vikramaditya at Ujjain in 57 BC.

In the Discourse referred to, Sir William barely stated his discovery, adding "that his proofs must be reserved" for a subsequent essay, but he died before that essay could appear.

The theme was taken immediately by Col. [Captain Francis] Wilford in Volume V of the Asiatic Researches. Wilford entered into a long and fanciful disquisition on Palibothra, and rejected Sir William's identification of it with Pataliputra, but he accepted the identification of Sandrocottus with Candragupta in the following words: —"Sir William Jones from a poem written by Somadeva and a tragedy called the Coronation of Chandra or Chandragupta discovered that he really was the Indian king mentioned by the historians of Alexander under the name of Sandrocottus. These poems I have not been able to procure, but I have found another dramatic piece entitled Mudra-Rachasa,1 [This spelling shows that Wilford saw not the Sanskrit drama but some vernacular visions of it.] which is divided into two parts, the first may be called the Coronation of Chandra."2 [Asiatic Researches, V, 262. Wilford wrongly names the author of the drama as Amanta (or Ananta).]


P. 262: Chandra-Gupta, or he who was saved by the interposition of Lunus or the Moon, is called also Chandra in a poem quoted by Sir William Jones. The Greeks call him Sandracuptos, Sandracottos, and Androcottos. Sandrocottos is generally used by the historians of Alexander; and Sandracuptos is found in the works of Athenaeas. Sir William Jones, from a poem written by Somadeva, and a tragedy called the coronation of Chandra or Chandra-Gupta [Asiatick Researches, vol. IV, p. 6, 11.], discovered that he really was the Indian king mentioned by the historians of Alexander, under the name of Sandracottos. These two poems I have not been able to procure; but, I have found another dramatic piece, intitled Mudra-Racshasa, or the Seal of Racshasa, which is divided into two parts: the first may be called the coronation of Chandra-Gupta, and the second the reconciliation of Chandra-Gupta with Mantri-Racshasa, the prime minister of his father.

The history of Chandra-Gupta is related, though in few words, in the Vishnu-purana, the Bhagawat, and two other books, one of which is called Brahatcatha, and the other is a lexicon called Camandaca: the two last are supposed to be about six or seven hundred years old. In the Vishnu-purana we read, "Unto Nanda shall be born nine sons; Cotilya, his minister shall destroy them, and place Chandra-Gupta on the throne."

In the Bhagawat we read, "from the womb of Sudri, Nanda shall be born. His eldest son will be called Sumalva, and he shall have eight sons more; these, a Brahmen (called Cotilya, Vatsayana, and Chanacya in the commentary) shall destroy, after them a Maurya shall reign in the Cali-yug. This Brahmen will place Chandra-Gupta on the throne." In the Brahatcatha it is said, that this revolution was effected in seven days, and the nine children of Nanda put to death. In the Camandaca, Chanacyas is called Vishnu-Gupta. The following is an abstract of the history of Chandra-Gupta from the Mudra-Racshasa:

Nanda, king of Prachi, was the son of Maha Nandi, by a female slave of the Sudra tribe: hence Nanda was called a Sudra.
He was a good king, just and equitable, and paid due respect to the Brahmens: he was avaricious, but he respected his subjects. He was originally king of Magada, now called South-Bahar, which had been in the possession of his ancestors since the days of Crishna; by the strength of his arm he subdued all the kings of the country, and like another Parasu-Rama destroyed the remnants of the Cshettris. He had two wives, Ratnavati and Mura. By the first he had nine sons, called the Sumalyadicas, from the eldest, whose name was Sumalya (though in the dramas, he is called Sarvarthasidd'hi); by Mura he had Chandra-Gupta, and many others, who were known by the general appellation of Mauryas, because they were born of Mura...


-- XVII. On the Chronology of the Hindus, by Captain Francis Wilford, Asiatic Researches; or, Transactions of the Society Instituted in Bengal, For Inquiring Into the History and Antiquities, The Arts, Sciences, and Literature, Of Asia, Volume the Fifth, 1799


[Horace Hayman] Wilson further amended the incorrect authorities relied on by Sir William Jones, and said in his Preface to Mudra-Rakshasa3 [Theatre of the Hindus, Vol. II.] that by Sir William's "a beautiful poem by Somadeva" was "doubtless meant the large collection of tales by Somabhatta the Vrihat-katha."4 [Wilson again is not quite correct in his Bibiography. Somadeva's large collection of tales is entitled Kathasarit sagara and is an adaptation into Sanskrit verse of an original work in the Paisaci language called Brihat, Katha, composed by one Gunadhya.]

It may not here be out of place to offer a few observations on the identification of Chandragupta and Sandrocottus. It is the only point on which we can rest with anything like confidence in the history of the Hindus, and is therefore of vital importance in all our attempts to reduce the reigns of their kings to a rational and consistent chronology. It is well worthy, therefore, of careful examination; and it is the more deserving of scrutiny, as it has been discredited by rather hasty verification and very erroneous details.

Sir William Jones first discovered the resemblance of the names, and concluded Chandragupta to be one with Sandrocottus (As. Res. vol. iv. p. 11). He was, however, imperfectly acquainted with his authorities, as he cites "a beautiful poem” by Somadeva, and a tragedy called the coronation of Chandra, for the history of this prince. By the first is no doubt intended the large collection of tales by Somabhatta, the Vrihat-Katha, in which the story of Nanda's murder occurs: the second is, in all probability, the play that follows, and which begins after Chandragupta’s elevation to the throne. In the fifth volume of the Researches the subject was resumed by the late Colonel Wilford, and the story of Chandragupta is there told at considerable length, and with some accessions which can scarcely be considered authentic. He states also that the Mudra-Rakshasa consists of two parts, of which one may be called the coronation of Chandragupta, and the second his reconciliation with Rakshasa, the minister of his father. The latter is accurately enough described, but it may be doubted whether the former exists.

Colonel Wilford was right also in observing that the story is briefly related in the Vishnu-Puranaa and Bhagavata, and in the Vrihat-Katha; but when he adds, that it is told also in a lexicon called the Kamandaki he has been led into error. The Kamandaki is a work on Niti, or Polity, and does not contain the story of Nanda and Chandragupta. The author merely alludes to it in an honorific verse, which he addresses to Chanakya as the founder of political science, the Machiavel of India.

The birth of Nanda and of Chandragupta, and the circumstances of Nanda’s death, as given in Colonel Wilford’s account, are not alluded to in the play, the Mudra-Rakshasa, from which the whole is professedly taken, but they agree generally with the Vrihat-Katha and with popular versions of the story. From some of these, perhaps, the king of Vikatpalli, Chandra-Dasa, may have been derived, but he looks very like an amplification of Justin's account of the youthful adventures of Sandrocottus. The proceedings of Chandragupta and Chanakya upon Nanda's death correspond tolerably well with what we learn from the drama, but the manner in which the catastrophe is brought about (p. 268), is strangely misrepresented. The account was no doubt compiled for the translator by his pandit, and it is, therefore, but indifferent authority.

It does not appear that Colonel Wilford had investigated the drama himself
, even when he published his second account of the story of Chandragupta (As. Res. vol. ix. p. 93), for he continues to quote the Mudra-Rakshasa for various matters which it does not contain. Of these, the adventures of the king of Vikatpalli, and the employment of the Greek troops, are alone of any consequence, as they would mislead us into a supposition, that a much greater resemblance exists between the Grecian and Hindu histories than is actually the case.

Discarding, therefore, these accounts, and laying aside the marvellous part of the story
, I shall endeavour, from the Vishnu and Bhagavata-Puranas, from a popular version of the narrative as it runs in the south of India, from the Vrihat-Katha, [For the gratification of those who may wish to see the story as it occurs in these original sources, translations are subjoined; and it is rather important to add, that in no other Purana has the story been found, although most of the principal works of this class have been carefully examined.] and from the play, to give what appear to be the genuine circumstances of Chandragupta's elevation to the throne of Palibothra.


-- Select Specimens of the Theatre of the Hindus, Translated from Original Sanskrit in Two Volumes, by Horace Hayman Wilson, Volume II, 1871


Max Muller then elaborated the discovery of this identity in his Ancient Sanskrit Literature. To him this identity was a settled incontrovertible fact. On the path of further research, he examined the chronology of the Buddhists according to the Northern or the Chinese and the Southern or the Ceylonese traditions, and summed this up:

"Everything in Indian Chronology depends upon the date of Chandragupta. Chandragupta was the grand-father of Asoka, and the contemporary of Selukus Nikator. Now, according to the Chinese chronology, Asoka would have lived, to waive the minor differences, 850 or 750 BC, according to Ceylonese Chronology, 315 BC. Either of these dates is impossible because it does not agree with the chronology of Greece."


'Everything in Indian Chronology depends upon the date of Chandragupta' is the declaration. How is that date to be fixed? The Puranic accounts were of course beneath notice. The Buddhist chronologies were conflicting, and must be ignored. The Greek synchronism comes to his rescue:

"There is but one means by which the history of India can be connected with that of Greece, and its chronology must be reduced to its proper limits, [that is, by the clue afforded by] ...the name of Sandrocottus or Sandrocyptus, the Sanskrit Chandragupta."


From classical writers — Justin, Arrian, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Quintus Curtius, and Plutarch — a formidable array, all of whom however borrowed their account from practically the same sources — he puts together the various statements concerning Sandrocottus, and tries to show that they all tally with the statements made by Indian writers about the Maurya king Candragupta.

"The resemblance of this name [says he] with the name of Sandrocottus or Sandrocyptus was first, I believe, pointed out by Sir William Jones. [Captain Francis] Wilford, [Horace Hayman] Wilson, and Professor [Christian] Lassen have afterwards added further evidence in confirmation of Sir W. Jones's conjecture, and although other scholars, and particularly M. Troyer in his edition of the Rajatarangini, have raised objections, we shall see that the evidence in favour of the identity of Chandragupta and Sandrocottus or Sandrocyptus is such as to admit of no reasonable doubt."


Max Muller only repeats that the Greek accounts of Sandrocottus and the Indian accounts of Chandragupta agree in the main, both speaking of a usurper who either was base-born himself or else overthrew a base-born predecessor, and that this essential agreement would hold whether the various names used by Greek writers — Xandrames, Andramas, Aggraman, Sandrocottus and Sandrocyptus — should be made to refer to two kings, the overthrown and the overthrower, or all to one, namely the overthrower himself, though personally he is inclined to the view that the first three variations refer to the overthrown, and the last two to the overthrower. He explains away the difficulty in identifying the sites of Palibothra and Pataliputra geographically by "a change in the bed of the river Sone." He passes over the apparent differences in detail between the Greek statements on the one hand and the Hindu and Buddhist versions on the other quite summarily, declaring that Buddhist fables were invented to exalt, and the Brahmanic fables to lower Chandragupta's descent! Lastly with respect to chronology the Brahmanic is altogether ignored, and the Buddhist is "reduced to its proper limits," that is, pulled down to fit in with Greek chronology.

Priyadasi.

Next came inscriptions of Priyadasi1 [The Edicts are edited in IA, 6, 10, 14, 17, 18, 19, 22, 34, 37, 38. On the Edicts, see IA, XIII 804, XX 1, 85, 229, XXXV 220 XXXIV 246, XXXVIII 151, XLVII, 48. Also, D. R. Bhandarkar, Asoka, Calcutta, V. A. Smith, Asoka, Oxford, F. W. Thomas, Les Vivasti de Asoka, JA, (1910), E. Hultzsch, Date of Asoka, JRAS, (1914) 943. H. H. Wilson, Identity of Asoka, JRAS, (o s), XXII, 177 243, (1901) 827 858, V. A. Smith, Authorship of Piyadasi inscriptions, JRAS, (1901), 485; Asokavadana, JRAS, [1901) 545, Bindusara, JRAS, (1901), 334.] These edicts published in the tenth and twelfth years of Asoka's reign (253 and 251 BC) are found in distinct places in the extreme East and West of India. As revealed in these engraved records, the spoken dialect was essentially the same throughout the wide and fertile regions lying between the Vindhya and Himalayas, and between the mouths of the Indus and the Ganges. The language appears in three varieties, which may be named the Punjabi, the Ujjaini and the Magadhi. These may point to a transitional stage between Sanskrit and Pali. "The language of the inscriptions," says Prinsep, "although necessarily that of their date and probably that in which the first propagators of Buddhism expounded their doctrines, seems to have been the spoken language of the people of Upper India than a form of speech peculiar to a class of religionists or a sacred language, and its use in the edicts of Piyadasi, although incompatible with their Buddhistic origin, cannot be accepted as a conclusive proof that they originated from a peculiar form of religious belief."

Asoka's name does not occur in these inscriptions, but that these purport to emanate from a king who gives his formal title in various Prakrit forms of which the Sanskrit would be Devanampriyah Priyadarsi raja. It was James Prinsep that first ascribed Asoka's edicts to Devanampiya-Tissa of Ceylon.1 [E. Hultzsch, Date of Asoka, JRAS, (1914), 948.] The discovery of the Nagarjuna Hill cave-inscriptions of Sashalata Devanampiya [Barabar Caves], whom he at once identified with Dasaratha, the grandson of the Maurya king Asoka, and the fact that Turnour had found Piyadassi or Piyadassana used as a surname of Asoka in the Dipavamsa, induced Prinsep to abandon his original view, and to identify Devanampriya Priyadarsan with Asoka himself.[/b][/size]

In February 1838, Prinsep published the text and a translation of the second rock edict, Girnar version of it (1 3) the words Amtiyako Yonaraja and in the Dhauli version (1, 1) Amtiyoke nama Yona-laja, and identified the Yona king Antiyaka or Antiyoka with Antiochus III of Syria.2 [JASB, VII 156.] In March 1838, he discovered in the Girnar edict xiii (1, 8), the names of Turamaya, Amtikona,3 [In reality Girnar and Kalsi read Amtekina, Shahbazgarhi Amtikini. Buhler (ZDMG, 40 137) justly remarked that these two forms would rather correspond to Antigenes than to Antigonus. But no king named Antigenes is known to us, though it was the name of one of the officers of Alexander the Great, who was executed, together with Eumenes in BC 316, being then satrap of Suslana.] and Maga, whom he most ingeniously identified with Ptolemy II Philadelphos of Egypt, Antigonus Gonatas of Macedonia (?) and Magas of Cyrine. At the same time he modified his earlier theory and now referred the name Antiyoka to Antiochus I or II of Syria, preferably the former.

On the Girnar rock the name of a fifth king who was mentioned after Maga is lost. The Shahbazgarhi version calls him Alikasundara. E. Norris recognized that this name corresponds to the Greek [x], and suggested hesitatingly that Alexander of Epirus, the son of Pyrihus, might be meant by it.4 [JRAS (o s), 205.] This identification was endorsed by Westerguard,5 [Zwei Abhandlungen, translated from the Danish into German by Stenzlet (Breslau, 1862), p 120 f.] Lassen,6 [Ind. Alt., 253 ff.] and Senart.7 [IA, XX, 242.] But Professor Beloch thinks that Alexander of Corinth, the son of Craterus, had a better claim.8 [Griech, Gesch., 3, 2, 105.]

"The mention of these five contemporaries in the inscriptions of Devanampriya Priyadarshi," says E. Hultzsch, "confirms in a general way the corrections of Prinsep's identification of the latter with Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta, whose approximate time we know from Greek and Roman records. Antiochus I Soter of Syria reigned BC 280-261, his son Antiochus II Theos 261-246, Ptolemy II Philadelphos of Egypt 285-247, Antigonus Gonates of Macedonia 276-239, Magas of Cyrene c 300- c. 250, Alexander of Epirus 272-c 255, and Alexander of Corinth 252-c 244."

This identification of Sandrocottus with Candragupta Maurya furnished a very certain starting point in investigating what appeared to be such a huge field of uncertainties as Indian Chronology. Thus, according to Buddhist traditions, it is said, Buddha died 162 years before Candragupta. Max Muller supposes that "Chandragupta became king about 315 BC, and so he places the death of Buddha 162 plus 315 or 477 BC. Or again, 32 years after Chandragupta, Asoka is said to have become king, that is 315-52 or 263 BC, and his "inauguration" is said to have taken place in 259 BC. At the time of Asoka's inauguration, 218 years had elapsed since the conventional date of Buddha's death." Hence Buddha must have also died in 477 BC.

Thus came in the Anchor Sheet of Indian Chronology. It fell to the glorious lot of Vincent A. Smith to sponsor this hypothesis and instal it on a firmer pedestal. Glory is god-made and V. A. Smith was destined for it.1 [The reader may well be reminded of the facetious address of Gopi to Sri Krsna: [x]] He took the chronological identity so premised by the predecessors in this historical hierarchy as the basis of further calculation of the exact dates of the different dynasties that ruled over Magadha before and after the Mauryas. He was able to invoke the aid of numismatics in addition to epigraphy. He could interpret the eras, particularly the Gupta era of the inscriptions, and the legends on the coins, and discover a confirmation of the earlier opinions. He could not however get over, as if by compunction, the need to follow the Puranas in the enumeration of the kings and then dynasties, he took the dynasties and the succession of kings as they were, he did not call them fictitious. He had objection to the long periods of years that these Puranas sometimes assigned to particular kings or dynasties. They were improbable and fanciful and so on their face unreliable. So he set out to sift the intervals of time and adjust the dates and periods on a rational basis, a basis that would quite convince the modern mind of a reasonable probability. The device of reduction of time is in short this:

Where the Puranas have different readings the shortest number of years is adopted, where the Puranas give a long period to any reign, it is reduced to 20 years as the average ascertainable in royal histories elsewhere, where the Puranas give only brief terms of a few years or a few months, that is adopted as correct. The result of these reductions will be seen below —


Dynasty / Puranas / V. Smith

Nandas / 100 (1635-1535 BC) / 45
Mauryas / 316 (1535-1219 BC ) / 137
Sungas / 300 (1219-919 BC) / 112
Kanvas / 85 ( 919-834 BC) / 45
Andhras / 506 (834-328 BC) / 289
Guptas / 245 (328-83 BC) / 149


Thus, according to Vincent Smith, Candragupta became king in 322 BC, and Buddha died in 487 BC, this allows 50 years for the Nandas before Candragupta, and 250 years for the Saisunagas before the Nandas. And so he begins his Early History from about 602 BC. Likewise, starting from 322 BC, V. Smith allows 137 years for the Maurya Dynasty, and places Sunga kings in 185-73 BC, and Kanva kings in 73 to 28 BC, and so on bringing the list down to Andhras and Guptas. I extract the passage:

"Although the discrepant traditionary materials available do not permit the determination with accuracy of the chronology of the Saisunaga and Nanda dynasties, it is, I venture to think, possible to attain a tolerably close approximation to the truth, and to reconcile some of the traditions. The fixed point from which to reckon backwards is the year 322 BC, the date for the succession of Chandragupta Maurya, which is certainly correct, with a possible error not exceeding three years. The second principal datum is the list of ten kings of the Saisunaga dynasty as given in the oldest historical entries in the Puranas, namely those in the Matsya and the Vayu, the general correctness of which is confirmed by several lines of evidence, and the third is the probable date of the death of Buddha.

Although the fact that the Saisunaga dynasty consisted of ten kings may be admitted, neither the duration assigned by the Puranas to the dynasty as a whole, nor that allotted to certain reigns, can be accepted. Experience proves that in a long series an average of twenty-five years to a generation is rarely attained, and that this average is still more rarely exceeded in a series of reigns as distinguished from generations.

The English series of ten reigns from Charles II to Victoria, inclusive, 16+9-1901 (reckoning the accession of Charles II from the death of his father in 1649), occupied 252 years, and included the two exceptionally long reigns of George III and Victoria, aggregating 124 years. The resultant average, 252 years per reign, may be taken as the maximum possible, and consequently 232 years are the maximum allowable for the ten Saisunaga reigns. The Puranic figures of 321 (Matsya) and 332 (Vayu) years, obtained by adding together the durations of the several reigns may be rejected without hesitation as being incredible. The Matsya account concludes with the statement, 'These will be the ten Saisunaga kings. The Saisunagas will endure 360 years, being kings with Kshatriya kinsfolk.' Mr. Pargiter suggests that the figures '360' should be interpreted as '163'. If that interpretation be accepted the average length of reign would be only 16.3. and it would be difficult to make Buddha (died cir 487) contemporary with Bimbisara and Ajatasatru. It is more probable that the dynasty lasted for more than two centuries.

As stated in the text, the traditional periods assigned to the Nanda dynasty of either 100 or 150 years for two generations cannot be accepted. A more reasonable period of fifty years may be provisionally assumed. We thus get the 302 (252 plus 50) as the maximum admissible period for the Saisunaga and Nanda dynasties combined, and, reckoning backwards from the fixed point, 322 BC. The Year 624 BC is found to be the earliest possible date for Sisunaga, the first king. But of course the true date may be, and probably is, somewhat later, because it is extremely unlikely that twelve reigns (ten Saisunaga and two Nanda) should have attained an average of 25.16 years.

The reigns of the fifth and sixth kings, Bimbisara or Srenika, and Ajatasatru or Kunika, were well remembered owing to the wars and events in religious history which marked them. We may therefore assume that the lengths of those reigns were known more or less accurately, and are justified in accepting the concurrent testimony of the Vayu and Matsya Puranas, that Bimbisara reigned for twenty-eight years.

Ajatasatru is assigned twenty-five or twenty-seven years by different Puranas, and thirty-two years by Tibetan and Ceylonese Buddhist tradition. I assume the correctness of the oldest Puranic list, that of the Matsya, and take his reign to have been twenty-seven years. The real existence of Darsaka (erroneously called Vamsaka by the Matsya) having been established by Bhasa's Vasavadatta
[Svapnavasavadattam: The dream of Vasavadatta is a Sanskrit play in six acts written by the ancient Indian poet Bhāsa. The plot of the drama is drawn from the romantic narratives about the Vatsa king Udayana and Vasavadatta, the daughter of Pradyota, the ruler of Avanti, which were current in the poet's time and which seem to have captivated popular imagination. The main theme of the drama is the sorrow of Udayana for his queen Vasavadatta, believed by him to have perished in a fire, which was actually a rumour spread by Yaugandharayana, a minister of Udayana to compel his king to marry Padmavati, the daughter of the king of Magadha.], his reign may be assigned twenty-four years, as in the Matsya Udaya, who is mentioned in the Buddhist books, and is said to have built Pataliputra, is assigned thirty-three years by the Puranas, which may pass.

The Vayu and Matsya Puranas respectively assign eighty-five and eighty-three years to the sum of the reigns of kings numbers 9 and 10 together. These figures are improbably high, and it is unlikely that the two reigns actually occupied more than fifty years. The figure 46 is assumed.

The evidence as far as it goes, and at best it does not amount to much, indicates that the average length of the later reigns was in excess of the normal figure. We may assume, therefore, that the first four reigns, about which nothing is known, must have been comparatively short, and did not exceed some seventy or eighty years collectively. An assumption that these reigns were longer would unduly prolong the total duration of the dynasty, the beginning of which must be dated about 600 BC, or a little earlier.

The existence of a great body of detailed traditions, which are not mere mythological legends, sufficiently establishes the facts that both Mahavira, the Jain leader, and Gautama Buddha, were contemporary to a considerable extent with one another and with the kings Bimbisara and Ajatasatru.

Tradition also indicates that Mahavira predeceased Buddha. The death of these saints form well-marked epochs in the history of Indian religion, and are constantly referred to by ecclesiastical writers for chronological purposes. It might therefore be expected that the traditional dates of the two events would supply at once the desired clue to the dynastic chronology. But close examination of conflicting traditions raises difficulties. The year 527 (528-7) BC, the most commonly quoted date for the death of Mahavira, is merely one of several traditionary dates, and it seems to be impossible to reconcile the Jain traditions either among themselves or with the known approximate date of Chandragupta."
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Thu Oct 07, 2021 9:53 am

Part 2 of 2

This exposition of V. A. Smith has become the unalterable standard for later scholars.1 [V. R. Ramachandra Diksitar, Matsyapurana, Madras, R. D. Banerjee, Age of Imperial Guptas, Benares, Dinescandra Sircar, Successors of Satavahanas, Jl. of Dept of Letters, Calcutta, Vol. 26, Dhirendranath Mukhopadhyaja, True Dates of Buddha and Connected Epochs, Ibid. Vol. 27.] Great and sincere as many of these scholars have been, they did not dare or care to go behind Smith's fiats, and if any did differ from him, it was over the insignificant question of the particular year in which Candragupta was crowned, if it was 312, 315, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326 or 327 BC.2 [See M. Senart, IA, XX 229; S. Gopala Iyer, IA, XXXVII. 341, Buhler, IA, VI, 149, EI, III, 134, Fleet, JRAS, (1904) 1, (1906) 983, V. Smith, EHI, 173.] Thus Fleet says: —

"Now, in all matters of the most ancient Indian chronology, the great 'sheet anchor' is, and has been ever since 1798, the date of Chandragupta, the grandfather of Asoka the Maurya, as determined by the information furnished by the Greek writers. In recent years, indeed, there has been a tendency to believe that we have something still more definite in the reference to certain foreign kings in the thirteenth rock-edict of Asoka. But, as may be shown on some other occasion, there is nothing in that, beyond proof that that edict, framed not earlier than the ninth year after the abhisheka or anointment of Asoka to the sovereignty, and most probably in the thirteenth year, was framed not before BC 272, and that does not help as much, because the abhisheka of Asoka might, so far as that goes, be put back to even as early a year as BC, 284. In all that we have as yet been able to determine about Asoka, there is nothing that enables as to improve upon what we could already determine about Chandragupta. From the Greek writers, we know that Chandragupta became king of Northern India at some time between BC. 326 and 312. Within those limits, different writers, have selected different years: BC. 325, 321, 316, 315 and 312. The latest selection is, I suppose, that made by Mr. Vincent Smith in his Early History of India, 173, namely, BC 321."3 [Fleet, JRAS, (1906), 984.]


The deductions and inferences of V. Smith have come to stay. But the traditional reputation has been too staring in its assertion that Mahabharata War happened at the end of Dvaparayuga, 37 years before the advent of Kaliyuga in 3102 BC. Later scholars, to whom the tradition was a fraud, resorted to the only alternative, viz., to post-date the beginning of Kaliyuga so as to preserve the Puranic Synchronism of Mahabharata War with about the end of Dvaparayuga. Even there the sayings of V. Smith were adopted as canons of indubitable truth and the dates were worked up on their basis only, and this had been done in wholesale disregard of the care and precision with which the Puranas recorded the calculations of political history.

The Puranas uniformly give two methods, which are corroborative of each other, in calculating the dates of these Hindu Dynasties. One starts from the close of the Mahabharata War, and almost coevally with the commencement of the Kaliyuga, from which time the number of years that each king reigned is given. The other starts from the Saptarsi Era or the Laukikabda, whose cycle consisting of 2700 years is accepted by all authorities to have commenced about 4992 years ago, corresponding to 3676 BC. Now the Puranas state the First cycle of this Saptarsi Era, or Laukikabda, commenced at the time of Pariksit, that the Saptarsis were in Magha at his time, that they move in a retrograde motion and take 100 years to pass from one Naksatra to another, that they were in Purvasadha (or the 16th Naksatra from Magha) at the time of the commencement of the Nanda dynasty, that they were in Citra-Naksatra (or the 24 Naksatra from Magha) at the commencement on the Andhra Dynasty, and that at the beginning of the reign of the 27th king of the Andhra Dynasty, the cycle repeated itself, the Saptarsis having come back to Magha. So there must have elapsed at least 1500 years between Pariksit and Mahipadma Nanda, 2300 years between Pariksit and Andhra Simuka (Sri Satakarni) the Founder of the Andhra Dynasty, and 270 years between Pariksit and Sivasri Satakarni, the 27th king of the Andhra Dynasty, and that this king Sivasri must have commenced his reign in the year 377 BC….

But having adopted the wrong readings, and reduced the period of interval between the birth of Pariksit and the coronation of Nanda to 1015, 1050 or 1115 years, these Orientalists bring down the date of the commencement of the Kali Yuga itself as low as possible. Assuming the wrong synchronism between Sandrocottus of the Greeks and Candragupta Maurya, they place the accession of Candragupta Maurya to the throne of Magadha in 322 BC, and calculating backwards and forwards from that date (while accepting the Lists of Kings given in the Puranas and the regnal periods given of those kings as correct) fix the date of the accession of Nanda to the throne in 422 BC, just placing him 100 years before the accession of Candragupta to the throne, and conclude that Kali Yuga must have commenced 1015, 1050 or 1115 years before that date, that is in 1437 BC or 1537 BC, conceding for all practical purposes the commencement of the Kali Yuga to be synchronous with the Birth of Pariksit, the Coronation of Yudhisthira, and the Great War of the Mahabharata. This false synchronism between Sandrocottus of the Greeks and Candragupta Maurya of the Indians has become so much rooted in the bed of Indian Chronology, that scholars Srisa Chandra Vidyarnava and F. E. Pargiter placed the commencement of Kaliyuga in 1733 BC.

"The method of calculation", says Srisa Chandra "adopted by the Puranas, however, is to take Nanda as the starting point. The last of the Sisunaga was Mahanandin, who had a son by a Sudra woman. He was known as Mahapadma, or the famous Nanda, whose eight sons succeeded him. This Nanda family was brought to an end by the Indian Machiavelli, Kautilya or Chanakya. Chandragupta was placed on the throne of the Nandas by this Kautilya or Chanakya. About this event, V. Smith says:

'Mahanandin, the last of the Dynasty, is said to have had, by a Sudra or low caste woman, a son named Mahapadma Nanda who usurped the throne, and so established the Nanda family or dynasty. This event may be dated in or about 372 BC. * *

The Greek or Roman historians * * * ranking as contemporary witnesses throw a light on real history. When Alexander was stopped in his advance at the Hyphasis, in 326 BC, he was informed * * that the king of the Prachei etc * * * was Xandrames or Agramis.'


The reference to this king is evidently to one of the Nandas. The date of the accession of Nanda is calculated from that of Chandragupta Maurya, who ascended the throne in 322 BC. The Nanda Dynasty, according to Mr. Vincent Smith, lasted for 50 years, when it was replaced by the Maurya. So adding 50 to 322, the above figure 372 BC is arrived at by Mr. V. Smith as the date of the accession of Mahapadma Nanda. But all the Puranas are unanimous in stating that the nine Nandas reigned for 100 years, and we have taken that in our calculations. The date of accession of Mahapadma Nanda would, therefore, be 422 BC instead of 372 BC.

Thus, 422 BC is the starting point backwards and forwards in the Puranic calculations.


Chandragupta Maurya displaced the Nanda family. The nine Nandas reigned for 100 years. Before that, there was the Sisunaga Dynasty, and before that was the Pradyota Dynasty, and before that the Brihadrathas. The following table shows the periods of the reigns of these dynasties:

(1) Chandragupta's accession / 322 BC
(2) Nanda Dynasty / 100
(3) Sisunagas / 360
(4) Pradyotas / 152 (?)
(5) Barhadrathas from the time of Chaidyoparichara / 1000
Total / 1612
Deduct from Chaidya to Sahadeva / 171
Balance / 1441, and adding 322
--/ 1763 BC, the year of the Great War


The Mahabharata War took place when Sahadeva of Barhadratha family, was king. From Vasu Chaidya Uparichara up to Sahadeva, there were 13 kings, namely, (1) Vasu Chaidya Uparichara, (2) Brihadratha, (3) Kusagra, (4) Vrishabha, (5) Punyavan or Pushpavan, (6) Punya or Pushya, (7) Satyadhriti, (8) Dhanusha, (9) Sarva, (10) Sambhava, (11) Brihadratha, (12) Jarasandha, and (13) Sahadeva. After Sahadeva there were 19 or 32 kings (or 22 according to Mr. Pargiter) up to Ripunjaya the last. The Great War, therefore, took place, on the above assumption, one thousand four hundred and forty one years before the accession of Chandragupta in 322 BC., or in other words that the Great War took place in or about 1763 BC."

Mr. Pargiter, however, in his Dynasties of the Kali Age, arrives at the year 1810 BC as the date of the Great War of Mahabharata.
He says that from Somadhi to Ripunjaya there were 22 kings in the Barhadratha Dynasty who reigned for 920 years. The Pradyotas after Ripunjaya were 5 kings who reigned for 138 years. The Saisunagas who came after the Pradyotas were 10 kings and reigned for 330 years. Adding up the above mentioned three figures, 920 plus 138 plus 330, he gets the sum 1388 years, which according to his calculation, was the interval between the installation of Mahapadma Nanda and the birth of Pariksit or the Great War. Adding 422 BC., the year of the installation of Mahapadma Nanda (which is of course assumed as a postulate of Indian History). Mr. Pargiter comes to the figure 1810 BC as the date of the Mahabharata War.

The fanciful speculations involved in these theories regarding the date of the Mahabharata War will be manifest to any disinterested reader of the Puranas and Itihasas. The conclusions were so uncertain that Srisa Chandra Vidyarnava reviewed his own original theory at a later stage and refuted the date of the Great War in 1922 BC (still following the false synchronism between Candragupta Maurya and Sandrocottus).

Thus, we see that Vincent Smith is the modern protagonist of this identity, the Anchor-Sheet of Indian Chronology. It is he that is quoted and followed without inquiry by our Indian Professors of history, and it is that chronology that is and must be taught in our schools. By sheer repetition by men in authority and in the works that emanate from them, the theory had almost become an axiom, and rarely does any thought occur for any fair investigation. Day after day the assumed identity takes a firmer root, and it is considered a matter of senility or superstition to express a need for a reconsideration. Hasty generalisations lead to prepossessions, and it is rarely human to attempt to demonstrate their reality. It may appear, therefore, a futile cry to seek to go behind these established opinions and to ask the reader to forbear and see for himself on the original bases of this theory, if, after all, the narratives of the Puranas, so honestly planned, are 'pious frauds.' For the vindication of the morality of our sages and the merit of our traditional lore, a lore adored by the millions of Hindu India, an attempt must be made, be the effect what it may.1 [See also R. K. Mookerji, Later Gupta History and Chronology, Jl, of Ind. History, IV. 17, Dineschandra Sarcar, Dynastic History of Northern India, Jyotirmoy Sen, Riddle of Pradyota Dynasty, IHQ, (1930), 678, H. D. Bhide, Pradyota Dynasty, JBORS, (1921), K. P. Jayaswal, Chandragupta II and his predecessors, JBARS, XVIII, 17.]

Max Muller himself was not slow to condemn in others this tendency to generalise. Says he,

"Men who possessed the true faculty of an historian like Niebuhr, have abstained from passing sentence on the history of a nation whose literature had only just been recovered, and had not yet passed through the ordeal of philological criticism. Other historians however thought they could do what Niebuhr had left undone; and after perusing some poems of Kalidasa, some fables of Hitopadesa, some verses of the Ananda-lahari, or the mystic poetry of the Bhagavad-gita, they gave with the aid of Megasthenes and Appollonius of Tyana a so-called historical account of the Indian nation without being aware that they were using as contemporary witnesses authors as distant as Dante and Virgil. No nation has in this respect been more unjustly treated than the Indian. Not only have general conclusions been drawn from the most scanty materials, but the most questionable and spurious authorities have been employed without the least historical investigation."


H. H. Wilson, earlier, in the preface to his translation of the Visnu Purana, had remarked,

"Impatience to generalise has availed itself of whatever promised to afford materials for generalisation, and the most erroneous views have often been confidently advocated because the guides to which their authors trusted were ignorant or inefficient."

"Strabo (p. 70) says, 'Generally speaking, the men who have hitherto written on the affairs of India were a set of liars, — Deimachos holds the first place in the list, Megasthenes comes next; while Onesikritos and Nearchos, with others of the same class, manage to stammer out a few words (of truth). Of this we became the more convinced whilst writing the history of Alexander. No faith whatever can be placed in Deimachos and Megasthenes. They coined the fables concerning men with ears large enough to sleep in, men without any mouths, without noses, with only one eye, with spider legs, and with fingers bent backward. They renewed Homer's fables concerning the battles of the cranes and pygmies, and asserted the latter to be three spans high. They told of ants digging for gold, and Pans with wedge-shaped heads, of serpents swallowing down oxen and stags, horns and all, — meantime, as Eratosthenes has observed, accusing each other of falsehood. Both of these men were sent as ambassadors to Palimbothra, — Megasthenes to Sandrokottos, Deimachos to Amitrochados his son, — and such are the notes of their residence abroad, which I know not why, they thought fit to leave.

"When he adds, 'Patrokles certainly does not resemble them, nor do any other of the authorities consulted by Eratosthenes contain such absurdities, we may well wonder, seeing that, of all the writers on India, Erastosthenes has chiefly followed Megasthenes. Plinius (Hist. Nat. VI xxi. 3) says: 'India was opened up to our knowledge ... even by other Greek writers, who, having resided with Indian kings, as for instance Megasthenes and Dionysius, — made known the strength of the races which peopled the country. It is not, however, worth while to study their accounts with care, so conflicting are they, and incredible.'


-- Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian; Being a Translation of the Fragments of the Indika of Megasthenes Collected by Dr. Schwanbeck, and of the First Part of the Indika of Arrian, by J.W. McCrindle, M.A.

The various accounts given of Candragupta and Asoka by Hindu and Buddhist writers, have contributed to a large extent to the manipulation of Indian chronology at the historian's pleasure….

The Buddhistic accounts such as Mahavamsa and Dipavamsa give a description of the first three kings only of the Dynasty. The accounts given of Candragupta's origin and parentage are various and contradictory. By one account it is said that Mura, the mother of Candragupta, was the servant girl of Dhana Nanda, the last of the Nanda Dynasty, and by her influence she had her son placed on the throne of Magadha at Pataliputra. Another account makes him a member of an Andhra family, and says that he acquired the sovereign power by his own skill and exertion. The writer evidently confuses here the accounts of the two Candraguptas, Candragupta of the Maurya Dynasty, with Candragupta the Founder of the Gupta Dynasty, and an illegitimate son of the Andhra family, for the Andhra family itself came into existence about 700 years after the accession of Candragupta Maurya.

According to Northern Buddhistic accounts, Candragupta was a member of the Sakya family,
which in consequence of some political intrigues was driven away from its territory. The family repaired to a forest in the Himavanta and there constructed a new town in a delightful and beautiful locality. The streets and houses in the town having been laid after the pattern of a peacock's neck, it was called by the name of Moriya-nagara, and the family by the name of Moriya, and the kingdom founded by it Moriya Dynasty. The explanation is ingenious and is probably based upon a confusion of the Prakrit forms of the words Maurya ([x]) and Mayura ([x])…

But all the Buddhistic works are agreed on one point, that Candragupta owed his sovereignty entirely to Canakya, 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 Candragupta Maurya's ''having traversed India with an army of 600,000 men and conquered the whole," as stated by Plutarch.

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 Candragupta Maurya, by the Puranic accounts of the Hindus. "There is a good deal of confusion in these Buddhistic works as regards the very family and genealogy of Asoka, the Buddhistic king, and one can easily trace that the life and time of Asoka must have been constructed by the Buddhistic writers who flourished several hundreds of years after him, by jumbling up the lives of three different Indian kings, viz., (1) of Asoka, (Dharmasoka), the third in ascent from Kanishka belonging to the First Gonanda Dynasty of Kasmir kings as described in the First Book of Kalhana's Raja-Tarangini 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 (Chandasoka) 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, described by Mr. Vincent A. Smith himself as the Indian Napoleon, as narrated by his biographer Harishena, and in the Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta, and as corroborated by his numerous coins and inscriptions recently unearthed by European scholars themselves."

Arrian is prone to misread and misinterpret his primary sources, and the smooth flow of his narrative can obscure treacherous quicksands of error....

There are, however, more complex problems created by faulty manipulation of two or more sources. At the outset Arrian states categorically that his two principal sources are Ptolemy and Aristobulus. Where they agree he will record the common version as the absolute truth; in case of disagreement he will select the more plausible version, making use of all memorable material.42 Arrian does not commit himself to record all divergences. Indeed he very rarely records disagreement, and gives variant traditions only when he considers them memorable in themselves. Usually he reproduces without comment the version which seems to him the more credible. There are accordingly two main areas where error is likely. Arrian may reproduce only one version, but he has read both, and there are occasional traces of contamination, both deliberate and inadvertent. The alternative, rejected tradition creeps in to infect the version chosen for reproduction. Secondly Arrian is not always aware when his sources are retailing the same episode. An incident may be placed by Ptolemy and Aristobulus at different points in the narrative or described with very different details. In these circumstances Arrian may use both descriptions from both sources and retail them as separate incidents....

The vulgate tradition of Gaugamela includes a description of the Macedonian line. The phalanx commanders are the same as in Arrian, with one exception: the battalion of Amyntas was commanded in his absence by Philippus, son of Balacrus.46 Now we can explain the error in Arrian. His source for the Macedonian line of battle was most probably Ptolemy, and it was his version that Arrian followed. But he must have collated the Ptolemaic version against that of Aristobulus, and, although he accepted Ptolemy's statement that Simmias commanded Amyntas' battalion, he was aware of the variant tradition placing it under Philippus, son of Balacrus, and the name of Philippus slipped in erroneously as the patronymic of Amyntas. It seems to me a clear case of source contamination.

The same appears to have happened in Arrian's review of the Macedonian line at the Granicus (1. 14. 1-3). Here Arrian rather annoyingly lists the two halves of the army from the wing to the centre, giving first the right and then the left. The battalion of Philippus, son of Amyntas (a person otherwise obscure),47 occupied a central position in the line and is therefore mentioned at the end of both lists. Craterus' battalion, however, is also mentioned twice, but in different positions. In the review of the right half of the line it is placed between the battalions of Coenus and Amyntas, and it appears again as the battalion at the extreme left of the phalanx.48 Once more there have been attempts to delete one of the references to Craterus' battalion,49 but then it becomes impossible to explain the intrusion. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose a scribal gloss.

The most probable solution is again source contamination by Arrian. Both Ptolemy and Aristobulus presumably gave full descriptions of the battle line and differed over the position of Craterus' battalion. One placed it in the mass of the phalanx and the other at the extreme left, the position it was to occupy at Gaugamela and Issus.50 Arrian has absorbed both versions without reconciling the contradiction....

There are even more striking examples of Arrian's maladroit use of sources in the narrative of Alexander's Indus voyage in 325....


-- Errors in Arrian, by A. B. Bosworth


The Mahavamsa, (according Wijesinha's revised edition of Turnour translation) says, "One Kalasoka had ten sons, who after his death ruled the kingdom righteously for 22 years. They were succeeded by other nine brothers, who likewise, in order of seniority, ruled the kingdom for 22 years. A Brahman named Chanakya, who had conceived an implacable hatred against Dhana Nanda, the last survivor of the nine brothers, put that king to death, and placed upon the throne Chandragupta, a member of the princely Moriya clan descended from the line of the Sakyas, who ruled the country for 34 years. He was succeeded by his son Bindusara, who ruled the land for 28 years. The sons of Bindusara, the offspring of sixteen mothers, numbered one hundred and one, of whom the eldest was named Sumana, and the youngest Tishya. A third son, Asoka, uterine brother of Tishya, had been appointed Viceroy of Ujjain by his father. On receiving news of King Bindusara's mortal illness, Asoka hastened to Pataliputra, slew his eldest brother Sumana and his 98 other brothers, and ruled the country for 37 years."

The Dipavamsa, on the other hand, substitutes Susunaga for Kalasoka and makes Asoka, the son of Susunaga himself, and omits all mention of the nine Nanda brothers.


The Asokavadana (according to the prose version in the Divyavadana) gives the following account of the lineage and family of Asoka: —
"(1) King Bimbisara reigned at Rajagriha. His son was (2) Ajatasatra, whose son was (3) Udayibhadra, whose son was (4) Munda, whose son was (5) Kakavarnin, whose son was (6) Sahalin, whose son was (7) Tulakuchi, whose son was (8) Mahamandala, whose son was (9) Prasenajit, whose son was (10) Nanda, whose son was (11) Bindusara. King Bindusara reigned at Pataliputra and had a son named Susima. To him was born of Subhadrangi, the daughter of a Brahman, two sons, the elder named Asoka, and the younger named Vigatasoka. Asoka secured the throne by putting to death the legitimate prince Susima by a stratagem devised by Radhagupta by which Susima was inveigled while marching against the capital, so that he fell into a ditch full of burning fuel and there miserably perished."


Here it will be observed that Candragupta is altogether omitted, and Bindusara, the father of Asoka, is represented as being the son of Nanda. The metrical Asokavadana, on the other hand, substitutes Mahipala for Ajatasatru, and exhibits numerous other variations, which deprive these Buddhistic accounts of historical worth. The conquests ascribed to Asoka in the 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 traceable to 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 officers of state, are all taken from the accounts of Asoka and his successors as given by Chhavillakara ["Referring to an earlier Rajatarangini recorded by Chhavillakara, Kalhana has stated that Kashmir was held after Asoka by his son, Jalauka, who was followed by a ruler named 'Damodara,' who was none else than Demetrius, 'Regis Indorus,' [Demetrius I, called Poliorcetes, son of Antigonus I, king of Macedon, 337-283 BC)] as the classical references indicate. (Vide my article, "The Chavillakara Fragment in Kalhana's Rajatarangini" -- JBRS (Journal of the Burma Research Society), Vol. 36 (1950), pp. 71-75 + i-vi.) -- Reviewed Work: Beginnings of Life, Culture and History: (Study of Indian History and Culture : Vol. I) by S. D. Kulkarni, Review by: S. V. Sohoni, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol. 70, No. 1/4 (1989), pp. 338-343 (6 pages)] ...

19. Chavillakara. Nothing is known about him. “Do these lines not warrant a suspicion that, like some of us, Kalhana would have desired to place within the historical period two or three of those kings whom we call historical.... Ashoka, Jalaukas, Damodara, Kanishka (with Hushka and Jushka), and Abhimanyu and whom Kalhana also seems to have regarded in the same light, because he places them immediately before the historical period, but that he placed them before the historical period on the authority, quoted, of Sri-Chhavillakara? If so, it is not Kalhana, but his predecessors who are responsible for assigning to a period before Gonanda III., the king, of whom alone we know anything from independent sources.” — S. P. Pandit.

-- Rajatarangini, by Ranjit Sitaram Pandit, 1935


... and by Kalhana in his Rajatarangini.

Rajatarangini is a metrical legendary and historical chronicle of the north-western Indian subcontinent, particularly the kings of Kashmir. It was written in Sanskrit by Kashmiri historian Kalhana in the 12th century CE....

Although inaccurate in its chronology, the book still provides an invaluable source of information about early Kashmir...

Little is known about the author Kalhana (c. 12th century CE), apart from what is written in the book...

Kalhana's work is ... full of legends and inconsistencies...

The total reign of the following kings is mentioned as 1266 years....

Ashoka / Great-grandson of Shakuni and son of Shachinara's first cousin. Built a great city called Srinagara (near but not same as the modern-day Srinagar). In his days, the mlechchhas (foreigners) overran the country, and he took sannyasa. According to Kalhana's account, this Ashoka would have ruled in the 2nd millennium BCE, and was a member of the dynasty founded by Godhara. Kalhana also states that this king had adopted the doctrine of Jina, constructed stupas and Shiva temples, and appeased Bhutesha (Shiva) to obtain his son Jalauka. Despite the discrepancies, multiple scholars identify Kalhana's Ashoka with the Mauryan emperor Ashoka, who adopted Buddhism. Although "Jina" is a term generally associated with Jainism, some ancient sources use it to refer to the Buddha....

Despite the value that historians have placed on Kalhana's work, there is little evidence of authenticity in the earlier books of Rajatarangini. For example, Ranaditya is given a reign of 300 years. Toramana is clearly the Huna king of that name, but his father Mihirakula is given a date 700 years earlier. Even where the kings mentioned in the first three books are historically attested, Kalhana's account suffers from chronological errors.

Kalhana's account starts to align with other historical evidence only by Book 4, which gives an account of the Karkota dynasty. But even this account is not fully reliable from a historical point of view. For example, Kalhana has highly exaggerated the military conquests of Lalitaditya Muktapida.


-- Rajatarangini, by Wikipedia


Inferences have been drawn in support of this imaginary synchronism by the dates assigned to Buddha-Nirvana. Opinions are various on that event. "The Northern Buddhists give dates ranging from 2422 to 546 BC, and the Ain-i Akbari of Abul Fazl fixes 1246 BC, for the event. The Tamil Manimegalai gives the year 1616 of some unknown era, probably of the Kali, and the Buddhists of Ceylon, Burma and Siam have uniformly been regulating their calendars on the basis that the Nirvana occurred in BC 543. The Western scholars are likewise as much divided in their opinion, though their dates range only from 544 to 370 BC. Professors Rhys Davids and Kern give 412 and 388 BC respectively for the Para Nirvana, whereas Max Muller to the last maintained that 477 BC, was the correct date. Dr Fleet considers the event to have taken place in BC 482 1 [JRAS, (1906) 179 and 669.] and Professor Oldenberg and M. Barth fix it in 480 BC. Mr. V. A. Smith has given us three different dates, BC 508 in his 'Asoka', 487 in his 'Early India', and 480 to 470 BC in a recently published article."2 [Indian Revisio, VIII 561.]

The Maurya dynasty ruled at Magadha according to the Puranas in 1535-1219 BC, and Candragupta ascended the throne in 1538 BC. But according to modern orientalists the Gupta era began somewhere about 325 BC. There they vary in arranging the date of Candragupta's coronation between 325 and 312 BC,3 [See M. Senart, IA, XX 229, V. Gobala Aiyar, IA, XXXVII 841; Buhler, IA, VI 149, EI, III. 134; Fleet, JRAS, (1904), 1, (1906), 983, V. Smith, EHI, 178.] such as 325, 321, 316, 315 and 312. For instance, V. Smith, as we have seen, fixes the coronation of Candragupta in 321 BC. But Fleet has a word of condemnation.4 [JRAS, (1906), 984.] "Mr. Smith's chronological details are even inter se wrong and irreconcilable. The most reliable tradition, adopted by Mr. Smith himself for other ends, gives an interval of 56 years from the commencement of the reign of Chandragupta to the abhisheka of Asoka, yet on the same page, Mr. Smith has adopted only 52 years, placing the abhisheka of Asoka in BC 269. And further, he has placed only three years earlier, in BC 272, that which he has termed the "accession" — (in reality, the usurpation) — of Asoka, regardless of the fact that the same tradition makes that interval one of four years.5 [This is easily arrived at, by deduction, from the Dipavamsa, 6, 1, 20, 21. It is expressly stated by the commentary on that work, the Mahavamsa, in the statement about Asoka (Turnour 21 f) that — "Vematike bhatare so hantva skunakam satam / sakale Jambuipasmim ekarajjam apapuni / Jina-nibbanato pachchha pure tasa =abhisekato /attharasami vassa satam dvayam evam vijaniyam / Patva chatuhi vassehi ekarajja mahayaso / pure Pataliputtasmim attanam abhisechayi." "Having slain (his) brothers, born of various mothers, to the number of a hundred less by one, he attained sole sovereignty in the whole of Jambudvipa. After the death of the Conqueror (Buddha), (and) before the anointment of him (Asoka), (there were) 218 years, thus is it to be understood. Having reached (a point of time marked) by four years, he, possessed of the great glory of sole sovereignty, caused himself to be anointed at the town Pataliputta."] A chronology which includes such inconsistencies and errors as these in some of its radical details cannot in any way be accepted as final."…

Speaking of the Indian sources, Fleet writes (IA, XXX 1):

"We should not be able to deduce the date of Asoka from the Puranas. But we should find that the Rajatarangini would place him somewhere about BC 1260. We shall find, indeed, that the Nepal Vamsavali would place him, roughly, about BC 2600. As, however, that list does not mention him as a ruler of Nepal but only as a visitor to the country, we should probably infer a mistake in that account, and prefer to select the date of BC 1260. And then we should set about arranging the succession of the kings of India, itself, from the Puranas, with BC 1260 for the approximate date of the accession of Asoka as our starting-point."


In his dissertation on the Chronology of the Hindus, written in 1788 (As Res. Vol. II, p 111, reprint of 1799) Sir William Jones took a different starting-point and fixed it in a different way. His paper was based on a work entitled Puranarthaprakasa, which was composed shortly before the time at which he was writing, by Pandit Radhakani Sarman and which seems to have been based, in its turn, chiefly on the Bhagavatapurana. In the first place he brought forward a verse given to him from a book entitled Bhagavatamrita, composed by "a learned Goswami," which purported to fix the Kaliyuga year 1002 expired as the date of the manifestation of Buddha. With this he coupled an assertion in the same book that, two years before that date, there occurred the revolution which placed on the throne Pradyota, the first king in the third dynasty before that of the Mauryas. And he thus exhibited a chronology which, taking the accession of Pradyota in BC 2100 as its starting-point, placed the accession of Sisunaga in BC 1962, the accession of Nanda in BC 1602, and the accession of Candragupta (the grandfather of Asoka) in BC 1502, and made the dynasty of the Andhrabhrtyas run from BC 908 to 432. But he considered that the figures put forward by the Puranas were excessive both for generations and for reigns. And adjusting those figures according to his own estimate, and taking, as a starting-point BC 1027 for the date of Buddha as fixed by the Chinese authorities as interpreted by De Geignes, he submitted a revised scheme which placed Pradyota BC 1029 Nanda BC 699, and the rise of the Andhrabhrtyas in BC 149….

The story of Candragupta as originally given in the Brihatkatha in the Paisaci language by Gunadhya, the prime minister of King Satavahana of Pratisthana, and as we now have it in Kathasaritsagara, a true translation of the said work in Sanskrit by Somadeva, is somewhat different from the accounts given of that prince in the Puranas on the one hand, and in Visakhadatta's Mudraraksasa and its commentary on the other. Here Candragupta is represented as the only son of Nanda, the king of Pataliputra, and a contemporary of Katyayana Vararuci, the celebrated author of Vartikas and a disciple of Varsacarya, under whom Panini also first began to study Grammar.1 [See paras 4-7 post.]

The following are the passages of Kathasaritsagara, dealing with King Nanda and Candragupta —…

According to Kathasarit-Sagara therefore Candragupta was the only son of the genuine-king Nanda, and was very young when the genuine Nanda passed away, and Indradatta entered the dead body of the king and began to rule the kingdom, so he was called by the name Yoga Nanda. Yogananda begot a son on the queen of the late real or Satya Nanda and he was named Hiranyagupta. Besides the mention of these two persons, there is no reference to "Nanda and his eight sons" anywhere in the said poem. These passages also show that Candragupta was but a king in name, that he was in no sense a usurper or adventurer, that he took no active part at all in establishing himself on the throne of Nanda, that it was Sakatala, the old minister of the king, and Canakya, a Brahman sage of great learning and determination, that planned the death of Yogananda and of his son Hiranyagupta, and raised the young prince Candragupta, the legitimate son of the genuine Nanda to the throne of Magadha. Nowhere is there any reference to this Candragupta being a conqueror of enemies or of having received ambassadors from foreign princes, either at Pataliputra or Ayodhya, the permanent and temporary capitals, and it is at Ayodhya the revolution came off on the death of king Nanda, leading to the elevation of Candragupta to the throne.

The statements of the early European writers may now be summed up2 [McCrindle's collection and translation of all the passages from classical writers in six books are regarded as reliable by Vincent Smith, of which Indika of Megasthenes and Arrian are instructive.] —(a) At the time of Alexander's invasion, the Prasi, or eastern kingdom of Magadha, was ruled over by a king Xandrames. According to the officers of Alexander sent to investigate the country living ahead, and also according to Poros whom Alexander consulted, Xandrames was a powerful king who could bring into the field 20,000 horse, 200,000 foot, 2900 chariots, and 4000 or 3000 elephants. He was nevertheless of mean origin. The queen of his predecessor had fallen in love with him, and had helped him to murder her husband, and therefore he was very unpopular with his subjects; (b) Sandrokottos or Androcottos as a young prince had met Alexander, and had offended him and incurred his displeasure, but after the retreat of Alexander he put himself at the head of a band of robbers, drove out the prefects of Alexander, and made himself king; (c) Seleukus Nikator tried to regain the Indian conquests of Alexander, but found it wiser to contract an alliance with him1 [V. Smith, EHI, 140.]; (d) Megasthenes the ambassador of Seleucus dwelt at the court of Sandrocyptus and wrote an account of those in whose midst he lived (from which account later writers have quoted copiously).

"The Greek writers mention as many as six names or variations: Xandrames, Andrames, Agrammes, Sandrocottus and Sandrocyptus [and Androcottus]. Whether these apply to one or more than one individual, and Max Muller was not sure, but in his obdurate zeal to demonstrate the identity he said, "Xandrames ...is the last king of the empire conquered by Sandrocotus. If however it should be maintained that those two names were intended for one and the same king, the explanation would still be very easy. For Chandragupta is also called Chandra, and Chandramas in Sanskrit is a synonym for Chandra."2 [ASL, 148.]

What was discovered was simply this — that in the celebrated inscriptions of king Priyadarsin— Rock Edicts III and XIII— Antiochus and Ptolemy are mentioned as Priyadarsin's contemporaries. There is nothing in the inscriptions to show that Priyadarsin was Asoka Maurya, grandson of Candragupta Maurya. Strict logic will justify only one inference from the first Greek Synchronism — that Sandrocottus, whoever he was, was the contemporary of Seleukus Nikator, and only one from the second — that Priyadarsin was the contemporary of a Greek ruler Antiochus. Unless proof is forthcoming to show that either Sandrocottus or Priyadarsin was a Maurya King, it is wrong to say as Vincent Smith does say, that by the discovery of these two synchronisms, "the chronology of the Maurya dynasty was placed on firm footing, and is no longer open to doubt in its main outlines."


Who was Xandrames? Let as compare the Greek and the Indian versions, understanding Xandrames to be the predecessor of Sandrocottus. First, in Indian traditions Nanda, or more precisely Sumalya Nanda, was the immediate predecessor of Candragupta Maurya. If therefore by Sandrocottus we are to understand Candragupta Maurya, we must identify Xandrames with Nanda. This is exactly what is done by almost all Orientalists like Vincent Smith, with a vague statement, "that the king of the Gangaridae and Prasii was named, as nearly as the Greeks could catch the unfamiliar sounds, Xandrames or Agrammes ... who must have been one of the Nandas mentioned in native tradition,"1 [EHI, 40.] and that somehow, in order to maintain the hypothesis, Xandrames must be identified with Nanda. Max Muller as a philologist is convinced that Greek Xandrames is Sanskrit 'Chandramas or Chandra,' and rather than ignore grammar he is for identifying Xandrames and Sandrocottus. Secondly, the Greek account of Xandrames does not tally either with Hindu or with Buddhist versions of Nanda. According to them, Mahapadma, first king of the Nanda dynasty, was the son of the last Saisunaga King Mahanandin by a $udra wife, and was a powerful, avaricious, wicked king, having Ksatriya wives, but there is no allusion to any of his father's wives having become his paramour. The Puranic writers had no love for Mahapadma and they would certainly have mentioned such an incident in his life, if it really referred to him. His father Mahanandin is nowhere stated to have been murdered whether by Mahapadma or his paramour. Thus neither from the name nor from the description, can Xandrames be reasonably identified with Nanda.

We have no less difficulty in identifying Sandrocottus or Sandrocyptus with Candragupta Maurya. The description given of the mighty Sandrocottus by the Greeks cannot possibly compare with any Indian account whatsoever of Candragupta Maurya, who, far from being a great conqueror, owed his elevation and rule entirely to the Brahmana Canakyaor Kautilya. The Hindu and the Buddhist versions are agreed here. Max Muller's explanation is only this, that because Candragupta Maurya was grandfather of the great Buddhist Emperor Asoka, therefore the Brahmanas unduly lowered him, and the Buddhists as excessively exalted him, and that is mere fancy. The part played by Raksasa, the devoted minister of the Nandas at first and of Candragupta at last, and the power exercised throughout by the Brahman Canakya over Candragupta, amply indicate that Candragupta and his immediate predecessors were in no way considered anti-brahmanical. Even King Priyadarsin of the Edicts was no persecutor of the Brahmans, for in his inscriptions he always enjoins the highest respect for "brahmanas and sramanas."

The identification of Raja Priyadarsin with Raja Asoka was based entirely upon Ceylonese Buddhist chronicles. Talboys Wheeler wrote in 1874, "The identification of Raja Priyadarsin of the Edicts with Raja Asoka of the Buddhist chronicles was first pointed out by Mr. Turnour who rested it upon a passage in the Dipavamsa. The late Prof. [Horace Hayman] Wilson objected to this identification."1 [History of India, Hindu, Buddhist and Brahmanical, 280. [???] ] Prof. Rhys Davids declared, "It is not too much to say that without the help of the Ceylon Books, the striking identification of the King Piyadassi of the edicts with the king Asoka of history would never have been made."2 [Buddhist India, 273.] But the Ceylon chronicles are admitted to be utterly worthless as history, and according to Wheeler, "the Buddhist chronicles might be dismissed as a monkish jumble of myths and names,3 [EHI, 171] and even Vincent Smith in the preface to his Asoka himself said, "I reject absolutely the Ceylonese chronology...... The undeserved credit given to the monks of Ceylon has been a great hindrance to the right understanding of ancient Indian history." And yet it is on such undeserved credit that the identity of Priyadarsin with Asoka Maurya rests to this day.

In the literature of India there is no allusion anywhere to an invasion or inroad into India by foreign nations up to the time of the Andhra kings; and the only person who bore the name of Candragupta answering to the description of Sandrocottus of the Greeks who flourished about the time of Alexander the Great in India, according to the Puranas, was Candragupta of the Gupta Dynasty who established the mighty empire of the Guptas on the ruins of the already decayed Andhra Dynasty about 2811 years after the Mahabharata War, corresponding to 328 BC, but he is now being placed in the 4th century AD, on the sole strength of this mistaken Greek Synchronism by our Savants of Indian history. God save us from our friends!

Beyond the verbal resemblance of Candragupta and Sandrocottus and Pataliputra and Palibotra, there is nothing to justify the identification of Candragupta Maurya and Sandrocottus of the Greeks. No attempt has been made to explain the various names Xandrames, Andrames, Andracottus, Sandrocottus, Sandrocyptus, and Sandrocuptas as used by the Greek writers to denote three different persons, as referring respectively to the last king of the previous dynasty, the usurper who has been actually reigning at Pataliputra at the time when Alexander invaded India, and the king who concluded a treaty with Seleucus Nicator at the instance of Megasthenes. These facts would equally apply, if not more pointedly, to Candragupta of the Gupta Dynasty who usurped the throne of Candrasri, the last virtual king of the Andhra Dynasty, under the pretext of acting as guardian and regent of his minor son Puloman and who was succeeded by Samudragupta who established himself on the throne of his father with the aid of vagabonds and banditti at Pataliputra, and who is distinctly stated in inscriptions to have received ambassadors from various foreign princes, to have conquered the whole of India, then extending far beyond its present limits, and to have performed even an Asvamedha sacrifice in honour of his glorious victories.

Kaliyugarajavrttanta, which is a part of Bhavisyottarapurana, describes the last two kings of the Andhra dynasty and the advent of Gupta dynasty thus:…

This eulogy should bring to mind at once the Greek picture of Sandrocottus. The sensitiveness of Prince Samudra must have been stung by his father's undue favouritism towards Kaca. The statement that Candragupta ruled along with Kaca not merely indicates the cause of quarrel between Samudragupta and his father, it explains also the numismatic puzzle as to how Kaca's coins came to be struck. Thus, then, Androkottus of Plutarch who tried to persuade Alexander to invade the Prasii, but whose "insolent behaviour" according to Justin led to a quarrel between him and Alexander, the Androkottus who afterwards collected bands of robbers and drove out the prefects of Alexander, who was called to royalty by the power of the Gods and by prodigies, who overthrew Xandrames, and humbled Seleucus Nikator, was the same as Samudragupta who with Mleccha troops overthrew his "treacherous" father, and whose conquests inscribed by Harisena on "Asoka's pillar" at Allahabad amply bear out the statement of the Puranas that Samudragupta was supreme ruler of the earth from sea to sea, to whom even Ceylon and Bactria and Assyria paid homage. And this same Samudragupta, "the Indian Napoleon," of Vincent Smith, was the Sandrocottos of Megasthenes, and he reigned for fifty-one years. Samudragupta, like all the Guptas, had a title ending in aditya. He was ASOKADITYA!

Sandrocottos was also Piyadassi.

— We have read of "Asoka the Buddhist Emperor of India," and "The first and most authentic records are the rock and pillar edicts of Raja Priyadasi ....the reputed grandson of Sandrocottos. The second ... consist of the Buddhist Chronicles of the Rajah of Megadha. "1 [Talboys Wheeler's History of India, Hindu Buddhist, and Brahmanical, p. 269.] From a careful study of these two classes of records, Talboys Wheeler, whose "History of India" appeared in 1874, that is, before the traditional conventions of Orientalists took the fatally rigid shape which they have since assumed, drew his picture of Raja Priyadarsi Asoka and found how like his picture was to that of the Greek Sandrocottus as depicted by Megasthenes. Asoka, while young,2 [Ibid, pp. 231, 487.] "was at variance with his father, and seems to have gone into exile like another Rama. He is said to have been appointed to the Government of the distant province of Ujjain, and subsequently to have repressed a revolt in Taxila in the Panjab ...The main incidents of Asoka's early career thus present a strange similarity to those recorded of Sandrokottos by Greek writers. Sandrokottos was also an exiled prince from Pataliputra, and he ultimately drove the Greeks from Taxila. Again, Asoka usurped a throne and founded an empire, so did Sandrokottos. Asoka originally professed the Brahmanical religion, and then embraced the more practical religion of the edicts. Sandrokottos sacrificed to the Gods in Brahmanical fashion, but he also held a great assembly every year in which every discovery was discussed which was likely to prove beneficial to the earth, to mankind and to animals generally.... It would be a startling coincidence if the great sovereign whose religion of duty without deity has been engraven for more than twenty centuries on the rocks and pillars of India, should prove to be the same prince who met Alexander at Taxila, who offended the Macedonian conqueror by his insolence and assumption, who expelled the Greeks from the Panjab during the wars of Alexander's successors, and ultimately married the daughter of Seleukos Nikator." In fact Talboys Wheeler had little doubt that Sandrokottos of the Greeks and Asoka of the Buddhists were identical. In one or two places he calls Asoka "the reputed grandson of Sandrocottus or Chandragupta"1 [Ibid, pp. 209 and 476.] and adds in a note, "The term 'reputed grandson' is here used advisedly. It will appear hereafter2 [i.e., p 487.] that there is reason to believe that the name Sandrocottos and Asoka are applied to the same individual."3 [Ibid, p 476.] The title Asokaditya applied to the king in the Kaliyugarajavrttanta confirms the conjecture made by Talboys Wheeler from internal evidence.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Wed Oct 13, 2021 1:53 am

Part 1 of 2

An Analysis of the Dipawanso.
An examination of the Pali Buddhistical Annals, No. 4.
by the Honorable George Turnour, Esq., Ceylon Civil Service.
Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, November, 1838 (p. 930).
No. 83.— November, 1838.

An Analysis of the Dipawanso.

The design of my last article was to prove, that the chronological authenticity of the Buddhistical records was intentionally deranged or destroyed at the period of Sakya's advent. In entering now upon the examination of that portion of the Pali annals, which professes to contain the genealogy of the royal dynasties of India, from the last regeneration of the world to the manifestation of Gotamo I have to adduce in my own case another instance, to be added to the many already on record, of the erroneous and exaggerated estimates, into which orientalists may be betrayed in their researches, when they rely on the information furnished by Indian pandits, without personally analyzing the authorities, from which that information is alleged to be obtained. I should, however, be doing the Buddhist priesthood of the present day in Ceylon very great injustice, if I did not at the same time avow, that the too favorable expectations in which I have indulged, as to the continuity, after having fully convinced myself of the chronological extravagancies, of the Pali genealogical annals anterior to the sixth century before the birth of Christ, have in no degree been produced by wilful misrepresentations on their part. It has been already noticed* [Introduction to the Mahawanso.] by me elsewhere, that the study of the Pali language is confined, among the natives of Ceylon, almost entirely to the most learned among the priesthood, and is prosecuted solely for the purpose of acquiring a higher order of qualification, for their sacerdotal functions, than those priests possess, who can consult only the vernacular versions of their scriptures. Their attention, therefore, is principally devoted to the examination of the doctrinal and religious questions contained in their sacred books; and that study is moreover conducted in a spirit of implicit faith and religious reverence, which effectually excludes searching scrutiny, and is almost equally unfavorable to impartial criticism. The tone of confidence with which my native coadjutors sought in the Pitakattayan for the several 'resolves' or 'predictions' of Buddho which are alluded to in a former paper*, [Journal for September, 1837.] and the frankness of the surprise they evinced, when they found that none of those 'resolves' were contained in the Pitakattayan, and only some of them in the Atthakatha, preclude the possibility of my entertaining any suspicion of wilful deception being practised. Confiding in their account of the historical merits of Buddhaghoso's commentaries, which appeared to me to be corroborated by the frequency of the reference made in the Tika of the Mahawanso to those Atthakatha, for details not afforded in the Tika, I had impressed myself with the persuasion, that the Atthakatha thus referred to were Buddhaghos's Pali commentaries. Great, as may be readily imagined, was our mutual disappointment, when after a diligent search, persevered in by the priests, with a zeal proportioned to the interest they took in the inquiry, we were compelled to admit the conviction that Buddhaghoso in translating the Sihala (Singhalese) Atthakatha into Pali, did not preserve the Indian genealogies in a connected and continuous form. He is found to have extracted only such detached parts of them, as were useful for the illustration of those passages of the Pitakattayan, on which, in the course of his compilation, he might be commenting. He himself says in his Atthakatha on the Dighanikayo, [Vide Journal of July, 1837.] "for the purpose of illustrating this commentary, availing myself of the Atthakatha, which was in the first instance authenticated by the five hundred Arahanta at the first convocation, as well as subsequently at the succeeding convocations, and which were thereafter brought (from Magadha) to Sihala by the sanctified Mahindo, and for the benefit of the inhabitants of Sihala were transposed into the Sihala language, from thence I translated the Sihala version into the delightful (classical) language, according to the rules of that (the Pali) language, which is free from all imperfections; omitting only the frequent repetition of the same explanations, but at the same time, without rejecting the tenets of the theros resident at the Mahawiharo (at Anuradhapura), who were like unto luminaries to the generation of theros and the most accomplished discriminators (of the true doctrines)." All, therefore, of these genealogies, excluded from his Atthakatha, which are now found only in the Tika of the Mahawanso, or in the Dipawanso, as well as much more perhaps, illustrative of the ancient history of India, which the compilers of these two Ceylonese historical works did not consider worth preserving, Buddhaghoso must have rejected from his commentaries, to which he gave almost exclusively the character of a religious work.

My Buddhist coadjutors are consequently now reluctantly brought to admit, that the Mahawanso, with its Tika, and Dipawanso are the only Pali records extant in Ceylon, which profess to contain the Indian genealogies from the creation to the advent of Sakya; and that even those records do not furnish the genealogies in a continuous form. And, now that my mind is divested of the bias which had been created by their previous representations, and which led me to attach great importance to the historical portions of Buddhaghoso's Atthakatha I cannot but take blame to myself for having even for a time allowed that impression to be made on me. The author of the Mahawanso*, [Pages xxxi. xxxii. xlii. xliii. of the Introduction to the Mahawanso.] in his Tika, declares more than once that he compiles his work from the Sihala Mahawanso and Atthakatha of the Mahawiharo, and from the Sihala Atthakatha of the Uttarawiharo fraternities, as well as from the Mahawanso of the Uttarawiharo priests. The last mentioned of these works alone, as far as I am able to form an opinion at present, was composed in the Pali language, at the time Mahanamo compiled his Mahawanso. I am induced to entertain this opinion from the circumstance, that Mahanamo's quotations from that work alone are in the metrical form, whereas all the translated quotations made by Pali authors from Sihala authorities are invariably, as might have been expected, rendered in prose. One of these quotations consists of the identical two verses with which the Dipawanso opens, and at the close of the Tika a reference is made to the Dipawanso for explanation of the violation of the Mahawiharo consecration, in the reign of Mahaseno. For these reasons, and as that work bears also the title of the "Mahawanso" or "the great genealogy," my Buddhist coadjutors concur with me in thinking, that the Dipawanso now extant is the Pali Mahawanso of the Uttarawiharo fraternity. In fact the titles of Dipa and Maha, are indiscriminately given to both these histories. To prevent, however, their being confounded with each other, I shall continue to reserve the title of Maha for Mahanamo's work, and that of Dipa for the prior compilation, the author of which has not yet been ascertained.

It has been shown in the introduction to the Mahawanso, that its author Mahanamo compiled his history in the reign of his nephew Dhatasino the monarch of Ceylon who reigned between A.D. 459 and 477, from the materials above described, a part of which was the version of the Atthakatha brought by Mahindo from India in 307 before Christ, and translated by him into the Sihala language. This fact, coupled with many other circumstances inadvertently disclosed in the histories of the convocations, go far to prove that the Pitakattayan and Atthakatha were actually reduced to writing from the commencement of the Buddhistical era, and that the concealment of their record till the reign of the Ceylonese ruler Wattagamini, between B.C. 104 and 76, was a part of the esoteric scheme of that creed, had recourse to in order to keep up the imposture as to the priesthood being endowed with the gift of inspiration. The cessation of the concealment of these scriptures at that particular period, though attributed to the subsidence of the spirit of inspiration, in all probability, proceeded from the public disorders* [Vide Mahawanso, Chap. 33.] consequent upon the Cholian invasion, which led to the expulsion of that king and the priesthood from Anuradhapura by a foreign enemy, and to their fugitive existence in the wilderness of the island during a period of nearly 15 years.

The Dipawanso from its being quoted by the author of the Mahawanso, is unquestionably a prior work; but as its narrative extends to the reign of Mahaseno in A.D. 302, its priority cannot exceed 150 years.
In the Journal of December last, I have mentioned the circumstances under which I obtained possession of a Pali copy of the Dipawanso, in a very imperfect state, written in the Burmese character.


I proceed now to give my authority for pronouncing Piyadasi to be Dhanmasoko.

From a very early period, extending back certainly to 800 years, frequent religious missions have been mutually sent to each other's courts, by the monarchs of Ceylon and Siam, on which occasions an exchange of the Pali literature extant in either country appears to have taken place. In the several Solean and Pandian conquests of this island, the literary annals of Ceylon were extensively and intentionally destroyed. The savage Rajasingha in particular, who reigned between A.D. 1581 and 1592, and became a convert from the Buddhistical to the Brahmanical faith, industriously sought out every Buddhistical work he could find, and "delighted in burning them in heaps as high as a cocoanut tree." These losses were in great measure repaired by the embassy to Siam of Wilbagadere Mudiyanse, in the reign of Kirtisri Rajasingha in A.D. 1753, when he brought back Burmese versions of most of the Pali sacred books, a list of which is now lodged in the Dalada temple in Kandy.

The last mission of this character, undertaken however without any royal or official authority, was conducted by the chief priest of the Challia or cinnamon caste of the maritime provinces, then called Kapagama thero. He returned in 1812 with a valuable library, comprising also some historical and philological works. Some time after his return, under the instructions of the late Archdeacon of Ceylon, the Honorable Doctor Twisleton, and of the late Rev. G. Bisset, then senior colonial chaplain, Kapagama became a Convert to Christianity, and at his baptism assumed the name of George Nadoris de Silva, and he is now a modliar or chief of the cinnamon department at Colombo. He resigned his library to his senior pupil, who is the present chief priest of the Challias, and these books are chiefly kept at the wihare at Dadala near Galle. This conversion appears to have produced no estrangement or diminution of regard between the parties. It is from George Nadoris, modliar, that I received the Burmese version of the Tika of the Mahawanso, which enabled me to rectify extensive imperfections in the copy previously obtained from the ancient temple at Mulgirigalla, near Tangalle.

Some time ago the modliar suggested to me that I was wrong in supposing the Mahawanso and the Dipawanso to be the same work, as he thought he had brought the Dipawanso himself from Burmah. I was sceptical. In my last visit, however, to Colombo, he produced the book, with an air of triumph. His triumph could not exceed my delight when I found the work commenced with these lines quoted by the author of the Mahawanso* [Vide in the quarto edition the introduction to the Mahawanso, page xxxi.] as taken from the Mahawanso (another name for Dipawanso) compiled by the priests of the Utaru wihare at Anuradhapura, the ancient capital of Ceylon. "I will perspicuously set forth the visits of Buddho to Ceylon; the histories of the convocations and of the schisms of the theros; the introduction of the religion (of Buddho) into the island; and the settlement and pedigree of the sovereign Wijayo."...


In one of the narratives of this book, containing the history of Dhanmasoko, of Asandhimitta his first consort after his accession to the Indian empire, of his nephew Nigrodho, by whom he was converted to Buddhism, and of his contemporary and ally Dewananpiyatisso, the sovereign of Ceylon, — Dhanmasoko is more than once called Piyadaso, viz.:
"Madhudayako pana wanijo Dewalokato chawitwa, Pupphapure rajakule uppajitwa Piyadaso kumaro hutwa chhattan ussapetwa sakala-jambadipa eka-rajjan akasi*." [Vide page 24 of the Mahawanso for an explanation of this passage.]

"The honey-dealer who was the donor thereof (to the Pache Buddho) descending by his demise from the Dewaloko heavens; being born in the royal dynasty at Pupphapura (or Patilipura, Patna); becoming the prince Piyadaso and raising the chhatta, [Parasol of dominion.] established his undivided sovereignty over the whole of Jambudipo'' — and again —

"Anagate Piyadaso, nama kumaro chhattan ussapetwa Asoka nama Dhanma Raja bhawissati."

"Hereafter the prince Piyadaso having raised the chhatta, will assume the title of Asoka the Dhanma Raja, or righteous monarch."

It would be unreasonable to multiply quotations which I could readily do, for pronouncing that Piyadaso, Piyadasino [Piyadassino is the genitive case of Piyadasi, [x]: — Ed.] or Piyadasi, according as metrical exigencies required the appellation to be written, was the name of Dhanmasoko before he usurped the Indian empire; and it is of this monarch that the amplest details are found in Pali annals. The 5th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th chapters of the Mahawanso contain exclusively the history of this celebrated ruler, and there are occasional notices of him in the Tika of that work, which also I have touched upon in my introduction to that publication. He occupies also a conspicuous place in my article No. 2, on Buddhistical annals. His history may be thus summed up.

-- Further notes on the inscriptions on the columns at Delhi, Allahabad, Betiah, &c., by the Hon'ble George Turnour, Esq. of the Ceylon Civil Service, The Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. VI, Part II, Jul-Dec, 1837


As this work and the Mahawanso, with its Tika, are the best Pali records I possess of the Indian genealogies, I shall proceed to make extracts from such parts of the Dipawanso as may throw light on this subject; adding a note in those cases, in which the Tika is either fuller than, or at variance from, the Dipawanso. I shall not attempt to tabularize these dynasties, as the lists of kings is avowedly and manifestly incomplete, and as no continuous chronological results could be safely deduced from any table formed from such mystified data. It will be observed that the names of even the three rajas, during whose reigns the three Buddha who preceded Gotamo were manifested in this kappo, are omitted in these lists. And yet there are detached notices of those kings, as well as of other Indian rajas, both in the text and commentaries of the Buddhistical scriptures, which are in themselves well worthy of consideration, and to which I shall advert in future contributions.

The author of the Dipawanso has certainly spared no pains in his endeavours to make the links of the Theraparampara chain complete, and consistent with chronology.
He, however, only gives the succession of preceptors, who were the guardians of the Wineyo section of the Pitakattayan, commencing with Upali, whose death is placed in the sixth year of the reign of Udayo; while the incongruities I have dwelt upon in the paper No. 2, have reference to Sabhakami, who though a cotemporary disciple of Buddho, has been represented to have presided at the second convocation, a century after Sakya's death; when he must, from the date of his upasampada ordination, have been at least 140 years old. But even this succession of the Wineyan line of preceptors, the chronological particulars of which are pretended to be given with so much precision in the following extracts, will not stand the test of scrutiny by a person conversant with the rules that govern the Buddhistical church. It is an inviolable law of that code, established by Buddho himself at an early period of his mission, and adhered to to this day — to which rule there are only two well known exceptions — that no person, whether a noviciate priest called Samanero, or an ascetic layman, however learned or pious he may be, can be ordained an upasampada before he has completed his twentieth year. The two exceptions alluded to are the instances of Sumano and Sopako who were ordained upasampada at seven years of age.

It will be seen that this line of preceptors, extending from the date of Buddho's death to the third convocation, a term of 236 years, is made to consist of five successions. Upali the cotemporary of Buddho, is stated to have been 60 years old in the eighth year of the reign of Ajatasattu, which is the 16th year A.B. He is represented to have survived Buddho thirty years, and to have died in the 6th of Udayo's reign in A.B. 30. It is not however, mentioned how many years he had been an upasampada, and all these dates work out therefore without disclosing any discrepancy.

Dasako is represented to be his pupil and immediate successor, and he is stated to be 45 years old in the 10th of Nagasoko's reign, which falls to A.B. 58. He was born, therefore, A.B. 13, and his preceptor Upali died A.B. 30. Supposing his ordination had been put off to the last year of Upali's life, he could not have been more than 17, when made an upasampada. So far from being qualified to be the custos of the Wineyo, he wanted three years of the age to make him admissable for ordination. But we are further told, that he died at the age of 64 in the eighth of Susunago's reign, which falls to A.B. 80: having then been an upasampada 50 years, he must necessarily have been ordained at 14 years of age. But there is manifestly some trifling error somewhere; for, by the latter dates he must have been born not A.B. 13, but A.B. 16.

Sonako was Dasako's successor: he was 40 in the 10th year of Kalasoko's reign, which was A.B. 100; he was born therefore in 60, and he is stated to have died at the age of 66 in the sixth of the reign of the Nandos, which falls to A.B. 124. He was therefore only 20 years old when his preceptor died: but it is specifically stated that he had been a learned upasampada 44 years when he died; and consequently Sonako also could only have been 16 years when ordained.

Siggawo and Chandawo or Chandawajji were the co-disciples and successors of Sonako. Siggawo was 64 years old in the second of Chandagutto's* [I assign in these remarks 24 years to the reign of Chandagutto, which will bring Asoko's accession to A.B. 214, and his inauguration, four years afterwards, to A.B. 218.] reign A.B. 164, and he died aged 76 in the 14th of that reign A.B. 176. He was born therefore A.B. 100, and yet we are told, that it was in this very year, the 10th of the reign of Kalasoko, they were ordained upasampada, by Sonako. There is a manifest error, therefore, in the term of five years assigned for Siggawo's upasampadaship. As his ordaining preceptor Sonako died A.B. 124, he must have been at that time only 24 years old, and at his own death an upasampada of 76 years' standing, — a term co-equal with his natural life. In various parts of the Atthakatha, and in the fifth chapter of the Mahawanso likewise it is stated that they were "adult priests" at the time the second convocation was held; and indeed it is specifically stated in page 30, that Siggawo was 18 years old when he was first presented to Sonako. The pretended prophecy, delivered to him and Chandawajji at the close of that convocation, would consequently be nullified at once, if their birth be not dated anterior to A.B. 100: manifestly, therefore, these dates also are an imposition.

Lastly, Moggaliputtatisso was their disciple; he was ordained in the second of Chandagutto A.B. 164, and he was 66 in the sixth of Dhammasoko A.B. 220; he was born, therefore, in A.B. 154, and could only have been 14 years old at the death of Siggawo, when he became the chief of the Wineyo preceptors. He is stated to have died in the 26th of Dhammasoko, A.B. 240, aged 80. This gives A.B. 160 instead of A.B. 154 for his birth, being a discrepancy of six years.

On pointing out to my pandits, that, even in this elaborate adjustment of the succession of preceptors, the number of lives given is found to be insufficient to fill up a term of 236 years, without bringing the several preceptors into office before they had attained the prescribed age, they at once decided, that the author of the Dipawanso has put forth an erroneous statement, and that the whole ought to be rejected as unfounded. How the discrepancies are to be rectified they do not suggest, beyond hazarding a conjecture, that each preceptor, like Sabhakami, must have lived to a more advanced age; and that each succeeding preceptor consequently had attained a maturer standing at the period of his succession.

It is time, however, that I should proceed to extracts from the Dipawanso.

The Third Bhanawaro of the Dipawanso.

"Omitting the rajas who existed in former kappa, I will in the fullest manner narrate (the history of) the rajas of the present creation. I shall perspicuously set forth the regions in which they existed, their name and lineage, the term of their existence, and the manner in which they governed: whatever that narrative may be, attend ye thereto.

"The first individual who was inaugurated a raja, the protector of the land, was named Mahasammato; he was superlatively endowed with personal beauty; that Khattiyo exercised the functions of sovereignty.

"Rojo was his son, Wararojo, the monarch Kalyano; Warakalyano, Uposatho, Mandato* [In the Mahawanso, I have been misled by the plural Mandata, and reckoned two kings of that name. I see by the Tika the name should be in the singular Mandato. The twenty-eight rajas who lived for an Asankheyyan include therefore Mahasammato.] the seventh in succession, a supreme ruler of the four dipa [Jambudipo, Uttarukuru, Aparagoyanan and Pubbawideho.], endowed with great wealth; Charo, the raja Upacharo, and Che'iyo abounding in riches; Muchalo; Mahamuchalo, Muchalindo, Sagaro; Sagaradewo, Bharato, Bhagiratho the Khattiyo; Ruchi, Maharuchi, Patapo, Mahapatapo, Panado, Mahapanado, the Khattiyo Sudassano, Mahasudassano, and in like manner two of the name of Neru; and Achchima [This name also has been erroneously omitted by me in the Mahawanso. Achchima was there read Pachchima. The Tika, however, shows that the Dipawanso is correct.], (were successively the sons of each preceding ruler.) The term of existence of these twenty-eight rajas was an Asankheyyan; and the capitals in which these monarchs, whose existence extended to an Asankheyyan, reigned, were Kusawati, Rajagahan and Methila."


(Here follows the rule by which an Asankheyyan is to be computed.)

"The descendants of Achchima were one hundred; and they ruled supreme in their capital called Sakula. [In the Tika, it is further stated: "The eldest son of Achchima was the monarch Wattaparasani, though his name be not preserved, quitting Mithela in the same manner that the Okkbka family quitting Baranasi founded Kapilawathu in a subsequent age, established himself at Kasawati, raised the Chhata there, and there his dynasty flourished. His lineal successors in that empire were in number ninety- nine, the last of whom was Arindam, and they all ruled there under the designation of the Achchima dynasty." I should infer from this passage that the capital called Sakula in the Dipawanso should be Kusawati.] The last of these was the Khattiyo Arindamo; his descendants, fifty-six monarchs in number, reigned supreme in their capital Ayujjhapura.

"The last of these was Duppasaho, a wealthy monarch; his descendants were sixty rulers, who reigned supreme in their capital Baranasi.

"The last of these was Ajitajano; his descendants eighty-four thousand in number ruled supreme in their capital Kapilanagaran.

"The last of these was Brahmadatto, greatly endowed with riches; his descendants were thirty-six rajas in number, who reigned supreme in their capital Hatthipura.

"The last of these was the raja Kambalawasabho; his descendants were thirty-two monarchs, who reigned supreme in their capital Ekachakkhu.

"The last of these was the illustrious Purindadewo; his descendants were twenty-eight monarchs, who reigned supreme in their capital Wajirapura.

"The last of these was the raja Sodhano; his descendants were twenty monarchs and they reigned supreme in their capital Madhura.

"The last of these was the raja Dhammagutto, powerful in his armies; his descendants were eighteen monarchs, who reigned supreme in their capital Aritthapura.

"The last of these was the raja Narindasitthi*; [In the Tika there are the following variations of appellation from the Dipawanso:] 1 [Brahmasiwo.] his descendants were seventeen kings, who reigned supreme in their capital Indapattapura.

"The last of these was Brahmedewo2 [Brahmadatto.] raja; his descendants were sixteen monarchs, who reigned in their capital Ekachakkhu.

"The last of these was the monarch Baladatto3; [Baladewo.] his descendants were fourteen rulers, who reigned supreme in their capital Kasambinagaran.

"The last of these was celebrated under the title of Bhaddadewo4; [Hatthidewo.] his descendants were nine kings, who reigned in their capital Kannakochchhanagaran.

"The last of these was the celebrated Naradewo; his descendants were seven monarchs, who reigned supreme in their capital Rajananagaran.

"The last of these was the raja Mahindo; his descendants were twelve kings, who reigned supreme in their capital Champakanagaran.

"The last of these was the monarch Nagadewo; his descendants were twenty-five rulers, who reigned supreme in their celebrated capital Mithila.

"The last of these was Buddhadatto5, [Samuddhadatto.] a raja powerful by his armies, his descendants were twenty-five monarchs, who reigned supreme in their capital Rajagahan.

"The last of these was Dipankaro; his descendants were twelve rajas, who reigned supreme in their capital Takkasila.

"The last of these was the raja Talisakaro, his descendants were twelve rulers, who reigned supreme in their capital Kusinara.

"The last of these was the raja Purindo; his descendants were nine kings, who reigned supreme in Tamaliti.

"The last of these was the worthy monarch Sagaradewo, whose son Makhadewo [The Tika observes in reference to the Mahawanso, that according to the Atthakatha Makhadewo is reckoned among the eighty-five thousand successors of Sagaradewo, whereas that number should be exclusive of him.] was pre-eminent for his deeds of charity; his descendants were eighty-four thousand monarchs, who reigned supreme at Mithila.

"The last of these was Nemi, a monarch who received offerings from the Dewa and was a Chakkawatti (powerful sovereign), whose dominions were bounded by the ocean: the son of Nemi was Kalakajanako*; [Here also the Tika notices in reference to the Mahawanso that the eighty- five thousand are to be reckoned exclusive of Samankuro and Asoko.] his son was Samankuro: and his son was Asoko; and his descendants were eighty-four thousand rulers who reigned supreme in their capital Baranasi.

"The last of these was the raja Wijayo, a wealthy monarch: his son was Wijitaseno who was endowed with great personal splendor. Dhammaseno, Nagaseno, Samatho, Disampati, Rainu, Kuso; Mahakuso, Nawaratho, Dasaratho, Ramo, Bilaratho, Chittadassi, Atthadassi, Sujaro, Okkako [Vide Mahawanso Introduction, p. xxxv. for the establishment of the Sakyan dynasty of Okkakamukho.], Okkakamukho, Nipuro, Chandima, Chandamukho, Siriraja, Sanjayo, the monarch Wessantaro, Jalo, Sihawahano and Sihassaro. These were enterprising monarchs, who upheld the pre-eminence of their dynasty; and his (Sihassaro's) descendants were eighty-two thousand, who (all) reigned supreme in their capital Kapilawatthu.

"The last of these was Jayaseno; his son was Sehahanu who was endowed with great personal splendor. Unto the said Sehahanu there were five sons. Those five brothers were Suddhodano, Dhotodano, Sukkodano, Ghatitodano and Amitodano. All these rajas were distinguished as Odano [This word literally signifies "boiled rice:" no reason is assigned for adopting the designation.]. Siddattho, the saviour of the world, was the son of Suddhodano; and after the birth of his illustrious son Rahulo, finally relinquished (worldly grandeur) for the purpose of attaining Buddhohood.

"The whole of these monarchs, who were of great wealth and power, were in number one lakh, four nahutani§ [In this sense a nahutan is 10,000, making therefore 140,300 monarchs. According to the Tika there were 252,539 rajas from Mahasammato to Okkako, the Ikswaku of the Hindus.] and three hundred. Such is the number of monarchs of the dynasty from which the Bodhisatto (Buddho elect) is sprung.

"Perishable|| [This is a passage of the Pitakattayin as propounded by Sakya.] things are most assuredly transitory, it being their predestiny that after being produced they should perish; they, accordingly, being produced, pass away. To arrest this (eternity of regeneration and destruction, by the attainment of nibbanan) is indeed to be blessed."

The conclusion of the Maharajawanso.

"The raja Suddhodano, the son of Sehahanu was a monarch who reigned in the city called Kapila; and the raja Bhatiyo was then the monarch who reigned at Rajagahan, a city situated in the centre of five [The names of these mountains are Isigiii, Wibharo, in which is situated the Sattapanni cave in which the first convocation was held; Weputto; Pandawo aud Gejjhakato, the mountain where Buddho dwelt last in the neighbourhood of Rajagakan.] mountains. These two rulers of men, Suddhodano and Bhatiyo, the descendants (of royal dynasties) from the commencement of the kappo, were intimately attached to each other.

"By (Bimbisaro the son of Bhatiyo) these five wishes were conceived in the eighth year of his age. 'Should my royal parent invest me with sovereignty: should a supreme of men (Buddho) be born in my dominions: should a Tathagato select me for the first person to whom he presented himself: should he administer to me the heavenly dhammo; and should I comprehend that supreme dhammo — these will be blessings vouchsafed to me.' Such were the five wishes conceived by Bimbisaro.

"Accordingly, on the demise of his father, he was inaugurated in the fifteenth year of his age: within his dominions the supreme of the world was born: Tathagato repaired to him as the first person to whom he presented himself: propounded the heavenly dhammo: and the monarch comprehended it.

"Mahawero was not less than thirty-five years old, and the monarch Bimbisaro, was in the thirtieth year of his age. Gotamo therefore was five years senior to Bimbisaro. That monarch reigned fifty-two years, thirty-seven of which he passed contemporaneously with Buddho.

"Ajatasattu (his son) reigned thirty-two years: in the eighth year of his inauguration, the supreme Buddho attained nibbanan. From the time that the omniscient Buddho, the most revered of the world and the supreme of men attained Buddhohood, this monarch reigned twenty-four years."
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:30 am

Part 2 of 2

The conclusion of the third Bhanawaro.

Note. — A Bhanawaro ought to contain 250 gatha. This section is only equal to 87, and some of the verses are incomplete. I can however detect no want of continuity in the narrative.

The fourth Bhanawaro commences with an account of the first convocation, which is already described in No. 1, of this analysis. This chapter then proceeds with a chronological narrative of the history of India, specifying also the contemporaneous dates of the reigns of the monarchs of Ceylon, and of the death of those inspired Thera, who are considered to have constituted the connecting links of the chain called the Theraparampara or generation of preceptors.

The following are the most important passages of this section:

"The sixteenth year after the nibbanan of the saviour of the world was the twenty-fourth of Ajatasattu, and the sixteenth of Wijayo (the raja of Lanka). The learned Upali was then sixty years old. Dasako entered into the upasampada order in the fraternity of Upali. Whatever may be the extent of the doctrines of the most revered Buddho which had been promulgated by that vanquisher as the nine integral portions of his dispensation, the whole thereof Upali taught. The said Upali thus taught the same, having learnt, in the most perfect manner, the whole of the nine portions of his doctrine, which have been auricularly [hearing] perpetuated, from Buddho himself. Buddho has declared of Upali in the midst of the congregated priesthood, ' Upali being the first in the knowledge of wineyo, is the chief in my religion.' He who had thus been selected and approved in the midst of the assembled priesthood, and who had a numerous fraternity, taught the three Pitako to a fraternity of a thousand bikkhus, of whom Dasako was the chief disciple: he taught them (especially) to Dasako and to five hundred Thera, who had overcome the dominion of sin, were of immaculate purity and morals, and versed in the wada (history of the schisms). The thero Upali who had a great fraternity continued to teach the wineyo for full thirty years after the nibbanan of the supreme Buddho. The said Upali taught the whole of the eighty-four thousand component parts of the doctrines of the divine teacher to the learned Dasako.

"Dasako having learned the whole of the Pitako in the fraternity of Upali, and held the office of Upajjhayo (conferer of the sacerdotal ordination of upasampada) propounded the same. The chief of the great fraternity (Upali) having deposited (tapetwana) the whole wineyo in the charge of the learned Dasako, died. The monarch Udayo reigned sixteen years. It was in the sixth year of his reign that the thero Upali demised.

"A certain trader named Sonako who had come from the Kasi country, and was proud of his high descent, entered the sacerdotal order in the religion of the divine teacher (Buddho) at the Weluwano* [This word signifies the bamboo grove.] wiharo in the mountain-girt city (Rajagahan). Dasako, the chief of the confraternity, sojourned in the mountain-girt city, the capital of the Magadha nation, thirty-seven years, and initiated Sonako into the sacerdotal order. The learned Dasako was forty-five years old, in the tenth year of the reign of the raja Nagadaso, and twentieth of the reign of the raja Pandu (of Lanka).

"The thero Sonako became an upasampada in the fraternity of the thero Dasako and the thero Dasako taught Sonako the nine component parts of the faith; and having learned the same from the preceptor who ordained him, he also taught the same. The thero Dasako having invested Sonako thero, who was the senior pupil in his fraternity, with the office of chief over the wineyo, died in the sixty-fourth year of his age.

"At the expiration of ten years and half a month of the reign of the raja Kalasoko, the thero named Sonako was forty years old, and he had then been a thero learned in the doctrines for fourteen years; and at the period of the expiration of ten years and six months, the thero Sonako, who was the chief of a great fraternity, conferred the upasampada ordination on Siggawo and Chandawo.

"At that period a century had expired from the time that Bhagawa had attained nibbanan, and certain (bikkhus) of Wesali native of Wajji set forth these ten (new) tenets of discipline."


Here follows an account of the schism, and of the second convocation held in consequence, in the tenth year of the reign of Kalasoko, with which the fourth Bhanawaro concludes, the particulars of which are given in the paper, No. 2, and in the Mahawanso. The fifth commences with recapitulating the principal particulars of the first and second convocations and the schisms, and then proceeds:

"In the second year of the reign of Chundagutto, when Siggawo was sixty-four years old, which was the fifty-eighth year of the reign of Pandukabhayo, the raja (of Lanka) Moggaliputto was ordained an upasampada in the fraternity of Siggawo; and the said Moggaliputtatisso, having acquired the knowledge of the wineyo in the fraternity of Chandawajji, was released from the sins inseparable from liability to future regeneration. Both Siggawo and Chandawajji taught the whole of the Pitako, which embraces both (the wineyo, discipline, and dhammo, doctrine), to the pre-eminently endowed Moggaliputto. Siggawo of profound wisdom died at the age of seventy-six, having constituted the pre-eminently endowed Moggaliputto the chief of the wineyo. Chandagutto reigned twenty-four years. In the fourteenth year of his reign Siggawo died.

"In the sixth year of the reign of Dhammasoko, Moggaliputto was sixty-six years old. Mahindo was then ordained an upasampada in his fraternity, and acquired a knowledge of the Pitako.

"Upali attained his seventy-fourth, Dasako his sixty-fourth, the thero Sonako his sixty-sixth, Siggawo his seventy-sixth, and Moggaliputto his eightieth year. The following are the periods that all of these theros were upasampada, of whom at all times the learned Upali was recognized as the first chief, viz.; Dasako was an upasampada fifty, Sonako, forty-four, Siggawo five* [This is evidently a mistake.], and Moggaliputto, sixty-eight years.

"Udayo reigned sixteen years, and in the sixth year of Udayo's reign, Upali died.

"Susanago, the opulent monarch, reigned ten years, in the eighth year of Susanago's reign, Dasako died.

"At [The reign of Kalasoko is omitted, who was the father of the Nandos who are here designated the brothers of Susanago.] the demise of Susanago he had ten brothers, who collectively reigned twenty-two years, in great celebrity. In the sixth year of their reign Sonako died.


[BREAK IN LINEAGE? WHERE DID CHANDAGUTTO COME FROM?]


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 Candragupta Maurya, by the Puranic accounts of the Hindus. "There is a good deal of confusion in these Buddhistic works as regards the very family and genealogy of Asoka, the Buddhistic king, and one can easily trace that the life and time of Asoka must have been constructed by the Buddhistic writers who flourished several hundreds of years after him, by jumbling up the lives of three different Indian kings, viz., (1) of Asoka, (Dharmasoka), the third in ascent from Kanishka belonging to the First Gonanda Dynasty of Kasmir kings as described in the First Book of Kalhana's Raja-Tarangini 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 (Chandasoka) 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, described by Mr. Vincent A. Smith himself as the Indian Napoleon, as narrated by his biographer Harishena, and in the Kaliyuga Raja Vrittanta, and as corroborated by his numerous coins and inscriptions recently unearthed by European scholars themselves."

The Mahavamsa, (according Wijesinha's revised edition of Turnour translation) says, "One Kalasoka had ten sons, who after his death ruled the kingdom righteously for 22 years. They were succeeded by other nine brothers, who likewise, in order of seniority, ruled the kingdom for 22 years. A Brahman named Chanakya, who had conceived an implacable hatred against Dhana Nanda, the last survivor of the nine brothers, put that king to death, and placed upon the throne Chandragupta, a member of the princely Moriya clan descended from the line of the Sakyas, who ruled the country for 34 years. He was succeeded by his son Bindusara, who ruled the land for 28 years. The sons of Bindusara, the offspring of sixteen mothers, numbered one hundred and one, of whom the eldest was named Sumana, and the youngest Tishya. A third son, Asoka, uterine brother of Tishya, had been appointed Viceroy of Ujjain by his father. On receiving news of King Bindusara's mortal illness, Asoka hastened to Pataliputra, slew his eldest brother Sumana and his 98 other brothers, and ruled the country for 37 years."

The Dipavamsa, on the other hand, substitutes Susunaga for Kalasoka and makes Asoka, the son of Susunaga himself, and omits all mention of the nine Nanda brothers.

The Asokavadana (according to the prose version in the Divyavadana) gives the following account of the lineage and family of Asoka: —


"(1) King Bimbisara reigned at Rajagriha. His son was (2) Ajatasatra, whose son was (3) Udayibhadra, whose son was (4) Munda, whose son was (5) Kakavarnin, whose son was (6) Sahalin, whose son was (7) Tulakuchi, whose son was (8) Mahamandala, whose son was (9) Prasenajit, whose son was (10) Nanda, whose son was (11) Bindusara. King Bindusara reigned at Pataliputra and had a son named Susima. To him was born of Subhadrangi, the daughter of a Brahman, two sons, the elder named Asoka, and the younger named Vigatasoka. Asoka secured the throne by putting to death the legitimate prince Susima by a stratagem devised by Radhagupta by which Susima was inveigled while marching against the capital, so that he fell into a ditch full of burning fuel and there miserably perished."


Here it will be observed that Candragupta is altogether omitted, and Bindusara, the father of Asoka, is represented as being the son of Nanda. The metrical Asokavadana, on the other hand, substitutes Mahipala for Ajatasatru, and exhibits numerous other variations, which deprive these Buddhistic accounts of historical worth. The conquests ascribed to Asoka in the 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 traceable to 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 officers of state, are all taken from the accounts of Asoka and his successors as given by Chhavillakara ["Referring to an earlier Rajatarangini recorded by Chhavillakara, Kalhana has stated that Kashmir was held after Asoka by his son, Jalauka, who was followed by a ruler named 'Damodara,' who was none else than Demetrius, 'Regis Indorus,' [Demetrius I, called Poliorcetes, son of Antigonus I, king of Macedon, 337-283 BC] as the classical references indicate. (Vide my article, "The Chavillakara Fragment in Kalhana's Rajatarangini" -- JBRS (Journal of the Burma Research Society), Vol. 36 (1950), pp. 71-75 + i-vi.) -- Reviewed Work: Beginnings of Life, Culture and History: (Study of Indian History and Culture : Vol. I) by S. D. Kulkarni, Review by: S. V. Sohoni, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol. 70, No. 1/4 (1989), pp. 338-343 (6 pages)] and by Kalhana in his Rajatarangini.

-- "Sandrocottus", "History of Classical Sanskrit Literature", by Kavyavinoda, Sahityaratnakara M. Krishnamachariar, M.A., M.I., Ph.D., Member of the Royal Asiatic Society of London (Of the Madras Judicial Service), Assisted by His Son M. Srinivasachariar, B.A., B.L., Advocate, Madras, 1937


"Chandagutto reigned twenty-four years, and in the fourteenth year of his reign Siggawo died.

"The celebrated Dhammasoko the son of Bindasaro reigned thirty-seven years. In the twenty-sixth year of his reign, Moggaliputto died, having caused religion to be glorified, and having completed the full measure of human existence.


"The learned Upali, the chief of a great fraternity died at the age of seventy-four, having appointed his learned disciple Dasako to the office of chief wineyo.

"Dasako, died at the age of sixty-four, having appointed his senior learned disciple Sonako to the office of chief of the wineyo.

"Sonako, who was endowed with the six abinna, died at the age of sixty-six, having appointed his arahat son (disciple) Siggawo to the office of chief of wineyo.

"Siggawo who was endowed with the six abinna, died at the age of seventy-six, having appointed his son (disciple) Moggaliputto to the office of chief of wineyo.

"Moggaliputtatisso died at the age of eighty, having appointed his disciple Mahindo to the office of chief of wineyo.

The conclusion of the fifth Bhanawaro.

"Piyadassano [Having erroneously written this name "Piyadasino" in a former paper, Vol. VI. p. 1056, you have been led to suppose it was the genitive case of Piyadasi.] was inaugurated in the two hundred and eighteenth year after the death of the supreme Buddho. At the installation of Piyadassano preternatural manifestations took place."

In the present note I shall confine myself to a critical examination of the first sentence only of the northern inscription, which will serve to show how rigidly I have designed to adhere to the rules of the Pali grammar in my translation of these inscriptions; and then proceed to explain the historical authority I have recently discovered for identifying Piyadasi, the recorder of these inscriptions, with Dhammasoko, the supreme monarch of India, the convert to, and great patron of, Buddhism, in the fourth century before our era....

In cursorily running over the book, at the opening of the sixth Bhanawaro or chapter, which should contain the history of Dhammasoko, I found the lines quoted from my note to you in page 791.

This Dipawanso extends to the end of the reign of Mahasino, which closed in A.D. 302. As the Mahawanso, which quotes from this work, was compiled between A.D. 459 and 477, the Dipawanso must have been written between those two epochs. I have only cursorily run over the early chapters to the period where the Indian history terminates without collecting from that perusal any new matter, not found embodied either in the Mahawanso or its Tika, excepting the valuable information above mentioned, and a series of dates defining the particular year of each sovereign's reign, in which the several hierarchs of the Buddhistical church died, down to Moggaliputtatisso the chief priest who presided at the third convocation in the reign of Dhammasoko. These dates may remove some of the incongruities touched upon in my second paper on Buddhistical annals.

This Burmese copy, however, of the Dipawanso is very imperfect. Each Bhanawaro ought to contain 250 verses. Several chapters fall short of this complement; and, in some, the same passage is repeated two and even three times.

It will be highly desirable to procure, if possible, a more perfect copy, together with its commentary, (either Tika or Atthakatha) from the Burmese empire.

On my return to Kandy, and production of the Dipawanso to the Buddhist priests, who are my coadjutors in these researches, they reminded me that there was a Pali work on my own shelves, which also gave to Dhanmasoko, the appellation of Piyadaso. The work is chiefly in prose, and held in great estimation for the elegance of its style: hence called "Rasawahini" — "sweetly flowing" or the "harmonious stream."

The Singhalese version, of which this Pali work is a translation, was of great antiquity, and is no longer extant. The present copies in that language are merely translations of this Pali edition. I am not able to fix the date of this Pali version, as the author does not give the name of the sovereign in whose reign he flourished — but the period is certainly subsequent to A.D. 477, as he quotes frequently from the Mahawanso. The author only states, that this work is compiled by Koratthapalo, the pious and virtuous incumbent of the Tanguttawankapariweno attached to the Mahawiharo (at Anuradhapura); and that he translates it from an ancient Singhalese work, avoiding only the defects of tautology and its want of perspicuity.

In one of the narratives of this book, containing the history of Dhanmasoko, of Asandhimitta his first consort after his accession to the Indian empire, of his nephew Nigrodho, by whom he was converted to Buddhism, and of his contemporary and ally Dewananpiyatisso, the sovereign of Ceylon, — Dhanmasoko is more than once called Piyadaso, viz.:

"Madhudayako pana wanijo Dewalokato chawitwa, Pupphapure rajakule uppajitwa Piyadaso kumaro hutwa chhattan ussapetwa sakala-jambadipa eka-rajjan akasi*." [Vide page 24 of the Mahawanso for an explanation of this passage.]

"The honey-dealer who was the donor thereof (to the Pache Buddho) descending by his demise from the Dewaloko heavens; being born in the royal dynasty at Pupphapura (or Patilipura, Patna); becoming the prince Piyadaso and raising the chhatta, [Parasol of dominion.] established his undivided sovereignty over the whole of Jambudipo'' — and again —

"Anagate Piyadaso, nama kumaro chhattan ussapetwa Asoka nama Dhanma Raja bhawissati."


"Hereafter the prince Piyadaso having raised the chhatta, will assume the title of Asoka the Dhanma Raja, or righteous monarch."

It would be unreasonable to multiply quotations which I could readily do, for pronouncing that Piyadaso, Piyadasino [Piyadassino is the genitive case of Piyadasi, [x]: — Ed.] or Piyadasi, according as metrical exigencies required the appellation to be written, was the name of Dhanmasoko before he usurped the Indian empire; and it is of this monarch that the amplest details are found in Pali annals. The 5th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th chapters of the Mahawanso contain exclusively the history of this celebrated ruler, and there are occasional notices of him in the Tika of that work, which also I have touched upon in my introduction to that publication. He occupies also a conspicuous place in my article No. 2, on Buddhistical annals. His history may be thus summed up.

He was the grandson of Chandagutto (Sandracottus) and son of Bindusaro who had a numerous progeny, the issue of no less than sixteen consorts. Dhanmasoko, who had but one uterine brother, named Tisso, appears to have been of a turbulent and ambitious character; Bindusaro consigned him to an honorable banishment by conferring on him the government of Ujjeni (Oujein)* [Introduction to the Mahawanso, p. xlii.] "in his apprehension arising from a rumour which had prevailed that he (Asoko) would murder his own father; and being therefore desirous of employing him at a distance, established him at Ujjeni, conferring the government of that kingdom on him."

While administering that government he formed a connection with Chetiya Dewi a princess of Chetiyagiri, and had by her a son and daughter, Mahindo and Sanghamitta, who followed their father to Patilipura, subsequently entered into the sacerdotal order, and were the missionaries who converted Ceylon to Buddhism. Chetiya Dewi herself returned to her native city. On his death-bed, Bindusaro sent a "letter" recalling him to his capital, Patilipura. He hastened thither, and as soon as his parent expired, put all his brothers, excepting Tisso, to death, and usurped the empire. He raised Tisso to the dignity of Uparaja, — which would appear to be the recognition of the succession to the throne.

In the 4th year after his accession, being the year of Buddho 218, and before Christ 325, [The second paper on "Buddhistical Annals" notices the discrepancy of about 60 years between this date, and that deduced from the date of European classical authors connected with Alexander's invasion.] he was inaugurated, or anointed king. In the 3rd year of his inauguration, he was converted to Buddhism by the priest Nigrodho the son of his eldest murdered brother, Sumano. In the 4th year Tisso resigned his succession to the empire, and became a priest. In the 6th Mahindo and Sanghamitta also entered into the sacerdotal order. In the 17th the third convocation was held, and missionaries were dispatched all over Asia to propagate Buddhism. In the 18th Mahindo arrived in Ceylon, and effected the conversion of the Ceylonese monarch Dewananpiyatisso and the inhabitants of this island. In the same year Sanghamitta, the bo-tree and relics were sent by him to Ceylon. In the 30th his first consort espoused after his accession, Asandhimitta, who was zealously devoted to Buddhism, died; and three years thereafter he married his second wife. He reigned 37 years.

-- Further notes on the inscriptions on the columns at Delhi, Allahabad, Betiah, &c., by the Hon'ble George Turnour, Esq. of the Ceylon Civil Service, The Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. VI, Part II, Jul-Dec, 1837


(For these manifestations I must refer to the Mahawanso.)]

"That royal youth, who was the grandson of Chandagutto and the son of Bindusaro was at that time the (karamolino) ruler of Vjjeni.

"In the course of an official circuit he visited Wessanagaran; where lived a damsel, the daughter of a Sitthi, who became celebrated under the name of Dewi. By his connection with her, an illustrious son was born. (The said son) Mahindo and (his daughter) Sangamitta formed the resolution to enter the order of priesthood. Both these individuals having been thus ordained, overcame subjection to regeneration. Asoko was then reigning in the illustrious Pataliputto. In the third year of his inauguration he became a convert to the religion of the supreme Buddho. (If it be asked) what the duration of the term is, from the date of the parinibbanan of the supreme Buddho to the date of the birth of Mahindo, who was descended from the Moriyan dynasty, (the answer is) two hundred and five years. In that year Mahindo the son of Asoko was born. In Mahindo's tenth year, his father put his own brothers to death; and he past four years in reducing Jambudipo to order. Having put to death his hundred brothers, and reduced the dynasty to one (family), they (the people) inaugurated him in the fourteenth year of Mahindo's age. Asoko, who was endowed with great personal superiority and good fortune, and was destined to rule the world, was inaugurated under miraculous manifestations. They installed Piyadassano on his completing his twentieth year* [This is evidently a clerical error, his son Mahindo being then fourteen years old. It was subsequently mentioned that Asokodhammo was forty-five years old at his inauguration.]."


The account of the interview with Nigrodho, the expulsion of the brahman sects, and the construction of the wiharos is then given, to the close of the sixth Bhanawaro.

The seventh Bhanawaro begins with the account of Mahindo and Sangamitta being admitted into the order of the priesthood, (the former was at once ordained upasampada, being of the age of twenty; but the latter remained a samaneri for two years, being only eighteen,) in the sixth year of Asoko's inauguration. These particulars will be found in the Mahawanso.

"Asokadhammo was fifty-four years old at the time of his inauguration, and at the time of Asokadhammo being inaugurated, Moggaliputtatisso was sixty-six. Mahindo entered into the order of priesthood in the fraternity of Mogaliputtatisso. Mahadewo performed the ceremony of admission, and Mojjhanto, the ceremony of the upasampada ordination. These were the three preceptors who qualified Mahindo for the priesthood. The said preceptor Moggaliputtatisso taught Mahindo, who illuminated (Lanka) dipo, the whole of the Pitako, both as regards its import and its doctrine. In the tenth year of Mahindo's (ordination) having acquired a perfect knowledge of the whole creed, he became the head of a fraternity, and (pachariyo) a subpreceptor (under Moggali). The said Mahindo having thus acquired a knowledge of the perfectly profound and well arranged (Pitakattayan), containing the two doctrinal portions (the wineyo and the abhidhammo) and the suttako (the parables) as well as the history of the schisms of the preceptors, became a perpetuater of the same. Moggaliputtatisso thus perfected Mahindo the son of Asoko, in the knowledge of the three wejja and the four putisambhida, and (thereby) Moggaliputtatisso permanently established in his disciple Mahindo, the whole of the Pitakattayan which had been thus handed down to him.

"Nigrodho was admitted into the priesthood in the third year of Asoko's reign, his brother (Tisso) in the fourth, and in the sixth his son Mahindo. Tisso and Sumittako, the two theros who were descended from the Kunti, and were endowed with supernatural powers, died in the eighth year of the reign of Asoko. From these two princes having entered the order of priesthood, and from (the manner in which) these two theros died, multitudes of the khattiya and brahman castes proclaimed themselves to be devotees in this creed, and great benefits and honors resulted to the religion of the vanquisher; and the heretics, who had been influential schismatics, lost all their ascendancy. The pandaranga, the jatila, nigantha, chetaka and other sects for seven years continued, however, to perform the uposatha in separate fraternities. The sanctified, pious, and virtuous ministers (of Buddho) would not attend those uposatha meetings. At this conjuncture, it was the two hundred and thirty-sixth year (of the Buddhistical era)."

The Dipawanso then gives the account of the third convocation and of the dispersion of the missionaries for the promulgation of Buddhism through the adjacent kingdoms of Asia, viz. Gandharo, Mahiso, Aparantako, Maharatthan, Yono, Hiwawanto, Suwannabhumi and Lankadipo.

The ninth Bhanawaro commences with the history of Ceylon, and it is singular that the origin of the Sihala race is here divested of the fabulous character given to it in the Mahawanso to the extent formerly suggested by me. If the popular legend of the lion (siho) had not been previously known, the account in the Dipawanso would have been rendered, by any unprejudiced translator, into English without naming the fabulous monster, literally thus:

"This island Lanka acquired the name of Sihala from Siho* ["Pachchantan," I have translated, "foreign" in the Mahawanso, as the word is compounded of "pati" and "antan." It would be better rendered as "situated on the confines." Wanawasi is here omitted, probably by an error of transcription. This passage is important Matacha Susimanama, pitacha Sihasawhayo. If "Siho'' was intended for a "lion," "Sawhayo" which signifies "named" or "called" would not be used.]. Listen to this narrative of mine, being the account of the origin of this island and this dynasty. The daughter of a king of Wango, having formed a connection with a certain Siho, who found his livelihood in a wilderness, gave birth to two children. These two children named Sihabahu and Sewali were of prepossessing appearance. The mother was named Susima, and the father was called Siho, and at the termination of sixteen years, secretly quitting that wilderness, he (Sihabahu) founded a city, to which capital he gave the name of Sihapura. In that Lala kingdom, the son of Siho becoming a powerful monarch, reigned supreme in his capital Sihapura."


This Bhanawaro proceeds with the account of Wijayo landing in Ceylon, and the establishment of his dynasty, omitting however, entirely, Wijayo's marriage with Kuweni, and narrates the reigns of the ensuing kings to Dewananpiyatisso, assigning to them reigns of the same duration, as that given to them in the Mahawanso. We then find the synchronisms in the chronologies of India and Ceylon, which are quoted in the introduction to the Mahawanso from the Atthahathd in the Wineyo.

I do not notice any matter in the Dipawanso, not found in the Mahawanso, till I come to the eighteenth Bhanawaro. The theriparampara, or succession of preceptresses is there given, taken from the Atthakatha on the Wineyo in the following words:

"She who was renowned under the appellation of Pajapati, and was of the Gotamo family, endowed with six abinna and with supernatural gifts, the younger sister, born of the same mother, of Mahamaya (the mother of Buddho): and who, with the same affection as Maya herself nourished Bhagawa at her breast, was established in the highest office (among priestesses).

"The following are the priestesses who (in succession) acquired a perfect knowledge of the wineyo, viz.: Khema Uppalawanna, two of each name, and Patachari, Dhammadinna, Sobhita, Isidasika, Wisakha, Asoka, Sapala, Sanghadasi, gifted with wisdom, Nanda and Dhammapala, celebrated for her knowledge of Wineyo.

"The theri Sanghamitta, Uttara, who was gifted with wisdom, Hemapasa, Dassala, Aggamitta, Dasika, Pheggupabbata, Matta, Salala, Dhammadasiya—these juvenile priestesses came hither from Jambudipo, and propounded the Winayapitako in the capital designated Anuradhapura—they propounded not only the five divisions of the wineyo, but also the seven Pakaranani.

"The females who were ordained upasampada by them in this island were Soma, devoted to Dhammo, Goridipi, Dhammadasiyi, Dhammapala versed in the wineyo, Mahila conversant in the dhutawada, Sobhana, Dhammata, Passanagamissa, also versed in the wineyo, and Satakali profound in the theri controversy, and Uttara.

"Under the instructions of Abhayo [Abhayo, the brother of Dewananpiyatisso.] celebrated for his illustrious descent, the aforesaid priestesses as well as Sumana [Vide Index of the Mahawanso for this name.] renowned for the doctrinal knowledge among her sisterhood, a maintainer of the Dhutanga, a vanquisher of the passions, of great purity of mind, devoted to dhammo and wineyo, and Uttara endowed with wisdom, together with their thirty thousand priestesses, were the first priestesses who propounded at Anuradhapura, the wineyo, the five Nikaye (of the Suttapitako) and the Suttapakarane of the Abhidhammo.

"Mahala equally illustrious for her knowledge of the dhammo and for her piety, was the daughter of the monarch Kakawanno Girikali, profoundly versed by rote, was the daughter of his Poorohito (the almoner of Kakawanno); Kaladasi and Sabbapapika were the daughters of Gutto. These priestesses, who always maintained the orthodox texts, and of perfect purity of mind, were versed in the dhammo and wineyo, and having returned from the Rohana division maintained by the illustrious ruler of men Abhayo [Vide Index for Gamini Abhayo, the name of Dutthagamini before he recovered the kingdom.], propounded the Wineyo, at Anuradhapura."


The remainder of this passage is so confused as not to admit of a continuous translation.

In the twentieth Bhanawaro is specified the reducing the scriptures to record, in precisely the same two verses as in the Mahawanso; and in the twenty-second it is mentioned that Wasabho the raja of Ceylon between A.D. 66 and 110, brought water into the town of Anuradhapura through a tunnel "ummaggo" and with this Bhanawaro, the Dipawanso terminates at the close of the reign of Mahaseno.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

Postby admin » Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:27 am

Further notes on the inscriptions on the columns at Delhi, Allahabad, Betiah, &c.
by the Hon'ble George Turnour, Esq. of the Ceylon Civil Service*
[*We consider it a duty to insert this paper, just received, in the same volume with our version of the inscription, adding a note or two in defence of the latter where we consider it still capable of holding its ground against such superior odds!— Ed. [J. Prinsep]]
The Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. VI, Part II
Jul-Dec, 1837

Image
George Turnour pulls a Dipavamsa rabbit out of his hat!


I have read with great interest, in the Asiatic Journal of July last, your application of your own invaluable discovery of the Lat alphabet, to the celebrated inscriptions on Feroz's column, at Delhi.

When we consider that these inscriptions were recorded upwards of two thousand years ago, and that the several columns on which they are engraven have been exposed to atmospheric influences for the whole of that period, apparently wholly neglected; when we consider also, that almost all the inflections of the language in which these inscriptions are composed, occur in the ultimate and penultimate syllables, and that these inflections are chiefly formed by minute vowel symbols, or a small anuswara dot; and when we further find that the Pali orthography of that period, as shewn by these inscriptions was very imperfectly defined — using single for double, and promiscuously, aspirated and unaspirated consonants; and also, without discrimination, as to the class each belonged, the four descriptions of n — the surprise which every reasonable investigator of this subject must feel will be occasioned rather by the extent of the agreement than of the disagreement between our respective readings of these ancient records.

Another very effective cause has, also, been in operation to produce a difference in our readings. You have analysed these inscriptions through a Brahmanized Sanskrit medium, while I have adopted a Buddhistical Pali medium. With all my unfeigned predisposition to defer to your practised judgment and established reputation in oriental research, it would be uncandid in me if I did not avow, that I retain the opinion that the medium of analysis employed by me has been (imperfect as that analysis is) the more appropriate and legitimate one.

The thorough investigation of this subject is of such paramount importance and deep interest, and as (if I have rightly read the concluding sentence of "the fifth inscription round the shaft of Feroz's pillar," which appears for the first time in the July journal,) we have yet five* [We know of five, therefore three remain — the Bhittri may be a fragment of one; that at Bakrabad, and one near Ghazeepore are without inscriptions.— Ed. [J. Prinsep]] more similar columns to discover in India, I venture to suggest that you should publish my translation also, together with the text in the ancient character, transposed literatim from my romanized version. [To this we must demur: we have examined the greater part from perfect facsimiles, and cannot therefore consent to publish a version which we know to deviate materially from the original text.—ED. [J. Prinsep]] Future examiners of these monuments of antiquity will thus have the two versions to collate with the originals, and be able to decide which of the two admits of the closest approximation to the text.

In the present note I shall confine myself to a critical examination of the first sentence only of the northern inscription, which will serve to show how rigidly I have designed to adhere to the rules of the Pali grammar in my translation of these inscriptions; and then proceed to explain the historical authority I have recently discovered for identifying Piyadasi, the recorder of these inscriptions, with Dhammasoko, the supreme monarch of India, the convert to, and great patron of, Buddhism, in the fourth century before our era.

The first sentence of the northern inscription, after the name of the recorder and the specification of the year of his reign, I read thus:


Hidatapalite dusapatipadaye, ananta agaya dhanmakamataya, agaya parikhaya, agaya sasanaya, agena bhayena, agena usahena; esachakho mama anusathiya.


Although the orthography as well as syntax, of your reading, viz. hidatapalite dusan, and which you construe "the faults that have been cherished in my heart," are both defective, a slight and admissible alteration into "hadayapalite dose" would remove those objections, if other difficulties did not present themselves, which will be presently explained, and which, I fear, are insuperable.

The substantive "patipadaye," [The objection to consider patipadaye as a verb does not seem very consistent with the three examples given, all of which are verbs — patipajjamati (the double jj of which represents the Sanskrit dy not d) S. pratipadyama iti or in atmani pada amahe; — and twice, patipajjitubanti (S. Pratipadyatavyam iti). Pada is certainly the root of all; which with the prefix pati (S. prati) takes the neuter sense of 'to follow after (or observe);' while by lengthening the a, pada, it has the active or causal sense of to make observance, to declare, ('padyate, he goes, padayati or padayate, he makes to go,) the only alteration I bespoke was palate to palatam, to agree with dosam — but as the anuswara is very doubtful in the Allahabad copy, I incline to read (Sanskritice hidayatapalatah dosahpatipadaye, 'I declare (what was) the sin cherished in my heart' — with a view of course to renunciation. The substitution of u for o has many examples: — but I never pretended that the reading of this passage was satisfactory. — Ed. [J. Prinsep]] however, which you convert into a verb, does not, I am confident, in the Pali language, admit of the rendering "I acknowledge and confess" in the sense of renunciation. This word is derived from the root "pada" to proceed in, as in a journey;" and with the intensitive prefix "pati" invariably signifies "steadfast observance or adherence." With the prefix of collective signification "sam" the verb signifies "to acquire" or "to earn." I gave an instance in the July journal (p. 523), as the last words uttered by Buddho on his deathbed.

"Handadane", bhikkhawe", amantiyami wo: wayadhamma sankhara, appamadena sampadetha."

"Now, O Bhikkhus! I am about to conjure you (for the last time): perishable things are transitory; without procrastination earn (nibbanan.")


With the intensitive prefix 'pati,' the verb is to be found very frequently in the Buddhistical scriptures. The following example is also taken from the Parinibbanan sutan in the Dighanikayo, containing the discourses of Buddho delivered while reclining on his deathbed, under the sal trees at Kusinara. The interrogator Anando was his first cousin, and favorite disciple.

Kathan Mayan, Bhante, Matugame patipajjamati*? [By permutation d becomes jj, (rather dy. — Ed.) [J. Prinsep] Adassan, Anandati, Dassane, Bhagawa, kothan patipajjitabbanti? Analapo, Anandati, Alapantera, Bhante kathan patipajjitabbanti? Sati Ananda Upattha petabbati.

"Lord, how should we comfort ourselves in our intercourse with the fair sex? Anando! do not look at them. Bhagawa! having looked at them, what course should be pursued then? Anando! abstain from entering into conversation with them? In the course of (religious) communion (with them), Lord, what line of conduct ought to be observed? Under those circumstances, Anando! thou shouldst keep thyself guardedly composed."


It is evident, therefore, that the substantive "patipadaye" signifies "observance and adherence" and cannot be admitted to bear any signification which implies "renunciation."

It is almost immaterial whether the next word be the adjective "annata" or the adjective "ananta" — I prefer the latter. But "agaya," cannot possibly be the substantive "aghan" "sin," in the accusative case plural.

[Editor's FN:

My critic has here been misled by my looseness of translation— had he followed my Sanskrit, he would have seen that aghaya was never intended as an accusative plural of agham: I must parse and construe the whole, premising that the texts differ in regard to the final a of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th words, which in some copies of the Delhi inscription are long, while on the Allahabad facsimile they are all short. In the former case (the one I previously adopted) the reading is (Sanskritice.)
adj. fem. s. 5.
Anyata-aghaya

subs. fem. s. 5.
dharmakamataya,

sub. nt. s. 4
aghaya,

sub. fem. s. 5.
parikshaya,

ditto
aghaya

ditto,
susrusaya

3rd case
aghena

sub. s. 3
bhayena,

sub. s. 3
aghena utsahena,

pro. 1
esa —

sub. s. 1
chakshuh,

pro. 6
mama

verb pot. s. 3.
anustheyat

"from the all-else-sinful religion-desire, from examination to sin, from desire to listen to sin (sc. to hear it preached of) by sin-fear, by sin-enormity, — thus may the eye of me be confirmed."

In this translation I have preserved every case as in the Sanskrit, and I think it will be found that the same meaning is expressed in my first translation.

If the short a be preferred, the 5th case, kamataya and parikshaya, both feminine substantives must be changed to the 3rd, Sans. kamatayai and parikshayai (in Pali, kamataya and parikhaya) — and the sense will be only changed to "by the all-else-sinful desire of religion, — by the scrutiny into the nature of sin, &c. That kamata (not kama) is the feminine noun employed (formed like devata from deva) is certain: because the nominative case is afterwards introduced 'dharma-preksha, dharma kamata cha, &c. Mr. Turnour converts these into plural personal nouns, "the observers of dharma, the delighters in dharma" — but such an interpretation is both inconsistent with the singular verb (varddhisati), and with the expression suve suve (svayam svayam) 'each of itself '— I therefore see no reason to give up any part of my interpretation of the opening sentence of the inscription. — Ed. [J. Prinsep]]

End FN]

The absence of the aspirate would not be a serious objection, but "aghan*" [Aghan is said to be sometimes masculine, agho which makes aghe in the accusative plural. — Ed. [J. Prinsep]] is a neuter noun of the 12th declension. The accusative plural would be "agani or age" and not "agaya," which I read "agaya" the dative singular. In this sentence, this word occurs five times, varying in its inflections and gender to agree with the substantive with which it is connected in each instance; proving it therefore to be an adjective, and, I think, "aggo" "precious," which is here spelt with a single g in conformity with the principle on which all double consonants are represented by single ones in these inscriptions. "Dhanmakamataya" is a Samasa contraction of "dhammassa kamataya," and signifies "out of devotion to dhanmo" "kama" being a feminine noun of the seventh declension makes "kamataya" in the instrumental case, but "agaya-parikaya agaya sususaya," again though terminating in the same manner as kamataya, are in the dative case as sasusaya (which I read Sasanaya) is a neuter noun of the tenth, (?) declension; bhayena and usahena being, the one a neuter of the twelfth and the other a masculine noun of the first declension, both make their instrumental case in "ena." Without a precise knowledge of the Pali grammar, it is impossible to define when a case is dative and when instrumental. "Esachakho mama anusathiya," you translate, I find, "by these may my eyes be strengthened and confirmed (in rectitude)." The participial verb "anusathiya," could not, I imagine, be made to bear in Pali the signification you give it. The preposition "anu" signifies "following," "continuance," "in due order," when in composition with the root "sara" "to remember" (from which sathiya is derived), the compound term always means "to bear in remembrance" or "perpetuate the remembrance of." If there was any thing to be gained by preserving the "eyes" we might certainly with a trifling variation, read the passage "esa" chakhu mama anusathiya," hontu being understood, — "may my eyes perpetuate the remembrance of these (dhanma)." But I confess I prefer the reading of this passage as it appears in the inscription — "Esachakho mama anusathiya," — the verb "hessati" being understood, — and "esa" agreeing with "Dhanmalipi." "This (inscription on Dhanmo), moreover, will serve to perpetuate the remembrance of me." This rendering conveys a nobler sentiment, aspiring to more permanent fame, and is in close conformity also with the spirit of the last sentence in the fifth inscription.

I have still to dispose of the initial words "Hidatapalite dusan patipadayi." I acknowledge that I was at first entirely baffled by them. When I had completed the translation of all the four inscriptions, save these three words, I found that they were the edicts of an Indian monarch, a zealot in Buddhism? and from these columns being scattered over widely separated kingdoms of India, it appeared equally certain to me that a Rajadhiraja of India alone could be the author of them. As far as I was aware, two supreme monarchs alone of India had become converts to Buddhism, since the advent of Sakya. Dhanmasoko in the fourth century before Christ; and Pandu at the end of the third century of our era. I could hit upon no circumstance connected with the former ruler which availed me in interpreting these words. I then took up the Dhatadatuwanso, the history of the tooth relic, the only work, I believe, in Ceylon, which treats of Pandu. I there found, not only that his conversion had been brought about in consequence of the transfer of the tooth relic from Dantapura in the Northern Circars, then called Kalinga, to his capital Patilipura the modern Patna; but also met with several passages expressive of Pandu's sentiments strictly analagous with those contained in these inscriptions. This discovery, at the moment, entirely satisfied me, that these three hitherto undecipherable words should be read hi* [The alterations requisite to admit of that reading are trifling, and chiefly symbolic, in the ancient alphabet.] Dantapurato dasanan upadaye: the hi being an expletive of the preceding word, and the other words signifying "from Dantapura I have obtained the tooth relic."

Under this impression my former paper on these inscriptions was drawn up. My having subsequently ascertained that Piyadasi is Dhanmasoko does not necessarily vitiate this reading; for the tooth relic was at Dantapura during his reign also; and there is no reason why Dhanmasoko likewise should not have paid it the reverential honor of transferring it to his capital. But since I have read your translation, I have made out another solution of these words furnishing the signification you adopt, without incurring the apparent objections noticed above. The sentence written in extenso, divested of permutation of letters, and samasa contraction might be read; [This verb Hin is most frequently found in the participial form "hitwa."] Hin atana palite dusapatipadaye. "I have renounced the impious courses cherished by myself." "Hin" is derived from the root ha "to renounce," and is the Varassa form of the ajjatani tense. By the 35th rule of Clough's grammar, p. 13, when n precedes a vowel it is frequently suppressed, and m or d substituted in its place, as for "awan assa" is written "ewamassa" for "etan awocha," "etadawocha." By this rule, therefore, "Hin atana" would become "Hidatana." Again by the "Tapuriso" (Tatpurusya) rule (No. 19, p. 79) "atanapalite" would be contracted into "atapalite." The reading in extenso then becomes contracted into Hidatapalite." "Dosa'' from "du" signifies "impure or impious" and "patipadaye" as already explained are "observances or actions in life." My reading therefore of the entire sentence is now "I have renounced the impious observances cherished by myself — out of innumerable and inestimable motives of devotion to Dhanmo, and out of reverential awe and devout zeal for the precious religion which confers inestimable protection. This (inscription on Dhanmo), moreover, will serve to perpetuate the remembrance of me."

I proceed now to give my authority for pronouncing Piyadasi to be Dhanmasoko.

From a very early period, extending back certainly to 800 years, frequent religious missions have been mutually sent to each other's courts, by the monarchs of Ceylon and Siam, on which occasions an exchange of the Pali literature extant in either country appears to have taken place. In the several Solean and Pandian conquests of this island, the literary annals of Ceylon were extensively and intentionally destroyed. The savage Rajasingha in particular, who reigned between A.D. 1581 and 1592, and became a convert from the Buddhistical to the Brahmanical faith, industriously sought out every Buddhistical work he could find, and "delighted in burning them in heaps as high as a cocoanut tree." These losses were in great measure repaired by the embassy to Siam of Wilbagadere Mudiyanse, in the reign of Kirtisri Rajasingha in A.D. 1753, when he brought back Burmese versions of most of the Pali sacred books, a list of which is now lodged in the Dalada temple in Kandy.

The last mission of this character, undertaken however without any royal or official authority, was conducted by the chief priest of the Challia or cinnamon caste of the maritime provinces, then called Kapagama thero. He returned in 1812 with a valuable library, comprising also some historical and philological works. Some time after his return, under the instructions of the late Archdeacon of Ceylon, the Honorable Doctor Twisleton, and of the late Rev. G. Bisset, then senior colonial chaplain, Kapagama became a Convert to Christianity, and at his baptism assumed the name of George Nadoris de Silva, and he is now a modliar or chief of the cinnamon department at Colombo. He resigned his library to his senior pupil, who is the present chief priest of the Challias, and these books are chiefly kept at the wihare at Dadala near Galle. This conversion appears to have produced no estrangement or diminution of regard between the parties.
It is from George Nadoris, modliar, that I received the Burmese version of the Tika of the Mahawanso, which enabled me to rectify extensive imperfections in the copy previously obtained from the ancient temple at Mulgirigalla, near Tangalle.


In the Journal of December last, I have mentioned the circumstances under which I obtained possession of a Pali copy of the Dipawanso, in a very imperfect state, written in the Burmese character.

-- An Analysis of the Dipawanso: An examination of the Pali Buddhistical Annals, No. 4, by the Honorable George Turnour, Esq., Ceylon Civil Service, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, November, 1838 (p. 930).


Some time ago the modliar suggested to me that I was wrong in supposing the Mahawanso and the Dipawanso to be the same work, as he thought he had brought the Dipawanso himself from Burmah. I was sceptical. In my last visit, however, to Colombo, he produced the book, with an air of triumph. His triumph could not exceed my delight when I found the work commenced with these lines quoted by the author of the Mahawanso* [Vide in the quarto edition the introduction to the Mahawanso, page xxxi.] as taken from the Mahawanso (another name for Dipawanso) compiled by the priests of the Utaru wihare at Anuradhapura, the ancient capital of Ceylon. "I will perspicuously set forth the visits of Buddho to Ceylon; the histories of the convocations and of the schisms of the theros; the introduction of the religion (of Buddho) into the island; and the settlement and pedigree of the sovereign Wijayo."

In cursorily running over the book, at the opening of the sixth Bhanawaro or chapter, which should contain the history of Dhammasoko, I found the lines quoted from my note to you in page 791.

This Dipawanso extends to the end of the reign of Mahasino, which closed in A.D. 302. As the Mahawanso, which quotes from this work, was compiled between A.D. 459 and 477, the Dipawanso must have been written between those two epochs. I have only cursorily run over the early chapters to the period where the Indian history terminates without collecting from that perusal any new matter, not found embodied either in the Mahawanso or its Tika [commentary], excepting the valuable information above mentioned, and a series of dates defining the particular year of each sovereign's reign, in which the several hierarchs of the Buddhistical church died, down to Moggaliputtatisso the chief priest who presided at the third convocation in the reign of Dhammasoko. These dates may remove some of the incongruities touched upon in my second paper on Buddhistical annals.

This Burmese copy, however, of the Dipawanso is very imperfect. Each Bhanawaro ought to contain 250 verses. Several chapters fall short of this complement; and, in some, the same passage is repeated two and even three times.

It will be highly desirable to procure, if possible, a more perfect copy, together with its commentary, (either Tika or Atthakatha) from the Burmese empire.

On my return to Kandy, and production of the Dipawanso to the Buddhist priests, who are my coadjutors in these researches, they reminded me that there was a Pali work on my own shelves, which also gave to Dhanmasoko, the appellation of Piyadaso. The work is chiefly in prose, and held in great estimation for the elegance of its style: hence called "Rasawahini" — "sweetly flowing" or the "harmonious stream."


The Singhalese version, of which this Pali work is a translation, was of great antiquity, and is no longer extant. The present copies in that language are merely translations of this Pali edition. I am not able to fix the date of this Pali version, as the author does not give the name of the sovereign in whose reign he flourished — but the period is certainly subsequent to A.D. 477, as he quotes frequently from the Mahawanso. The author only states, that this work is compiled by Koratthapalo, the pious and virtuous incumbent of the Tanguttawankapariweno attached to the Mahawiharo (at Anuradhapura); and that he translates it from an ancient Singhalese work, avoiding only the defects of tautology and its want of perspicuity.


In one of the narratives of this book, containing the history of Dhanmasoko, of Asandhimitta his first consort after his accession to the Indian empire, of his nephew Nigrodho, by whom he was converted to Buddhism, and of his contemporary and ally Dewananpiyatisso, the sovereign of Ceylon, — Dhanmasoko is more than once called Piyadaso, viz.:

"Madhudayako pana wanijo Dewalokato chawitwa, Pupphapure rajakule uppajitwa Piyadaso kumaro hutwa chhattan ussapetwa sakala-jambadipa eka-rajjan akasi*." [Vide page 24 of the Mahawanso for an explanation of this passage.]

"The honey-dealer who was the donor thereof (to the Pache Buddho) descending by his demise from the Dewaloko heavens; being born in the royal dynasty at Pupphapura (or Patilipura, Patna); becoming the prince Piyadaso and raising the chhatta, [Parasol of dominion.] established his undivided sovereignty over the whole of Jambudipo'' — and again —

"Anagate Piyadaso, nama kumaro chhattan ussapetwa Asoka nama Dhanma Raja bhawissati."

"Hereafter the prince Piyadaso having raised the chhatta, will assume the title of Asoka the Dhanma Raja, or righteous monarch."


It would be unreasonable to multiply quotations which I could readily do, for pronouncing that Piyadaso, Piyadasino [Piyadassino is the genitive case of Piyadasi, [x]: — Ed. [J. Prinsep]] or Piyadasi, according as metrical exigencies required the appellation to be written, was the name of Dhanmasoko before he usurped the Indian empire; and it is of this monarch that the amplest details are found in Pali annals. The 5th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th chapters of the Mahawanso contain exclusively the history of this celebrated ruler, and there are occasional notices of him in the Tika of that work, which also I have touched upon in my introduction to that publication. He occupies also a conspicuous place in my article No. 2, on Buddhistical annals. His history may be thus summed up.

He was the grandson of Chandagutto (Sandracottus) and son of Bindusaro who had a numerous progeny, the issue of no less than sixteen consorts. Dhanmasoko, who had but one uterine brother, named Tisso, appears to have been of a turbulent and ambitious character; Bindusaro consigned him to an honorable banishment by conferring on him the government of Ujjeni (Oujein)* [Introduction to the Mahawanso, p. xlii.] "in his apprehension arising from a rumour which had prevailed that he (Asoko) would murder his own father; and being therefore desirous of employing him at a distance, established him at Ujjeni, conferring the government of that kingdom on him."

While administering that government he formed a connection with Chetiya Dewi a princess of Chetiyagiri, and had by her a son and daughter, Mahindo and Sanghamitta, who followed their father to Patilipura, subsequently entered into the sacerdotal order, and were the missionaries who converted Ceylon to Buddhism. Chetiya Dewi herself returned to her native city. On his death-bed, Bindusaro sent a "letter" recalling him to his capital, Patilipura. He hastened thither, and as soon as his parent expired, put all his brothers, excepting Tisso, to death, and usurped the empire. He raised Tisso to the dignity of Uparaja, — which would appear to be the recognition of the succession to the throne.

In the 4th year after his accession, being the year of Buddho 218, and before Christ 325, [The second paper on "Buddhistical Annals" notices the discrepancy of about 60 years between this date, and that deduced from the date of European classical authors connected with Alexander's invasion.] he was inaugurated, or anointed king. In the 3rd year of his inauguration, he was converted to Buddhism by the priest Nigrodho the son of his eldest murdered brother, Sumano. In the 4th year Tisso resigned his succession to the empire, and became a priest. In the 6th, Mahindo and Sanghamitta also entered into the sacerdotal order. In the 17th the third convocation was held, and missionaries were dispatched all over Asia to propagate Buddhism. In the 18th, Mahindo arrived in Ceylon, and effected the conversion of the Ceylonese monarch Dewananpiyatisso and the inhabitants of this island. In the same year Sanghamitta, the bo-tree and relics were sent by him to Ceylon. In the 30th, his first consort espoused after his accession, Asandhimitta, who was zealously devoted to Buddhism, died; and three years thereafter he married his second wife. He reigned 37 years.

The five short insulated lines at the foot of the Allahabad pillar, having reference to this second empress, is, by its position in the column, a signal evidence of the authenticity, and mutual corroboration of these inscriptions and the Pali annals. As Dhanmasoko married her in the 34th year of his reign, she could not have been noticed in the body of the inscriptions which were recorded on the 27th. I fear we do not yet possess a correct transcript of these five lines*.
[See page 966 which had not reached the author when the above was written. — Ed. [J. Prinsep]]


The five short lines in the old character that follow the Dharmalipi at a short distance below (see Capt. Burt's lithograph) were the next object of my inspection, I have represented what remains of them faithfully in fig. 1, of PI. LVI. which will be seen to differ considerably from Lieut. Burt's copy of the same. The reading is now complete and satisfactory in lines 1, 2, and 5. The 3rd and 4th lines are slightly effaced on the right hand. We can also now construe them intelligibly, though in truth the subject seems of a trivial nature to be so gravely set forth.
Devanampiyasa vachanena savata mahamata
Vataviya: Eheta dutiyaye deviye rane
Ambavadika va alameva danam: Ehevapati. . .
Kichhiganiya titiye deviye senani sava. . .
Dutiyaye deviyeti ti valamatu karuvakiye

'By the mandate of Devanampiya, at all times the great truth (Mahamata* [See page 574. In Sanskrit [x] (or perhaps rather [x] by his desiring, wishing) [x] (fit or proper to be said,) meaning perhaps that this object had been provided for by pecuniary endowment.]) is appointed to be spoken. These also, (namely) mango-trees and other things are the gift of the second princess (his) queen. [[x].] And these for. . . of Kichhigani the third princess, the general (daughter's . . . ?) Of the second lady thus let the act redound with triple force [[x], corresponding as nearly as the construction of the two languages will allow.].

Unable to complete the sentence regarding the third queen, it is impossible to guess why the second was to enjoy so engrossing a share of the credit of their joint munificence, unless she did the whole in the name and on the behalf of them all! — It will be interesting to inquire whether by any good chance the name of queen Kichhigani is to be found in the preserved records of Asoka's reign, which are so circumstantial in many particulars. It is evident the Buddhist monarch enjoyed a plurality of wives after his conversion, and that they shared in his religious zeal.

THE QUEEN’S EDICT AT ALLAHABAD.
Prinsep, p. 966 and ff.

TEXT.

1 Dêvânampiyasa vachanêna savata mahâmatâ
2 vataviyâ [ . ] ê hêta dutîyâyê dêviye dâ[?]nê
3 ambâvadikâ vâ âlamê va dâna ê hêvâ êtasi amnê
4 kichhi ganîyati tâyê dêviyê sê nâni sava
5 dutiyâyê dêviyê ti tîvalamâta kâluvâniyê

NOTES.

Although General Cunningham does not express himself on this point with all the clearness which one would desire, it appears to me to be certain, as Prinsep practically admitted, that these five lines preserve for us the commencement only of an inscription which the detrition of the stone interrupts from the sixth line. Has this detrition made itself felt in the fifth line? We shall at least see that, according to my opinion, and so far as one can judge from a single portion of a sentence, the reading of the last few words require much more correction than the rest of the fragment. On the other hand, I see no necessity for assuming that the lines which have come down to us are themselves incomplete, as Prinsep supposed with regard to the fourth. In any case, there can be no hope here of a really certain translation, but there are at least some details which can be rectified with confidence, and the Queen Kichhigani, for example, re-enters into that non-existence, from which she should never have emerged....

TRANSLATION.

Here followeth the order directed by command of the [king] dear unto the Devas to the Mahâmâtras of all localities: — For every gift made by the second queen, a gift of a mango-orchard, of a garden, as well as of every article of value found therein, [it is right to do honour] to the queen, whose religious zeal and charitable spirit will be recognised, while one says, — ‘all this comes from the second queen * * *.

-- The inscriptions of Piyadasi: The Columnar Edicts; The Separate Edicts; The Author and Languages of the Edicts, by Emile Senart, Translated by G.A. Grierson, B.C.S., and revised by the author, 1892


As for the interlineation, it may be dismissed with a very few words. Instead of being a paraphrase or translation of the ancient text as from its situation had been conjectured, it is merely a series of unconnected scribblings of various dates, cut in most likely by the attendants on the pillar as a pretext for exacting a few rupees from visitors,—and while it was in a recumbent position. In the specimen of a line or two in plate LVI. the date Samvat 1413 is seen along with the names of Gopala putra, Dhanara Singh and others undecipherable. In plate LV. also may be seen a Bengali name with Nagari date 1464 and a bottle-looking symbol; and another below [x] Samvat 1661 Dhamaraja. These may be taken as samples of the rest which it would be quite waste of time to examine.

It is a singular fact that the periods at which the pillar has been overthrown can be thus determined with nearly as much certainty from this desultory writing, as can the epochs of its being re-erected from the more formal inscriptions recording the latter event. Thus, that it was overthrown, sometime after its first erection as a Silasthambha or religious monument by order of the great Asoka in the third century before Christ, is proved by the longitudinal or random insertion of several names (of visitors ?) in a character intermediate between No. 1. and No. 2. in which the m, b, &c. retain the old form, as in the Gujerat grants dated in the third century of the Samvat. Of these I have selected all I can find on the pillar:—they are easily read as far as they go. Thus No. 7, under the old inscription in Plate LVI. is [x] narasa. It was read as Baku tate in the former copy. No. 8 is nearly effaced: No. 9 may be Malavadi ro lithakandar (?) prathama dharah. The first depositor of something ? No. 10, is a name of little repute: [x] ganikakasya, 'of the patron of harlots.' No. 11 is clearly [x] Narayana. No. 12,[x] Chandra Bhat. No. 13 appears to be halachha seramal. And No. 14 is not legible though decidedly in the same type.

Now it would have been exceedingly inconvenient if not impossible to have cut the name, No. 10, up and down at right angles to the other writing while the pillar was erect, to say nothing of the place being out of reach, unless a scaffold were erected on purpose, which would hardly be the case since the object of an ambitious visitor would be defeated by placing his name out of sight and in an unreadable position.

This epoch seems to have been prolific of such brief records:
it had become the fashion apparently to use seals and mottos; for almost all (certainly all the most perfect) yet discovered have legends in this very character. One in possession of Mr. B. Elliott of Patna, has the legend lithographed as fig. 15, which may be read [x] Sri Lokanavasya, quasi 'the boatman of the world.' General Ventura has also brought down with him some beautiful specimens of seals of the same age, which I shall take an early opportunity of engraving and describing.

Image
Selections From the Allahabad Column

But to return from this digression. The pillar was re-erected as 'Samudra gupta's arm' in the fourth or fifth century, and there it probably remained until overthrown again by the idol-breaking zeal of the Musalmans: for we find no writings on it of the Pala or Sarnath type, (i.e. the tenth century), but a quantity appear with plain legible dates from the Samvat year 1420, (A.D. 1363) down to 1660, odd: and it is remarkable that these occupy one side of the shaft, or that which was uppermost when the pillar was in a prostrate position. There it lay, then, until the death of the Emperor Akber; immediately after which it was once more set up to commemorate the accession (and the genealogical descent) of his son Jehangir.

A few detached and ill executed Nagari names, with Samvat dates of 1800, odd, shew that even since it was laid on the ground again by general Garstin, the passion for recording visits of piety or curiosity has been at work, and will only end with the approaching re-establishment of the pillar in its perpendicular pride under the auspices of the British government.


-- VII. Note on the Facsimiles of the various Inscriptions on the ancient column at Allahabad, retaken by Captain Edward Smith, Engineers, by James Prinsep, Sec. As. Soc. &c. &c., The Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. VI, Part II, July to December, 1837.


The passage in the Mahawanso which refers to this queen is curious, and may hereafter assist the correct translation of these five lines. I therefore insert it.

1 Attharasahi wassamhi Dhammasokassa Rajino Mahamegha-wanarame mahabodhi patitthahi.
2 Tato dwadasame wasse mahesi tassa rajino piya Asandhimitta sa mata Sambuddhamamika.
3 Tato chatutthawassamhi, Dhammasoko mahipati tassarakkhan mahesitte thapesi wosama sayan,
4 Tatotu totiye wasse sabalarupamanini "mayapicha ayan raja mahabodhin mamayati,"
5 Iti kodhawasan gantwa, attanotattha karika mandukantakayogena mahabodhimaghatayi.
6 Tato chatutthe wassamhi Dhammasoko mahayaso anichchatawasampatto: sattatinsosama ima.

"In the eighteenth year of the reign of Dhammasoko, the bo-tree was planted in the Mahamegawano's pleasure garden, (at Anuradhapura). In the twelfth year from that period, the beloved wife of that monarch, Asandhimitta, who had identified herself with the faith of Buddho, died. In the fourth year (from her demise), the raja Dhammasoko, under the influence of carnal passions, raised to the dignity of queen consort, an attendant of her's (his former wife's). In the third year from that date, this malicious and vain creature who thought only of the charms of her own person, saying, "this king, neglecting me, lavishes his devotion exclusively on the bo-tree," — in her rage (attempted to) destroy the great bo with the poisoned fang of a toad. In the fourth year from that occurrence, this highly gifted monarch, Dhammasoko, fulfilled the lot of mortality. These years collectively amount to thirty-seven."


I have not had time to examine the fifth inscription round the Delhi column carefully, and I apprehend that the transcript is not altogether perfect yet. The last line and half of this inscription, I should be disposed to read thus:

"Etan Dawananpiya aha; iyan dhanmalibi ata ahasilathambani, Wisalittha-lekhaniwa tata kantawiya: ena esa chirathikasiya." In the Pali considered the most classical in Ceylon, the sentence would be written as follows: Etan Dewananpiya aha: iyan dhanmalipi atha atthasilathambani Wesalittha-lekhaniwa tatha (tatha) kata; tena esa chiratthitika siya.

"Dewananpiya delivered this (injunction). Thereafter eight stone columns have been erected in different quarters like the inscriptions on Dhanmo established at Wesali. By this means this (inscription) will be perpetuated forever."




If this reading be correct*, [This reading involves so many alterations of the text that I must demur to it, especially as on re-examination I find it possible to improve my own reading so as to render it (in my own opinion at least) quite unobjectionable. The correction I allude to is in the reading of atha, which from the greater experience I have now gained of the equivalents of particular letters, I am inclined to read as the Sanskrit verb astat (Pial atha). — The whole sentence Sanskritized will be found to differ in nothing from the Pali — except in that stambha is masculine in the former and neuter in the latter: — and that the verb kataviya is required to agree with it. Iyam dharmalipi ata astat, sila-stambha (ni)va siladharika(ni)va tatah kartaviya (ni), ena (or yena) esha chirasthiti syat. "In order that this religious edict may stand (remain), stone pillars and stone slabs (or receptacles) shall be accordingly prepared;— by which the same may endure unto remote ages." Atha might certainly be read as ashto eight, but the construction of the sentence is thereby much impaired, and further it is unlikely that any definite number should be fixed upon, without a parallel specification of the places where they should be erected. — Ed. [J. Prinsep]] as I have said before, we have still five more of these columns to discover in India.

I would wish to notice here that there are several errata in the Pali quotations in the July journal occasioned, probably, by the indistinction of the writing of my copyist. I mention this merely to prevent Pali scholars from inferring that those errata are peculiarities in the orthography of that language as known in Ceylon. For instance in page 586, you quote me as translating Viyodhanma "perishable things," whereas the words ought to have been "Waya-dhanma."

The inscription fronting north (as corrected by Mr. Turnour.)

1. Dewananpiya Pandu so raja hewanaha Sattawisati
2. wasa abhisitena me iyan danmalipi likhapita-
3. hi. Dantapurato Dasanan upadayin, ananta agaya danmakamataya
4. agayaparikhaya, agayasasanaya, agena bhayena,
5. agenanusahena; esachakho mama amisathiya.
6. Dhanmapekha, dhanmakamatacha, suwe suwe, wadhita. wadhisantichewa.
7. Purisapicha me, rakusacha, gawayacha matimacha anuwidhiyantu
8. sanpatipadayantucha, aparanchaparancha samadayitwa hemewa anta
9. mahamatapi. E'sahiwidhi ya iyan, dhanmena palita, dhanmena widhins
10. dhanmena sikhayata, dhanmena galili." Dewananpiya Pandu so raja
11. hewan aha: "Dhanmo sadhukiyancha dhanmeti. Apasananwa bahukan yani
12. dayadani sache sochaye chakhudanepi me bahuwidhadinno? Dipada-
13. chatupadesa pariwaracharesu wiwidheme anugahe kate; A pane
14. dakhineye ananipicha me bahuni kayanani katani. Etaya me
15. athaya iyan dhanmalipi likhapita hewan anupatipajatu; chiran
16. thitakache hotiti. Yocha hewan sanpatipajisati, sesakatan karontiti!"
17. Dewananpiya Pandu so raja hewan aha: "'Kayananmewa dakhati iyan me
18. 'kayanokatoti' no papan dakhati: iyan me 'papokatoti' iyanwa 'adinawa'
19. namati. Dupachawekhochakho esa, ewanchakho esa dakhiye; ima na
20. adinawagamininama. Athacha dine, nithuliye, kodhamane, isu-
21. ke, lenanawhake, maralabhasayase, esabadhadikha, iyan me-
22. pi dinakaye, iyan manan me paratikaye.


The inscription fronting East.

1. Dewananpiya Pandu so raja hewan aha. "Sattawisati
2. wasa abhisitena me iyan dhanmalipi likhapita. Lokasa
3. hitasukhaya satan apahatatta dhanmawudhi. Papowa
4. hewan lokasa hitan wakhati. Pachawekhama athan iyan.
5. Nitesu hewan patiya santesu, hewan apikathesu,
6. kamakani sukha awhamiti. Tathachewan dahami hemewa-
7. sewanikayesu pachuwekhami. Sewa Pasandhapi me pujanti
8. wiwidhaya pujaya. Ichin iyan atana pachupagamane
9. samamokhiyamate. Sattawisati wasa abhisitena me
10. iyan dhanmalipi likhapita."
11. Dewananpiya Pandu so raja hewan aha. "Yo atikanta-
12. antare rajane posehewa irisa kathan jane.
13. Dhanmawadhiye wadheya; nocha jane anurupaya dhanmawadhiya
14. wadhitha" Etan Dewananpiya Pandu so raja hewan aha. "Esama-
15. puthan atikantecha antare hewan irisa rajane, kathan jane?
16. anurupaya dhanmawadhiya wadhayeti? Rochojano anurupaya
17. dhanmawadhiya wadhetha sekinapujane anupatipajaye.
18. Karasujana anurupaya dhanmawadhiya, wadhiyanti; kanasukani
19. atthamayehi ramawadhiyanti. Etan Dewananpiya Pandu so hewan
20. aha "esame" puthan dhanmasewanena sewaye. Me dhanmanusatane
21. anusesemi. Etan jana sutan anupattipajipata achan namasata."


The Inscription fronting South.

1. Dewananpiya Pandu so raja hewan aha. "Sattawisati wasa
2. abbisitena me, imani satani awadhiyani kathani-seyatha-
3. suke, sirika, arane, chakawake, hansa, nandimukha, gorathe,
4. jatuka, aba, kapareka, datti, anthikamawe, wedaweyaka,
5. gangapuputhaka, sankajamawe, kadhathasagaka, panarase, simare,
6. sandike, rokapada, parasate, setskapote, gamakapote,
7. save, chatupade, yepi; luddagano ete nachakkadiyatu.
8. Elakacha, sukarecha, gabbaniwapayiminawa, awadhiyapentu ke-
9. pichakena; ansamansike wadhikakathe no kathawiye: tase sajiwe
10. nottipatawiye: dawe anatayewa wihasiyewa, nottipatawiye,
11. jiwenajiwene positawiye. Tisu chatumasisu tisayan punamasiyan,
12. tinidiwasani, chuddasan, pannarasan patipadiye, dhuweyecha
13. Anuposatte, mare awadhiye nopi, wiketawiye. Etaniyewa diwasani
14. nagawanepi, kwatha, dugasiani, annanipi jiwanikayani
15. no hantawiyani. Atthamipakhaye, chawudasiye panarasiye tasaye
16. punawasane tisu chatumasisu, sudiwasaye, gonanuna rakhitawiye
17. ajake, elake, sukare ewanpi anne nirakhiyatane, nirakhitawiye.
18. Tisaye punawasaye chatumasiye chatumasapakhaye apawasa gonasan-
19. rakhate no kathawiye. Yawa sattawisati wasa abhisitena me, etaye
20. antarikaye pana wisati bandhanamokhani katani."


The Inscription fronting West.

1. Dewananpiya Pandu so raja hewan aha. "Sattawisati wasa
2. abhisitena me, iyan dhanmalipi likhapita. Rajjaka me
3. bahusu panasatasahasesu janesuayanti. Tesan yo abhipare
4. dandawe atapati, ye me kathi kin? Te rajjaka aswata abhita
5. kinmani, pawatayewun janasa janapadasa hitasukan rupadahewun;
6. anugahenewacha, sukhiyana dukhiyana janisanti; dhanmaya te nacha-
7. wiyewa disanti janan janapadan. Kin tehi attancha paratancha
8. aradhayewun? Te rajjaka parusata patacharitawe man purisanipime
9. * [The letter chh is read as r throughout; and the letter u as ru.— Ed. [J. Prinsep]] rodhanani paticharisanti; tepi chakkena wiyowadisanti ye na me rajjaka
10. charanta arundhayitawe, athahi pajanwiya taye dhatiya nisijita;
11. aswatheratiwiya ta dhati, charanta me pajan sukhan parihathawe.
12. Hewan mama rajjaka kate, janapadasa pitasukhaye; yena ete abhita
13. aswatha satan awamana, kamani pawateyewuti. Etena me rajjakanan
14. abhikarawadandawe atapatiye katke, iritawyehi esakiti
15. wiyoharasamuticha siya. Dandasamatacha, awaitepicha, me awute,
16. bandhana budhanan manusanan tiritadandinan patawadhanan,tinidiwasani, me
17. Yutte dinne, nitikarikani niripayihantu, Jiwitaye tanan
18. nasantanwa niripayantu: danan dahantu: pahitakan rupawapanwa karontu.
19. Irichime hewan nira dhasipi karipiparatan aradhayewapi: janasacha
20. wadhati: wiwidhadanmacharane; sayame danasan wibhagoti." [By comparing this version with that published in July, it will be seen to what extent the license of altering letters has been exercised. The author has however since relinquished the change of the Raja's name, in consequence of his happy discovery of Piyadasi's identity.— Ed. [J. Prinsep]]


Translation of the Inscription fronting North.

The raja Pandu, who is the delight of the dewos, has thus said.

"This inscription on Dhanmo is recorded by me who have attained the  twenty-seventh year of my inauguration. From Dantapura, I have obtained the tooth (relic of Buddho), out of innumerable and inestimable motives of devotion to Dhanmo, — with the reverential awe, and devout zeal (due) to the precious religion which confers inestimable protection. This (inscription), moreover, may serve to perpetuate the remembrance of me.

"Those who are observant of Dhanmo, and delight in Dhanmo, growing in grace, from day to day, will assuredly prosper. Let my courtiers, guards, herdsmen, and learned men, duly comprehend, and fully conform to (the same) uniting (to themselves) all classes, the rich and the poor, as well as the grandees of the land. A course such as this, sustained by Dhanmo, inculcated by Dhanmo, and sanctified by Dhanmo, is the path (prescribed) by Dhanmo."

The raja Pandu, who is the delight of the dewos, has thus said.

"Thus this Dhanmo is most excellent in its righteousness."

Wherefore should I who have been a charitable donor, in various ways, grieve (to bestow) charitable gifts, whether it be a little food, or a great offering, or even the sacrifice of my eyes? To bipeds and quadrupeds, as well as those employed  in my service, various acts of benevolence have been performed by me; and at the Apana (hall of offerings) to those worthy of offerings, by me, both food and other articles, involving great expenditure, have been provided.

"Let it be duly understood that this inscription has been recorded by me with this object, as well as that it should endure for ages. Would but one person fully conform thereto, what would (not) the rest do!"

The raja Pandu, who is the delight of the dewos, has thus said.

"(It may be said) 'this (dispensation) appears to be prodigality itself;' or of me 'he is addicted to prodigality.' That would not appear to us to be an act of impiety; or this, of me, 'he is a sinner;' or this, 'he is a miscreant,' or any such reproaches. The evil designing man (may say) these things, and such a person may represent them so, but they are not the road to (do not inflict) degradation."

"Moreover, by my contemplating the distresses affecting the poor, the unfortunate, the resentful, the proud, the envious, those bent with age, and those on the eve of becoming a prey to death, — (that contemplation) would produce in me a due sense of commiseration towards the destitute."


The Inscription fronting East.

The raja Pandu, who is the delight of the dewos, has thus said.

"This inscription on Dhanmo has been recorded by me who have attained the twenty-seventh year of my inauguration. Dhanmo prevails for the happiness and welfare of mankind; as well as to prevent the forfeiture of their salvation. Even the sinner would admit, that it (is essential for) the happiness of mankind. Let us, therefore, steadfastly contemplate this truth. While righteous men thereby become devoted to charity, and are bent on discoursing (thereon), let me encourage their benevolent proceedings. In like manner, let me extend my solicitude towards the wealthy; and let me be specially regardful of the multitudes under my sway. Even my Pasandhi subjects present me with various tributes. I formed this resolve, under the conviction of the supreme beatitude, (resulting) from an individual himself setting an example."

The raja Pandu, who is the delight of the dewos, has thus said.

"This inscription on Dhanmo is recorded by me who have attained the twenty-seventh year of my inauguration — should any person, after the extinction of my regal authority, learn from my subjects themselves, such a precept as this, he would prosper by the grace of Dhanmo; should he not acquire that knowledge, he (cannot) prosper by the orthodox Dhanmo." The raja Pandu, who is the delight of the dewos, has thus asked this (query). "He, who after the extinction of my authority, would not acquire this knowledge, how should he learn these royal mandates? how can he prosper by the orthodox Dhanmo? The well disposed person, (who) has prospered by the orthodox Dhanmo, would evince gratitude for the benevolence of his benefactors. (All) conforming, good men prosper by the orthodox Dhanmo, and realize the bliss of the eight heavens." The raja Pandu, who is the delight of the dewos, has declared this also. "He who attends to this precept of mine, would by the observance of Dhanmo lead a righteous life. Let me also, by the observance of Dhanmo, attain an exalted station (of righteousness). The inhabitants at large, who conform to this edict, (will) eschew evil."


Translation of the Inscription fronting South.

The raja Pandu, who is the delight of the dewos, has thus said.

"By me, who have attained the twenty-seventh year of my inauguration, these animals have been forbid to be killed, — namely, parrots and mainas (gracula religiosa) in the wilderness; the brahmany duck (anas casaca); the goose (rather the mythological and fabulous "hansa''); the nandimuka (supposed to be the fabulous "kinnari"); the golden maina (turdus salica,); the bat, the crane, the blue pigeon, the gallinuli, the sankagamawe, wedaweyaka, the gangapuputhaka, the sankagamawe, the kadhathasayaka, the panarase, the simare, the sandike, the rokapada, the parasate, the white dove, and the village dove, as well as all quadrupeds. These, let not the tribe of huntsmen eat. For the same reason, let not 8heepand goats which are fed with stored provender, be slaughtered by any one; and those who are accustomed to receive a portion of the meat (of animals killed) should no longer enter into engagements to have them slaughtered on those terms; nor should ferocious animals either be destroyed; neither in sporting or in any other mode, nor even as a merriment, should they be killed: (on the contrary) by one living creature, other living creatures should be cherished. During (all) the three seasons of the year, on the full moon day of their (lunar months) as well as on these three days, the fourteenth, the fifteenth, and the first (of each moiety of the lunar months) (each of) these being days of religious observance, not only the agonies of slaughtering, but selling also should not be allowed. During these days, at least, on the mountain, in the wilderness, and everywhere, even the multitudes of the various species of animals which may be found disabled, should not be killed. During the three seasons, on the eighth, the fourteenth and the fifteenth (of each moiety of the lunar month) being the holy days devoted to deeds of piety, oxen, goats, sheep and pigs, which are ordinarily kept confined, as also the other species which are not kept confined, should not be restrained. Nor should it even be hinted, on the holydays of the four months of each of the seasons, that the stalled oxen even should be kept confined. By me, who have attained the twenty-seventh year of my inauguration, during the course of that period, living creatures have been released from the twenty evils (literally restraints) to which they were subjected."


The Inscription fronting West.

The raja Pandu, who is the delight of the dewos, has thus said.

"This inscription on Dhanmo is recorded by me in the twenty-seventh year of my inauguration. My public functionaries intermingle among many hundred thousands of living creatures, as well as human beings. If any one of them, should inflict injuries on the most alien of these beings, what advantage would there be in this my edict? (On the other hand) should these functionaries follow a line of conduct tending to allay alarm, they would confer prosperity and happiness on the people as well as on the country; and by such a benevolent procedure, they will acquire a knowledge of the condition both of the prosperous and of the wretched; and will, at the same time, prove to the people and the country that they have not departed from Dhanmo. Why should they inflict an injury either on a countryman of their own or on an alien? Should my functionaries act tyrannically, my people, loudly lamenting, will be appealing to me; and will appear also to have become alienated, (from the effects of orders enforced) by royal authority. Those ministers of mine, who proceed on circuit, so far from inflicting oppressions, should henceforth cherish them, as the infant in arms is cherished by the wet-nurse; and those experienced circuit ministers, moreover, like unto the wet-nurse, should watch over the welfare of my child (the people). In such a procedure, my ministers would ensure perfect happiness to my realm."

"By such a course, these (the people) released from all disquietudes, and most fully conscious of their security, would devote themselves to their avocations. By the same procedure, on its being proclaimed that the grievous power of my ministers to inflict tortures is abolished, it would prove a worthy subject of joy, and be the established compact (law of the laud). Let the criminal judges and executioners of sentences, (in the instances) of persons committed to prison, or who are sentenced to undergo specific punishments, without my special sanction, continue their judicial investigation for three days, till my decision be given. Let them also as regards the welfare of living creatures, attend to what affects their conservation, as well as their destruction: let them establish offerings: let them set aside animosity.

Hence those who observe, and who act up to these precepts would abstain from afflicting another. To the people also many blessings will result by living in Dhanmo. The merit resulting from charity would spontaneously manifest itself."
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Articles & Essays

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests