Dates for Emperor Ashoka

[Bijoy Misra]

Friends,

Prof Ashok Aklujkar and his wife Vidyut Aklujkar visited Boston last week in connection with

Annual Meeting of the American Oriental Society.  We arranged a lecture at the local

Massachusetts Institute of Technology last Saturday evening..  He spoke about dating Ashoka 

from the available evidence.  It was a tutorial for me to learn how the dating the Indian history 

has been extrapolated with serious flaws. Regarding Emperor Ashoka's dates, his observation 

was based on five key points:

1.  Most inscriptions are in odd locations and would unlikely to appear as royal decrees 

     as has been postulated.

2.  The writings are dissimilar and should be interpreted as post-Ashoka.

3.  "devAanam priyah"  is a phrase normally associated as a post-death salutation.

4.   Association of Chandragupta to Greek records might not be fool-proof.

5.   Al Beruni's India contains information for finding the dates. 

His conclusion was Ashoka's dates could go back at least five hundred years than what is

currently accepted.  I have asked a colleague to create a report. I will post when ready. 

I am reminded of a discussion here on dating the Buddha at 1800 BC.  I would request the

knowledgeable people to throw further light and help create a line of research.  The Government 

must support efforts in documenting history as it is getting into the promotion of Sanskrit

language.

Thank you.

Bijoy Misra

  

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Bijoyji,

I agree that Prof. Aklujkar had made a few valid points and I have a few observations on some of those (starting from your last point upwards), as follows:

The resources like governmental / institutional support should be made available for working on the key milestones of ancient Indian history, so that the dates, such as of the Mahabharata war, of Lord Buddha, of Kanishka, of Ashoka Maurya, of Adi Shankaracharya, of Panini / Katyayana / Patanjalis / Bhartrhari/ Udayana (the logician), of Kalidasas and of a few others are resolved from all angles and settled beyond dispute.

Secondly the accounts such as of Alberuni have to be given due crthe edit and not dumped the way the modern historians have been doing. For example, Alberuni told us that Buddhism prevailed in Persia before Zarathustra promulgated his doctrine, and that itself means that the 5th / 6th date of Lord Buddha as supported by the modern historians, is not correct.

Even the linguists seem to have not asserted their views, as they were not confident enough to oppose the modern historians. The Magadhi-Prakrit, which was in use in the times of Lord Buddha became the language that nurtured (became Paalak of) the Buddhist literature (other than the Mahayana / Sravastivada  literature) and hence came to be called Pali. This Magadhi-Prakrit evolved over the centuries into Ardha-magadhi, which was used for the teachings of Lord Mahavira, who lived in the 6th century BCE. On being questioned, some linguists took the comfortable but a strange stance that both the Pali and the Ardha-Magadhi prevailed side-by-side, in the times of Lord Mahavira. 

For the dating of the Mahabharata war, the many data given by the Vishala-buddhi Vedavyasa has proved to be too vishala for the modern scholars, who in the name of being critical had not been able to look at the astrological and the ritualistic inputs of the Mahabharata times in that text.

As regards the date of Adi Shankaracharya too, the dating of the king Sudhanva (probably a Somavamshi king  belonging to the Chahamana Rajput clan)  would help. The "Rane" sect of Maharashtra claim that they are the descendents of king Sudhanva and that they moved to Maharashtra after the demise of Rana Pratap.. Sudhanva's inscription, was last known to have been borrowed by a Dewan in Gujarat, and nobody since then  claimed to have seen that.  Correct dating Udayana will also help as Adi Shankaracharya had debate with Uadayana and moreover Udayana was a friend of Amaruka, who has been mentioned in Shankara-Vijayas.

There are are a lot of such leads for the open-minded scholars and here I have indicated only a few.

Thanks

No threats detected. www.avast.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Sorry, there was a typo. Please read "crthe edit" as "credit".

Thanks

[shivraj singh]

--------------------------------------------
On Thu, 3/24/16, Bijoy Misra <misra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Dates for Emperor Ashoka
To: "Bharatiya Vidvat parishad" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Thursday, March 24, 2016, 8:55 PM

4.   Association of
Chandragupta to Greek records might not be
fool-proof.

======
Shivraj: The "accepted norm" is that ashok communicated with some kings from the west and those western kings are firmly dated.

Some on this list have loudly proclaimed that it was the gupt dynasty ashok who communicated with these western kings. When challenged these individuals ask you to read the purans. In other words they don't give any evidence for their claims. So you have no choice but to reject such claims.


------------------------------------
Bijoy:

5.   Al Beruni's India contains information for finding the dates. 

=========
Shivraj: Al-beruni in 1000 AD or so just wrote gossip.He asked people and put it in his tome. Gives almost no original sources. His data is of little use for reconstructing indian history.
His usefulness is in what he saw first hand and recorded.

[shivraj singh]

--------------------------------------------

On Fri, 3/25/16, sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Secondly the accounts such as of Alberuni have to be
given due crthe edit and not dumped the way the modern
historians have been doing. For example, Alberuni told us
that Buddhism prevailed in Persia before Zarathustra
promulgated his doctrine, and that itself means that the 5th
/ 6th date of Lord Buddha as supported by the modern
historians, is not correct.

=====
Shivraj: How can we believe al-beruni? Did he give you a source for this? Alberuni lived in 1000AD and what he says about Buddha and Zarathushtra is hearsay/gossip.
Let me remind you that history is based on sources and not wild imagination like the identity of King Ashok who communicated with western kings debate we have had.
----------------------------
Sunil:

As regards the date of Adi Shankaracharya too, the
dating of the king Sudhanva (probably a Somavamshi king 
belonging to the Chahamana Rajput clan)  would help. The
"Rane" sect of Maharashtra claim that they are the
descendents of king Sudhanva and that they moved to
Maharashtra after the demise of Rana Pratap..

=======
Shivraj: As an Indian we have to be a bit more careful here. Rana Pratap was a Suryavanshi belonging to Guhilot/Sisodia lineage of Rajputs. Rane is just a corruption of the word Rana. If they claim descent from Rana Pratap (even Shivaji's family was descended from the Grand Sire of Rana Pratap: Rana Hamir's brothers) then they cannot be somvanshi.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Shivraj,

The very fact that Rajatarangini gives the date of Kanishka in 13th century BCE has already settled the issue. More so as the astronomical studies also confirmed that. Then the other evidences automatically fall in line. If you think that Ashoka Maurya lived in the 4th century BCE, you can very well continue to do so.

Samazdaro ke liye ishara hi kafi hai.

No threats detected. www.avast.com

[Tapati Sinha]

Respected scholars,

There are a vast number of research work on this issue. A study of them would help us to arrive some solution. I am sending an interesting paper which will clarify the issue to some extent. Other related papers will take some time.

Regards.

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Mr Singh,

This process has to be much more analytic.  

Please wait or study hard.

Thank you.

BM 

[shivraj singh]

Dear Tapati,
Thanks for sending the paper. It is a very amateurish attempt and hardly scholarly. For example the paper makes the claim that Samudragupt is Ashokaditya but gives no reference for the same. The author of the paper has said on this very list that this gupt Ashokaditya equation is coming from Purans but to this day he has not provided a reference.

I do not understand how this author can continue to make false statements?

Best Wishes,
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 3/25/16, Tapati Sinha <tapati...@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Dates for Emperor Ashoka

To: "Bharatiya Vidvat parishad" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>

Date: Friday, March 25, 2016, 4:07 PM

Respected
scholars,There are a vast number of research work on

this issue. A study of them would help us to arrive some
solution. I am sending an interesting paper which will
clarify the issue to some extent. Other related papers will
take some time.Regards.
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at
9:46 AM, sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Shivraj,

The very fact that Rajatarangini gives
the date of Kanishka in 13th century BCE has already settled
the issue. More so as the astronomical studies also
confirmed that. Then the other evidences automatically fall
in line. If you think that Ashoka Maurya lived in the 4th
century BCE, you can very well continue to do so.

Samazdaro ke liye ishara
hi kafi hai.

No threats
detected. www.avast.com

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at

8:22 PM, 'shivraj singh' via

[shivraj singh]

--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 3/25/16, sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:
Shivraj,

The very fact that Rajatarangini gives
the date of Kanishka in 13th century BCE has already settled
the issue.

=====
Shivraj: Can you please share a precise reference from Rajtarangini that supports the claim you make?

Regards

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Tapatiji,

Thank you for attaching my paper. I attached that paper more than once before, in my mail to BVP. I knew long back that Shivraj had either did not read my paper or if read at all,  he had not understood the paper. It could also be that Shivraj does not think that there has been any distortion in ancient Indian history during the colonial period. Just because I did not spoon-feed him where in the Purana, the king  Samudragupta has been called Ashokaditya, he thinks that no other evidence, not even the dating of Kanishka in the 13th century BCE, can change his view that Chandargupta Maurya lived in the 4th century BCE.  Dr. Narahari Achar also found from his astronomical studies that Kanishka indeed lived in the 13th century BCE and he had given reference to my paper on Dotted Record in his paper.

I am sure the scholars of this group and elsewhere  understand that in a paper presented in a conference, no comprehensive treatment of any subject is possible. That is why I have addressed in my paper on "Dotted Record" several of the serious distortions in the ancient Indian chronology, during the colonial period and gave mainly the essential details.

Best,

This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com

[Tapati Sinha]

Respected scholars,

 A lot of controversial discussions are going  on the chronology of Indian  history, not today but since prolonged years. Scholars have come up with their views on the research they have done  and I appreciate the brilliant work of Dr. Sunil Bhattacharya.  We all have limited knowledge; to have a confirmed date of Ashoka, we do not have any archaeological evidence except the inscriptions which were issued by "devanam  piyo".

The above article is based  mostly on  literary and astronomical evidences. It has proved some points beyond doubt.   

But one problem remained unsolved; I would like to  point out that the script in so called Ashokan inscriptions are epigraphically much older than the Gupta script. So "devanam  piyo" epithet can not be attributed to the Gupta period.  

Comments are welcome from learned scholars.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Tapatiji,

The use of "devAnAmprihah" (in the prakrtized form "devAnAmpiyo")  has been there from much before the Guptas.  In his book "Asoka (Gaekwad Lectures) pp.109-10 (1928), Prof. Radhakumud Mookerji had discussed the changes in the meaning of "devAnAmpriyah" from the time of the grammarian Panini  to the time of Katyayana and Patanjali and then to the time of Bhattojidikshita. I understand that the Shukla Yajurveda has the word(s) "priyam devAnAm".

We really do not know how many of the Asokan inscriptions were from the time of Ashoka Maurya and and how many of them are from the time of  Ashokadtya (Samudragupta). To my knowledge the name "Ashoka" has been found in only two of the inscriptons

My understanding is that the Guptas were following Hindu customs.
But Chandragupta (father of samudragupta) is reported to have accepted Jainism towards the end of his life and became an ascetic. I believe Samudragupta performed An Ashwamedha yajna. Saudragupta, who assumed the name Asokaditya, could have got converted to Buddhism only after the Kalinga war. I think the need for further research in this area cannot be ruled out.

Best

[Tapati Sinha]

Dear Sunilji,

Thank you very much for the data provided by you. 

After cross-checking few more articles including yours, now the challenge is to confirm the identity of Chandragupta Maurya. We have the inscriptions written in Pre-Gupta Brahmi and early Khorosthi and also the dynastical lineage described in the Puranas. Also a good number of coins of different indigenous states.

 Hope with a fresh mind and the scientific tools presently available, a new approach towards Indian hist. will divulge a different past. 

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Sunilji,

You wrote: "Saudragupta, who assumed the name Asokaditya, could have got converted to Buddhism only after the Kalinga war. I think the need for further research in this area cannot be ruled out."

I take that you are claiming that the Kalinga war was fought not by Asoka of the Maurya dynasty but by Samudragupta of the Gupta dynasty. Is there any evidence on which you base this statement?

If so, what should be the interpretation of the Asokan rock edict that expresses great regret over the Kalinga war and the violence inflicted upon its people? Would you say that both the carving of this edict was commissioned and the feeling of remorse over the war was expressed by Samudragupta, not by Asoka Maurya? If so, on what grounds?

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Vidyasankarji,

Please permit me to reiterate my earlier stand that the need for further research in ancient Indian history cannot ruled out, yet I welcome your query. With my limited resources, without any institutional support, and that too  the age being on the wrong side, let me share with you whatever I understand on the topi[.

There are some pointers in the direction that the Kalinga war could have been during the times of Ashokaditya. The Guptas were following HIndu customs, but due to serious succession issues at the old age of Chandragupta (of the Gupta dynasty), a frustrated Chandragupta left (could have been dislodged from kingship by his own son) his kingdom and he became a Jaina ascetic and went away to Karnataka. Some say that Chandragupta was unhappy as there was a great famine during his regime and that made him become am ascetic and starve himself to death ( following the Jaina custom) to atone for his failure to avert the famine during his reign.  Samudragupta came out unscathed in the succession struggle and became the king. He performed the Ashwamedha. He was vigatAshoka [one who could overcome the sadness (of the succession struggle), with  his mother giving him full support all along] and he assumed (or was conferred) the name Ashokaditya. Samrat Ashokadiya  went on to make a big empire and became a sarvabhauma Samrat.

As regards Kalinga, it was independent during the times of the Kalingan king Khravela, who was a contemporary of the Satavahanas (the predecessors of the Guptas).  Kharavela, could recover and bring back some of the relics of Lord Buddha,  which was taken to Magadha during the times of Nanda. That, to my mind,  may mean that Ashoka Maurya did nor have suzerainty over Kalinga and it was Ashokaditya who conquered Kalinga after a bloody war. The Ashokan legends (The Ashokavadana) mentions about one of Ashoka's wives Karuvaki and one inscription, to my knowledge, was made in her name. There is also the Orissan legend that even after Kalinga was routed by Ashoka , the beautiful and proud Kalingan princess Karuvaki did not surrender. She accepted Ashokaditya only after he got himself converted to Buddhism.

The ancient indian chronology  is a very dear subject to me.  The Puranas (much despised and derogated by the western scholars) have given us the correct antiquity and also said that history is important for dharma. The  Vayu purana says as follows, in its 103rd chapter.  . 

इतिहासमिमं श्रुत्वा धर्माय विद्धे (द्धते) मतिम् ।

I hope the dharma-gurus will also support the efforts towards rectification of the distortions in the ancient Indian history.

Regards,

Sunil Bhattacharjya

No threats detected. www.avast.com

--

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Moderatorji,

Can a member make such derogatory statement  in BVP against another member without proof ?

Regards,

This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Moderatorji,

I thnk it may be better if you kindly advise Shivraj Singh  to read up at least the first taranga of the Kalhana's Rajatarngini, if he is keen to participate in discussions on ancient Indian chronology.

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Vidyasankakrji,

This is further to my previous mail on this point. You appear to be keenly interested in finding  the solution to the controversy of two Ashokas.

In addition to what I wrote in my mail I wish to add that Kautilya's Arthashastra (2.10.4) recommends some kind of format (giving the essential details to be part of every such format) for king's proclamations / announcements / decrees and I think any Maurya regime was expected to follow that norm. But these formalities seem to be missing from  the Ashokan edicts (may not be  from all the edicts). That may even suggest that most of the Ashokan edicts could have been of Ashokaditya in the 3rd century BCE.

Moreover two inscriptions have the name "Ashok" mentioned there, which is missing in the other inscriptions.

Awaiting response from you and other scholars.

Regards,

Sunil Bhattacharjya

[Shrinivasa Varakhedi]

Dear All,

Please note this in case anybody wants to approach or write to BVP moderator (no more moderator is there for BVP) pl write to BVP.man...@gmail.com

Best regards
Shrivarakhedi

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Dear All

Want  to restate what Prof Varakhedi said BVP.man...@gmail.com is the list moderator which will be used for moderation. All mails not from this ID should be considered to be written as a member writing to this list. This is done with intention to avoid confusion if a mail has been written as a list moderator or as a member.

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 4:05:43 PM UTC-4, Gitarthi wrote:

Dear Vidyasankakrji,

This is further to my previous mail on this point. You appear to be keenly interested in finding  the solution to the controversy of two Ashokas.

Dear Sunilji,

I'm interested in the problem inasmuch as it has deep bearing on all of Indian history. However, I don't think that calling it a controversy helps any development of our knowledge about it and I don't think I'm equipped to find a solution for it. I don't think random speculations about the identities and timelines of various Maurya and Gupta kings helps the process of finding a solution. I would much rather look at fresh analyses of original data and I look forward to reading Prof. Aklujkar's forthcoming publications on the problem, along with the other associated literature.

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

      

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Vidyasankarji,

You will agree that in a mail no comprehensive treatment is possible and I also do not expect you to change your views by just reading one mail from me. Further what you responded to was the second mail and it appears that  you could not read the contents of my earlier mail, which I have referred to in the previous mail. I am giving below the contents of the earler mail, for your kind perusal

- - -- -- -- - - ---  - - - - - -

Dear Vidyasankarji,

Please permit me to reiterate my earlier stand that the need for further research in ancient Indian history cannot ruled out, yet I welcome your query. With my limited resources, without any institutional support, and that too  the age being on the wrong side, let me share with you whatever I understand on the topi[.

There are some pointers in the direction that the Kalinga war could have been during the times of Ashokaditya. The Guptas were following HIndu customs, but due to serious succession issues at the old age of Chandragupta (of the Gupta dynasty), a frustrated Chandragupta left (could have been dislodged from kingship by his own son) his kingdom and he became a Jaina ascetic and went away to Karnataka. Some say that Chandragupta was unhappy as there was a great famine during his regime and that made him become am ascetic and starve himself to death ( following the Jaina custom) to atone for his failure to avert the famine during his reign.  Samudragupta came out unscathed in the succession struggle and became the king. He performed the Ashwamedha. As the purana writes, he was "vigatAshoka" [one who could overcome the sadness (of the succession struggle), with  his mother giving him full support all along] and he was conferred the epitaph "Ashokaditya". Samrat Ashokadiya  went on to make a big empire and became a sarvabhauma Samrat.

As regards Kalinga, it was independent during the times of the Kalingan king Khravela, who was a contemporary of the Satavahanas (the predecessors of the Guptas).  Kharavela, could recover and bring back some of the relics of Lord Buddha,  which was taken to Magadha during the times of Nanda. That, to my mind,  may mean that Ashoka Maurya did nor have suzerainty over Kalinga and it was Ashokaditya who conquered Kalinga after a bloody war. The Ashokan legends (The Ashokavadana) mentions about one of Ashoka's wives Karuvaki and one inscription, to my knowledge, was made in her name. There is also the Orissan legend that even after Kalinga was routed by Ashoka , the beautiful and proud Kalingan princess Karuvaki did not surrender. She accepted Ashokaditya only after he got himself converted to Buddhism.

The ancient indian chronology  is a very dear subject to me.  The Puranas (much despised and derogated by the western scholars) have given us the correct antiquity and also said that history is important for dharma. The  Vayu purana says as follows, in its 103rd chapter.  . 

इतिहासमिमं श्रुत्वा धर्माय विद्धे (द्धते) मतिम् ।

I hope the dharma-gurus will also support the efforts towards rectification of the distortions in the ancient Indian history.

- - - - -  - - - - - - - ---------

As regards, Prof. Aklujkar's forthcoming paper, I am also looking forward to reading that, as I am nowhere near him in knowledge,  scholarship and standing and I should have a lot to learn from him.

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

No threats detected. www.avast.com

--

[Neetesh]

Dear all,

Pranam,

Though i am not qualified to comment on the research and topic being discussed, i thoroughly believe that Indian history was poisoned by Britishers and loads of documents were destroyed by Mughals, following link from Ajit vadakayil blogspot.com indicates that Ashoka did not exist ever and was created, 

http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2014/08/chanakya-taxila-university-professor.html

I hope the info in this link may be useful and dignitaries in this group may come to some sound conclusion with evidence for understanding of common people like me..

Best Regards
Neetesh Sahu

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Neetesh

[Nityanand Misra]

On Thursday, 31 March 2016 13:28:13 UTC+5:30, crne...@gmail.com wrote:

Dear all,

Pranam,

Though i am not qualified to comment on the research and topic being discussed, i thoroughly believe that Indian history was poisoned by Britishers and loads of documents were destroyed by Mughals, following link from Ajit vadakayil blogspot.com indicates that Ashoka did not exist ever and was created, 

http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2014/08/chanakya-taxila-university-professor.html

Blogs like these are hardly reliable sources. 

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Sri Nityanand Misra wrote, "Blogs like these are hardly reliable sources."

In fact, I will go one step further and assert that Ajit Vadakayil's blog posts are completely unreliable sources. At best, they can give readers a few laughs over the good old game of conspiracy theories. For this forum to be a Parishat for Vidvat, could we all please learn to recognize what is vidvat and what isn't?

Vidyasankar