Following is the important point of that post
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->These fabrications, passed on as the modern historiography for India, were officially inaugurated with the willful mix-up of Chandragupta Maurya (reigned 1534â1500 B.C.) and Chandragupta (327â320 B.C.) of the Gupta dynasty, by making the former a coeval of Alexander the Great, and by erasing the latterâs reference altogether. Thanks to the inventive and resourceful William Jones of the IHS, the entire chronology of events was summarily shortened by more than 1,200 years. Consequently, the times of ancient astronomers and mathematicians had to be moved into the Christian era. Another ambitious and influential Indologist, Max Mueller, concocted the age of the Rig Veda to be 1200 B.C., with the stipulation it was written by nomadic Aryans (riding on horseback, presumably with a mobile library). Actually, the Rig Veda was compiled well before 3000 B.C. Contrary to popular belief, Gautam Buddha lived during 1887â1807 B.C., and the short but remarkable lifeâs mission of Adi Shankaracharya was accomplished between 509 and 477 B.C.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If the above are true it has so much significance since it is not the way we learnt history and should turn around the way we see things. Before taking this point to public I would like to debate/discuss about it and validate against the material evidences we have. People who know it better, please contribute.
1. Buddha is said to have lived in 1800s BC
- Are there any evidence that Buddhism was practiced in India around 1500BC?
- There are many museums in India, China, Nepal and Sri Lanka which suposed to have have many relics of Buddha, like tooth, nail, hair etc. Did anybody say that they date back to the era Buddha lived?
2. Maurya Empire in 1500BC
- I don't think it disputes Chanakya was a contemporary of Chandragupta Maurya. During Chanakya's time Takshashila and Nalanda Universities were very prominent. If so, do the stones and other materials we get from Nalanda and Takshashila date back to more than 1500BC?
- Ashoka was the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya. When he spread Buddhism all across globe, are there any evidence that Buddhism was practiced in Central Asia and China around 1000BC?
- Ashoka built Sanchi Stupa at Saranath. Does radio carbon dating of materials there date back to 1500BC?
3. Gupta Empire in 300BC
- If Gupta empire was in 300BC, what is the Gupta empire that we know as current Gupta empire?
4. Shankaracharya in 500BC
- I read many times that Kanchi Mutt was 2500 years old and I never understood how. If Shankaracharya lived in 500BC, that would explain.
- Shankaracharya's mission was to bring back vedic way of life
- Then Buddhism's decline must have started around that time
- But we still had Buddhist empires after this period.
Do we have evidence for the above? How did people prove the post Kaushal made.
ashyam a good book on this topic I believe is K.D Sethna's "Ancient India in new light", here are extracts from a book review that are relevant to this topic:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sethna's 606 page tome, with a 15 page bibliography and a 23 page index, is an outstanding instance of ratiocination proceeding inexorably from a chronological absurdity fastened upon unerringly by the clear ray of his perception. Pulakesin IPs Aihole inscription of 634 A.D. shows Indian chronology in vogue fixing 3102 B.C. as the date of the start of the Kaliyuga, while also referring to the Saka Era of 78 A.D. According to modern historians, this is the time of the Gupta Empire, when this system of chronology was made up by the Puranic writers. Now, according to the Puranas the Guptas come around the last quarter of the 4th century B.C. If the modern dating of the Guptas is accepted, it means that the Puranics, face to face with the Gupta kings, placed them in antiquity six hundred years in the past! It is peculiar that so obvious an absurdity should have escaped our own historians. Can we help concluding that we are still unable to rid our minds of the overpowering influence of the dismissal by western scholars of our own ancient records: The Puranas? They believe in the historicity of Homer and excavate Troy, but will not allow that same probability to the Puranas simply because they speak of a civilized antiquity in a colonized country when the western man was living in caves, and that is unacceptable from a subject race. On the grounds of the reductio ad absurdum of the Puranics placing their contemporary monarchs six centuries in the past, Sethna proposes that the Guptas referred to in the Puranas are the descendants of that Chandragupta whom Megastlienes refers to as Sandrocottus, contemporaneous with Alexander. Consequently, the Mauryan Chandragupta and his grandson Asoka needs must recede considerably farther into die past.
The rest of the book is a thrilling venture as Sethna daringly steers his slender craft through uncharted seas crossing one insuperable barrier-reef after another to reach a destination in whose existence he firmly believes. The most important of these is the supposed linking of the Greeks with Asoka. Sethna's penetrating insight reveals that the Asokan "yona raja" Amtiyoka of Rock Edict XIII cannot refer to a Greek king and that the dating of this edict proposed by Bhandarkar is quite mistaken even on the basis of the current chronology. Next the Asokan inscription in Greek and Aramaic at Kandahar is analyzed and the conclusion arrived at that the two inscriptions are not contemporaneous; that the Greek comes much after the Aramaic and, indeed, explicates it: That the "Yavanani" script referred to by Panini is this Aramaic script going back to the pre-9th century B.C. period. The Kandahar II and Laghlman Aramaic inscriptions are then taken up and proven to be much before the 3rd century B.C. as theorized at present. Finally, examining the evidence for the reigns of the Sungas, Kanvas and Satvahanas, Sethna arrives at 950 B.C. as the date of Asoka's accession.
The next challenge is harmonizing this with the wide-spread variety in traditions regarding Buddhist chronology (Ceylonese, Chinese, Tibetan, Arab, Puranic and the Milinda-panha and Rajatamngini). Sethna infallibly locates a sure guiding light to steer clear of this welter of confusion: Buddha's death has to be determined in terms of Asoka's accession and not the other way about. Thus, with the latter being fixed in 950 B.C., the nirvana is 218 years before that in 1168 B.C. and the death of Mahavira would be in 1165 B.C.
The argument of Ceylon being referred to in Asoka's inscriptions is demolished by Sethna who points out that this identification flouts all the literary and epigraphic data. "Tarnbapamni" and "Tambapamniya" are references to the far south in India. Coming to the Asokan monuments, he shows that the affinities are with Mesopotamia not with Achaemenid art, and that they carry on in the tradition of the realistic treatment of the Indus seals, the assembly hall of Mohenjodaro and the high polish of Harappan jewellery. From the other end of the spectrum, Megasthenes is analyzed to reveal that the references point to the Bhagavata Vaishnavite cult practiced by the Gupta Dynasty, certainly not to what is known of the Mauryas.
As in his work on the Aryan Origins, Sethna corrects major historical errors here too. One is regarding Fa-Hien who is widely accepted as having visited India during the reign of Chandragupta II. Sethna bluntly points out how generations of historians have simply assumed Fleet's chronology despite the pilgrim's records mentioning no king at all and the social conditions not tallying with whatever is known of the Gupta regime. Another such major twisting of chronology which has been unquestioningly accepted by modern historians is exposed when Sethna examines Al-beruni's travelogue to show that Fleet misrepresented the Arab visitor's categorical description of the Gupta Era as celebrating die end of a dynasty that had come to be hated and not the beginning of the dynasty! A third misconception is that the earliest Roman dinarius (whence the Gupta dinam is dated) in India is of the last quarter of the first century B.C. Sethna shows that the earliest denarii go back to 268 B.C. and it is around 264 B.C. that Ptolemy II sent an emissary from Egypt to India. Therefore, the reference to dinam in the Gadhwa Stone inscription of the Gupta Era 88 can certainly be in 277 B.C. A fourth error corrected is that of identifying the Malawa Era of the Mandasor Inscription with the Vikrama Era. Sethna shows that all epigraphic evidence points to the identity of the Malawa Era with the Krita Era, and that the Vikrama Era has been gratuitously brought in just because it is convenient for the modern chronology of the Guptas. He shows that the Kumaragupta referred to here cannot chronologically be the Gupta monarch even following Fleet's calculations. By bringing in the other Mandasor inscription of Dattabhatta which refers to Chandra-gupta's son Govindagupta as alive in the Malawa year 535, Sethna shows that dating it by the Vikrama Era of 57 B.C. creates an impossible situation. He fixes the beginning of the Malawa Era at 711 B.C. This leads to two fascinating discoveries when linked with other Mandasor inscriptions: that the Malawa ruler Yaso-dharman (Malawa 589, i.e. 122 B.C.) might be the source of the legend of Vikramaditya; and that Mihirakula whom he defeated was a Saka and not, as supposed by historians without adequate evidence, a Huna. Sethna exposes yet another Fleetian conjecture regarding Skandagupta battling the Hunas by contacting the epigraphist D.C. Sircar10 and getting the astonishing admission that there is no such reference in the Junagarh inscription!
Some of the more remarkable findings in this work which need mention are: Devanampiyatissa of Ceylon dealt not with Asoka but with Samudragupta; the Kushana Dynasty imitated features of the Guptas on their coins instead of the other way about as historians argue: Al-beruni testifies to two Saka Eras, one of 57 B.C. probably commemorating Yasodharman's victory, and the other of 78 A.D. by Salivahana who was possibly of the Satavahana Dynasty; the Mehrauli Iron Pillar inscription is by Sandrocottus-Chandragupta-I whose term for the invading Greeks is shown to be "Vahlika" (outsiders from Bactria) which fills in the puzzling gap in Indian records of mention of the incursions by Alexander and Seleucus. It is the founder of the Guptas and not of the Mauryan Dynasty who stands firmly identified as Megasthenes's Sandrocottus.
Is there any book or source which can shed more light on the warfare and military tactics during these times.
The Gupta defence, especially Skandagupta's valor against the Huns is well known. The Hun fighting mode was of skillful mounted archery, very mobile and agile, the Romans and Persians came to nought against this, yet the Guptas were able to keep them off at bay for long and we know that Yasovarman finally defeated Mihiragula on his own unlike Khusro the Persian emperor who had to take assistance of nomadic Turks for defeating the Huns.
05-13-2007, 01:00 PM (This post was last modified: 05-13-2007, 01:01 PM by Husky.)
Post 1:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->4. Shankaracharya in 500BC
- I read many times that Kanchi Mutt was 2500 years old and I never understood how. If Shankaracharya lived in 500BC, that would explain.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I already read this somewhere at IF I think, or maybe it was elsewhere. But it is common knowledge. If I recall aright, Sringeri Math is the only Math that has accepted 500ce for Shankaracharya. All other Maths still stick to the original 500bce (the traditional calculation of Shankaracharya's lifetime).
It was only recent claims (most famously the ones by communist Namboodiripad -sp?) who started making statements like 'Namboodris came to Kerala in 500/700/800ce'. See how the dates have got gradually closer to present time, as communists tend to do with Vedas as well. Perhaps tomorrow people will insist Namboodris came to Kerala after the British...
This does not mean Syrian christians' claim of having converted Namboodiris is true, because they have different origin myths, only one or more of which involve conversion of some Namboodiris.
Funnily, some Syrian christian sites trying to do a PR makeover, now claim that Thomas the apostle converted 'dalits' not brahmins (to make christianity PC for the present). They have now adopted Namboodiripad's history rewrite as proof for their falsehood of how 'christianity got to Kerala before Hinduism'. Of course, it can be completely ignored, just as all other christolies. (Besides, Hinduism was there in Kerala before the movement of Namboodiris there; but even so, Namboodiris have been in Kerala for longer than the christian era.)
Hindus should stop being naively trusting: need to stop accepting history rewrites by communists, christocolonials, missionaries and others - because the latter all have their own ideologies' interests at heart, not a sincere interest in factual history.
05-13-2007, 03:12 PM (This post was last modified: 05-13-2007, 03:13 PM by Husky.)
Syrian christians had many stories on Namboodiri-conversion.
But now they have changed the myths to take out the Namboodiris.
(1) A modern rewrite of syrian christian myth: http://www.shelterbelt.com/KJ/khchristians.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no historical evidence -for the missionary work of St. Thomas on the West Coast of India. But there is enough evidence to believe that St. Thomas probably was buried at Mylapore. It is, then <b>more likely</b> that he preached Christianity and made Christian converts at Muziris on the mouth of Kaveri in Tamil Nadu rather than in Kerala. The early Christians were <b>probably</b> from the Jewish community, and the mainstream of the St. Thomas Christians are most likely composed of <span style='color:red'>Munda-Dravidian converts and of Jewish converts, but not of Brahmins.</span> These St. Thomas Chris^tens fled west across the Western Ghats in the sixth and seventh centuries, carry-ing with them their religious traditions except the tomb of St. Thomas. The Portuguese records of the sixteenth century say that the St. Thomas Christians told them that they originally came from Tamil Nadu and settled down in Kerala. <b>Most likely the early Kerala Christians are not descend-ants of Nambutiri Brahmins because, as mentioned before, the Aryan Brahmins arrived in Kerala only in the eighth century.</b> Further, there is no archeological evidence for the presence of any pre-eighth-century churches or temples in Kerala. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Check out the speculation: 'most likely', 'probably', 'most likely'. And all without any proofs. Goes to show how Syrian christian myths are made and remade.
Now their stories have completely changed: since they could not have been in Kerala at that early time (because of geographic inconsistencies between Kerala of christomyths and actual Kerala of the time), they now insist it was Tamil Nadu.
Also see how the Namboothris are additionally made out to be non-Indians: 'oryan brahmins', in order to make the Syrian christians more local. There's talk of 'Munda-Dravidians' to contrast these Hamite natives with the Oryan Japethic invaders whose descendants are supposedly the Namboodris.
When these Indian christos finally get clued in to genetics, they might drop the Oryans and Munda-Dravidians story and get together to brainstorm on a new myth.
(2) Another rewrite. Keeping Kerala in the picture time, instead of trading it in for Tamil Nadu. Finally they make the christoterrorist claim: http://www.christianaggression.org/item_di...S&id=1122571527
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Latest Missionary Hoax: Christianity Older than Hinduism in Kerala</b>
The below text from the World Syriac Conference 2002 claims that Christianity is older than Hinduism in Kerala:<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Read at link. Once again they argue that Namboodiris arrived at 'end of 1st millennium'.
05-19-2007, 10:08 AM (This post was last modified: 05-19-2007, 10:43 AM by Husky.)
Regarding my own post 5 -
A discussion of the Shankaracharya's date and related - by people way more knowledgeable than myself - is at this IF thread: History Of Kanchi Math
I'm not commenting on whether they're right or wrong - because I obviously don't know that. Just that I think the members are reliable and also knowledgeable.
My point in #5 was that I wouldn't accept christocommunists rewriting history as with their recent 'Namboodiris came to Kerala in 700 and 800 ce' which puts Adi Shankaracharya even later than that.
Even 500ce for Namboodiris' arrival in Kerala makes no sense, because with the west's calculation of 500ce for Adi Shankaracharya, he'd have to be born within a few generations of them arriving in Kerala. <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
