07-13-2009, 12:04 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Maybe any theory is just a fashion and a matter of arguments, luck and support. Before the European colonised the world, no Indian believed they came from elsewhere, nor was there any gap between people from Iran to India. (this changed when the people tried to wipe out their pre-Muslim past)
After becoming part through England of an European way of thinking, India was looked upon through classical Roman-Greek and Christian eyes. Of course this had an impressive impact on the minds of both Indian and European. Ideas and habits take time to be rooted, and even more time to be uprooted. (Just try to get rid of a simple annoying habit, it will cause more annoyance)
Now that India tries to get rid of that annoying way of looking upon her culture, she gets an even more annoying reply. Being labeled as 'Hindutva" sounds like a slap on the face for trying to seek for justice and truth. The more sincere researches are put on the same pile with less sincere shouts. And that is a pity.
An academist should look to bare facts. And the fact is that no Aryan invasion is ever proven. It would be more sensical to look at facts as how they are: If any mention of Yavana is in any book, are they really Greeks of Alexandrian age, or are other people mentioned? When the Kashmirian Chronical of Kalhana mentions a Kanishka who ruled over Kashmir and midwestern India, it doesn't mean that he is the Kushana king of roundabout 80 AD or so. For, Kalhana calls that Kanishka a Turushka Shaka! And his reign was before the Gupta Age!
<b>
Another fanciful hypothesis is the equation of Xandrames-Sandrocottos-Amitrochates with Dhana Nanda-Chandragupta-Bindusara Maurya. </b>The more logical equations are <b>Candra(mas) Gupta I- Samudra Gupta-Chandra Gupta II (this last is Vikramaditya, the Amitraghata or crusher of enemies, the Shaka tribes).</b>
The Greek historians like Arrianus, Diodorus and Curtius mention facts that agree with a Prakrit play named as Kaumudimahotsava, but also with the description of Vishvaphani in the Puranas and Samudra Gupta (Sa-undra in Prakrit, becoming Sandro in Greek).
It would be very strange for Greeks to meet Mauryas, but not name them, as even Magadha isn't named. They name the Prasii =Prachya). Even more strange is the name Palibothra, which can hardly be a correct Greek rendering of Pataliputra. Palibothra sounds more like Paribhadra, who dwelled on the Ganges.
It is nonsensical for Ashoka to inherite a vast empire of his father from north to south and to reconquer it again. The Kalinga War was more logically the war of Samudra Gupta against a confederacy of Sout-Indian kings as can be deduced from his Allahabad Inscription.
Pliny (VI-21-22-23) says: At the time of Alexander, the Andhras were reputed to possess a military force second only to that of the command of the king of the Prasii.
When was there a military power of Andhras in the Mauryan days? No Mauryan emperor mentions them!
Note that Samudra Gupta was named Ashokaditya, as the Mauryan king was named Ashokavardhana!
In the Manjushrimulakalpa, a Buddhistic work, the description of Samudra Gupta fits well with that of the conqueror Ashoka of the inscriptions.
The Piyadassi Inscriptions are of twofold nature: the ones which belong to Ashoka Maurya and the ones which belong to Ashoka Gupta or Samudra.
The Guptas were (Bhagavata) Hindus, under whose rule many classical works were written. Buddhism was in the more remote areas of western India and Pakistan, where the Bactrian Greeks were (for instance Milinda-Menandros as Buddhist, but Heliodorus becoming a Bhagavata in the Mathura area, part of Guptan Empire).
This means that the Guptas ruled from 329 BC-82 BC and not from 324-550 AD. How could the Guptas rule at a time when the Kushanas were a threat. The Guptas don't even mention Kushanas, but only Shakas!. The last king to defeat the Shakas is Harsha Vikramaditya of the Vikrama Era of 57 BC. Harsha is named as a Guptabhrtya King, which means that he and his father came after the Guptas.
This automatically means that the Mauryas were far earlier in time than now is taught in the history books.
And the ancient history of India is mainly based on the inscriptions of Ashoka! From that anchor is back-dated the birthyear of Buddha, another relative anchor. Om Buddha's date is based the whole Vedic chronology, for Buddha is thought to come after the oldest Upanishads.
The Puranas place the Barhadrathas, Pradyotas-Haryanka, Kalashoka-Shaishunagas, Nandas, Mauryas, Shungas, Kanvas and Andhras before the rise of the Guptas of 329-82 BC. That is a whole block of names with many developments and stories, making the so -called dark or unknown ages more known.
Buddha is to be placed during the Pradyotas-Haryankas, as Mahavira. During Pushyamitra Shunga is to be placed Patanjali's Mahabhashya. That is far older than the third century BC ascibed to this Patanjali. A contemporary of Pushyamitra is Abhimanyu of Kashmir who crushed the Turushka Shakas, who ruled with their kings Hushka, Jushka and Kanishka (different from the Kushana of post 78 AD).
This demonstrates that the chronology of the traditional AIT school is not correct as is presented.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->About the Guptas
The Imperial Guptas ruled from 329-82 BC. The names of Xandrames and Sandrocottos/Sandrogyptus tally with Chandramas Gupta and Samudra Gupta, but also de deeds Samudra and the so called Ashoka.
The Imperial Guptas are descended from the barber (possibly Karaskaras-the later Kakkar, who lived from Panjab/Multan towards Sind and Baluchistan), Ghatotkacha Gupta.
The names of this dynasty are these:
Chandra Gupta
Samudra Gupta
Chandra Gupta II Vikramaditya (who succeeded his weak brother Rama Gupta->Shaka episode)
Kumara Gupta I
Skanda Gupta
Puru Gupta
Budha Gupta
Narasimha Gupta
Kumara Gupta II = Vainya Gupta?
Vishnu Gupta = Bhanu Gupta?
The Guptas of the second period ruled after the fall of the Kushanas (whose power was paralyzed by the Sassanian Arya of Persia), supremely from ca. 320-570 AD, and their power declined after ca. 570 AD:
Krishna Gupta
Harsha Gupta
Jivita Gupta I
Kumara Gupta I
Damodara Gupta
Mahasena Gupta
Madhava Gupta
Kumara Gupta II
Adityasena
Deva Gupta
Vishnu Gupta contemporary of Harsha and Pulakeshin
Jivita Gupta II
The confusion is understandable because of duplicate names. Moreover when the Guptas speak of foreigners as invaders, we have to be very cautious about which ones related to which Gupta or other Indian power. We have also to take into account what other power is present in the neighbourhood of the subcontinent, like the Sassanian and Kushana kings in AD and the Shakas in BC. The Chinese mention the movements of the tribes of Yueh Chih (Kushana) which tallies with AD chronolgy. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
After becoming part through England of an European way of thinking, India was looked upon through classical Roman-Greek and Christian eyes. Of course this had an impressive impact on the minds of both Indian and European. Ideas and habits take time to be rooted, and even more time to be uprooted. (Just try to get rid of a simple annoying habit, it will cause more annoyance)
Now that India tries to get rid of that annoying way of looking upon her culture, she gets an even more annoying reply. Being labeled as 'Hindutva" sounds like a slap on the face for trying to seek for justice and truth. The more sincere researches are put on the same pile with less sincere shouts. And that is a pity.
An academist should look to bare facts. And the fact is that no Aryan invasion is ever proven. It would be more sensical to look at facts as how they are: If any mention of Yavana is in any book, are they really Greeks of Alexandrian age, or are other people mentioned? When the Kashmirian Chronical of Kalhana mentions a Kanishka who ruled over Kashmir and midwestern India, it doesn't mean that he is the Kushana king of roundabout 80 AD or so. For, Kalhana calls that Kanishka a Turushka Shaka! And his reign was before the Gupta Age!
<b>
Another fanciful hypothesis is the equation of Xandrames-Sandrocottos-Amitrochates with Dhana Nanda-Chandragupta-Bindusara Maurya. </b>The more logical equations are <b>Candra(mas) Gupta I- Samudra Gupta-Chandra Gupta II (this last is Vikramaditya, the Amitraghata or crusher of enemies, the Shaka tribes).</b>
The Greek historians like Arrianus, Diodorus and Curtius mention facts that agree with a Prakrit play named as Kaumudimahotsava, but also with the description of Vishvaphani in the Puranas and Samudra Gupta (Sa-undra in Prakrit, becoming Sandro in Greek).
It would be very strange for Greeks to meet Mauryas, but not name them, as even Magadha isn't named. They name the Prasii =Prachya). Even more strange is the name Palibothra, which can hardly be a correct Greek rendering of Pataliputra. Palibothra sounds more like Paribhadra, who dwelled on the Ganges.
It is nonsensical for Ashoka to inherite a vast empire of his father from north to south and to reconquer it again. The Kalinga War was more logically the war of Samudra Gupta against a confederacy of Sout-Indian kings as can be deduced from his Allahabad Inscription.
Pliny (VI-21-22-23) says: At the time of Alexander, the Andhras were reputed to possess a military force second only to that of the command of the king of the Prasii.
When was there a military power of Andhras in the Mauryan days? No Mauryan emperor mentions them!
Note that Samudra Gupta was named Ashokaditya, as the Mauryan king was named Ashokavardhana!
In the Manjushrimulakalpa, a Buddhistic work, the description of Samudra Gupta fits well with that of the conqueror Ashoka of the inscriptions.
The Piyadassi Inscriptions are of twofold nature: the ones which belong to Ashoka Maurya and the ones which belong to Ashoka Gupta or Samudra.
The Guptas were (Bhagavata) Hindus, under whose rule many classical works were written. Buddhism was in the more remote areas of western India and Pakistan, where the Bactrian Greeks were (for instance Milinda-Menandros as Buddhist, but Heliodorus becoming a Bhagavata in the Mathura area, part of Guptan Empire).
This means that the Guptas ruled from 329 BC-82 BC and not from 324-550 AD. How could the Guptas rule at a time when the Kushanas were a threat. The Guptas don't even mention Kushanas, but only Shakas!. The last king to defeat the Shakas is Harsha Vikramaditya of the Vikrama Era of 57 BC. Harsha is named as a Guptabhrtya King, which means that he and his father came after the Guptas.
This automatically means that the Mauryas were far earlier in time than now is taught in the history books.
And the ancient history of India is mainly based on the inscriptions of Ashoka! From that anchor is back-dated the birthyear of Buddha, another relative anchor. Om Buddha's date is based the whole Vedic chronology, for Buddha is thought to come after the oldest Upanishads.
The Puranas place the Barhadrathas, Pradyotas-Haryanka, Kalashoka-Shaishunagas, Nandas, Mauryas, Shungas, Kanvas and Andhras before the rise of the Guptas of 329-82 BC. That is a whole block of names with many developments and stories, making the so -called dark or unknown ages more known.
Buddha is to be placed during the Pradyotas-Haryankas, as Mahavira. During Pushyamitra Shunga is to be placed Patanjali's Mahabhashya. That is far older than the third century BC ascibed to this Patanjali. A contemporary of Pushyamitra is Abhimanyu of Kashmir who crushed the Turushka Shakas, who ruled with their kings Hushka, Jushka and Kanishka (different from the Kushana of post 78 AD).
This demonstrates that the chronology of the traditional AIT school is not correct as is presented.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->About the Guptas
The Imperial Guptas ruled from 329-82 BC. The names of Xandrames and Sandrocottos/Sandrogyptus tally with Chandramas Gupta and Samudra Gupta, but also de deeds Samudra and the so called Ashoka.
The Imperial Guptas are descended from the barber (possibly Karaskaras-the later Kakkar, who lived from Panjab/Multan towards Sind and Baluchistan), Ghatotkacha Gupta.
The names of this dynasty are these:
Chandra Gupta
Samudra Gupta
Chandra Gupta II Vikramaditya (who succeeded his weak brother Rama Gupta->Shaka episode)
Kumara Gupta I
Skanda Gupta
Puru Gupta
Budha Gupta
Narasimha Gupta
Kumara Gupta II = Vainya Gupta?
Vishnu Gupta = Bhanu Gupta?
The Guptas of the second period ruled after the fall of the Kushanas (whose power was paralyzed by the Sassanian Arya of Persia), supremely from ca. 320-570 AD, and their power declined after ca. 570 AD:
Krishna Gupta
Harsha Gupta
Jivita Gupta I
Kumara Gupta I
Damodara Gupta
Mahasena Gupta
Madhava Gupta
Kumara Gupta II
Adityasena
Deva Gupta
Vishnu Gupta contemporary of Harsha and Pulakeshin
Jivita Gupta II
The confusion is understandable because of duplicate names. Moreover when the Guptas speak of foreigners as invaders, we have to be very cautious about which ones related to which Gupta or other Indian power. We have also to take into account what other power is present in the neighbourhood of the subcontinent, like the Sassanian and Kushana kings in AD and the Shakas in BC. The Chinese mention the movements of the tribes of Yueh Chih (Kushana) which tallies with AD chronolgy. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->