Saraswati River and Hindu Civilization
(24-26, October, 2008)
Saraswati River and Hindu Civilization
(A paper presented during the International Seminar on “Saraswati River and Hindu Civilization” held at New Delhi from Oct. 24 to 26, 2008)
By
K. V. Ramakrishna Rao,
B.Sc., M.A., A. M. I. E., C.Eng (I)., B.
L.,
Independent Researcher General Secretary,
Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Samiti (Tamilnadu), 25 (Old.9), Venkatachala Iyer
Street,West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 033. Ph: 044 – 2471 6580 (Resi)98402 92065
(Mobile).e-mail: kopallerao@yahoo.co.uk
Visit website - http://www.scribd.com/doc/5707092/GVC-to-IVC-to-SVC
According
to the ideologists, the earliest Gangetic valley evidence, a golden tablet depicting
a naked woman standing on her legs in symmetrical rigidity, with exaggerated
hips and sexual organs, heavy and clumsy ornaments and in a rigidly angular
composition. It was reportedly dug out of a tomb near Lauriya identified by
Bloch who ascribed it to 8th or 7th century BCE. Piprahwa golden woman figure (c.450
BCE). A small gold tablet similar to the
above found as a part of the relics from the ruins of Piprahwa Stupa.Incidentally,
the Piprahwa findings have been involved with forgeries and manipulation.
Dr. W. C.
Peppe’s discovery of Lomas Rishi cave / stupa with Buddha’s relic casket near Nepal border in 1898
created a great sensation among the British. About the dating of the
monument there was controversy,
among them. Fergusson dated to c.250 BCE. Vincent Smith wanted
to give round numbers of “450 BCE” for good reasons. Fergusson noted that the
Sudama or Nyagrodha cave is the oldest architectural example in India dated to 250 BCE, whereas, Smith asserted that,
“The earliest building to which an approximate date could be assigned is
the stupa at Piprahwa on the Nepal frontier, explored by by Mr. Peppe in 1898. Very strong reasons exist for
assigning this building to 450 B.C. Lomas
Rishi Cave (dated to c. 450 BCE). The Lomas rishi cave has been the centre of controversy even today
So, it is not known how the dating of Vincent Smith of 450
BCE is forgotten or ignored cutting down is chronology. The wooden-imitation myth is woven in the description. It is
evident that the forged Asokan inscription
is taken into account to comment that the cave is dated to Asokan period
and this is totally unacceptable. It is ironical that Indians are made to forget what happened in 1898. When the announcements were made about
the Peppe’s accidental finding, a German archaeologist named Dr Alois Anton Führer, who
had visited the Piprahwa dig, was found to have falsified evidence at another
excavation site only a few miles away in Nepal. It was then found that Führer had a history of archaeological
fraud and he was dismissed (discussed below). The scandal cast a
cloud over the Piprahwa discoveries which have never been lifted. Moreover,
they do not give the full description of the site, other monuments found there
etc., which are discussed here in the context. The assertion of Vincent
Smith is
reproduced here for analysis, as it involves a crucial dating in Indian
history: It is very evident that the British have wrongly dated
the te Indian stone monuments purposely to reduce chronology. In their over enthusiastic attempts, the putting
everything after “Asoka” has been clear. Thus, the dating of “Asoka” has been crucial one in Indian history, as the
script is linked with and so also Indian “history”.
The earliest Indian building to
which an approximate date can be assigned is the stupa at Piprahwa on the
Nepalese frontier, explored by Mr. W. C. Peppe in 1898. Very strong
reasons exist for assigning this building to 450 BBC in round numbers, shortly after the
decease of the Gautama Sakyamuni, commonly known as Buddha.The Piprahwa is a
monument of engineering rather than
of architectural skill.
It is possible that when the really ancient sites of India,
such as Taxila and Vaisali, shall be explored, remains
of buildings assignable to the fourth, fifth and sixth found, are likely to
consist of stupas and the plinths or substructures of wooden super structures
which have long since disappeared.
But, the results of exploration of these ancient sites
have so far, have been disappointing; and in
our state of ignorance a great gap, to which no material remains can be
assigned, exists between the date of Piprahwa stupa and that of Asoka
Maurya, two centuries and half later. In fact, the history of Indian art
may be said to begin in the reign of
Asoka (272-231 BCE) and all the known remains assignable to the period are
probably later than 260 BC”
Smith’s anxiety that “remains of buildings assignable to the fourth, fifth
and sixth found, are likely to consist of stupas
and the plinths or substructures
of wooden super structures which have long since disappeared proves the
contradiction. When 150-180 years, could not be reconciled, why should have
indulged in playing with the 1400 years of gap (between IVC and Mauryans)? The
assertion that, in our state of ignorance a great
gap, to which no material remains can be assigned, also
proves the dilemma in meddling with chronology. It is not that material
evidences are not available, but the dating of material evidence with
the assumed history only poses problems of contradictions of “gaps. In fact, the history of Indian art
may be said to begin in the reign of Asoka (272-231 BCE) and all
the known remains assignable to the period are probably
later than 260 BC, then,
there is no meaning in conducting any historical research. Here, the lacuna,
discrepancy and in congruity of the Indologists has been very visible, as could
be noted easily, as they themselves had been in such awkward condition. The
dating of Asoka has been thus, artificial, as the
dating of monuments expose such exigency. The complete bias against India, supporting for Greeks has also been
superficial, as they always recorded that India derived everything from
the Greeks, if not from the Persians, Assyrians, Babylonians or Chinese.
The note that the Buddhist Asoka
ordered the cave to be built for the Jains makes clear that this Asoka is
different from the Asoka of Mauryas.
Aerial view of the Barabar Caves - holy man living
there at the place. The availability of shivalings, Ganesh
Idol and other broken sculptures are intriguing. It can be
argued that Asoka had been so egalitarian that he ordered for cutting caves for
Jains and perhaps for Hindus also naming them as Lomas Rishi, Sudhama and so
on. But, he had been a staunch converted Buddhist and there had been another Asoka, as recorded by Kalhana, who
was a Jain. Kalhana records that Asoka
constructed many stupas / viharas for Jains. Again scholars opined
that the so-called Asokan inscriptions did not belong to one Asoka, but two. However,
Vincent Smith impressed upon and clubbed all into one.
Asoka, Buddha and connected issues and the
Piprahwa forgery
As the dating of Lomas-Rishi cave, Buddha, Asoka and his
inscriptions play crucial role in Indian chronology, some events taken place
around such dating methodology has to be
studied here in the context.
Alois Anton
Fuhrer, an ASI official Assistant Editor of Epigraphica India working in
the NE frontier was brought to Uttrapradesh.
In January 1898, the William Claxton
Peppe British land owner excavated a large brick mound on his property
to discover a huge stone coffer containing four soapstone urns filled with
ashes and bone, along with hundreds of gems, gold stars and other objects. W.
C. Peppe informed A. A. Fuhrer about his discovery. Fuhrer took the Urns and
the jewels possessed b y W. C. Peppe. Later, Asokan inscriptions were found on
the Urns. Later either, he himself engraved it or made it through somebody
as per his directions. He was also
dealing with spurious Buddhist relics
and selling to the Buddhist monks having contacts with U. Ma, Buddhist monk. A.
A. Fuhrer In 1896, he discovered Lumbini, the birth place of Buddha
with Asokan inscriptions on pillar
in the Nepalese Terai and the discovery was reported in December 1896. He sent
the details with impressions of the inscriptions to Buhler. Buhler in February
1897 published it in the JRAS (GB & I) under the caption “The Discovery of
Buddha’s Birthplace”. However, he recorded his doubts as follows:
While Hiuen Tsiang says that the pillar at Lumbini garden
was broken into two pieces, Fuhrer says the ruins were intact.
Hiuen
Tsiang does not mention any inscription, whereas Fuhrer claims a Asokan
inscription on it.
Fuhrer
reports that the Asokan inscription was found 10 feet below the ground. When he
saw the pillar on December 1st, 1896, he could note a pilgrim’s record made in
800 A. D. So Buhler doubts that it is impossible to believe that 10 feet of
debris could have accumulated in the 640 years
“Dr. Fuhrer, who found the pillar
(Nigali Sagar tank, near Nigliva village, Basti District, Nepal), claimed to
have discovered the great stupa itself close by and gave an elaborate
description of it. But unfortunately for himself he next discovered the still
more important Padariapillar, and the further investigation of this led to the
revelation of the fictions in his account. It is only necessary to quote V. A.
Smith’s statement that, “every word is false and the inscriptions that produced by Fuhrer
were “impudent forgeris Smith came to the conclusion that the pillar had
been moved about eight or thirteen miles from its original position either
at Sisaniaor Palta devi ). He also - and more
ominously, perhaps, in the light of later events – fraudulently incised a
Brahmin inscription on to a stone statue in the Lucknow Museum at this time, an
event which also unnoticed.
The Secretary to the
Lieutenant-Governor of the North-Western Provinces in his letter to the Central
Government noted: “His Honour fears that it must be admitted that no statement
made by Dr. Fuhrer on archaeological subjects, at all events, can be
accepted until independently verified” But, everything has been accepted
as history and historians and history reading Indians do not know that such
forgery and dismissal of Fuhrer and disappearance/ suicide of Buhler are there
behind such Indian history.
The Indologists knew the Jaina
Asoka and in fact, there was confusion that they were thinking Mahavira and
Buddha were one and the same. To deny the antiquity of Jaina faith, the western
scholars confused that Buddhism could have emanated from Jainism or
both Janism and Buddhism were one and the same and so on. Colebrooke was
virtually convinced that Buddhism was an emanation from anterior Janism,
summarising his conclusions to the following effect: “ It is certainly
probable, as remarked by Dr. Hamilton and Major Delamaine that Gautama of
the Jains and of the Bauddhas is the same personage and this leads to further
surmise, that both sects are branches of one stock.
According to the Jainas, only one of Mahavira’s eleven disciples left spiritual
successors; that is the entire succession of Jaina priests is derived from one individual,
Sudharma-swami. Two only out of eleven survived Mahavira viz., Indrabhuti and
Sudharma: the first, identical with Gautama-swami, has no spiritual successors
in the Jaina sect. the proper inference
seems to be, that the followers of this surviving disciples are not of the sect
of Jina, rather than that there have been none. ……….A schism, however, seems to
have taken place, after Mahavira, whose elder disciple, Indrabhuti, also named
Gautama-swami, was by some of his followers raised to the rank of a deified
saint, under the synonymous designation of Buddha (for Jina and Buddha bear the
same meaning, according to both Buddhists and Jainas)”. That the date of
Pasvanatha, the 23rd Tirthankara given as c.872-772 BCE shows that there is
something wrong with the dating of Asokan inscriptions, because ,this makes
everything before Asokan pre-historic I,e, non-historic. The dating
of monuments neat to Asokan inscription to pre-Maryan period clearly shows
that Asokan inscriptions have been dated to a reduced chronology. Asoka of Kashmir, who was a Jain,
was completely ignored. The Piprahwa forgeries and manipulations clearly expose
the unhistorical activities of the British and other involved European
Indologists (as discussed above). The recent dating of
archaeological evidences – the domesticated rice on the banks of Ganges to
c.6500-6000 BCE and the usage of iron to c.1800 BCE prove the antiquity of
Ganges Valley civilization. The
mounting pre-Mauryan evidences discussed above point to the fact, that there
was not vacuum before Asoka, but there was history that was ignored by the
Indologists. As such evidences are found on the banks of Ganges River, the GVC
could be considered as an active and continuing civilization.
As every
subject is updated with the recent findings, the Indian history should also be updated with
the recent findings and the wrong conclusions made earlier by the
Colonial and other motivated hypotheses and theories should be discarded.
Spending corers of Rupees, getting new evidences, presenting papers, publishing books, but keeping the history
curriculum to the stagnant, out dated and unscientific status does not
help the growth of subject. In filling the historical gap between IVC and Mauryan period’, the GVC would play a crucial role
as discussed above.
The existence of a Buddha in the 6th century BC has become a serious issue among the scholars in
India.
Reestablishing
the Date of Lord Buddha
by Stephen
Knapp
(This article is
found at: (Excerpt from Proof of Vedic Culture's Global Existence)
Most of us are
taught that Buddha was born around 560 to 550 B.C. However, once we start doing
some research, we find evidence that this date may be too late. Buddha may have
been born much earlier. For example, in Some Blunders of Indian Historical Research
(p. 189), P. N. Oak explains that the Puranas provide a chronology of the
Magadha rulers. During the time of the Mahabharata war, Somadhi (Marjari) was
the ruler. He started a dynasty that included 22 kings that spread over 1006
years. They were followed by five rulers of the Pradyota dynasty that lasted
over 138 years. Then for the next 360 years was the 10 rulers of the Shishunag
family. Kshemajit (who ruled from 1892 to 1852 B.C.) was the fourth in the
Shishunag dynasty, and was a contemporary of Lord Buddha's father, Shuddhodana.
It was during this period in which Buddha was born. It was during the reign of
Bimbisara, the fifth Shishunag ruler (1852-1814 B.C.), when Prince Siddhartha
became the enlightened Buddha. Then it was during the reign of King Ajatashatru
(1814-1787 B.C.) when Buddha left this world. Thus, he was born in 1887 B.C.,
renounced the world in 1858 B.C., and died in 1807 B.C. according to this
analysis.
Further evidence that helps corroborate this is provided in The Age of Buddha, Milinda and King Amtiyoka and Yuga Purana, by Pandit Kota Venkatachalam. He also describes that it is from the Puranas, especially the Bhagavat Purana and the Kaliyurajavruttanta, that need to be consulted for the description of the Magadha royal dynasties to determine the date of Lord Buddha. Buddha was the 23rd in the Ikshvaku lineage, and was a contemporary of Kshemajita, Bimbisara, and Ajatashatru, as described above. Buddha was 72 years old in 1814 B.C. when the coronation of Ajatashatru took place. Thus, the date of Buddha's birth must have been near 1887 B.C., and his death in 1807 B.C. if he lived for 80 years.Professor K. Srinivasaraghavan also relates in his book, Chronology of Ancient Bharat (Part Four, Chapter Two), that the time of Buddha should be about 1259 years after the Mahabharata war, which should make it around 1880 B.C. if the war was in 3138 B.C. Furthermore, astronomical calculations by astronomer Swami Sakhyananda indicates that the time of the Buddha was in the Kruttika period, between 2621-1661 B.C.
Therefore, the
fact that Buddha lived much earlier than what modern history teaches us has a number
of ramifications. First, the time of the Buddha's existence is underestimated
by about 1300 years. Secondly, this means that Buddhism was in existence in the
second millennium B.C. Thirdly, we also know Buddha preached against the
misused Vedic rituals of animal sacrifice. Such misuse or misinterpretation of
something in a culture generally only happens after a long period of
prominence. So the purer aspect of Vedic culture must have been around for many
hundreds if not thousands of years before its tradition began to be misused.
Therefore, this pushes the Vedic period to a much earlier time from that of
Buddha than originally figured, and much earlier than many people have
calculated. And lastly, everything else we have figured according to the time frame
of the appearance of Buddha now has to be re-calculated. Again we find that
history has to be adjusted away from the speculations of modern researchers,
and that many of the advancements in society and philosophy, as outlined in the
Vedic texts, had taken place much earlier than many people want to admit.
Buddha has to be dated to 1800 BC
from
http://www.viewzone.com/buddahyear.html Source: Excepts from Prithviraj R's
forthcoming book on history -- 19000 YEARS OF WORLD HISTORY: The Story of
Religon.
One of the
most important calculations of Indian history has been done on the basis of the
lifetime of a certain Indian emperor called Ashoka, considered to be one of the
greatest emperors of world history. He was a Buddhist emperor who was
responsible for the spread of Buddhism, to distant corners of India and the
neighbouring countries, by sending large number of Buddhist missionaries to
these places.
Ashoka built thousands of
Buddhist stupas and established thousands of Buddhist monasteries all over his
empire that stretched from Iran to Bandladesh and from Central Asia
(Afghanistan) to South India. A large number of rocks and pillars, present all
over his empire, have been inscribed with his edicts and promulgations to his
subjects, written in Magadhi, Sanskrit, Greek, and Aramic languages. Ashoka
[depicted on right] was initially a cruel king who killed a large number of his
brothers in order to ascend the throne. He inherited a large empire and tried
to expand it by waging a war against the neighbouring kingdom of Kalinga. He
won the war, but the gruesome sight of thousands of mutilated dead bodies at
the war completely changed his heart. He felt repentant about it, stopped his
empire expanding spree, and converted to Buddhism after being attracted to the
Buddhist principles of non-violence and renunciation.
We have two sources to thank for
much of this information on Ashoka – his rock edicts and Buddhist scriptures
(one Indian and two Sri Lankan). The scriptures talk about Ashoka of Mauryan
dynasty. Mainstream historians are not much aware of Ashoka of the Gupta
dynasty. As per them, there is only one Ashoka – Ashoka of the Mauryan dynasty,
as given by the Buddhist scriptures. These Ashoka’s rock edicts mention five
neighbouring Greek and Egyptian kings – Antiochos, Ptolemy (second), Antigonos,
Magas, Alexander (second). Since these kings are dated to 250-300 BC, this has
been the date arrived for Ashoka (Mauryan). As per the Buddhist scriptures,
Ashoka (Mauryan) was crowned two hundred and eighteen years after the demise of
the Buddha. This would mean that Buddha’s date is roughly 500 BC. And this date
tallies perfectly with the date of 500 BC they arrived through the Aryan
Invasion methodology. The calculations seem completely perfect and pretty
straight forward, and mainstream historians have accepted these calculations
completely for the last two hundred years. The most
troubling aspect with these date calculations is that there are two
Chandragupts and two Ashokas in Indian history. And as per the writings
of Greek traveller Megasthenes, the Gupta dynasty was ruling India at about 300
BC. And these writings of Megashtenes tally with the Puranic calculations as
well. And Indian history does not talk about two Chandragupts or two Ashokas
ruling India at the same time. While traditional Indian and Greek sources talk
about Ashoka of Gupta dynasty ruling India at about 300 BC, mainstream
historians have arrived at the conclusion that Ashoka of Mauryan dynasty was
ruling India at around 300 BC. So we either have to discard the writings of
Megashtenes as well as Puranic sources completely, or we have to see if
mainstream historians have got the date of Ashoka wrong.
Several mainstream historians
are not aware of this controversy. Even if they are aware, they dismiss
Megasthenes as an unreliable writer and dismiss the Indian scriptures as pure
mythology. They even easily shrug away the fact that other Greek accounts at
the time of Megasthenes do not talk much about the presence of Buddhism in India.
And almost all the mainstream historians are
blissfully unaware of the presence of two Ashokas in Indian history. A handful of Indian historians are aware of this puzzle;
they have suggested that the Ashoka of the Buddhist sources belongs to Gupta dynasty
and he ruled India around 300 BC. However, the Buddhist scriptures clearly talk
about the emperor Ashoka to be belonging to the Mauryan dynasty, completely
negativating the arguments of the few handful Indian historians who try to
wriggle out of the conundrum. This has been
the biggest puzzle that has been haunting Indian historical calculations for
more than a century, almost like a Sherlock Holmes and Hercules Poirot mystery.
Does this mean that the mainstream historians are completely happy and
are not at all puzzled by their calculations? The answer is, surprisingly, no;
they are still quite puzzled over the most important things.
The rock
edicts of Ashoka mention that Ashoka converted to Buddhism because of the
remorse he felt on account of Kalinga war. However, both the Indian as well as
the Sri Lankan Buddhist scriptures differ with this; these scriptures do not
talk anything about Kalinga war! They talk about Ashoka being converted by the
serene teachings of a certain novice Buddhist monk Samudra/Nyagrodha15. Why are
Buddhist scriptures silent about Kalinga war? While scriptures talk about
84,000 monasteries established by Ashoka, the edicts are silent on this; they
do not mention any Buddhism related activities by Ashoka.
The Buddhist scriptures
talk about Ashokan missionary activities to Kashmir, Maharahtra, Sri Lanka,
Burma, Thailand, Mysore, Himalayas, Western India, and Greek country. However,
the edicts talk about medical help to his neighbouring kingdoms; they talk
about the names of the kings and dynasties around his empire including Choda,
Pandya, Satiyaputra, Kerala, Sri Lanka, and five Greek kingdoms. The scriptures
do not talk about officials called Dharma Mahamatras in his kingdom, as
professed by the edicts. There are several other discrepancies as well in the
basic details of his life.
The Ashoka
of Buddhist scriptures is an exceptionally devout individual who used to fall
prostrate at the feet of even the lay Buddhist monks. He was desparate to be
known as the greatest of all donors to the faith of the Buddha. Indian
scripture mentions that, at the end of his life, he donated almost everything
he had to Buddhist monasteries. He was someone who wanted to ensure that
Buddhism spread all across the globe. In Bengal, one follower of Mahavira drew
a picture showing Buddha bowing at the feet of Mahavira. Ashoka came to know
about this and ordered that all Mahavira followers at that place be executed –
1800 of them were slain in a single day! He decreed in a similar manner on
another occasion, promising gold to those who brought slain heads of
non-Buddhists! And Ashoka went out of his way to convert people into Buddhism
as some legends show. He wanted to convert his brother Veetashoka to Buddhism;
for doing this, he enacted a drama. One day, he contrived with his ministers to
get Veetashoka sit on the emperor's throne for a few minutes. He then, as if he
was not aware of the happenings, caught his brother in the act. He then
declared that his brother sitting on his throne is an act of treachery and
decreed that his brother be executed. Ashoka, however, gave one week time for
the execution and let his brother enjoy all the royal comforts for a week, as
if he (Veetashoka) were the emperor. At the end of the week, Ashoka called his
brother and asked him if he enjoyed the one week of heavenly comforts of an
emperor. Veetashoka told him that the death that was
hanging on his head did not allow him to enjoy the heavenly comforts at all.
Ashoka then told him, "if you are oblivious to pleasures just because of
one impending death, how do you expect enlightened monks to be happy about
comforts of this life when they have to fear the deaths of hundreds of lives in
future births?" Veetashoka was taken by this and converted himself into a
Buddhist monk. However, the Ashoka of the rock
edicts gives us a completely different picture. In one of the edicts, he does
profess his faith in the Buddha; but that is about it. There is no evidence
that he carried out any missionary activities. None
of his rock edicts mention anything about the teachings of the Buddha.
In fact, the Ashoka of rock edicts talks about equality of all religions! One
of the edicts, mentions the following : "Beloved-of-the-Gods,
King Piyadasi (Ashoka), does not value gifts and honors as much as he values
this - that there should be growth in the essentials of all religions. Growth
in essentials can be done in different ways, but all of them have as their root
restraint in speech, that is, not praising one's own religion, or condemning
the religion of others without good cause. And if there is cause for criticism,
it should be done in a mild way. But it is better to honor other religions for
this reason. By so doing, one's own religion benefits, and so do other
religions, while doing otherwise harms one's own religion and the religions of
others. Whoever praises his own religion, due to excessive devotion, and
condemns others with the thought 'Let me glorify my own religion,' only harms
his own religion. Therefore contact (between religions) is good. One should
listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods,
King Piyadasi (Ashoka), desires that all should be well-learned in the good
doctrines of other religions.
Those who are content with their
own religion should be told this: Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi (Ashoka),
does not value gifts and honors as much as he values that there should be
growth in the essentials of all religions. And to this end many are working --
Dhamma Mahamatras, Mahamatras in charge of the women's quarters, officers in
charge of outlying areas, and other such officers. And the fruit of this is
that one's own religion grows and the Dhamma is illuminated also."
Unable to
explain these dichotomies, some mainstream historians have dismissed the
Buddhist scriptures as unreliable; they go purely by the rock edicts to get a
picture of Ashokan personality, while they rely on the Buddhist scriptures for
historical aspects. We can see as to how selective they
have been about the whole Ashokan episode -- they have dismissed Megasthenes as
a liar, they have dismissed the Indian scriptures as pure mythology, they have
shrugged off other Greek writings, and they finally have dismissed even the
Buddhist scriptures! I think that they have a whole lot of answering to do
about the Ashokan episode, even if they seem to currently think that their
calculations are perfect.
I think the whole confusion has arisen
because there are two emperor Ashokas, and both are Buddhists! The Ashoka of Buddhist scriptures belongs to the Mauryan
dynasty of 1500 BC. He was a compulsive individual, devout in his faith, and
took steps to spread his religion far and wide by sending missionaries and
constructing Buddhist monasteries and stupas. However, he had nothing to
do with the edicts and the Kalinga war. The Buddhist scriptures are talking
about Ashoka the Mauryan. The scriptures mostly talk about parts within India
-- Kashmir, Maharahtra, Mysore, Himalayas, Western India. Buddhism was not yet
spread in India by his time -- so the scriptures are clearly talking of the
spread of Buddhism within India under Mauryan emperor Ashoka. The Ashoka of the edicts belongs to the Gupta dynasty of
300 BC. He was the one who was involved in Kalinga war. He felt
remorseful and later converted to Buddhism. However, by his time, Buddhism was
already spread far and wide and there was no need for him to send missionaries.
Moreover, by his time, Buddhism was reeling under the onslaught of Sankarcharya
and the Vedic religion was making a comeback. As we shall see a little later in
this discussion, Buddhism was in a confused state about its ideology because of
the theological attack launched by Sankaracharya. Buddhism was in a transition
stage and it did not give much scope for missionary activities. So, Ashoka the Gupta was not hawkish about his religion,
but was much more tolerant of all religions. And the places mentioned in his
edicts are mostly his neighbouring kingdoms -- the edicts are not talking about
places within India. The places mentioned in the edicts are Choda, Pandya,
Satiyaputra, Kerala, and Sri Lanka on the south of his empire in South India
and five Greek kingdoms to the northwest of his empire. The places
mentioned are clearly not talking about spread of Buddhism within India. The two Ashokas are completely different. The confusion has arisen because both are Buddhists; so
both the stupas and the edicts are being attributed to one and the same person.
If we consider that the edicts belong to one emperor while the stupas and
monasteries belong to another, the riddle is solved. The two Ashokas
have been merged into one by historians. So if we arrive at the date of 1500 BC
for the Buddhist Mauryan emperor Ashoka, as per the Buddhist scriptures, we can
easily arrive at the date of the Buddha. Buddha precedes Ashoka by two hundred
and eighteen years. So this would put Buddha at anywhere between 1700 BC and
1800 BC. This roughly tallies with the Puranic calculations as well, which put
Buddha’s date to around 1800–1900 BC.
The address of the inaugural meeting of the scholars of the newly established Center for Indic Studies at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth by Janata Party President Dr. Subramanian - Saturday, August 16, 2008
Before departing to India after a two
month teaching stint at Harvard University, the Janata Party President Dr.Subramanian Swamy today addressed
the inaugural meeting of the scholars of the newly established Center for Indic
Studies at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. The Center in which
the University's Professor Balram Singh and Rajiv Malhotra of the Infinity
Foundation are it's driving force, has already received an initial grant of US
$ 1 million to conduct research on all aspects of India's civilisation.
In his address titled
"De-Falsification of India's
History" Dr. Swamy
said that at present Indian history text books used
in universities in India and in US were first written by British
imperialist-sponsored foreign historians and their Indian tutees. These books
are completely and mischievously distorted, and since Independence these books
have been updated by Communist-controlled scholars. Hence a complete re-writing of these text books is
necessary for Indians to develop an healthy Indian identity. Dr. Swamy urged the Center's scholars to consciously be
aware, at every stage of research, the difference between propaganda and
scholarship. Scholarship, he said, must recognise ambiguity in data and be
transparent in sourcing inferences by adequate references.
He gave the example of Megasthenes writing
in his Indica that the king in the capital city of 'Palimbothra' was
'Sandrocottas'. Later British historians identified these names as Patliputra
and Chandragupta, and declared Megasthenes to have been at the Mauryan dynasty
capital. But in Indian history there are two Chandraguptas, one of Maurayan and
another in the Gupta dynasty, and they were 1200 years apart. Moreover
Sandracottas could be Samudragupta Gupta, the son of Chandragupta. Further, the
Mauryan capital was Rajgriha and not Patliputra. Recently, he said, in the
Supreme Court in the Rama Setu matter, a
whole host of bogus translations of the Puranas and Ramayana was off-loaded by
the government.
When the translations were challenged by
him, the government had no answer. Translation from Sanskrit texts have to be
done by spiritually evolved scholars and pandits since every sanskrit word has
many meanings. Dr.Swamy said, Indian historians have consistently refused to
consider this ambiguity or go against their Imperialist mentors and foreign
benefactors. He recalled that in 1968 he had sent a paper on this subject to
the Indian History Congress but the organisers not only would not list his
paper for discussion but even refused him entry into the auditorium. Let us not
have this fascist approach when we de-falsify history, he urged. Let us
challenge the Marxist historians by debating with them and exposing their ignorance
and propaganda to the world academia, Dr.Swamy added.
Today, the scholars in India
accept that Ashoka, the Maurayan emperor, had not been living in India in the
3rd century BC. The story around him had been created by the British based on
the facts taken from the Sri Lankan chronicles.
(This blog post was compiled with the information provided by Miss. Subhashinie Kumari)
0 comments:
Post a Comment