Indian scholars challenge the existence of Buddha in India. Mauyaran Ashoka was 'created' by the British, they say.

Saraswati River and Hindu Civilization

(24-26, October, 2008)

(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)