12-12-2005, 12:48 AM
The Western scholars, inspite of being eminent in their scholarship, (as eminent as Shourie's Eminent Historians), and pious distorted history. Why?
One reason given, apart from so many others (moral superiority et al), was their anxiety to prevent if possible, even by sacrificing truth and fairness, any slight upon or detraction from the authority and antiquity of the Holy Bible.
According to it the date of creation is 4004 B.C..The first man Adam lived for 950 Years, i.e.,Till B.C. 3054. The four generations of his descendants, till then (there were none else) could not have exceeded a modest 20,000.
By that time Mahabhaarata war had taken place in which 18 Akshouhinis of soldiers had participated--with all and everything that it implies.
So Prof. Sir William Jones could not accept 3138 B.C. as the date of the Mahabharatha War, and the beginning of Kali Era in 3102 B.C. or 3076 B.C. for the Saptharshi era., lest it leads to sacriligious conclusions and fouling with the Biblical chrnology. Along with him was Warren Hastings, who was the Governor General in India, in 1774 A.D.
The strategy, readily acceptable to the Western Scholars ( the Indian variety just did not matter to them) is to identify the Indian monarch whose name finds mention in the writings- however flimsy and fuzzy- of those attributed to those who had accompanied Alexander The Great in his exploits (which actually did not extend beyond the tributory of river Sindhu). Luck Seems to have favoured, and they discovered that one by name Chandraguptha, ruled . The name Sandrocuttus, was taken as the Greek equivalent to Chandraguptha.
Now there are two Chandragupthas referred to in Indian Puranas, from which the chronology of the kings who ruled is worked out.
One is Chandraguptha Maurya of Magadha, who ruled , according to Puranic accounts in 1534 B.C. The other ones are Guptha Dynasty's Chandraguptha and his son the Great Samudraguptha.
One was the contemporary with the presence of Alexander in India, i.e. 326 B.C. according to Puranic chronology. But they had the previlege of deciding , which Chandraguptha was Alexander's contemporary. And, they decided it was Maurya Chandraguptha. which means the date of Maurya <b>Chandraguptha is 326 B.C. and not 1534 B.C.</b>
So obliterarate and distort the history at one stroke, and achieve their purpose. It was promoted by all the Western historians, and our eminent historians were too happy to play the second fiddle, for whatever reason.
But what are the grounds to conclude that they were wrong and our Puranas correct?.
The most important factor, they took anto account was the similarity of names. conceding the similarity of Sandrocattus, with Chandraguptha, it could be of Maurya or Guptha Dynasty. But the Greek writers mentioned along with Sandrocattus, two other names, <b>Xandrames his predecessor and Sandrocryptus</b> his successor.
The Predecessor and successor of Maurya Chandraguptha, were Mahapadmananda and Bindusaara; and of Guptha Chandraguptha Chandrasri or <b>Chandramas or Chandrabija, and the successor Samudraguptha</b>. Which set is more similar?
<b>And the other details of life and conquests of the set of three bears total resmblance to the Gupthas and not Mauryas.</b>
It was Max-Muller, who took up the subject, in 1859 A.D., and too boldly, concluded that it was the Mauryan who was the contemporary of Alexander the Great, though he admitted his conclusion is opposed to Hindu, Buddhist and Jain traditions and authorities.
His very casual conclusion , became authoritative, and no western authority thought of further investigation to find the accuracy and veracity of the conclusion.--Our own authorities also thought Max-Muller's authoritiy is enough and should be taken as final.
<b>So an uncontested profit of 1200 years. For the labour and efforts.</b>
One reason given, apart from so many others (moral superiority et al), was their anxiety to prevent if possible, even by sacrificing truth and fairness, any slight upon or detraction from the authority and antiquity of the Holy Bible.
According to it the date of creation is 4004 B.C..The first man Adam lived for 950 Years, i.e.,Till B.C. 3054. The four generations of his descendants, till then (there were none else) could not have exceeded a modest 20,000.
By that time Mahabhaarata war had taken place in which 18 Akshouhinis of soldiers had participated--with all and everything that it implies.
So Prof. Sir William Jones could not accept 3138 B.C. as the date of the Mahabharatha War, and the beginning of Kali Era in 3102 B.C. or 3076 B.C. for the Saptharshi era., lest it leads to sacriligious conclusions and fouling with the Biblical chrnology. Along with him was Warren Hastings, who was the Governor General in India, in 1774 A.D.
The strategy, readily acceptable to the Western Scholars ( the Indian variety just did not matter to them) is to identify the Indian monarch whose name finds mention in the writings- however flimsy and fuzzy- of those attributed to those who had accompanied Alexander The Great in his exploits (which actually did not extend beyond the tributory of river Sindhu). Luck Seems to have favoured, and they discovered that one by name Chandraguptha, ruled . The name Sandrocuttus, was taken as the Greek equivalent to Chandraguptha.
Now there are two Chandragupthas referred to in Indian Puranas, from which the chronology of the kings who ruled is worked out.
One is Chandraguptha Maurya of Magadha, who ruled , according to Puranic accounts in 1534 B.C. The other ones are Guptha Dynasty's Chandraguptha and his son the Great Samudraguptha.
One was the contemporary with the presence of Alexander in India, i.e. 326 B.C. according to Puranic chronology. But they had the previlege of deciding , which Chandraguptha was Alexander's contemporary. And, they decided it was Maurya Chandraguptha. which means the date of Maurya <b>Chandraguptha is 326 B.C. and not 1534 B.C.</b>
So obliterarate and distort the history at one stroke, and achieve their purpose. It was promoted by all the Western historians, and our eminent historians were too happy to play the second fiddle, for whatever reason.
But what are the grounds to conclude that they were wrong and our Puranas correct?.
The most important factor, they took anto account was the similarity of names. conceding the similarity of Sandrocattus, with Chandraguptha, it could be of Maurya or Guptha Dynasty. But the Greek writers mentioned along with Sandrocattus, two other names, <b>Xandrames his predecessor and Sandrocryptus</b> his successor.
The Predecessor and successor of Maurya Chandraguptha, were Mahapadmananda and Bindusaara; and of Guptha Chandraguptha Chandrasri or <b>Chandramas or Chandrabija, and the successor Samudraguptha</b>. Which set is more similar?
<b>And the other details of life and conquests of the set of three bears total resmblance to the Gupthas and not Mauryas.</b>
It was Max-Muller, who took up the subject, in 1859 A.D., and too boldly, concluded that it was the Mauryan who was the contemporary of Alexander the Great, though he admitted his conclusion is opposed to Hindu, Buddhist and Jain traditions and authorities.
His very casual conclusion , became authoritative, and no western authority thought of further investigation to find the accuracy and veracity of the conclusion.--Our own authorities also thought Max-Muller's authoritiy is enough and should be taken as final.
<b>So an uncontested profit of 1200 years. For the labour and efforts.</b>