Four Ashoka of the India
भारत के चार अशोक
Second Ashok: Gonanada Ashoka
Kalhan’s Rajatarangini (1.101-102) provides details of one Ashoka of the Kashmiri Gonanda dynasty who is said to have freed himself from sins by embracing the faith of Gautam Buddha and by constructing numerous Vihar and Stupa and by building the town Shrinagari with its 96 lakhs of houses resplendent with wealth. He was a peaceful ruler who had lost all his land and wealth because of his innate pacifism. This description of Gonandiya Ashoka matches with one of the inscriptional Ashoka.
However, according to Hultzsuch opinion, the major rock and pillar edicts differ in tone and message from those of the 8 minor rock inscriptions. Strangely enough, all 26 inscriptions appear to be carved out during the same period. If studied and analyzed carefully, a compelling inference needs to be drawn. The edicts with the proclamations in morality belong to Maurya Ashoka (1482-1446 B.C.) and those on the conversion of Buddhism are those of Gonanada Ashoka (1448-1400 B.C.).
Second Ashok: Gonanada Ashoka
Kalhan’s Rajatarangini (1.101-102) provides details of one Ashoka of the Kashmiri Gonanda dynasty who is said to have freed himself from sins by embracing the faith of Gautam Buddha and by constructing numerous Vihar and Stupa and by building the town Shrinagari with its 96 lakhs of houses resplendent with wealth. He was a peaceful ruler who had lost all his land and wealth because of his innate pacifism. This description of Gonandiya Ashoka matches with one of the inscriptional Ashoka.
However, according to Hultzsuch opinion, the major rock and pillar edicts differ in tone and message from those of the 8 minor rock inscriptions. Strangely enough, all 26 inscriptions appear to be carved out during the same period. If studied and analyzed carefully, a compelling inference needs to be drawn. The edicts with the proclamations in morality belong to Maurya Ashoka (1482-1446 B.C.) and those on the conversion of Buddhism are those of Gonanada Ashoka (1448-1400 B.C.).
Facts about Chandragupta Maurya
The main purpose of Western scholars was to disturb Indian history and they did it.
One of the greatest mistake western Historiography scholars is identifying Sandrocottus with Chandragupta Mourya. Drama Mudraraksha was composed after 2100 Yeras of Chandragupta Maurya !!
The predecessor of Sandrocottus was Xandremes (who can be easily identified Chandramasi, the unpopular Satavahana ruler). Sandrocottus himself was Chandragupta, who has murdered Chandramasi and usurped the kingdom. His forefather was named Gupta, meaning the protected alluding to his low caste. Probably an artisan. The Greek records identify the father of Sandrocottus as a barber , towards whom the Queen was amorous. This need not be in doubt since the name Ghatotkacha, father of CG I not only indicates a name of lower birth but also a person with great capabilities, especially physical strength. If the Queen of an unpopular and perhaps, old king has loved him, it may be no wonder.
The son of Sandrocottus was Sandrocyptus.
Max Mueller could not synchronize the names ” Xandremes, Sandrocottus and Sandrocryptus” with “Nanda, Chandra gupta Maurya and Bindu sara”. Hence, he denied the existence of Xandremes and postulated without evidence that both Sandrocottus and Sandrocryptus are one and the same.
The name Sandro cryptus not only synchronizes with the name of Samudra gupta , the valiant son of CG I but also, the title of allitrochades or Amitrochates (meaning slayer of enemies) perfectly suits his image as a valiant and ruthless warrior, as described in the Prasasthi epigraphy.
The main purpose of Western scholars was to disturb Indian history and they did it.
One of the greatest mistake western Historiography scholars is identifying Sandrocottus with Chandragupta Mourya. Drama Mudraraksha was composed after 2100 Yeras of Chandragupta Maurya !!
The predecessor of Sandrocottus was Xandremes (who can be easily identified Chandramasi, the unpopular Satavahana ruler). Sandrocottus himself was Chandragupta, who has murdered Chandramasi and usurped the kingdom. His forefather was named Gupta, meaning the protected alluding to his low caste. Probably an artisan. The Greek records identify the father of Sandrocottus as a barber , towards whom the Queen was amorous. This need not be in doubt since the name Ghatotkacha, father of CG I not only indicates a name of lower birth but also a person with great capabilities, especially physical strength. If the Queen of an unpopular and perhaps, old king has loved him, it may be no wonder.
The son of Sandrocottus was Sandrocyptus.
Max Mueller could not synchronize the names ” Xandremes, Sandrocottus and Sandrocryptus” with “Nanda, Chandra gupta Maurya and Bindu sara”. Hence, he denied the existence of Xandremes and postulated without evidence that both Sandrocottus and Sandrocryptus are one and the same.
The name Sandro cryptus not only synchronizes with the name of Samudra gupta , the valiant son of CG I but also, the title of allitrochades or Amitrochates (meaning slayer of enemies) perfectly suits his image as a valiant and ruthless warrior, as described in the Prasasthi epigraphy.
Conclusion
Based on all these, I would say the Sandrakuttos of Megasthanese was not Chandragupta Maurya. As far as Chandragupta of Gupta Dynasty meeting Megasthenes , we will see in another Article.
Based on all these, I would say the Sandrakuttos of Megasthanese was not Chandragupta Maurya. As far as Chandragupta of Gupta Dynasty meeting Megasthenes , we will see in another Article.
Facts about Pataliputra: To decide as to whether Pataliputra was the capital of the Mauryas, Puranas is the only source. Puranas inform us that all the eight dynasties that ruled Magadha after the Mahabharata War had Girivraja as their capital. Mauryas are listed as one of the eight dynasties. The name Pataliputra is not even hinted at, anywhere in the Puranas.
Facts about Priyadarshi Ashok and Kalinga War
The Piyadassi Inscriptions are of twofold nature: the ones which belong to Ashoka Maurya and the ones which belong to Chandragupta Second or Vikramaditya
On the basis of Megasthenes’ account, Pliny says that Kalinga was an independent province during Chandragupta’s reign. But the Purana and Buddhist text evidence for Nanda’s control of Kalinga, their subsequent overthrow by Chandragupta, and also Chandragupta’s influence further south point towards Chandragupta’s control over Kalinga also.
The Piyadassi Inscriptions are of twofold nature: the ones which belong to Ashoka Maurya and the ones which belong to Chandragupta Second or Vikramaditya
On the basis of Megasthenes’ account, Pliny says that Kalinga was an independent province during Chandragupta’s reign. But the Purana and Buddhist text evidence for Nanda’s control of Kalinga, their subsequent overthrow by Chandragupta, and also Chandragupta’s influence further south point towards Chandragupta’s control over Kalinga also.
When Kalinga was under control of Nanda and Chandragupta. Bindusara was not a small ruler to lose kalinga, the question of Ashoka conquering Kalinga does not arise.
So which chandragupta are we talking about?
There is no Kalinga war mentioned in the buddhist literature. The Asoka of Buddhists (Maurya Ashoka) was a cruel sadist who was brought to the path of Buddhism by various monks as soon as he has taken over or at best, four years after his coronation.
On the other hand, the edicts clearly mention that the king (Chandragupta-2) has taken to Buddhism in the 8th year of his coronation, following the war of Kalinga. He was highly tolerant of other religions, advising his people to respect brahmins and he has made donations to ajivakas in the 12th/13th year and perhaps, in 19th year of his coronation, which is much later to his conversion.
The king of edicts is clearly highly tactful and diplomatic, never a sadist. He was a shrewd and ambitious ruler- he annexed Kalinga only to have control of sea faring business routes. He has used religion as a matter of tool to discipline people, most of the important edicts being in the gold bearing areas of India. His repentance may be more
of a farce since the famous edict announcing his remorse was never found in Kalinga or the area around it. Not just this, his hypocracy is clearly mentioned in the likes of edicts where he confesses that he continued to eat meat, even as he entreated others, including the staff and other residents of the Royal palace to convert to vegetarianism.
That most of his tactics are to get the maximum out of trade routes is very obvious. That kings concentrated highly on trade routes is a trade mark of around Guptan kings.
If you follow the traditionalists’ chronology, we can say that Asoka vardhana was existing much earlier to Greek invasion. Also, the traditionalists identify Sandrocottus with Chandra gupta I. This will make the Asoka of Edicts a king around the times of Guptans, as pointed by his way of dealing.
Kalinga or Orissa was a thriving kingdom of ancient trade. They have adopted Buddhism perhaps from the times of Buddha.
The above liturgical and archaeological evidence amply proves that the Orissa was not only flourishing commercially, especially in maritime trade, but also was traditionally Buddhist in religion.
It is also evident that Kalinga was forming the connection between south and north. All the important trade routes between south India and north India have been developed through Kalinga. An ambitous king like Priyadarsi naturally would want to control this trade route. Hence, the conquest of Kalinga.
There is no Kalinga war mentioned in the buddhist literature. The Asoka of Buddhists (Maurya Ashoka) was a cruel sadist who was brought to the path of Buddhism by various monks as soon as he has taken over or at best, four years after his coronation.
On the other hand, the edicts clearly mention that the king (Chandragupta-2) has taken to Buddhism in the 8th year of his coronation, following the war of Kalinga. He was highly tolerant of other religions, advising his people to respect brahmins and he has made donations to ajivakas in the 12th/13th year and perhaps, in 19th year of his coronation, which is much later to his conversion.
The king of edicts is clearly highly tactful and diplomatic, never a sadist. He was a shrewd and ambitious ruler- he annexed Kalinga only to have control of sea faring business routes. He has used religion as a matter of tool to discipline people, most of the important edicts being in the gold bearing areas of India. His repentance may be more
of a farce since the famous edict announcing his remorse was never found in Kalinga or the area around it. Not just this, his hypocracy is clearly mentioned in the likes of edicts where he confesses that he continued to eat meat, even as he entreated others, including the staff and other residents of the Royal palace to convert to vegetarianism.
That most of his tactics are to get the maximum out of trade routes is very obvious. That kings concentrated highly on trade routes is a trade mark of around Guptan kings.
If you follow the traditionalists’ chronology, we can say that Asoka vardhana was existing much earlier to Greek invasion. Also, the traditionalists identify Sandrocottus with Chandra gupta I. This will make the Asoka of Edicts a king around the times of Guptans, as pointed by his way of dealing.
Kalinga or Orissa was a thriving kingdom of ancient trade. They have adopted Buddhism perhaps from the times of Buddha.
The above liturgical and archaeological evidence amply proves that the Orissa was not only flourishing commercially, especially in maritime trade, but also was traditionally Buddhist in religion.
It is also evident that Kalinga was forming the connection between south and north. All the important trade routes between south India and north India have been developed through Kalinga. An ambitous king like Priyadarsi naturally would want to control this trade route. Hence, the conquest of Kalinga.
It is here that Chandragupta-2 came into contact with Buddhism. In all probability, he must have seen how obedient and controlled the Kalingan army was, even in the face of a fatal defeat. In other words, he has seen how religion can be used to control masses, to command their total surrender and loyalty. Thus he has cooked up the story of his remorse and presented it all over his empire, which in fact, according to Taranatha, was acquired only after the conquest of Kalinga (Obviously, he grew quite powerful with the commercial support offered by Kalinga) While he has not converted to Buddhism at the time of Kalinga war , though he was genuinely respecting it, was clear from his edicts, there is an aspect to be considered here.
How true was his remorse? We can say his remorse was entirely false and was a tool invented by him to control the masses using religion is amply evident in two ways:
1. That he has carried further conquests as evidenced by Taranatha
2. That he has erected his story of remorse all over India but not in Kalinga, which clearly shows that he has not converted his so called remorse into action, atleast in Kalinga In fact, he must have seen Kalinga as a milch cow for his further conquests
In fact, he did not free Kalinga from his sovereignty and it was continued to be under his regent Tussa, as the excavations reveal.
How true was his remorse? We can say his remorse was entirely false and was a tool invented by him to control the masses using religion is amply evident in two ways:
1. That he has carried further conquests as evidenced by Taranatha
2. That he has erected his story of remorse all over India but not in Kalinga, which clearly shows that he has not converted his so called remorse into action, atleast in Kalinga In fact, he must have seen Kalinga as a milch cow for his further conquests
In fact, he did not free Kalinga from his sovereignty and it was continued to be under his regent Tussa, as the excavations reveal.
Chandragupta-2 was not son of Samudragupta:
However, it is clear that the kingdom of Guptas did not sustain for long. It is not correct to say that CG II is the son of Samudra gupta and he has taken over the reins of Gupta Kingdom after SG. There are many kings between Samudra gupta and CG II. Samudra gupta’s father CG I has taken over the kingdom around 321 bce whereas it is clearly chronicled that CG II has driven away the Sakas in 58/57 bce. To support this, there are many names of kings mentioned in the liturgical history as well as in numismatics. All these names were tried to be shown as other names of already known kings, which has taken place due to the shrinkage of Indian chronology. For eg., we do not know who is Kacha, who came after Samudra Gupta , nor Chandra prakasa as mentioned by Vamana nor Chandra who claimed on the Allahabad Pillar that he expanded his kingdom to Bengal. There are many more such names about whom we know nothing nor we are in a position to fix their chronology.
After Samudra Gupta, his son Rama (Chandra)Gupta or Sarma (Chandra)Gupta, who has married Dhruva Swamin could not continue on the seat of pataliputra. He was driven away to the west by one Kalyana varma whose victory was chronicled in a drama called Kaumudi mahotsavam. Ramachandra gupta has taken over at Ujjain but he had to surrender his wife to the foreign rulers in order to keep his seat, as described in Kavya mimamsa by Raja sekhara In shame, Sarma gupta or Ramachandra gupta has retired to Himalayas and hence, Dhruvaswamini has continued the rule. Her son was Govinda gupta also seemed to have ruled for sometime.
However, it is clear that the kingdom of Guptas did not sustain for long. It is not correct to say that CG II is the son of Samudra gupta and he has taken over the reins of Gupta Kingdom after SG. There are many kings between Samudra gupta and CG II. Samudra gupta’s father CG I has taken over the kingdom around 321 bce whereas it is clearly chronicled that CG II has driven away the Sakas in 58/57 bce. To support this, there are many names of kings mentioned in the liturgical history as well as in numismatics. All these names were tried to be shown as other names of already known kings, which has taken place due to the shrinkage of Indian chronology. For eg., we do not know who is Kacha, who came after Samudra Gupta , nor Chandra prakasa as mentioned by Vamana nor Chandra who claimed on the Allahabad Pillar that he expanded his kingdom to Bengal. There are many more such names about whom we know nothing nor we are in a position to fix their chronology.
After Samudra Gupta, his son Rama (Chandra)Gupta or Sarma (Chandra)Gupta, who has married Dhruva Swamin could not continue on the seat of pataliputra. He was driven away to the west by one Kalyana varma whose victory was chronicled in a drama called Kaumudi mahotsavam. Ramachandra gupta has taken over at Ujjain but he had to surrender his wife to the foreign rulers in order to keep his seat, as described in Kavya mimamsa by Raja sekhara In shame, Sarma gupta or Ramachandra gupta has retired to Himalayas and hence, Dhruvaswamini has continued the rule. Her son was Govinda gupta also seemed to have ruled for sometime.
During this time that Chandragupta-2 (Vikramaditya) has come into forefront. He has corrected two mistakes that have been committed by Samudra gupta : one, in spite of his various Jaitra Yatras, SG (Samudragupta) did not bother about them strategically. He did not have a particular control over the trade routes. CG-2 has seen to it that he had a great control over trade routes. In fact, the Kalinga conquest was primarily for this purpose, to have a control over road and sea routes. Second mistake of SG was to lose contact with people in general. In spite of his great ness, SG has inscribed his eulogies in Sanskrit, which were not understood by common man. Priyadarsi has seen to it that not only his inscriptions were in prakrit, a language known to the common man but also he has ensured that all these inscriptions are read aloud to the gatherings at frequent intervals. He has also cleverly used the tool of religion in order to control the general masses.
Comments
Post a Comment