History and Historians on Jat Mauryan Empire[ founded by Chandragupta in c 323 BC]

[moar]

@ Dear Dr. Rajpal Singh Janghu Sir

Dear Sir,


* As per Your view-point, the Mauryas were — — "Sacae" or "Aryans" or "neither Sacae nor Aryans" or Dravidians ?!

-->> I believe that Mauryas were of "Sacae" descent. <<--


* As per Your view-pont, please arrange these in order of the reliability (more reliable first, less reliable later), as a source on Mauryas — — "The Ceylonese chronicle, Divyāvadāna" / available Buddhist literature / available Jain literature / available Puranic literature ?!

-->> I would rather consult The Ceylonese chronicle, Divyāvadāna as the preferable source; and may consider Indian Buddhist literature as well ?! <<--


* Where do You believe Chandragupta Maurya was born ?!

-->> As per My view-pont, certainly not in Magadha, but a place outside the boundries of the present day 'Republic of India' (please mind the geography).

----

Now, I do understand that it is Your free-will to decide whether or not to answer My questions; but I request You to please answer them !! And, I believe that what I have asked and the way I have asked, is well with scope of civility.

----

Sincerely !!

 

[nrao]

Most remarkable quotes about the dates of Puranas and establishing their antiquity. Excellent piece of scholarship.

V.A. Smith on the Age of Puranas:


Writing a critique of various views on the Age of the Puranas citing various evidences [For details see, Appendix A, pp.22-24 of his "Early History of India, 4th ed. 1957], he concludes by saying:

''I may conclude that Puranas in some shape were already authoritative in the fourth century B.C. The author of the Arthasastra ranks the Athravaveda and Itihasa as the fourth and fifth Vedas (Bk.I, ch.3); and directs the king to spend his afternoons in the study of Itihasa, which is defined as comprising six factors namely, 1. Purana, 2. Itivaritta (history), 3. Akhyayika (tales), 4. Udaharana (illustrous stories), 5. Dharmasastra, and 6. Arthasastra (Bk. 1, ch.5). ''

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Most remarkable quotes about the dates of Puranas and establishing their antiquity. Excellent piece of scholarship.

Friend,

Kindly permit me to produce another equally remarkable evidence about the antiquity of the Puranas with the help of equally great authority as under:

F E Pargiter {The Dynasties of the Kali Age--The treatise is based on the collation of sixty three old Manuscripts of the Puranas and deserves a careful study---, Clarendon Press, 1913} suggests that the Bhavishya Purana in its early form was the original authority from which the Matsya, Vayu and Brahamanda Puranas derived their dynastic list. He further opines that the Matsya version is in some respects the best of those three, notwithstanding that it includes additions of later date.

"Mr. Pargiter holds that there are clear indications that the Sanskrit account of the dynasties as now stands in these three works is an adaptation of older Prakrit slokas, or verses; and there is some reason for suspecting that the most ancient text was originally written in the Kharoshthi script."


Thanks,

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Dear Sir,


* As per Your view-point, the Mauryas were — — "Sacae" or "Aryans" or "neither Sacae nor Aryans" or Dravidians ?!

-->> I believe that Mauryas were of "Sacae" descent. <<--


* As per Your view-pont, please arrange these in order of the reliability (more reliable first, less reliable later), as a source on Mauryas — — "The Ceylonese chronicle, Divyāvadāna" / available Buddhist literature / available Jain literature / available Puranic literature ?!

-->> I would rather consult The Ceylonese chronicle, Divyāvadāna as the preferable source; and may consider Indian Buddhist literature as well ?! <<--


* Where do You believe Chandragupta Maurya was born ?!

-->> As per My view-pont, certainly not in Magadha, but a place outside the boundries of the present day 'Republic of India' (please mind the geography).

----

Now, I do understand that it is Your free-will to decide whether or not to answer My questions; but I request You to please answer them !! And, I believe that what I have asked and the way I have asked, is well with scope of civility.

----

Sincerely !!

Friend,

Patience please, we are as of now are discussing the sources and the discussion on the issue of the Mauryas and their empire is yet to take a proper shape!

I have no doubt about your sincerity and civility but do not loose patience.

Wait and see, which way the available and accessible sources would lead us.

Thanks and best wishes.

 

[moar]

Friend,

Patience please, we are as of now are discussing the sources and the discussion on the issue of the Mauryas and their empire is yet to take a proper shape!

I have no doubt about your sincerity and civility but do not loose patience.

Wait and see, which way the available and accessible sources would lead us.

Thanks and best wishes.

Dear Sir, I was expecting an answer from You !!

----

Anyways, the view-point of "Vishnu Purana", "Markandeya Purana" and "Yuga Purana" on the Mauryas is crystal clear !!

----

Sincerely !!

 

[nrao]

Dr. Rajpal Singh, sorry to put this but it is most confusing. Here is why -

My understanding of the earliest Khroshti inscription appear around 4th -3rd cent BC. However in your previous post, where you quoted V A Smith, you posted and I quote " ... ''I may conclude that Puranas in some shape were already authoritative in the fourth century B.C." meaning they were well in use prior to that time period, which also puts a claim about their Buddhist origin in serious doubt because then you run into Gautam Buddha's time frame in and around 5th century BC.

So there is a diff of almost one full century or more between your two quotes.

How can then Pargiter claim them to be copied from Kharoshti, which did not exist prior to that time period. It is like copying something from later times and claim that it existed earlier? Please sort this ghotala.

Either Smith was wrong in his conclusion or Pargiter is incorrect or Kharosthi already existed much earlier but we do not have its evidence.

Friend,

Kindly permit me to produce another equally remarkable evidence about the antiquity of the Puranas with the help of equally great authority as under:

F E Pargiter {The Dynasties of the Kali Age--The treatise is based on the collation of sixty three old Manuscripts of the Puranas and deserves a careful study---, Clarendon Press, 1913} suggests that the Bhavishya Purana in its early form was the original authority from which the Matsya, Vayu and Brahamanda Puranas derived their dynastic list. He further opines that the Matsya version is in some respects the best of those three, notwithstanding that it includes additions of later date.

"Mr. Pargiter holds that there are clear indications that the Sanskrit account of the dynasties as now stands in these three works is an adaptation of older Prakrit slokas, or verses; and there is some reason for suspecting that the most ancient text was originally written in the Kharoshthi script."


Thanks,

 

[ravichaudhary]

Dr. Rajpal Singh, sorry to put this but it is most confusing. Here is why -

My understanding of the earliest Khroshti inscription appear around 4th -3rd cent BC. However in your previous post, where you quoted V A Smith, you posted and I quote " ... ''I may conclude that Puranas in some shape were already authoritative in the fourth century B.C." meaning they were well in use prior to that time period, which also puts a claim about their Buddhist origin in serious doubt because then you run into Gautam Buddha's time frame in and around 5th century BC.

So there is a diff of almost one full century or more between your two quotes.

How can then Pargiter claim them to be copied from Kharoshti, which did not exist prior to that time period. It is like copying something from later times and claim that it existed earlier? Please sort this ghotala.

Either Smith was wrong in his conclusion or Pargiter is incorrect or Kharosthi already existed much earlier but we do not have its evidence.

On the dating, it may be a better idea to ignore what opinions Pargiter, Wilson, Smith etc gave.

These people gave their analysis, conclusions based on the state of the knowledge at their times, some 200 years ago.

The world is not a different place.

Our knowledge, investigative techniques are much better.


By all means give respect them as pioneers, but stop quoting them as authorities.

There is a need to start afresh.


Ravi Chaudhary

 

[nrao]

Ravi, you are quite right. However, Smith's book seems remarkable since it quoted Chanakya, which provides a good anchor for a date, ie 4th century BC and he claims that Puraans were already well in use. That puts at least some of the Puraans in times earlier than 4th century BC, thus establishing their antiquity.

However, Pargiter's work as quoted does not appear to make sense.

I agree that historical dating should use current research but then what do you do when you run into fringe authors like Ninnan, discussed earlier in this very thread. His book is listed as printed in 2003, which is fairly recent but quite nonsensical. On some measures, such recent authors are worse than colonial ones.

On the dating, it may be a better idea to ignore what opinions Pargiter, Wilson, Smith etc gave.

These people gave their analysis, conclusions based on the state of the knowledge at their times, some 200 years ago.

The world is not a different place.

Our knowledge, investigative techniques are much better.


By all means give respect them as pioneers, but stop quoting them as authorities.

There is a need to start afresh.


Ravi Chaudhary

 

[lrburdak]

If we take Mr. Pargiter's view as quoted by Rajpalji that the most ancient text was originally written in the Kharoshthi script then we have to search history of this script. Let us go to history of development of this script. If we believe Wikipedia as a source, it tells us: The Kharoṣṭhī script is an ancient Indic script used by the Gandhara culture of ancient Northwest South Asia to write the Gāndhārī language and the Sanskrit language. An alphasyllabary, it was in use from the middle of the 3rd century BCE until it died out in its homeland around the 3rd century CE.


Scholars are not in agreement as to whether the Kharoṣṭhī script evolved gradually, or was the deliberate work of a single inventor. An analysis of the script forms shows a clear dependency on the Aramaic alphabet but with extensive modifications to support the sounds found in Indic languages. One model is that the Aramaic script arrived with the Achaemenid conquest of the region of northwest India in 500 BCE and evolved over the next 200+ years to reach its final form by the 3rd century BCE where it appears in some of the Edicts of Ashoka found in northwestern part of the Indian.However, no intermediate forms have yet been found to confirm this evolutionary model, and rock and coin inscriptions from the 3rd century BCE onward show a unified and standard form.

Kharoshthi script can be one of the sources to find the period of Puranas. I could not find exact meaning of Puranas. Common meaning adopted is - "of ancient times". If we go into etymology of the word Purana we can find a clew.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Dr. Rajpal Singh, sorry to put this but it is most confusing. Here is why -

My understanding of the earliest Khroshti inscription appear around 4th -3rd cent BC. However in your previous post, where you quoted V A Smith, you posted and I quote " ... ''I may conclude that Puranas in some shape were already authoritative in the fourth century B.C." meaning they were well in use prior to that time period, which also puts a claim about their Buddhist origin in serious doubt because then you run into Gautam Buddha's time frame in and around 5th century BC.

So there is a diff of almost one full century or more between your two quotes.

How can then Pargiter claim them to be copied from Kharoshti, which did not exist prior to that time period. It is like copying something from later times and claim that it existed earlier? Please sort this ghotala.

Either Smith was wrong in his conclusion or Pargiter is incorrect or Kharosthi already existed much earlier but we do not have its evidence.

Friend,

I have produced quotes from the authors who have done research on the issues like the Age, Language and contents of the Puranas. All these views have been quoted to be used as sign posts for newer scholars to provide smoothness to their march to digging the truth out from the womb of uncertainty.

When we are discussing the contents of Puranas composed/authored hundreds of years ago as source of History, I think we must not accept or reject findings/remarks of any of the authors of 100 or so years of standing without assigning any plausible reason based on latest research.

I neither support these findings nor oppose them at this stage of our discussion as much longer march has to be undertaken to unearth the true nature of the Puranas on the basis of application of the latest tools of research in this field.

Thanks and regards.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Dear Sir, I was expecting an answer from You !!

----

Anyways, the view-point of "Vishnu Purana", "Markandeya Purana" and "Yuga Purana" on the Mauryas is crystal clear !!

----

Sincerely !!

Dear Moar Sahib,

Kindly try to understand if I had tailor-made answers to the issues raised what was the need of starting this thread.

Only introductory or peripheral things have emerged so far, nothing convincing historical sources have come out so far.

If you are keen to find out the facts of the case, then, let some more "Crystal Clear" points of views emerge from Archaeology, Numismatic and other literary sources emerge to supplement or reject them.

Rest assured you will get replies on all issues after the due process of research has been completed by the friends involved in this discussion, till then, your continued cooperation is solicited.

Thanks

 

[drrajpalsingh]

On the dating, it may be a better idea to ignore what opinions Pargiter, Wilson, Smith etc gave.

These people gave their analysis, conclusions based on the state of the knowledge at their times, some 200 years ago.

The world is not a different place.

Our knowledge, investigative techniques are much better.


By all means give respect them as pioneers, but stop quoting them as authorities.

There is a need to start afresh.


Ravi Chaudhary

Chaudhary Sahib,

We fully subscribe to your idea that "There is a need to start afresh", and perhaps marching towards that direction, of course, at snail's pace.

Kindly suggest some faster tools of research, if any, to accelerate the speed.

Thanks and regards.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

If we take Mr. Pargiter's view as quoted by Rajpalji that the most ancient text was originally written in the Kharoshthi script then we have to search history of this script. Let us go to history of development of this script. .....................

Scholars are not in agreement as to whether the Kharoṣṭhī script evolved gradually, or was the deliberate work of a single inventor. An analysis of the script forms shows a clear dependency on the Aramaic alphabet but with extensive modifications to support the sounds found in Indic languages...................................

Kharoshthi script can be one of the sources to find the period of Puranas. I could not find exact meaning of Puranas. Common meaning adopted is - "of ancient times". If we go into etymology of the word Purana we can find a clew.

Friend,

We must definitely try to find out and locate the presence of some oldest MSS of Puranas from oldest repositories like religious shrines Hindu Temples, Buddhist Stupas, Jain Sthanaks etc.spread in nook and corner of India and abroad too to testify the claim of propounder of the theory of Kharosti language of Puranas. Those who know the language used in Sangama Literature may also be approached to find out references in the old Tamil Literature collected at the Three Sangams. Repositories of Cental Asian countries, China, Tibet, Ceylon, Burma, Kambodia, Indonesia, Korea, Vietnam also could perhaps help us to solve the riddle of age of Puranas.

If all of us try unitedly, the task though difficult would prove not impossible.

Thanks.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Alberuni, the author of Kitabul Hind Tahqiq-i-Hind, in 1030 AD has given the list based on Vishnu Purana of 18 Puranas composed by Rishis of India; and they were regarded then also as coming down from immemorial antiquity when the Rishis lived and composed them. He had seen three Mss of three different Puranas. (see for details, Sachau's Trans. Vol. I, pp.130-31, 264)

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Friends,

Till the time scholars come up with their study of Puranas on the Mauryan dynasty and their Empire, let us proceed to another sources of history of that period. I would like to invite views/findings of the scholars on the availability of archaeological sources on the topic. Please come up with your studies and share.

Thanks.

 

[prashantacmet]

Rajpal sahab!...the thread headline suggests that you have already concluded that Mauryan were jats.. "[h=1]History and Historians on Jat Mauryan Empire[ founded by Chandragupta in c 323 BC]"[/h].......what are your evidences in favor of this?...I already asked this question in this thread but you did not reply..

 

[moar]

@ Dear Prashant Vaidwan

Rajpal sahab!...the thread headline suggests that you have already concluded that Mauryan were jats.. "History and Historians on Jat Mauryan Empire[ founded by Chandragupta in c 323 BC]"

.......what are your evidences in favor of this?...I already asked this question in this thread but you did not reply..

Dear Prashant,


-->> on the one hand (in this very same thread),

Dear Dr. Rajpal Sir quotes, "History and Historians on Jat Mauryan Empire[ founded by Chandragupta in c 323 BC]" <<-- ;


-->> while on the other hand (in this very same thread),

Dear Dr. Rajpal Sir quotes, "Patience please, we are as of now are discussing the sources and the discussion on the issue of the Mauryas and their empire is yet to take a proper shape!. . . . Wait and see, which way the available and accessible sources would lead us. . . . Kindly try to understand if I had tailor-made answers to the issues raised what was the need of starting this thread. Only introductory or peripheral things have emerged so far, nothing convincing historical sources have come out so far." <<--


* >> http://www.jatland.com/forums/showt...ta-in-c-323-BC&p=323589&viewfull=1#post323589 <<


* >> http://www.jatland.com/forums/showt...ta-in-c-323-BC&p=323634&viewfull=1#post323634 <<

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Rajpal sahab!...the thread headline suggests that you have already concluded that Mauryan were jats.. "History and Historians on Jat Mauryan Empire[ founded by Chandragupta in c 323 BC]"

.......what are your evidences in favor of this?...I already asked this question in this thread but you did not reply..

Friend,

Led by studies of some Historians like B S Dahiya, R S Joon, Deshraj etc. this surmise has been arrived at and even now it is open for discussion. No final word may be accepted on any of the words of the heading/title of the thread.

Some of other issues that emerge for discussion are summarized as under:

1. The name of the founder of Mauryan empire, his early life, his chronology etc. are open for discussion. I have mentioned it as (c.323 B.C) i.e. circa/about 323 B.C. You will appreciate that the date or year of the establishment of the empire is open for discussion because the date must be either 323 B.C. or something else but not circa!

2. If the dynastic foundation is so complex an issue so is the list of the successors of Chandragupta and their reigning period and end of the dynasty. It needs a lot of research to settle this issue once for all times to come.

3. The religious affiliations/leanings/patronage of different Mauryan Emperors and impact of this policy on the administration and stability/instability of the empire is a bone of contention among scholars across the boundaries of various nations.

4. For settling these and some other issues constant research work has been going on in India, Europe and even in U S A for the last over two hundred years but many issues remain to be resolved as noted above.

5. Then the last but not the least important question is about the etymology and origin of the word Maurya and its modern inheritors/possessors of the word Maurya and their caste in the modern Indian caste system.

These are some of the issues which guided me to start this thread and many more issues could emerge when the scholars indulge themselves fully in collecting the related evidences from the archaeology and contemporary literary sources from every nook and corner of the world today. Then those could be tasted and applied to settle the vexatious issues once for all times to come.

My friend you will appreciate that the issue being discussed belongs to very many years past and the sources remain widely scattered, at times at variance with one another and many times very meager or almost non-existent. Therefore, collection, their examination and relevance to resolve the concerned issues is a time consuming exercise in the study of ancient history.

Evidences have started to pour in through posts of contributors about whom special mention may be made of Raviji , Burdak Sahib, N. Rao and Mour. If you are interested in joining the serious work of research, you are welcome; kindly choose any one of the points/ sub points listed above and help us to show to the world that 'Yes' this is the final word on this issue.

Hope that you would surely co-operate, come forward with your latest findings and thus contribute your valuable time and energy to untangle the issues raised.

Thanks and regards

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Dear Sir..............

Anyways, the view-point of "Vishnu Purana", "Markandeya Purana" and "Yuga Purana" on the Mauryas is crystal clear !!........

Moar Sahib,

Kindly share with us the view-point of three puranas on the "Mauryas'' which is ''crystal clear''. Please quote full references from the pages, editions etc. consulted of all the three Puranas to substantiate our study of the topic in right direction.

Thanks and regards.


P S: Your kind attention is drawn to the preceding post in reply to Mr. Prashant's post. If there has crept in any wrong word in the heading of the thread, kindly suggest replacement so that it could be inserted for the benefit of the concerned scholars.

 

[moar]

Moar Sahib,

Kindly share with us the view-point of three puranas on the "Mauryas'' which is ''crystal clear''. Please quote full references from the pages, editions etc. consulted of all the three Puranas to substantiate our study of the topic in right direction.

Thanks and regards.


P S: Your kind attention is drawn to the preceding post in reply to Mr. Prashant's post. If there has crept in any wrong word in the heading of the thread, kindly suggest replacement so that it could be inserted for the benefit of the concerned scholars.

Dear Sir,

I don't mind texting it over and over and over again, but maybe Dear Ravi Sir, Dear Rao Sir, Dear Burdak Sir won't appreciate this !!

On the Page 147 of the book, "Jats, the ancient rulers: a clan study", the famed belated Jat Historian Dear "Bhim Singh Dahiya" (IRS), wrote :

"Another indication of the foreign nature of these people is given by the Puranas and other Indian works. The Vishnu Purana calls them Sudras. The Markandeya Purana brands the Mauryas as Asuras. Yuga Purana called them "utterly irreligious, though posing as religious". The Mudra Rakshasa calls these people as Mlecchas and Chandragupta himself is called 'Kulahina', i.e., an upstart of unknown family. In the same drama, a character Dingarata (डिन्गराट) figures in the retinue of Chandragupta and Malayaketu. This name is manifestly non-Indian. One is forced to reflect as to why so much antagonism against the Mauryas by the narrators of the Puranas. The theory of the patronage extended to Buddhism by Asoka being the cause will not do because Chandragupta himself was more inclined to Jainism and many other kings of the Maurya dynasty were Brahmanical. The reason lies in the foreign origin of these people. That is why they are called Mleccha, Asuras, etc."

----

Now, the question is, were the Mauryas shudras ?

Were the Jats shudras ?


The Facts show otherwise. There are genetic, archaeological and literary evidences available to overcome such non-sense fringe theories propagated about the Jats and the Mauryas.



Dear Dr. Rajpal Sir, I hope You are aware of the "Padma Shri" award. It is awarded to citizens of India to "recognize" their "distinguished contribution" in various spheres of activity including the Arts, Education, Industry, Literature, Science, Sports, Medicine, Social Service and Public Affairs; however, it has also been awarded to some distinguished individuals who were not citizens of India and who did contribute in various ways to India.


One of the scholars who have been honoured by the "President of India" with the "Padma Shri" award is "Weer Rajendra Rishi".


Do You know what Respected "Weer Rajendra Rishi" (a Padma Shri awardee) has factually written about the "Jats", in his book, "India & Russia: linguistic & cultural affinity" ?


"Weer Rajendra Rishi" (a "Padma Shri" awardee) has attested that the "Jats" are none other than the "Massagetaeans" (maha/great "Getae") < Rishi, Weer Rajendra (1982). India & Russia: linguistic & cultural affinity. Roma. p. 95. >.


Also, please visit : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...ral_affinity_.281982.29_-_Weer_Rajendra_Rishi .


Even "Tadeusz Sulimirski" (Tadeusz Sulimirski studied in Lwow University (now Lviv, Ukraine), where he received his doctorate for his work in prehistory and anthropology. He was a lecturer of prehistory in Lwow University from 1933 to 1936, and then became professor of prehistoric archaeology at the Jagiellonian University in Kraków. With the outbreak of World War II in 1939 he left Poland and went into exile to the United Kingdom, where in 1941 he became secretary general in the Ministry of Education of the Polish government in exile. From 1958, he was professor of Central and Eastern European archaeology in the Institute of Archaeology of the University of London. He gave lectures and seminars in many European countries in 1952-1965, and in a number of United States universities during a tour in 1968-1969. He continued to travel and lecture after retirement.) had directly identified the "Jats" as the "Massagetaeans", and as having "Sacae" descent.

----

The Mauryas were Sacae Jats; and their branding as "Asuras" by the Markandeya Purana is in-fact in direct support of their Iranic origin !!