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

[drrajpalsingh]

Identification of Ancestor's of Chandragupta Maurya: 2
According to Buddhist traditions, " Mauryas are a branch of the Sakyas, who were forced to migrate from Magadha under the pressure of its emperor and had to go live in Udyana. The Maurya married a Naga daughter and seized the throne of Udyana. His son, named Utalosina became king after him and when he was out hunting. Buddha came to his house and told his mother that her son belonged to Buddha's family and therefore, he should take a part of Buddha's ashes from Kushinagar. Uttarasena, staked a claim for the ashes of Buddha on the ground that he was a Ksatriya of the same clan as the Buddha himself."

"The kings of other countries treated him scornfully but Buddha again intervened and told the hostile kings of his wishes and so they allowed Uttrasena to get the ashes."

S. Beal, Buddhist Records of the Western World, Vol. 1, p 128 cited by B.S. Dahiya, Jats --The Ancient Rulers, p. 141

 

[romar]

Identification of Ancestor's of Chandragupta Maurya: 2
According to Buddhist traditions, " Mauryas are a branch of the Sakyas, who were forced to migrate from Magadha under the pressure of its emperor and had to go live in Udyana. The Maurya married a Naga daughter and seized the throne of Udyana. His son, named Utalosina became king after him and when he was out hunting. Buddha came to his house and told his mother that her son belonged to Buddha's family and therefore, he should take a part of Buddha's ashes from Kushinagar. Uttarasena, staked a claim for the ashes of Buddha on the ground that he was a Ksatriya of the same clan as the Buddha himself."

"The kings of other countries treated him scornfully but Buddha again intervened and told the hostile kings of his wishes and so they allowed Uttrasena to get the ashes."

S. Beal, Buddhist Records of the Western World, Vol. 1, p 128 cited by B.S. Dahiya, Jats --The Ancient Rulers, p. 141

Sakya or Scythian main kuch antar hai ya ve barabar hain? Bhagwan Buddha ko bhi Sakyamuni kaha jaata hai. Kya ve bhi scythian the.

 

[nrao]

Sakya or Scythian main kuch antar hai ya ve barabar hain? Bhagwan Buddha ko bhi Sakyamuni kaha jaata hai. Kya ve bhi scythian the.

mere vichar se ye confusion hindi aur sanskrit shabdon ko angrazi mein likhne ka hai. See the diff and decide:

साक्य या शक

I see no similarity unless somebody can provide something better.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Sakya or Scythian main kuch antar hai ya ve barabar hain? Bhagwan Buddha ko bhi Sakyamuni kaha jaata hai. Kya ve bhi scythian the.

Friend,

Welcome to Jatland with this very interesting question which will stimulate the discussion on the question of migration/immigration in ancient times in right direction. This new angle, I think, will lead to openning of new vistas in the History. As Dr. Rao has given his point of view, it is hoped that other scholars will shed further light on the issue.

Thanks.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

World English Dictionary
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
<tbody>[TR="class: tr1"]
[TD="class: td1, colspan: 2"]Sakyamuni (ˌsɑːkjəˈmuːnɪ) [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: tr2"]
[TD="class: td2, colspan: 2"]— n[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: tr3"]
[TD="class: td3n1, width: 1%, align: right"][/TD]
[TD="class: td3n2"]one of the titles of the Buddha, deriving from the name of Sakyawhere he was born[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: tr5"]
[TD="class: td5, colspan: 2"][Sanskrit, literally: hermit of the Sākya tribe][/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]




Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Another piece of information is reproduced hereinunder with due acknowledgement for use in research purpose with the request that origial source must be cited by the users please:

[h=1]Sakya[/h][h=3]From The Dhamma Encyclopedia[/h]
Sakya was both the name of a region and the tribe of people who lived there. Siddhattha Gotama, known in history as the Buddha, was a Sàkyan.
Sàkya was a small country between the much larger kingdom of Kosala and the tribal confederacy of Vijji and which corresponds to the north-east corner of the modern north Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. According to the legend, the Sàkyans took their name from the saka tree, Tectonia grandis, the Indian teak.
Sàkyans were people of the warrior caste, known for their pride and impulsiveness and were considered rustics by their neighbours. Although nominally independent, the Sàkyans were under the influence of their eastern neighbour. In the Tipiñaka it says ‘the Sàkyans are vassals of the King of Kosala, they offer him humble service and salutation, do his bidding and pay him homage’ (D.III,83). Towards the end of the Buddha’s life, his homeland was invaded by and absorbed into Kosala. The Buddha once said to his monks that when others asked them whose philosophy they adhered to or which teacher they followed they should reply that they were ‘sons of the Sàkyan’ (D.III,84), i.e. of the Buddha. There is a community of people in Nepal called Sàkya who claim to be the direct descendants of the ancient people, although historians consider this claim to be unfounded.
[h=2]References[/h]

• http://www.buddhisma2z.com/

 

[ravichaudhary]

Another piece of information is reproduced hereinunder with due acknowledgement for use in research purpose with the request that origial source must be cited by the users please:

[h=1]Sakya[/h][h=3]From The Dhamma Encyclopedia[/h]
Sakya was both the name of a region and the tribe of people who lived there. Siddhattha Gotama, known in history as the Buddha, was a Sàkyan.
Sàkya was a small country between the much larger kingdom of Kosala and the tribal confederacy of Vijji and which corresponds to the north-east corner of the modern north Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. According to the legend, the Sàkyans took their name from the saka tree, Tectonia grandis, the Indian teak.
Sàkyans were people of the warrior caste, known for their pride and impulsiveness and were considered rustics by their neighbours. Although nominally independent, the Sàkyans were under the influence of their eastern neighbour. In the Tipiñaka it says ‘the Sàkyans are vassals of the King of Kosala, they offer him humble service and salutation, do his bidding and pay him homage’ (D.III,83). Towards the end of the Buddha’s life, his homeland was invaded by and absorbed into Kosala. The Buddha once said to his monks that when others asked them whose philosophy they adhered to or which teacher they followed they should reply that they were ‘sons of the Sàkyan’ (D.III,84), i.e. of the Buddha. There is a community of people in Nepal called Sàkya who claim to be the direct descendants of the ancient people, although historians consider this claim to be unfounded.
[h=2]References[/h]

• http://www.buddhisma2z.com/

Dr. Singh has added much valuable information and provided valuable insight.


However, I wonder what the purpose and achievement is in copying and pasteing from myriad websites.

This observation has been brought up more than once, and applies to all including me.

Do they add to our knowledge?

In this case the terms , legend, unfounded, are used by the website for its own story.

Do we really need this kind of post here?

If someone, insists on quoting a website, it should be incumbent on the person, to also add his comments as to why the post is being made.

I sense that this thread is becoming a mish mash.

If my observation is correc, then that should be detrimental to the original objective.

Ravi Chaudhary

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Dr. Singh has added much valuable information and provided valuable insight.


However, I wonder what the purpose and achievement is in copying and pasteing from myriad websites.

This observation has been brought up more than once, and applies to all including me.

Do they add to our knowledge?

In this case the terms , legend, unfounded, are used by the website for its own story.

Do we really need this kind of post here?

If someone, insists on quoting a website, it should be incumbent on the person, to also add his comments as to why the post is being made.

I sense that this thread is becoming a mish mash.

If my observation is correc, then that should be detrimental to the original objective.

Ravi Chaudhary

Chaudhary Sahib,

Apparently this attempt is an abberation from the topic of the thread; but you would appreciate that Chandragupta Maurya's ancestors are said to be closely associated with the founder of the Buddhism and are reported to have demanded a share in the ashes of the Sakyamuni. In this way, it becomes interesting to know, as in fact posted by a friend in his post, if there was any connection between the Sakas and Sakyamuni. That is why I had tried to draw his attention to these two above given sources to enable him to draw his own conclusion.

I fully agree that comments of scholars are not forthcoming on the relevant issues raised and I reiterate my appeal to all concerned to come up for discussion on the theme of the paper with an open mind with write ups with the help of original sources or reinterpretation of the existing sources.

I still wonder if there was any connection between the Sakas and Sakyas of Lumbini or not. In the same way, if we can put absolute reliance on the statement of the later times Chinese Pilagrime that Maurya and Sakyamuni's clans were so closely related that they got share in the Ashes of Buddha. Could someone throw some light on the issue !

Thanks

 

[ravichaudhary]

Chaudhary Sahib,

Apparently this attempt is an abberation from the topic of the thread; but you would appreciate that Chandragupta Maurya's ancestors are said to be closely associated with the founder of the Buddhism and are reported to have demanded a share in the ashes of the Sakyamuni. In this way, it becomes interesting to know, as in fact posted by a friend in his post, if there was any connection between the Sakas and Sakyamuni. That is why I had tried to draw his attention to these two above given sources to enable him to draw his own conclusion.

I fully agree that comments of scholars are not forthcoming on the relevant issues raised and I reiterate my appeal to all concerned to come up for discussion on the theme of the paper with an open mind with write ups with the help of original sources or reinterpretation of the existing sources.

I still wonder if there was any connection between the Sakas and Sakyas of Lumbini or not. In the same way, if we can put absolute reliance on the statement of the later times Chinese Pilagrime that Maurya and Sakyamuni's clans were so closely related that they got share in the Ashes of Buddha. Could someone through light on the issue !

Thanks

Dr Singh

As usual, you are putting clarifications forward with your well known expertise.

That is exactly the explanation that should accompany the original post.


Where exactly do the original Buddhist accounts link the name 'Maurya' to 'Buddha' ?

This may help bring this thread back to its original course.


We still have a few minor matters to deal with:

1) Chronology
2) Identification of Piodases with a Ashok
3) Identification of this Ashok with the grandson of Chandra Gupt Maurya

Ravi Chaudhary

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Dr Singh

As usual, you are putting clarifications forward with your well known expertise.

That is exactly the explanation that should accompany the original post.


Where exactly do the original Buddhist accounts link the name 'Maurya' to 'Buddha' ?

This may help bring this thread back to its original course.


We still have a few minor matters to deal with:

1) Chronology
2) Identification of Piodases with a Ashok
3) Identification of this Ashok with the grandson of Chandra Gupt Maurya

Ravi Chaudhary

Friend,

You will kindly agree that to approach the roots so well suggested by you, we have to demolish some of the fundamental shortcomings being taught in the classes placing reliance on the later day sources like the one earlier posted but reproduced below for your ready reference:

Identification of Ancestor's of Chandragupta Maurya: 2
According to Buddhist traditions, " Mauryas are a branch of the Sakyas, who were forced to migrate from Magadha under the pressure of its emperor and had to go live in Udyana. The Maurya married a Naga daughter and seized the throne of Udyana. His son, named Utalosina became king after him and when he was out hunting. Buddha came to his house and told his mother that her son belonged to Buddha's family and therefore, he should take a part of Buddha's ashes from Kushinagar. Uttarasena, staked a claim for the ashes of Buddha on the ground that he was a Ksatriya of the same clan as the Buddha himself."

"The kings of other countries treated him scornfully but Buddha again intervened and told the hostile kings of his wishes and so they allowed Uttrasena to get the ashes."

S. Beal, Buddhist Records of the Western World, Vol. 1, p 128 cited by B.S. Dahiya, Jats --The Ancient Rulers, p. 141.''

I fully endorse the implications and need of these three points suggested by you to restrict our discussion in manageable limits but have not been able to lay my hands on some incontrovertible source so far and my search for them continues.

In the meantime subsidiary queries have to be attended.



It would be good if someone could suggest some way out to set the matter in order on the suggested lines at the earliest possible.

With regards and thanks.

 

[ravichaudhary]

Friend,

You will kindly agree that to approach the roots so well suggested by you, we have to demolish some of the fundamental shortcomings being taught in the classes placing reliance on the later day sources like the one earlier posted but reproduced below for your ready reference:

Identification of Ancestor's of Chandragupta Maurya: 2
According to Buddhist traditions, " Mauryas are a branch of the Sakyas, who were forced to migrate from Magadha under the pressure of its emperor and had to go live in Udyana. The Maurya married a Naga daughter and seized the throne of Udyana. His son, named Utalosina became king after him and when he was out hunting. Buddha came to his house and told his mother that her son belonged to Buddha's family and therefore, he should take a part of Buddha's ashes from Kushinagar. Uttarasena, staked a claim for the ashes of Buddha on the ground that he was a Ksatriya of the same clan as the Buddha himself."

"The kings of other countries treated him scornfully but Buddha again intervened and told the hostile kings of his wishes and so they allowed Uttrasena to get the ashes."

S. Beal, Buddhist Records of the Western World, Vol. 1, p 128 cited by B.S. Dahiya, Jats --The Ancient Rulers, p. 141.''

I fully endorse the implications and need of these three points suggested by you to restrict our discussion in manageable limits but have not been able to lay my hands on some incontrovertible source so far and my search for them continues.

In the meantime subsidiary queries have to be attended.



It would be good if someone could suggest some way out to set the matter in order on the suggested lines at the earliest possible.

With regards and thanks.

We are not going to ' demolish' anything by cutting and pasting from websites or by simply quoting some 'authors', and referring to some vague Buddhist 'tradition', as if that would give the 'post' some credibility.

Beal was a 19th century? English Burebucrat who lived and wrote in China. He would not have the faintest idea of Indian culture as it existed in his time, let alone two thosand years before his time, or even 1200 years before when Huen tsang visited India.


Huen Tsang picked up some tales of what happened,( by conventional dating, a 1,000 years prior), and that is supposed to be an impeccable source??

Even by his account, Buddhism was not flourishing, and where there should have been flourishing monastries, there were ruins. Something neither he, nor the earlier traveller I Tsing could explain.


As for dealing with subsidiary points, I am back to the 'cutting and pasting' exercise.

What is point of doing that, if no explanation is given?

Should the uninformed reader, and that applies to most of us including me, believe or not believe in the truthfulness and credibility of what is posted??

On a general site like this, explanations are important.

Warm regards

Ravi Chaudhary

 

[drrajpalsingh]

We are not going to ' demolish' anything by cutting and pasting from websites or by simply quoting some 'authors', and referring to some vague Buddhist 'tradition', as if that would give the 'post' some credibility.

Beal was a 19th century? English Burebucrat who lived and wrote in China. He would not have the faintest idea of Indian culture as it existed in his time, let alone two thosand years before his time, or even 1200 years before when Huen tsang visited India.


Huen Tsang picked up some tales of what happened,( by conventional dating, a 1,000 years prior), and that is supposed to be an impeccable source??

Even by his account, Buddhism was not flourishing, and where there should have been flourishing monastries, there were ruins. Something neither he, nor the earlier traveller I Tsing could explain.


As for dealing with subsidiary points, I am back to the 'cutting and pasting' exercise.

What is point of doing that, if no explanation is given?

Should the uninformed reader, and that applies to most of us including me, believe or not believe in the truthfulness and credibility of what is posted??

On a general site like this, explanations are important.

Warm regards

Ravi Chaudhary

Thanks Chaudhary Sahib for your comments on the quoted translation of the Chinese traveller and his record. This means his record regarding kinship between the Sakyamooni and the so called ancestor of the Maurya dynasty cannot be accepted as a reliable source of historic use.

In future an attempt would be made to add comments simultaneously on the 'quotes'.


Regards and thanks.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Let us first discuss original home of the Jats and the so called Indo Aryans, their participation in Deva Asur War and subsequent migration and immigration.on the other thread entitled:

Chronology of Indian History --Newer discussions



The results of the same would be utilized to fix the date of the Maurya dynasty. Till then, bye,.....

 

[gdprasad]

Sandracottus is Chandragupta Maurya or Gupta Chandragupta

I am glad that this issue is being debated.

Sandracottus was identified as Chandragupta and assumed to be Chandragupta Maurya.
But there was another Chandragupta, Gupta Chandragupta. Both are seperated in time by about 1200 years.

Pandit Kota Venkata Chelam and others argued with evidence from Puranas that the person at
the time of Alexander should be 'Gupta Chandragupta'.

This is a key issue to be resolved as many other dates like the date of Ashoka, Buddha are linked with it.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

I am glad that this issue is being debated.

Sandracottus was identified as Chandragupta and assumed to be Chandragupta Maurya.
But there was another Chandragupta, Gupta Chandragupta. Both are seperated in time by about 1200 years.

Pandit Kota Venkata Chelam and others argued with evidence from Puranas that the person at
the time of Alexander should be 'Gupta Chandragupta'.

This is a key issue to be resolved as many other dates like the date of Ashoka, Buddha are linked with it.

Welcome friend.

A good question which needs deep probing.

This is necessary to replace the existing knowledge by the newer one as we know as of now that:

So far Gupta dynasty is concerned, there were two Chandra Guptas. The First was Chandragupta I, the Father of famous Samudragupta.

Another was second son of Samudragupta known as Chandragupta II/Vikramaditya, who ruled c.380 A.D. to 414 A.D.

Chandragupta Maurya is said to have preceded Chandragupta II of Gupta dynasty by about 680 years [ not 1200 years?]

Kindly share some more details about the finding quoted by you and do not forget to add sources used [Puranas in this case with references to be read for scrutiny by the participants] so that significance of this newer research may be established on sound foundation.

Thanks.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

In the absence of concrete evidence or availability of debatable sources, after having discussed all available and accessible sources, the historians fall back upon finding Cross Contacts of the person involved with the contemporary personage and if found, the dust of storm automatically settles.

While discussing chronological issues in history, in addition to other things, cross contacts come handy to clinch the debate as has been done in the case of deciding the date of Kanishaka. The issue remained a hot bed of discussion world over till his battle with Pan Chao, the Chinese General, was brought to light and the issue of his rule was finally settled.


In addition we get two other cross contacts in Indian Proto-history:

Ashoka and Antiok, {Antiokas] the Yona Raja in c. 257 B.C.

Divodasa of Helmund, Indatu of Ur, Hashrava of North Iran and Emissum of Larsa provide cross contacts in c.2000--1970 B.C.

The discussion on the issue would be fruitful on the chronological infrastructure of any of the royal person or Rishi or any other great person belonging to the Proto-historic India should satisfy these two fixed points.

 

[gdprasad]

Welcome friend.

A good question which needs deep probing.

This is necessary to replace the existing knowledge by the newer one as we know as of now that:

So far Gupta dynasty is concerned, there were two Chandra Guptas. The First was Chandragupta I, the Father of famous Samudragupta.

Another was second son of Samudragupta known as Chandragupta II/Vikramaditya, who ruled c.380 A.D. to 414 A.D.

Chandragupta Maurya is said to have preceded Chandragupta II of Gupta dynasty by about 680 years [ not 1200 years?]

Kindly share some more details about the finding quoted by you and do not forget to add sources used [Puranas in this case with references to be read for scrutiny by the participants] so that significance of this newer research may be established on sound foundation.

Thanks.

Pandit Chelam in his books published around 1955, not available for purchase now, answered many questions. From one of his books:
European scholars, who attempted to construct our history, seriously erred in chronology.

1. The false assumption that the Aryans came from outside India and the wrong identification of Chandra-Gupta-Maurya of 1534 B.C, with another Chandra-Gupta, the contemporary of Alexander(326 B.C.), led to several errors in chronology and other aspects of our history.
2. The Puranas, which are a storehouse of historical information, were discredited as mere fiction. Several facts from the Puranas that do credit to our history and culture are entirely omitted in the historical writings of Europeans and their Indian followers.
3. Some Indologists went to the length of interpolating in and otherwise tampering with the writings of ancient foreign visitors of India and with the Buddhist literature
4. Many ancient inscriptions like the Kumbhalghar Inscription (V.S.1537) were destroyed.
5. The genuine Inscription of Janamejaya ( Indian Antiquity pp333,334) dated Kali 89 or 3012 B.C. has been rejected as being spurious. Several other important ancient inscriptions between 4148 B>C. And 300 B.C., were destroyed.
6. Some coins and inscriptions have been misread, mis-interpreted, misapplied and misrepresented and some are forged so as to be used for supporting the modern theories.
7. The Aihole inscription and others that establish correctly the date of the Mahabharata War, 3138 B.C., have been neglected.
8. Some important dates which are supposed to be the Anchor Sheets of Ancient Indian chronology have been arbitrarily determined, with no regard for or reference to ancient literature.

For his arguments please patiently go through
trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.in

 

[drrajpalsingh]

As advised I have gone through the contents of trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot in.

True to the motto of the blogspot :OUR MOTTO: " The best way to undermine the foundations of a false creed (History) and successfully attack it, is to lay it open to the eyes of all and exhibit it as it really is. Error never retains its hold over the mind except under the mask of truth which it contrives to assume. When deprived of the mask that has covered its emptiness and unreality, it vanishes away as a phantom and an illusion. " (Vide: The Life and Legend of Gautama by Bishop P. Bigandet )

the author has missed no chance to decry each and everyone in his blog post: Alexander's contemporary wrongly identified

that too without quoting any reference/book/names of the puranas /no page numbers/editions and places of publication/ or

inscriptions/numismatics or any historical source to substantiate his argument.

This type of material does not qualify to be discussed here as advised by the moderators/editors too. So no further comments on it.

Friend,

What is your opinion on the utility of cross contacts in Indian Proto-history especially for determining the Mauryan Dynasty's identity using the following cross contact found on the Asokan Inscription itself.

Ashoka and Antiok, {Antiokas] the Yona Raja in c. 257 B.C.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Pandit Chelam in his books published around 1955, not available for purchase now, answered many questions. From one of his books:
European scholars, who attempted to construct our history, seriously erred in chronology.

1. The false assumption that the Aryans came from outside India and the wrong identification of Chandra-Gupta-Maurya of 1534 B.C, with another Chandra-Gupta, the contemporary of Alexander(326 B.C.), led to several errors in chronology and other aspects of our history.
2. The Puranas, which are a storehouse of historical information, were discredited as mere fiction. Several facts from the Puranas that do credit to our history and culture are entirely omitted in the historical writings of Europeans and their Indian followers.
3. Some Indologists went to the length of interpolating in and otherwise tampering with the writings of ancient foreign visitors of India and with the Buddhist literature
4. Many ancient inscriptions like the Kumbhalghar Inscription (V.S.1537) were destroyed.
5. The genuine Inscription of Janamejaya ( Indian Antiquity pp333,334) dated Kali 89 or 3012 B.C. has been rejected as being spurious. Several other important ancient inscriptions between 4148 B>C. And 300 B.C., were destroyed.
6. Some coins and inscriptions have been misread, mis-interpreted, misapplied and misrepresented and some are forged so as to be used for supporting the modern theories.
7. The Aihole inscription and others that establish correctly the date of the Mahabharata War, 3138 B.C., have been neglected.
8. Some important dates which are supposed to be the Anchor Sheets of Ancient Indian chronology have been arbitrarily determined, with no regard for or reference to ancient literature.

For his arguments please patiently go through
trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.in

Kindly join discussion on the issues raised by you regarding the chronology of Mahabharata by log on :

http://www.jatland.com/forums/showt...harata-and-Bharata-Battle&p=334794#post334794

Thanks.

 

[drrajpalsingh]

Asoka, the Great, had interwoven the duties of an emperor and the paternal guardian of his subjects that on his edicts he showed his determination to perform both the duties so that his people could enjoy all the facilities that a secular welfare state could provide in this world and to advise his people to follow the path of righteousness so that their life hereinafter may also be success. That is why HG Wells has applauded his achievements in no uncertain terms and another historian has remarked that the name of Asoka, and only Asoka shines as a pole star among the millions of the kings and ruler of the world. He was the third Maurya Jat ruler in the glorious magadhan kingdom of the ancient India.