________________
158
fourth century B.C., for we find in Kautilaya's Arthasastra, a reference to the Purana, - Janardana Bhatt, Bhaudha Kalina Bharata, p.3.
In the opinion of scholars, the administrative system, described in Kautilya's Arthas astra is, in reality, an elaborated discussion of Candragupta Maurya's administration. So, the date of Arthasastra is, in no case, later than 3rd century BC. Hence, it can be said that the Puranas were compos ed much earlier than 3rd century B.C. Hence, it can be said that the Puranas were composed much earlier than the 3rd century B.C.
Shri Baladeva Upadhayaya, Arya Samskrti Ke Muladhara, p. 164.
(196) Muni Kalyān Vijayaji, op. cit -, p.30n.
(197) Dr. Vincent A. Smith, Early History of India, p.11.
(198) Muni Kalyān Vijayajī has discussed this point at
length in his Vira Nirvana Samvat Aura Jaina Kalaganana, pp. 15-29.
(199)
Modern European writers have inclined to disparage unduly the authority of the Puranic lists, but closer study finds in them, much genuine and valuable historical tradition.
Dr. V. A. Smith, op. cit -, P.12.
The modern scholars have now accepted the view that the Puranas give authentic account of ancient chronology. The facts described in them have been corporated by the edicts, the coins and the reminicences of the foreign travellers. The learned historians, therefore, state that these materials should be regarded as genuine and acceptable.
Shri Baladeva Upadhyaya, op. cit., p. 167. (200) Buddhist India, pp. 277-78.
(201) It is to be noted that the Buddhist tradition runs
counter to the Brahmanical and Jain traditions.
