Tulsi Prajna 1992 04

SR No.: 524570
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Parmeshwar Solanki
Publisher: Jain Vishva Bharati
Publication Year: 1992
Total Pages: 130
Language: Hindi
Classification: Magazine, India_Tulsi Prajna, & India
File Size: 6 MB

Page 110

TULASI-PRAJÑĀ, April-June, 1992
became a sovereign in the real sense of the term and founded a dynasty.
24
4. Number of the components of the dynasty-Indian tradition is almost unanimous in holding that the Nanda dynasty consisted of nine rulers. The 'Mahabodhi Vamṣa' from Ceylon supports it. Hemchandra, the Jaina Scholar reduces it to eight-i.e. Mahāpadma and his seven sons. Diodorus names only one king who succeeded the old king-Xandrames. As the barber favoured by the queen did not ascend the throne, we must keep him aside. Moreover, as ANDROCOTTUS (or SANDROCOTTUS) had replaced Xandrames when SELEUCUS visited India, the previous dynasty must have ended with Xandrames. Even if the equivocal Statement of Curtius is taken to mean that the barber had become a king, the number does not exceed two. Realising the obstacle it places in the way of identifying Xandrames with a Nanda ruler, our esteemed scholars have left no stone unturned to reduce the number of the Nanda rulers. Despite a lot of manipulation of texts, R.m. Smith has not succeeded in bringing the number to one or two. There were three rulers in the Nanda dynasty according to him, namely, Mahāpadma, Sahalya and Nandendu, So even the best efforts for identification have failed.15
ff
Yet R.M. Smith has created a grammatical problem by his manipulation of the text. He translates पर्याये in महापद्मस्य पर्याये as 'manner'. The sentence, therefore, means: "Nanda's successors did continue in this manner, and it was not a Monier Williams, quoting the popular one." 'SaddharmaPundarika, gives such a meaning of the word. The trouble with the interpretation is it disregards the style of the Puraņas. Whenever the Purāņas use the word, they use it in the sense of the line of succession,. But that is not the main objection against him. The real problem is if there were only two kings after Mahapadma in the dynasty, the text should not have used the plural (91:) but dual for them. Absence of dual in English is only partially responsible for this oversight on the part of the esteemed scholar.
5. Duration of Reign-Xandrames must have reigned after the murder of the old king and before the ascension to the throne of SANDRACOTTUS according to the testimony of the classical writers. Nobody assigns a date later than 309 B.C. to the ascension of SANDRACOTTUS i.e. the reign of the dynasty did not last longer than 18 years after the invasion. Xandrames was ruling independently at the time of invasion and his vices had become known to all. So he must have been around 22 at the time. If he ascended the throne at the