Tulsi Prajna 1993 02

SR No.: 524574
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Parmeshwar Solanki
Publisher: Jain Vishva Bharati
Publication Year: 1993
Total Pages: 166
Language: Hindi
Classification: Magazine, India_Tulsi Prajna, & India
File Size: 7 MB

Page 136

Mahavira Era
According to the fashion of last two centuries, the entire chronology of Indian history is based on the assumed date of Chandragupta Maurya and the dates of Buddha and Mahavira are no exceptions to it. Jarl Charpentier declares bluntly: "The real chronology of India begins with Chandragupta after the invasion of Alexander. "'15 But "the date of Chandragupta's accession or abhişeka is by no means fixed, varying between 325 and 312 B.C. according to different authorities." So utmost emphasis is laid on the 13th Rock Edict of Aśoka which is supposed to mention certain foreign rulers, namely, Amtiyoka, Turamaya, Amtikina, Maka and Alikasundara. Lassen identifies them with Antichoes II Theos king of Syria (261-246 B.C.) Ptolemaios II of Egypt (d. 247 B.C), Antigonos Gonatas of Macedonia (d. 239 B.C.), Magas of Cyrena (d. 258 B.C.), and Alexander of Epirus (d. probably 258 B.C). As the Rock Edict was published in the thirteenth year of his coronation, that year cannot fall earlier than the accession of Antiochos Theos 26: B.C. and later than the death of Magas 258 B.C. So the year of coronation must have been 272-270 B.C. If Buddha died 218 years earlier as the Ceylonese sources contend, the date must have been 480-488 B.C. But Charpentier believes 218 years refer to Aśoka's conversion to Buddhism and only 209 years had passed since the death of Asoka's coronation. Thus he arrives at the date of 477 B.C. for the death of Buddha. While differing a little in details and conclusions, most of the hisiorians follow the same methodology.
28
The grand structure of Indian coronology created thus though generally accepted is based on quick sand. Charpentier was conscious of the fact that Xandrames or Agrammes mentioned by odorus and Curtius was the king who preceded Sandracottus and the name Xandrames seemed to contain a Chandra in it and there was "no such name amongst the Nandas". 16 But he did not care to pursue the matter further. He ended by following the beated track and identifying Xandrames with the last ruler of the Nanda dynasty and Sandracottus with Chandragupta Maurya. But we know now that Xandrames did not belong to the Nanda dynasty and Sandracottus was not identical with Chandragupta Maurya. Not only that, they were not the rulers of Magadh at all.17 So we cannot place Chandragupta Maurya in the fourth century B C. Nor does it seem credible that Aśoka named five foreign rulers in his inscription. Phonetically 'Amtikini' cannot be identified with Antigonus at least. It is inexplicable why Aśoka used the [names of five foreign rulers in his thirteenth Rock Edict while using the names of kingdoms only in