Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

date of birth of adi sankara and buddha

Expand Messages
  • dr manish agarwala
    respected sri kalyanaraman ji, this is with reference to your post dated 26th june 2005, in the indian archaeology forum (digest no 842 dated 26th june 2005)
    Message 1 of 12 , Jun 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      respected sri kalyanaraman ji,
       
      this is with reference to your post dated 26th june 2005, in the indian archaeology forum (digest no 842 dated 26th june 2005) on the topic "Date of birth of Adi Shankarachrya".
       
      you have cited references and research work and have calculated the date of birth of adi sankaracharya to be 3 April 509 BCE (vaishakha panchami). thus this year (2005) is the 2514th Jayanthi of Adi Shankara.
       
      you have stated that " A seminar was held in Mumbai by the on October 20 and 21, 2002on the dates of Adi Shankara, Gautama Buddha and Acarya Canakya. There was unanimity among the scholars on the date of Adi Shankara."
       
      sir, with due respect, this date of birth of adi sankara does not coform to what the other scholars say.
       
      as per my knowledge adi sankaracharya is said to be born in the 8th century AD. some give a date 805 AD. adi sankara is supposed to have died in 837 AD. to push back this date to the 6th century BC - seems to far fetched.
       
      again, in this scenario, if we accept the date of birth of adi sankara to be 509 BC, - Buddha and adi sanakaracharya become contemporaries.
      this is not true.
       
      in this situation, how will you determine buddha's birth date ? this is a very delicate matter and has immense historical importance.
       
      as per the information with me, different scholars put the birth date of buddha on 624 BC or 567 BC or 563 BC. the date of parinibbana (death) is put as 544 BC or 487 BC or 483 BC, by different  scholars.
       
      the third dhamma council (sangayana) was held in the time of king asoka. different scholars may give different dates, but that this counil was held in the time of asoka is confirmed. (the first council was held on the year of buddha's death and the second was held 100 years or so after the first.)
       
      the mahayanists held their council in 1st century AD, at kundalavana, kashmir, under the reign of kanishka. clearly, by then the original pure dhamma,as taught by the buddha had started declining.
       
      by 550 AD or the 6th century AD, buddha had been declared to be a vishnu avatara (there is a rock edict citing the matsya purana. 6th century AD. mahabalipuram).
       
      all the scholars put adi sankara in the 8th century AD, much after the buddha.
      by the time of adi sankara, original dhamma - as taught by the buddha, had declined (lost to india, in it's pure form). thus, sankaracharya opposed what had now become "buddhism". clealry, sankaracharya post dates the buddha and he came after the pure dhamma, as taught by the buddha, was lost to this country. in no way, can adi sankara be placed in the 6th century BC.
       
      even if, an attempt is made to push the date of buddha, much backwards than
       6th century BC, to accomodate adi sankara in the 6th century BC - there will be a problem. the third dhamma council (sangayana) was held in the reign of the king asoka. the second in the reign of kalasoka. the first was held in the reign of ajatashatru. again, king asoka sent dhamma missionaries to foreign lands, including burma and sri lanka. we have the historical records of the sri lankans and burmese, about these dhamma duta. how will you accomodate so many dates and yet justify the date of adi sankara to be 6th century BC ?
       
      sir, the date of birth of buddha is a very important matter. some thousand years after the death of buddha, his teachings had become "buddhism" and the entire teachings (both theory and practical) was lost to india. by now buddha was a vishnu avatara.
       
      most humbly and respectfully, I request you, sir, to examine the theories put forward by you and other scholars.
       
      for your inforamation, I would like to mention that the vipassana research institute, igatpuri, india, cites the date of birth of buddha to be vaiskha purnima 624 BC.
      you may check:-
       
      the sixth dhamma council (sangayana) was convened by Prime Minister U Nu of Burma in May 1954, in Rangoon, with the collaboration and participation of learned monks from various countries of the world. Venerable Abhidhaja Maharattha guru Bhadanta Revata presided over the council and 2,500 learned monks from Burma, Sri Lanka, Thailand, India, and other countries, re-examined the text of the tipitaka. the council  completed its task on the full moon day of Ves±kha in 1956, the 2,500th anniversary of the Buddha’s
      mahaparinibbana.
      you may check:-
       
      thus the date of parinibbana works out to be 544 BC (as per vipassana research institute and as per the govt. of burma)
       
      thus this year (2005) is the 2548th "buddha varsha" as per vipassana research institute and the official date of the govt. of burma. if the date of birth of adi sankaracharya is taken to be 3 April 509 BC.this year (2005) becomes the 2514th Jayanthi of Adi Shankara.
      buddha and adi sankara were not contemporaries.
       
      based on all the above discussion, it is proved that adi sankara was not born in the 6th century BC, in the time of mahavira and buddha (who were contemporaries). if adi sankara is placed in the 6th century BC, we can present the entire history of jainism to prove that adi sankara was not present in the 6th century BC.
       
      regards,
      dr manish agarwala
      calcutta, india

      -----------------------------


      Free antispam, antivirus and 1GB to save all your messages
      Only in Yahoo! Mail: http://in.mail.yahoo.com
    • S.Kalyanaraman
      ... wrote: http://www.vri.dhamma.org/publications/buddha3.html ... vipassana research institute and as per the govt. of burma) ...
      Message 2 of 12 , Jul 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, dr manish agarwala
        <vipassana_infonet@y...> wrote:>
        http://www.vri.dhamma.org/publications/buddha3.html
        >
        > thus the date of parinibbana works out to be 544 BC (as per
        vipassana research institute and as per the govt. of burma)
        >
        > thus this year (2005) is the 2548th "buddha varsha" as per
        vipassana research institute and the official date of the govt. of
        burma. if the date of birth of adi sankaracharya is taken to be 3
        April 509 BC.this year (2005) becomes the 2514th Jayanthi of Adi
        Shankara.
        > buddha and adi sankara were not contemporaries.
        >
        > based on all the above discussion, it is proved that adi sankara
        was not born in the 6th century BC, in the time of mahavira and
        buddha (who were contemporaries). if adi sankara is placed in the 6th
        century BC, we can present the entire history of jainism to prove
        that adi sankara was not present in the 6th century BC.

        For a contra view, see URL:

        http://www.geocities.com/narenp/history/info/epilogue.htm#buddha

        How about the date of As'oka? Was it 1000 BCE as noted in Puratattva
        based on a review of archaeological finds by Dr. Sundara Adiga?

        I don't think we should ignore the Chinese Buddhist tradition which
        dates the Buddha to ca. 1000 BCE.

        Dhanyavaadah.

        K.
      • Francesco Brighenti
        ... Puratattva based on a review of archaeological finds by Dr. Sundara Adiga? Here is the earthshaking concluding paragraph of A. Sundara s paper (an e-copy
        Message 3 of 12 , Jul 8, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "S.Kalyanaraman"
          <kalyan97@g...> wrote:

          > How about the date of As'oka? Was it 1000 BCE as noted in
          Puratattva > based on a review of archaeological finds by Dr.
          Sundara Adiga?


          Here is the earthshaking concluding paragraph of A. Sundara's
          paper (an e-copy of which I have just added to the group's Files
          section):

          << [T]he Mauryan period seems to be nearer to the end of the
          Harappan civilization. Hence there is need to re-examine thoroughly
          and comprehensively the traditional accounts of the history of our
          country in general as given in the Puranas and of the Mauryan
          history in space and time over a wider perspective such as the
          excavations at Jaugada, Rajagriha, Pataliputra as well as the
          chronology of the rulers of different dynasties succeeding the
          Mauryas etc. in particular for which archaeological and epigraphical
          evidences are also available. Relatively the antiquity and
          development of the Brahmi script also, is required to be examined. >>

          What is stunning about this confused attempt at dating the age of
          Ashoka back to the late second millennium BC is, that the author
          conveniently ignores in his article the finding of some Ashokan rock
          inscriptions written in Greek and Aramaic in Arachosia, which prove
          beyond all doubts that he Ashoka reigned *after* Alexander's
          conquest of that country. A bilingual Greek-Aramaic inscription was
          found in 1957 on a large boulder just north of old Kandahar in South
          Afghanistan (see text translation below). The inscribed panel, only
          a few centimeters deep, is 55 cm. high and includes a complete Greek
          text of 13.5 lines, and, 8 lines of an incomplete Aramaic text. More
          Ashokan texts, this time in Aramaic script and language, were
          discovered in 1969 and in 1973 on a rock surface in the Laghman
          valley in southeastern Afghanistan. Another Mauryan text, this time
          only in Greek and inscribed on a stone slab, was found in Kandahar
          in 1963. The slab probably formed part of a much larger monument
          perhaps containing all the fourteen major rock edicts of Ashoka.
          Like the bilingual edict, this inscription does not copy any of the
          Rock or Pillar Edicts of India, but it does correspond in part to
          the XII and XIII Major Rock Edicts of Ashoka, of which it represents
          a Greek adaptation. Another text, written in Aramaic script but
          Aramaic-Prakrit (or, possibly, Aramaic-Iranian) in content, was
          found in Kandahar in 1963.

          Here is the translation of the text of Ashoka's bilingual Greek-
          Aramaic inscription at Kandahar:

          http://www.tphta.ws/TPH_ASK1.HTM#Kandahar_

          << Kandahar Bilingual Rock Inscription

          [Greek Version] Ten years being completed king Piyadassi showed
          piety (i.e. Dhamma) to men. And from that time [onwards] he made men
          more pious. And all things prosper throughout the whole world. And
          the king refrains from [eating] living beings, and indeed other men
          and whosoever [were] the king's huntsmen and fishermen have ceased
          from hunting, and those who were without control [over themselves]
          have ceased as far as possible from their lack of [self-] control,
          and [have become] obedient to father and mother and to elders, such
          as was not the case before. And in future, doing all these things,
          they will live more agreeably and better than before.

          [Aramaic Version] Ten years having passed, our Lord the king
          Piyadassi, decided to instruct men in Dhamma. Since then, evil among
          men has diminished in the world. Among those who have suffered it
          has disappeared, and there is joy and peace in the whole world. And
          even in another matter, that which concerns eating, our Lord the
          king kills very few animal. Seeing this the rest of the people have
          also ceased from killing animals. Even those who catch fish, their
          activity has been prohibited. Similarly those that were without
          restraint have now learnt restraint. Obedience to mother and father,
          and elders, and conformity with the obligations implied in this, is
          now in practice. There are no more trials for men of piety. Thus the
          practise of Dhamma is of value to all men, and it will continue to
          be so. >>

          I have always been wondering how K.D. Sethna, whose book I have not
          read yet, justifies the existence of these rock inscriptions vis-à-
          vis his dating of the Mauryan Age to the late second millennium BC.
          Were Greek and Aramaic spoken (and written!) in Arachosia in the
          late second millennium BC? :^)

          Discussion is welcome.

          Regards,
          Francesco Brighenti
        • Artur Karp
          ... Puratattva based on a review of archaeological finds by Dr. Sundara Adiga? I have always been wondering how K.D. Sethna, whose book I have not read yet,
          Message 4 of 12 , Jul 10, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            At 11:57 2005-07-08, you wrote:

            --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "S.Kalyanaraman"
            <kalyan97@g...> wrote:

            > How about the date of As'oka? Was it 1000 BCE as noted in
            Puratattva > based on a review of archaeological finds by Dr.
            Sundara Adiga?


            I have always been wondering how K.D. Sethna, whose book I have not
            read yet, justifies the existence of these rock inscriptions vis-à-
            vis his dating of the Mauryan Age to the late second millennium BC.
            Were Greek and Aramaic spoken (and written!) in Arachosia in the
            late second millennium BC? :^)

            Discussion is welcome.

            Regards,
            Francesco Brighenti




            Dear Francesco,

            There is really no problem. Ashoka obviously can (and must) be dated at 1000
            BCE. There are several valid reasons for that, the strongest of them being
            that it's a nice date, easy to remember.

            As far as the rest of your argumentation is concerned, it can (and must) be
            dismissed as completely irrelevant and nonsensical. Why, don't you know that
            what you call Greek-Aramaic was in fact the purely Indian mleccha prakrit
            (used first all over the subcontinent, and then even as far as in Europe)
            spoken since times immemorial by the Indian metallurgists? The ones, who
            created the Vedic civilization of the mighty Saraswati?


            Cheers,

            Artur Karp
          • S.Kalyanaraman
            ... prakrit (used first all over the subcontinent, and then even as far as in Europe) spoken since times immemorial by the Indian metallurgists? The ones,
            Message 5 of 12 , Jul 10, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, Artur Karp <karp@u...> wrote:
              > At 11:57 2005-07-08, you wrote: Why, don't you know that
              > what you call Greek-Aramaic was in fact the purely Indian mleccha
              prakrit> (used first all over the subcontinent, and then even as far as
              in Europe)> spoken since times immemorial by the Indian metallurgists?
              The ones, who> created the Vedic civilization of the mighty Saraswati?

              Artur,

              Any explanations as to why mleccha-mukha (Samskr.tam) or milakkha
              (Pali) both mean 'copper (metal)'?

              Dhanyavaadah.

              K.
            • Artur Karp
              At 17:41 2005-07-10, you wrote: Artur, Any explanations as to why mleccha-mukha (Samskr.tam) or milakkha (Pali) both mean copper (metal) ? Dhanyavaadah. K.
              Message 6 of 12 , Jul 10, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                At 17:41 2005-07-10, you wrote:


                Artur,

                Any explanations as to why mleccha-mukha (Samskr.tam) or milakkha
                (Pali) both mean 'copper (metal)'?

                Dhanyavaadah.

                K.



                Dear S. Kalyanaraman,


                Interesting matter - mleccha/milakkhu as 'copper'.

                No, I don't have any ready explanation. And that's why I'd be grateful for
                quotations from Sanskrit and Pali texts. I wouldn't be too demanding: let's
                agree 50 quotations would be enough.

                But --- by the way, just not to forget the topic of this thread: would such
                quotations support in any way the new date for Ashoka (1000 BCE)? And, of
                course, there
                remains that little problem of Greek-Aramaic Ashokan inscriptions.

                Cheers,

                A.
              • S.Kalyanaraman
                ... wrote: Interesting matter - mleccha/milakkhu as copper . ... grateful for quotations from Sanskrit and Pali texts. I wouldn t be too demanding: let s
                Message 7 of 12 , Jul 10, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, Artur Karp <karp@u...>
                  wrote:> Interesting matter - mleccha/milakkhu as 'copper'.
                  >
                  > No, I don't have any ready explanation. And that's why I'd be
                  grateful for> quotations from Sanskrit and Pali texts. I wouldn't be
                  too demanding: let's> agree 50 quotations would be enough.

                  Thanks, Artur. It appears -mukha in mleccha-mukha is cognate
                  with 'mu~ha' (meaning in Santali: the quantity of iron produced at one
                  time in a native smelting furnace). Homonym which can be represented
                  in hieroglyphs: mu~ha~ mu~hi~ = in front of, face to face (as two oxen
                  face to face!) (There are over 100 quotes in Sarasvati 7 vols. There
                  is an entire episode of Yudhishthira-Vidura samvaada in mleccha
                  recorded in Mahabharata epic.

                  Yes, Artur, As'oka is the thread. It will be nice if Sundara's article
                  in Puratattva is critically studied. Even in physics, basic premises
                  are questioned and answers attempted. So, we should take an
                  archaeologist's view in all seriousness. I have no problem if
                  Sundara's views are rejected. He has argued and his arguments should
                  cannot be ignored lightly, methinks.

                  Dhanyavaadah.
                • Artur Karp
                  ... Could I have the quotations, please? I mean --- portions of Sanskrit/Pali texts with mleccha/milakkhu used in the meaning of copper ? OK. Let s agree to
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jul 11, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    At 06:17 2005-07-11, you wrote:

                    >--- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, Artur Karp <karp@u...>
                    >wrote:> Interesting matter - mleccha/milakkhu as 'copper'.
                    > >
                    > > No, I don't have any ready explanation. And that's why I'd be
                    >grateful for> quotations from Sanskrit and Pali texts. I wouldn't be
                    >too demanding: let's> agree 50 quotations would be enough.
                    >
                    >Thanks, Artur. It appears -mukha in mleccha-mukha is cognate
                    >with 'mu~ha' (meaning in Santali: the quantity of iron produced at one
                    >time in a native smelting furnace). Homonym which can be represented
                    >in hieroglyphs: mu~ha~ mu~hi~ = in front of, face to face (as two oxen
                    >face to face!) (There are over 100 quotes in Sarasvati 7 vols. There
                    >is an entire episode of Yudhishthira-Vidura samvaada in mleccha
                    >recorded in Mahabharata epic.

                    Could I have the quotations, please?

                    I mean --- portions of Sanskrit/Pali texts with mleccha/milakkhu used in
                    the meaning of "copper"?

                    OK. Let's agree to 25 such quotations. I would just like to see the
                    contexts for myself.

                    Cheers,

                    Artur Karp
                  • dr manish agarwala
                    dear Francesco Brighenti, asoka should definitely be placed after the alexander s invasion. the rise of the mauryas was after the alexander s invasion. dating
                    Message 9 of 12 , Jul 14, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      dear Francesco Brighenti,

                      asoka should definitely be placed after the alexander's invasion.
                       
                      the rise of the mauryas was after the alexander's invasion.
                       
                      dating asoka after alexander's invasion also justifies the greek-aramaic inscriptions. dr bratindra nath mukherjee is perhaps the world's leading authority on the question of greek aramaic asokan inscriptions. this renowned epigraphist has published a book on the greek aramaic asokan inscriptions (published by indian museum, calcutta). I have personally met him. he places
                      asoka after the alexander's invasion.
                       
                      some date asoka reign to be between 272 (or 273) BC  and 232 BC. they date the third buddhist council to be 252 BC.  alexander's invasion is 326 BC. V.A. Smith has called this date of 326 BC to be a "sheet anchor" - a well confirmed date.
                       
                      there is another view which puts the third buddhist council to be at 326 BC. this is the burmese view. however this clashes the asokan reign with the alexander's invasion (assuming that 326 BC is confirmed). there are no pali records stating that alexander invaded india during asokan reign.
                       
                      we we compile all evidence, it becomes clear that asoka was after the buddha and asoka was after alexander's invasion. (buddha - alexander - asoka)
                      again, the first buddhist council was at the time of buddha's death. second a 100 years after. the third council (during asokan times) was more than 100 years after the second.
                       
                      I would personally place buddha in the period 567 (or 563 BC) - 487 (or 483 BC). I have problems in accepting the burmese view (also shared by VRI, igatpuri) which dates the buddha between 624 and 544 BC. (this date is also endorsed by V A Smith, however ) dating buddha 624 and 544 BC leads to the third buddhist council , during asoka at 326 BC. there are no pali records stating that alexander invaded india during asokan reign or on the year of the third buddhist sangayana.
                       
                      thus I accept the date of  alexander's invasion to be around 326 BC. thus I place asoka at a later date where the greek-aramaic inscriptions are justified.
                      asoka has to be after buddha and after alexander to get dhamma message written in greek -aramaic. thus I accept the asoka reign to be between 272 (or 273) BC  and 232 BC and  the third buddhist council to be 252 BC. some scholars do suggest a 3-4 year difference and I have come across a date of 248 BC for the third buddhist council.
                       
                      dating asoka at 1000 BC or buddha even before that - is not justified.
                       
                      with due respect, there is sometimes a tendency to date hindu scriptures and other hindu saints to be much much older than they actually are. this confuses the timeline and makes matters appear confusing, whereas there is no actual confusion.
                       
                      there have been recent findings at kanganhalli and langudi which confirm that piyadassi was the king asoka and that he had embraced buddha dhamma. if the findings are carbon dated, I am sure that asokan period will be found to be after alexander's invasion and that too in the period around 250 BC.
                       
                      this is my third and last post on the topic of dating buddha, asoka, alexander and adi sanakaracharya.
                       
                      hope that helps.
                       
                      best regards,
                      dr manish agarwala
                       
                       


                      How much free photo storage do you get? Store your friends n family photos for FREE with Yahoo! Photos.
                      http://in.photos.yahoo.com
                    • Artur Karp
                      ... Since I am going to leave Warsaw after a couple of days (summer vacations) I d be really grateful if you sent me the quotations. If not 25, let s agree to
                      Message 10 of 12 , Jul 14, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        At 16:28 2005-07-11, you wrote:

                        >At 06:17 2005-07-11, you wrote:
                        >
                        > >--- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, Artur Karp <karp@u...>
                        > >wrote:> Interesting matter - mleccha/milakkhu as 'copper'.
                        > > >
                        > > > No, I don't have any ready explanation. And that's why I'd be
                        > >grateful for> quotations from Sanskrit and Pali texts. I wouldn't be
                        > >too demanding: let's> agree 50 quotations would be enough.
                        > >
                        > >Thanks, Artur. It appears -mukha in mleccha-mukha is cognate
                        > >with 'mu~ha' (meaning in Santali: the quantity of iron produced at one
                        > >time in a native smelting furnace). Homonym which can be represented
                        > >in hieroglyphs: mu~ha~ mu~hi~ = in front of, face to face (as two oxen
                        > >face to face!) (There are over 100 quotes in Sarasvati 7 vols. There
                        > >is an entire episode of Yudhishthira-Vidura samvaada in mleccha
                        > >recorded in Mahabharata epic.
                        >
                        >Could I have the quotations, please?
                        >
                        >I mean --- portions of Sanskrit/Pali texts with mleccha/milakkhu used in
                        >the meaning of "copper"?
                        >
                        >OK. Let's agree to 25 such quotations. I would just like to see the
                        >contexts for myself.
                        >
                        >Cheers,
                        >
                        >Artur Karp

                        Since I am going to leave Warsaw after a couple of days (summer vacations)
                        I'd be really grateful if you sent me the quotations. If not 25, let's
                        agree to 15 in each of the languages (Sanskrit and Pali).

                        Regards and cheers,

                        Artur Karp
                      • Francesco Brighenti
                        ... BC. Thus I place Asoka at a later date where the Greek-Aramaic inscriptions are justified. Asoka has to be after Buddha and after Alexander to get dhamma
                        Message 11 of 12 , Jul 15, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, dr manish agarwala
                          <vipassana_infonet@y...> wrote:

                          > Thus I accept the date of Alexander's invasion to be around 326
                          BC. Thus I place Asoka at a later date where the Greek-Aramaic
                          inscriptions are justified. > Asoka has to be after Buddha and after
                          Alexander to get dhamma message written in Greek-
                          Aramaic.................With due respect, there is sometimes a
                          tendency to date Hindu scriptures and other Hindu saints to be much
                          much older than they actually are. This confuses the timeline and
                          makes matters appear confusing, whereas there is no actual confusion.

                          Dear Dr. Agarwala,

                          I hope Dr. Kalyanaraman, whose post # 2050 opened this discussion on
                          the date of As'oka , will be kind enough to respond to the above
                          assessment of yours. So far he has not replied to my and Artur
                          Karp's solicitations to justify his favoured c1000 BC date for
                          As'oka vis-à-vis the 'hard' archaeological evidence, supporting
                          the traditional 3rd century BC dating of As'oka's reign, which is
                          provided by the Greek, Aramaic and Greek-Aramaic As'okan
                          inscriptions of Afghanistan.

                          I don't think he can classify you among 'Eurocentric scholars' as he
                          usually does when he deals with us evil Westerners.

                          Oddly enough, he indirectly replied to my IndiaArchaeology post on
                          the date of As'oka -- not on this forum as one might have expected,
                          but ***on his own private list*** instead -- with the following
                          words:

                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivilization/message/77328
                          << How reliable are the readings of As'oka edicts as regards
                          references to 'greek' contemporaries? >>

                          I wonder which references he is talking about here. The crucial fact
                          is that the inscriptions I cited are written in Greek, not that they
                          refer to some 'Greek contemporaries' (do they?).

                          Thank you very much and best regards.

                          Francesco Brighenti
                        • Raj Mohanka
                          Dr. Agarwala, I agree and have incorporated these known dates into my timeline long ago: http://www.newdharma.org/India_Chron.zip Regards, - Niraj ... aramaic
                          Message 12 of 12 , Jul 16, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dr. Agarwala,

                            I agree and have incorporated these known dates into my timeline long
                            ago:

                            http://www.newdharma.org/India_Chron.zip

                            Regards,

                            - Niraj


                            --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, dr manish agarwala
                            <vipassana_infonet@y...> wrote:
                            > dear Francesco Brighenti,
                            >
                            > asoka should definitely be placed after the alexander's invasion.
                            >
                            > the rise of the mauryas was after the alexander's invasion.
                            >
                            > dating asoka after alexander's invasion also justifies the greek-
                            aramaic inscriptions. dr bratindra nath mukherjee is perhaps the
                            world's leading authority on the question of greek aramaic asokan
                            inscriptions. this renowned epigraphist has published a book on the
                            greek aramaic asokan inscriptions (published by indian museum,
                            calcutta). I have personally met him. he places
                            > asoka after the alexander's invasion.
                            >
                            > some date asoka reign to be between 272 (or 273) BC and 232 BC.
                            they date the third buddhist council to be 252 BC. alexander's
                            invasion is 326 BC. V.A. Smith has called this date of 326 BC to be a
                            "sheet anchor" - a well confirmed date.
                            >
                            > there is another view which puts the third buddhist council to be
                            at
                            326 BC. this is the burmese view. however this clashes the asokan
                            reign with the alexander's invasion (assuming that 326 BC is
                            confirmed). there are no pali records stating that alexander invaded
                            india during asokan reign.
                            >
                            > we we compile all evidence, it becomes clear that asoka was after
                            the buddha and asoka was after alexander's invasion. (buddha -
                            alexander - asoka)
                            > again, the first buddhist council was at the time of buddha's
                            death.
                            second a 100 years after. the third council (during asokan times) was
                            more than 100 years after the second.
                            >
                            > I would personally place buddha in the period 567 (or 563 BC) - 487
                            (or 483 BC). I have problems in accepting the burmese view (also
                            shared by VRI, igatpuri) which dates the buddha between 624 and 544
                            BC. (this date is also endorsed by V A Smith, however ) dating buddha
                            624 and 544 BC leads to the third buddhist council , during asoka at
                            326 BC. there are no pali records stating that alexander invaded
                            india
                            during asokan reign or on the year of the third buddhist sangayana.
                            >
                            > thus I accept the date of alexander's invasion to be around 326
                            BC.
                            thus I place asoka at a later date where the greek-aramaic
                            inscriptions are justified.
                            > asoka has to be after buddha and after alexander to get dhamma
                            message written in greek -aramaic. thus I accept the asoka reign to
                            be
                            between 272 (or 273) BC and 232 BC and the third buddhist council
                            to
                            be 252 BC. some scholars do suggest a 3-4 year difference and I have
                            come across a date of 248 BC for the third buddhist council.
                            >
                            > dating asoka at 1000 BC or buddha even before that - is not
                            justified.
                            >
                            > with due respect, there is sometimes a tendency to date hindu
                            scriptures and other hindu saints to be much much older than they
                            actually are. this confuses the timeline and makes matters appear
                            confusing, whereas there is no actual confusion.
                            >
                            > there have been recent findings at kanganhalli and langudi which
                            confirm that piyadassi was the king asoka and that he had embraced
                            buddha dhamma. if the findings are carbon dated, I am sure that
                            asokan
                            period will be found to be after alexander's invasion and that too in
                            the period around 250 BC.
                            >
                            > this is my third and last post on the topic of dating buddha,
                            asoka,
                            alexander and adi sanakaracharya.
                            >
                            > hope that helps.
                            >
                            > best regards,
                            > dr manish agarwala
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ---------------------------------
                            > How much free photo storage do you get? Store your friends n family
                            photos for FREE with Yahoo! Photos.
                            > http://in.photos.yahoo.com
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.