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

Asoka vs. Samudragupta

Expand Messages
  • Francesco Brighenti
    ... May I cite a relevant *fact* in this connection? The Minor Rock Edict discovered at Maski (Karnataka) in 1915 plainly uses the expression Devanampiyasa
    Message 1 of 34 , Mar 29, 2009
      Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:

      > > > [K D Sethna] did not know, just like all the western scholars
      > > > including you did not know too, that Piyadassi (Ashoka Maurya)
      > > > was different from Devanampiya Piyadassi (Samudragupta -
      > > > Ashokaditya).

      Koenraad Elst replied:

      > > Strange that two emperors six hundred years apart [according to
      > > Sunil's own theory -- FB] had the same title element piyadassi.
      > > If this had been Sanskrit, which spans regions and centuries in
      > > identical form, it could have been truth; but in ever-changing
      > > Prakrit, it is unlikely.

      Sunil Bhattacharjya counter-replied:

      > You are finding it strange as you do not know at all if their
      > inscriptions differ and how. You and your likes may laugh
      > nervously or laugh in frenzy but that cannot obliterate facts.
      > Giving facts one can definitely  state that these (given facts)
      > prove the point (the writer is making). It is better than your
      > verbosity sans facts.

      May I cite a relevant *fact* in this connection? The Minor Rock Edict discovered at Maski (Karnataka) in 1915 plainly uses the expression Devanampiyasa Asokasa ("Asoka, Beloved of the Gods"). This is the only known edict of Asoka that associates his personal name with his title Devanampiya (which in Asokan inscriptions is either used alone or in combination with Piyadasi in the expression Devanampiya Piyadasi). This must be compared with the later Junagadh inscription of Rudradaman (ca. 150 CE), mentioning Asoka as Asokasya Mauryasya ("Asoka Maurya").

      How do you, Sunil, reconcile this inscriptional evidence with your claim that Devanampiya (-Piyadasi) was a title used by "Samudragupta - Asokaditya"? For instance, did Gupta rule extend as far as Karnataka? As regards your mention of a title "Asokaditya" supposedly associated with the Gupta emperor Samudragupta, this is certainly a reference to the _Kali-yuga-raja-vrttanta_ section of the
      _Bhavisyottara Purana_, offering a brief summary of the early Gupta
      monarchs. Unfortunately for your thesis, this section of the _Bhavisyottara Purana_ "has proved to be a palpable forgery, assignable to the latter half of the nineteenth century" (see D.K. Ganguly, The Imperial Guptas and Their Times, New Delhi, Abhinav Publications, 1987, pp. 28, 65-66 at <http://tinyurl.com/dz9qko>). Therefore, there appears to be no relible evidence whatsoever that Samudragupta bore the title "Asokaditya" -- i.e., from an onomastic point of view Samudragupta was not a "novel Asoka" as you implicitly suggest in your post!

      This should suffice to demolish your chronological fantasies about Asoka and Samudragupta, but I want to ask you to point us to some evidence supporting the following statement of yours too:

      > Sethna as well as the western scholars including you
      > [i.e. K. Elst] did not know that the Ashokan pillar was of
      > Samudragupta.

      Which Asokan pillar are you referring to here?

      Thanks and best regards,
      Francesco
    • Sunil Bhattacharjya
      Mr. Brighenti, 1) You said Quote I *have* read Jones paper, but I am evidently not referring to Jones paper in course of this discussion. It is just you who
      Message 34 of 34 , Jun 27, 2011
        Mr. Brighenti,

        1)
        You said


        Quote
        I *have* read Jones' paper, but I am evidently not referring to Jones' paper in course of this discussion. It is just you who keep on referring to Jones' paper. What I wrote (unanswered by you) is:
        Unquote

        Do you want me to take your word for it that you have read Jones's paper. It is a blot on any researcher when he makes such assertions as you are making. You are shrewd but even then you cannot escape the circumstantial evidence, which shows that you have not read the paper of Jones so far. Your own admission that you are not referring to Jones's paper actually shows your inability to refer to that. Firstly because you have not read the original paper of Jones and secondly because you know by now from my mails that Jones said Megasthenes was wrong in his statement on the location of Palibothra.

        It is a pity that you seem to run away from any discussion on Jones's paper particularly when this very present topic is on Jones's wrong identification of Sone as Errannaboas and thereby calling Megasthenes as wrong. You have kept silent even though I started my discussions in 2009 on the bulldozing of Megasthenes's account by Jones. This is a challenge to you Mr BRIGHENTI.
        Please show me how do you defend Jones's statement that Megasthenes was wrong in describing the location of Palibothra. Inspite of my giving the lengths of the rivers Ganga, Yamuna and Sone at that time you failed to understand the simple thing, which even a small school boy will understand, that Yamuna qualifies to be called the second largest river after Ganga and not Sone. Megasthenes said that Erranoboas is the second largest river, and Palibothra was located at the confluence of Ganga and Errannoboas it is abosutely certain that Megasthenes was speaking about the place where Ganga and Yamuna met. People may call WIlliam jones as a notorius liar and as nefarious and despicable for his claim of the Palibothrta being at the confluence of Ganga and Sone and by siding with Jones's opinion you are proving yourself to be one like Jones. Jones could have had his own justification for lying by thinking that he was helping establish the British domination in India on a firm footing. That is why he planted his deliberate lie to distort the facts so as to destroy the self-esteem of the Indians that theirs was one of the earliest civilisations in the world and could even be the earliest. I fail to understand what do you stand to gain by supp0orting a lie Mr. Brighenti.

        2)
        Just writing No reply ? No reply'? No reply?  wil not save you Mr. Brighenti. Tell me Mr. Brighenti which question did i not reply to? 

        You said

        Quote
        > Nowhere does Pliny state that the "Iomanes" (safely identifiable
        > with the Yamuna) passes through "Palibothra"; he writes the
        > river "runs into the Ganges through the territory of the
        > Palibothri" (not the *city* named Palibothra!) instead, and this
        > makes a big difference... The Ganga-Yamuna doab was part and parcel
        > of the Mauryan Empire (ruled over by the Magadhans, i.e.
        > the "Prasii" or "Palibothri")... It was but natural for Pliny...
        > to note that the Yamuna traversed the territory of
        > the "Palibothri". This does not mean that the Yamuna traversed the
        > city of Palibothra!
        Unquote


        Palbothra was the capital of Sandrocottus and that was located at the confluence of Ganga and Yamuna. Palibothra  is what I have been referring to and it is a pity that you could not understand until now this simple thing, which even a school boy will understand if asked to read my mails. Further can you show where did Pliny say that  the Sone to have passed through Palibothra Mr. Brighenti?  It is a pity that with your this sort of muddled judgements you want to discuss things in a forum of intelligent people.

        I never gave more importance to Pliny than to megasthes. Let me repeat (lest you get confused) that though only fragmants are available of the Indilka of Megasthenes yet it indisputably proves that Sone was not Errannoboas and therefore Patna cannot be Palibothra by any stretch of imagination. It was a deliberate lie of Jones's andd it is still being supported by people like you, who love telling lies.


        SKB


        --- On Sat, 6/25/11, Francesco Brighenti <frabrig@...> wrote:

        From: Francesco Brighenti <frabrig@...>
        Subject: [Ind-Arch] Re: Erannoboas and Palimbothra (plus the Andarae)
        To: IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Saturday, June 25, 2011, 3:00 PM

         



        --- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya@...> wrote:

        > B-R-I-G-H-E-N-IMr,
        >
        > I too cannot but remind you of what I had also already written to
        > you during our long 2009 discussion on this very topic (that is,
        > the location of the city of "Palibothra"): The difference between
        > you and me is that you have not read Jones' paper to start with.

        I *have* read Jones' paper, but I am evidently not referring to Jones' paper in course of this discussion. It is just you who keep on referring to Jones' paper. What I wrote (unanswered by you) is:

        > Nowhere does Pliny state that the "Iomanes" (safely identifiable
        > with the Yamuna) passes through "Palibothra"; he writes the
        > river "runs into the Ganges through the territory of the
        > Palibothri" (not the *city* named Palibothra!) instead, and this
        > makes a big difference... The Ganga-Yamuna doab was part and parcel
        > of the Mauryan Empire (ruled over by the Magadhans, i.e.
        > the "Prasii" or "Palibothri")... It was but natural for Pliny...
        > to note that the Yamuna traversed the territory of
        > the "Palibothri". This does not mean that the Yamuna traversed the
        > city of Palibothra!

        No reply?

        And what about my other question to you:

        > What is the basis for your claim that the source of Pliny's
        > references to the "Andarae" -- the Andhras -- in 6.22 *must* be
        > Megasthenes?

        You didn't reply to either of my questions.

        FB

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.