Indic Studies Foundation

(a California non-Profit Organization)  kaushal's blog

index  Disclaimer






Home about us The Story of the Calendar AIT The Andhra  Satavahana Kingdoms Arrians Hiistory of Alexander Henry Rooke Aryabhata I Archaeology Aryan Migration Theories Astronomy Baudhika Dharma Bhartrihari Biographies  (mathematical sciences) Bhagavad Gita Bibliography California Text Book Travesty Caste Contact Core Values The Dhaarmic traditions Dholavira Digital Library of Indian History Books Distortions in Indian History Economics Editorial Archives Eminent Scientists Famine in British Colonial  India The ethics of the Hindu Glossary The Great Bharata war HEC2007 Hinduism/faqdharma.html HinduWeddings History The Indic Mathematical Tradition Indic Philosophy & Darshanas Indcstrat Kalidasa Katyayana Mathematics News and Current Events Panini References on India (library of Congress) References on Indic History References on Philosophy References for Place value systems References on Vedic Mathematical Sciences Sanskrit The Sanatana Dharna Secularism and the Hindu The South Asia File Srinivasa Ramanujan Vedic Mathematicians I Vedic Mathematicians II Vedic Mathematicians III What's in a name VP Sarathi Ancient Indian Astronomy






Frontpage Template Resources

Who are We?

What do we do?

Latest News

Free Resources





Misdating of Important Events and Personalities in Indic History

The more I study this topic of Indic History and Chronology the more i feel it is hopelessly scrambled up beyond all recognition, thanks mainly due to the efforts  by Sir William Jones and Friedrich Maximilian Mueller, presumably because they could not shake loose from their preconceived notion  of Indian antiquity. Here are 2 examples. There are other examples of misdating most notable being Aryabhatta I, the Buddha, and Adi Sankara


Antiquity and Continuity of Indian History  by Prasad Gokhale (excerpt)

Modern history tends to put Buddha around 500 B.C. This date apparently comes from the assumption that Chandragupta Maurya, Sandrocottus of the Greek records, was the contemporary of Alexander, who is known to invade India in 325 B.C. However, the Greek chronicles are strangely silent on the names of Chanakya (Chandragupta's Guru) who managed to install the Maurya on the Magadha throne, Bindusar (his son) and even Ashoka (his grandson) whose empire extended far wider than that of Chandragupta. The empire of Chandragupta, also known as the Magadha empire, was very powerful and had a long history but is nowhere mentioned by the Greeks. Even Buddha bhikkus and the flourishing religion of the Buddha are not mentioned in their literature. This imbroglio has been challenged by various scholars and is precisely summarized by K. Rajaram (in "A Peep into the Past History, Seminar Papers", Madras, 1982), "There are difficulties in calculating the date of the coronation of Asoka .. In the first instance, the very identification of Sandrokotus with Chandragupta Maurya is questioned. In the second one, the date of the death of the Buddha has not been fixed accurately and therefore, the date of Asoka based on it cannot be accurate." Indeed, the Sandrocottus of the Greeks was not a Maurya.

The Greek records mention Xandramas and Sandrocyptus as the kings immediately before and after Sandrocottus. These names in any way are not phonetically similar to Mahapadma Nanda and Bindusar, who were the predecessor and successor of Chandragupta Maurya, respectively. However, if Sandrocottus refers to Chandragupta "Gupta", the Xandramas reckons to be his predecessor Chandrashree alias Chandramas and Sandrocyptus to be Samudragupta. The phonetic similarity becomes quite apparent and also, with the assistance of other evidence, confirms the identity of Sandrocottus to Chandragupta Gupta.

In the Puranic and other literature, there is no allusion anywhere to an invasion or inroad into India by foreign peoples upto the time of Andhra kings; and the only person who bore the name similar to Sandrocottus of the Greeks, and who flourished at the time of Alexander, was Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty, who established a mighty empire on the ruins of the already decayed Andhra dynasty and existing 2811 years after the Mahabharata War, i.e., corresponding to 328 B.C. His date is currently placed in the fourth century A.D., which obviously does not stand. It is also interesting to note that the accounts in the life of Sandrokotus of the Greeks, and the political and social conditions in India at that time, match to those of in the era Chandragupta Gupta. With this observation, it is therefore that the Greek and Puranic accounts unanimously agree on the issue of the identity Chandragupta Gupta and Sandrocotus.

The ten kings of Shishunaga dynasty ruled for 360 years, beginning from 1994 B.C. and ending with 1634 B.C. At this time, an illegitimate son, Mahapadma-Nanda, of the last Shishunaga emperor, Mahanandi, came to the throne of Magadha. The total regal period of this Nanda dynasty was 100 years. After this, with the assistance of Arya Chaanakya, Chandragupta Maurya ascended the throne of Magadha, and that is in year 1534 B.C. This date can be arrived and confirmed using many independent accounts.


This misplaced identification of this Sandrocottus with Chandragupta Maurya, which also is considered to be the "sheet anchor" of Indian chronology, has led to further chronological fallacies in the dating of Asoka Maurya, the grandson of Maurya-Chandragupta. This Asoka supposedly became a Buddhist as is confirmed from a variety of inscriptions and rock edicts found. It is interesting to note that these edicts are summoned in the name of one "Devanam Priyadarshi Raja" and the name Maurya Asoka is nowhere mentioned. This identification of "Priyadarshin" with Maurya Asoka was entirely based upon Ceylonese Buddhist chronicles. However, as admitted by Wheeler and V. A. Smith, undeserved credit is given to Ceylonese records which have been nothing but a hindrance of ancient Indian history. Also, the Buddhist histories recorded centuries later create a good deal of confusion in the genealogies and family of Asoka. It is therefore very difficult to get a confirmed statement from these annals.

The names of kings found on Asokan inscriptions namely, Amtiyoka, Tulamaya, etc. are ascribed to distant lands (Syria, Egypt, etc.). It is known that the kings mentioned bordered Ashoka's own lands. These alien kings are definitely not what they are construed to be. According to Agarwal, "In the Piyadassi inscriptions, the five names which are believed to be those of the Greek kings are of the Jana-rajyas of the very country beyond the Indus." (Age of Bharata War, Delhi, 1979). Amtiyoka was a Bharatiya prince ruling Afghanistan around 1475 B.C., which then appears to be the approximate date of Priyadarshi Asoka: the grandson of Maurya Chandragupta. It should also be noted that there is also no evidence of the time when these edicts were inscribed.

Maurya Asoka is known be respectful and supportive of Brahmana and Shramana, equally alike and favored none, as known from the Girnar rock edicts. Also, he is not recorded to have become a follower of Buddha, and nowhere it appears that he erected great stupas and Vihara. Then the question of the Asoka who had embraced Buddha's path arises. Kalhana's Rajatarangini (1.101-102) provides details of one Asoka of the Kashmiri Gonanda dynasty who is said to have freed himself from sins by embracing the faith of Gautam Buddha and by constructing numerous Vihara and Stupa and by building the town Shrinagari with its 96 lakhs of houses resplendent with wealth. He was a peaceful ruler who had lost all his land and wealth because of his innate pacifism. This description of Gonandiya Asoka matches with one of the inscriptional Asoka.

However, according to Hultzsuch's opinion, the major rock and pillar edicts differ in tone and message from those of the 8 minor rock inscriptions. Strangely enough, all 26 inscriptions appear to be carved out during the same period. If studied and analyzed carefully, a compelling inference needs to be drawn. The edicts with the proclamations in morality belong to Maurya Ashoka (1482-1446 B.C.) and those on the conversion of Buddhism are those of Gonandia Ashoka (1448-1400 B.C.).

3. Gautam Buddha

Modern history tends to inform readers that Sri Gautam Siddharta was born around 550 B.C. and died after about 80 years. Kota Venkatachalam, writes in his book "The Age of Buddha, Milinda and King Amtiyoka and Yuga Purana" that, "Due to his wrong identification of Maurya Chandragupta as the contemporary of Alexander, the history of Bharat has been shifted by 12 centuries (and) it is the Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty who belongs to 327-320 B.C." Thus, due to the confusion in pinpointing properly the "sheet anchor" of Indian history, Lord Buddha's antiquity has been underestimated by about 1200 years. Now that Chandragupta Maurya reigned in 1550 B.C. (instead of 325 B.C.), the time when the latter flourished can be calculation to be around 1850 B.C. (instead of 550 B.C.).

All the Puranas and another historical compilation titled Kali Yuga-rajavruttanta, profess to describe the Magadha royal dynasties starting from the Bruhadratha to the Andhra lineages, after which the Magadha empire disintegrated. It is known from the Bhagavad Puraan that Gautam Siddharta was 23rd in the Ikshwaku lineage. However, the list of Ikshwaku kings are not available. In order to determine the date of Siddharta, it is necessary to find the contemporary kings in the Magadha genealogy. According to different accounts, the Buddha was a contemporary of Kshemajita, Bindusar and Ajatashatru, the 31st-33rd kings of the Shishunaga dynasty. The Buddha was 72 years old when the coronation of Ajatashatru tookplace, that is in 1814 B.C. Going backwards, the date of Buddha's birth becomes 1887 B.C. Since he lived for 80 years, the Buddha must have left the body in 1807 B.C.

This date can also be confirmed by purely referring to astronomical calculations, and what is correctly and exactly obtained as the date for Gautam Siddharta's nirvana is 27-3-1807 (Sathe, Age of Buddha). This date also explains the possibility of the existence of Buddhism in the second millennium B.C., as was rejected earlier. The astronomical computations of the indologist-astronomer Swami Sakhyananda suggests that Gautam Siddharta belonged to the Kruttika period, i.e., in between 2621-1661 B.C. In his book "Chronology of Ancient Bharat" (Part 4.Chap 2), Prof. K.Srinivasaraghavan states the approximate time of Gautam Siddharta to be 2259 years after the Bharata War (3138 B.C.). which turns out to be 1880 B.C.

Thyagaraja Aiyer in his book "Indian Architecture" observes," Here lies Indian Sramanacharya from Bodh Gaya, a Shakya monk taken to Greece by his Greek pupils and the tomb marks his death about 1000 B.C." If the Buddhist monk went to Greece in 1000 B.C., then Gautam Siddharta must have lived at least a few centuries earlier. Somayajulu places Chandragupta Maurya in the 14th century B.C (ref: Dates in Ancient History of India). This puts the Buddha three centuries earlier, i.e., in the 17th century B.C. A brief chronology of the events in Buddha's life:Born in 1887 B.C., Renunciation in 1858 B.C., Penance during 1858-52 B.C and Death in 1807 B.C.

5. Aryabhatta is the first famous mathematician and astronomer of Ancient India. In his book Aryabhatteeyam, Aryabhatta clearly provides his birth data. In the 10th stanza, he says that when 60 x 6 = 360 years elapsed in this Kali Yuga, he was 23 years old. The stanza of the sloka starts with “Shastyabdanam Shadbhiryada vyateetastra yascha yuga padah.” “Shastyabdanam Shadbhi” means 60 x 6 = 360. While printing the manuscript, the word “Shadbhi” was altered to “Shasti”, which implies 60 x 60 = 3600 years after Kali Era.  As a result of this intentional arbitrary change, Aryabhatta’s birth time was fixed as 476 A.D Since in every genuine manuscript, we find the word “Shadbhi” and not the altered “Shasti”, it is clear that Aryabhatta was 23 years old in 360 Kali Era or 2742 B.C. This implies that Aryabhatta was born in 337 Kali Era or 2765 B.C. and therefore could not have lived around 500 A.D., as manufactured by the Indologists to fit their invented framework.
Bhaskara I is the earliest known commentator of Aryabhatta’s works.  His exact time is not known except that he was in between  Aryabhatta (2765 B.C.) and Varahamihira (123 B.C.)." The implications are profound , if indeed this is the case.The zero is by then in widespread use and if he uses Classical Sanskrit then he ante dates Panini. Bhaskara mentions the names of Latadeva, Nisanku and Panduranga  Svami as disciples of Aryabhatta. Moreover, he says that Aryabhatta’s "

Age of Sankara







Contact UsAbout UsCore ValuesCurrent EventsEconomicsHome

Copyright ŠKosla Vepa

View My Stats