The Greek Contacts of Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka and their Relevance to Mauryan and Buddhist Chronology (original) (raw)

The parinirvāṇa of Gautama Buddha is a milestone of singular consequence in Indic chronology, serving as the landmark for dating most events which compose the timeline of our history. In this paper, the authors use astronomical methods to comprehensively compile, analyse, define constraints and determine the unique solution which meets the criteria considered for the most probable year for the death of Buddha. Subsequently, in light of recent archaeological evidence, not only do we demonstrate how key archaeology-related conclusions in Heinz Bechert edited 'When did the Buddha live?' are acutely less tenable in 2019, but also deduce and propose a terminus ante quem (546 B.C.) for Buddha's death. Thereafter, in the philology section, through a critical synoptic analysis we identify problematics that, in our assessment, vitiate the so-called corrected long chronology, short chronology and Bechert's proposal. We believe this paper addresses a crucial void in the post-1995 literature pertaining to Buddha's chronological epoch in being perhaps the first substantive critical assessment of some aspects of the Bechert volume, from an Indic lens, underpinned by a scientific approach.

The parinirvāṇa of Gautama Buddha is a milestone of singular consequence in Indic chronology, serving as the landmark for dating most events which compose the timeline of our history. In this paper, the authors use astronomical methods to comprehensively compile, analyse, define constraints and determine the unique solution which meets the criteria considered for the most probable year for the death of Buddha. Subsequently, in light of recent archaeological evidence, not only do we demonstrate how key archaeology-related conclusions in Heinz Bechert edited 'When did the Buddha live?' are acutely less tenable in 2019, but also deduce and propose a terminus ante quem (546 B.C.) for Buddha's death. Thereafter, in the philology section, through a critical synoptic analysis we identify problematics that, in our assessment, vitiate the so-called corrected long chronology, short chronology and Bechert's proposal. We believe this paper addresses a crucial void in the post-1995 literature pertaining to Buddha's chronological epoch in being perhaps the first substantive critical assessment of some aspects of the Bechert volume, from an Indic lens, underpinned by a scientific approach.

The parinirvāṇa of Gautama Buddha is a milestone of singular consequence in Indic chronology, serving as the landmark for dating most events which compose the timeline of our history. In this paper, the authors use astronomical methods to comprehensively compile, analyse, define constraints and determine the unique solution which meets the criteria considered for the most probable year for the death of Buddha. Subsequently, in light of recent archaeological evidence, not only do we demonstrate how key archaeology-related conclusions in Heinz Bechert edited 'When did the Buddha live?' are acutely less tenable in 2018, but also deduce and propose a terminus ante quem (546 B.C.) for Buddha's death. Thereafter, in the philology section, through a critical synoptic analysis we identify problematics that, in our assessment, vitiate the so-called corrected long chronology, short chronology and Bechert's proposal. We believe this paper addresses a crucial void in the post-1995 literature pertaining to Buddha's chronological epoch in being perhaps the first substantive critical assessment of some aspects of the Bechert volume, from an Indic lens, underpinned by a scientific approach. Note: This paper is a fuller, more comprehensive — with more exhaustive data and analysis — version of this paper: https://www.academia.edu/38794701/The\_B\_of\_ABC\_of\_Indian\_chronology\_Dating\_Buddhas\_Parinirv%C4%81%E1%B9%87a\_A\_critique\_of\_Heinz\_Becherts\_echo\_chamber.

Prior to the colonial era, Indians traditionally followed a well-established chronological history as narrated in the Puranas starting from the Mahabharata era to the Gupta period. The regnal periods of the Brihadratha, Pradyota and Sisunaga dynasties of the Magadha Empire given in the Puranas clearly indicate that Mahapadma Nanda founded his Nanda dynasty 1500 years after the Mahabharata war. Evidently, the traditional chronology places Buddha in the 19th century BCE and Chandragupta Maurya in the beginning of the 16th century BCE. Colonial historians identified Sandrokottus with Chandragupta Maurya and dated him as the contemporary of Alexander and the date of Buddha nirvana has been brought forward by 1380 years and fixed around 483 BCE. In fact, the complex problems in Indian chronology arise from a misunderstanding of the epochs of ancient Indian eras. I have discovered that the Kurtakoti copper plate dated Saka 530 refers to a total solar eclipse occurred on 9th May 53 BCE in Northern Karnataka which conclusively establishes that the Saka era commenced in 583 BCE and the Sakanta era commenced in 78 CE. Historians mistakenly mixed up these two epochs which led to a chronological error of 660 years. Out of two contemporary copper plates found at Pranaveshvara temple, Talagunda, one plate is dated in the Saka era whereas, another is dated in the Sakanta era. Apart from this error of 660 years, later Jain historians inadvertently identified Ujjain King Chandragupta, a disciple of Bhadrabahu with the Maurya King Chandragupta which made Mahavira, a contemporary of Buddha. In reality, Buddha attained nirvana 675 years before the year of Mahavira nirvana. Puranas and the Burmese inscriptions clearly indicate that Buddha attained nirvana in 1864 BCE. Recent excavations at Lumbini and the radiocarbon samples collected from the Trench C5 at the center of the Buddhist shrine at Lumbini indicate an earliest date of 1681 BCE. There is a chronological error of 1380 years.

It is largely believed that Buddhism emerged as one of the major South Asian religion in its institutionalised form for the first time under the rule of the Mauryan Empire around third century BC. It was the Mauryans who started recording the buddhavacana in written forms (nikāyas, āgamas, and piṭakas) and changed the trend of oral transmission of the Buddhist doctrines. Gradually, they also started patronising the saṃgha and initiated the construction of various monumental structures (primarily stūpas) and as a result giving an institutionalised structure to Buddhism. It is also evidential from various literary and archaeological sources that during the third century BC, mostly under the rule of the great Mauryan king Aśoka, through envoys sent by the king himself, Buddhism travelled long distances as not only a religion but also as a foundation of society. The paper would give background information for understanding the nature of the intense land and sea trade networks that the Buddhist saṃghas developed under the Mauryans. It would also assess the interconnection between the state and the religion of the established monasteries of eastern India based on the historical notion that-to understand the social and economic realities one must also take account of its religious realities. However, such involvements influenced the religious doctrines, and it is to be questioned here on how the personal interests of the kings marked an official acceptance of the religion throughout their kingdoms. Now, as a part of the state, the monasteries were functioning in various different ways which need to be acknowledged in order to present a picture of the society.

This paper discusses the short and long chronology issues of India that came to the light recently. This paper only focuses on the real dates of Mahavira and Buddha Nirvanas. It also proves that earlier assumptions were established incorrectly. The new science of Planetary and solarium computer software can forecast the accurate position of sun, moon, the position of Ursa major and minor (Sapta Rishis) and other celestial events that were recorded in ancient texts and inscriptions available at various places in India that reference other related eras of India at the time of Nirvanas of Buddha and Mahavira.

Stressing the importance of 5th–6th-century copper-plate charters connected to the Viṣṇukuṇḍin dynasty for the history of Buddhism in Āndhradeśa, this article demonstrates that, contrary to earlier scholarly assumptions, and despite the paucity of archeological evidence for Buddhist activity at that time, Buddhist lineages still benefitted from lavish donations by ruling families. This study consists of three parts: the first explores the representation of two Viṣṇukuṇḍin rulers as Buddhist kings, and shows how their portraits and their aspirations are permeated by the ideology of the Bodhisattvayāna. The second part examines one of the main recipients of royal donations, the Sthă̄vira/Theriya lineage of the Tāmraparṇīyas, already known from inscriptions issued under the previous Ikṣvāku dynasty. The analysis of these earlier records from Nagarjunakonda in light of little-studied copper plates shows that the Tāmraparṇīyas had a strong institutional presence in Āndhradeśa from the mid-3rd to the late 6th century. The lineage’s connections with Laṅkā and with other Theriya centres along the Bay of Bengal are delineated through a close examination of the terminology used in the inscriptions under scrutiny, in light of co-eval records, and especially of Pāli Vinaya literature and historical narratives. The last part of this article focuses on a poetic allusion to the episode of the Buddha’s victory over Māra included in the opening stanza of a grant issued by king Pr̥thivīśrīmūla. The evidence suggests that this record connects for the first time the water poured by Śākyamuni in his previous lives as a Bodhisattva with a flood that drove away Māra’s army from the seat of Awakening, a motif that grew—like a tide—and spread across Southeast Asia.