Chandragupta Maurya 1500BC Megasthanes Chandragupta 302 BC William Jones Fraud


Incredible fraud perpetrated by William Jones by Inventing non existent record!Read On.

If one were to mistrust the Hindu scriptures, the Nastika System of jainism which denies the authorit of the Vedas, has provided information which tallies with the timeline and events portrayed by the Puranas.

 

Secondly the Archeological finds disapprove the dates assigned by William Jones and others and show that the events and people had happened/lived much before the dates indicated by them

 

Our history textbooks tell us that Magadha (not Ayodhya) was one of India’s first kingdoms and that Buddha and Mahavira were contemporaries who lived in/ around Magadha around 600 BCE. However, when we visit the sites of India’s so-called earliest centres of civilization (e.g., Sarnath where the Buddha preached his first sermon), we see evidence from the Jain tradition that its earlier Tirthankaras8 were already living in that city hundreds of years ago.9 On top of this, the Jains appear to share the same hoary past as the Hindus do, with their first Tirthankara (Rishabhadeva) believed to be the king of Ayodhya more than 20 generations before Mahavira.

In addition to the Jain tradition, the history preserved in our native chronicles – the Puranas – appears to have some support from archaeology as well. Although most of the sites described in the Puranas are now populated and hence cannot be excavated, the few non-inhabited sites (e.g., Dwaraka) exhibit evidence of ancient civilizations. This begs the question as to whether we should truly discard the traditions preserved in India’s native chronicles or take the trouble to re-examine them in a new light. This essay presents the chronology of India as preserved by its native historians and tests the validity of this chronology when compared to independent accounts of ancient India.

 

The accepted chronology of ancient India is based on William Jones’s identification of Sandrocottus with Chandragupta Maurya, the first king of the Mauryan empire. This identification serves as the basis for determining the era of Buddha, the dates of the subsequent kings of Magadha and of other kingdoms of India. According to this chronology, Chandragupta Maurya ascended the throne of Magadha around 315 BCE. However, the Puranas as well as Megasthenes’s account of the milieu he lived in present a compelling case for debunking this identification and associating Sandrocottus with Chandragupta I, the founder of the Imperial Guptas. According to the Puranas, Chandragupta Maurya was crowned in 1538 BCE, Ashoka was crowned in 1489 BCE, and Chandragupta I ascended the throne of Pataliputra around 315 BCE in time to be the monarch referred to as Sandrocottus when Megasthenes arrived in Pataliputra in 302 BCE

https://ramanisblog.in/2014/12/27/kings-list-india-by-puranas-validated/

Indian history is so muddled up by some western Scholars and homegrown Liberal historians of India (?) One is fed a series of lies and misinformation.This has resulted in Indian history remains mired in controversy.If we take the trouble to read Indian texts in Sanskrit and other Languages of India, like Tamil, Telugu and others we shall what real history is.And cross reference the information with Epigraphs in Sanskrit, Brahmi ( Sanskrit Brahmi, Tamil/ Kannada Brahmi):check Sthala puranas of temples;Read inscriptions found in ancient Archelogical sites both in India and abroad;read Ithihasas, Ramayana, Mahabharata; Eighteen Purans.

You will know what I am talking about. In addition, check ancient classic writers from foreign countries like Strabo,Arrian and others. Also refer researched by Russians.You shall know how ancient Indian history is.

Sanatana Dharma and Tamil run parallel. One compliments the other by corroborating statements of each other.

I have been exploring Indian history Sanatan Dharma and Tamil/s History for the past twelve years and sharing information I have found, through this blog.You shall find many dates of Kings,Events updated.

The so-called scholars get exposed when we scrutinize their statements. Megasthanes, the Greek Historian, is not always correct , especially when he writes on the History of India, lying North of Vindhyas.While most of his writings are constrained to narrate events to show Alexander in heroic proportions. This is evident when one checks his recording details about Ambi , in connection with Purushottam.Ambi was descendant of Sakuni of Mahabharata.And to cap it all, for all his detailed description of Alexander and his conquests, he had never met Alexander in person!

The Chandragupta Maurya he mentions is not the Chandragupta who was married to Selecus Nicator’ s daughter.And the date of this Chandragupta, who, Megasthanes calls as Sandracottus is different from Chandragupta mentioned in puranas . Sandracottus was Chandragupta Vijayaditya.

The statements of Jones and the fiction of Sandracottus.

Sir William Jones, President of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, gave his tenth anniversary discourse on February 28, 1793. The topic was, “Asiatic history, civil and natural,” and it was published in the fourth volume of the Asiatic Researches, first printed in 1807, reprint 1979. This was his third attempt to destroy the culture and the history of Bharatvarsh by mutilating the historic dates.

Jones says in his speech,

“I cannot help mentioning a discovery which accident threw in my way, (I) thought my proofs must be reserved for an essay which I have destined for the fourth volume of your Transactions. To fix the situation of that Palibothra which was visited and described by Megasthenes, had always appeared a very difficult problem.”

“…but this only difficulty was removed, when I found in a classical Sanscrit book, near 2000 years old, that Hiranyabahu, or golden-armed, which the Greeks changed into Erannoboas, or the river with a lovely murmur was in fact another name for the Son itself, though Megasthenes, from ignorance or inattention, has named them separately. This discovery led to another of greater moment; for Chandragupta, who, from a military adventurer, became, like Sandracottus, the sovereign of Upper Hindostan, actually fixed the seat of his empire at Patliputra, where he received ambassadors from foreign princes; and was no other than that very Sandracottus who concluded a treaty with Seleucus Nicator; so that we have solved another problem, to which we before alluded, and may in round numbers consider the twelve and three hundredth years before Christ.” (pp. xxv to xxvii)

He tells in his speech that he has found a classical Sanskrit book of about 2,000 years old. The other thing he says is that Chandragupt was no other than the very Sandracottus who is described by Megasthenes to have made a treaty with Seleucus around 312 BC; and, to establish that that Chandragupt belonged to the Maurya dynasty, he mentions about some poem by Somdev which tells about the murder of Nand and his eight sons by Chandragupt in order to usurp the kingdom. In this way Jones created a fictitious connection between Chandragupt Maurya and Sandracottus. He says in his speech,

“A most beautiful poem by Somadev, comprising a very long chain of instructive and agreeable stories, begins with the famed revolution at Patliputra, by the murder of King Nanda with his eight sons, and the usurpation of Chandragupta; and the same revolution is the subject of a tragedy in Sanscrit, entitled the Coronation of Chandra.” (p. xxviii)

These were the basic points of his speech that was called the discovery of the identity of Chandragupt Maurya as Sandracottus. Anyone could see that these people were adamantly prone to fabricating false statements all the time just to demean our culture and to destroy the genealogy of our religious history. All the things referred to in this speech are absolutely wrong and outrageous.

Finally, Somdev was just a story writer of fun and frolics. Yet he never described Chandragupt Maurya as the usurper of the kingdom and never connected him to the period of Seleucus Nicator and Alexander;and: there was never a written book in India that lasted for 2,000 years, and there is no such statement in our religious writings to show that Chandragupt Maurya was in 312 BC.

The scriptures, in ancient times, were written on bhoj patra (a paper thin bark of a Himalayan native tree) which never lasted in a readable condition for more than 500 to 800 years even with extreme care. These books were written for teaching and learning purposes so they were constantly in use (not like writing and hiding them in a cave as Dead Sea scrolls). When one book was worn out, another one was rewritten by the learned scholars under the guidance of the Master. Thus, the knowledge of the scriptures uninterruptedly continued. Now we know that there was no such book that was 2,000 years old. Moreover, Jones never produced or showed that book to anyone, even to his close associates. It was simply his word of mouth to relate the fake story of a 2,000 year old book.

As regards the period of King Chandragupt Maurya, the Puranas give a detailed genealogical account of all the kings of the Magadh kingdom, starting from the Mahabharat war (3139 BC) and up to the Andhra dynasty. Accordingly, the period of Chandragupt Maurya comes to the 1500’s BC. In no way could it be pushed forward to 312 BC. But those people (the British diplomats) were determined to do it that way because they wanted to squeeze the entire history of India within the time frame of their Aryan fiction story.

Everyone who has read Megasthenes knows that his writings are most unreliable. But Jones found an excuse to quote the writings of Megasthenes where he describes the treaty of Seleucus with Sandracottus, the king of Magadh.

One thing we must mention, that there were two different dynasties that had similar names of their first king: the Maurya dynasty and Gupt dynasty. The first king of the Maurya dynasty, called Chandragupt Maurya, was in BC 1500’s, and the first king of the Gupt dynasty, called Chandragupt Vijayaditya, was in BC 300’s. The second king of Gupt dynasty and the son of Chandragupt Vijayaditya was Samudragupt Ashokaditya. He was the ruler of Magadh between 321 and 270 BC.

Chandragupt Maurya, who was the legitimate heir, was enthroned by a brahman, Chanakya. After cleverly killing Nand and his eight sons, Chanakya coronated him to the throne of Magadh. Chandragupt Maurya was not ambitious of conquering the other states of India and he did not receive foreign ambassadors because there were only trade relations of India with the foreign countries in those days (1500’s BC) not political relations. So his kingdom was much smaller as compared to the kingdom of Chandragupt Vijayaditya of Gupt dynasty.

Chandragupt Vijayaditya, who was the son of Ghatotkach Gupt of Shreegupt Family, was made the commander-in-chief of the large army of Chandrashree of Andhra dynasty. After the accidental death of Chandrashree, his minor son, Prince Puloma, under the guardianship of Chandragupt, ruled for seven years. But Chandragupt finally terminated Puloma, usurped the kingdom and became the crowned king. In this way the kingship of Magadh was transferred from the Andhra dynasty to the Gupt dynasty. There were seven kings in the Gupt dynasty (called Abhir in the Bhagwatam) who ruled for 245 years between 328 to 83 BC. Chandragupt ruled from 328 to 321 BC and his son Samudragupt Ashokaditya from 321 to 270 BC. Chandragupt was an ambitious king. He invaded the neighboring states, conquered them and extended his kingdom up to Punjab. For his constant victories, he was titled vijayaditya, which means the sun of victory.

Thus, taking into account the above facts, it becomes clear that Sandracottus of Megasthenes could only be Samudragupt of Gupt dynasty, historically and also according to the phonetic similarity of both of the names. (1) It was Chandragupt, father of Samudragupt, who was a military adventurer and usurper of the kingdom, not Chandragupt Maurya who was made the king of Magadh in his young age by a brahman, Chanakya. (2) Chandragupt Maurya was in the 1500’s BC, not 300’s BC. (3) In the writings of Megasthenes the word “Maurya” was never used with the name of Sandracottus, and (4) there is absolutely no mention of Chanakya (Vishnugupt) who was the most important person in Chandragupt’s life. Encyclopedia of authentic Hinduism

life.https://encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org/articles/33_two_more.htm

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.