Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 329

Thread: History and Historians on Jat Mauryan Empire[ founded by Chandragupta in c 323 BC]

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by ravichaudhary View Post
    Dear Dr. Singh

    As long as you are satisfied with acceoting the views of " other historians ", then to put is simply, you are satisfied.

    As for having to accept their views, we do not have to accept their views

    Until recently, ' historians the world over' as you put it, were satisfied with the Aryan Invasion theory. Today the picture has changed,and it is accepted the Aryan Invasion theory was a British political construct.

    All people are asking of you, is to back up what you claim to be history, with primary data.

    To claim, that the works of the authors you cite is primary evidence or rather the secondary and tertiary translations are primary evidence, will be difficult to hold water.....

    Ravi Chaudhary
    Dear Chaudhary Sahib,

    The testimony gathered from quotes from contemporary sources through the succeeding authors cannot be dubbed as secondary. Moreover, there is always scope for improvement in findings of certain historical facts on availability of newer sources, if any.

    You have rightly said that The Aryan Invasion theory has been altered now. It is also learnt that the use of Aryan or non-aryan words to describe races of people has been distortion of the facts as brought out by a monograph by UNESCO a few years ago.

    I appreciate appetite of every scholar for original sources but non-availability of one kind of original sources does not make other sources irrelevant. So we have to continue search for the originals.

    So far as the establishment of the date of Chandragupta Maurya's accession is concerned i have already said that it happened c.323 B.C. as per information available in contemporary documents and inscriptions.

    Thanks.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    deshi-jat (August 25th, 2012), op1955 (August 21st, 2012), puneetlakra (August 20th, 2012)

  3. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by ravichaudhary View Post
    Dr. Singh
    You are saying nothing, that is not there already in school textbooks.
    Simply repeating that information is not providing primary evidence.
    RE XIII gives the regnal year of Devnampiyasi.
    ( A Regnal year for us lay people, simply means the year of the reign of a king).
    Unless corroborated by other evidence to another era, it is of no value whatsoever in dating anything.
    RE XIII gives only the date of the year of the reign of Devnampiyasi.
    It does not mention Ashoka
    On this thread, there is little, actually no point, in quoting secondary works like a translation of a Roman author , whose dates are uncertain in themselves, and who could have lived anywhere from the 2nd century CE to 4th century CE. He would have lived some 5 centuries to 9 centuries after 325 BCE.
    His work BTW was in Latin not Greek.
    How does the English translation of his Latin work, become primary evidence?
    Ravi Chaudhary
    PS If we, the Jats, are not prepared to do primary research, we Jats have only ourselves to blame if our history is written and distorted by others.
    Friend,

    Regarding "RE XIII gives only the date of the year of the reign of Devnampiyasi.It does not mention Ashoka", It is true that usually Asokan inscriptions do not contain the word 'Asoka' instead they use Devanampriya, Piyadassi and Piyasassana or Devanampriyah Priyadarsi raja to denote him. However, the Maski Rock inscription opens with the genitive case of Devanampriya Asoka which is sufficient proof to testify that the inscriptions under reference belong to Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya.

    In this way, the knot of uncertainty about the name of the King who got these inscriptions issued has been settled by the discovery of Maski inscription which has supplemented the information on the issue hitherto known only from Buddhist literature and from the Puranas. For example, we find the words Piyadassi and Piyadassana 'of amiable appearance', occur repeatedly in the 'Dipavamsa' as equivalents of Asoka, the name of Great Maurya King.

    Regards.
    Last edited by DrRajpalSingh; August 25th, 2012 at 11:07 PM.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    puneetlakra (August 26th, 2012), ravinderjeet (August 27th, 2012)

  5. #43
    I would like to invite the attention of the scholars towards a myth that has found place in the pages of history books that Chankya and Chandragupta Maurya in alliance with Porus or Pravartaka established their hold on the Punjab and then he was treacherously eliminated at their behest by someone. The story of his death is recorded in the Jatland wiki page as reproduced below:
    Death


    Indian sources record that Parvata was killed by mistake by the Indian ruler Rakshasa, who was trying to assassinate Chandragupta instead.
    Greek tradition however records that he was assassinated, sometime between 321 and 315 BC, by the Thracian general Eudemus (general), who had remained in charge of the Macedonian armies in the Punjab:
    "From India came Eudamus, with 500 horsemen, 300 footmen, and 120 elephants. These beasts he had secured after the death of Alexander, by treacherously slaying King Porus" Diodorus Siculus XIX-14''
    After his assassination, his son Malayketu ascended the throne with the help of Eudemus. However, Malayketu was killed in the Battle of Gabiene in 317 BC."'



    Alexander Cunningham has also shed further light on the issue in his book: Coins of Alexander's Successors in the East [The Greeks and Indo-Scythians, Part I--The Greeks of Bactriana, Ariana, and India, 4], has identified the "RAKSHASHA'' who killed Porus as Eudemus, one of, the satarps of Indian possessions of the Greek . To quote him:

    In the great war that followed between Antigonus and Eumenes, in B.C. 317, the Eastern Satraps were summoned to join the standard of Eumenes, as the upholder of the sovereingty of Alexander Aegus, the son of Roxana. Eudemus, the satrap of India, who had treacherously murdered Porus, joined the royal standard with three thousand five hundred troops and one hundred and twenty elephants.
    quoted from Coins......, part IV, page 6. A. Cuningham has based his finding on the information provided by Diodorus,Hist. Univers., xix. 5.

    If we put faith in the testimony of the Diodorus [Hist. Univers., xix. 5 and xix, 14], then this is proved that Chanakya or any other Indian Rakshash had no role in the murder of Porus.

    Further comments on the topic are invited to put the record straight.
    Last edited by DrRajpalSingh; September 1st, 2012 at 08:58 AM.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    lrburdak (September 15th, 2012), narenderkharb (September 1st, 2012), ravinderjeet (September 1st, 2012)

  7. #44

    Lightbulb

    The title of this thread is - History and Historians on Jat Mauryan Empire[ founded by Chandragupta in c 323 BC] ?!



    As the Gentleman Bhim Singh Dahiya has quoted, "When the basic hypothesis is wrong, the conclusions are bound to be wrong!."



    Dr. Rajpal, You have already found Yourself in the camp that propagates - Mauryan Empire was founded by Chandragupta in c 323 BC; at-least, the title of the thread suggests so ! Please proceed with a Neutral Approach to the subject !



    I have request You before as well, and I again to read every single statement from the following web-pages with immense scrutiny:


    * http://www.iranchamber.com/history/a...f_mauryas1.php

    * http://www.jattworld.com/online/jatt...-ancient-india

    * http://www.jattworld.com/online/bird...w-jatt-history



    >> Skepticism_Skepticism_Skepticism <<

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Moar For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (September 14th, 2012), lrburdak (September 15th, 2012)

  9. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Moar View Post
    The title of this thread is - History and Historians on Jat Mauryan Empire[ founded by Chandragupta in c 323 BC] ?!



    As the Gentleman Bhim Singh Dahiya has quoted, "When the basic hypothesis is wrong, the conclusions are bound to be wrong!."



    Dr. Rajpal, You have already found Yourself in the camp that propagates - Mauryan Empire was founded by Chandragupta in c 323 BC; at-least, the title of the thread suggests so ! Please proceed with a Neutral Approach to the subject !



    I have request You before as well, and I again to read every single statement from the following web-pages with immense scrutiny:


    * http://www.iranchamber.com/history/a...f_mauryas1.php

    * http://www.jattworld.com/online/jatt...-ancient-india

    * http://www.jattworld.com/online/bird...w-jatt-history



    >> Skepticism_Skepticism_Skepticism <<

    Thanks Moar Sahib,


    The year of accession of Chandragupta Maurya is open for change and could be easily changed because it is quoted as c.323 B.C. which does not convey for certainty that the event took place in 323 B.C.


    Friend leave my hypothesis and Dahiya's findings aside, please share on what basis this tentative year of accession is not acceptable to you. I am open to revise my views if something alternate emerges out of discussion because this is the real purpose of research.

    Thanks

    N>B : What do you want to convey by adding :>> Skepticism_Skepticism_Skepticism <<

    Do not worry, have patience and wait to see the results of discussion. Remember Rome was not built in a day.
    Last edited by DrRajpalSingh; September 14th, 2012 at 08:39 PM.

  10. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    Thanks Moar Sahib,


    The year of accession of Chandragupta Maurya is open for change and could be easily changed because it is quoted as c.323 B.C. which does not convey for certainty that the event took place in 323 B.C.


    Friend leave my hypothesis and Dahiya's findings aside, please share on what basis this tentative year of accession is not acceptable to you. I am open to revise my views if something alternate emerges out of discussion because this is the real purpose of research.

    Thanks

    N>B : What do you want to convey by adding :>> Skepticism_Skepticism_Skepticism <<

    Do not worry, have patience and wait to see the results of discussion. Remember Rome was not built in a day.
    Dear Sir, some research-work has definitely suggested that Mor / Maur (Morya / Maurya) empire was riding-high before Chandragupta's birth, and was an Insigne of JATs. Hit-it-Hard over there - it would prove to be the road to unearth the 'real' facts !!


    If You will start with the propagated hypothesis that the empire was founded by Chandragupta in 323 BC, then the conclusions are bound to be wrong !! History of the Mor / Maur (Morya / Maurya) clan before 323 BC needs to be highlighted, and that's even more important now than the discussion - "The year of accession of Chandragupta Maurya". And, that's the area in which the suggested links will assist You !!


    Please read the suggested links carefully (have You read them with immense scrutiny ?!), and try to fix that why is it taking so much for Our historians to unearth the 'real' facts !!


    >> Skepticism_Skepticism_Skepticism <<

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Moar For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (September 15th, 2012), lrburdak (September 15th, 2012)

  12. #47
    Some interesting discussion on the Chronology of the date of Chandragupta"s accession to sovereignty is presented here to solicit the critical views of the fellow readers and the Jatlanders:

    The chief source of the Jaina traditions regarding Chandragupta and Chankya is known as Sthaaviravli-charita or Parisitaparvan written by Hemchandra as an Appendix to the larger work of the same author known as Trishashti-Sulukapurushacharita dealing with the lives of 63 great personages....Hemachandra’s source of the Chankya-Chandragupta-Katha embodied in versses 194-376 of Canto VIII of Parisishtaparvan is the Churni and Tika on Avasyaka-Niryukti. The Tika was that written by Haribhadra. In addition to alluding to several factors regarding Chandragupta Maurya , the Jain tradition gives a vluable information about his accession to sovereingnty. This point has been discussed by Jacobi in his Introduction (pp.xx-xxi).
    In his Parisishtapravan, VIII. 339, Hemchandra states that “155 years after the nirvana of Mahavira, Chandragupta became king (nirpa).
    This date is not accepted by Merutunga as being contradicted in his opinion by all other sources (Vicharasreni, Memorial , Verses 1-3 ). But it is not true.
    It is accepted by Bhadresvara who, in his Kahavali, states : “And thus, on the extinction (uchechhinna) of the Nanda dynasty, and 155 years after the nirvana of Mahavira, Chandragupta became King (raya)”.
    Jacobi states: “the date 155 AV for Chandragupta’s accession to the throne cannot be far wrong, since the Buddhists place that event in 162 AB. If we assume the earliest possible date, 322 B.C., as the beginning of Chandragupta’s reign, the corrected date of Buddha’s death comes out to be 484 B.C. and that of Mahavira 477 B.C. This result is at variance with a notice in several Buddhist cannonical works” to the effect that Mahavira had pre-deceased Buddha.
    In the Samgiti-Suttanta, Sariputra states: “The Niganttha Nattaputa, friends, has just (adhuna) died at Pava.”
    In the Pasadi-Suttanata , it was Chunda who delivers the news of the death to Ananda at Samagama in the Malla country. At this news, Ananda exclaimed : “Friend Chunda, this is a worthy subject to bring before the Exalted One.” (Dialogues of the Buddha, III).
    In view of these facts, Dr. R. K. Mukerji (Chandragupta Maurya and his Times, 234) states that , thereshould be no objection to the revised dates for the Nirvana of both Buddha and Mahavira at 484 and 477 B.C. respectively, especially as these lead to the acceptable date of 322 B.C., for Chandragupta Maurya’s accession to sovereignty.
    For the other view, a reference may be made to Dr. Radha Kumud Banerji’s Hindu Civilisation, p.230"

    N.B. For this write up Dr. RK Mukerji is duly acknowledged. The data from inscriptions and numismatic sources would follow in next article.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    lrburdak (September 15th, 2012), puneetlakra (September 16th, 2012)

  14. #48
    Friends,
    Expert comments on the usefulness or otherwise of the Jain-Buddhist traditions in deciding the accession of Chandragupta Maurya to Sovereignty are eagerly awaited.
    Thanks and regards

  15. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    Some interesting discussion on the Chronology of the date of Chandragupta"s accession to sovereignty is presented here to solicit the critical views of the fellow readers and the Jatlanders:

    The chief source of the Jaina traditions regarding Chandragupta and Chankya is known as Sthaaviravli-charita or Parisitaparvan written by Hemchandra as an Appendix to the larger work of the same author known as Trishashti-Sulukapurushacharita dealing with the lives of 63 great personages....Hemachandra’s source of the Chankya-Chandragupta-Katha embodied in versses 194-376 of Canto VIII of Parisishtaparvan is the Churni and Tika on Avasyaka-Niryukti. The Tika was that written by Haribhadra. In addition to alluding to several factors regarding Chandragupta Maurya , the Jain tradition gives a vluable information about his accession to sovereingnty. This point has been discussed by Jacobi in his Introduction (pp.xx-xxi).
    In his Parisishtapravan, VIII. 339, Hemchandra states that “155 years after the nirvana of Mahavira, Chandragupta became king (nirpa).
    This date is not accepted by Merutunga as being contradicted in his opinion by all other sources (Vicharasreni, Memorial , Verses 1-3 ). But it is not true.
    It is accepted by Bhadresvara who, in his Kahavali, states : “And thus, on the extinction (uchechhinna) of the Nanda dynasty, and 155 years after the nirvana of Mahavira, Chandragupta became King (raya)”.
    Jacobi states: “the date 155 AV for Chandragupta’s accession to the throne cannot be far wrong, since the Buddhists place that event in 162 AB. If we assume the earliest possible date, 322 B.C., as the beginning of Chandragupta’s reign, the corrected date of Buddha’s death comes out to be 484 B.C. and that of Mahavira 477 B.C. This result is at variance with a notice in several Buddhist cannonical works” to the effect that Mahavira had pre-deceased Buddha.
    In the Samgiti-Suttanta, Sariputra states: “The Niganttha Nattaputa, friends, has just (adhuna) died at Pava.”
    In the Pasadi-Suttanata , it was Chunda who delivers the news of the death to Ananda at Samagama in the Malla country. At this news, Ananda exclaimed : “Friend Chunda, this is a worthy subject to bring before the Exalted One.” (Dialogues of the Buddha, III).
    In view of these facts, Dr. R. K. Mukerji (Chandragupta Maurya and his Times, 234) states that , thereshould be no objection to the revised dates for the Nirvana of both Buddha and Mahavira at 484 and 477 B.C. respectively, especially as these lead to the acceptable date of 322 B.C., for Chandragupta Maurya’s accession to sovereignty.
    For the other view, a reference may be made to Dr. Radha Kumud Banerji’s Hindu Civilisation, p.230"

    N.B. For this write up Dr. RK Mukerji is duly acknowledged. The data from inscriptions and numismatic sources would follow in next article.
    Readers will note the same difficulties.

    The date of shri Maurya, is based on an assumption, and to quote" If we assume the earliest possible date, 322 B.C"

    We have a circular argument!

    Ravi Chaudhary

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to ravichaudhary For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (September 18th, 2012)

  17. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by ravichaudhary View Post
    Readers will note the same difficulties.

    The date of shri Maurya, is based on an assumption, and to quote" If we assume the earliest possible date, 322 B.C"

    We have a circular argument!

    Ravi Chaudhary
    Thank you Chaudhary Sahib for your comment.

    Though the half quote picked by your goodself relates to make correction in the death time of Gautama and Mahavira but keeping in view 'a circular argument' advanced by Jacobi as pointed out by you in this comment, we will have to find out some more straight forward clue to the issue. Let us see if archaeological sources could provide some help to untangle the note.

    It will be kind of you if you could guide us to some untapped source, if any, so that the issue could be resolved once for all times to come.

    Regards & Thanks.
    Last edited by DrRajpalSingh; September 18th, 2012 at 07:13 PM.

  18. #51

    Post Jatt-Saka Empires of Ancient India

    Jatt-Saka Empires of Ancient India : http://www.jattworld.com/online/jatt...-ancient-india




    In mainstream Indian history books written by neo-Brahmanist historians, the two largest imperial dynasties which expanded eastward from northwest Sakasthana - the Mauryas (324 - 232 BC) and Guptas (320 AD - 515) - are claimed to be Brahmanas and (Ghoris) "Hindu" kings! These claims, however, are rejected by coin, inscriptional, archeological and literary evidence which points to their Jat-Saka origin. These imperial systems were essentially republican Saka coalitions in which other Saka tribes and allies (e.g. Gujar, Ahir) played an important role.


    Reality and Facts:


    (1) In the northwest subcontinent, the Brahmanists have never formed the ruling class over any known period of history. The recorded rulers over 3500 years of known history have been drawn from the followings groups and their descendants: British, Sikhs/ Jats/ Gujars/ Rajputs, Afghans, Moguls, Sakas (Scythians), Bactrian Greeks and Vedics. The ruling classes, administrators and soldiers during all periods and in all regions of the world have come to power through conquest by their sword and military prowess despite Brahmanical canards about "creating Kshatriyas". To gain the favor and employment from chieftans rising to power, the ready witted priests concocted fanciful tales of divine origin from solar and lunar lineages.


    (2) The fact is that there have always been two types of ruling classes (Kshatriyas) in southasia: i) those who patronized the Brahmin priesthood and ii) those who felt no need or desire to do so and patronized other religions (e.g. Vedic religion, Saka religion, Buddhism, Islam, Sufism, Sikhism, Christianity). In dateless and placeless revisionist Brahmanical texts (written centuries later when Brahmins gained larger influence; eg. post-9th century Shankarcharya revival), the latter are dubbed "malechas", "sudra", and "low castes kings", etc. while the former are glorified with fantastical tales and showered with the blessings of their devtas. The second type form most of the known and verifiable Kshatriyas and ruling orders in the history of southasia - all in the case of the northwest!


    (3) The Puranas do not even refer to the largest imperial dynasties of the north such as the Mauryas (324 - 232 BC) and Dharan Guptas (320 AD - 515 as "Kshatriyas". Regarding the Mauryas, Dehiya [p.147] states "Another indication of the foreign origin (Saka) of these people is . . . The Vishnu Purana calls them (Gupta rulers) Sudras. The Markandeya Purana brands the Mauryas as Asura. The Yuga Purana called them `utterly irreligious, though posing as religious'. The Mudra Rakshasa calls these people as mlechas and Chandragupta himself is called 'Kulahina', an upstart of unknown family".

    Mauryan coins have the symbol of the sun, a branch, a humped bull and mountain (Dehiya, p.155). All these are pre-eminently Scythian MassaGetae icons who were Sun worshippers with the high mount symbolizing earth and the irregular curving lines alongside it symbolizes water. The tree branch is a symbol of productivity of the earth - agriculture and soldiering were the traditional "noble" occupation of Sakas. The historians of Darius record that when he attempted to attack the Scythian MassaGetae (an old-Iranian culture of central asia) along the Black sea in the 5th century BC, the Saka kings swore by the sun god and refused to surrender "earth and water".

    D.B. Spooner who evacuated Pataliputra was struck by his findings and writes in his article "The Zoroastrian Period of Indian History" as follows: "For Chandragupta' s times, the evidences are more numerous and more detailed, and indicate a following of Persian customs all along the line - in public works, in ceremonial, in penal institutions, everything".


    (4) Regarding the Guptas, Dehiya [p.181] states "The coins of SamudraGupta, Chandragupta I, Kacha, Chandragupta II Vikramaditya, Kumaragupta I, Skandagupta, etc. all have the central asian long coat and trousers and boots and long swords. This is the most significant fact proving that the Guptas were in fact central asian Jats (a major Saka tribe) . . . ".

    P. L. Gupta writes "The most common gold coins of the Guptas appear to be the direct descendants of the gold coins of the later Kushans . . .". He adds that the standing pose of the Gupta kings at the altar is almost identical to that of the Kushan kings, as is their dress - Kushan long coats and trousers (uchkin, salwar/kameez). The Kushana or Kasvan tribe of the Sakas had rule over Sakasthan (northwest) in the period from 1st century to 4rd century AD. The early Gupta coins are significantly called "dinar" and their weight is the same as those of westerly Kushana coins. Moreover, Alberuni (an Arab who traveled to southasia in A.D. 1030) learnt that "the Guptas were powerful but bad and the locals (in the gangetic region) celebrated the end of their rule by starting a new era" (Dehiya, p. 190). This again supports the Scythian origin of the Guptas: the end of the Saka empire in the eastern subcontinent was a cause of celebration to the gangetic Brahmins.


    (5) The term "Gupta" is a misnamed version of "Jarta" found in early texts and inscriptions by modern pro-Brahmanist historians (e.g. Majumdar, Belvelkar, Satavalekar). "Jarta" is the sanskritized form of "Jat" as other Saka tribal names "Gujar" become "Gurjara" and Munda become Marunda. Gupta is derived from "Goptri" meaning "military governor" as in the inscription of Skandagupta (Dehiya, p 176). It was not a surname or clan name but a title. Chandragomin, a gramarian of 6th century AD, wrote "Ajay Jarto Hunan" or "the invincible Jartas defeated the Hunas".

    Dehiya [p. 22] further writes, "The Jain author Vardhamana mentions Sakas and Jartas in 1139-40 AD (Ganaratana Mahodadhi, Kasika, 201). Chandragomin, therefore makes no mistake at all when he states that the invincible Jats defeated the Hunas. Yasodharman (Virk) as well as the so-called Guptas were Jats . . . even though the Hunas were themselves late-comer Jats. The clan name of Toramana and Mahirgula, viz Jauvla, is still available among Indian Jats who are now called Jauhl. Majumdar and Belvelkar have to revise their revision. Their is no need to change the word Jat (Jarta) into Gupta. The original is quite correct and was mentioned by a contemporary writer".


    (6) A contemporary inscription at Mandasor (558 AD) supports Chandragomin's account that under the command of Yashodharman Virk, "the Jats not only defeated the Huns but also exterminated them" (Puniya, 178). This is futher confirmed by Archarya Gopita, a Jain scholar of the 12th century AD, according to whom "Huns were defeated by the Jats". Similarly, the Artharva Veda says that god Rudra is the king of a people called "Garta Sada": "Gartasadam Jananam Rajanam". Many modern Brahmanist "historians" like Satavalekar, after numerous contortions (Dehiya, p. 310), translate "Garta" as being equivalent to a cave (Guha) !

    The coin, inscriptional, archeological and literary evidence from Jain/Puranic/Persian/Buddhist/Chinese sources clearly demonstrate the non-Brahmanical and non-gangetic origins of the Mauryas (Maur clan) and Guptas (Dharan clan). Both are proved to be Saka imperial dynasties which expanded their empire into the eastern subcontinent from their home base in northwest "Sakasthana". Jat/Gujar clans and villages named "Maur" and "Dharan" exist even today in Punjab, Haryana, Bihar and western MP.

    Selected Historical References on Sakas and Northwest Sakasthana are provided.
    Last edited by Moar; September 19th, 2012 at 11:56 AM.

  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Moar For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (September 18th, 2012), lrburdak (September 18th, 2012), prashantacmet (September 18th, 2012)

  20. #52

    Bird’s Eye View of Jatt History


  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Moar For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (September 18th, 2012)

  22. #53
    In mainstream Indian history books written by neo-Brahmanist historians, the two largest imperial dynasties which expanded eastward from northwest Sakasthana - the Mauryas (324 - 232 BC) and Guptas (320 AD - 515) - are claimed to be Brahmanas and (Ghoris) "Hindu" kings! .........
    ....................(3) The Puranas do not even refer to the largest imperial dynasties of the north such as the Mauryas (324 - 232 BC) and Dharan Guptas (320 AD - 515 as "Kshatriyas". Regarding the Mauryas, Dehiya [p.147] states "Another indication of the foreign origin (Saka) of these people is . . . The Vishnu Purana calls them (Gupta rulers) Sudras. The Markandeya Purana brands the Mauryas as Asura. The Yuga Purana called them `utterly irreligious, though posing as religious'. The Mudra Rakshasa calls these people as mlechas and Chandragupta himself is called 'Kulahina', an upstart of unknown family". ---------[/QUOTE]

    Dear Moar Sahib,

    Indeed you deserve kudos for your zeal for historical research.

    However, so far as chronological issue of Chandragupta Maurya is concerned your contribution has been little and the present article has no relevance to be put for discussion at this stage as it throws no light at all on Mauryan history.
    The long article contains neither references/foot notes nor author's name to authenticate its genuineness.
    As regards point 3 which touches the Mauryans the opening sentence proves its uselessness and contradictory nature because Puranic evidence follows in the next breath.

    Contrary to your contention, to the best of my knowledge and belief, No Puran refers Mauryas as Brahmins. Honestly speaking, it seems neither the author of the article nor its producer here seems to have tried to collect the evidence from any of the Puranas on the issue being discussed.

    Please, contribute original readings from contemporary or near contemporary evidences after cross checking references to repudiate the facts mentioned in Buddhist and Jain Traditions or the Greek and Roman sources quoted earlier so that we could arrive at some convincing conclusion.

    Painting Mauryas or the Guptas as anti Brahmin [which they were not] will lead us nowhere. Kindly remember, Maurya rulers were not anti-Brahmin as is proved by the presence of Pushyamitra Sunga as commander in chief of the last Maurya emperor, Brahdarath. In the same way, the Gupta dynasty was also the greatest follower of the Hinduism as they performed Vajpayee and Aswamedh Yajanas and gave full patronage to the Brahmins.

    (More on the Guptas at another relevant place].

    Your constructive criticism on any aspect of the Mauryan History is invited under this thread to reconstruct the lost pages of the Jat History of this specific period so that they could find their due place as Jats in the History books.

    Regards
    Last edited by DrRajpalSingh; September 18th, 2012 at 10:59 PM.

  23. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Moar View Post
    We are here discussing History and Historians on Chandragupta Maurya only. The full article may be used elsewhere, please help us to be precise and struck to the topic so that useful discussion is not derailed in our haste to fill all the gaps in Jat history through the ages.

    thanks

  24. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Moar View Post
    Jatt-Saka Empires of Ancient India : http://www.jattworld.com/online/jatt...-ancient-india




    In mainstream Indian history books written by neo-Brahmanist historians,
    .
    If you wish to be taken seriously at all, please stop posting this kind of an article.

    What is your evidence, and what pray is a neo- brahmanist, and that too a historian? to the

    Anyone with a serious interest in Jat history has seen the article , you take the trouble to put on this site.

    The article does not deserve the credibility this site will give it.

    Please bring some critical thinking to the topic , not a copy n' paste for dubious ,( dare I use the word) -Junk.

    No offence intended.

    This site should not be used for giving credibility unsubstantiated data.

    Best regards

    Ravi Chaudhary

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to ravichaudhary For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (September 19th, 2012)

  26. #56

    Thumbs up @ Dear Ravi Chaudhary Ji

    Respected Sir, I respect You 'words-of-Advice' !!


    You will see in near future that I will practically highlight them in My posts & will in-fact focus to put them at action in My behavior as well !!


    Thanks !!

  27. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Moar For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (September 19th, 2012), lrburdak (September 21st, 2012), ravinderjeet (September 19th, 2012), vijaykajla1 (September 22nd, 2012)

  28. #57

    Persian Taste of Chandragupta Maurya

    Krishna Chandra Sagar in his book 'Foreign Influence on Ancient India' (pp. 48-49), write:

    "Strabo tells us that at the time of festival processions Chandra Gupta Maurya has his attendants carrying various objects including goblets of gold, vessels, lavers, many of them resembling in shape with the Persian articles that Alexander gave in gift to Ambhi of Taxila. These Persian nobilities had come in possession of Alexander as spoils of war."

    His explaination follows as: "Later Chandra Gupta might have arranged similar things for his ceremonial processions."

    How questionable !

    Doesn't the author has given us a reason to believe that he has not went-on to scrutinise the 'actual' relation between Chandragupta Maurya and Alexander ?!
    Chandragupta Maurya dreamed days & nights to anyhow overthrew Alexander's rule from the north-west region of India (remember: during that time India's boundaries were extended from where they are today, please always remember this fact), to boost his thrust from the north-west !
    Furthermore, Chandragupta was raised in a royal life-style and was exclusively educated at Taxila (a house of education reserved only for the royals), so his mentality is likely to be influenced by the environment, of-course !
    Why would he adopt the taste of his enemy !
    And his attitude is well known to history researchers; one can have an idea about that from the kind of speeches he is known deliver; his speeches reflected his leadership qualities & his big-time confidence !
    It would have been kind of derogatory for him to present his closed ones with those articles that his enemy Alexander has gifted (or maybe donated) to a gentleman at Taxila !
    And, why would a king go after any such article, that's been given by another king to a gentleman during his journey; not even around making a meaningful conclusion !
    We can smell that something's wrong here; or it's been represented so, intentionally (but why) !
    So, what is the author trying to do to the 'real' facts by making such a 'silly' assumption over an important history subject (or maybe he doesn't have a grip over the subject); at-least We a reason to believe so !
    The only proper reason seems to be that Chandragupta was himself aware of that art-work, and we can safely that as far as art-work is concerned, Chandragupta definitely had Persian taste !
    A conclusive statement made in the book, "These Persian nobilities had come in possession of Alexander as spoils of war", makes it clear that this art-work was in-fact of Persian origin !

    The author is no way around to provide a proper & factual explanation that, 'Why Chandragupta Maurya had Persian taste ?!'

    To further nail the issue, I would pick a quote from Mr. Sagar's book (p. 49), "Some archaeologists have found gold bangles with ends of lions like Achaemenid gold arm-lets in the Bhir mound at Taxila in the excavation."

    The author's explanation is, "This shows the Persian fashions might have been adopted by the women of Taxila."

    Again, highly questionable !

    The quote from the book itself highlights that the Persian traffic was ON at Taxila.
    If individuals from Persia have access to Taxila, only then the women of Taxila would get a glimpse of Persian fashions, there must be someone to let them aware about the ornaments from a different culture.
    Not by their own !

    The author by denying the Persian origin of Chandragupta leaves us exclaimed, and with many questions that can only be answered by accepting the 'fact' that the Mauryas has Persian roots.
    Last edited by Moar; September 20th, 2012 at 12:03 PM.

  29. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Moar For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (September 19th, 2012), lrburdak (September 21st, 2012), prashantacmet (September 21st, 2012)

  30. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Moar View Post
    Krishna Chandra Sagar in his book 'Foreign Influence on Ancient India' (pp. 48-49), write:

    "Strabo tells us that at the time of festival processions Chandra Gupta Maurya has his attendants carrying various objects including goblets of gold, vessels, lavers, many of them resembling in shape with the Persian articles that Alexander gave in gift to Ambhi of Taxila. These Persian nobilities had come in possession of Alexander as spoils of war."

    His explaination follows as: "Later Chandra Gupta might have arranged similar things for his ceremonial processions."

    How questionable !

    Doesn't the author has given us a reason to believe that he has not went-on to scrutinise the 'actual' relation between Chandragupta Maurya and Alexander ?!
    Chandragupta Maurya dreamed days & nights to anyhow overthrew Alexander's rule from the north-west region of India (remember: during that time India's boundaries were extended from where they are today, please always remember this fact), to boost his thrust from the north-west !
    Furthermore, Chandragupta was raised in a royal life-style and was exclusively educated at Taxila (a house of education reserved only for the royals), so his mentality is likely to be influenced by the environment, of-course !
    Why would he adopt the taste of his enemy !
    And his attitude is well known to history researchers; one can have an idea about that from the kind of speeches he is known deliver; his speeches reflected his leadership qualities & his big-time confidence !
    It would have been kind of derogatory for him to present his closed ones with those articles that his enemy Alexander has gifted (or maybe donated) to a gentleman at Taxila !
    And, why would a king go after any such article, that's been given by another king to a gentleman during his journey; not even around making a meaningful conclusion !
    We can smell that something's wrong here; or it's been represented so, intentionally (but why) !
    So, what is the author trying to do to the 'real' facts by making such a 'silly' assumption over an important history subject (or maybe he doesn't have a grip over the subject); at-least We a reason to believe so !
    The only proper reason seems to be that Chandragupta was himself aware of that art-work, and we can safely that as far as art-work is concerned, Chandragupta definitely had Persian taste !
    A conclusive statement made in the book, "These Persian nobilities had come in possession of Alexander as spoils of war", makes it clear that this art-work was in-fact of Persian origin !

    The author is no way around to provide a proper & factual explanation that, 'Why Chandragupta Maurya had Persian taste ?!'

    To further nail the issue, I would pick a quote from Mr. Sagar's book (p. 49), "Some archaeologists have found gold bangles with ends of lions like Achaemenid gold arm-lets in the Bhir mound at Taxila in the excavation."


    Friend,

    You have picked up a good quote but have appended so many questions without answering any one.

    Further, one fails to understand how the issue is nailed by the sentence quoted in the last two lines.

    Kindly try to pick up full quotations along with contextual reference so that others could also understand in which context the author has used them. Half quotations, out of reference quotations and irrelevant quotes [not having connection with the topic of discussion at some specific point of time] prove diversionary tactics and hence impede progress of useful topic.

    Yes, you are free to add your learned comments as and where you deem fit to do so on the relevance of quotes you pick up.

    Please let us know the year and place of the publication of the book by Mr. Sagar as referred to by you in your post under discussion so that others could also take advantage of going through its contents.

    Thanks and regards

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    lrburdak (September 21st, 2012)

  32. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRajpalSingh View Post
    Friend,

    You have picked up a good quote but have appended so many questions without answering any one.

    Further, one fails to understand how the issue is nailed by the sentence quoted in the last two lines.

    Kindly try to pick up full quotations along with contextual reference so that others could also understand in which context the author has used them. Half quotations, out of reference quotations and irrelevant quotes [not having connection with the topic of discussion at some specific point of time] prove diversionary tactics and hence impede progress of useful topic.

    Yes, you are free to add your learned comments as and where you deem fit to do so on the relevance of quotes you pick up.

    Please let us know the year and place of the publication of the book by Mr. Sagar as referred to by you in your post under discussion so that others could also take advantage of going through its contents.

    Thanks and regards
    I have answered Sir, I did answer !!

    My conclusion : "The only proper reason seems to be that Chandragupta was himself aware of that art-work, and we can safely that as far as art-work is concerned, Chandragupta definitely had Persian taste !"

    I am not off-topic Sir !!

    What I am trying to do is to get your attention towards the Persian taste of Chandragupta Maurya. ( Beware of little expenses. A small leak will sink a great ship. – Benjamin Franklin )

    श्रीमान जी, ऐसा कहना सही नहीं होगा की मैं विषय से भटक रहा हूँ, असल में छोटी-छोटी जानकारियाँ बहुत अहम होती हैं |

    If we nibble at things like this, we'll get through smoothly.

    Quote for the Thread : Great things are done by a series of small things brought together. - George Eliot, Vincent van Gogh

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

    In asnwer to your question, "Further, one fails to understand how the issue is nailed by the sentence quoted in the last two lines"; please refer to the respective post, as I have updated it moments ago. Thanks for highlighting the need to do so !

    Mr. Sagar has written (p. 49), "Some archaeologists have found gold bangles with ends of lions like Achaemenid gold arm-lets in the Bhir mound at Taxila in the excavation."

    The author's explanation is, "This shows the Persian fashions might have been adopted by the women of Taxila."

    Again, highly questionable !

    The quote from the book itself highlights that the Persian traffic was ON at Taxila !

    If individuals from Persia have access to Taxila, only then the women of Taxila are supposed to get a glimpse of Persian fashions, there must be someone to let them aware about the ornaments from a different culture.
    Not by their own !
    Last edited by Moar; September 20th, 2012 at 08:05 PM.

  33. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Moar For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (September 20th, 2012), lrburdak (September 21st, 2012)

  34. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Moar View Post
    I have answered Sir, I did answer !!

    My conclusion : "The only proper reason seems to be that Chandragupta was himself aware of that art-work, and we can safely that as far as art-work is concerned, Chandragupta definitely had Persian taste !"
    -----------


    Mr. Sagar has written (p. 49), "Some archaeologists have found gold bangles with ends of lions like Achaemenid gold arm-lets in the Bhir mound at Taxila in the excavation."

    The author's explanation is, "This shows the Persian fashions might have been adopted by the women of Taxila."

    Again, highly questionable !

    The quote from the book itself highlights that the Persian traffic was ON at Taxila !

    If individuals from Persia have access to Taxila, only then the women of Taxila are supposed to get a glimpse of Persian fashions, there must be someone to let them aware about the ornaments from a different culture.
    Not by their own !
    Moar Sahib, Excellent proverbs and quotation for which accept my hearty congratulations.

    Who is contesting the question of Persian influence when Dr. Sagar himself is not sure as he uses words:"This shows the Persian fashions might have been adopted by the women of Taxila." This leaves scope to think it might not have been either; isn't it so !

    Our teachers have told us that there is no place in history books for the phrases like ''if it were.so....it would have been so and so ; if it were so.... it might have been so and so" therefore we cannot accept such surmises as historical fact.

    Moar Sahib what about the year and place of publication of the Sagar's book quoted by you.

    Thanks.
    Last edited by DrRajpalSingh; September 20th, 2012 at 11:50 PM.

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    lrburdak (September 21st, 2012)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •