Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 329

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

  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by nrao View Post
    Good topic and good discussion between Ravi and Dr Rajpal Singh. Does anybody know the prakrit for Chandra Gupta, which is what most people used that time. It is the Greek form (Sandakottus or Sandrakottus) of his prakrit name which we read in history books. This is my view.
    Naveen

    This is not a debate.

    It is simply an attempt to get people to take a critical look at historical matters and to question what accounts were written in the past.
    One major weakness of Indian history is the maxim that has been ingrained in the Indian psyche- That “ Indians have no sense of history”.
    Somehow this does not make all the sense that it is supposed to.

    The attempts at writing Indian history by western historians( and their indian students) has meant the ignoring of Indian history written by Indians, and more importantly ignoring the indigenous chronology and timelines.

    The entire foundatation and chronology of Indian History is based on the dates of shri Maurya. Historians borrow freely from Puranic time lines, when it suits them, but ignore the data when it does not.


    This has the effect that the period between the Harappa civilization circa 2500 BCE and the Maurya period( Conventional dating 324 BCE) being a total blank.

    Something that is quite impossible.

    If one is to start afresh, taking into account the vast amount of historical data at our disposal today, we would write a very different account of the indian subcontinent today, than what was written by some untrained colonial would be historians.

    A key to the western accounts is the synchronization of the dates of Mr. Maurya with the invasion of Alexander.

    Alexander’s supposed invasion does not find any reference in Indian accounts, Mr. Maurya is not mentioned in Greek accounts, and nor for that matter is Ashoka.

    The omission of the latter is most troubling.


    Here is an all powerful Emperor,governing a vast empire from Assam to South India to central Asia, who is supposed to have interacted with Greek kings, and sent embassies to them, spreading the Buddhist religion. Surely he cannot escape detailed accounts about him in the Greek Chronicles.( unless all the accounts were burnt, when the Library of Alexandria burnt down)

    If accounts of Megastenes Indika survive , one would expect some notice of Ashoka in the extensive Greek accounts.

    Yet we find absolutely no reference to him in the Greek accounts, which accounts our native Indian historians accept as the gospel truth.



    This is odd, to say the least.

    The parallel to those seeking to write an account of the History is, that Jat history is notable for the absence of accounts of the Jats.

    To seek the history of our people, means peeling away the veils that cover it.

    We can start by dating the Maurya family correctly.
    Last edited by ravichaudhary; September 28th, 2012 at 07:51 PM. Reason: m

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to ravichaudhary For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (September 28th, 2012), lrburdak (September 28th, 2012), Moar (September 28th, 2012), prashantacmet (September 28th, 2012), puneetlakra (October 6th, 2012), ravinderjeet (September 28th, 2012)

  3. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by ravichaudhary View Post
    Naveen

    This is not a debate.

    It is simply an attempt to get people to take a critical look at historical matters and to question what accounts were written in the past.
    One major weakness of Indian history is the maxim that has been ingrained in the Indian psyche- That “ Indians have no sense of history”.
    Somehow this does not make all the sense that it is supposed to.

    The attempts at writing Indian history by western historians( and their indian students) has meant the ignoring of Indian history written by Indians, and more importantly ignoring the indigenous chronology and timelines.

    The entire foundatation and chronology of Indian History is based on the dates of shri Maurya. Historians borrow freely from Puranic time lines, when it suits them, but ignore the data when it does not.


    This has the effect that the period between the Harappa civilization circa 2500 BCE and the Maurya period( Conventional dating 324 BCE) being a total blank.

    Something that is quite impossible.

    If one is to start afresh, taking into account the vast amount of historical data at our disposal today, we would write a very different account of the indian subcontinent today, than what was written by some untrained colonial would be historians.

    A key to the western accounts is the synchronization of the dates of Mr. Maurya with the invasion of Alexander.

    Alexander’s supposed invasion does not find any reference in Indian accounts, Mr. Maurya is not mentioned in Greek accounts, and nor for that matter is Ashoka.

    The omission of the latter is most troubling.


    Here is an all powerful Emperor,governing a vast empire from Assam to South India to central Asia, who is supposed to have interacted with Greek kings, and sent embassies to them, spreading the Buddhist religion. Surely he cannot escape detailed accounts about him in the Greek Chronicles.( unless all the accounts were burnt, when the Library of Alexandria burnt down)

    If accounts of Megastenes Indika survive , one would expect some notice of Ashoka in the extensive Greek accounts.

    Yet we find absolutely no reference to him in the Greek accounts, which accounts our native Indian historians accept as the gospel truth.



    This is odd, to say the least.

    The parallel to those seeking to write an account of the History is, that Jat history is notable for the absence of accounts of the Jats.

    To seek the history of our people, means peeling away the veils that cover it.

    We can start by dating the Maurya family correctly.
    Congrts for beautiful post.

    Could you extend help & suggest some source material to solve the puzzle of dating Mauryans correctly, Chaudhary Sahib !

  4. #83
    You can start with the Indian indigenous chronology

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

    DrRajpalSingh (September 29th, 2012)

  6. #84
    Ravi,

    There really was no need for all this polemic. That prakrit was popular and used by most during Mauryan times can hardly be debated. Chanda Guta is Chandra Gupta in prakrit is probably true too, ancient Jain texts will attest to that.

    I still view that Chanda Guta was Sanda Cottus, similar to Malhis were Mallois for Greek, who nearly did Alexander in, mortally wounding him in the process.

    At the same time, I do agree that dating of events is important too and setting something right is a worthwhile endeavor. But to undo everything that exists is quite a task.

    Can you provide the revised dates for following:

    Maurya
    Gupta
    Harsha

    That will be a good start.

    Quote Originally Posted by ravichaudhary View Post
    Naveen

    This is not a debate.

    It is simply an attempt to get people to take a critical look at historical matters and to question what accounts were written in the past.
    One major weakness of Indian history is the maxim that has been ingrained in the Indian psyche- That “ Indians have no sense of history”.
    Somehow this does not make all the sense that it is supposed to.

    The attempts at writing Indian history by western historians( and their indian students) has meant the ignoring of Indian history written by Indians, and more importantly ignoring the indigenous chronology and timelines.

    The entire foundatation and chronology of Indian History is based on the dates of shri Maurya. Historians borrow freely from Puranic time lines, when it suits them, but ignore the data when it does not.


    This has the effect that the period between the Harappa civilization circa 2500 BCE and the Maurya period( Conventional dating 324 BCE) being a total blank.

    Something that is quite impossible.

    If one is to start afresh, taking into account the vast amount of historical data at our disposal today, we would write a very different account of the indian subcontinent today, than what was written by some untrained colonial would be historians.

    A key to the western accounts is the synchronization of the dates of Mr. Maurya with the invasion of Alexander.

    Alexander’s supposed invasion does not find any reference in Indian accounts, Mr. Maurya is not mentioned in Greek accounts, and nor for that matter is Ashoka.

    The omission of the latter is most troubling.


    Here is an all powerful Emperor,governing a vast empire from Assam to South India to central Asia, who is supposed to have interacted with Greek kings, and sent embassies to them, spreading the Buddhist religion. Surely he cannot escape detailed accounts about him in the Greek Chronicles.( unless all the accounts were burnt, when the Library of Alexandria burnt down)

    If accounts of Megastenes Indika survive , one would expect some notice of Ashoka in the extensive Greek accounts.

    Yet we find absolutely no reference to him in the Greek accounts, which accounts our native Indian historians accept as the gospel truth.



    This is odd, to say the least.

    The parallel to those seeking to write an account of the History is, that Jat history is notable for the absence of accounts of the Jats.

    To seek the history of our people, means peeling away the veils that cover it.

    We can start by dating the Maurya family correctly.
    - Naveen Rao

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to nrao For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (September 29th, 2012)

  8. #85
    [QUOTE=nrao;320516 That prakrit was popular and used by most during Mauryan times can hardly be debated. Chanda Guta is Chandra Gupta in prakrit is probably true too, ancient Jain texts will attest to that.

    I still view that Chanda Guta was Sanda Cottus, similar to Malhis were Mallois for Greek, who nearly did Alexander in, mortally wounding him in the process.

    At the same time, I do agree that dating of events is important too and setting something right is a worthwhile endeavor. But to undo everything that exists is quite a task.

    Can you provide the revised dates for following:

    Maurya
    Gupta
    Harsha

    That will be a good start.[/QUOTE]

    Not so quickly

    You have started on a framework.

    Getting the framework right is better than quibbling about details.


    maurya, gupta, harsha.

    Before that

    Sarasvati- Sindhu civilization( Harrappa, Mohenjodaro, Kalibangan, Lothal, Gandhara- also called IVC )

    Developing a cogent historical picture down to times when other sources can corroborate.


    Chronology using Indian Puranic system.

    Indians had a calender, based on 3102 BCE etc.


    ravi Chaudhary

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

    DrRajpalSingh (September 29th, 2012)

  10. #86
    Ravi,

    For pre-Mauryan genealogies and dates, best sources will have to be the ancient Indian literature. This will mean वेद, महाभारत, पुरान and other Hindu, Jain and Buddhist religious texts and other ancient Indian litereature. These texts are plentiful and they carry lot of information in my opinion.


    Quote Originally Posted by ravichaudhary View Post
    Not so quickly

    You have started on a framework.

    Getting the framework right is better than quibbling about details.


    maurya, gupta, harsha.

    Before that

    Sarasvati- Sindhu civilization( Harrappa, Mohenjodaro, Kalibangan, Lothal, Gandhara- also called IVC )

    Developing a cogent historical picture down to times when other sources can corroborate.


    Chronology using Indian Puranic system.

    Indians had a calender, based on 3102 BCE etc.


    ravi Chaudhary
    Last edited by nrao; October 1st, 2012 at 01:21 PM.
    - Naveen Rao

  11. #87
    I am coming across accounts, that the british historians( Jones etc ) have confused the the 1st Guptas with the 2nd Guptas.

    That would place the the Mauryas much earlier then they are now placed.




    Ravi Chaudhary

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

    DrRajpalSingh (October 1st, 2012)

  13. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by ravichaudhary View Post
    I am coming across accounts, that the british historians( Jones etc ) have confused the the 1st Guptas with the 2nd Guptas.

    That would place the the Mauryas much earlier then they are now placed.





    Ravi Chaudhary

    Thanks Chaudhary Sahib for bringing in new twist /dimension to the discussion. Would you kindly be able to share with us the full text what Jone etc. have said on the issue.

    Regards.

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

    Moar (October 1st, 2012)

  15. #89
    The Buddhist book, Digha Nikaya [II.167] mentions that Kshatriya clan known as Mauryas belonged to Pipphalivana.

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

    lrburdak (October 3rd, 2012)

  17. #90
    Another Buddhist book --Mahabodhivamsa [ed. Strong p. 98] states that ''Prince Chandragupta, born of a dynasty of kings hailing from the city known as Moriyanagara, which was built by the Sakyaputtas, being supported by the Brahmana Chanakya, became king at Patliputra.

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

    lrburdak (October 3rd, 2012)

  19. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by ravichaudhary View Post
    Naveen

    This is not a debate.

    It is simply an attempt to get people to take a critical look at historical matters and to question what accounts were written in the past.
    One major weakness of Indian history is the maxim that has been ingrained in the Indian psyche- That “ Indians have no sense of history”.
    Somehow this does not make all the sense that it is supposed to.

    The attempts at writing Indian history by western historians( and their indian students) has meant the ignoring of Indian history written by Indians, and more importantly ignoring the indigenous chronology and timelines.

    The entire foundatation and chronology of Indian History is based on the dates of shri Maurya. Historians borrow freely from Puranic time lines, when it suits them, but ignore the data when it does not.


    This has the effect that the period between the Harappa civilization circa 2500 BCE and the Maurya period( Conventional dating 324 BCE) being a total blank.

    Something that is quite impossible.

    If one is to start afresh, taking into account the vast amount of historical data at our disposal today, we would write a very different account of the indian subcontinent today, than what was written by some untrained colonial would be historians.

    A key to the western accounts is the synchronization of the dates of Mr. Maurya with the invasion of Alexander.

    Alexander’s supposed invasion does not find any reference in Indian accounts, Mr. Maurya is not mentioned in Greek accounts, and nor for that matter is Ashoka.

    The omission of the latter is most troubling.


    Here is an all powerful Emperor,governing a vast empire from Assam to South India to central Asia, who is supposed to have interacted with Greek kings, and sent embassies to them, spreading the Buddhist religion. Surely he cannot escape detailed accounts about him in the Greek Chronicles.( unless all the accounts were burnt, when the Library of Alexandria burnt down)

    If accounts of Megastenes Indika survive , one would expect some notice of Ashoka in the extensive Greek accounts.

    Yet we find absolutely no reference to him in the Greek accounts, which accounts our native Indian historians accept as the gospel truth.



    This is odd, to say the least.

    The parallel to those seeking to write an account of the History is, that Jat history is notable for the absence of accounts of the Jats.

    To seek the history of our people, means peeling away the veils that cover it.

    We can start by dating the Maurya family correctly.
    It would be a great favour if somebody dares with the help of valid source material to refute the date of accession of Chandragupta Maurya i.e. c323 BC.

  20. #92
    Here is an alternative chronology

    http://nrsrini.blogspot.ca/2012/04/h...t-ancient.html




    Name of the event Orthodox Date of the Event* Indian History Dates@
    Age of the Vedas Eternal/4500 B.C.E. 1400—1000 B.C.E.
    Upanishads Prior to Mahabharata War 2500—2000 (Ramkrishna Math) 1000—600 B.C.E.
    Descension of Lord Krishna 3228 B.C.E. -----
    Mahabharata War 3139/3067 B.C.E.(Narahari) -----
    Brihadratha Dynasty of Magadha 3139—2130 B.C.E. -----
    Ascension of Lord Krishna 3102 B.C.E. -----
    Beginning of Kali Era 3102 B.C.E. -----
    Pradyota Dynasty 2139—2001 B.C.E. -----
    Sisunaga Dynasty 2001—1641B.C.E. 650 B.C.E.
    Gautama Buddha 1894—1814 B.C.E. 563—483 B.C.E.
    Mahvira Vardhamana 540—468 B.C.E.
    Nanda Dynasty 1641—1541B.C.E. 467—362 B.C.E.
    Maurya Dynasty 1541—1241 B.C.E.
    Chandragupta Maurya 1541—1507 B.C.E.
    Bindusara 1507—1479 B.C.E.
    Ashokavardhana 1479—1443 B.C.E. Confused as Asoka the Great
    Sunga Dynasty 1241 B.C.E. (beginning) 184—72 B.C.E.
    Kanva Dynasty 784 B.C.E. (ending) 72—27 B.C.E.
    Sankaracharya 509—477 B.C.E.# 788-820 A.D.
    Saatavaahana 100 B.C.E.—225 C.E.
    Gupta Dynasty 328—83 B.C.E. 320—490 C.E.
    Alexander's Invasion 326 B.C.E. 326 B.C.E.
    Chandragupta Vijayaditya 328—321 B.C.E. 321—305 C.E.
    Samudra Gupta/Ashoka the Great 321--370 335—375 C.E.
    Vikramaditya/Chandra Gupta II (Vikrama Era) 102 B.C.E.—15C.E. (53 C.E.) 375—413 C.E.
    Shalivahana 25—85 C.E.
    Shalivahana Saka (Era) 78 C.E.

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

    DrRajpalSingh (October 4th, 2012)

  22. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by ravichaudhary View Post
    Here is an alternative chronology

    http://nrsrini.blogspot.ca/2012/04/h...t-ancient.html




    Name of the event Orthodox Date of the Event* Indian History Dates@
    Age of the Vedas Eternal/4500 B.C.E. 1400—1000 B.C.E.
    Upanishads Prior to Mahabharata War 2500—2000 (Ramkrishna Math) 1000—600 B.C.E.
    Descension of Lord Krishna 3228 B.C.E. -----
    Mahabharata War 3139/3067 B.C.E.(Narahari) -----
    Brihadratha Dynasty of Magadha 3139—2130 B.C.E. -----
    Ascension of Lord Krishna 3102 B.C.E. -----
    Beginning of Kali Era 3102 B.C.E. -----
    Pradyota Dynasty 2139—2001 B.C.E. -----
    Sisunaga Dynasty 2001—1641B.C.E. 650 B.C.E.
    Gautama Buddha 1894—1814 B.C.E. 563—483 B.C.E.
    Mahvira Vardhamana 540—468 B.C.E.
    Nanda Dynasty 1641—1541B.C.E. 467—362 B.C.E.
    Maurya Dynasty 1541—1241 B.C.E.
    Chandragupta Maurya 1541—1507 B.C.E.
    Bindusara 1507—1479 B.C.E.
    Ashokavardhana 1479—1443 B.C.E. Confused as Asoka the Great
    Sunga Dynasty 1241 B.C.E. (beginning) 184—72 B.C.E.
    Kanva Dynasty 784 B.C.E. (ending) 72—27 B.C.E.
    Sankaracharya 509—477 B.C.E.# 788-820 A.D.
    Saatavaahana 100 B.C.E.—225 C.E.
    Gupta Dynasty 328—83 B.C.E. 320—490 C.E.
    Alexander's Invasion 326 B.C.E. 326 B.C.E.
    Chandragupta Vijayaditya 328—321 B.C.E. 321—305 C.E.
    Samudra Gupta/Ashoka the Great 321--370 335—375 C.E.
    Vikramaditya/Chandra Gupta II (Vikrama Era) 102 B.C.E.—15C.E. (53 C.E.) 375—413 C.E.
    Shalivahana 25—85 C.E.
    Shalivahana Saka (Era) 78 C.E.
    Chaudhary Sahib,

    Revolutionary Revelations.
    Wish it were so based on sources well cited for further probings !
    Could you share something on Chandragupta Maurya from your study ?

    Thanks

  23. #94
    Dr. Singh



    This information is hardly revolutionary.

    it is there in all puranic literature


    Out of pure curiousity, are you not familiar with the puranic time lines?

    warm regards

    Ravi chaudhary

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

    DrRajpalSingh (October 5th, 2012)

  25. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by ravichaudhary View Post
    Dr. Singh



    This information is hardly revolutionary.

    it is there in all puranic literature


    Out of pure curiousity, are you not familiar with the puranic time lines?

    warm regards

    Ravi chaudhary

    Gleanings and computation not Puranas is wonderful Chaudhary Sahib!

  26. #96
    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.

    ..........

    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.

    Then claims by 17th century British evangelist and bureaucrats, passing themselves off as historians, need to re examined critically and afresh.

    The primary data they relied upon needs to re examined afresh.

    ...........

    The establishment of the date of Chandragupta Maurya is as good a starting point as any.

    Now, what primary evidence do you have of his date at 325 BC ?

    Ravi Chaudhary
    Chaudhary Sahib,

    Kindly share with us the Primary Source to prove this date to be wrong.

    Thanks
    Last edited by DrRajpalSingh; October 5th, 2012 at 09:56 AM.

  27. #97
    Chaudhary Sahib,

    Kindly share with us the Primary Source to support your finding that these two names represent only one emperor: " Samudra Gupta/Ashoka the Great 321--370 335—375 C.E." .

    Thanks



  28. #98
    रवी जी ने ऊपर के थ्रेड में समुद्र गुप्त और अशोक को क्लब कर दिया है इसके खुलासे की आवश्कता है.

    मैं राजस्थान में पाए गए सम्प्रति मौर्य (ज्ञातराज श्री सम्प्रति ) के नाडलाई शिलालेख १६२९ ई का उदहारण दे रहा हूँ जिसमें हमें कुछ मूल स्त्रोत का उल्लेख मिलता है:
    Nadlai Inscription of 1629 AD नाडलाई शिलालेख १६२९ ई.

    डॉ. गोपीनाथ [राजस्थान के इतिहास के स्त्रोत, 1983, पृ. 180] लिखते हैं कि यह शिलालेख आदिनाथ मंदिर की मूर्ति पर ६ पंक्तियों का है. इसका समय वि.सं. १६८६ वैशाख शुक्ला ८ शनिवार है और महाराणा जगतसिंह के काल का है. इस लेख में तपागच्छ के आचार्य हरिविजय, विजयसेन और विजयदेव सूरि का उल्लेख है.

    लेख का मूल इस प्रकार है -

    १. संवत १८८६ वर्षे वैशाख मासे शुक्ल पक्षे शति पुष्प योगे अष्टमी दिवसे महाराणा श्री जगत सिंहजी विजय राज्ये जहांगीरी महातपा
    २. विरुद धारक भट्टारक श्री विजयदेवसूरीश्वरोपदेशकारित प्राक्प्रशस्ति पट्टिका ज्ञातराज श्री सम्प्रति निर्म्मापित श्री जेरपाल पर्वतस्य
    ३. जीर्ण्ण प्रासादोद्धारेण श्री नडलाई वास्तव्य समस्त संघेन स्वश्रेयसे श्री श्री आदिनाथबिंबं कारितं प्रतिष्ठितं च पादशाह श्री मदकब्बर
    ४. शाह प्रदत्त जगत् गुरु विरुद धारक तपागच्छाधिराज भट्टारक श्री ५ हीरविजयसूरीश्वर पट्टप्रभाकर भ. श्री विजयसेन सूरीश्व
    ५. र पट्टालंकर भट्टारक श्री विजयदेवसूरिभि: स्वपद प्रतिष्ठिताचार्य श्री विजय सिंह सूरि प्रमुख परिवार परिवृतै: श्री नडुलाई मंडन श्री
    ६. जेरवल पर्वतस्य प्रासाद मूलनायक श्री आदिनाथ बिंबं ||श्री||

    ऊपर के शिलालेख में सम्प्रति मौर्य का उल्लेख है और साथ ही तपागच्छ के आचार्य हरिविजय, विजयसेन और विजयदेव सूरि का उल्लेख है. यदि हम इन जैन धर्म के आचार्यों के अभिलेखों की छान बीन करें तो कुछ मिल सकता है.
    Last edited by lrburdak; October 5th, 2012 at 09:30 PM.
    Laxman Burdak

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to lrburdak For This Useful Post:

    DrRajpalSingh (October 5th, 2012)

  30. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by lrburdak View Post
    रवी जी ने ऊपर के थ्रेड में समुद्र गुप्त और अशोक को क्लब कर दिया है इसके खुलासे की आवश्कता है.

    मैं राजस्थान में पाए गए सम्प्रति मौर्य (ज्ञातराज श्री सम्प्रति ) के नाडलाई शिलालेख १६२९ ई का उदहारण दे रहा हूँ जिसमें हमें कुछ मूल स्त्रोत का उल्लेख मिलता है:
    Nadlai Inscription of 1629 AD नाडलाई शिलालेख १६२९ ई.

    डॉ. गोपीनाथ [राजस्थान के इतिहास के स्त्रोत, 1983, पृ. 180] लिखते हैं कि यह शिलालेख आदिनाथ मंदिर की मूर्ति पर ६ पंक्तियों का है. इसका समय वि.सं. १६८६ वैशाख शुक्ला ८ शनिवार है और महाराणा जगतसिंह के काल का है. इस लेख में तपागच्छ के आचार्य हरिविजय, विजयसेन और विजयदेव सूरि का उल्लेख है.

    लेख का मूल इस प्रकार है -

    १. संवत १८८६ वर्षे वैशाख मासे शुक्ल पक्षे शति पुष्प योगे अष्टमी दिवसे महाराणा श्री जगत सिंहजी विजय राज्ये जहांगीरी महातपा
    २. विरुद धारक भट्टारक श्री विजयदेवसूरीश्वरोपदेशकारित प्राक्प्रशस्ति पट्टिका ज्ञातराज श्री सम्प्रति निर्म्मापित श्री जेरपाल पर्वतस्य
    ३. जीर्ण्ण प्रासादोद्धारेण श्री नडलाई वास्तव्य समस्त संघेन स्वश्रेयसे श्री श्री आदिनाथबिंबं कारितं प्रतिष्ठितं च पादशाह श्री मदकब्बर
    ४. शाह प्रदत्त जगत् गुरु विरुद धारक तपागच्छाधिराज भट्टारक श्री ५ हीरविजयसूरीश्वर पट्टप्रभाकर भ. श्री विजयसेन सूरीश्व
    ५. र पट्टालंकर भट्टारक श्री विजयदेवसूरिभि: स्वपद प्रतिष्ठिताचार्य श्री विजय सिंह सूरि प्रमुख परिवार परिवृतै: श्री नडुलाई मंडन श्री
    ६. जेरवल पर्वतस्य प्रासाद मूलनायक श्री आदिनाथ बिंबं ||श्री||

    ऊपर के शिलालेख में सम्प्रति मौर्य का उल्लेख है और साथ ही तपागच्छ के आचार्य हरिविजय, विजयसेन और विजयदेव सूरि का उल्लेख है. यदि हम इन जैन धर्म के आचार्यों के अभिलेखों की छान बीन करें तो कुछ मिल सकता है.
    Burdakji,

    Good information on Jatraj Sri Samparti. But here he does not seem to be addressed as Maurya.

    What is your opinion ?

    Thanks.
    Last edited by DrRajpalSingh; October 5th, 2012 at 10:37 PM.

  31. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by lrburdak View Post
    रवी जी ने ऊपर के थ्रेड में समुद्र गुप्त और अशोक को क्लब कर दिया है इसके खुलासे की आवश्कता है.

    मैं राजस्थान में पाए गए सम्प्रति मौर्य (ज्ञातराज श्री सम्प्रति ) के नाडलाई शिलालेख १६२९ ई का उदहारण दे रहा हूँ जिसमें हमें कुछ मूल स्त्रोत का उल्लेख मिलता है:
    Nadlai Inscription of 1629 AD नाडलाई शिलालेख १६२९ ई.

    डॉ. गोपीनाथ [राजस्थान के इतिहास के स्त्रोत, 1983, पृ. 180] लिखते हैं कि यह शिलालेख आदिनाथ मंदिर की मूर्ति पर ६ पंक्तियों का है. इसका समय वि.सं. १६८६ वैशाख शुक्ला ८ शनिवार है और महाराणा जगतसिंह के काल का है. इस लेख में तपागच्छ के आचार्य हरिविजय, विजयसेन और विजयदेव सूरि का उल्लेख है.

    लेख का मूल इस प्रकार है -

    १. संवत १८८६ वर्षे वैशाख मासे शुक्ल पक्षे शति पुष्प योगे अष्टमी दिवसे महाराणा श्री जगत सिंहजी विजय राज्ये जहांगीरी महातपा
    २. विरुद धारक भट्टारक श्री विजयदेवसूरीश्वरोपदेशकारित प्राक्प्रशस्ति पट्टिका ज्ञातराज श्री सम्प्रति निर्म्मापित श्री जेरपाल पर्वतस्य
    ३. जीर्ण्ण प्रासादोद्धारेण श्री नडलाई वास्तव्य समस्त संघेन स्वश्रेयसे श्री श्री आदिनाथबिंबं कारितं प्रतिष्ठितं च पादशाह श्री मदकब्बर
    ४. शाह प्रदत्त जगत् गुरु विरुद धारक
    तपागच्छाधिराज भट्टारक श्री ५ हीरविजयसूरीश्वर पट्टप्रभाकर भ. श्री विजयसेन सूरीश्व
    ५. र पट्टालंकर भट्टारक श्री विजयदेवसूरिभि: स्वपद प्रतिष्ठिताचार्य श्री विजय सिंह सूरि प्रमुख परिवार परिवृतै: श्री नडुलाई मंडन श्री
    ६. जेरवल पर्वतस्य प्रासाद मूलनायक श्री आदिनाथ बिंबं ||श्री||

    ऊपर के शिलालेख में सम्प्रति मौर्य का उल्लेख है और साथ ही तपागच्छ के आचार्य हरिविजय, विजयसेन और विजयदेव सूरि का उल्लेख है. यदि हम इन जैन धर्म के आचार्यों के अभिलेखों की छान बीन करें तो कुछ मिल सकता है.
    The Jain munis mentioned here participated in All Religion Discourses Meet at Fatehpur Sikari on the call of Padshah Akbar.

Posting Permissions

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