–P

TTT –Ye–Ye/
“•
W8-BTyy
-9
3 a
The Book

The present book is the result of judi-

cious use of information on ancient
Hindu calendar derived from the study of
epic; puranic; ancient Indian astronomical
literature and properly verified by the
various modern scientific disciplines:
astronomy; & Climatology etc. The brief
survey of Hindu calendar is given in Ch. |
of the book which is arranged in
8 chapters. The following chapter
is planned to remove the misconcep-
tions regarding the Indian eras including
traditional Kaliyuga era. The 3rd chapter
which deals with the various views regar-
ding the date of Parikshit II is balanced
and_ informative. The fourth chapter
explains the gap of 300 years between
Parikshit Il and Janamejaya Ill which
appears almost logical. Chapters V; VI;
Vil & VIIl make effort to fix the chronolo-
gy of north Indian kings from Parikshit –P
upto the Ashoka Maurya inthe light of
new dates for various Indian eras propos-
ed by the author and ample of Puranic;
Buddhist; Jain and Greek data.

The work is quite original, displaying

erudition and acumen of a remarkable
type. Statements are based on definite –P
authorities. Conclusions are drawn on
the basis of complete and accurate
references. Author's approach of analys-
ing our ancient chronological view in the
light of most recent findings of Astro-
nomy and Geophysics is unique. His
efforts to establish the validity of Hindu
calendar on the basis of modern scientific
theories is certainly a valuable contribu-
tion to our historical knowledge. The
arguments put forward by him to support
his theories are convincing and impres-
sive. There are useful chronological
tables; an exhaustive index; self-definitive
line diagrams and detailed bibliography.

se
CHRONOLOGY OF NORTH INDIAN KINGS
 as|
–@
[3
–P
–@
–2P –@
–@
~^
Oe–@
i–P
:4-
‘P
ie
‘

“P
1a–@
e-

4yp
–@
7
e_| re
x–“=@ ’€
–@
~|
;|–P
i]»
|’’p
@–@ \|
+; nd=|
•€
e

–P
–²À

A† i
| iam,
–@
†–@
–@
::–.–@
ne
1r:i
–@
<

’@
=–P
a–@
&
eae
=“Y?
–@
–@
~ ’I?
~"0
:i“•

;~
z=.
~“
“™?1- –P ’p
‘7–1@

–P

+
pa
=
ie4=

oy
t73d
~

I»
,

de.
ae
First Published 1990
©) Rai Gyan Narain Prasad
ISBN : 81-7186-003-6

Published by
Agam Prasad, M.A., Ph. D., Diploma in Museology,
AGAM KALA PRAKASHAN
34, Community Centre, Ashok Vihar,
DELHI-110052 Phone : 7113395

Printed by
Arun Typographer
at Shiv Printers, Delhi-1 10035
 Contents

Acknowledgement
Preface xvii
List of Tables xxi

List of Figures
CHAPTER 1
SCIENTIFIC RESURRECTION OF ANCIENT HINDU 1
CALENDAR

I.1 Introduction ~>

=>
A~
—
1.2.1 Chaturyuga of 12,000 Savana Years
1.2.2 Chronology of Present Chaturyuga
1.2.3 Verificational Points
1.3 Mahayuga of 182,640 Savana Years
1.4 Kalpa-Ahoratra Cycle of 365.28 Million
Years 6
1.5 Brahma-Year Cycle of 77.76 Billion Years 7
I.6 The Total Life-Span of Brahma 8
CHAPTER 2
MISCONCEPTIONS CONCERNING THE INDIAN ERAS | 11
AND THEIR BEGINNINGS
1.1 Kali Samvata and its Beginning epoch 1]
vi

II.1.1 Introduction 11
II.1.2 Traditional Statements concerning
the Chaturyuga Calendar 12
i1.1.3 Traditional Statements concerning
the Modified Chaturyuga Calendar i>
II.1.4 Greek-Babylonian Effect on Ancient
Hindu Chaturyuga Calendar 16
II.2 Saptarishi Samvata and its Beginning
epoch 18
II.3 Buddha Mahaparinirvana Samvata 24
1.4 Mahavira Nirvana Samvata 25

CHAPTER 3

DATE OF THE BIRTH OF KURU KING PARIKSHITII 28

1.1 Mahabharata Epic War : The Controversy
of Myth and Reality 28
“âãã The views of D.C. Sircar 29
IlI.1.2 The views of H.D. Sankalia 29
III.1.3 The views of B.B. Lal 30
[1.1.4 Upendra Thakur : The Controversy
Concluded 31

1.2 Mahabharata Epic War : The Controversy

of Time Bracket a2
III.2.1 Myth : Originated not earlier than 6th
Century B.C. 32
1.2 2 Reality : Happened not later than
3000 1.1 34
IT.2.2.1 The attempt of R.K. Bhattacharya
Siddhantasastri
IIT.2.2.2 The attempt of Pt. Kota Venkatachelam 37
IIf.2.3 Parikshit born in 1350/1351 B.C. : The
12th Divine Night of Mahabharata War 38
 vii

CHAPTER 4

300 YEARS INTERVAL BETWEEN PARIKSHIT II 42

AND JANAMBJAYA III
IV.1 Revelations of the First Stanza of
the Mahabharata Epic 42

IV.2 Revelations of the Dynastic Titles of

Vyasa Rishis 43

IV.3 Revelations of the Kalhana’s

Rajatarangini 43

IV.4 Revelations of the Mahabharata

Adiparva 45/16 44

IV.5 Revelations from the Archaeology 45

CHAPTER 5

DYNASTIC LISTS OF NORTH INDIAN KINGS FROM 47

PARIKSHIT’S BIRTH UPTO THE END OF
BARHADRATHAS OF MAGADHA
V.1 Kings-List of the Kuru Dynasty 47
V.2 Kings-List of Barhadratha Dynasty of
Magadha 2
V.3 Kings-List of Aiksvaku Dynasty 58
V.4 King-List of Kashmir Kingdom 62

CHAPTER 6

DYNASTIC LISTS OF NORTH INDIAN KINGS AFTER 66

THE END OF BARHADRATHAS AND BEFORE
THE BEGINNING OF NANDAS
VI.1 Kings-List of Magadha and Avanti 66
VI.1.1 Puranic Kings-List (A) of Avanti Kings 69
VI.1.2 Puranic Kings-List (B) of Magadha Kings 11
VI.1.3 Buddhist Kings-List (C) of Magadha
Kings 13
VI.1.4 Chronological Analysis of First-three
Post-Barhadratha Period Kings of
Magadha a5
vili

VI.1.5 Ajatshatru and Darshaka

VI.1.6 King Udayi or Udayibhaddaka
VI.1.7 Mahanandi of Magadha or Sasunagas of
Avanti
VI.1.8 Jain Chronological Analysis
VI1.9 Second Buddhist Council of Vaishali
VI.2 Post Barhadratha Kuru Kings
VI.3 Post Barhadratha Period Aiksvaku Kings
CHAPTER 7

CHRONOLOGY OF NANDA DYNASTY 92

VII.1 Mahapadma Nanda: The Destroyer of

All the Kshatriyas ? a2

VII.2 Puranic Chronology 94

Vir Buddhist Chronology 104
VII.4 Jain Chronology 118

CHAPTER 8

CHRONOLOGY OF MAURYAS 124

1.1 Greek Synchronism 124
/[11.1.1 Greek References on Chandragupta
Maurya 125
Vit Meeting of Chandragupta Maurya with
Alexander 125
VITL 2 Coronation Date of Chandragupta
Maurya 126
VITUS War between Chandragupta Maurya
and Seleucus 127
VIIL.1.2 Reaction of Traditional Hindu Scholars 128
Vat 13 Conclusive Remarks on Greek
Synchronism 129
VIIL.1.3.1 Greek References on Nandas 129
VII.1.3.2 Bhavisya Purana’s Synchronism of
Seleucus and Chandragupta Maurya 132
VIII.1.4 Greek Synchronism for Ashoka’s
Coronation in his Rock Edict XIII

VILI.2 Puranic Maurya Chronology up to

Ashoka Maurya
1.3 Mauryan Chronology in Buddhist
Sources
VIlI.4 Mauryan Chronology in Jain Sources
VIII.5 Chronology of Jain Yuga-Pradhanas

Appendix
Concise Chronological Tables
Bibliography 163

Index 169

Figures
 7 •ð (’€ ” ‘S° hi

–Ã#es ? ’‰M’i@,
‘P— "0.ee 7 ma–yl sek
44 ii a “•
–¹f–°‘P ’i(•0 >
147 1 1 Sch as rr
–P
is a > Rai

‘P ~ #6 ;
“
’©? A 7 ~ –@ $
UM's, i he i > vi se)

- “Y? “Y? =)
7 +
•p –P

we 1
–°
’©? ’‰(”

he
 Acknowledgement

1 wish to express my sincerest gratitude to Dr. Y.K. Misra,

Reader, Ancient Indian and Asian Studies Department, Magadha
University for his able supervision and keen interest during the
progress of the work as athesis for the degree of Doctor of Philo-
sophy and making valuable suggestions and constant encouragement
throughout the course of present study.

I am extremely grateful to the authorities of the Magadha

University especially Hon. Vice Chancellor and Head of the Depart-
ment, Department of Ancient Indian and Asian Studies, Magadha
University, for giving me a permission to submit this work of. inter-
national interest in the form ofa thesis for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.

With a special mention of indebtness, may I single out the name

of Prof. Upendra Thakur, Professor and Head, Department of
Ancient Indian and Asian Studies, Magadha University, whose
encouraging letter dated 15.2.1980, as I have remembered, received as
the first one when I was just beginning my studies on the project of
Ancient Hindu Calendar and Chronology of Ancient Bharata. Since
then Prof. Thakur’s help, concerning the valuable suggestions,
constructive criticisms and constant encouragement, is always received
by me throughout the course of my studies.

I am really much obliged to the authorities of North Eastern

Railway, Signal & Telecommunication Department with a special
xii

mention of Hon. A.B. Badhe, Chief S & T Engineer; M.M. Dwivedi;

S.K. Gaur; K. Chowdhari; V.S. Srivastava and Lajpat Rai for their
constant emboldenment to work hard on the project and furnished
necessary permissions to attend a large number of conferences in
India and abroad. Hon. C.S.T.E. has personally studied some of the
papers with a keen interest to hearten me.

Tam much thankful to my technical colleagues as well as my

educational friends of various disciplines for their heated discussions
which gives the ample of fresh data to study and analysis.

I am greatly indebted to the only sister R.R. Srivastava and

brother-in-law Dr. V. Kumar for financial and moral help. Mother’s
contribution from the birth uptill now for tirelessnessly supplying life-
sustaining emenities can not be expressed in words. Raju’s assistance
can not be forgetable.
Indebtness even beyond the all possible limits may be expressed
in favour of ‘some-one’, she may be my sweat-hear !; a combination
of planets in respective houses in the horoscope ?; subconscious or
unconscious mind !! so called ‘fate’ or the supreme-power ‘God’ what
was the entity behind this iron-curtain, I do not know exactly the
case, whose contribution was in par-excellence to provide me a many
thousands of lonely, cold and calm nights to collect, concentrate,
analyse and calculate for the final results concerning the project,
and bound me to feel a thrilling pleasure instead of a boredom or
tired-ness.

I am encouraged too much during the course of my studies due

to the following eminent scholars who have contributed advice,
suggestions, congratulations, expertise, information, showing great
interest and constructive criticisms to this scientific chronological
project :

1. P.D. Agnihotri, Bhopal.

2. G.C. Agrawal, Founder President, Vidur Sewa Ashram,
Bijnor,
 xiil

3. D.P. Agrawal, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad.

4. V.V. Bedekar, President, Ins. for Oriental Study, Thane.
P.L. Bhargava, Prof. (Retd.) of Sanskrit, Rajasthan Univ.,
Jaipur.
K.D. Bajpai, Tagore Prof. (Retd.), Saugar Univ., Saugar.
V.B. Bhatia, Reader, Deptt. of Physics & Astrophys., Delhi
Univ., Delhi
8. A.K. Chakraborti, M.R. College, Midnapur (W.B.).
S.K. Chatterjee, A.V.S.M. (Retd.), New Delhi.
C.W. Cowen, Director, Sch. of Orien. & African Studies,
London.
. V.N. Dutta, Prof. of History, Kurukshetra University.
Erich Van Daniken, Sweden.
. K.N. Dixit, Arch. Sur. of India, New Delhi.
J.A. Eddy, Sen. Scientist, High Alt. Obs., N.C.A.R.,
Colorado, U.S.A.
. P.H.L. Eggermont, Prof. of Indology, Univ. of Leuven,
Belgium.
Ram Gopal, Kalidas Prof. of Sanskrit, Punjab Univ.,
Chandigarh.
R.C. Gaur, Cen. of Adv. Study in History, A.M.U., Aligarh.
S.D. Goswami, Deptt. of History, Dibrugarh University.
J. Imbrie, Hen. L. Doh. Prof. of Oceanography, Brown
Univ., U.S.A.
. GW. Kaveeshwar, Prof. & Principal (Retd.), Indore.
. S.M. Katre, California, U.S.A.
S. Lienhard, Stockholm University, Sweden.
Phil Christian Lindtner, Deptt. of Asian Lang. & Liter.,
Washington Univ., U.S.A.
xiv

B.B. Lal, Director, Ind. Ins. of Advanced Studies, Simla.

. V.V. Mirasi, Prof. of History (Retd.), Nagpur.
26. Sengaku Mayeda, Prof. of Ind. Philosophy, Tokyo Univ.,
Japan.
. W.F. Menski, Sch. of Orien. & African Studies, London.
. J.V. Narlikar, Prof. of Astrophysiss, T.I.F.R., Bombay.
M.G.S. Narayanan, Head of History Deptt., Calicut
University.
, (7.0. 12114. 8.9.11. ePine:
. 1–òãràPoddar, Supdt. of Libraries, Patna.
A. Padoux, Cen. Nat. de la Res. Scientifique, Paris.
. E. Pauli, Buddhist Scholar, Denmark.
V.S. Pathak, Prof. & Head, Ant. Hist. Deptt., Gorakhpur
Univ.
. B.V. Raman, Editor, The Astrological Magazine, Bangalore.
S.R. Rao, Director, Nat. Ins. of Oceanography, Goa.
N.C. Rana, Radio Astronomy Group, T.I.F.R., Bombay.
G.S. Sampath Iyengar, Gorour, Karnatak.
H.D. Sankalia, Prof. Emeritus, Deccan College, Pune.
. K.V. Sharma, Adiyar Library & Research Centre, Madras,
. 1.9. Shastri, Univ. of Nagpur.
. –Òãh.Sharma, Deptt. of Sanskrit, A.M.U., Aligarh.
. K.S. Shukla, Prof. of Mathematics, Lucknow University.
. A.M. Shastri, Prof. & Head, Deptt. of Ant. Indian Hist.,
Nagpur Univ.
. 8.1. Srivastava, Reader in Geomagnetism, N.G.R.L.,
Hyderabad.
). §.C. Srivastava, Deptt. of Elect. Engineering, M.M.E. Coll.,
Gorakhpur.
 xv

47. R.K. Siddhantashastri, Prof. & Head of Hist. (Retd.),

Calcutta Univ.
48. S.D. Sharma, Reader, Physics Deptt., Punjabi Univ.,
Patiala.
49. R.C. Sharma, Director, U.P. State Museum, Lucknow.
50. Ach. U.V. Shastri, Vir. Vedic Sodha Sansthana, Ghaziabad.
51. L.K. Tripathi, Prof. of Ant. Hist., B.H.U., Varanasi.
ape D.S. Triveda, Res. Prof., Prakrit Research Ins., Vaishali.
9 K.C, Varma, Jt. Dir., Ins. of Chronology, Ghaziabad.
54. S. Venugopalacharya, Mandaya, Karnataka.
Say Vidhata Misra, Vice Chancellor (Retd.), K.S.D.S. Univ.,
Darbhanga.
56. R.K. Verma, Prof. & Head, Deptt. of Ant. Hist., Univ. of
Rewa.
a1: V.S. Wakankar, Director, Bharti Kala Bhawan, Ujjain.
58. S.B. Roy, Director, Ins. of Chronology, Delhi.
os A. Pezzali, Buddhist Scholar, Univ. of Bologna, Italy.
60. Robert Layton, Prof. of Anthropology, Univ. of Durham,
England.
61. A.R. Singal, Prof. of Mathematics, Meerut Univ.
62. A. Wezler, Gen. Sec., 32nd ICANAS, Hamberg, Germany.

RAI GYAN NARAIN PRASAD

 –@
–@ –P
–p –@
"ie i
4s 01
Mite
a”
OK? Nig esl, it ORE terial igen aay eine
ta! eb thnk i haley + i
a 7 Fay # – ee ae ys eh 101
| itt ’Ð Ach Dry ’€ –yn 5 ‘ –©g
(0,
–P (4.1,
Megs fry 8 ued lo RS 199) <n

by <<.~ Att –yk.–P

–yo
–ùg–°
eS if Wy–ig–yg.
hueis Vie We’@a¢
eee tr ey Se
C7 a SPi i j > nett 4 "’y –@i 4 3 –s 1732 in
; $ –@ –@ (–s –P
’p ald ’
Aver ’‰M“Y@ ‘ ere
7 ^© 7107 4 > –yk,
9 rune bas Ate - Rist. aS oly
ar LR rt Pe oe
SGA, Sse .C APALY oe eee ’€ , bow # oka

Gis 7C4 4 irae vsMAG –rÀ ede Ec)y Ee

£25) oe | –@
the

: ¥

~ –@

( 9

#
~~~ ’‰M‘R• ‘

*
 Preface

The Scientific Resurrection of Ancient Hindu Calendar done by

me, is based on the Astronomical Theory of Ice-Ages and modern
Cosmology. After getting a considerable success in my efforts, I
have now focussed my attention in the present thesis to the chro-
nology of the political history of Northern India from the birth of the
Parikshit [ upto the coronation of Ashoka Maurya. The former was,
chronologically, best known figure to the traditional history and
calendar of Ancient India whereas the latter is, chronologically, best
known figure to the systematic history and epigrapbs of ancient
India.

For chronological reconstructions, we equate 9090th year of

Dhruva-samvatasara i.e. Polar era and 3030th year of the third cycle
of Saptarishi era given in Vayu and Matsya Puranas, with 582 A.D.,
and can start the Krta yuga of Vaivasvata manvantara with 8508 B.C.
with which the geological holocene epoch roughly began and related
to a traditional flood event of Manu Vaivasvata. If we equate the
‘Dharma-pada’ structure for the present chaturyuga given in Strya
Siddhanta 1/15-17 with the either direction of the average global
temperature fluctuation within 6°C, plotted recently by Profs. G.H.
Denton and W. Karlen, for holocene’s little Ice-age cycles, then we
can easily decode our ancient Hindu chaturyuga calendar atleast for
the present Vaivasvata manvantara, in climatological terms. In this
chaturyuga calendar plan, present Kali yuga with which we are
related chronologically in this thesis, began precisely with 1308 B.C.
xviit

Surprisingly, the last two figures**08 B.C. was in exact coincidence

with an ancient ‘Creation Era of Constantinople’, began with 5508
B.C., used over the vast territory of India and Russia in ancient
times. But due to the Greek-Babylonian astronomical import, after
the Alexander’s invasion, Kaliyuga beginning was first shifted to 1302
B.C. and afterwards to 3102 B.C. Puranic chronology uses 1302 B.C.,
whereas, our present day Panichangas uses 3102 B.C. Thus Puranas
by using 1302 B.C. as Kaliyuga beginning, gave the year 1339 B.C. for
the birth date of Parikshit TT. But according to the Saptarishi
calendar this event coincided with 1362 B.C. The same epoch is
assigned for the coronation of Somadhi, the Magadhan king of
Barhadratha dynasty, and 700/723 years is alloted for this dynasty
over Magadha by the Matsya Purana. Thus Barhadratha dynasty
certainly ended in (1362-723 or 1339-700=) 639 B.C. In fact, accord-
ing to my calculations, such a big epic war, if it was really a big one,
can not be finalised merely in 18 days. It should must be prolong to
a 18 years duration which might originally be mentioned as 18 divine-
days—18 human years. In 18 divine-days war, Parikshit born during
the 12th divine-night i.e. the Winter season of 1350/1351 B.C.
By equating the ‘Early Contemporary Dynasties’ puranic state-
ments (Pargiter’s D.K.A., p. 69) with the end of Barhadratha dynasty
instead of, with the beginning of Nanda dynasty (as Pargiter assumed),
on the basis of the inclusion of 20 Vitihotras also which were actually
ended alongwith the Barhadrathas in the period of Pradyodta’s father
(D.K.A., p. 68), we find a general missing of atleast 15 or 16 kings
from the puranic kings-list of Kurus, Aiksvakus, and Barhadrathas
etc. On deeper epic and puranic studies, it is found that it was due
to an actual missing of the history of about 300430 years period
between the Parikshit II and the Janamejaya III. It was the period
when Kurus (i.e. the successors of Pandavas), alone, enjoyed actually
the total sovereignty over whole of the Northern India atleast,
achieved in the Mahabharata epic war, and ruled over the entire
northern India from Hastinapur. Kalhana’s Rajatarangini 1/83
actually corroborates with the missing kings-list theory of 35
Kashmirian kings between Gonanda II (4th) and Lava (40th), out of
 24

which according to the tradition, the first 23 kings belonged to the

Pandava dynasty who ruled over Kashmir from Hastinapur beginning
with Parikshit II after the death of issueless king Gonanda II. Thus
it would be more logical to fill the gap between the Parikshit II and
the Janamejaya IIT from the kings-list of the successors of Parikshit II
mentioned in Mulla Ahmad’s History of Kashmir. It gives an
average number of 46 kings between the birth of Parikshit II and the
coronation of Sisunaga of Magadha and Ujjain (1339-467 B.C.) and
an acceptable average of 19 years per king.
We have further analysed, in great detail, the Puranic chrono-
logy; the Buddhist chronology of Magadha and Ceylonese kings-list
alongwith the Buddhist Thera’s list and also the Jain tradition for the
kings of Ujjain and the chronology of Jain Yuga-Pradhanas upto the
period of Ashoka and Samprati. The study of Buddhist Thera’s list
facilitates the correct placement of Thera Chandavajji (420-362 B.C.)
which resulted the compensation of the 58 years short-fall crept in
the Buddhist chronology, raises the period of Nav-Nandas to the
(424-324 B.C.=) 100 years (the puranic figure) from 22 years (the
Buddhist figure), in which Maha(padma)nanda, according to
Bhavisya Purana, was the last among the nine, coronated in 336 B.C.
Thus confirming the puranic statements that between the birth of
Parikshit [ and the coronation of Maha(padma)nanda there elapsed
only (1351-336 B.C.=) 1015 years interval. All these chronological
results leads us, finally, to the 544 B.C. date for Buddha’s Mahapari-
nirvana as Ceylon-Burma-Siam tradition already intended. By all the
study means, we have concluded that Ashoka’s coronation was _ really
taken place in 265 B.C.

RAI GYAN NARAIN PRASAD

 cueBee eo fee on
–rââà
+ 1111 dha geeHum tare
3 Ale 11.111.
‘P = •5 –s –cIg
aii ati lo ket ap SPU –° ’€ ae

1/1. abs OS ait (nia compas –yf1) •P

a "4 ` hada they ae ’€ Se! ap: 1
web 078 81 {–rã “R• 118 1 fe 197 ~+ 4 €)"
Te (het.ak iota) ‘P 111 11–p
–yk–rà ¢ il 1117111. mba! lee “™? 7, | oy ira of Tes ry Pe 14 –@
1–yf39 - 1. 11. op –¹g19 –r• ee –° WY–rà –¹j
"10 o's thie! = = oan POR OIE 11001 Gee ’à
ei.) (eens Thc ini isd Bi14 -agheak » dow?hits
Yili ecw hue –yd–ydov Wii Che ’ò• 4401 itwy Des A 4–yoaii Lit.
' 4 ‘P ( –ð
7 «’Gà ’@ 4 ’@ we

HABA) IAN AA AA PDA

 List of Tables

. Climatological Reconstruction of Ancient Hindu Chatur-

yuga Calendar
. Chaturyuga Calendar of Greek Influence
. Saptarishi Calendar
. Saptarishi Cycles of Vaivasvata Manvantara
. Kuru Kings-List
. Regnal Years of Post-war Barhadrathas in Puranas
. Important Dates for Aiksvaku Dynasty around Buddha
, Aiksvaku Kings-List from Brhadbala to Suddhodana
. Puranic Kings-List (A) of Avanti Kings
. Corrected Chronology of Pradyotas of Avanti
. Puranic Kings-List (B) of Magadha Kings
. Buddhist Kings-List (C) of Magadha Kings
. Final Chronology of Magadha Kings from the end of
Barhadrathas upto the Beginning of Nandas
. Post-Barhadratha Kuru Kings-List
. Aiksvaku Kings-List after the end of Barhadrathas
. Names of Nine Nandas as in Bhavisya Purana and
Mahabodhivamsa
. 814–³ƒ€ Purana’s Unmodified Chronological list of
SagunagaDynastyof Magadha
Xxil

XVIII. Bhavisya Purana’s Magadha Kings List after the end of

Barhadrathas after the Historical Rearrangement of
Sasunagas
XIX. Nanda Dynasty List of Bhavisya Purana
XX. Comparative Buddhist Chronological Table of the Theras
and the Kings of Magadha and Ceylon
XXI. Chronology of Dipavamsa 5/96 after the insertion of 74
years of Vinayapamokkhataship of Upali as well as of
Moggaliputta Tissa
XXII. Vinayapamokkhataship List of Dipavamsa after inserting
Ach. Chandavaiji between Soénaka and Siggava
XXIII. Best Compromised Dates for the Individual Nine Nandas
XXIV. Chronology of Mauryas over Ujjain
XXV. Chronology of Jain Yuga-Pradhanas
>,5–°–àI Jain Yuga-Pradhanas from Mahavira’s Death upto the
end of Samprati
XXVII. Kurus of Hastinapur and Kaushambi (1339 B.C.-
467 B.C.)
XXVIII. Magadha Kingdom (1339-233 B.C.)
XXIX. Aiksvaku Kingdom (1339-467 B.C.)
XXX. Kashmir Kingdom (1339-236 B.C.)
XXXII. Post-War Contemporary Kings-List of Northern India
 List of Figures

. Geomagnetic Cycle of 12,000 Years Derived from C-14

Data

. Cyclic Changesin Solar Radiation over Northern Hemi-

sphere according to Precession Cycle of Equinoxes
. Denton-Karlen Climatological Plot Applied for the
Interpretation of Dharma-pada Structure of Present
Chaturyuga i.e. Vaivasvata Manvantara
. Enlarged view of Milankovitch Radiation Curves Applied
to the Manvantara Theory of Ancient Hindu Calendar
. Comparison between the Six sub-stages of 4th (Wiirm)
Glacial Age with the Past Six Manvantaras of the Present
Mahayuga of Ancient Hindu Calendar
. Chronological Details of 14 Manvantaras of Present (7181)
Mahayuga
VII. Long Regime Glaciation Cycle Applied for the Kalpa-
Ahoratra Notation of Ancient Hindu Calendar
VII. Geological Time Chart Applied for the Last Three Kalpas
IX. Astronomical Time Chart of Spent Kalpas of Present
Brahma-Year
etal Bias (’y(‘É2“ù) “$

~ 1. ‘P 0 i cr,“)M‘Y2‘YM“?)
^="1–™g
–³@ -9 –Yf04 ‘y> "’€ ) |
’y>’€ 1 WEteewone–Ij–yf–Id–¹i–@
Y
">= ’‰(‘P‘Y(’€ a end ’`
(’ fit 1 ’‰(’€ 11.71 YO
MOREE ah!194–yf–yo–BÉf–Ùg–€
"’i” pie aul 0 ~
ee, –ð 1.11 "‘P –P
Bel) –` +lashut ’‰(” ’€ ae
–@ ate ay
1.1 ‘Y?’@sj "19 ~) ’IM“ MN 96.1.11
WOO. "’Ù? "’‰M’€ retin ‘RÀ –²éj. –P
3. 19. 1 Ltn Fae) ome –yk–¹k–ék–©k) 3) Y
Od he agli ses –s@ae –if–°–@
“’à ge
–@ 1–¹k("’‰@
 1
Scientific Resurrection of Ancient
Hindu Calendar

I. 1. INTRODUCTION

In the Sristi-Kalakrama section of our Purana and Pafchangas

Chaturyuga, Manvantara, Mahayuga, Kalpa and Mahakalpa etc. the
ancient Hindu Calendarial concepts are given. Had these ancient
concepts any scientific basis? Our modern scientists and historians
presuppose that those were merely an imaginative product of ancient
undeveloped primitive human mind. Here, we have to analyse these
concepts in the light of most recent findings of modern astronomy
and geophysics etc.
1.2.1. Chaturyuga of 12,000 Savana Years
According to the ancient Hindu astronomical classic Mayasura’s
Sarya-Siddhanta 1/15, the total of the four yugas is 12,000 in terms
of years and 43,20,000 in terms of Stryabdis. Sanskrit commentaries
took ‘Year’ in the context of Divine-year and Stryabdis as Human-
years. E. Burgess remarked on 1/13-14 : ‘In the astronomical recons~
truction of Puranic system, however, a physical meaning has been
given to the day of gods: the gods are made to reside at north pole,
and demons at the south pole’ whereas human beings at near-
equatorial region and then, of course, we have got a geophysical
2 Chronology
of NorthIndian Kings
difference of 360 times between the polar (divine) day and the near-
equatorial (human) day’. But because one and the same earth orbits
around the Sun for the concept of year: both polar (divine) as well as
equatorial (human) year. Therefore, divine and human years become
an equivalent term. Consequently, Strya-Siddhanta 1/15 can be
re-interpreted as: the total of four yugas is 12,000 in terms of human
savana years and 43,20,000 in terms of human savana days (Figure I).
Aryabhattiyam, Kalakriyapada, verse 7 & 8 also intended the same
thing because the Manes were supposed to reside on the opposite side
of the moon.? Since, length of a day on the moon (1.6. the period of
one rotation around its own axis) as well as the length of a year on
moon (i.e. the period of one revolution around the earth have the
same duration, i.e. equal to one lunar month or 30 lunar days on
earth. Therefore, the day and year of Manes are the equivalent term
i.e. must be equivalent to a lunar-month of men instead of 30 Solar
years.

_Inorder to give a firm scientific footing to the ancient Hindu

Chaturyuga calendar, we can use the precessional cycle of equinoxes
of earth. Plato’s precessional cycle of equinoxes of 25,920 years
(which is in close approximity to the modern value) was actually
composed of two Chaturyugas of 12,000 years separated by two
sandhi periods of 960 years (25,920=960-+ 12.000 -1-960¬-12,000).
Plato’s value 25,920 years when divided by 960 years (the period
taken by the geomagnetic poles to make one orbit around the geo-
graphic poles of earth) gives the quotient 27, leaving no remainder,
which was the fundamental basis of Hindu Nakshatra system. On
relating with the precession of equinoxes, Chaturyuga calendar also
coincides exactly with the Adhemar’s half precessional cycle of glacia-
tion period on either hemisphere of earth.? Astronomical Theory of
Ice-ages finally proposed by an Yugoslavian astronomer M.
Milankovitch (1938) speculates that Ice-ages due to the influence of
precessional cycle dominates over the axial-tilt cycle Ice-ages in near
equatorial region (Figure 11).4
Scientific Resurrection of Ancient Hindu Calendar 3

1.2.2. Chronology of Present Chaturyuga (Vaivasyata Manvantara)

Ancient puranas and panchangas made the term Chaturyuga
synonymous to the term Mahayuga instead of the term Manvantara
and the present Mahayuga is said as the 28th of the 7th Manvantara,
the Vaivasvata. Our puranas, unanimously, gave only 95 solar-
dynasty kings (Krta: 1-40; Treta: 41-65; and Dwapara: 66-95)
between the Manu-Vaivasvata and the Brhadbala of Mahabharata
epic-war® which sounds exactly that Manu-Vaivasvata took his birth
at the start of the Krta-yuga of present Chaturyuga instead of the
Krta-yuga of 28 Mahayugas ago. Therefore, Manvantara and
Chaturyuga are the equivalent terms. In this way also, the present
Kaliyuga of the 7th, Vaivasvata, manvantara can be counted as
(7X4=) 28th yuga.®
Our reference point, for the present Chaturyuga chronology, is
the 78 A.D. i.e. the beginning date of the Saka-era. On the basis of
Varahmihira’s Brahatsamhita, Saptarishichara, XII1/3,’ we can equate
the 3,030 years Saptarishi cycle with the 2,448 B.C.-582 A.D. of the
Christian calendar whose 2,526th year coincided with the beginning of
Saka-kala. According to Vayu 39/17-18 and Matsya 56/13-14 Puranas,
9,090th Dhruva (Kraonch)-Samvatsara coincided with the 3,030th
Saptarishi Watsara.. Therefore, Druva-samvaisara, i.e. Polar-era
began with (the 582 A.D.-9,090 years=) 8,508 B.C. This date is,
surprisingly, coincided with the flood event of Manu-Vaivasvata with
which the Krta-yuga of Vaivasvata-Manvantara began.®

In Strya-Siddhanta 1/16, the quantum of distribution of the

four yugas of a Chaturyugi is inclusive of their sandhi-periods and
has to be arranged according to the order of their Dharma-pada begi-
nning with Krta-yuga. 1/17 tells that the tenth part of a Chaturyuga
multiplied, successively, by 4:3:2:1 give the length cof the Krta and
other yugas.!° If we equate the ‘Dharma-pada’ structure for the
present Chaturyuga (Vaivasvata-Manvantara) given in Sirya-Siddhanta
1/15-17 with the either direction of the average global temperature
fluctuation within 6°C recently plotted by Profs. G.H. Denton &
W. Karlen,! we can decode our ancient Hindu calendar, at least for
4 Chronology
ofNorthIndianKings
the present Vaivasvata-Manvantara in climatological terms (Figure II)
with full scientific accuracy as follows :
TABLE I

Yuga Dharma Climatological Duration Duration in Christian

Name pada Representation = 111Years Suryabdis Calendar Date

Krta 1 W 1,200 4,32,000 8,508-7,308 B.C.

t
Cc
Treta 8 Ww WwW 2,400 8,64,000 7,308 4,908 B.C.
+ †
e
Dwapara 3 Ww W 3,600 12,96,000 4,908-1,308 B.C.
tty
(1
Kali 4 Ww –©j 4,800 17,28,000 1,308 B.C.-3,492 A.D.
tity
Ce Cre

Honestly speaking, our analysis has two radical differences from

the traditional view-points : (1) we use human years instead of divine
years, and (11)we use Krta, Treta, Dwapara, Kali in 1:4:3:4 Dharma-
pada ratio rather than the traditional 4:3:2:1 one.

1.2.3. Verificational Points

For verification, we use a large number of diverse and indepen-
dent sources e.g.
(i) Beginning of Krta-yuga (8508 B.C.) is verified by the Manu’s
flood event with the help of ancient Hindu, Iranian, Greek, Egyptian,
Mayan, and Hopi-Amerindians traditional calendars.”
(11)Beginning of Tretaé-yuga is verified by the beginning of
agriculture. Ancient Puranas (Harivamsha, ch. 10, verse 12-20; Vayu,
ch. 8, verse 45-48; 52-60; 77-96; 123; 130-154) tell us that Agriculture
began with the beginning of Treta-yuga (c. 7300 B.C.). Archaeology
also endorses this very epoch (7300-:300 B.C.) for the beginning of
agriculture.'®
Scientific Resurrection of Ancient Hindu Calendar 5

(111)End of Dwapara (i.e. the beginning of Kali-yuga) in 1308

B.C. may be verified bya number of sources—(a) Scholars agree
that Vedas came into their written existence around 1500 B.C.,
whereas tradition agree that –¹o–¹g-––yi58.wrote Vedas just before the
Mahabharata epic war; (b) Visnu; Bhavisya; and Bhagwata Purana
(Sk. XII, Ch. I, V.30-31) tell us that the Kali-yuga of 1200 years only
began just after the pass-away of lord Krsna. Bhavisya Purana (Prati-
sarga parva, Bharatakhanda asthastadasha rajyasthana 1-9) tell us
explicitly that between the end of Mahabharata epic war and the begin-
ning of Vikramaditya epoch, there elapsed only 1200 years.14 We
know, traditionally, that Vikrama-samvata began with 57 B.C. and it
was, initially, known as Krtasamvata in the inscriptions, thus, it was
certainly believed upto that time that 1200 years of Kaliyuga was
actually ended with the beginning of Krta-samvata of Vikramaditya,
therefore, Kaliyuga should begin around 1300 B.C.
(iv) This scientific Chaturyuga calendar along with the other
Puranic genealogical king-list data are successfully applied to analyse
the detailed chronology of the post-Mahabharata-war North-Indian
kings of Magadha; Aikshvaku; Kuru; and Kasmir kingdoms.
1.3. MAHAYUGA OF 182,640 SAVANA YEARS

In scientific scheme of Hindu calendar, Mahayuga (not the Kalpa)

is composed of 14 Manvantaras plus 15 sandhi-periods. Therefore,
a Mahayuga is composed of (12,000 14)+1200+(960 x 14)= 182,000
Savana years (Figure VI). Varahamihira accepted in his Pafcha-
siddhantika (Strya-Siddhanta 1/14) that for the ‘Ahargana-calculation’
only the 24th part of the traditional-Mahayuga period is sufficient
which is equal to the 180,000 tropical years!® or 182,640 savana years,
Mahayuga concept of 182,640 savana years can be related, scientifi-
cally, to the Ice-ages corresponding to the variation cycle of eccen-
tricity of the earth’s orbit around the Sun. According to U. Leverrier
(1843 A.D.), the French astronomer, 100,000 years ago, the eccentri-
city of earth was 6% and it becomes near-zero and it should reach
to 6% again in another 100,000 years.1’ Therefore, it takes approxi-
mately 200,000 years, or the period of a Mahayuga of 182,640 savana
6 Chronology of North Indian Kings

years, from one high eccentricity state to the next. Ice-ages of

Mahayuga durations are already verified by the CLIMAP group of
American geologists. In my calculation, the last high eccentricity
epoch ie. (12,000 x6)-+ 1200+ (960 x 6)+ 8508 B.C.=87,468 B.C.19
coincides with the start of the first, Swayambhuva, Manvantara and
also with the Border-cave discovery of the well-civilized Homo sapiens
of Peter Beumont and Adrina Boshier (Figure IV & V).?°
1 4. KALPA-AHORATRA CYCLE OF 365.28 MILLION YEARS

According to Strya-Siddhanta 1/20: the Kalpa, thus composed

of a thousand Mahayugas and which brings about the destruction of
all the exists, is styled a day of Brahma; his night is of the same
length.2! Day and night are collectively known as an Ahoratra.
Therefore, duration of a Kalpa is equal to the (182,640 x 1000=)
182,640,000 savana yearsandthe Ahodratra becomes (=2 kalpas) of
365,280,000 savana years. An ahoratra is composed of : 45,660,000
years (dawn) -+-136,980,000 years (day)+-45,660,000 years (twilight)+-
136,980,000 years (night). Day epoch of the present Sweta-Varaha
Kalpa, started 71 Mahayuga ago, began from [(182,640 x 70)+ 87,468
B.C.=] 12,872,068 B.C. or 12.87 million years ago and the dawn
epoch began from [12,872,068 + 45,660,000= | 58,532,068 B.C. or 58.53
million years ago. The beginning of the day epoch coincides exactly
with the 14 million years old fossil findings of the first hominid
Ramapithecus,”” whereas the dawn epoch with the origin of Pigs and
Boars (i.e. Varaha) and even primates of Eocene epoch of geology.”
An ahoratra cycle of Brahma can, scientifically, be related to the
parabolic orbit of the Sun around the Galatic-core®* in which the
aphelion portion represents the cool-Day of Brahma and responsible
for the long-regime Ice-ages® of 182.64 million years, whereas
perihelion portion represents the warm-Night of Brahma i.e. long-
regime interglacial phase of another 182.64 million years. This cycle
is also responsible for the continental-drift, large-scale floods and all
about the major changes in the organic evolution. of life-forms on the
earth. In this way, we can find late precambrian glaciation of 700
million years ago; permo-carboniferous glaciation of 300 million
years ago; and the present, late-cenozoic glaciation staried from 55
 Scientific Resurrection of Ancient Hindu Calendar 7

million years 820: as the Day-epcchs of the 34th; 35th (padma); and
36th (varaha) Kalpas respectively. Whereas “‘middle-Cambrian-middle-
Silurian” and “late-Triassic—early-Tertiary” periods can be designa-
ted as the Nights of 34th and 35th (padma) Kalpas respectively
(Figures VII & VIII).
1.5. BRAHMA-YEAR CYCLE OF 77.76 BILLION YEARS

According to the Strya-Siddhanta 1/21, a year of Brahma con-

tains only 200 Ahcratras.2” Brahma-year begins with a cosmic-egg
(Vayu Pur. 6/72) which has a dormancy period of 4.704 billion years,
Therefore, duration of a Brahma-year is (365,280,000 x 200)+4,704,000,
000 =) 77.76 billion years. According to Vayu Purana ch, 21-23,?8 the
present, Varaha, is the 36th Kalpa which gives, in turn, the begin-
ning of the Kalpa Hindu calendar from (365.28 m. yrs. ><35) +58.53
m. yrs. = 12.843 billion years ago with the “BHAVA” Kalpa. On
the basis of the modern “Big-Bang” cosmology, Dr. Allan R. Sandage
of Hale Observatory, U.S.A. gave a Pulsating-model of the Universe
having a pulsation cycle of 80 billion years, in which a cosmic egg
after an initial explosion expands, at a constantly slowing down rate,
for 40 billion years, after a momentarily halt, it began to contract for
another 40 billion years and give finally another cosmic-egg at the
end of contraction phase. We are living at about one-third, 1.6. 13
billion years from the beginning, of the one of the expansion-cycles.?9
These findings of the modern cosmology are in exact coincidence
with the ancient Hindu findings. According to my calculations,
origin of the Sun was taken place in 22nd, Meghavahana Kalpa
(Vayu Pur. 21/46-47)®° from 5.17 billion years ago.*! Evolution of
life (i.e. Sarga system of Puranas), in 9 sargas, began with the 27th,
Darsham Kalpa from 3.346 billion years ago : in which the evolution
of sex (i.e. the Maithuni-sristi of Daksha-Prajapati) was taken place
in the 7th sarga (i.e. 33rd, Vishva-rtipa, Kalpa) from 926.07 million
years ago; Invertebrate life i.e. 8th Sarga: 789.09 423.81 m. yrs. ago;
Vertebrate life ic: 9th (Kaumar) sarga : 423.81—58.53 m. yrs. ago
(padma-kelpa) and primates (human group) evolved in the 10th
(Manugya) sarga from 58.53 m. yrs. ago. During Sarga (day of
Brahma) half-cycle, life-forms enjoy a favourable environment
8 Chronology of North Indian Kings

referred as ‘“‘evolutionary-explosion’’ whereas during Prati-sarga

(night of Brahma) half-cycle, life-forms pass through unfavourable
condition referred as “great extinction” and undergo to the various
adaptations. Therefore, Sarga-Pratisarga cycle of our own Hindu
ancient Puranas as well as Punctuational model of modern evolution
biology both admits the fact that the evolution in the life-processes
was not gradual and continuous, but often experienced the episodes
of ‘‘evolutionary explosion” and “great extinctions’’.*?
1.6. THE TOTAL LIFE-SPAN OF BRAHMA
Our Hindu Pafchangas give the duration of 311,040,000,000,000
years for the total life of Braihma.*? But Vayu Purana 22/4-6 and
Shiva Purana 7/6/20-21 tells that 8,000 Brahma-years make a Brahma-
yuga; 1000 Brahma-yugas make a “‘Savana’’ and 3000 or 6000 Savanas
make probably the total life of Brahma.*4 In my calculations, the
duration of Brahma-yuga comes as _ (77,760,000,000, x 8,000==)
622,080,000,000,000 or 622.08 trillion years. It shows that the half
Brahma-yuga duration is exactly equal to the total life-span of
Brahma given in Pafichangas. The duration of a Brahma-yuga
coincides exactly with my calculations of “gradational-cosmology”’.
The total life-span of Brahma of 3.610! years given in Vayu and
Shiva Puranas would play a leading role in determining the life-span
of “Proton’? given by the recently developing, ‘Unified Field
Theories” of ‘“‘Electro-weak”’ and “‘nuclear’’ interactions proposed by
the Particle-Physicists.

REFERENCES

1. Burgess, E., Sarya Siddhanta, verse 1/13-14, p. 9.

2. Shukla, K.S. and K.V. Sharma, Aryabhattiya of Aryabhatta, pt. I, p. 92;

Prasad, R.G.N., Greek-Babylonian Effect on Ancient Hindu Calendar,
pp. 10-11.
3. Adhemar, J.A., 1842, Revolutions de la mer, privately published, Paris;
Prasad, R.G.N, Gradational Structure of Universal Time : A Scientific
Resurrection of Ancient Hindu Calendar, pp. 6-7.
Scientific Resurrection of Ancient Hindu Calendar 9

4. Milankovitch, M., 1938, Astronomische Mittel zur Enfrschun der

erdgeschichtlichen Klimate, Handbuch der Geophysik, 9, (B. Gutenberg,
ed.), Berlin, pp. 593-698.
Pargiter, A.LH.T., pp. 175-79.
Prasad, R.G.N.,
Gradational Structure of Universal Time—A _ Scientific
Resurrection of Ancient Hindu Calendar, sec. IV, p. 16.
Varahamihira’s Brhatsamhita, XIII/3. pp. 116-17.
Vayu Purana, 39/17-18, pp. 464-65; Matsya Purana, 56/13-!4. p. 452.
Prasad, R.G.N., Manu Vaivasvata’s Flood Myth at the Beginning of
Geological Holocene Epoch, Seminar on the Hindu Mythology and 118
Interrelationship to the Mythologies of the World, Thane, 2 September,
1984.
Burgess, E., Sdrya Siddhanta, 1/15-17, p. 11.
. Denton, G.H. and W.-Karlen, 1973, Holocene Climatic Variations—their
Pattern and Possible Cause, Quaternary Research, 3, 155-205; 1110116, J.,
and K.P. Imbrie, 1979, Ice-Ages : Solving the Mystery, p. 179.
12. Prasad, Manu Vaivasvata’s Flood Myth, Seminar on Mythology, 1984.
ts; Prasad, R.G.N., Beginning of Agriculture—Synchronism between
Archaeological and Traditional (Puranic) Evidences, Archaeological
‘Objectivity’ in Interpretation, Vol. 3, Part 6, Sec. B, no. 8, The World
Archaeological Congress, Southampton, Ist-7th September, 1986.
Bhavisya Purana, Pratisarga Parva, pp. 414-415.
. Upadhyaya, V., Gupta Abhilekha, p. 353.
Thibaut, G., and “Òà Dwivedi, Pafichasiddhantika of Varahamihira,
pp. XVII and 4-6.
14 Leverrier, U., 1843-1855, Conneissance des temps, 1843, Annals del’
Observatorie Imperial de Paris 11, 1855.
18. Hays, J.D., Imbrie and N.J. Shackelton, 1976, Variation in the Earth’s
Orbit Pacemaker of the Ice-Age, Science, 194, pp. 1121-1132; CLIMAP
Project Members, 1976, The Surface of the Ice-Age Earth, Science, 191,
pp. 1131-1144.
Prasad, R.G.N , Gradational Structure of Universal Time—A Scientific
Resurrection of Ancient Hindu Calendar, sec. 4.5, p. 21.
20. Prasad, R.G.N,, Sarga System of Puranas and Modern Evolution Biology,
Itihas Patrika, Vol.3, No. 2, pp. 41-51.
10 Chronology of North Indian Kings

. Burgess, E., Sirya Siddhdnta, p. 12; Prasad, Gradational Structure of

Universal Time, sec. 5, p. 22.

. Ibid., sec. 5.4.2, pp. 26-27,

. Ibid., sec. 5.4.1, pp. 24-26.
; Ibid., séc, 3.3, pp. 23-24.
. Ibid., sec. 5.3, pp. 23-24.
. Ibid., sec. 5.6, pp. 33-34.
. ibid, sec. 6.1, pp. 34-37.
.. Ibid., sec. 6.1, pp. 34-37.
bs Ibid: see: & 0319;
100 10.09.
; dbid..<sec. 0.39.
. Prasad, Sarga System of Puranas and Modern Evolution Biology, Itihas
Patrika, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 41-51.
. Prasad, Gradational Structure of Universal Time, sec. 7.1, pp. 39-40.
•€ 1010; 9–ãCs 29409:
 2

Misconceptions Concerning The Indian

Eras and their Beginnings

1.1. KALISAMVATA AND ITS BEGINNING EPOCH

II.1.1. /ntroduction

The Scientific Resurrection of Ancient Hindu Calendar, done by

me, is based on the Astronomical Theory of Ice-Ages and modern
Cosmology. After getting a considerable success in my efforts, I
have now focused my attention in the present thesis to the chrono-
logy of the political history of Northern India from the birth of
Parikshit [ up to the coronation of Ashoka Maurya. The former
was, chronologically, best known figure to the traditional history and
calendar of ancient India whereas the latter is, chronologically, best
known figure to the systematic history and epigraphs of ancient
India.
For chronological reconstructions, we equate 9090th year of
Dhruva-samvatsara 1.6. Polar era and 3030th year of the third cycle of
Saptarishi era given in Vayu 39/17-18 and Matsya 56/13-14 puranas,
with 582 A.D. and. we can start the Krta-yuga of Vaivasvata manvan-
tara with 8508 B.C. with which the geological holocene epoch roughly
began and related to a traditional flood event of Manu Vaivasvata,
12 Chronology of North Indian Kings

If we equate the ‘Dharma-pada’ structure for the present Chaturyuga

given in Strya Siddhanta 1/15-17 with the either direction of the
average global temperature fluctuation within 6°C, plotted recently by
Profs. G.H. Denton and W. Karlen, for holocene’s little Ice-Age
cycles, then we can easily decode our ancient Hindu Chaturyuga
calendar at least for the present Vaivasvata manvantara, in climatolo-
gical terms. In this Chaturyuga plan, the present Kaliyuga, with which
we are chronologically related in this thesis, began precisely with 1308
B.C. Surprisingly, the last two figures **08 B.C. was in exact co-
incidence with an ancient ‘era of Constantinople’ began with 5508 B.C.
used over the vast territory of India and Russia in’ ancient times.
But due to the Greek-Babylonian astronomical import, centuries
after the Alexander’s invasion, Kaliyuga beginning was first shifted to
1302 B.C. and afterwards to the 3102 B.C. in preference to the ‘Era of
Alexandria’ began with 5502 B.C. Puranic chronology used 1302 B.C.
whereas our present day Pafichangas uses 3102 B.C.

11.1.2. Traditional Statements concerning the Chaturyuga Calendar

Puranas often mention the Chaturyuga calendar as follows:

‘©$”Ù5“é/“é9”
“‰9“‰M’IM“>’9?
“Y0”Ù7“é#“é
’I$”Ù”9$•
’ùA‘y.”ÒÀ
119311

’I5”Ù/’I>“Y”Ù’IK
“‰’yM’ù>“‰(”Ù'”Ù/“é“i6”Ù
’I%“é5“ù'•0
|
’IM“@’9?
“‰9“‰M’IM“>’9?
“Y0”Ù7“é#“ð
‘ fata ’y>•0
194i

“$“é(“ð“y ‘ “>‘ÉG’‰M’iM“
“‰(”Ù'”Ù/“é8’‰M’yM’ù>•)6“i/”°
’©C’Y
|
“Y0”Ù7“é#“é
’iM“YG
“‰9“‰M“G
’IA ’iM“Y>’©0”p
’©0“ù”$“ù$”yd–C“Ye

‘©$”Ù5“é0“ð
‘ “i$“é(”Ù/“é9”
“‰(”Ù'”Ù/“é8’‰M’yM’ù>•)6“i/”°
’ÉA’y
–@
“‰9“‰M’IM“
‘Y%“ù$•’I?“yM’ùG
“i$’iM“/“‰.’‰M“Y?’I.”ÒÀ
1960

•ù$’iM
’iM“Y>’i6
“‰9“‰M’IM“
’iG“YM“>’‰>•
’ùA‘y.”ÒÀ
•™”Ù/’IG
119711.
(Bhavisya Purana, Brahma Parva)

that Krta yuga have a period of (4000-+800=) 4800 years and then
MisconceptionsConcerning the Indian Eras and their Beginnings 13

Treta yuga : (3000-+600=) 3500 years; Dwapara yuga : (2000+400=)

2400 years and Kaliyuga : (1000+200=) 1200 years. This system, in
fact, according to my calculations and belief, was the reversal of Krta:
1200; Treta : 2400; Dwapara : 3600 and Kaliyuga: 4800 years more
ancient system in which, linguistically, Krta was more nearer to
‘quarter’ rather than ‘four’ and Kali was certainly equivalent to ‘one’,
whereas originally ‘Treta’ and ‘Dwapara’ words might be nearer to
the German number ‘zwei’ (tsvai ’I8“Y>•€ ==1–³• and ‘drei’ (drayee ’0“é
=three) respectively,’ rather than the later sanskrit word ‘Dva=two’
and ‘Tri=three’. Any way, during the time of Nanda dynasty rule
(or when the Puranic account about Nandas were compiled) the
reversed system was in the currency, according to which it was
supposed that Kaliyuga had an actual duration of 1200 years only:

’ù>“Y$”ÒÀ
“€’©>’`
Tareat “‰M’©C“i(”Ù(“é8”Ù$”p
“.“é*’I?•0|
’I>“Y$”ÒÀ
‘Y2“ù0”Ù5”y*”9%”Ù5”
’©0“é”Ù0“é(”Ù$”(
‘©>“i’IMI
’ù&“é&”y5“y/•0
“‰*”Ù$’é'“é8”
“Y?‘©0’‰M’I?
“™?
–@
’I&“à ’©M“5”9$“‰M’IA
‘Y2“ù&”Ù>’i6“é,”Ù&’i$“é$”Ù.‘P
–P

’ù&“é.’y>’éM’ùK
’ù>“‰M’ù(”Ù$“ð
’©B”Ù5“y?“é"“à
’é9“y/•0
|
’I&“é(’‰M’i>’IM
’©M“-“YM’ùG“y*
afaafe ‘y.“ù7”Ù/’I?
–P
(Bhagwata Pur., Sk. XII, Ch. II, Ver. 30-32)

that till the Jord Krsn touched the earth with his lotus-feet, the
Kaliyuga did not able to accompany with earth. When lord Krsn
left the earth and Saptarishis left the Magha nakshatra, the Kaltyuga
of 1200 years began. When Saptarishis would reach to Poorvashadha
in the reign of Nanda-bhrityas 1.6. Chandragupta Maurya, then the
Kali would attain its full strength. Bhavisya purana, Pratisarga parva,
Bharatakhanda sthastadasa Rajyasthana chapter tells us:

’©M“>’I
HTTA “‰’©M“>’©M’IG
’©>’9M’5“é
’©C’IM“6”¹“ù(•0
–@
’©M“G’I“é0”Ù/“é#“ð
’IG‘YC’IM“Y>
’Ù@“yM’é>’‰M’I?‘Y.”9*“é/’ùA•0
111
“>‘É5“.’‰M’éK‘YM“y'“M’é>’‰M’i>’‰'“M’é>’‰M“Y
–@
“iM“
9
“)M“Y>’ù’‰M’‰0‘©.”y5•
“‰M’IM“?’Ù?“A’IM’I.‘Y.’Ù?•0
112
i4 Chronotogyof NorthIndian Kings

’©’IM“?“i&’ÉM’i0“é”Ù/•
“™?‘Y$”Ù5“à
“‰M“YG‘yG’©B“
’ù/” –@
‘Éd’é?“yM’ù(”Ù$”p
’I&”y6“à
“YG‘Y2“ù'’é“Y?“YC’iM’y/”p
11311
•y$”Ù/””Ù$”Ù5“à
“€’éA’‰?
aalega: “‰B’I@“Y>’i?“yM’ù$“ð
|
‘y”Ù’IM“Y
’éA’‰/•0
“‰5•’ùK‘y(“ù&”Ù0“é5“iK
“™M’ù9’éM
1
asada “‰.“é'“ù8”Ù%”°
“™/“é/”y=“™A•
’IM“?‘yA’9$”Ù*“.”ÒÀ
1411
•y$“ù6”Ù0”)$”Ù5“à
’IA ’éA’‰/”°
’‰H’é?“y>“#”Ù/“Y>“‰?’‰
–@
’ùK‘y8“ù&”Ù'“ð
“‰.“é8”Ù%“é/
‘y.“ù8”Ù/’IM’ù>’IM’é(”°
’‰M’I?‘YG
isi
‘ù0“à
’i6”Ù2“é,”Ù&“$”p
‘Y>“)G“Ù$”$”p
’IG“i>’‰G‘Y>’i/•0
61!
•™$”Ù%“é/
’iG“Y“é$”p
‘ “‰M’é>’‰>’yM’ù>’i?‘Y>•0
‘YM“?’ù>•0
–@
‘YC’IM“Y>
“‰C’I>’‰M’I?‘Y
‘y$”Ù5“à
’É&“ù=”Ù/’I?
’©A’‰5‘©
171
“Y?‘YM“.“é”Ù/“é(‘Y>“)K“Ù/•
’iM“Y>’©0”p
‘ “i?“Y>‘ÉM‘é/“à
|
“Y?’‰L’I>’‰M’Ù“Y(”Ù-”)$”É$’i>
’I>’‰M’‰A’©$”(”Ù*’`
11811
“‰M“Y•)’IG
“Y?‘YM“.“é&“ù$”Ù/”p
“>‘É>’‰K
’É9”'“é=’Ù5’‰M
|
’I&“é7”Ù“é&“>‘ÉM’ù>’‰?
’IG“y>•
’‰>’é>’‰?
’éGAT igi

Rishi Sata told: “‘in the morning, with the dripping sorrow for
their dead sons, after performing the necessary post-mortem rituals,
Pandavas were near the 81178109,the grand-father (1). They performed
three Asvamédha Yajna after learning by heart the Rajyadharma;
Mokshadharma and Danadharma (2). After ruling for 36 years, all
were gone to the heaven and they would again incarnate in Kaliyuga for
the special advancement of religion (3). Risht Vyasadéva said that the
further would be told by the Stita. All munis go now. At this time,
now I am approaching to yoganidra. By establishing myself into the
deep meditation in the Chakratirtha, | am just going to be concentra-
ted on ‘Para’ beyond the ‘Triguna’ (4). On hearing it, all the munis,
i.e. the inhabitants of Némisaranya, would fell in deep meditation (5).
After passing the 1200 years, Shaunaka and other rishis got awakened
and took their bathe in Dévakhata 1.6. divine-pond and worshipped
their favourite deities and then they would gather again for their
further enquiry in the period of rishi Stta (6-7). Rishis enquired from
Stita that it was the time of Vikramakhyana as assured by the God-
Misconceptions
Concerning
theIndianErasandtheirBeginnings 15
Shiva in Dwaparayuga to us. O Bhagwana! please tell us further (8).
Rishi Stta told that there ruled many kings in the 18 sub-divisions of
Bharatavarsha after the king Vikramaditya making his journey to
heavens. Now listen about them (9)’’.
This quotation tells us that between the end of Pandavas and the
beginning of Vikramaditya, there elapsed only 1200 years rather than
3000 years, and thus, Vikramaditya born in, as per my works, (1301
B.C.+1200 Kali=) 1C1 B.C.? In tradition also, it is believed that
Vikramaditya born in 101 8.6.

11.1.3. Traditional Statements Concerning the Modified Yuga Calendar

Later period’s tradition, compell us to believe that Kaliyuga
began with 3102/3101 B.C, Therefore, the interval between the
beginning of Kaliyuga era and Krtayuga era (ie. of Vikramaditya
samvata) was no longer of 1200 years duration. The 1800 years
pushback duration got added with 1200 years and thus resulted to
(1200+1800=) 3000 years interval. Bhavisya Purana, Pratisarga
parvan, 3/1/7/14-19 is also quite aware about this make-shift as
follows :
’©0”Ù#”p
’IM“?“i”Ù’IG
“Y7”p
‘Y2”À ’©M“>’©M’@
WAHT 14–P

“i“é(“é ‘ “Y?’‰>’i>’y.’é/•)’é
“Y?“YC’iM’y/”p
|
‘É>’I&“ù6“Y>‘ÉM‘é/“à
“‰K“Ù*“ð
‘Y“)>“‰>’i”9”)/‘Y>“)/’IM
| 15–P
“Y?‘YM“.“é&“ù$”Ù/’‰>’é>’‰
’©?’I>‘YC’IM“Y>
’éA’éd’i9
|
“‰R’É>“)K ’é9“é*”Ù0“é”Ù•0
’©?’I.“é$”*”Ù0“ù/•)“
i 16–P
’©”Ù“Y7•“Y/•0 ’©M“>’©M’IG
’I*“‰K“Ù%”p
“Y(• ‘y$•0 |
’iM“Y>’i6“é,”Ù&•
’©M“$”Ù/’‰G’€
“Y?‘YM“.”y#
‘YC’@
’I*•9d–P17–P

’©0‘©>’i.”Ù,“é5’I@•
’i?“YM’ù>•
’©A“@•’ù>’I“iM‘©?’ù>’‰M“Y?’IG
|
’i?“YM’ð
“‰?•)9“é8’‰
“8”Ù/•’iM“Y>’I?“i(”Ù.”)$“ù8’ùA’I.”ÒÀ
i isi
“i?“YG’€
’©M“G“y?’I
’I8”Ù.•“‰K’©?’I$”Ù*’i.‘yM“9”$”ÒÀ
|
“YG’I>“)8”Ù$“‰M’ð
“”Ù7“é%•
’©>“Y$”Ù/“à
’‰?’Ù?’IK
‘y$•0–Id1901

About 3000 years after the advent of the detestable Kaliyuga

16 Chronologyof NorthIndianKings
(3101 B.C.+3000 years=) 101 B.C. by the commands of Shiva, a
divine personage from the abode of Guhyakas (an order of superna-
tural beings on the Kailash took birth in human form as the son of
king Gandharvaséna on the earth to destroy the Sakas, foreigners and
to resuscitate the Arya-dharma. The king rejoiced at it and named
him Vikramaditya. He was very wise even in the boyhood. He was
dear to his parents. Even at the age of five, he went to the forest
for meditation and observe severe austerities for 12 years. Then he
returned with all the powers earned by his austerities to the city of
Ambavati and was crowned on the celebrated Golden throne
decorated with 32 golden images in the year 3020 of the Kali era or
(3101 B.C.+3020 years=) 81 B.C. Birth : 3000 Kali; 3006 Kali going
to the forest for austerities; 3019 Kali: return from the forest after
12 years; and then after learning the wisdom of stories (famous) from
`016 Betala, the coronation in Kali 3020— inauguration of Vikrama
era in Nepal 3044 Kali, the length of his reign extended over
100 years and he passed away in Kali 3120.4
Thus traditional sources intended that it was the Krtayuga began
with the birth of legendary Vikramaditya (1200 years after the beginn-
ing of Kali in 1302/1301 B.C. in a more ancient system or 3000 years
of Kaliyuga in modified system of 3102/3101 B.C. beginning) in 102/
101 B.C. But in fact, the original Krita samvata of ancient Indian
inscriptions began with 81 B.C. 1.–òà1220 or 3020 with the coronation
of legendary Vikramaditya, and became famous in later period by the
names of Malava samvata and finally as Vikramaditya samvata began
with 3044 Kali 1.6. 57+-1 B.C.

11.1.4. Greek-Babylonian Effect on Ancient Hindu Chaturyuga

Calendar
The modified calendar plan clearly accords with the traditional
Pafchangas’ view and shows a clear evidence of Greek-Babylonian
influence. In this plan, for Krtayuga, it utilises the round figure of
1200 years (i.e. 4,32,000 days or Stiryabdis) as puranas permit for the
duration of first yuga-pada rather than the odd figure of 1267 years,
based on the 4,56,000 years (Greeks took it as the number of days in
 Misconceptions Concerning the Indian Eras and their Beginnings 17

their chronological calculations) the duration of Antediluvian

Sumerian gods given in ancient Babylonian king-list WB 444.
Dwaparayuga of 2400 years, started with the ‘Creation era of Alexan-
dria’ (began with 5502 B.C.) and precisely ended with the traditional
(–° Dwapara yuga end in (5502 B.C.+-2400 years=) 3102

TABLE II

CALENDAR OF GREEK INFLUENCE

Yuga Dharma- Saryabdis Years Christian Calendar Date

Name pdda

Krta 1 4,32,000 1200 6702—5502 B.C.

Dwapara 2 8,64,000 2400 5502—3102 B.C.
Treta 3 12,96,000 3600 3102— 498 A.D.
Kali 4 17,28,000 4800 498—5298 A.D.

The main defect in this calendar plan was the position of the
Treta yuga (3102 B.C.-498 A.D.). According to Hindu tradition,
running at that time, Treta yuga should must precede the Dwapara
yuga rather than to succeed. Therefore, astronomers who were
interested to revive the, already forgotten, traditional yuga calendar,
on the basis of Greek chronology omitted the position of Treta yuga
and started their Kaliyuga just after the end of Dwapara yuga with
3102 B.C. This is why Fleet,> Sengupta, Whitney, Burguess and
V.A. Smith etc. did not find it in the Vedic literature. According to
Fleet, it was first started 3600 years after the time (i.e. Kali 3600
actually represented the end of Treta yuga and the beginning of
Kali yuga in this modified calendar plan) for the purpose of calcu-
lations (as a practical era used in inscriptions) and was not known
to astronomers before Aryabhatta (or more correctly not before 498-
0.2.)
Even after accommodating the 1200 years for Krta yuga before
the Greek ‘creation eras’, based on the 1267 years duration of
18 Chronologyof NorthIndianKings

Antediluvian Sumerian gods, the Chaturyuga calendar plan, based on

Greek chronology, had still missed a duration of (3000-1200 =) 1800
years. Due to which, the beginning of Kaliyuga swings just like a
pendulum for a duration of+1800 years. On either side of the actual
figure 1300-8 B.C. among the traditional Sanskrit scholars (viz. Kota
Venkatachelam, Sriniwas Raghavan, R.K. Siddhantashastri etc.) and
the modern European scholars (viz. Fleet) on the basis of omission or
non-omission of the third yuga-pada (Treta yuga) of 3600 years.
The another deviation from Hindu tradition was that where the Hindu
traditional chronology places Manu Vaivasvata after the diluge,
Greek chronology gave an epoch 1267 years before their creation
eras began in 5500+8 B.C.
1.2. SAPTARISHI SAMVATA AND ITS BEGINNING EPOCH

There is also a Jarge number of misconceptions concerning the

Saptarishi samvata. It was the common belief, before my works, on
Saptarishi calendar that Saptarishis take 2700 years (i.e. accurately a
100 years per nakshatra) to make one complete round. In my
opinion, if Saptarishis really move in an observational astronomy
sense, then its motion through a nakshatra-division of the zodiac
should not strictly be accurate to a 100 human years. The 100 years
per nakshatra period might be the round figure. Fortunately, Matsya
and Vayu puranas give 3030 human years period for one Saptarishi
vatsara as follows :

’IM“@’9?
“Y7•“‰9“‰M’IM“>’9?
’é>’‰A“yG’0
’©M“.“é#’I
–@
’IM“?•)6’i(”Ù/“é(“ð
“Y0”Ù7“é#“ð
“‰M’éC’I
“‰*”Ù$’©?“Y$”Ù8“
–P
(Matsya 56/14; Vayu 39/18)

It gives an accurate figure of 112 years, 2 months and 20 days

of Saptarishi’s journey per nakshatra in a 27-nakshatra-division
system whereas 108 years 2 months and 17 days. in a 28-nakshatra-
division system. Varahamihira’s Brhatsamhita, Saptarishichara XIII/3
tells us :
Misconceptions Concerning the Indian Eras and their Beginnings 19

•i8’‰M’é'“é8”
’éA’‰/•0
“i>“‰$“ð
’©C’YM“Y@•
’ùA’y?“yM’?“G
–@
“y’iM“Y?‘P
’©”Ù’iM“ù/”$•0
“i‘Y>“)8”Ù/
UA –P
Scholars uptil now interpreted it as follows : ‘the Munis (Saptarishis)
were in Magha when king Yuddhisthira ruled the earth. And 2526
years, when added to Saka-kala, was the date of the king (Yuddhis-
thira). We know that Saka era began with 78 A.D. If we apply
this beginning, then the beginning of Yuddhisthira era may come to
the (2526 years-78 A.D.=) 2448 B.C. Kalhana uses the same inter-
pretation of Brhatsamhita XIII/3 in his Rajatarangini 1/51 and
concludes as follows :
“i$”y7”
Gey aay ’IM“/“é'“ù”y7”
‘ yas |
‘Y2”y”y$”y7”
“Y0”Ù7“é#“é.’ÙB“Y(
‘YA“B’©>’9M’5“à
–P
that Mahabharata war was fought [(100 >.6)¬1-(100/2)-1-3= | 653 years
after the beginning of Kaliyuga. P.C. Sengupta® also used the above
interpretation of the Brhatsamhita XIII/3 statement (though he ad-
mitted the fact that the first part of the XIII/3 statement, has remained
a riddle to all researchers upto the present time —Anc. Ind. Chronology,
p. 15) and gave the date of the Bharata war i.e. the date of Yuddhis-
thira era beginning with 2449 B.C., the (3102 B.C.-2449 B.C.=)
653rd year of the traditional Kalivuga.
But the close look at the verse XIII/3 of Brhatsamhita’s
Saptarishichara, which {€| about the motion of Saptarishis, reveals
that the original language of the verse does not ditto its existing
translation : ‘that Saka-kala began 2526 years after the king Yuddhis-
thira’. It gives plainly the dates of the two unrelated and totally
different events in a single dating system 1.e. in Saptarishi calendar.
Verse XIII/3 reveals itself its true meaning as follows: ‘“‘that Munis
(Saptarishis) were in Magha (i1,e.in the 10th nakshatra of the zodiac)
| when king Yuddhisthira ruled the earth and 2526th year of Saptarishi
era was coincided with the beginning of Saka-kala in 78 A.D. Thus
we may begin the Saptarishi calendar from 2448 B.C., preferably with
the constellation Ashwani 0’, the true beginning point of the zodiac,
in the time of Varahamihira. This consideration in conjunction with
20 Chronologyof NorthIndianKings
the 3030 years Saptarishi cycle given in Matsya and Vayu Puranas, in
my opinion, greatly simplifies the problem of Saptarishi calendar.
With all the relevant data we may work out a Saptarishi calendar in
27- and 28- nakshatra system as follows :

TABLE III

SAPTARISHI CALENDAR

S.No. Name of Nakshatra 27-Nakshatra System 28-Nakshatra System

1. Acvini 2448-2336 B.C. 2448-2340 B.C.

2. Bharani 2336-2224 2340-2232 9
3. Krttika 2224-2112 $3 2232-2124 a.
4. Rohini 2112-2000 • 2124-2016 ya
5. Mrgacirsha 2000-1887 3 2016-1907 -
6. Ardra 1887-1775, 1907-1799,
7. Punarvasu 1775-1663 “4 1799-1691 •
8. Pusya 1663-1551 ’p 1691-1583 ’€
9. Aclesha 1551-1438 9 1583-1475 –Ég
10. Magha 1438-1326 * 1475-1366 “€
11. Purv-Phalguni 1326-1214 Pe 1366-1258 9
12. Uttara-Phalguni 1214-1102 ‘5 1258-1150 –À
13. Hasta 1102- 290 53 1150-1042 x
14. Citra 990- 877 * 1042- 934 ni
15. Svati 877- 765 ES 934- 825 fe
16. Vicakha 765- 653 ‘3 825- 717 –ÂÀ
17. Anuradha 653- 541 a 717- 609 =
18. Jyestha 541- 428 Cy 609- 501 ’p
19. Mula 428- 316 – 501- 393 –
20. Purv-Ashadha 316- 204 ’@ 393- 284 ’p
21. Uttara-Ashaddha 204- 92 an 284- 176 –
22.114 ~ ~~ = See 176- 68 Ss
23. Cravana 92 B.C.-20 A.D. 68 B.C.-40 A.D.
24. Carvistha (Dhanistha) 20-133 A.D. 40-148 2
25. Catabhishaja 133-245 8 148-257 ’p
26. Purv-Bhadrapada 245-357 + 257-365 es
27. Uttara-Bhadrapada 357-470 – 365-473 –À
28. Revati 473-582 $i 473-582
Misconceptions Concerning he Indian Eras and their Beginnings 9.

Pargiter in his ‘Dynasties of Kali Age (p. 75)’, on the basis of

the various puranic statements, concludes that the Great-Bear was
situated in the lunar constellation Pushya while Pratipa (ancestor of
Parikshit in the seventh degree) was king. At the end of Andhras,
who will be in the 27th century afterwards, the cycle repeat itself.
Pargiter assigns 814 years between Pratipa to Parikshit; 1050 years
for Parikshit to Mahapadma Nanda and 836 years for Mahapadma
Nanda to the end of Andhras which totals out to (814+1050+
836=) 2700 years for a complete Saptarishi cycle. We may assign
336 B.C. date for the Mahapadma Nanda’s coronation and thus, the
whole chronology for the Saptarishi cycle, on the basis of the periods
estimated by Pargiter, may be summarised as follows : ‘Pratipa to
Parikshit covers 2200 B.C.-1386 B.C.; Parikshit to Mahapadma Nanda:
1386 B.C.-336 B.C. and Mahapadma Nanda to the end of the
Andhras : 336 B.C.-500 A.D.
The emendation made by Pargiter of the Puranic statement that
Saptarishis were in Pushya constellation in the time of king Pratipa
and covers a period of 814 years to reach to the Magha nakshatra in
the time of king Parikshit was totally a blunder. Because Saptarishis
at the most take only a 200 years to cover a gap of only two naksha-
tra division. The original language of the sloka, dealing with the
Pargiter’s statement no. 1 (D.K.A., pp. 75), tells that it was the king
Praméu (or Prahu?), probably several generations before even the king
Kuru and the constellation was in reality the ‘Agni’. In olden times,
constellations were also designated by their presiding deities and the
fire-god ‘Agni’ was in reality the presiding deity of Krttika. According
to my ‘27-nakshatra Saptarishi calendar’ calculations, Saptarishis were
in Krttika nakshatra (2224-2112 B.C.) around 2200 B.C.
Though the period of (2200 B.C.-500 A.D.=) 2700 years from
the king Praméu up to the end of Andhras was the historical fact but
when it is applied to designate the beginning and end epochs for the
one complete cycle of the movement of Saptarishis, then it becomes
erroneous. Because these two belonged to the fixed zodiac’s (1.6.
nirayana system) ‘Krttika to Aswani movement of Saptarishis in
forward direction rather than Aswani to Aswani, in a fixed zodiac
> Chronology of North Indian Kings

(nirayana system), which would be essential for the true calculation

of the total time taken by the Saptarishis to complete its cycle; on
Pargiter’s statement no. 2, when it is said that Andhras ended in 24th
constellation of Saptarishi calendar then it would mean that Andhras
ended in 24th constellation after Krttika nakshatra ie. in (3+24=)
27 nakshatra, the Revati, according to the present zodiac system
beginning with the first point of Aries i.e. Aswani 0°. According to
my calculations, the end of Andhras in c. 500 A.D. actually coincides
with the Revati century (470-582 A.D.) of Saptarishi calendar.

Therefore, Varahamihira’s Brhatsamhita, Saptarishichara, XIIT/3

statement : ‘that Saptarishi cycle began 2526 years before the Saka-
kala beginning (78 A.D.-2526 years=) 2448 B.C. with Aswani 0°
point, the reference point with which the fixed (nirayana) zodiac
system began in the time of Varahamihira, is correct. When Saptarishi
calendar was further progressed upto the end of Andhras in 500 A.D.
then it gives approximately (2448 B.C.+500 A.D.=) 2948 years for
the complete Saptarishi cycle which is in close approximity with the
3030 years Saptarisht cycle statement of Matsya and Vayu Puranas.
Thus we may conclude our thesis on Saptarishi cycle by saying that
the third Saptarishi cycle has the period of (2448 B.C.-285 A.D.=)
3030 years, In nirayana system, in confirmity with all the available
statements—-Puranic; Astronomical and Epigraphical. But the pre-
cession of equinoxes, in backward direction, is a scientific fact. Thus
in Sayana system, Saptarishi cycle has a period of approximately 2700
years only, the traditionally better known figure. Now, we can
summarise the various important Saptarishi era dates as follows :

1. Beginning of Saptarishi era with Aswani 0° 2448 B.C.

2. Krttika (Agni) century or the epoch of Pramsu 2224-2112 B.C,
3. Magha (Mahabharata war) century 1438-1326 B.C.
4, Pirv-Ashadha (successors of Nandas) century 316- 204 B.C.
5. Beginning of Saka-kala 78 A.D.
6. Uttara Bhadrapada (Hisse-Borla Ins.) century 357-470 A.D.
7. End of Andhras in 24th (Revati) century 470-582 A.D.
Misconceptions Concerning the Indian Eras and their Beginnings 23

The benefit of doubt for the scholars of various schools con-

cerning the statements of Saptarishi calendar, in fact, lies completely
behind the curtain of nirayana and sayana zodiac systems. Initially,
the first cycle of Saptarishi calendar was assumed to begin with the
beginning of Vaivasvata manvantara in 8508 B.C., when Vernal
Equinox was coincided with the Magha 0° with which the Dhruva-
samvatasara or Krauficha-samvatasara i.e. Polar era of Matsya 56/13
and Vayu 39/17 Puranas reckoning began. The successive Saptarishi
cycles and their corresponding christian era dates and other details
are as under :
TABLE IV
SAPTARISHI CYCLES OF VAIVASVATA MANVANTARA

Saptarishi Cycle Vernal Equinox Polar Era Christian Era Date

Aswani 0°— Position at Date
Aswani 0° the beginning
of Saptarishi
Cycle
First cycle Magha 0° 0-3030 8508-5478 BC,
Second cycle Punarvasu 0° 3030-6060 5478-2448 B.C.
Third cycle Rohini 0° 6060-9090 2448B.C.-582 A.D.
Fourth cycle Aswani 0° 9090-12120 582-3612 A.D.

Because, the first Saptarishi cycle began in 8508 B.C. when

vernal equinox was at Magha 0’, therefore, it was often traditionally
believed that the beginning of Saptarishi cycle should always coincide
with the Magha 0° in a fixed zodiac system. Due to 11115tradition
the beginning epoch 2448 B.C. of the third cycle of Saptarishi is
often confused with the Magha century of Saptarishi cycle (1438-1326
B.C, in the Varahamihira’s nirayana zodiac system) during Parikshit’s
time, when vernal equinox, in backward precession, coincided with
the Rohini 0° or Krttika 13°20’ 1.6. the last point of Krttika. The
2448 B.C. epoch may be designated as Magha 0° in nirayana zodiac
system fixed in 8508 B.C.; Rohini 0° or Krttika 13°20’ in the sayana
zodiac system; Aswani 0° in the nirayana zodiac system fixed in the
time of Varahamihira. All these points are identical, but really a
confusing one, due to the precession of equinoxes and the fixation of
24 Chronology of North Indian Kings

various nirayana zodiac time to time, probably, readjustable with the

beginning epochs of each Saptarishi cycles. I prefer in this work the
present nirayana system fixed in the time of Varahamihira. Thus
according to my present belief, beginning of the third Saptarishi cycle
with 2448 B.C., in the Varahamihira’s nirayana zodiac system, from
Aswani 0°, when vernal equinox was near the last point of Krttika,
was in reality confused with the Varahamihira’s niravana zodiac’s
Krttika period (2224-2112 B.C.). Saptarishis might have coincided
with the Sayana Krttika 10° i.e. with vernal equinox around (2140+
25 •òââà=) 2118 B.C., thus reducing the cycle of 3030 years into
2700 years.
II.3. BUDDHA’S MAHAPARINIRVANA SAMVATA

Though there are the numerous schools of thought and _ tradi-

tion on this issue ranging from 1807 B.C. (Kota Venkatachelam) to
368 B.C. (P.H.L. Eggermont). But now a days, scholars prefer two
schools of chronology viz., (1) Ceylon-Burma-Siam tradition of 544-
43 B.C. and (2) the dotted record of Canton tradition of 483-486 B.C.
which roughly have a difference of (544 B.C.-486 B.C.=) 58 years.
In sec. VII.3 of this work, we have found, according 10 Dipavamsha,
Ach. Chandavajji (a prestigious monk mentioned as twin component
of Thera Siggava) seems to be seated as the Chief of Vinaya from 124
pBm to 182 pBmi.e for (420-362 B.C.=) 58 years. In this period, a
Pataliputra Buddhist mahasamgiti (i.e. great-council) was convened in
137 pBm (==407 B.C.) during the reign of king Nanda/Mahapadma
by the previously expelled Vajjian-monks. The attitude of Acharya
Chandavajji in this council was contrary to the Orthodox School of
Sthaviras, therefore, Orthodox monks at any time before the corona-
tion of Ashoka Maurya might have brushed-off the full period of Ach.
Chandavajji’s Vinaya-pamokkhataship from their Palt chronicles of
Thera’s list. This conspiracy was echoed in (1) Maghadha kings-list
as the reduction of 80 years of Nandas into 22 years; (2) Ceylonese
kings-list as reduction of 70 years of the interregnum period between
the king Abhaya and Pandukabhya into 17 years and 5 years was
attached in the reign of king Abhaya; and (3) a fresh copy of the
Vinaya-Pitaka manuscript omitted 58 dots which is responsible to
Misconceptions Concerning the Irdian Eras and their Beginnings 9

create 486 B.C. date for Buddha’s death. When the Pali chronicles
wete finally edited, they had inserted this 58 years missing period
anywhere in the Ceylonese kings-list after Ashoka’s epoch in order to
synchronise the current 27th year of king Mahasena with (846 pBm-
544 B.C.=) 302 A.D.’ This theory further corroborates with an
inscription belonging to the 28th year of Upatissa I (368-410 A.D.)
which mentions 94 151pBm date (i.e. 544 B.C.+940 pBm=) 396 A.D.
and also with the contemporaneousness of king Meghavarna of
Ceylon and Samudragupta of Magadha.
As a result of our analysis, we will find that 544 B.C. date for
the mahaparinirvana of Buddha deserves a better claim. In the
historical period context from the birth of Parikshit II up to the
coronation of Ashoka Maurya, the Mahaparinirvana date of lord
Buddha deserves as one of the pivot-dates for the settlement of Pre-
and Post-Buddha chronology.

11.4. MAHABIRA NIRVANA SAMYATA

Jain sources preferred to mention the chronology of Ujjain
instead of Magadha, after the death of Mahabira. Jain source Ava-
choori of Prakrit Pattavali named as ‘Dussama-kala-Shramna samgha-
stva’ of Dharmaghosha siri of 1300 A V., Jain Tirthankar Mahabira
and Chanda Pradyota, the king of Avanti (Ujjain), both died in the
same night of Karttika Amavasya (1.6. on the the eve of Dipavali
festival) of 545 B.C.8 and simultaneously king Palaka, the successor
of Chanda Pradyota, began to rule for 60 years. A lot of controversy
and misconception shrouded this very date 1.6. 545 B.C. for the death
of Mahabira. In all certainty, in the 60 years rule af Palaka state-
ment, it was originally intended that the kings of Pradydta dynasty,
after the death of Chanda Pradyota, ruled for 60 years (==545 B.C.-
484 B.C.) over Avanti. But when the defeat of issueless king Udayin
of Magadha was annexed in this statement and those Jain traditions
which accepts the puranic date 467 B.C. for the death of Udayin might
fix the wrong date (467 B.C.-60 years=) 527 B.C. for the death of
Mahavira and Chanda Pradyota, the most widely famous Svetamber
tradition date. This 527 B.C. date, also, finds its most celebrated
26 Chronology of North Indian Kings

verification when we apply it in conjunction with the 470 years

interval between the death of Mahabira and the beginning of
Vikramaditya samvata statement in order to fix the Vikrama samvata
beginning with 57 B.C.
Still those, who equated the death of king Udayi in 467 B.C.
with the death of Mahabira, can fix the wrong death date of Mahabira
in 467 B.C. as Jacobi, Carpentier and Hemachandra intended by
giving 155 years interval between the death of Mahabira and the
coronation of Chandragupta Maurya. In reality, the 155 years period
belongs only to the Nandas of Jain tradition who does not mention
Sasgunagas separately from Nandas. Dussama-kala Pattavali and 60
years Palaka’s rule to the 155 years rule of Nandas and gives 215
years interval between the beginning of Dussama-kala (instead with
the death epoch of Mahabira) and the coronation of Chandragupta
Maurya. Dussama-kala was the Jain calendarial time-unit (just like
the Kaliyuga of Hindus) began 3 years, 8 months and 1 Paksha preci-
sely after the death of Mahabira (mentioned in Kalpasititra of Bhadra-
vahu; Trildka Prajiapti T.P., 4,1474). Kharataragaccha pattavali
includes this 4 years and gives 219 years interval between the death of
Mahabira (–âà 545 B.C.) and the coronation date of Chandragupta
Maurya (c. 326 B.C.).
Digambara Jain traditions, on the other hand, consider the
‘enlightenment (kavalya) datei.e. 575 B.C.’ for the beginning of ‘Vira-
nirvana’ samvata tells that the beginning of Saka samvata might be
either 461 years or 793 or 795 years of the Vira-nirvana samvyata.
461 years data begins a Saka era with (575 B.C.+461 years=) 114
B.C. definitely used in the inscriptions of Sakas and Indo-Parthian
kings before the advent of Kaniska. 793 or 795 years data begins the
Kalachuri samvata with (545 B.C.-+-793 or 795=) 248 or 250 A.D.

REFERENCES

1. Prasad, R.G.N., Genesis of Vikramaditya Samvata and Salivahana

Samvata, sec, 2.2.1; Learn German in a Month, p. 135,
Misconceptions Concerning the Indian Eras and their Beginnings 27

2. Prasad, R.G.N., Greek-Babylonian Effect on Ancient Hindu Chaturyuga

Calendar, sec. 4.1, p. 22.

. Prasad, R.G.N., Genesis of Vikramaditya Samvata and Sdlivahana samvata

sec. 2.2.1; Venkatachelam, Chronology of Ancient Hindu History, pt. I,
pp. 248, 265.
Ibid., sec, 2.2.1; Venkatachelam, Chronology of Nepal History, pp. 13-14.
Ibid., sec. 2.3; Greek-Babylonian Effect on Ancient Hindu Calendar, sec.
002. Piect 9, 1911; pp. 47941; 675. il; Sengupta;
A.L.C., 1-60.

Sengupta, P.C., J.R.A.S 8. (L), III, pp. 110-119; 1V, pp. 393-413.

. Rhys Davids, Camb. Hist. of India, 1, 172 states: “that the 218 years
interval between Buddha’s nirvana and Ashoka was first mentioned in the
Pali chronicles in 4th century A.D.; also see his doubts in Enc. Brit., XI
ed., 1910, Vol. 1V, 1737; Vincent Smith, Oxford Hist. of India, pp. 58-70;
H.K. Deb, PAIOC, Poona, 1919.
It would be quite legitimate to accept the datum of the Anguttara Nikaya
which implies while Nigranth Nataputra (-Mahdavira) died at Pavd, the
Buddha was still living (H. Oldenberg, Z.D.M.G., 34, 749).
 3
Date of the Birth of Kuru King
Parikshit II

1.1. MAHABHARATA EPIC WAR: THE CONTROVERSY OF MYTH AND

REALITY

The problem of the date of the birth of Kuru king Parikshit II

isintimately related to the problem of the date of Bharata war, and
by implication its historicity, has been exercising attention of not only
the scholarly world in India, but also even the general public ever
since 1974. Vidur Sewa Asharam, Bijnor, held two seminars during
1974 and 1975 and anumber of eminent scholars from all parts of
India participated in the discussions. They have also submitted their
views in writing, and as usual, it has not been found possible to get
universal agreement to a definite date. The author of this thesis is
also actively engaged in this field of extensive research since 1978, and
have greatly indebted to Hon. G.C. Agrawal, founder president, Vidur
Sewa Aésram, for the encouragement by presenting a published copy
of the proceedings and papers ofthe seminar to author on 9.12.1980.1
On the fourteenth of September 1975, Dr. D.C. Sircar, an
eminent epigraphist, declared unequivocally to the UNI that the
Mahabharata was a myth, devoid of little historicity, opening, as it
were, the flood gates of controversy all over the country. Traditional
Dateof theBirthof KuruKingParikshit11 29
Sanskritic and Vedic scholars, historians and archaeologists have come
down with an avalanche of articles and letters expounding their pet
views and theories.2 Drs. D.C. Sircar, H.D. Sankalia and B.B. Lal
in press interviews published in papers like The Hindustan Times, The
Statesman, The Times of India, The Indian Express, The Hindu, etc.,
between Sept.-Dec., 1975. The latter two gave lectures and read
papers at the Indian Archaeological Congress, Chandigarh, 22nd-24th
Dec., 1976. Yet, this is not the first time such a controversy has been
racked up. Let us now consider the commencement of the present
controversy and how it progressed as time went by.
IlI.1.1 The Views of D.C. Sircar
Sircar, the originator of the controversy, believed that the
nucleus of the Mahabharata was only a simple war-song of a “petty
family or tribal feud” around which the legend of the epic developed
at a much Jatter time. Sircar’s main contentions are :
(i) there is no reference to the Great War in the Vedic literature;
(11) the exact period when the Mahabh4rata event took place was
uncertain even to the people of ancient India;
(111) the Bharata war has not been mentioned in the literature
prior to 4th century B.C.;
(iv) Kurukshétra, the battle scene of the famous battle, does not
figure in the Vedic literature as a battle field; and
(–¢•
’Ðthe very presence of several traditions in the Mahabharata,
according to Sircar, clearly exhibit complete lack of knowle-
dge of the Bharata war among the people of ancient India.
But when the story gained immense popularity among the
masses and the gradual evolution of the same 11110 an
epic, assignment of a date was considered necessary and
several chronological postulates came to be advanced.

111.1.2 The views of H.D. Sankalia

Prof. H.D. Sankalia, supporting Sircar’s view, is of the opinion,
that, ‘“‘the battle was largely a family feud and belonged to a time
30 Chronology of North Indian Kings

when the result of a battle depended primarily on individual strength

and {10 7685". He is rather critical about the date of the Mahabha-
rata war and his arguments mainly revolve around archaeological
findings and deductions. Sankalia emphasised that although large
armies have been involved in the battle, the role of the foot-soldiers
therein is nebulous and while the Mahabharata refers to war-chariots,
cavalry as such is not mentioned. Finally, Dr. Sankalia is of the
opinion that ‘archaeology has conclusive proof that the critical
editions of the epics are not older than the fourth or fifth century
ahd Be

IlJ.1.3. The Views of B.B. Lal

As the controversy rolled on, Prof. B.B. Lal came forward on
behalf of those who held the view that the Mahabharata is not a
myth. He has tried to correlate the archaeological evidence with the
traditional account. According to him, there are at least there grounds
on which we can say that the epic and puranic tradition has been
corroborated by the archaeological evidence :°
(1) Most of the important sites connected with the main story
of the Mahabharata war have yielded from their lowest
levels the material items of a culture designated by archaeo-
logists as the Painted Grey Ware;
(11) the P.G.W. pot have also been found at Kaushambi which
show a kind of degeneration in the ware that represents the
last phase of the culture; and
(111) thereis clear evidence of a heavy flood in the Ganga which
destroyed the settlement of the PGW people at Hastina-
pur, the capital town of Pandavas. After that the site was
completely deserted. When reoccupied, after a century or
two, Hastinapur witnessed the arrival of a new culture—the
N.B.P. culture.
These three archaeological facts corroborates the traditional
account as follows: (a) on the basis of the C-14 and other dating
systems the N.B.P. Culture is dated to 500-200 B.C. whereas the PGW
culture is to 1100-500 B.C. or 1100-300 B.C. bracket. It means the
Date of the Birth of Kuru King Parikshit If 31

P.G.W. culture was there at most of the Mahabharata sites during

1000-900 B.C., the date when the Mahabharata war took place
according to different calculations made on the Puranic data,
particularly, those by Pargiter and of his own (B.B. Lal);
(b) According to Matsya Purana (50,57,65,66,78-79) and Vayu purana
(99/249b, 250, 256-58) when Hastinapur was destroyed by a flood of the
Ganga, king Nichaksu, fifth in the line of Pandava rulers, shifted his
capital from Hastinapur to Kaushambi. The archaeological evidence
of flood at Hastinapur, according to Prof. Lal corroborates this
Puranic evidence of the flood; and (c) since the Kaushambi PGW can
be related with the last stages of the PGW of Hastinapur, it is possible
that the puranic tradition of the capital being shifted from Hastinapur
to Kaushambi is correct.
As against this, Shri Amerendra Nath feels that the archaeolo-
gical evidence as quoted by Prof. Lal holds good only if we accept
his stands that the Mahabharata war was fought in the tenth century
B.C. Since, according to another view, particularly of K.C. Varma
and 9.3. Roy, the date of the war falls in the 15th-14th century B.C.
itis possible that the archaeological culture belonging to this period
is represented by the Late Harappa+Ochre Colour Pottery complex
whose remains have been found on several sites in the Indo-Gangetic
divide, including Kurukshétra and Hastinadpur. He feels that the
methodology adopted by Prof. Lal—trying to find out the remains of
a common culture—complex at most of the sites associated with the
Mahabharata story to determine the culture of the Mahabharata
period—is itself questionable. Why should we think that there has
been a single archaeological culture all over the region in which the
drama of Mahabharata was played ?

11.1.4 Upendra Thakur : The Controversy Concluded

Beside the above mentioned and other veterians, those who
participated in the seminar of Vedic scholars and Astronomers orga-
nised by the Vidur Sewa Agram, Bijnor (U.P.) leaves no doubt about
the historicity of the Mahabharata war. Prof, Upendra Thakur says :
32 Chronology of North Indian Kings

“the recent controversy about the historicity of Mahabharata war

isin fact, heartening for a historian in particular and the history-
loving public in general. It is true that the Mahabharata war tradition
is deeply entrenched in the minds of the Indians but to regard it as a
proof of the historicity of this tradition, as R.C. Majumdar does, is
simply unwarranted. Common beliefs and historical facts are quite
different things. The only stand at the present moment that we can
take is that the Bharata war needs further historical proof to be regar-
ded asa historical fact’. In the concern of further research, Prof.
Thakur encouraged the author through his letter dated 17.4.81 by
saying : “I am really grateful to you for having sent the off-print of
your paper ‘Historical Dates of Kaliyuga Events’ which is really very
informative and thought-provoking. As in the ‘Date of the Maha-
bharata War’, so in this article you have broken new grounds and
thrown light on some of the obscure problems hitherto unnoticed by
scholars. Your painstaking research, I am sure will soon attract the
notice of Indologists here and abroad’’.
1. 2 MAHABHARATA EPIC WAR: THE CONTROVERSY OF TIME
BRACKET

11.2.1 Myth originated not earlier than Sixth century B.C.

D.C. Sircar’s contention about the date can be summarised as
follows: “The Kathasaritsigara mentions that Udayana, king of
Kaushambi, also a contemporary of the Buddha, was the fifth or sixth
in lineal succession to Parikshit, a personality mentioned in the
Mahabharata. But the Puranic lists mention that Udayana was the
twenty-five in descent from Parikshit. This raises the problem of
reconciling ten generations of priests with twenty-five generations of
kings. The story in its final form portrays the war between the
Kauravas and Pandavas—a struggle between the Kurus and Pafichalas.
In the latter event the Parikshit tradition is unreliable and apparently
introduced at a later date. Again, Dhrtarastra and Parikshit find a
place in the latter Vedic literature while the main dramatis personae
Yuddhisthira and his brothers, are totally ignored. This seems to be
a factor to be reckoned within dating the epic. Further, some hold
Date of The Birth of Kuru King Parikshit Il 33

the view that the Mahabharata war took place in the ninth-tenth
century B.C. Here again itis impossible to accept this for want of
any reference to the war in the later Vedic literature. In this context
it is rather impossible to understand why Arya Bhatta, Varahamihira
(authors of the Gupta period) as also the compilers of the historical
section of the puranas assign very early date, between the second to
the fourth millennia B.C.
Further, Bhagadatta, king of Pragajyotish—identified with
modern Assam—was an important figure in the Mahabharata.
Bhagadatta does not find a place in the latter Vedic literature. In the
Astadhyayi of Panini also we find no mention of the people of the
east and south in the fifth century B.C. Hence, if we are to accept
that Bhagadatta took part in the Mahabharata war in Haryana
region he could have done so not earlier than the rise of Nandas in
the fourth century B.C. Incidentally, this also would prove that the
Mahabharata story could not have developed prior to fourth century
B.C. ~
Finally, a word about the strength of the fighting armies. An
aksauhini consisted of 21,870 war chariots; 21,870 elephants; 65,610
horsemen and 109,350 foot-soldiers. This would involve about forty
lakhs of fightingmen. To say that a close fighting ensued involving
seven to eleven aksauhinis of warriors in a single battlefield is a
physical impossibility not only in days of yore but even today.
This appears to bea hyperbolic poetic fancy. Sircar is of emphatic
opinion that, “all stories of earlier digvijayas and empire building
described in the epics and the puranas have to be regarded as belon-
ging to the domain of mythology and folklore and not history. But
all the same, in spite of the above, Devakiputra Krsna possibly a
historical figure for he is mentioned in the Chandogya Upnishad.’

Sankalia’s contentions are as follows: ‘Several schools of

scholars advocate divergent dates, viz., 3100 B.C., 1400 B.C. and
900 B.C., for the Mahabharata war. They are primarily scholars of
‘Sanskrit literature and armechair historians’. Before accepting any
of these dates one has to weigh the implications arising out ofthis.
34 Chronologyof North Indian Kings

We have to assume that during this time fairly large sized kingdoms
existed in the present day Haryana, Punjab, Sind, Gujrat, Saurashtra,
Kutch, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Assam, and Kashmir. And also, that
in all these areas a fairly well developed culture and civilization
prevailed. It is also imperative that the rulers here had a standing
army of the major corps; their numerical strength not were being
taken into account. But there is no foundations for these assump-
tions; for making the discoveries of the Indus Valley civilization have
pushed back the history of India to the third-fourth millennia B.C.
and about the people, Sankalia observes : “A people who had given
the whole western and north-western India a well planned and
administered city-civilization, and that too for well-nigh tahousand
years, used comparatively simple tools and weapons of stone and
copper-bronze. The most prolific of their weapons was a terracotta
sling-ball found stored in huge quantities behind a defensive mud-brick
wall at Mohenjodaro and arrow-heads of copper, bronze and bone,
possibly tipped with poison”. Spearheads and Axes of the Harappans
were devoid of sockets and had to leashed to handles, probably of
wood. The professor 15sceptical about the efficacy of these weapons,
particularly in close combat —dvanda-yuddha—for these will buckle on
impact. If the date of the Mahabharata war is accepted as 3000 B.C.,
or 1400 B.C. even, then it would follow that the epic heroes like Bhima,
Arjuna, Karna and others fought with insignificant looking microliths,
small maceheads, sling balls of stone and terracotta (not more than
three inches in diameter and 12 ounces in weight). For about fifteen
hundred years from Peshawar in the north to Braoch in the south,
and Karanchi in the west to Delhi in the east, these types of weapons
arecommon. But the difficulty in accepting these futile weapons is
quite apparent. Further, the Mahabharata refers to weapons made
of iron which incidentally were not in regular use before the sixth
century B.C. and definitely unknown before eleven hundred B.C.8

Il.2. 2. Reality Happened not Later than 3000 BR.

Most of the scholars who believe in the authority of traditions
given in puranas and panchangas, have the opinion that Kaliyuga
 Date of the Birth of Kuru King Parikshit 17 35

began with 3102 B.C. and the Mahabharata war took place 36-37
years before it in 3138-39 B.C. They do not give any importance to
views of archaeologists. As this informed by Dr. B.V. Raman to me
in his letter dated 30.8.1980 that I do not attach much importance to
the views of scholars like Sankalia, regarding the age of our epics and
Vedas etc. The arguments of traditional scholars viz., D.S. Triveda,
Ach. Udayavira Shastri, B.V. Raman, Kota Venkatachelam, R.K.
Siddhantashastri, K.S. Sriniwas Raghavan and etc. are :°
(1) Megasthenes is unreliable;
(ii) the identification of Sandrocottos with Chandragupta
Maurya is wrong, it should be with Samudragupta or his father
Chandragupta I of Gupta dynasty;
(111)the identification of Palibothra with Pataliputra is wrong,
since according to Greek writers, the former was 200 miles above the
confluence of Ganga and Yamuna rivers;
(iv) that though Megasthenes described Sri Krsna as a descen-
dent of Dionysus, there is no proof for this;
(v) that the Saka-kala mentioned by Varahamihira, in his date
for Yuddhisthira is to be equated either with the nirvana of Buddha or
Cyrus the Great, of Iran (and this would support the date 3102 B.C.);
(vi) that the Ashokan rock edict XIII, does not mention five
contemporary Greek (Yavana) kings, instead they are the names of
countries or cities;
(vii) the arguments derived from the palaeography of the
Armaic, Kharosthi and Brahmi inscriptions are very doubtful;
(viii) that according to Greek writers—Arrian, Pliny and others,
there were 153/4 kings between Heracles and Chandragupta Maurya,
and they ruled 6451 years, dating Chandragupta to 325 B.C. (this is
the stand of C.T. Kenghe; Dr. Fateh Singh), but Udayavira Shastri,
Smt. Madalasa (i.e. Inder Narayana Dwivedi), D.S. Triveda assign
Chandragupta Maurya to 1536 B.C.;
36 Chronology
of NorthIndian Kings

(ix) Since Kaliyuga began in 3102 B.C., the war took place
either then or 36 years earlier. This is supported by Aryabhatta and
Aihole inscription;
(x) The archaeologists have not been able to find any object
associated with Sri Rama and Sri Krsna, and hence it is probable
that they lived before the Indus Valley Civilization (now dated 3000-
2000 B.C.);
(xi) Scholars like C.T. Kenghe, following C.V. Vaidya, declare
the dynastic lists of Puranas unreliable. On the other hand, Udayavira
Shastri, Smt. Madalasa (ie. Indra Narayana Dwivedi) swear by
puranic lists, and so does D.S. Triveda;
(xu) D.S. Triveda (Ind. Chronology, p. 29) admits that the
‘Piyadasi inscriptions’ must be associated with Ashoka Maurya not
with the Gupta dynasty, as is maintained by Krishnamachariar.
In this thesis, because we are concentrated, particularly on the
post-war chronology of north-India from the birth of Parikshit I
up to the coronation of Ashoka Maurya, therefore, we have to see
that in what manner the traditional scholars tackled the problem, i.e.
to fill the gap of 2800 years lies between 3138 B.C., the date of
Bharata war and the coronation of Chandragupta Maurya in
–ã#C

I1[.2.2.1. The attempt of R.K. Bhattacharya 91068118 51185111

Prof. Bhattacharya denies that the Bhagwata purana 12.2.21,
means that was an interval of 1115 years between Parikshit and
Nanda. According to him, the last portion of the verse can be properly
translated as [1000 (sahasra)+1000 (dashottaram)+500 (Satam
1047619.)= | 2500 years the interval between the Bharata war in 3136
B.C. and the coronation of Chandragupta Maurya in 324 B.C. He
summarises the intervening period’s chronology as 0110 5:10

(i) the date of the Bharata war ; 3136°B:C:

(11) Yuddhisthira ruled –@ 91051110:
Date of the Birth of Kuru King Parikshit II 37

(iii) Parikshit ruled 3101-3041 B.C.

(iv) 35 Kurus 3041-2020 ,,
(v) 32 Barhadrathas 2020-996 ,,
(vi) 6 Pradyotas 996-848 ,,
(vii) 11 Sasunagas 848-485 ,,
(ix) Mahapadma Nanda 485-422 ,,
(x) 8 successors of Mahapadma Nanda 422-324 ,,
(xi) coronation of Chandragupta Maurya 324 ,,

III.2.2.2. Attempt of Pt. Kota Venkatachelam

Pt. Kota Venkatachelam, the another traditional scholar, on the
other hand, raised the epoch of the coronation of the Chandragupta
Maurya from 324 B.C. to the 1534 B.C. by a push-back factor of
1210 years and thus there is no need to add the 35 Kuru kings for the
period of (3041-2020 B.C.=) 1021 years in between the end of
Parikshit and the beginning of Barhadrathas over Magadha. His
chronological reconstructions are as under :"1

(i) coronation of Somadhi over Magadha S138 bc.

(11) 22 Barhadratha kings 3138-2132 -;
(111)5 Pradyota kings 2132-1994 ,,
(iv) 10 Sasunaga kings 1994-1634 ,,
(v) 9 Nanda kings 1634-1534 ,,
(vi) 12 Maurya kings 1534-1218 ,,
(vii) 10 Sunga kings 1218-918 ,,
(vill) 4 Kanva kings 918-833 ,,
(ix) 32 Andhra kings 833-327 .,
(x) coronation of Chandragupta I of Guptas a2
thus Pt. Kota Venkatachelam arrives at the conclusion that the
Magadhan contemporary of Alexander was the Imperial Gupta
dynasty king Chandragupta I rather than that of the Chandragupta
38 Chronologyof NorthIrdian Kings

Maurya. Most of the traditional scholars who believe in the 3138/39

B.C. date for the Bharata war, more or less endorse the views of
Pt. Kota Venkatachelam.

11.2.3. Partkshit born in 1350/51 B.C., the 12th Divine Night of

Mahabharata war
K.C. Varma, S.B. Roy, Dr. R.P. Poddar, A.K. Chatterji, G.W.
Kaveeswar, W.V. Bhagwata and also myself belongs to the middle
time bracket group of 15th-14th century B.C. for the date of Maha-
bharata war. According to my scientific investigation into the
ancient Hindu calendar, briefly discussed in Ch. I & II of this work,
Dwapara yuga ended and Kaliyuga began with 1308 B.C. and Maha-
bharata war took place 36 years before the beginning of Kaliyuga i.e.
in (1308 B.C.-36 years=) 1344 B.C. But on the basis of Saptarishi
calendar, the war began with the 76th year of Magha nakshatra of
Saptarishi samyata i.e. in [2448 B.C.+(1010+476)=] 1362 B.C. It
means the Mahabh@rata war had the original curation of (1362 B.C.-
1344 B.C.=) 18 years (i.e. 18 divine days) rather than of 18 human
days. In a 18 human days war-theory, the fear of Dr. D.C. •i$”Ù5“âÀ
‘that is to say that a close fight ensued involving seven to eleven
aksauhinis of warriors (ie. 40 lakhs of fightingmen) in a single battle
field is a physical impossibility nct only in days of yore but even
today’ is genuine. But 18 years war-theory does not face sucha
problem. In 18 years war-theory, Parikshit II born in the divine
night (i.e. winter season) of 12th divine day 1.6. 12th year of the war
in (1362 B.C.+12 years:=) 1350/1351 B.C. In this thesis, we have
fixed the coronation date of Mahapadmananda, the last ruler of the
Nanda dynasty, in 336 B.C. Thus Puranic statement : ‘that there
exist an interval of 1015 years between the birth of Parikshit II and
the coronation of Mahapadmananda’ is true. Traditional scholars
e.g. K. Sriniwasa Raghavan, fixed the exact datei.e. Friday, 22
November, Margashiras month for the beginning of Mahabharata
war. Ifthis date was the equivalent to our present day November
of the tropical calendar then it would 81 during the beginning of the
winter season. When we apply Denton-Karlen’s 6°C global tempera-
ture fluctuation plot then we know that the period of 1362-1344 B.C,
Date of the Birth of Kuru King Parikshit II 39

denotes the peak-point of a little ice-age 1.6. the coldest weather in

which there is no possibility of a big-war during the winter season i.e.
the night in the divine-day reckoning. In 18 divine days war-theory,
we have the sufficient climatological clue that why the war was
strictly forbidden during the night (divine).
Among Jater Sanskrit chroniclers, the Mahabharata war chro-
nology was shifted by a factor of (1362-1339/38 B.C.—) 23/24 years
due to the two separate causes : (i) 18 years shift was taken place due
to the conversion of 18 years ancient genuine war data into latter
period’s modified 18-days war theory; (ii) 6 years shift in the Chatur-
yuga calendar itself when the reference era of Hindus and Russians
(equivalent to the ‘creation era of Constantinople’ began with 5508
B.C.) was being replaced by the ‘era of Alexandria’ (began with 5502
B.C.).!2
The period of 723 years given in Matsya Purana for Barhad-
ratha dynasty was actually the period intervening between the begin-
ning of Mahabharata war and the end of Barhadratha dynasty in
Magadha i.e. (1362 B.C.+723 years=) 639 B.C. It seems that puranic
chroniclers were somehow certain about the epoch of the end of
Barhadrathas in precisely 639 B.C. because when the war-chronology
shifted from 1362 B.C. to 1339 B.C. (an epoch of 36 years before the
beginning of Kaliyuga in 1302 B.C.) then some of the manuscripts
of Matsya Purana assign only 700 years interval between the end of
Mahabharata war (1339 B.C.) and the end of Barhadrathas in
Magadha (639 B.C).
Puranas enumerate a geneology of [138 years (Pradyotas)-+ 362
years (Sasunagas)=] 500 years for the post-Barhadrathas but pre-
Nanda period whereas Buddhist figures give only 200 years for the
same. Scholars prefer Buddhist figures because it is found nearer to
the truth. But often puranic figures, for individual reigns, seems to
be more genuine than the Buddhist and Jain figures. Therefore, in
this work, we also try to analyse that how the puranic figures got
inflated by an inflation factor of two and half times with reference to
the Buddhist sources. It might be due to the fact that, in original, the
interval between the end of the Dwapara yuga and the beginning of
40 Chronology of North Indian Kings

the Vikramaditya samvata 1.6. the Krta samvata of inscriptions was

the 1200 years that was in latter time inflated to 3000 years.

According to Buddhist and Jain sources, Pradyotas never ruled,

in Magadha, they had ruled, actually, in Avanti only. The Chanda-
Pradyota of Avanti was contemporary to Bimbasara and Ajatshatru
of Magadha, Prasenajit of Kosala, Udayana of Vatsa (Koshambi).
Therefore, the Sisunaga, who uprooted the successors of Pradyotas of
Avanti, 1.6. of much later origin than Pradydta, how could become
the predecessor of Bimbasaéra according to puranas. Probably, Sigu-
naga or Sisunaka who uprooted the Pradyotas in Avanti established
his son at Varanasi and finally captured the throne of Magadha, in
course of his victories, might have misunderstood with that of the
Sunaka or Sunika, Pulaka or Pulika, the predecessor of Pradyotas,
who killed the last Barhadratha king Repufijaya. Probably, originally
puranic compilers had two parallel lists—(i) list of Avanti containing
Pradyotas and subsequently Sisunaga and Kakaverna and then
(11)lists of Magadha kings beginning with Kshemadharma and ending
with Mahanandi; which got mixed as a series-list due to the ignorance
orcopiest mistake in the later period. The present effort may, perhaps,
enough to answer the comments of Mr. Pargiter quoted in his
A.I.H.T, p. 183 fn. 3 as follows :

“Mr. Jayaswal fixes the battle in 1424 B.C. and other Indian
writers favour similar early dates, all working on the above
chronological statements in the Puranas (which are discrepant
without checking their figures by comparison with reliable data
from dynasties elsewhere. Such a comparison shows that their
calculations produce result contrary to general experience : thus
his date makes the medium average of 31 reigns (16 Barhadra-
thas+5 Pradyotas+10 Sasunagas) from the battle to Mahapadma
about 33 years, an incredible length. Another consequence of
such dating is to prolong also the ages before the battle; and to
put back the antiquity of any event is to weaken the trustworthi-
ness of tradition about it,”
Date of the Birth of Kuru King Parikshit IT 41

REFERENCES

. Agrawal, G.C. (Gen. ed.), Age of Bharata War, Motilal Banarsidas, Delhi
1979.

Gupta, S.P., and K.S. Ramchandran, Mahabharata: Myth and Reality—

Differing Views, Agam Prakashan, Delhi, 1976.
Gupta & Ramchandran, Mahabharata : Myth and Reality, pp. 4-5.
Ibid., pp. 6-7.

Ibid., pp. 18-20.

Ibid., pp. 163-165.
Ibid., pp. 5-6.
Ibid., p. 7.
Agrawal, G.C., Age of Bharata War, pp. 71-72.
¢ Ibid., pp. 325-29.
. Kota Venkatachelam, Chronology of Ancient Hindu Hist., 1, pp. 67-73.

. Roy, S.B., Prehistoric Lunar Astronomy (Appendix: Creation Eras),

{–s€
 4

300 Years Interval between Parikshit I

and Janamejaya III

IV. 1. REVELATIONS OF THE FIRST STANZA OF THE MAHABHARATA

EPIC

P.R. Chidambara Iyer! suggests that the fourth quarter of the

’‰>“>’ù#•
’‰.“‰M‘YC’IM’òÀ
’‰0•Ba ’‰0”¹$”Ù$’é.”ÒÀ
|
’iG“Y@•
“‰0“‰M“Y$”
‘©G“RÀ
’I$”°‘É/’éM•™&”0’ùG’IM
–P
(Adi Parva, Mbh. epic, 1/1)
stanza was “Tato Jayam Udiraye’ (and not ‘Udirayét’) which meant
‘I issue the work ‘Jaya’.’ The expression ‘Jaym Udiraye’ is consi-
dered to be a chronogram yielding the figure ‘128518’ in Katapayadi
notation as the ‘Kali Savana day’ of the occurrence, which gives 351
years, 10 months and 18 days. This is equivalent to ‘Tritiya’ of the
dark-fortnight (18th day) of the month of Magha of the 352nd year
of the Kaliyuga. It gives (1308/1302 B.C.+351 years=) 957/951 B.C.
as the year in which the epic was narrated to the Kuru king Janame-
jaya III in the form of ‘Jaya’. Whereas Parikshit [ born in 1351/
1338 B.C. (around 36 years before the beginning of Kaliyuga) and
died at the age of 60/96 years? in (1351 B.C.+60/96 years=) 1291/
1255 B.C, or in (1338 B.C.+ 60/96 years=) 1279/1242 B.C,
300 Years Interval between Parikshit 7 and Janamejaya IIT 43

IV.2. REVELATIONS OF THE DYNASTIC TITLES OF VYASA RISHIS

During Mahabharata war, the proper noun name of the Vyasa

Rishi was mentioned as ‘Krsna Dvaipayana’. The word ‘Dvaipayana’
may actually denote the dynastic number of the Rishi in the form
‘Dvai-+-Payana’ (’`+’©>’ù() second number of in the list of Vydsa rishis.
Whereas the actual narrator of the epic ‘Jaya’ to the Kuru king
Janamejaya III was known as the Rishi Vaishampayana. The word
‘Vaishampayana’ is again actually denote the dynastic number of the
Rishi, contemporary to the Janamejaya ITI, in the form of ‘Vimsham
+Payana’ (“Y?’à’©>’ù()which is equal to denote ‘Twentieth number
of the list of Vyasa Rishis. Therefore between the Vyasa II (contem-
porary to Mbh. war) and Vyasa XX, there existed a generation gap
of 18 numbers. On taking 20 years average per generation, we can
calculate the gap, between Vyasa II and Vyasa XX of (18 >.20 =) 360
years.
IV. 3. REVELATIONS OF THE KALAHANA’S RAJATARANGINI

Mulla Ahmad’s History of Kashmir written in Persian language®

gives the list of the lost 35 kings of Kashmir from no. 5-39 of the list
given in Kalaana’s Rajahtarangini 1/83, and tells us that Kuru king
Parikshit II killed Kashmirian king Gonanda [ (4th in R.T.)ina
battle. As Gonanda II left no heir, Parikshit II (Sth in R.T.)
incorporated Kashmir into his empire. He ruled over Kashmir from
Hastinapur for 42 years. At the time of his death, Parikshit II gave
Kashmir to his second son ‘Harnadeva’ (6th in R.T.). 23 kings of
the Pandava dynasty and 12 other kings ruled up to 1324 Kashmirabda
(1942-1324—) 618 B.C. Butin Puranas, Parikshit II had four sons
—Janamejaya III, Ugrasena, Shrutasena and Bhimasena (Vish. Pur. 4/
21/2; Bhag. Pur. 9/22/35). It means, according to Puranas, none of
the Parikshit II’s sons was named as ‘Harnadeva’. On the other hand,
Puranic ‘Bhimaséna’, a brother of Janamejaya III, was actually found
in Mulla’s Hist. of Kashmir kings list, but he was not placed immedia-
tely after the Parikshit II as the 6th ruler but was placed as the 25th
ruler. If Mulla’s History as well as the Puranic accounts, both were
correct, then according to Mulla’s History, there ruled (25-6=) 19
44 Chronology of North Indian Kings

kings between the Parikshit II and Bhimaséna, the brother of Janame-

jaya III, over Kashmir kingdom from Hastinapur. They all belong
to Pandava dynasty. It gives certainly a definite clue that our Puranic
Kuru king list actually missed 19 Pandava king names (i.e. a duration
of 19 kings >< 20 years average==380 years) between Parikshit II and
Janamejaya III.
1.4. REVELATIONS OF THE MAHABHARATA ADI-PARVA 45/16

•y&•“Y7• “‰9“‰M’IM“>’ð
“>‘ÉM’ù
‘YA“A‘YA“)>‘y$’éM
1
’É>“ •ù5“é-“ù“é$”¹=“‰?
“‰0”Ù5’ÙB’I>’‰A’©>“)•0
–P

(1160. epic; Adiparvan, Crt. ed. Vol. I, 7. 202)

It states categorically, that when the epic was narrated to

Janamejaya III, by Vaishampayana, the Kuru family had _ been
reigning at Hastinapur or over Kuru country for a thousand years
and Janamejaya III was so young that the story about the death of
his father has to be related to him. According to my work entitled
‘Chronology of Kashmir history (Annexure III) p. 15 (24) sec. IV’,
Kuru era actually started from 1942 B.C. based on Jain tradition of
Yuddhisthira era. Therefore, 1000 years of Kuru era may fall, in
the reign of Janamejaya III, in (1942 B.C.+1000 years=) 942 B.C. 1.6.
366th year of Kaliyuga. All these four pieces of evidence clearly
shows that Janamejaya III was not actually the son of Parikshit II.
On the basis of Mahabharata Adiparvan, Crt. ed., Vol. I, pp. 202,
ver. 45/23, it is stated that Parikshit II died at the age of 60 years
whereas Mahabharata 1.49.17 states that Parikshit II ruled for 60
years i.e. died at the age of 96 years. In both the cases, the statement:
‘Janamejaya III was so young that the story about the death of his
father has to be related to him’ is not correct. On the basis of the
present day knowledge of the biological progeny, a person who dies
at the age of 60 years or 96 years can not leave his eldest (among the
four) son so young that the story about the death of his father has to
be related to him by athird person. It is in itself a clear evidence
that there should must be a long gap between the so-called father
(Parikshit II) and the son (Janamejaya III).
300 Years Interval between Parikshit II and Janamejaya III 45

IV.5. REVELATIONS FROM THE ARCHAEOLOGY

300 years gap between Parikshit II and Janamejaya III, fixes the
date of Parikshit 17 during 1302-1242 B.C. whereas of Nichaksu, who
shifted the capital to Kaushambi after flood, during 906-888 B.C.
Archaeologically, the former should belong to Late Harappa-Ochre
Colour Pottery complex whose remains have been found on several
sites in the Indo-Gangetic divide, including Kurukshétra and
Hastinapur, while the latter to P.G.W. culture (1100-500 B.C.).
Parikshit 175 epoch (1302-1242 B.C.) clearly lied during a little ice-age
period (Eddy’s Egyptian minimum of Solar activity : 1400-1200 B.C.)
after which a huge flood event occurred which engulfed not only
the Gangetic doab as an after effect of the little ice-age period, but
raised the sea-level so high that the Dwarika city belonging to the
LHC culture was submerged just after the pass-away of Krsna
according to the tradition as well as the recent excavations done by
S.R. Rao. Recent sedimentological and scaning electron microscope
analyses* on OCP sediments suggests that originally these were
derived from glacial environments which were subsequently redeposi-
ted by floods. According to tradition, this flood occurred around
1308/1302 B.C. about one week after the pass-away of lord Krsna 1.6.
also the beginning epoch of the Kalivuga. According to archaeolo-
gists, None of OCP sediments has the character of normal habita.
tional deposit but a deposit of the variety of materials ranging from
2600-1100 B.C. But recently, Prof. R.C. Gaur found a site of the
normal habitational deposit of OCP. OCP-LHC complex culture
alongwith the Copper-hoard items really belonged to the advanced
Aryan culture of Mahabharata period because it is acity culture and
possessed good quality of copper and bronze ammunition much more
better than of Harappans having up to 7% of Arsenic alloying in the
metallurgy of arms. The copper-hoard item named as ‘anthropo-
morph’ is a good example of arms and may resemble the weapon
named as ‘Naracha 1.6. the weapon having the shape of human being.
As regard the use of Iron weapons, epic-heros regarded them as
unclean items due to their blackness arid also iron-weapons were the
rare-items and kept in safe custody to use in last hours to kill the
46 Chronologyof North Indian Kings

enemy, otherwise epic-heros were busy, most of the time, in showing

the art of the weapon-operation to the enemy hero. The use of Iron
weapon always find a special mention in the epic.
As regard the flood destruction of Hastinapur and the shifting
of the capital from Hastinapur to Kaushambi in the reign of king
Nichakshu (906-888 B.C.), I agree with Prof. B.B. Lal’s theory. P.G.W.
at Hastinapur might be destroyed in flood in c. 900 B.C. and after
200/300 years N.B.P. culture began there.
REFERENCES

1. ABORI, XXVII, pp. 83-101.

2, Mahabharata epic, Crt. ed., Vol. I, Adiparva, pp. 202; 45/23; Mahabharata
epic, I, 49, 17.
3. Quoted by Pt. Venkatachelam in his Chronology of Kashmir History
(Reconstructed), pp. 92-93.
4. Agrawal, D.P., and others, Proc. Ind. Acad. Sc., 87/3 (1978), pp. 23-28.
 5

Dynastic Lists of North Indian Kings from

Parikshit’s Birth upto the End of
Barhadrathas of Magadha

V.1 KINGS LIST OF THE KURU DYNASTY

Chapter IV of this work gives a definite clue that there is a clear

gap of at least 300 years between Parikshit If and Janamejaya [JI in
the Puranic chronology. It would perhaps make it too difficult to
give a Clear idea about the complete kings-list of Kuru dynasty, if we
have not already possessed, luckily, the lost Puranic kings-list of
Pandava kings who ruled over Kashmir from Hastinapur after
Parikshit II, given in Mulla’s Hist. of Kashmir in order to fill the gap
from the Sth to 39th kings missing in Rajatarangini 1/83.

Is the Kuru kings-list mystery solved by the lucky find of the

kings-list missing also from the Rajatarangini ? Not a bit of it! That
is then the trouble really started. Because, a theory after all stays for
its confirmation on some other reliable cross-check sources. And for
cross-check, again we have to search out for clues in Puranas alone
because here we have no other sources viz., of Jain or Buddhists, ot
coins or inscriptions etc.
48 Chronology of North Indian Kings

For cross-check, we have possessed at least two reliable Puranic

statements collected by Mr. F.E. Pargiter in his famous book ‘The
Purana Text of the Dynasties of Kali Age’ as under :

PRADYOTAS

‘When the Barhadrathas, Vitihotras and Avantis have passed

away, Pulaka (Va Munika Vs. Sunika. Bd, Bh Sunaka) will kill
his master and anoint his own son Pradyota by force in the very
sight of the Kshatriyas...’
` (D.K.A., p. 68)

EARLY CONTEMPORARY DYNASTIES

‘Contemporaneousness with these aforesaid kings there will be
other kings; all these following kings will endure an equal time
namely, 24 Aiksvakus, 27 Pafnchalas, 24 kings of Kashi, 28
Haihayas, 32 Kalingas, 25 Ashmakas, 36 Kurus, 28 Maithilas,
23 Surasénas and 20 Vitihdtras. All these kings will endure the
same tine.’
(D.K.A., p. 69)
The first statement (D.K.A., p. 68) is the compilation of
- passages, given in the Puranas, tells us that after the Barhadrathas of
Magadha and Vitihdtras of Avanti ceased to reign, Pradyote was
made king by his father who killed his lord Repufjaya, the last
Barhadratha king. If the first statement of D.K.A., p. 68 is really
true, then the last Vitihotra king of Avanti (or of elsewhere as may
be the case) should be the near contemporary to the last Barhadratha
king Rapufjaya.
Now take into account the second statement ‘Early Contem-
porary Dynasties’ (D.K.A., p. 69) which tells about the ‘contempo-
raneous ness with these aforesaid kings there will be other kings; all
these following kings will endure an equal time namely...and 20
Vitihotra, Scholars thought that this statement was related with the
end of 5850158 dynasty and the beginning of Nanda dynasty. The
very basis of this view among scholars lies in the analysis made by
Pargiter D.K.A. p. 23:
DynasticLists of North IndianKings 49

‘Etaih sardham means contemporary with the Barhadrathas

and their successors, the Pradydtas and Sisunagas, for none
of these are mentioned here, but the Aiksvakus and the Kurus
(who are probably the Pauravas) are included, whose dynasties
have been fully set out ante. The king Mahapadma Nanda is
called ‘destroyer of 21] the Ksatriyas’ and ‘monarch of the whole
earth which was under his sole sway’—which terms imply that
he overthrew all the kingdoms mentioned in this list, so that all
subsequent dynasties except the Kanvayanas were Sudras (see
Nandas II 2-6). This list of contemporary dynasties means
therefore all the old Ksatriya dynasties, which reigned from the
time of the great battle till they and the Sisunagas in Magadha
were swept away by the Nandas, whose dynasty follows the list.’
But truly speaking, it was not the actual case. Though Pargiter
indeed made a very good analysis of the statement but he still missed
a number of serious loop-holes e.g.

Gy Lhe ^. 1 0 “statement. also contain’ ©... and 20

Vitihotras’ and from the first statement (D.K.A. p. 68) we have
already informed that the last Vitihdtra king was the near contem-
porary to the last Barhadratha king Repufijaya because both were
passed away in the time of Pradyota’s father. Therefore, we can not
equate, on the basis of Puranic statements, the last (1.6. 20th) Vitihotra
king ‘as contemporary king to the Mahapadma Nanda as Pargiter
did. In order to avoid this paradox, Pargiter preferred the omission
of Vitihdtras from the list by saying: ‘It is said that Vitihotras had
passed away before the Pradoytas began, D.K.A. pp. 18, 68. If so
they should be omitted; yet the reckoning here would not be mate-
rially modified (A.I.H.T. p. 181 fn. 3), but in my opinion the
reckoning should must be materially modified.

(ii) According to Pargiter’s analysis, this list of contemporary

dynasties means therefore, all the old Ksatriya dynasties, which
reigned from the time of the great battle till they and the Sisunagas
in Magadha were swept away by Nandas. On the other hand, Pargiter
50 –@ Chronology
ofNorthIndianKings
on the basis of chronological statements of Puranas, gave (7234+ 52+
163 ==) 938 years duration between the time of great battle (i.e. the
birth of Parikshit II) and the coronation of Mahapadma Nanda. If we
equate 938 years duration with the aforesaid number of kings of
various dynasties given in the ‘Early contemporary dynasties’ list then
the minimum average years per king comes to be (938/36 Kurus=)
26 years whereas maximum average would be more absurd as
[938/20 (Vitihdtras)=] 47 years. These averages are still difficult to
be shallowed down by the modern historians. Therefore, Pargiter
discarded all the Puranic chronological statements (A.LH.T. p. 182
fn. 3) including the early contemporary dynasties (D.K.A. p. 69)
and he only relied on the Puranic ‘Kings list’ and approx. ‘18 years
per king average’ theory.
(111) This statement (D.K.A., p. 69) also does not contain a
definite clue that Mahapadma Nanda really uprooted all these
dynasties at a time immediately after their aforesaid number of kings
rule ended.
The above mentioned three pieces of evidence corroborates that
‘Etaih sardham’ really means ‘contemporary with the end of Barhbad-
rathas’ and mentioned dynasties might continue (after their aforesaid
number of kings elapsed at the time of the end of Barhadrathas and
Vitihotras) further up to the reign of Sasunagas and Mahapadma
Nanda.
Now come to the actual point of the Kuru kings-list. According
to the synthesis of both the statements : not only the 20th Vitihotra
king but also 36th Kuru king were the near contemporary to the last
Barhadratha king Repufjaya. This analysis now make it some what
simpler to cross-check the actual number of missing kings, from
Puranic Kuru kings-list between Parikshit [ and Janamejaya III,
fortunately found in Mulla’s History. But one thing more! Which
is to be considered before any final decision about the complete Kuru
kings-list. Political situation of the India during the reign of King
Janamejaya III? It is the most important point in order to give any
final decision concerning the kings-list of Kurus and other important
dynasties.
DynasticListsof NorthIndianKings 51

Probably, a little before the time of Janamejaya III’s reign (one

or two or maximum three generations before ?) Kuru dynasty began
to loose gradually his territorial sovereignty (1.6. as a single sovereign
power) over whole north India which was actually achieved in the
form of glorious victory in the battle of Mahabharata.!' Barhadrathas
in Magadha, Aiksvakus in Ayodhya, Naga-kings in Kashmir and
Panchalas, kings of Kashi, Haihayas, Kalingas, Asmakas, Maithilas,
Stirasenas and Vitihotras might gradually deny the sovereignty of
Kurus over them and gradually declared their own independent
authority over the respective regions. This might be the principal
cause for the court-bards (Sitas) and Rishi Vaisampayana (Vyasa XX)
to narrate the old glorious victory tale i.e. the epic ‘Jaya of 8800 verses’
fought by the remote ancestors of Janamejaya III (almost 350 years
old glorious deed) in order to re-gain the total sovereignty over the
rebels. Janamejaya III was also told about the murder of Parikshit
planned by a Naga king ‘Takshaka’,? probably a remote past king
of Takshila, contemporary to Parikshit II. These stories really gave
the required ‘warm-up’ to the king Janamejaya III and he immedia-
tely attacked over Takshila,? ruled at that time by the Naga-race,
killed the Naga king Khimendra (24th of Kashmir Kings list) gave
the throne of Kashmir to his brother Bhimasena (25th King).
Probably Naga-race captured the throne of Kashmir in the
reign of Pandava king Sulkandeva (2181 of Kash. list) because ‘Deva’
title of the Pandava (ie. the sons of Pandu-deva) kings started with
‘Harnadeva’ (6th), immediately after the reign of Parikshit II, and
running almost continuously up to the Sulkandeva (2181). Three Naga
kings —Sinaditya (22nd), Mangaladitya (23rd) and Khimendra (24th)—
might rule over Kashmir for a short duration. Therefore in all
probability, Janamejaya III was the immediate descendent, the son,
of the king Sulkandeva (21st of Kashmir kings-list of Pandava race).
After all, Janamejaya III was not proved himself so much
powerful, as was considered by his court-bards (Sttas) and Rishi
Vaisampayana to become the sovereign authority over whole of
India. Consequently, he could not be able to perform the ‘Aswamedha’
52 Chronology
ofNorth
Indian
Kings
sacrifice due to some differences (religious or political 2) with Brahmin
priests. After making such a long discussion concerning the clues,
we are now ina better position to give, provisionally, a Kuru kings-
list with some certainty as follows :

TABLE V

KURU KINGS-LIST

1. Parikshit II 13. Chandradeva 25. Suchidratha

2. Harnadeva 14. Anandadeva 26. Vrsnimat

3. Ramadeva 15, Drupadadeva 27. Susena

4. Vyasadeva 16, Harnamdeva 28. Sunitha

5. Draunadeva 17. Sulkandeva 29. Ruca

6. Simhadeva 18. Janamejaya II] 30. Nrcaksus

7. Gopaladeva 19. Satanika I 31. Sukhibala

8. Vijaynanda 20. ASwamedhadatta 32. Pariplava

9. Sukhadeva 21. Adhisimakrsna 33. Sunaya

10. Ramandeva 22. Nicakshu 34. Medhavin

11. Sandhiman 23. Usna 35. Nrpafijaya

12. Marahandeva & 24. Chitraratha 36. Dhruva

Kamandeva

The 36th Kuru king ‘Dhruva’ (or a generation on either side)

might be the near contemporary to the last Barhadratha king Repufi-
jaya. This analysis of Kuru kings-list reveals that the actual number
of kings from Parikshit II up to the end of Barhadrathas was 36 rather
than 20 what is traditionally interpreted, and it gives a clear missing
of atleast (36-20=) 16 kings 1.6. a period of approximately (16 x20)
320 years.

V.2. KINGS-LIST OF BARHADRATHA DYNASTY OF MAGADHA

Pargiter says, in D.K.A. p. 13, ‘This dynasty was founded by

Brahadratha I, son of Vasu Caidydparichara, and he and his 9
Dynastic Lists of North Indian Kings 53

successors reign down to the great battle (see JRAS, 1910, pp. 11, 22,
29). The following two verses from Mbh. epic tell about the early
Barhadratha kings contemporary to Mahabharata war period :
•ù5’éB‘YM’I5“à
‘É0“é8’‰M’y
“‰9’iG“Y>’Ù?“yG‘©(’éM
:
•i”Ù“é*’ù$”Ù$’i>
“>‘É> ’ùA’ùA’IM“‰A“M’Ù@’é’éG’Ù?•9d–@
2.20.29
“‰9’iG“YK
’‰C’9>•
’iG“Y ’É>“‰A’iG“Y.”*“‰M’Y?’I
–P 2.22.40
’Ù/“é$”/’I$“‰M’I8”Ù.”‰
‘YC“yM’9K
’i$”Ù$“Y>’Ù/•
’I&“à
|
•Y-”Ù/“y?‘éM‘©$”ÒÀ
’I$”Ù0“P
‘É0“é8’‰M’y$”Ù.‘É
Tatu 2.22.41
(2100. epic, Crt. ed., Vol. II, pp. 114-123, Sabhapar)

Jarasandha (son of Brahadratka II) was the 9th king who killed in a
duel, at Magadha, with Bhimasena before the Bharata battle and his
son Sahadeva was made the king (i.e. 10th) by lord Krsna. When the
Bharata battle took place and Sahadeva was slain, his heir Somadhi
became king in Girivraja (DKA, p. 67). Puranas say that the birth
of Parikshit II and the coronation of Somadhi (11th king of Magadha)
was the contemporary event and both were taken place in 1351/1338
B.C. according to my calculation. Therefore, Somadhi might be the
contemporary to Duryddhana and afterwards for some times to the
Yuddhisthira also. Great Battle ended in 1344/1339 B.C. Few months
after the battle, Yuddisthira performed the Aswamedha sacrifice i.e.
to proclaim as the sovereign power of whole of India.° It might
have resulted the removal of sovereignty from the Magadha king
Somadhi/Meghasandhi along with the others. Afterwards, Magadha
was probably governed by the Kuru kings from Hastinapur for at least
16 generations—including Parikshit II (Sth of the Kashmir kings-list),
up to the Harnamdeva (20th of the Kashmir kings-list). Probably,
during the reign of Harnamdeva, Barhadratha king Shrutasrava/
Somadhi (12th of Puranic Magadha list) declared his sovereignty over
Magadha. This plan makes the Barhadratha king Niramitra (14th of
Purana-list) contemporary to Kuru king Janamejaya III and Senajit
(17th of the Purana-list) definitely to the Kuru king Adhisimakrsna in
whose reign Puranas were first recited. After Senajit, there is no
problem of any synchronism analysis with the Barhadratha kings-list
of Magadha,
54 Chronology of North Indian Kings

The chronological statements ccncerning the Barhadrathas are

as under :
aifaaea ’‰C’©> ad ’Ù5“ù$“é0”°
“YC“™&”Ù0’Y>•0
|
qr “Y7•“‰9“‰M’IM“•5”p
’IG“y>•
“>‘ÉM’ù
’Ù5“ù7”Ù/’I?
1
(Jayaswal, JB& ORS, Vol. 1V, 1918, p. 26; also fn. 2)
wert ’‰C’©>’Ù5“ù$“é0”° SEAT: –@
’IM“/”É5“ù6”Ù“é'“ù•
’IG“y>•“>‘ÉM’ù
‘ “i$“‰*”Ù$‘Y.”ÒÀ
–P

“’©>’>’‰M’I0!”
’IM“/”°
“Y?“i>’y?‘Y.”ÒÀ
’IG“y>•
“>‘ÉM’ù
‘ “i$“‰*”Ù$‘Y.”ÒÀ
|
(Jayaswal, JB& ORS, Vol. 1–¢À1918, p. 30 and fn. 14; Vol. III,1917
pp. 246-62)

Both these chronological statements might be true with

respect to their own methodological because they count only Barhad-
11118 kings over Magadha therefore in doing so they had naturally
omitted the 15 intervening Kuru kings who ruled over Magadha from
Hastinapur. On the inclusion of these 15 Kuru kings period in
Magadha list, the total number of kings from Brahadratha I up to
the Repunjaya over Magadha kingdcm in statement I becomes
(32+15=) 47 kings reigned for full 1000 years. It gives a reasonable
average of (1000/47=) 21.3 years per king.
Concerning the statement II i.e. ‘16 future kings reigned for 723
years’, it consists actually the 16 future kings from the king Senajit
who was taken as ‘present’ reigning king by the Puranas when they
were first recited but the period 723 years was actually counted from
the birth of Parikshita IT (or with the beginning of Mahabharata war)
rather than with the coronation event of Senajit. It creates a serious
difference of at least (15 intervening Kuru kings +6 post-war Barhad-
ratha kings of Puranas=) 21 post-war kings. On the inclusion of 21
missing numbers in statement II, it becomes (21 + 16=) 37. It gives
again a reasonable average of (723/37=) 19.5 years per king. Due to
the grave missings in the Puranic Magadha-list of Barhadratha
dynasty, later Puranic compilers gave wildly higher regnal periods for
the remaining kings of the list as follows :
Dynastic Lists of North Indian Kings 55

=
B
179
–ék–ãYn11
-eyniysg
–ã•
’©C–ð
"‘ð Ueusexieyig
’y
ueMeyxieyig
¢7
9
UeMIeyjeyig
Uvmexieyig
’IM‘ð
Uvwmieyxieyig
“yM‘ð
Baviseyniys
79
vAvIseInIyS
avlseinig
BTICIIN,
07
‘¹M’ð
O
7
1
001
’y*“Y
•
0 eAelueinig
e
vdelueinig
07
ekelurjniys
ekelueynig
°g
2
Op
Ov
ù*”Ù*
V kefueinis
nyqiA
–©n
“Y$“à
68–à
eleqeyeW
Se
vdelundoy
–¹l
•ù7”Ù5 •
’ÙM
“yM’
•ù0’ð
8
–©k
8–°
euase
e ù‘éM
ussiv
=
"9
40f
‘ON17104.
5.24
(0007
2DIDG
ppupiuyoig
A
nap
10/524
5JSAMOT
467044
4074
(’©’©>–jp
86
WABWOG
(0S)
|l8Idvmog
Idymog
–ùk
ypewos
eeying
96
96eIliyng
(gs)
9–°
eneysyng
eniyng
ysyeing
=
11{’ªp
09
wfeuakgs
(05)
–Én
"–à
wfeuag
[“y*
€’y
wfeusg
€Z •ù*“é’©C“
•ù*“é’©C$
QT
•ù*”Ù*“M
‘ð
yf
‘y>
e
87
euoys
9
Z lyons wmoYysy
ryong
1yon$
rtyonys
8S
‘Ol
79
–©k
8qong ‘ BIJOU
–ão14
euleIsn
eljoull
BZ
“ST
8–à
.1541
gE
–©l
(>
‘PT
WAIN
1
8
WediiN
8–°
nediin
89
85111–à
•ós9*•ù>
(9)
–Ó`
-ewivyg
(Ss)
eiyeung
£CE
–il
sourwmi
–°
’£zp
¢–ã0
NISVHLV
SVNYUN
UVM-LS
IVNOAY
SUYVAA
AO ss
-—S
–yl–¹n)
–¹l
dead
"£
14114
SNABINAW
(9–•
9–à
=nkeynky
9%
nkeinky
97 ’©*”97”Ð
(09)
–ãn7418
79
‘ù>
eyelAnuy
(8–â•
79.
–ãn1419
179
–ég–ùk
–ãsC
SC
(edin)

nn
(–âã’•
–ãn–°
v9
’IM“$.
IA
e1j0U
–²•
\o Chronologyof North Indian Kings

x X 44
989
x
ce
neung
jousad x X
0–°
–ãI[•ù#’I”Ù
15–in–¹f–à
84024
•ù5}3’©>16
OV
(4XOr)
•ùM’©>§
–Él (–•
Sz
wlemysra
ulexyes
€8 09
ekelguy
896
s(1)
-‘ùl-–é
‘Wie[oYyoeleyxUsA
‘ejoy
‘J
‘AJOISIH
ASojouOIYD
Jo
JUsIOUY
"“YM
Wed
’©#“é0
:‘dd
aouasafay
(’¢•
*89-L9
^"
eg
–ã
jo
‘©*”ÒÂà
-’y>
ey
oy]
euRIng
3x9]
sonseudg
3–`
‘osy
‘say
“dd
opunuyvig
–én01
(11)
"’©?
–ék–ãP
Jo
’©C’IM
’©C,
“7
eyesegg
‘remy
"IL-OL]
"•ð
“dd ,
"8
I9•ù*“p
“yM’©0”Ù6
–éleyoy ‘ùM‘ð
“yM’0
os
ekelfunday
vkelgry
05
Él"€
=neung >
-0‘ð
1–én15
(
•
–
11/45
x––ã3p
Or 08)
§eonsÀ
X1“IZ
•™#’©0”'”Ù0
––Él
“LT
yeung
•÷Ð ’©M
S
>
x(•ù(“à
E000!
808
{31111
24.41
40f
0007
"¢
‘ON
DIDG
sivad

1–cÒÀ
Dynastic Lists of North Indian Kings 57

’i5“é5“ù6’I?
’‰A“y>“™M’ùG’IG
’Ù5“ù$“é0”°
’ÉC“™&”Ù0’y>•0
|
’©B“M’9
“Y7•“‰9“‰M’IM“$”
’IG“y>•
“>‘ÉM’ù
’Ù5“ù7”Ù/’I?
–P
(Vayu, CCLXIX, 30)
’iM“>“Y?“i”Ù
’‰C’©>“™M’ùG’IG
’Ù5“ù$“é0”°
’ÉC“™&”Ù0’y>•0
|
a

’©B’9
“Y7•“‰7“‰M’IM“
“YG
’IG“y>
“>‘éM’Y’Ð
“Y?“yM’ù$“ð
i
(Brahmanda, WW,Upodaghatapada, Ch. LXXIV, 121)
’É>“™&”Ù0’y>•y6”Ù
’ÙB’©>“)>
’Ù>“YM’ù>•0
“‰9“‰M’IM“5’IM“‰0’éM
–@
(Bhagwata, Sk. 1X, Ch. XXII, 49)
•y$”Ù/”y$”p
’É>“•
’iM“'“à
’ÙA’©$’ùK
“Y7•)8“™8”Ù$”Ù0’éG‘Y
’Ù5“ù7”Ù/•)$“ð
–@
(Visknu, 4, XXII. 12)
Originally, the 1000 years of Barhadrathas composed of [(277
years for 10 kings from Brahadratha J] to the Sahadeva)+(300 years
for the post war 15 intervening Kuru kings who ruled over Magadha
from Hastinapur)+(400 years for the remaining 22 post-war Barhad-
ratha dynasty kings who actually constitute the representative post-
war Barhadratha kings-list of Magadha in our puranas of modern
times]. Thus originally (10+15+22=) 47 kings ruled over Magadha
in 1000 years period i.e. (1000/47=) 21.3 years (average) per king.

The above mentioned (statistical Puranic data in tabular form)

shows that when these figures were finally edited, the Puranic
compilers had adopted, with confidence, the Greek-Babylonian influen-
ced Chaturyuga calendar in which the interval between the beginning
of Kaliyuga and the beginning of Vikrama samvata became 3044
(* 3000) years rather than the original 1244 (~ 1200) years. Pecause
the interval between the two eras underwent an inflation factor of
(3000/1200=) 2.5 times, therefore, it was the natural process to inflate-
up the original 400 years for 22 post-war Parhadratha kings by
multiplying it with the same inflation-factor of 2.5 times into (400 >
2.5=) 1000 years. To justify 1000 years for the post-war Barhad-
rathas, later Puranic editors reinterpreted the Puranic statements
(which originally defined the 1000 years duration for the total
58 Chronology of North Indian Kings

Barhadratha reign over Magadha from Brahadratha-I, the son of

Vasu Chaidyoparichara up to the last Barhadratha king Repufjaya)
to the 1000 years duration for the post-war Barhadrathas only as
follows :
“™>“Y?“i$“ð
’‰C’©>
aad ’Ù5“ù$“é0”°
“YC“™&”Ù0’y>•0
|
’©C’9
“Y7•
“‰9“‰M’IM“
“YG’IG“y>•
“>‘ÉM’ù
’Ù5“ù7”Ù/’I?
–B

(Vayu, XCIX, 308)

Not only the Barhadrathas list of Magadha got inflated by 2.5

times (i.e. from the original 400 years to 1000 years) but also the kings-
list of intervening period from the end of Barhadratha dynasty up to
the beginning of Nandas also got the inflation, surprisingly, by the
same inflation-factor of 2.5 times. Because Buddhist sources give
200 years only but, on the other hand, Puranas give 500 years for the
same i.e. (500/200=) 2.5 times higher value. Therefore, we can
conclude that the Chaturyuga calendar got an inflation of 2.5
times certainly after the advent of Nanda dynasty. It is more possible
that this modification was done even after the advent of Vikramaditya
era but since from the Mahapadmananda, the regnal periods were
some what supposed to be contemporary and certain i.e. beyond any
doubt, therefore, inflation did not take place for the post-Nandas
Chronology.

V.3. KINGS-LIST OF AIKSVAKU DYNASTY

Concerning the Aiksvaku dynasty, we have informed from the
Mahabharata epic that the Brahadabala (the 94th Solar dynasty king
from Manu Vaivasvata—A.I.H.T., p. 149) was killed in Mahabharata
war. According to Puranas, Divakar, the Aiksvaku king of Ayodhya,
was the contemporary to the Kuru king Adhisimakrsna and
Barhadratha king Senajit. Atthe time of the end of Barhadratha
dynasty with Repufijaya in 639 B.C., we find a king Suddhodana,
the father of lord Buddha, was the reigning king of Aiksvaku dynasty.

According to Puranas, 2131king was Sanjaya, to whom Buddhist

literature (Dipavamsa 3.44) designated as Jayasena. Probably, the
Dynastic Lists of North Indian Kings 59

real name was the Sanjayasena. The son of Sanjaysena was the
22nd king Sakya according to Puranas and Sihahanu (or Singha hanu
in Buddhist sources, probably the real name was Sakya Singha).
According to Dipvamsa (3.45-47), the sons of that (?) Sihahanu or
Sakya Singha were five brothers—‘Suddhodana and Dhota (Dhoto-
dana), prince Sakkodana (Sakrodhana), king Sukkodana (Sukrodhana)
and} king Amitodana’, all these five kings had names containing the
word ‘odana’. All these five brothers might have ruled over 5 sectors
of the Kogala kingdom.’ Suddhddana was the eldest and ruled
over the territory around Kapilvastu. Another one, probably the
father of Mahakosala, ruled over Sravasti. He, the son of Suddhoddana,
Siddhattha, the chief of the world, begot Rahulabhadda, and then
left his home in order to strive for Buddhashipa.
Concerning the accurate chronology of Suddhadana, Bishop P.
Bigandet’s book entitled ‘Life of Gaudama’ on Burmese chronicle may
be the most helpful. Bigandet states that ‘it was in the eighty-sixth
year of his grand father’s era that he (Buddha) was married and also
consecrated prince Royal by the pouring of the blessed water over
his head’. Again he states that ‘in the year 148, on the full moon
of katson on a Tuesday (Withaka) he expired; on the 12th after the
full moon of the same month his corpse was laid on the funeral pyre.®
Bigandet equates 1134 Pigan era with 1773 A.D. in which he states
that his book was composed in the province of Dybayen!® and in this
book he equated 943 religion era (1.6. Buddha’s Mahaparinirvana
Samvata) precisely with 400 A.D.1! It makes the beginning of
Buddha’s nirvana samvata with (943 years-400 A.D.=) 543 B.C. and
in turn his grand fathers’ era (i.e. Eetzena era) began with (543 B.C.-
148 years=) 691 B.C. Thus it gives 691 B.C. for the coronation date
of Buddha’s grand father, the king Sakya on the throne of Kapilvastu
or Sravasti. Rev. Bigandet writes that ‘Suddhodana breathed his last
in the day of full moon of Wakhaon on Sunday at the rising of the
Sun, in the year of Eetzena era 107 (691 B.C.+107 years=584 B.C.)
at the advanced age of ninety-seven years’? which gives precisely the
birth date of king Suddhodana in (584 B.C.-97 years=) 681 B.C.
0 Chronology of North Indian Kings

Thus on the basis of Bigandet’s book, we can summarise few

important date for the Aiksvaku dynasty around the Buddha’s life as
follows :
TABLE VII

S. No. Event Eltzena Christian Reference

era era

1. Coronation of king Sakya, Buddha’s 0 691 B.C. ‘Vol. I, p. 52

grandfather

2. Birth of Suddhédana 10 681-B.C. Vol: Tops sz

& 208

3. Suddhddana becomes Yuvariija 28 663 B.C. ——

4. Birth of Buddha 68 623 B.C, Vol. I, p. 47
4a. Birth of Bimbasara 18 618 B.C, --
5. Buddha becomes Yuvaraja 86 605 B.C. Vol. I, p. 52
and also married

5a. Coronation of Bimbasara at the age 88 6035 Bic.

15 years
6. Birth of Rahula 95 S96uB.G:

7. Buddha left Kapilvastu 97 594 B.C, Vol. 1705 62

8. Buddha enlightened and convert his

son Rahula as Bikku when Rahula
attained the age of 8 years only 103 588 B.C. Vol. I, p. 97
9. Death of Suddhddana at the age of
97 years 107 584 B.C. Vol. I, p. 208

10. Rahula becomes king 107 584 B.C. ——

11. Death of Bimbasara at the 72nd year
of Buddha’s age 140 910 Vol. I, p. 262
12. Death of Buddha at the age of
80 years 148 1 4. Vol. II, p. 69

This chronological analysis clearly shows that the king Rahula,

the son of Buddha, coronated on the throne of Kapilvastu after the
death of his grand-father Suddhodana, was only the 12 years old in
584 B.C. Therefore, Rahula of Kapilvastu can not be equated with
the Aiksvaku king Mahako§gala of Sravasti who was the senior contem-
Dynastic
ListsofNorthIndianKings 61
porary to the Magadha king Bimbasara (5 years younger than Buddha—
b. 618 B.C.—d. 551 B.C.) with whom Mahakoéala married his daughter
Koéaladevi. With all certainty, Suddhodana belonged to main
Aiksvaku lineage and coronated after 663 B.C. at Kapilvastu. He
was the eldest son of the Kosala king Shakya. Therefore, he was the
chief of the Aiksvaku kingdom, divided at that time into five sectors
among the five sons of king Shakya. After the death of Suddhodana,
in 584 B.C., Rahula coronated on the throne of Kapilvastu. According
(0 puranas, Rahula also was the chief of the Aikévaku kingdom.
After Rahula, Puranas mention the next name Prasénajit as the chief
of the Aiksvaku kingdom. Pali chronicles’ also indicating that
Shakyas of Kapilvastu, in latter time, had accepted the hegemony of
Kosala and Pasendi (Prasénajit) is often described as the head of a
group of 5 Rajas. Thus, it was due to the transfer of hegemony,
Puranas mention the name of Prasénajit (the son of Mahakosala) as the
successor of Rahula, otherwise, both were the contemporary kings,
at least for their death dates –âà546 B.C. by the hands of Viruddhaka.

Actually speaking, Puranic lists give only 23 kings after

Brhadbala up to the Suddhodana, the contemporary king to the epoch
of Barhadratha’s end in Magadha. The missing of merely one king
from the puranic lists poses no problem before us, because, if we
look closely at the Mahabharata epic, we find easily that the Aiksvaku
king Brhadbala was killed in ‘Chakravytha-yuddha’ of Mahabharata
war by the hands of Pandava prince Abimanyu on that particular
divine-day on which day Abhimanyu was himself killed.44 We have
next informed by the Aswamedhic parvan® that an unnamed
Aikévaku king of Kosala was defeated by Arjuna, the protector of the
Aéwamedhic horse. Puranas began the post-war Aiksvaku kings-list
of Kosala kingdom with Brhatkasya, a 300 years later Aiksvaku
descendent, assuming as the son of king Brhadbala, the Kosala king,
killed in Mahabharata war, in the same way as the Kuru king Janame-
jaya III was supposed as the son of king Parikshit-II and also the
Barhadratha dynasty king Somadhi was supposed as the son of king
Sahadeva, though, the name of Magadha king Meghasandhi was
 62 Chronology
of NorthIndianKings
clearly mentioned in the ASswamedhic parvan of Mahabharata epic
as the son of Sahadeva who fought with Arjuna, the protector of
horse.
Thus, due to the general puranic mistake, the actual son of king
Brhadbala, whose name, unfortunately, not mentioned in the
Aswamedhic parvan, rules approx. 6 years, according to original
18 years War-theory, was not listed in the puranic kings-list.
Including this king, the number of Aiksvaku sovereigns over Kosala
kingdom becomes 24.
For cross-check, take into account the ‘early contemporary
dynasties’ statement (Dynasties of Kali Age, p. 69) which gives the
number 24 of Aiksvaku dynasty kings of Kosala kingdom, reigned
up to the end of Barhadratha dynasty and count the number of
Aiksvaku kings after Brahadabala to Suddhddana which gives again
precisely the number 24. Here the exact coincidence is achieved.

TABLE VIII

1. Unnamed King 9. Bhanuratha 17. Amitrajit

oe Brahat-ksaya 10. Pratitasva 18. Brhadbhraja

2. Uruksaya 11. Supratika 19. Dharmin

4. Vatsavyaiha 12. Marudeva 20. Krtafijaya
5. Prativyoma 13. Sunakshatra 21. Ranafijaya
6. Divakara 14. Kinnarasva 22. Safijaya
7. Sahadeva 15. Antariksha 23. Sakya
8. Brhadasva 16. Suparna 24. Suddhddana

Including 15 intervening Kuru kings who ruled over Aikévaku

throne from Hastinapur, the total number of kings over Aikévaku
throne in 723 years becomes (23+15=) 38 which gives a reasonable
average of (723/38—) 19.0 years per king.
V.4. KINGS-LIST OF KASHMIR KINGDOM

According to Kalhana’s Rajatarangini 1/60-64, Gonanda-]

(1451-1401 B.C.) lived before the time of Bharata battle. He was a
DynasticListsof NorthIndianKings 63
relative of Jarasandha. They both invaded against Sri Krsna and
beseized Mathura. In the fight that ensued, Gonanda-I was killed
by Balarama. Damodar-I (1401-1353 B.C.) was the son of
Gonanda-I.!® On the eve of the ‘svayamber’ of the daughter of the
Gandhara king, Damodar-I went with a large army to disturb the
function and was put to death by Sri Krsna in ‘Chakra Yuddha’.
Then Sri Krsna went to Kashmir and made the pregnant Yasovati,
the wife of Damodar-I, queen of Kashmir, with the consent of
ministers. Some time after, the queen gave birth to a son and he was
the Gonanda-II. Soon after the child was named, he was crowned
king on the same day and regal ceremonies were duly performed. As
Gonanda-II was infant king, Rajatarangini 1/82 relates that both
Kaurava and Pandava did not seek his support for the war. The
history of these four rulers, from Gonanda-I to Gonanda-JI was
written by Nilamuni.
According to Rajatarangini 1/83, from the Sth to the 39th king,
that is the names of 35 rulers were not known due to the complete

•i.”Ù(“é/’Ù”Ù“é”Ù(“ù(”y7”Ù’‰>’é”9$”Ù/“é8”Ù$’I
’©0’éM
|
’©”Ù’IM“?“i(”Ù.“™@’©>“)>
’é”Ù(“à“Y?“‰M’éC’I?“‰>‘y0”yd–P
1/83

destruction of the historical records. However, Mulla Ahmed’s

History of Kashmir written in Persian language gives the list of the
lost 35 kings of Kashmir from no. 5 to 39 of the list given in
Kalhana’s Rajatarangini. According to it, Gonanda-II (4th king of
R.T.) was killed, in a battle, by Parikshit-II, king of Hastinapur.
As Gonanda-II left no heir, Parikshit-II (5th of Kash. list) incorporated
Kashmir into his empire. He ruled it from Hastinapur for 42 years.
At the time of his death, Parikshit-II gave Kashmir to his second son
‘Harnadeva’. 23 kings of the Pandava dynasty and 12 other kings
ruled up to 1324 laukika era 1.6. (19421324=) 618 B.C. According
to Rajatarangini 1/84 immediately after the 35 forgotten kings, Lava
(the 40th) coronated on throne of Kashmir for 39 years (i.e. 618-579
B.C.). After Lava, Kush or Kusesayaksha (4151 of R.T. 1/88) 16gned
over Kashmir. The Kusa or Kusesayaksha may be equated with the
64 Chronology
ofNorthIndianKings
Pukkusati or Pumakusati of Buddhist Sources.!” This equation makes
the Kusa or Pukkhusati (579-540 B.C.) contemporary to Bimbasara
(579-551 B.C.) and Canda Pradyota of Avanti, and Lava (40th of R.T.
1/84), began with 618 B.C., to the Bimbasara’s father Kshattroja
(603-579 B.C.). Consequently, the last king, of the list of 35 forgotten
kings of Rajatarangini 1/83, the Bhagawant (39th) or Babighana (38th)
was certainly contemporary to the last Barhadratha king Repufijaya.
Therefore, from Parikshit-II upto the end of Barhadratha dynasty, the
Kashmir throne was enjoyed by 35 kings (and add Gonanda-II reign
equal to the two kings’ period in order to reach up the date of
Parikshit’s birth, we can get 37 kings over Kashmir) which is in exact
coincidence with the number of other kings of the same duration,
Barhadrathas over Magadha (22+-15=37) Aiksvakus (23+ 14=37),
Kurus (36+1=37). Therefore, in general, 37-1 kings ruled for 723
years period which gives finally a reasonable average of (723/37=)
19.5 years per king.

REFERENCES

1. Samchchipta Mahabharata (Hindi), part I], ASwamedhic Parva, Ch. 950,

pp. 1587-89 tells us that just before the performance of ASwamedha Yajiia
by Yuddhisthira, prince Arjuna, the Protector of A§wamedha horse
defeated the kings of Magadha, Chedi, Kashi, KoSala, Anga and Gandhara
©+ CLC
2. Samchchipta Mahabharata (Part I), Adiparva, Ch. X, p. 22.
. Ibid.,
Ww Adiparva, Ch. II, p. 5.

“‰R’I%“à owt “‰’i?“iM’ð

’I”Ù7“i?“)>
|
’©M“$”Ù/’Ù?’©M“$“‰M’YG
’I ‘ ’iG“i “Y“iG
“‰M’Y>’©/“é.“é8
I
(Mahabharata epic, 1/3/20)
“Y?“‰’ù?’IM“Y>
“Y?’©M“>•)8”Ù$“é(”ÒÀ
“>‘É>’©?
‘É(’éG‘É/•0
–@
’I$“‰M’I”Ù7“i?“)>’ù>•0
“‰R’©A’‰#“é/“é&”ÒÀ
‘y“é9”Ù5’ù.”ÒÀ
–P
(Mahabharata epic, 18/5/34)
4. Harivamsha Purana; Bhavisya Purana, Ch. 26, verse 28-38; also, see: full
Ch. 28.
Dynastic Lists of North Indian Kings 65

oe Samchchipta Mahabharata (Hindi) part II, ASwamedhic Parva, Ch. 950,

pp. 1587-1589. Here we find Meghasandhi, the son of Sahadeva, as the
name of the king of Magadha, who fought with the Kuru prince Arjuna,
the Protector of ASwamedha horse.
. Based on a rare manuscript of Matsya, no. 3347, Jackson collection, India
Office London; Noticed by Pargiter, Purana Text of Dynasties of Kali Age,
19
There are also references in Pali literature indicating that the 3181–ãƒRÀ in
later time, had accepted the hegemony of KoSala and Pasendi (Prasenajit)
is often described as “‘the head of a group of five Rajas’—Tripathi, Hist.
of Anc. India, p. 91.
Bishop, P. Bigandst, Life or Legend of Gaudama, Vol. I, p. 52.
70 1 Le pp:s72.¢73, 742
. 1010; Vol.-11, bp. 44.
¦ ibid. “01110 145:
"1010. Voll p..208.
. Tripathi, R.S., Hist. of Anc. India, p. 91; see : fn. 65.
. Samchchipta Mahabharata (Hindi), p. 738.
. Samchchipta Mahabharata (Hindi), p. 1538.
. Kalhana’s Rajatarangint, 165-70.
. Majjhima Nikaya, Dhatu Vibhanga Sutta, Attakatha, P.H.A.I., p. 204,
fn. 4; Rhys Davids, Buddhist India, p. 28, fn. 2; also cited in H.C. Ray
Chaudhari, Pol. Hist. of Anc. Ind. (VII ed.) p. 102, fn. 3; and p. 132;
Malalasekara’s Dictionary of Pali Proper Names, Vol. II, p. 215 and
Essays on Gunadhya, p.176 says that Pukkusati (Pushakarasarin) sent a
letter and embassy to Magadha king Bimbasara and defeated Chanda
Pradyota of Avanti.
 6

Dynastic Lists of North Indian Kings After

the End of Barhadrathas and Before the
Beginning of Nandas

1.1. KINGS LIST OF MAGADHA AND AVANTI

We have already analysed in sec. V.2. that Barhadratha dynasty

had been ceased to reign in (1362-723=) or (1339-700=) 639 B.C.
Puranas enumerate a geneology of 138 years (Pradydtas)+ 362 years
(Sasunagas)—500 years total for the post-Barhadrathas but pre-
Nandas period whereas Buddhists give only 200 years for the same.
Scholars prefer Buddhist figure because it is found nearer to the truth.
But the correct order and correct regnal years of the kings is still a
crucial point of discussions among scholars. In my opinion, Puranic
compilers, originally, had two parallel] lists— (1) list ofAvanti contain-
ing Pradyotas and subsequently Sisunaga and Kakavarna and then
(11) the list of Magadha kings beginning with Kshemadharma and
ending with Mahanandi for post-Barhadrathas but pre-Nandas period.
In later period, due to the ignorance or copiest’s mistake those two
parallel separate lists of Avanti and Magadha were written in series
sequence forming a single unabridged list of Magadha kings as
follows :
DynasticLists of NorthIndianKings 67

’ÉC“™&”Ù0’yG“yM“Y$”$”y7”
“Y@’I?“™K’I0”y7”Ù5
“Y’I?“yA
–@
’©A“)•0
“‰M“Y>’é?’‰
“™$”Ù5“à
“‰M“Y*”)$”Ù0’é-“ù7‘YM“y/’I?
–P
’é?“y$“é
‘YM“y$”Ù0“ù/“é(“é’IA
’É>“)•0 ’©A“)”¹&”Ù'“Y
|
“‰5• ’©M“#’@
“‰>’é’IK
’Ù5“ù7”Ù/”°
’‰/“Y“ù$•0
–P
(Vayu, 90, 309-314; Matsya 270, 1-5, Brahmanda, Ill, 74, 123-127)

Brhadrathesv! atitesu? Vitihotresv? Avantisu*

Pulikah® svaminarn hatva® Sunikah’ svaminam hatva
sva®-putram abhiseksyati putram samabhiseksyati?®
misatam!° ksatriyanam!! cal? misatam ksatriyanam 11113
Balakah" Pulik-6dbhavah!* Pradyotarm!® “Ð01116017balat
sa val pranata!®-samanto”’ bhavisyo! naya-varjitah”’
(D.K.A., p. 18)
’‰(”Ù&“ù5’yG’€
“‰M’I$”Ù*”$”Ù0•2À
’©(”Ù’©M“&”Ù/”¹$’‰>
•y.”p–@
•Y7”Ù
’IM“?“iK’IM’I0“$•
’éK‘YM“yM’ù(”Ù$“ð
’©C’Y?“Y@•
’‰C’©>•0
–P
(Bhag. Pur., Sk. XI, Ch. 7, 4)
•Y7”Ù’IM“?“i”Ù’I
’Ù>“YM’ù>•0
’©M“&”Ù/”¹$“é
’©(”Ù’IG
’‰C’©>•0
–P
(Vayu, 99/313; Brahamdanda, III, 74, 126)

’iM“Y?’©(”Ù“é6‘©M‘¹$”p
’éA‘YM’I5
’©M“#“yM‘ù>•0
’©(”Ù’IG
AIT:–P
(Mat,ya, 270, 6)
’I$”°’‰’i@
71 •y$”Ù/”y$”y=“yM‘ù$”Ù?“i&”Ù$”Ù$
““i$•’©‘©*”Ù0‘iK’I>•0
’©C’Y?“Y@•
’éK‘YM“y/’‰M’I?
–C‰d
(Vishnu Pur., IV, XXIV, 7-8)
dvi-pancasat tato®®bhuktva*? asta-trimsac*-chatam* bhavyah*®
pranastah* panca te nrpah Pradyotah* pafica to sutah*®
10 Dal)
eal ’IG“y>•
aa: ‘YM“$“‰M’‰
“i?“i/”(“é”°
’Ù5“ù7”Ù/’I?
|
“Y>“>’98”Ù/“é.”ÒÀ
“‰A’I
“‰M’Y>’©M’ð
“iM“/“ù8”Ù/’I?
‘y?“?“YM“•
–P
(Amt. 270, 6-13; 412, 99, 314-322; Brahamanda, Il, 74, 127-135)
68 Chronologyof North Indian Kings

Hatva! tesarmyasah krtsnarn Sisunago?bhavisyati

Varanasyam sutarn sthapya® Varanasyam sutas tasya*
53.918–£#0 Girivrajam sa yasyati® Girivrajam’
(D.K.A., p. 21)
’Ù5“ù7”Ù/’‰M’I?
‘ “Y0”Ù7“é#“ð
“y7”Ù”ÒÉ/”9$”Ù$“6’I$”Ù0’ù
–P
“i?“iA’‰>‘y>
’i6”p “Y$”p
“>‘É>’‰
‘YM“y$”Ù0’É’y5•0
–P
(Brahamanda, II, 74, 135)
gaa ’Ù5“ù$“é0”°
a “Y“iG“Ù8”Ù.“ù(”ÒÀ
“i?“iA’‰>‘Y“é
–@
“i$“é(“ð
’IM“@’9?
’©B“M’9>’‰?
“y7”Ù“ù5“M“y>’y?‘Y>’‰?
‘ –P
(Matsya, 270, 14)
•y$”Ù/”y$”p
’Ù5“ù$“é0”°
“P“i6”)(“é“é(”9*“à
’i6 –@
“i$“é(“ð
’IM“@’9?
“Y0”Ù7“é#“ð
’iM“Y?“y7”Ù’ù-”Ù/’y?‘Y>’‰?’IA
(Vayu, 99, 322)

ity ete bhavitaro*! vai? Saisunaga nrpa dasa‘

Satani* trini Varsani*®sasti-vars-adhikani tu‘®
Sisunaga*’ 0114–£P–£#C€ rajanah ksatrabandhavah®
(D.K.A., p. 22)
In order to satisfy the various Puranic, Buddhist and Jaina
statements, in their unaltered form, we are bound to split-off the
Puranic kiags-list of Pradyota-+Sisunaga dynasty into two parallel sub
king-lists—kings-list (A) of Avanti kings which accommodates all the
Pradyotas+Sasunagas up to the Kakavarna only. With Kakavarna, we
have terminated the kings-list (A) because immediately after the
Kakavarna (or Kalashoka of Buddhist sources), Buddhist chronicle
place Nanda dynasty. Therefore, puranic kings-list after Kakavarna
is considered as a separate parallel kings-list (B) of Magadha kings.
Both kings-list (A) and (B) runs parallel because they both represent
the same duration i.e. they both simultaneously began immediately
after the end of Barhadrathas and finished just before the advent of
Mahapadmananda.
DynasticLists of North Indian Kings 69
VI.1.1 Purdnic Kings-list (A) of Avanti-kings

TABLEIX
(639/638B.C.-424B.C.)
S. No. Matsya Vayu Brahamdnda

1. Balaka 23} Narotham 23 Pradyoti 23

2. Palaka 28 Palaka 24 Palaka 24
3. Vishakhaytipa < Vishakhaylpa 50 Vishakhaytpa 50
4. Stryaka 21 Ajaka 21 Ajaka 21
5. Nandibardhana 30 Vartivardhana 20 Nandivardhana 20
639-484 B.C. = 155 (638-500 B.C.=)) 138 (638-500B.C.=) 138
pindDenk 4 SRS ae
6. 5150828 40 Sisunaga 40 Sisunaga 40
7. Kakavarna 26 Kakavarna 36 Kakavarna 36
639-418 B.C.=22i 638-424 B.C.= 214 638-424 B.C.= 214

Note :—(i) First name Pradhyota is incorrect in Vayu and Matsya.

(ii) The order of the kings are also erroneous. In Jaina

sources, this dynasty of Ujjaini is often mentioned as Palaka dynasty
whereas in Puranas it is often called Pradyota dynasty. The succes-
sion of names should be in the following order: Stryaka (639-618
B.C.); Vishakhytipa (618-565 B.C.); Pradyote (565-542 B.C.); Palaka
(542-514 B.C.) and Nandibardhana (514-484 B.C.). Only then, Chanda-
Pradydte would become the contemporary to the Bimbasara and
Ajatshatru of Magadha and would die along with the Jain Mahabira
in the same night in [638 B.C.-(21+50+23)=] 544 B.C. (Vayu and
Brahmanda) and 639 B.C.-(21-+53+-23)=542 B.C. (Matsya Purana).
It shows that up to the end of king 1780918, Vayu and Brahmanda
list is more genuine and Matsya list gets a maximum inflation of
3 years only particularly with the reign of Vishakhytpa. Therefore,
king Vishakhayipa really ruled for (618-568 B.C.=) 50 years and thus
Pradyota for (568-545/$44 B.C.—) 23 years. This inflation-figure of
1-3 years, if really crept in the Matsya list, may be added with the
58 years duration of (post Mahabira period) Palaka dynasty kings in
order to get a synchronism with the 60 years Palaka dynasty rule over
70 Chronology of North Indian Kings

Avanti after the death of Mahabir.! Therefore, we can use (545 B.C.-
514 B.C.) 31 years for Palaka and (514-484 B.C.—) 30 years for
Nandibardhana.

(111)The total (639-484 B.C.=) 155 years for five Pradyota

dynasty kings is more correctly given in Matsya Purana (even Matsya
270/5 itself totals out the five Pradyodtas to 152 years only) rather than
(638-S500==) 138 years duration given in other Puranas. Concerning
the total period of kings, the Pradyodtas plus Sasunagas, Vayu and
Brahamanda uses higher regnal period for Sagsunaga dynasty in order
to achieve the correct total of (638-424 B.C.=) 214 years. Actually
Kakavarna ruled only for (444-424 B.C.=) 20 years according to the
Buddhist source Mahavemsa but Matsya gives 26 years (inflated by 6
years) and Vayu & Brahamanda gives 36 years (inflated by 16 years).
In order to get a synchronism between the available sources, we can
omit 6 years from the reign of Kakavarna of Matsya list but 16 years
inflation figure of Kakavarna reign of Vayu and Brahamanda Purana
can not be omitted but may be added 10 years to the reign of
Nandivardhana and 6 years to the P&alakareign. Thus, we can
construct the kings-list (A) of Avanti, in modified form, best to suit
with various data as follows :

TABLE X

S. No. Name of King Christian No. of Years

Calendar Dates

1s Saryaka (639-618 B.C.=) 21 years

0 Vishakhaylpa (618-568 B.C.=) 50 years
3. PradyOota (568-545 B.C.=) 23 years
4. Palaka (545-514 B.C.=) 31 years
5. Nandibardhana (514-484 B.C.=) 30 years
6. Sisunaga (484-444 B.C.=) 40 years
ie Kakavarna (444-424 B.C.= 20 years

TOTAL (639-424 B.C.= 215 years

Dynastie Lists of North Indian Kings 71

After the end of Kakavarna in 424 B.C., the kingdom of Avanti

became under the sway of Nanda dynasty for (424-324 B.C.=) 100
years.
VI.1.2. Purdanic Kings- List (B) of Magadha Kings
TABLE XI

S. No. Matsya Vayu Brahmdanda

1. Kshemadharma 36 Kshemavarma 20 K shemadharma x

2. Kshemajit 24 Ajatshatru 25 Kshatroja 40
3. Vindhyaséna 28 Kshatroja 40 Vidhisar 38
4. Ajatshatru 27 Vivisar 28 Ajatshatru 25
5. Vamshaka 24 Darshaka 25 Darbhaka 35
6. Udasin 33 Udayee 33 Udayee 33
7. Nandibardhana 40 Nandivardhana 42 Nandivardhana 40
8. Mahanandi 43 Mahanandi 43 Mahanandi 43

@20-384B.C.— 255 638-382 8.–âà = 256 638-384 B.C. = 254

The Puranic kings-list (B) of Magadha kings shows clearly that

it began from the king Kshemadharma immediately after the Sasunaga
king Kakavarna of Avanti-list. It is evident from these kings-lists (A)
and (B) that Puranas first give the post-Vitihotra kings-list of Avanti
which contains Pradyotas and Sasunagas. Immediately after the end
of Avanti-list, just before the beginning of Nanda dynasty, without
any mention, Puranic chronicles began their kings-list (B) of Magadha
kings and therefore later compilers ignorantly took it as a single list
of Magadha kings.” Puranic kings-list (B) of Magadha kings gives
us a total of 255+1 years period between the end of Barhadrathas
and the coronation of Mahapadma Nanda due to the wrong inclusion
of Nandibardhana of {1809–〠dynasty of Avanti into Magadha kings-
list. This hypothesis thus reduces the total of 255+1 years to the
figure—(i) Matsya: (255-40=) 215 years; (ii) Vayu (256-42 =) 214
years, and (iii) Brahamanda (254-40=) 214 years. Hence the
coronation date of Mahapadma Nanda again comes out to be—
–yn Chronology of North Indian Kings

(i) Matsya (639 B.C.+215 years=) 424 B.C.; (ii) Vayu (638 B.C.+
214 years=) 424 B.C., and (iii) Brahamanda (638 B.C.-+-214 years=)
424 B.C. Therefore, all the three Puranas, for the both kings-lists (A)
and (B), have a spectacular coincidence for the coronation epoch of
Mahapadma Nanda in 424 B.C.

Not only the wrong inclusion of Nandivardhana of Avanti

happened in the Magadha list, but vice versa, wrong inclusion of
Mahanandi of Magadha list can be shown in the Pradydta dynasty
list of Avanti because Vishnu Purana, while dealing with the 138 years
for 5 Pradyota dynasty kings of Avanti adds wildly Mahanandi just
after the last Pradyota king Nandivardhana by saying briefly ‘Tato
Nandi’. These overlappings, exhibited in the kings-list (A) of Avanti
and kings-list (B) of Magadha, might be happened due to the fact
that the last Pradyota king Nandivardhana of Avanti was uprooted
by the king Sisunaga in c. 484 B.C. Later on this king Sigunaga
captured 1535111(formerly under the sway of Magadha) and placed his
son there, and further marched and captured the throne of Magadha
around 470 B.C.-466 B.C. more probably in 467 B.C. after that
Sisunaga ruied for 22/23 years jointly over Magadha and Avanti both
up to 444 B.C. and then Kakavarna for 20 years. Sisunaga and
Kakavarna jointly known as the Mahanandin (dynasty), the father of
Nava Nandas of Puranas, who ruled collectively for (23 years
Sisunaga+ 20 years Kakavarna over Magadha =) 43 years of Magadha
kings-list B. Because before Mahanandi (the dynastic name for
51601828. and Kakavarna), on Avanti throne, there ruled last Pradyota
dynasty king Nandivardhana, therefore later ignorant Puranic editors
often mistaken to add Nandivardhana before Mahanandi in Magadha
kings-list (B), or in vice versa fashion, Mahanandi (or briefly ‘Nandi’-
Vish. Pur.) after Nandivardhana in Avanti kings-list (A).
Dynastic Lists of North Indian Kings ws

VI.1.3. Buddhist Kings-list (C) of Magadha Kings

TABLE XII

S. No. Mahavamsa Dipavamsa (Ceylonese Chronicle)

1, Bimbasara oo Bimbasara 32
2. Ajatshatru 32 Ajatshatru oD
3. Udayin or Udaibhaddaka 16 Udayin or Udayibhaddaka 16
4. Anuruddhaka 8 Anuruddhaka 8
5. Munda 8 Munda
6. Ndagadasaka 20 Nagadaska 24

(603-457 B.C.=) 136 (603-471 B.C.=) 132

7. 5101228 18 5150082 18
8. Kalashoka 20 Kalashoka 28
9. Ten Sons of Kalashoka 22 Ten sons of Kalashoka 22

(603-407 B.C.=) 196 (603-403 B.C.=) 200

Buddhist sources began their chronology precisely from 602/603

B.C. with the reign of king Bimbasara at Magadha throne about
60 years before the death of lord Buddha in 544/543 B.C. and (639/638
B.C.-603/602 B.C. =) 36 years after the beginning of post Barhadratha
period in Magadha of Puranic chronicle. Buddhist sources state that
Bimbasara was the 5 years junior to the Gautam Buddha? thus born
in (623 B.C.+5 years=) 618 B.C. When he was 15 years old, he
received royal coronation after his father’s death in (618 B.C.-+15
years) 603 B.C.4 and his father was named asking Bodhisa (Bhatiya)
of Rajegriha who was the friend of Suddhddana.® Bimbasara_ reigned
for (603-551B.C.=) 52 years.®

VI.1.4. Chronological Analysis of First-Three Post-Barhadratha

Period Kings of Magadha
After the close look of various Puranic and Buddhist sources,
it is concluded that the first three kings viz. Kshemadharma, Kshatroja
and Bimbasara forms a special configuration of the sum of two
74 Chronology of North Indian Kings

fractions with reference to their regnal periods and all of them were
coincided on the death date of Bimbasara in 551/550 B.C. as follows :

(i) Kshemadharma : 36=20-+- 16; (639-619 B.C.)-+ (619-603 B.C.)

(ii) Kshatroja : 40=16+24; (619-603 B.C.)-+ (603-579 B.C.)
(111)Bimbasara : 52 ==24-1-28; (603-579 B.C.)+-(579-551 B.C.)

(i) Kshemadharma’s regnal period of 36 years is shown by

Matsya while Vayu and Brahamanda gives only 20 years (actually
Brahamanda does not mention any regnal period for Kshemadharma
but his 20 years may evidently be exhibited as an inflation figure of
10 years with Vidhisar’s reign from 28 to 38 years and further 10 years
with Darbhaka’s reign from 25 to 35 years).

(ii) Kshatroja’s reigning period of 40 years is shown by Vayu

and Brahamanda while Matsya gives only 24 years. Thus, the
collective reigns of the two viz. Kshemadharma-+ Kshatroja, in all the
three Puranas becomes (Matsya : 36-+-24=) or (Vayu & Brahamanda:
20 + 40 ==) 60 years.

(111) Bimbasdra’s regnal period of 28 years is shown by the

Matsya Purana; Vayu and also Brahamanda (after getting out the
10 years inflation figure 38-10) 28 years while Buddhist sources viz.
Mahavamsa and Dipavamsa etc. give 52 years.
Therefore, in my opinion, Kshemadharma, the grand father of
Bimbasara, ruled for (639-603 B.C.=) 36 years as Matsya Purana
intended. Inthe year 619 B.C., Kshetrajfiia or Kshatroja, the father
of Bimbasara, became Yuvaraja of the Magadha throne but he
became the actual sovereign in 603 B.C. after the death of Kshema-
dharma. Vayu and Brahamanda wrongly taken (619-579 B.C.=)
40 years period for the Kshatroja as a sovereign which was really the
period from the ceremony of consecration of prince Royal (i.e.
Yuvaraja) up to the death of Kshatroja. Thus Kshatroja was the real
sovereign only for (603-579 8.–âà ==) 24 years as Matsya Purana
intended, On the same line of thought, Bimbasara consecrated as
Dynastic Lists of North Indian Kings 75

prince Royal at the age of (618-603=) 15 years in 603 B.C., the year
in which his grand father (not the father as intended by the Buddhist
sources) died, and his father becomes the real sovereign of Magadha.
Kshatroja or Kshetrajfiia, the father of Bimbasara, died in the year
579 B.C. and thus Bimbasara ruled only for (579-551 ==) 28 years.
Here we can say, with all certainty, that Buddhist sources give the
(603-551 B.C.=) 52 years period for Bimbasara, which was actually
the period from the consecration of prince Royal (Yuvaraja) epoch
up to the death of Bimbasara, while (579-551 B.C.=) 28 years period,
given in Puranas, was the actual sovereign period of Bimbasara. In
my opinion, the name ‘Srenika’ given to Bimbasara by the Jain source
Parisisthaparavana of Hema Chandra was really the Prakrit-equivalent
of Kshetrajna, the father of Bimbasara, rather than to Bimbasara.
Buddhisa or Bhatiya of Buddhist sources (Dipavamsa 3.53) was also
equivalent to the Kshetrajfia, the father of Bimbasara.
VI.1-5. Ajatshatru and Darshaka
Ajatshatru ruled (551-524 B.C.=) 27 years according to Matsya
and (550-525 B.C.=) 25 years (Vayu and Brahamanda) while
Buddhist sources give (551-519 B.C.==) 32 years i.e. an inflated figure
of 5 years due to the transposition of later part of Buddhist kings-list.
After Ajatshatru, Puranas place king Darshaka for (Matsya : 524-500
=) 24 years or (Vayu and Brahamanda : 525-500 B.C.=) 25 years.
Thus arriving at 500 B.C. for the end of Darshaka’s reign unanimously
by all the Puranic sources and after that all the Puranas give (500-467
B.C.=) 33 years for the king Udayi.
Buddhist sources, on the other hand, omits the name of
Darshaka’ and place Udaibhaddaka, immediately after the end of
Ajatshatru, for 16 years only. After Udayibhaddaka, Anuruddhaka
and Munda for 8 years (Dipavamsa) (or 8+8=) 16 years (Maha-
vamsa) and then Nagadasaka for 24 years (Dipavamsa) or 20 years
(Mahavamsa). In my opinion, Buddhist list, after the Ajatshatru was
some what undergone to the transposition with reference to the king
Nagadasaka. King Nagadasaka, with all certainty, can be equated
with the king Darshaka of Puranas. Matsya Purana gives 24 years for
76 Chronology of North Indian Kings

Darshaka (or Vamshaka) while Buddhist Ceylonese chronicle (D.V.)

also preferred precisely the 24 years period for Nagadasaka.
Mahavamsa, on the other hand, gives only 20 years (i.e. 24-20=—4
years less period) for Nagadasaka, in effect to neutralise the effect of
(32-27=) 5 years inflation period crept in the Ajatshatru’s reign with
reference to the Matsya Purana figure and thus reducing to the
(5-4 =) 1 year inflation figure with reference to the Puranic data
(500 B.C.) for the end of king Darshaka in (551 B.C.+32 years
Ajatshatru’s reign=519 B.C.; 519 B.C.-+-20 years Nagadasaka’s reign
in Mahavamsa=) 499 B.C. Here again, it can be said, with all
certainty, that Ajatshatru ruled really as the sovereign during (551-
524 B.C.=) 27 years as Matsya Purana intended. 5 years inflation
figure, in Buddhist sources, crept due to the fact that Ajatshatru
consecrated as prince Royal just 5 years before, in (551 B.C.-5 years ==)
556 B.C., the death of his father Bimbasara.

VI.1.6. King Udayi or Udayibhaddaka

After Darshaka of Puranas (524-500 B.C.) or Nagadasaka of

Buddhists (519-499 B.C.), all the three mentioned Puranas place king
Udayi for (500-467 B.C.) 33 years while Buddhist source
Mahavamsa place Udayibhaddaka for (499-483 B.C.=) 16 years;
Anuruddhaka for (483-475 B.C.—) 8 years and Munda for (475-467)
8 years. Ceylonese chronicle (Dipavamsa), on the other hand, used
the original (519-495 B.C.) 24 years reigning period for Nagadasaka,
therefore the inflation figure of 6 years, crept in the Ajatshatru’s reign,
was still running in to the reign of Nagadasaka as well as up to the
Udayibhaddaka (495-479 B.C.=16 years) with reference to the
Puranic data (Udayi’s 16 years reign coincided with 500 B.C.+16
years) 484 B.C. Therefore, in order to compensate the same,
Cevlonese chronicle (D.V.) utilises (479-471 B.C.—) 8 years only,
instead of (8-4-8 =) 16 years for the Anuruddhaka and Munda. Thus
Ceylonese chronicle (D.V.) data was, in fact, finally lagged by (471
B.C.-467 B.C.=) 4 years with respect to the correct epoch 467 B.C.
for the end of Puranic Udayi or Munda of Buddhist sources,
Dynastics Lists of North Indian Kings 17

VI.1.7.. Mahanandi of Magadha or Sasunagas of Avanti

Puranas placed the end of king Udayi in 467 B.C. while
Buddhist sources in 483 B.C. on the Magadha throne. It is said in
the Parisisthaparavana that the king of Avanti was an enemy of
Udayin. The war of nerves (fear in hearts ?) began in the time of
Ajatshatru must have been continued in the time of Udayin also. It
was finally decided in the time of Sisunaga. According to Matsya
Purana :
’iM“Y?’©(”Ù“é6‘©M‘¹$”p
Wats INT: WAT AIT: | 270/5
eat ’IG“y>•
’ù6•0 ‘YM’I8”Ù(•
“i?“iA’‰>‘yL”°
’Ù5“ù7”Ù/’I?
,
“Y>“>’98”Ù/“é.”ÒÀ
“‰A’I“‰M’Y>’©M’ð
“iM“/“ù8”Ù/’I?
‘y?“?’IM“•
11210/6

Sisunaga defeated, first, the last Pradyota dynasty king of Avanti, the
Nandivardhana in 484 B.C. and then captured Varanasi and finally
Magadha in 467 B.C. It takes 16/17 years to Sisunaga to reach
Magadha from Avanti. Probably Anuruddhaka and Munda of
Buddhist Magadha list, were the near relatives of Sisunaga who were
marching ahead along with the army. Sisunaga, himself, still staying
in Ujjain till the final capture of Magadha throne in 467 B.C. after
the death of king Udayin of Magadha. But later editors of Puranas
misunderstood for the Pradydotas of Avanti. They have wrongly
placed Pradydtas, initially, in Magadha. Buddhist and Jain traditions
have though placed Pradydtas in Avanti but wrongly equated the
defeat date 484/483 B.C. of 724–ã“P by Sigsunaga as the simultaneous
event for the defeat of Udayin in 467 B.C. by Sisunaga. Thus
Buddhists made the end of Udayin of Magadha in 484/483 B.C. and
the difference period of 16/17 years was given to the relatives of
Sisunaga viz. Anuruddhaka and Munda on Magadha throne, who, in
all certainty, never ruled over Magadha kingdom, they were still
heading towards Magadha during this period.

We have thus finally decided that Sisunaga became the king of

Avanti, after defeating the last Pradyota dynasty king Nandivardhana,
in 484 B.C. as intended by the Matsya Purana (Kings-list Aof Avanti),
and ruled over Avanti for (484-444 B.C.=) 40 years. During his 40
78 Chronology of North Indian Kings

years period he attacked over various sections towards east and made
glorious victories over Varanasi and finally over Magadha in 467 B.C.
after the death of Udayi. Puranic kings-list (B) of Magadha kings in
all Puranas included Sasunagas after the king Udayi by the dynastic
name of Mahanandi, rather than with the proper names of Sisunaga
and Kakavarna, for (467-424 B.C.=) 43 years. During the sum of
(467-424 B.C.) 43 years, it seems that individually Sisunaga ruled
for (467-444 B.C.=) 23 years and Kakavarna for (444-424 B.C.=) 20
years over Magadha. Buddhist sources, on the other hand, give 18
years only for Sisunaga (Mahavamsa and Dipavamsa both) rather
than the actual figure of 23 years and 28 years (Dipavamsa) or 20
years (Mahavamsa) for Kalashoka.
Concerning the Ceylonese chronicle (D.V.), we can say, with all
certainty, that it had missed on (16-8=) 8 years period for the reign-
ing periods of Anuruddhaka and Munda because it gives only 8 years
for both of them while both of them really covered 16 years period
in which Sigunaga dynasty made their movements from Avanti to
Magadha. And this 8 years missing period was wrongly added to
the reign of Kalashoka from 20 to 28 years. Thus on transferring
this 8 years to its original place, in the reign of Anuruddhaka and
Munda, from the Kalashoka’s reign, Ceylonese chronicle now seems
to be intended to fix the end of Anuruddhaka and Munda in (479
B.C.+16 years=) 463 B.C. rather than in 471 B.C. From Ajatshatru’s
reign reference, we know that the inflation figure of Buddhist sources
over the Matsya Purana was (32-27=5 years), therefore on including
5 years inflation figure Buddhist Ceylonese chronicle should give the
epoch (467 B.C. + 5 years=) 462 B.C. for the beginning of Sisunaga
in Magadha. On taking 452 B.C., the Buddhist figure, Sisunaga’s (462-
444 B.C.=) 18 years and Kalashoka’s (444-424 B.C.=) 20 years can
be justified. For the end epoch of Kalashoka’s reign king.-lists A, B,
and C all are agreed to coincide with 424 B.C.

Buddhist sources give another (424-402 B.C.) 22 years for the

joint rule of sons of Kalashoka. Mahabodhivamsa gives their names
as foJlows.®
DynasticsLists of North Indian Kings 79

1. Bhadrasena 6. Ubhaka
2. Korandavarna 7. Sanjaya
3. Mangura 8. Koravya
4. Sarvajana 9. Nandivardhana
Dw alike. 10. Panchamaka

But Puranic sources, at first sight, seem to be silent for the sons
of Kalashoka. Because all puranas states that the Mahapadmananda
or Ugrasena was the son of Mahanandi the king of Magadha who
ruled just after the end of Mahanandi.

VI.1.8. Jain Chronological Analysis

In the year A.D. 1304 the famous Jain scholar Merutunga wrote
his Prabandhachintamani and two years later he composed the
Vicharasreni, a commentary on his Theravali. In this last work he
informs us of a remarkable kings-list® of which the first sentence 15 :
‘Palaka, the lord of Avanti, was anointed in that night in which the
Arhat and Tirthankara Mahavira entered Nirvana’. This kings-list
explicitly assigns 60 years for Palaka and then 155 years for Nandas
i.e. (60+155=) 215 years between the death of Mahavira and the
coronation of Chandragupta Maurya. But some European scholars
put a question-mark on the existence of the 60 years rule of Palaka
over Ujjain on the basis of Hemachandra’s statement.

Hemachandra (A.D. 1088-1170), biographer at the court of king

Jayasimha of Gujrat and afterwards of the later’s successor Kumara-
pala wrote a book on the Jain Patriarchs from the epoch of Ajatshatru
down to the reign of Samprati, the grandson of king Ashoka. In this
book entitled Parisisthaparvan, VIII, 341, he says : ‘And thus 155
years after the liberation of Mahavira, Chandragupta became king’.
In consequence of this information, Jacobi remarks!’: ‘Palaka had,
most probably, no place in the original chronology of the Jainas. He
13, 1 am inclined to believe, a mere chronological fiction of the Jainas
introduced in order to make it better agree with Buddhist chronology
of Ceylon’.
80 Chronologyof North IndianKings

Carpentier, an other scholar versed in history of Jainism, holds"

‘that Palaka of Avanti was a contemporary of Mahavira’. The story
of Vasavadatta, Palaka’s sister, who married Udayana, the king of
Vatsa, is well known. As Udayana, in his turn, was a contemporary
of Buddha and of Mahavira, the same holds for Palaka of Avanti.
For this reason, Carpentier can not believe that Palaka commenced
his reign only after the death of Mahavira. Asa solution of the
problem he suggests that the later Jain tradition confused Palaka of
Avanti with Hastipalin, the king of Pava, the town where Mahavira
died.
In the defence of the 155 years hypothesis of Hemachandra,
third argument has come from the Belgian scholar P.H.L. Eggermont.
Prof. Eggermont says!*: ‘In short both scholars, Jacobi as well as
Carpentier, do not attach any value to the Jain tradition which made
the year of Mahavira’s death concur with that of the anointment of
Palaka of Avanti. Their argumentation, it is true, seems to be correct’.
If Hemachandra places 155 years between the death of Mahavira and
the anointing the Chandragupta and if Merutunga assumes the same
period to be 60 years longer, attributing those 60 years to a king
Palaka, all evidences seem to indicate that those 60 years were
inserted only afterwards by the author, Merutunga, who lived two
centuries after Hemachandra.'® However, I would like to show that
there is still a possibility, neglected uptill now, which can save the
Jain tradition used by Merutunga. Why should it is not possible that the
155 years’ period between the death of Mahavira and the anointing of
Chandragupta included the very 60 years of Palaka’s reign ? In other
words, the possibility remains that Paiaka and Nandas did not succeed
each other, but that they reigned contemporaneously for the first
60 years, commencing their reigns, both Palaka as well as the Nandas,
in the year that Mahavira attained Nirvana. This last supposition
is confirmed by the another datum in the Parisistaparvan of Hema-
chandra.'* In this work Hemachandra relates a story about the death
of Kunika alias Ajatshatru, and the succession by Udayin, the founder
of Pataliputra. After a successful reign Udayin’s life attained its end. A
Dynastic Lists of North Indian Kings 81

certain prince wanting to take vengeance on Udayin succeeded in

getting access to the palace in the disguise of a Jain monk and mur-
dered him. As Udayin did not have any heirs, the five ministers set
out to look for a qualified successor. At last they chose Nanda who
was the son of a barber and a courtesan. As is stated emphatically
by the author,® ‘Nanda was anointed exactly 60 years after the death
of Mahavira’. Prof. Eggermont further reduces the figure of 155
years by 4 ‘Sham’ years (inserted by Hemachandra, the difference of
3 years 8 months and half a month between the death of Mahavira
and the beginning of Dussamakala'®) into 151 years (—469B.C.-318
B.C.) for the Nandas.

All the three, mentioned above, defence counsels who defended

the 155 . years theory of Hemachandra, as I have understood, have a
firm belief that Hemachandra’s Parisistaparvan possess the oldest data
i.e. the lack of 60 years rule of Palaka which was inserted by the
Merutunga, two centuries later in order to solve some chronological
problem or to make a synchronism with some other data. But
actually Hemachandra’s (1088-1170 A.D.) 155 years tradition seems to
be the alone. Because, not only the later data furnished by the
Merutunga (c. 1304 A.D.) but also the earlier Jain traditions given in
Jinasena’s Harivamsa Purana (783-84 A.D.), Tiloya Pananati (Triloka
Prajnapti –âà455 A.D.) and anumber of earlier Pattavalis possess the
60 years rule of Palaka before the 155 years of Nanda. On adding
4 ‘Sham’ years, Jain data assigns (60+155+4=) 219 years period
between the death of Mahavira and the anointment of Chandragupta
Maurya as exactly mentioned in the Kharataragachcha Jain Pattavali.2”

Digambara Jain author Jinasena’s Harivamsa Purana,!* written

in 705 Saka era (783-84 A.D.) tells us explicitly :

“Y@“’‰?“M“Y>’0
‘Y>“)G
‘ ’©>“)”¹=’IM“>’Ù?“yG‘YM“yM’ù$”p
–@
“)K‘YG“Ù5’‰M’I?
“‰A’IK
“>‘É>’©M““é(“é
’©M“$“ù*“é2‘Y–@
83

“y7”Ù“ù5“M“y>’9?
’I&”Ù0“é”Ù/•
’I$”° “Y?‘É/’ÙB‘ÉA‘É>•
|
“$• ‘ ’©‘©*•)“é6’iM
“Y0”Ù7“é#“ð
aga: i 84
82 Chronology
ofNorthIndianKings
At the time of Mahavira’s nirvana, Prithvipalaka (King of
Avanti’s son) king Palaka would be coronated on earth. He (ruled)
for 60 years. And then it is stated that the kings of country (or
victorious kings) would rule for 155 years.
Tiloya Pananati!® (i.e. Triloka Prajfapati) written by Yati
Vrishabha, after 1000 AV (1.6. after 455 A.D.) in his 4th Maha-adhikar
(Manusyaloka), gathas 1476-1510 gives a detailed account of events
after the death of Mahavira urto the beginning of Chaturmukha
Kalkiraja. Gatha 1474 tells that Dussama kala began 3 years 8 months
and 1 Paksha, after the death of Mahavira on Kartika Amavasya of
545 B.C., which should coincide Ashadha Shukla Piranima of 541
B.C. Triloka Prajfapti also tells us that after the death of Mahavira,
Palaka ruled over Avanti for 60 years and then 155 years by the
Vijaya (Victorious Nandas) Vamsa.

According to the Jain chronology, given in the Prakrit Pattavali

named as Dussamakala-Shramnasamgha Stva of Dharma ghosa
Suri;2? Mahabira’s death and the death of king Chanda Pradydte of
Ujjaini occurred in the same night. After Chanda Pradyota, Palaka
coronated in Ujjaini. After the death of issueless king Udayi of
Magadha, Palaka of Ujjaini captured the throne of Magadha for
60 years and then Nav-Nandas ruled for 155 years over Magadha and
Ujjaini. The statement concerning the 60 vears rule of Palaka king of
Ujjaini hints about two clues :

(1) Palaka of Ujjaini ruled for 60 years after the death of

Mahabira and Chanda Pradyote and simultaneously also;

(ii) Palaka of Ujjaini ruled for 60 years over Magadha after the
death of issueless Magadhana king Udayi.

At first sight, it seems that this Pattavali equates the death of

issueless Magadhan king Udayi with the same epoch with which the
Jaina tirthankar Mahabira and Chanda Pradydta of Ujjain died.
Only then Palaka king of Ujjain who coronated just after the death of
king Chanda Pradyote can rule 60 years over Magadha after the death
0 „11:tic Lists of North Indian Kings 83

of issueless king Udayi. Buddhist chronology Mahavamsa placed the

death of king Udayi precisely in 483 B.C. In all probability, Canton
dotted record with reference to Buddha’s Nirvana samvata took the
death of king Udayin in 483 B.C. and equated it with the death of
Buddha, Mahabira and Chanda Pradyote as the said Jain Pattavali
seems to be intended.
Actually, the said Jain Pattavali does not intended to say the
above mentioned theory but it gives two chronological clues by the
single statement :

(i) Palaka of Ujjaini ruled for 60 years after the death of

Mahabira and Chanda Pradyote over Avanti. In all certainty, in this
statement, it was, originally intended that kings of Pradyota dynasty
ruled for (545-484 B.C.=) 60 years over Avanti but when the defeat
of issueless king Udayin of Magadha was annexed in this statement
and those Jain traditions which accepts the Puranic data 467 B.C. for
the death of Udayi might fix the wrong date (467 B.C.-60 years=)
527 B.C. for the death of Mahabira and Chanda Pradyote. And still
those, who equated the death of king Udayin in 467 B.C. with the
death of Mahabira, can fix the wrong death date of Mahabira in
467 B.C. as Jacobi, Carpentier and Hemachandra in Parisisthaparavan
intended by giving only 155 years interval between the death of
Mahabira and the coronation of Chandragupta Maurya.
(11) Palaka of Ujjaini (1.6. kings initially belonged to Ujjaini)
ruled for 60 years over Magadha throne after the death of issueless
king Udayin of Magadha. Wecan interpret this clue as follows:
Sigsunaga initially captured the Ujjaini throne in 483 B.C. from the
hands of last Pradyota king Nandivardhana and finally captured the
Magadha throne in 467 B.C. from the hands of Udayin of Magadha.
Since, Sisunaga initially captured Ujjaini throne, therefore, he might
be designated as the Palaka (i.e. Praja-Palaka or king) of Ujjaini.
Sigunaga took throne of (Magadha) in 457 B.C. and according to
Buddhist Ceylonese Chronicle (Mahavamsa) Sisunaga dynasty ruled
for [18 years (Sisunaga)-+20 years (Kalashoka)-+-22 years (10 sons of
Kalashoka)=] 60 years over Magadha after the issueless king Udayi.
–£@ Chronology
of NorthIndianKings

VI.1.9. Second Buddhist Council of Vaishalr

Concerning the second Buddhist council at Vaishali, it is said to
be held after 10 years (and a half month additional- Dipavamsa 4/44)
of the reign of king Kalashoka whose reign, we have finally decided
to 444 B.C.-424 B.C. Therefore, 10 years of the reign of Kalashoka
should be coincided with (444 B.C.+10 years=) 434 B.C. We have
already given, on the authority of Buddhist sources, the date 544/543
B.C.*! for the death of Buddha in the 8th year of Ajatshatru’s reign.
On taking 544 B.C. for Buddha’s death, the second council of Vaishali
must be convened in (544-434 B.C.=) 110 pBm (post Buddham
mortuum). Ceylonese chronicle held that the Vaishali council was
convened about a century after the Buddha’s Nirvana.22 Chinese
and Tibetan records”™ tells explicitly about the exact epoch i.e. 110
pBm in coincidence with all the chronological calculation given in
this work.

Thus we can construct finally the Magadha kings list, best to

suit with the various data available in Puranas, Buddhist and Jain
sources, for the post Barhadrathas but pre-Nanda kings as follows :

TABLE XIII

"S.No. Namesof King | ’i>’ù> calendar ——~—~—~«S'No«.

of years
period

1. Kshemadharma 639-603 B.C 36

2. Kshemajit or Kshetraitia 603-579 B.C. 24
3. Bimbasara 579-551 B.C. 28
4. Ajatshatru 551-524 B.C. 27
5. Darsaka or Nagadasaka 524-500 B.C. 24
6. ’I&“à 500-467 B.C. 33
7. 6150888 +)Maha- 467-444 B.C. 23
8. Kakavarna ) nandi 444-424 B.C. 20
639-424 BC. Pls)
Dynastic Lists of North Indian Kings 85

=
0‘ð
’9n“y?(1
eeppeqqekepy,
’Ð
eyesed
Sc
’9M‘óò•
ipegqikepy “y*•ù
‘‰>
uewse
e
g
zidns
yyei
nuegqp
–°
nedsey
e
g
•ù#‘ã‰
LIyedny
(14S)
dT
"SAK
aps
dpayy
py
/diq
"SAX
"SLX
unisniuv
ind
soup
pulps
agBIBSIQUILA •
’
•ù#
’‰#
–élval
nueyp
(edeip
BUud
L9
–à
euoseq
•ù*
9–âà
(’¢•
8
Ipedues
“y5‘YM
’yM’éf
ùC“y’9
©M“7
•ù(”p
9–À
BxOsV
eqyosy
BIOSV
–ã€
elesiquilg
–éf
eresiquiig
8–à
viesiquieg
eIvsiqmlg
=
nizesejely
n7nuyeseyely
nyeseiely
¢7
eyiny
eseiely
eseunsis
Or
•ù.”7’éM
“yM•ùn^
9–À epuen
01
e
Spurn
6
‘ùM‘ð
8
epueurwped
$–é’©7”Ù|–
’©”Ù0’©M’ù$“y’©
0–à purn
8
€v ‘Ipsuog
’©7”Ù*Zi
g¹>’¢•
ur
eyesepesen
77
uipuvurquyl (–
ey
–à
uLn8BW
ue
sefnesjesyy
esiqpig/ecieqg
Ov•ù' –Y
epunyy
WIUIVARYe
eueypivAIpuenN
Ov
e8urkep
yppninuy –“b‰5“é
’I
(WL) uUeu
7–à
y6estle
’©>’
eydnsevip•ð
7eilesnpul
•ù$’IM’©
PZãsY’©7
(Wig)
eresnpur
SZ
87
vigsnpul
–¹n
vipsnpul
eiesnpul eidw
‘‰M
ot {•e9òl•
‘Ss
“2‘y$
•™5”ÒÀ
Jo
ssary
vypesvyA]
OSE
fonyeln
eseunsns
(8101
viepuewmeye
Byose[ey
87
ie
yleusserg
SI
yieuasesg
‘¹>
SUOS
JO
SUIV
‘ùM‘ð
1(ejeqdes)
ByeAled
–P
86 Chronology of North Indian Kings

VI.2. POST BARHADRATHA KURU KINGS

In section –¢ãÀwe have analysed the Kuru kings-list for 36
kings from the birth of Parikshit-II up to the end of Brahadratha
dynasty in Magadha. The 36th kuru king ‘Dhruva’ (or a generation
on either side) might be the near contemporary to the last
Brahadratha king Repufjaya. Therefore, Tigmatman and Brahad-
ratha, the 37th & 38th Kuru kings, might be the contemporary to
the Kshemadharma, the grand father of Bimbasara. Vasudana with
Kshatroja and Satanika-II Paramtapa with Bimbasara. Udayna, the
41st Kuru king of Kosambi was certainly contemporary to the
Ajatshatru and Darsaka of Magadha; Prasenajit and Vidudabha (or
Ksudraka) of Sravasti and Chanda Pradyote and Palaka of Avanti.
This synchronism can be achieved through his matrimonial relations
and other statements. We are told that Darsaka, the son of
Ajatshatru, was the king of Magadha and his sister Padmavati was
married to Udena (Udayana) of Kosambi."* Kathasaritasagara makes
Udayana of Kausambi a junior contemporary of Chanda Pradyste of
Avanti. Since Pradydta’s daughter Vasvadatta) was married to the
Udayana.” And Bhasa in his celebrated Svapnavasvadatta also
affirm this fact. According to Ratnavali, Udayana of Vatsa
(Kausambi) attacked over the Kstidraka, the son of Kosala king
Prasenajit and killed him. After Udayana, according to Puranas, 4
insignificant kings—Vahinara, Dandapani, Niramitra and Kshemaka

TABLEXIV
S.No. Kurukings-list.+~Contemporary ` Magadha
list
a7. Tigmatman K shemadharma (639-603 B.C.)
38. Brhadratha
39. Vasudana Kshatroja (603-579 B.C.)
40. Satanika II Bimbasara (579-551 B.C.)
41. Udayana Ajatshatru (551-524 B.C.)
42. Vahinara Darshaka (524-500 B.C.)
43. Dandapani Udayi (500-407 B.C.)
44. Niramitra
A5; Kshemaka 61601882
Dynastic Lists of North Indian Kings 87

ruled. This dynasty might perhaps ended with Kshemaka by the

Sigunaga during his stormy victories from Avanti to Magadha just
before the capture of Kashi, at any time during 484-467 B.C.
The complete analysis of Kuru kings reveals that the actual
number of Kuru kings from Parikshit-II up to the Kshemaka were
not 29 as Purdanic lists tell but was, in reality, the 45, that is a clear
missing of at least (45-29 =) 16 kings 1.6. a period of approximately
(16x 20=) 320 years.
VI.3. POST BARHADRATHA PERIOD AIKSVAKU KINGS
In sec. V.3, have already analysed the Aiksvaku kings-list for
24 kings after Brhadbala, contemporary king to the Mahabharata war
up to Suddhodana, the 24th king after Brhadbala. Barhadratha
dynasty ended in 639 B.C., when the 24th king Suddhodana ruled
over Koégala country at Kapilvastu. This king Suddhddana had an
exceptionally long reigning period. He was the contemporary to the
last Barhadratha king Repufjaya ended in 639 B.C.; Kshemadharma,
the grand-father (639-603 B.C.) and Kshatrojaé (603-579 B.C.) the
father of Bimbasara. After Suddhddana, the grand-son –‰i–³i ruled
for 584-546 B.C. MahakoSala, the king of Sravasti, was thus the
junior contemporary to Suddhddana and senior contemporary to
Bimbasara and R&ahula, because, according to Buddhist sources,
Mahakoégala married his daughter Kosaladevi to Bimbasara and gave
Kashi district as dowry.?* Prastnajit was the senior contemporary
to Ajatshatru, because according to Buddhist sources, Pyasénajit also
married his daughter Vajra or Vajira, to Ajatshatru.27. The 27th
Aiksvaku king Viruddhaka or Vidttdabha (Ksudraka of Puranas) was
the son of Pras€najit (and his queen Mallika, who belonged to Sakya-
kula as a maid-servant, according to Tibetan tradition). When he
became adult then he made conspiracy with the help of ministers and
subjugated his father Pras€najit from the Aikévaku throne. Prasénajit
ran away towards Magadha to seek the help of Ajatshatru but died
in the way.” Ksudraka or Viruddhaka also attacked over Sakya
country Kapilavastu two years before the Buddha’s death 77,000
Sakyas were 11116 70 the battle probably under the leadership of
Rahula and consequently Sakya republic was now absorbed in –À 04818
88 . Chronology of North Indian Kings

kingdom.” Soon after this victory, according to Ratnavali, Vatsa

king Udayana attacked over the Kosala kingdom of Sravasti and
killed probably the Viruddhaka or Kshudraka. After Kshudraka,
three insignificant kings—Kulaka, Suratha and Sumitra ruled over
Aiksvaku kingdom. It is not certain to give a precise date for the
defeat of Aiksvakus by the Magadha but it can be assumed that it
should be happened during 484-467 B.C., when the army of Sisunaga
were trying to reach to the Magadha kingdom. We have finally
informed from a reference in the Kathdsaritasagara to Nanda’s camp
in Ayodhya that Kosala formed a part of Magadha.

TABLE XV

S. No. AikSyakukings-list ContemporaryMagadha list

24. Suddhodana Repufijaya

Kshemadharma
Kshatroja
Zo Rahula BimbaSsara
26. Kshudraka Ajatshatru
Zl. Kulaka Darshaka
28. Suratha Udayi
29. Sumitra Sigunaga
Sigsunaga 61501828
“€ ee ee

REFERENCES
1. All the Jain sources unanimously give 60 years for Palaka rule over Ujjaini
after the death of Mahabira and Chanda Pradyéta.
NO A large number of scholars hold that Prady6tas. in reality, never ruled in
Magadha. Few of them mentioned here e.g. Ray Chaudhari, Pol. Hist.
of Ant. India (VII ed.), 1970, pp. 102 and 131; Rangacharya, Pre-
Musalaman India, Vol. IJ, pp. 219, 343-345; D.R. Bhandarkar, The
Carmichel Lectures, 1918, pp. 64-68; Sita Nath Pradhan, Ant. India,
pp. 232-237; Cambridge History of India, Vol. I, pp. 310-311; Dr.
Bhandarkar, ‘‘Notes on the Ancient History of India’, Indian Culture,
-Dynastic Lists of North Indian Kings 89

Vol. I, pp. 15-16; Aiyar, 176 Ancient History of Magadha’’, Indian

Antiquary, Vol. XLIV, p. 43; Vol. XLV, p. 8; P.L. Bhargava, India in
Vedic Age, 2nd ed., pp. 203-204; Indian Antiquary, 1914, p. 219;
K.P. Jayaswal, JB & ORS, Vol. I, 1915, pp. 64, 68 and 111, all maintain
that the Pradyota dynasty was only in Avanti, never in Magadha.
Oldenberg, H., Dipavamsa, 3/58.
Ibid., 3/56.
Ibid., 3/53.
Ibid., 3/59.
Vincent Smith, Early History of India, Appendix on Chronology, referring
to his controversy with Prof. Geiger, observes :
“T have read carefully Professor Geiger’s introduction to his translation of
the Mahavamsa (1912), but find no reason to alter my opinion on the
matter in the controversy between us. The case of king Darshaka (ante
p. 39) illustrates the inferiority of the Mahdavamsa list of early Indian
kings is compared with the Puranic list. Traditions preserved in Magadha
should be more trustworthy than those recorded at a latter date by monks
in distant Ceylon.’ On •òà39 fn. | combating (trans. 1912, pp. XLIV;
XLV) Geiger, V. Smith states : “the daughter of Mahdsena was the queen
of king Udayana whose realm of Vatsa probably was identical with
Kaushambi. Padmavati was the sister of Darshaka and Prady6ta, king of
Avanti, presumably, a son of Mahasena, is represented as seeking for her
hand (Jacobi, transl. of Vasvadatta in Intern. Monatschr. for Wissenschat.
March 1913). The discovery goes a long way to support the authority of
Puranas. According to Dr. R.S. Tripathi, Hist. of Ant. India, p. 90:
Pradyota was known as Mahasena on account of his large army.
Pandey, Rajabali, Prachina Bharata, pp. 133; Mahajana, V.D., Ancient
Indias). 217,

. Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. I], part I, Kharosthi Inscriptions,

ed. Sten Konow, Calcutta, p. XXVIII; Biihler, G., Indian Antiquary,
Vol. II, •òà362.
10. Jacobi, H., The Kalpasitra of Bhadravahu, Abhandlungen fur die Kunde
des Morgenlands, VII. Band, No. !, Leipzig, 1879; pp. 8 & 9.
19 Carpentier, J., “The Date of Mahavira’, Indian Antiquary, Vol. X, LXIII,
191. 122:
Eggermont, P.H.L., The Puraéna Source of Merutunga’s list of Kings
pp. 69-71, Oriental Monograph Series, Vol. 1–²ÀLeiden, 1968.
90 Chronology of North Indian Kings

, With the exception of Shantilal Shah, ‘The Traditional Chronology of the

Jainas’, Bonner Orientalistische Studien, Heft 9, Stuttgart 1935, p. 32:
‘Thus the 60 years assigned to the rulers of Avanti (Palaka) in the Jain
tradition are not a fiction nor an interpolation.

. Parisisthaparvan, VI, 21 sqq.

Parisisthaparvan, VI, 243.

. Jacobi, H., The Kalpasutra of Bhadravabu, verse 147.

Jayaswal, K.P., JB & ORS, Vol. I, 1915, p. 99; Dr. Hoernle, Indian
Antiquary, XI, 246.

. Gupta, P.L., Gupta Samrdajya, pp. 116-17.

. Jain, H.L., Bhartiya Samskriti me Jain Dharma ka Yogadana, pp. 96,
128-130.

Jain, H.L., Bhartiya Samskriti me Jain Dharma ka Yogadana, p. 29.

. Radhakrishanan, S., 2500 Years of Buddhism, Forward, p. V, gives this

date by citing the reference of Bodha-Gaya inscription. Ceylon-Burma-
Siam tradition also gives 544/543 B.C. date for Buddha’s Mahaparinirvana.
. Oldenberg, H., Dipavamsa, 4/47.

. Bapat, P.V. (Gen. ed ), 2500 Years of Buddhism, p. 44.

. Tripathi, R.S., Hist. of Anc. India, p. 108, fn. 2; Vincent Smith, Early
History of India, p. 39, fn. 1.

. Nirnaya Sagar Press ed., p. 33; also see : Penzerand Tawney, The Ocean
of Story, Vol. I, pp. 122-128 for an English translation of the Story; Fora
Hindi translation, see: Ram Krisna Verma’s trans. p. 83 ff; see also
Mrichchhakatika, X, 47; Compare Ch. IV, pp. 175-78; Ch. X, Vs. 51, 46;
I, 504-05; Kathdsaritasdgar, CXII, 13; Binode, ‘“‘PradyOtas the kings of
Magadha and Ujjain” in Antique Review, Vol. V, p. 68. Udenavatthu
informs us how once, after being captured...perhaps in war...by Pajjota
(Prady6ta) of Avanti, Udena eloped by a clever ruse with his rivals
daughter, Vasuladatta or Vasvadatta and married her in his capital...
Tripathi, R.S., Hist. of Ant. India, p. 89.
26. Buddhikee Sukar Jataka no. 283 and also see Tripathi, Hist. of Ant, India,
0. 93:

ah Jataka no. 283 and 492; also see: Tripathi, Hist. of Ant, India, p. 95,
Dynastic Lists of North Indian Kings 91

28. Tripathi, R.S., Hist. of Ant. India, p. 92 : Indeed Pasendi lost his throne
on account of the revolt of his son Vidudabha (Viruddhaka) instigated by
the minister Digha-Charayana. Pasendi invoked Ajatshatru’s aid, but
before entering RAjagriha, the [–ùf–À king died of fatigue and anxiety at
its gate, Ajatshatru greeted him by a state funeral and wisely left Viduda-
bha undisturbed.
29. Bapat, P.V. (Gen. ed.), 2500 Years of Buddhism, p. 28.
 7

Chronology of Nanda Dynasty

VII. 1. MAHAPADMA NANDA : THE DESTROYER OF ALL THE

KSHATRIAS ?

’é9“é(’‰M’i?“‰A’I6”Ù“é=’©?
“iB’iM“>’ù>•
‘Y2“ù“é“i•0
–@
•™$”Ù*’IM“‰/’IG
’é9“é*’iM’é
“‰0”Ù5‘YM“y$”Ù0’I”°
’‰C’©
–@
’I$•0 ’©M“-”9$“ð
“>‘É>’‰K
’Ù5“ù7”Ù/“é
“iB’iM“/”¹(’ù
|
•ù“>‘ùM“€ ’é9“é*’iM’é
•ù‘©M‘¹$”Ù0”°
’Ù5“ù7”Ù/’I?
–P

(Vayu Pur., Ch. XCIX, 326-27; Matsya Pur., Ch. 270, 18-19;
Brahmanda Pur.; Upodghatapada, Ch. LXXIV, 139-40;
Dynasties of Kali Age, p. 25)

It will be clear from the above mentioned and other numerous

versions given in various important Puranas, which are practically
identical with one another, that the founder of this dynasty was
Mahapadma, that he was the son of Mahanandin (1.6. of the Sagu-
nagas), that he was born from a Sudra-mother (a wife of Kalashoka),
that he was most avaricious and powerful, that he extirpated the
Kshatriya rulers of his time like a second Paragurama, the destroyer
of all the Kshatriyas in the olden time of Treta yuga, that he subjuga-
Chronology
ofNandaDynasty 93
’é9“é(’‰M’i?’‰8”Ù$’I
“i&”Ù0‘y0”Ù-”¹&”ÒÀ
’Ù5”¹=’I?“)A’‰M’yK“Ù$”Ù?’É2”°
’é9“é*’iM’éK
’‰(”Ù&’‰>’é>
’©0“iA“>’à
•y5“é=’©0”¹=‘i?“
‘YM“y$”Ù0“é’I“é0”
’Ù5“ù7”Ù/’I?
(Vishnu Purana, IV, XXIV, 20)
“‰R•ù‘©M‘¹$”Ù0“é
’©C’YM“Y@
’é(”2”Ù2•)'“ù$
“i>“‰(•0
–@
“i>“‰?“yM’ù$“ð
’é9“é*’iM’éK
’iM“Y?’I@’ð
•y5 ’Ù>“M‘y5•0
i
(Bhagwata Purana, Sk. XII, Ch. II, 10)

ted the different lines of kings of the Solar and Lunar dynasty who
began to rule in the various parts of northern India from the time of
Mahabharata war. This view is also corroborated by the Jain source
Parisistha Parvan 7/81.

The above mentioned Puranic contention concerning the person-

age of Mahapadma Nanda actually corroborated with the kings-list
of post Mahabharata war period which is logically analysed in Ch. V
and VI of my present work. This list of contemporary dynasties means
therefore all the old Kshatriya dynasties, which reigned from the time
of the great-battle till they and the Sasunagas (i.e., Mahanandin) in
Magadha were swept away by the Nandas. As regards the total
destruction of Kshatriya kings listed in early contemporary dynasties—
DKA, p.69 at a time by Mahapadma’s own effort, as Pargiter
assumed, does not proved true on the closer look of the history of
ancient India from Bimbasara to Mahapadma Nanda. Anga and
Kasi were in the control of Magadha from the period of Bimbasara,}
Vaishali Republic and Malla kingdom from Ajatshatru,? Vatsa.
(Kurus of Kaushambi) and Avanti were probably taken by Sisunaga.
But it is confirmed that under the sway of Mahapadma Nanda, beside
the kingdoms already mentioned, Aiksvakus (Ayodhya),* Haihayas
(Mahismati),” Kalingas,® Sarasena (Mathura),? and Asmakas® etc.
are also already came. And with these regions, Mahapadma Nanda
may really be considered as the single sovereign power of the whole
India.
The names of nine Nandas in Mahabodhivamsha® and in
Bhavisya Purana!’ as follows :
94 Chronologyof North Indian Kings
TABLE XVI

` S.No. Mahabodhivamsha BhavisyaPurana

3 Ugrasena Nanda Suta

2. Panduka Pra-Nanda
Ss Pandugati Para-Nanda
4. 81180818 Sama-Nanda
ah Rastrapala Priya-Nanda
6. Govishanaka Deva-Nanda
–rùo Dasaisddhaka Yajiia Bhanga
8. Kaivarta Maurya-Nanda
2 Dhana Maha-Nanda
The Puranas refer to 9 Nandas who ruled for 100 years. Tara-
nath, the Tibetan monk, mentions 29 years; Buddhist Ceylonese
chronicle unanimously assigned 22 years only for 9 Nandas whereas
all the Jain Pattavalis and literatures give 155 years for the same.
Nanda dynasty chronology often puts a zigsaw puzzle before the
modern scholars. Here we try to analyse the available data in order
to achieve better results.
VII. 2 PURANIC CHRONOLOGY
Various Puranas mention the chronology of nine Nandas as
follows :12
’é9“é*’iM’é8”Ù$’IM’©A’IM“>“iM‘
•ù• “Y7•
“i$• •Y5’‰@’©$’ùK
’Ù5“ù7”Ù/’‰M’I?
i
(Vishnu, IV, XXIV, 25)
’ð•y.“é ’ÙK‘YM“yM’ù(”Ù$“ð
’é9” “>‘É>’‰“‰M’à
“i$• AAT:|
’‰5’‰(”Ù&“é(”ÒÀ
’iM“Y?‘É
‘Y“?‘©$”Ù*”Ù0’©(”Ù(“à
’‰A’i'“?“yM’ù$“ð
–P
(Bhagwata, Sk. XII, Ch. 11, 11)
•ù“>‘ùM“€ Hea: •ù‘©M‘¹$”Ù0”°
’Ù5“ù7”Ù/’I?
–@
•Y7”Ù“é6”$“ð
“€ “Y0”Ù7“é#“ð
’©A’Y?“YM’ù>•
’IA’Ù5“ù7”Ù/’I?
–@20
“‰5‘YM“y$”Ù0•
’é%”¹=’IM“‰>’iM’ð
’Ù>“Y?’‰>“M’yG’€
‘©K’i?’I
|
“‰A’é>“)M’ð
“‰A’I>“™M’ù7”Ù”À
“‰.“é&”Ù0“é&“iM
’IG ’‰C’©>•0
–P21
‘YK““ù2”Ù/•y’‰M’i0‘yA’©M’I
“‰R’I$”°wee “Ù-“ù7”y”ÙM’ù$“ð
|
’ÙA‘YM’I5“à
’é9”“Y7•
“i$•’I$”°alata ‘y.“ù7”Ù/’I?
1123
(1141814, 270, 20-23)
Chronologyof Nanda Dynasty 95

•Y7”Ù“é6”$“ù$”
“Y0”Ù7“é#“ð
’©C’Y?“Y@•
’©>“)/“ù=’ù$“ð
–@
aaa “‰.”&”Ù0’yA’IM’ð
’Ù>“Y?’‰K“ÙM’Y8’ð
“YG’É2“é$”ÒÀ
:–@141
’I$”Ù*“iM‘©>’IM
’I$”Ù8”$“é9’ù7”Ù”°
“‰.“à’i>’i6 ’IG’‰C’©>•0
|
’é9“é*’iM’à
’©/“ð ’Ù5“ù7”Ù/’‰M’I?
’‰C’©>•0‘YM“.“é$”ÒÀ
–Ie142

•™&”Ù'“?“yM’ù$“ð
’I>’€“‰0”Ù5“é(”ÒÀ
‘YL‘ù?“)M’ùK
“Y’i?‘É0”Ù7’Ù
|
’ÙA‘YM’I5“à
’é9”“Y7•“i$• ’‰0”y(”Ù&”Ù0•0
“€’Ù5“ù7”Ù/’I?
–P143
(Brahmanda, Upodghatapada, Ch. LXXIV, 141-43)

•Y7”Ù“é6”$“ù$”
(•Y7”Ù“é5“ù6“é$“ò•
“Y0”Ù7“é#“ð
’©C’Y?“Y@•
’©>“)/“ù7”Ù/’I?
–@
“‰0”Ù5•”Ù7’IM“R
’é%”¹&”Ù'’IM’ð
’Ù>“Y?’‰K’ÙM’Y“‰M’ð
“Y ’É2“é$”ÒÀ
–Id328
“‰9’IM’ð
’I$”Ù8”$“à“™M’ù7”Ù“à“‰.“é&”Ù5“é&“`
’IG’‰C’©>
–@
’é9“é*’iM’é8”Ù/
’©0”Ù/“é/ ’Ù5“ù7”Ù/’‰M’I?
’‰C’©>•0‘YM“.“é$
11329
•™&”Ù'“?“yM’ù$“ð
’I>’‰M
“‰0”Ù5“é(”ÒÀ
‘YL‘ù?“)M’ùK
a4 ’iM“Y?‘É0”Ù7’Ù
|
’ÙA‘YM’I5“à
’é9” “Y7•“i$• avez: “€ ’Ù5“ù7”Ù/’I?
11330

(Vayu, XCIX, 328-330)

It is clear from these chronological passages, taken from various

important Puranas, that Mahapadmananda ruled the Magadha
kingdom under the one umbrella for a period of 88 years. Some
manuscripts of Vayu Purana, though mentions 28 years only and
modern scholars often prefer this figure in order to reduce the Puranic
chronological blunders. But because these manuscripts, in particular,
too gives the total 100 years for Nandas, therefore, 28 years figure for
Mahapadmananda, conclusively, seems to be the copiest’s mistake.
After 88 years rule of Mahapadmananda, according to Puranas, his
8 sons jointly ruled the kingdom for a short period of 12 years.
Therefore, these nine Nandas, including the father and his eight sons
ruled Magadha fora period of (88+-12—) 100 years. In sec. VI.1.7,
we have concluded that Kakavarna or Kalashoka ended in 424 B.C.
According to Greek historians, Kalashoka was murdered by the
Ugraséna, the Mahapadmananda. Therefore, we can give the Puranic
period (424-324 B.C.=) 100 years for the Nanda-dynasty rule over
Magadha kingdom.
95 Chronology
of NorthIndianKings
Here we can verify our analysis of Puranic chronology with the
help of Puranic statements concerning the interval between the birth
of Parikshit [ and the coronation of Mahapadmananda which is
given as 1015 or 1050 years in the following Puranic versions :4
’ù>“Y$”ÒÀ
’©0””Ù7“ù$”°
‘É(”Ù.’ù>“Y(”Ù(’i>’Ù?“yG‘©(’éM
–@
•ù$’iM
“Y7•“‰9“‰M“(”Ù$”
‘ÉG’ù
’©”Ù’i6”¹$”Ù$“.”ÒÀ
–PVayu 94.15
’ù>“Y$”ÒÀ
’©0””Ù7“ù$”°
‘É(”Ù.
’ù>“Y(”Ù(’‰M’i>’Ù?“yG‘©(’éM
|
•ù$’iM
“Y7•“‰9“‰M’I(”Ù$”
‘ÉM‘éG’ù
’©”Ù’i6”¹$”Ù$“.”ÒÀ
–P–W³CC@

’é9“é*’iM’é>’Ù?“yG‘Y>’IM’IA
’ù>“Y”Ù’‰M’à
’©0””Ù7“ù$•0
–@
Maisya 273.35
‘P “Y7•“‰9“‰M“(”Ù$”
‘ÉM‘éG’ù
’©”Ù“é6’iA’IM’I0’éM
–P (Variant)
’é9“é&”y5“é-“ù7‘Y>’IM’IA
’ù>“Y”Ù’‰M
’©0””Ù7“ù$;
’à –@
•ù “Y7 “‰9“‰M’I0’‰M’IA
‘ÉM‘éG’ù
’©”Ù“é6’iC’IM’I0’éM
| Vayu 99.40 (Variant)

’é9“é(’‰M’i>’Ù?“yG‘Y>’‰M’à
‘É(”Ù.
’ù>“Y$”ÒÀ
’©0””Ù7“ù$•0
| Brahmanda
•ù$’iM
ay Feta ‘ÉM‘éG’ù
’©”Ù“é6”Ù’iA’IM’I0’éM
–P 1.3.74.227
•i0’ÙM’ð
’Ù5’IK‘É(”Ù.
’ù>“Y(”Ù(’‰M’i>’Ù?“yG‘©(’éM
|
•ù$’iM“Y7•“‰9“‰M“Y0’‰M’IA
“i$• ’©”Ù’i”¹$”Ù$“.”ÒÀ
–PBhagwata, 12.2.21

’ù>“Y$”ÒÀ
’©0””Ù7“ù$”°
‘É(”Ù.
’ù>“Y(”Ù(’i>’Ù?“yG‘©(’éM
|
•ù$’iM
“Y7•“‰9“‰M’IM“(”Ù$”
‘ÉM‘éG’ù
’©”Ù’i6”¹$”Ù$“.”ÒÀ
–PVishnu IV, 24,24

’©”Ù“é6’iA’IM’I0’éM
–PVishnu 1V, 24,104
’©”Ù“i$”¹$”Ù$“.”ÒÀ
–PVishnu TV, 24,104

In our analysis under the 18 days (revised) war theory, Maha-

bharata war and the birth of Parikshit took place in 1339/1338 B.C.
Barhadrathas ruled for 700 years--Pradyotas and Sasunagas (Maha-
nandin) ruled for 215/214 years-+-Nandas ruled for 100 years=1015
years period between the birth of Parikshit-II and the end of Nanda
dynasty. This 1015 years period exactly tallies with one of the figures,
i.e., 1015 years, of Puranic versions given as the interval between the
birth of Parikshit-II and the coronation of Mahapadmananda. Why
the Puranic statements selected the figure ‘1015 years interval from
Parikshit’s birth up to the coronation of Mahapadmananda’ which
Chronologyof NandaDynasty 97

was the actual interval up to the end-epoch of Nanda dynasty ? It

was really a very difficult problem if we have not possessed luckily
the Magadha kings-list given in Bhavisya Purana which runs as
follows :
“Y2’é-’iM“8”Ù$’i>
’IA“yM‘ùK
’ù”Ù’Ù>“YG’€
’Ù>“Y?’I
–@
“i?‘éA’‰>‘y
‘YM“$”¹”Ù“é$”°
“Y2’é-’iM“>•)6“‰
’Ù51126
“$ “Y7•‘YC’I
“>‘ÉM’ð
‘Y>‘YM“Y#•
“‰A’IK“Ù-“Y$”ÒÀ
|
’I&”Ù0“é0“é”Ù/•
’‰5’I?“Y7•
‘YM“yG’é'“M’é>
’I$”¹=’Ù5’IM
–P 27
’i6“™@’‰
‘YC’I
“>‘ÉM’ù
’I$”Ù”Ù7’IM“L‘É>“‰M’IM“‰A’IK“Ù-“Y$”ÒÀ
|
’i6“™@’‰
‘YC’I“>‘ÉM’ù
“YG’i.“ù6”Ù5“‰M’I$”¹=’Ù5’IM
i) 28
’i6“™@’‰
‘YC’I“>‘ÉM’ù
’I/”¹=‘É>’I@
“*”8”Ù8”$•0
|
’i6“™@’‰
‘YC’I
“>‘ÉM’ù’i-‘YM“8”Ù$’‰/”¹=’Ù5’IM
–Ie29
’i9’‰ ‘YC’I“>‘ÉM’ù
’‰(”Ù&“Y'•)(
•ù5•’I$”ÒÀ
|
’i6“™@’‰
‘YC’I
“>‘ÉM’ù
’‰(”Ù&“Y'•)(
•ù5 ’I$”ÒÀ
–P 30
’i6“™@’‰
‘Y$• “>‘ÉM’ù
’I8”Ù.“é(”Ù(’i8”$”¹=’Ù5’IM
|
’©?’IA“‰M’IA“)M’ù
‘Y$• “>‘ÉM’ù “iA’iM“@‘y.•)8’éA’iM
31 ’Ù5•0
’‰(”Ù&“é”Ù“é$•0
’©M“(’‰M’i6”Ù
’i6 “Y7•‘YC’I’©&’éM
|
’I8”Ù.“é”Ù“é$•0
’©0“é(’‰M’i
’©?’IC“‰M’IA“)M’ù
‘YC’I
’©&’éM
–P 32
’I8”Ù.“é”Ù“é$•0
“‰.“é(’‰M’iK
“Y?“iK“i>’iM“7•
‘YC’I
’©&’éM
|
’I8”Ù.“é”Ù“é$•0
’©M“?’ù>’‰(”Ù&•0
’©?’IC“‰M’IA“)M’ù
‘YC’I
’©&’éM
–P 33
’iG“Y>’‰(”Ù&“‰M’I8”Ù$
“‰B’I
’©?’IA“‰M’IA“)M’ù
‘Y$•’©&’éM
–@
’ù”ّْ™M‘y
“‰A’I8”Ù$“‰M’é>’I?’©$”0’iM’y
‘Y$• ’©&’éM
–P 34
’éL“M’ù>’‰(”Ù&“‰M’I8”Ù/
“‰A’I
’©?’IC“‰M’IA“)M’ù
‘YC’I
’©&’éM
–@
’é9“é(’‰M’i8”Ù$’IL
‘É>’I’©?’IC“‰M’IA“)M’ù
‘YC’I
’©&’éM
–@35
(Bhavisya, Pratisarga Parva, 6/26-35)

At first sight, Bhavisya Purana list shows a very poor chronolo-

gical performance for the Sasunaga dynasty as follows:
98 Chrenologyof NorthIndianKings

TABLE XVII
(1) Sisunaga 100 years (6) Ajatiripu 50 years
(2) Kakavarna 90 – (7) Darbhaka 40 ,,
(3) Kshemadharma 80 i (8) Udayasva a0;
(4) Kghattroja 70 re (9) Nandavardhana –c
(5) Vedamisra 60 Yes (10) Nanda Suta 20

But, if we put the first two kings—Sisunaga and Kakavarna

of the list at their actual historical place i.e. just after the end of
Udayasva and Nandavardhana then Bhavisya Purana list can give
much chronological help for the chronology of Sasunagas and Nandas
after the king Udayasva as follows :

TABLE XVIII

(1) Kshemadharma 100 years (6) Udayasva 50 years

(2) Kshattroja 90 “p (7) Nandavardhana 0
(3) Vedamisra "0 (8) 5601228 30. ~
(4) Ajatiripu 70 ‘P (9) Kakavarna 9
(5) Darbhaka 60 6 (10) Nanda Suta 20

10 this modified list, too, we find still no help from Bhavisya

Purana up to the reign of Nandavardhana and thus we discard the
kings-list up to the Nandavardhana for practical purposes. We can
thus deal with the modified chronological list of Bhavisya Purana
only from the king Sisunaga and onward especially for the chronology
of Nandas with which we are particularly related in this section.
Concerning the reigning period of Sisunaga plus Kakavarna over
Magadha, we have given (23+20=:) 43 years in sec. VI.1.7. On
taking Matsya Purana’s 26 years for Kakavarna, we can raise the total
period for Sisunaga plus Kakavarna over Magadha up to (23-+26—) 49
years. Whereas modified Bhavisya list gives (30+-20=) 50 years for
the same.

After Kakavarna, Bhavisya list now mentions the king-name

‘Nanda-Suta’ for 20 years. In sec. VI.1.7, we have identified the
term ‘Mahanandin’ as the generic name for the Sisunaga plus
Chronologyof Nanda Dynasty 99

Kakavarna, therefore, ‘Mahanandi-Suta’ or ‘Nandi-Suta’ or ‘Nanda-

Suta’ might be equated with the 10 sons of Kalashoka (of Mahanandin
dynasty) of Buddhist sources who ruled jointly for 22 years. Accor-
ding to Mahabodhivamsa,’ the Bhadrasena was the eldest among
them. Due to the bad nature, this Bhadrasena, the guardian ruler
above his brothers (or more probably step-brothers) treacherously
killed them and become the sovereign ruler!® and also the founder of
a new dynasty, the Nanda dynasty. Now he became defamed as
Ugraséna!’ instead of Bhadrasena due to his sinful activities and also
due to his Sudra-mother origin. Therefore, the Nanda-Suta of Bhavisya
Purana list can be equated not only with the sons of Kalashoka of
Buddhist sources but also with the Ugrasena the first Nanda king, of
Buddhist sources (Mahabodhivamsa) because all the three different
names of a single person had almost the equal reigning period, i.e.,
20-22 years. Modern scholars often equated this Ugrasena, the first
Nanda king of Buddhist sources with the Mahapadmananda, the most
famous Nanda king of Puranas. For the purpose of the validity of
this equation, we have now to analyse the Nanda dynasty list of
Bhavisya Purana which runs as follows :

TABLE XIX

(10) Nanda Suta 20 years (15) Deva-Nanda 15 years

(11) Pra-Nanda 10 (16) Yajiia Bhanga £;
(12) Para-Nanda 101 (17) Maurya-Nanda Th,
(13) Sama-Nanda Loa (18) Maha-Nanda 7k,
(14) Priya-Nanda 15 ,, ` -----------------
TOTAL 1073 years

According to this list, Puranic Mahapadmananda can more

easily be equated with the last Nanda king, the Mahananda rather
than with any other Nanda king. It is also confirmed by the
Brahmanda Purana, II.3.74.227 version which deals with the interval
between the birth of Parikshit-I] and the coronation of Mahapad-
mananda where the name Mahananda is clearly mentioned.
100 Chronology
of NorthIndianKings
Concerning the Nanda dynasty chronology, Bhavisya Purana
list is again proved to be a poor assistant because it utilised a
mysterious figure ‘Vimshdshadavarsa’ as the reigning period of fourth
Nanda king, the Sama-Nanda. The word ‘Vimshoshadavarsa’
really plays a crucial role in the chronology of Nanda dynasty because
the reigning periods of all the subsequent Nanda kings would be
affected by the interpretation of this word. On the basis of external
chronological evidences, 15+3 years may be given as the genuine
interpretation of the word ‘Vimshodshadavarsa’. 15 years interpretation,
for the word, gives a total of 1074 years for the total reigning period
of Nine Nandas.
Now, we come to the point concerning the interval of 1015 or
1050 years between the birth of Parikshit-II and the coronation of
Mahapadmananda. In our analysis, under the 18 days (revised) war
theory, Mahabharata war and the birth of Parikshita-IJ_ took
place in 1339/1338 B.C. Barhadrathas ruled for 700 years Pradyotas
plus Sasunagas ruled for 215/214 years. It gives a total of 915/914
years up to the end of Kakavarna in 424 B.C. Now take 15 years
interpretation theory for the word ‘Vimshdshadavarsa’, which gives
100 years total of Nanda dynasty rule up to the ccronation of last
Nanda king of Bhavisya Purana, the Mahananda in (424 B.C.+ 100
years=) 324 B.C. In this way, we can achieve an exact synchronism
with the (1339 B.C.-324 B.C. - ) 1015 years Puranic interval between
the birth of Parikshit-II and the coronation of Mahapadmananda.
This Maha-Nanda or Mahapadmananda, the last Nanda king ruled
for (324 B.C.-317 B.C.=) 74 years. Thus in 18 days (revised) war
theory, based on the ‘era of Alexandria’, Chandragupta Maurya
should be coronated in 317 B.C. rather than the Original 324 B.C.
date.

A majority of Puranas give precisely 100 years, a round figure,

rather than the odd one i.e. 1074 years. It is perhaps due to the fact
that Bhavisya Puranas uses 50 years period instead of 43 years i.e.
(50-43=) 7 years excess for the Sisunaga plus Kakavarna which
should naturally be compensated in (1073-7 years=-1004 years) the
Chronotogy of Nanda Dynasty 101

Nanda dynasty rule 100 years total for Nandas can easily be obtained
by using ‘13 years interpretation for the word Vimshdshadavarsa’
which gives actually 984 years total. We can raise the figure 984 years
up to 1003 years by adding 2 years because Nanda Suta, the first
Nanda king might have ruled for 22 years instead of 20 years,
according to the Buddhist sources; if we equate Nanda Suta with the
10 sons of Kalashoka. Matsya Purana also gives (700-1-22] ==)921
years from the birth of Parikshit-II up to the end of Kakavarna (by
using 26 years instead of 20 years of Kakavarna reign) and ‘13 years
for Vimshodshadavarsa’ gives precisely [42-+(13x4)=] 94 years up to
the coronation of Mahananda which gives finally (921+94=) 1015
years (=1339 B.C.-324 B.C.). Maha-Nanda, thus ruled (324 B.C.-
317 B.C.=) 64 years.

Some scholars may use the date 1362 B.C. for the beginning of
Mahabharata war, 723 years ruled by the Barhadrathas+214/215 years
by Pradyotas plus Sasunagas i.e. 937/938 years from the Mahabharata
war up to end of Kakavarna in (1362 B.C.+938 years==) 424 B.C.
Now we take ‘18 years for Vimshéshadavarsa interpretation’, it gives
121 years total for the reign of nine Nanda and precisely 112 years of
Nanda dynasty rule at the time of the coronation of the last king
Maha Nanda. Thus inthis theory, from the beginning of Maha-
bharata war up to the coronation of Maha-Nanda, there elapsed (723-+-
215+112 years=) 1050 years. In the same ‘18 years for the
Vimshoshadavarséa theory’, we can give 1015 years interval from the
beginning of Mahabharata war up to the coronation of the 6th Nanda
king Deva-Nanda [723+214+(42+18x2)=] 1015 years if Vayu
99/409(Variant) version’s ‘Mahadeva’ is equated with 6th Nanda king
Deva-Nanda. Though this figure also tallies exactly with one of
the interval figures from Parikshit to Mahapadmananda of Puranas but
because it gives (1362 B.C.+4-1050 years=) 312 B.C. for the coronation
date of Maha-Nanda and his end 11 (312 B.C.+9 years=) 303 B.C.
Therefore 1050 years interval theory may not be applicable because,
in this case, coronation of Chandragupta Maurya becomes at least
9/10 years lower than the lowest estimate (c. 313 B.C.).™
102 Chronologyof North Indian Kings

In 18 years original war theory, Parikshit born at the night of 12th

divine day 1.6. in (1362-12=) 1350/1351 B.C. In this case, Barhadrathas
may be allowed to rule 712 years over Magadha up to (1351 B.C.+
712 years=) 639 B.C. Pradyotas plus Sasunagas ruled for 215 years
up to (639 B.C.+215 years=) 424 B.C. Thus Nandas up to the
coronation of Maha-Nanda can be allowed to rule only 88 years up to
(424 B.C.--88 years=) 336 B.C. To achieve 88 years, we should give
only 12 years for the term ‘Vimshdshadavarsa’. It gives only (336 B.C.-
330 B.C.=) 6 years for Maha-Nanda and a total of (88 --6 =) 94 years
for Nanda dynasty rule. Though the end of Nanda dynasty rule 1.6.
the beginning of Chandragupta Maurya in 330 B.C. fully accords with
one of the Jain tradition 1.€. Chandragupta Maurya coronated
(545 B.C.-330 B.C.=) 215 years after the death of Mahabira.® But
because 215 years interval might actually be existed between the
beginning of Dussama kala (c. 539 B.C.) and Chandragupta Maurya
(c. 324 B.C.), therefore, it would be more logical to expand the period
of Maha-Nanda from 6 years (Bhavisya Purana figure) up to the
12 years. It gives (88-+12=) 100 years (=424 B.C.-324 B.C.) rule for
Nanda dynasty as majority of Puranas intended but in some what
reversed form. Puranas intended that Mahapadmananda, the first
Nanda king alone ruled for 88 years and last 12 years by his 8 sons,
but in our theory, the predecessors of Maha-Nanda might have ruled
for 88 years whereas Maha-Nanda himself ruled only for 12 years.”°

Thus in my concluding opinion, 1015 years interval figure is

the most genuine than its rival figures viz. 1050 or 1500 years etc.
If we use Saka era beginning with 78 A.D. (i.e. reference era becomes
Dhruva Samvata of Hindus b. 8508 B.C. or Era of Constantinople
b. 5508 B.C.) then 1015 years interval covers the Christian calendar
period 1351/1350 B.C.-336/335 B.C, and Nanda dynasty finally ended
in 324 B.C. Whereas, on taking 101 A.D., the beginning of Salivahana
Saka era and ‘era of Alexandria’ as a reference then 1015 years
interval covers 1339 B.C.-324 B.C. period and Nanda dynasty finally
ended in 317 B.C,
Chi onology of Nanda Dynasty 103

By equating the Mahapadmananda of Puranas with the last king

Maha-Nanda of Bhavisya Purana list, it becomes also possible to give
an exact synchronism with the 3030 years cycle of Sapta Rishi era.
Vishnu and Bhagwata Puranas explicitly state :

’ù&“à
’é“é$”°’ù>“‰M’ù(”Ù$“ð
’©B“M“YM“Y>“y>’)>•
’é9“y/•0
–@
’I&“à’‰(”Ù&“é$”Ù*”Ù0’ÙB’IM’ùG“p
‘Y2“ù5
’iM’y?
‘y.“ù7”Ù/’I?
–P

(Bhagwata, Sk. XII, Ch. I, 32)

’IG’€“‰*”Ù$“yG’ùK
’ùA‘YM’I>“‰M’I?“yM’(”Ù$”Ù/“YM’i6’Bà
’‰C’9>’éM
|
’IG’IA
’©>“@‘YM“y?’IG
‘Y>“)G
’é“é8”Ù5“é8’iM’i?‘ÉK’IM’I.”ÒÀ
–P 106

’©M“/“é8”Ù/’‰M’I?
’I&“àwa ’©B“M“Y>“y>“™>•
’é9“y/•0
|
’I&“à’‰(”Ù&“é$”Ù*”Ù0’ÙC’IM’ùG“p
‘y$“ù5”9&”Ù'
‘y.“ù7”Ù/’I?
–@112

(Vishnu, 4, 24, 105, 112)

That Sapta Rishis were in the Magha Nakshatra at the time of

Parikshit’s birth whereas they entered in the Poorvashadha Nakshatra
in the reign of the successor of the Mahapadmananda. We know
that Mahapadmananda, the last Nanda king was defeated by the
Chandragupta Maurya in either 324 B.C. or 317 B.C. Therefore the
Chandragupta Maurya becomes the real successor of the Nandas. We
have already equated the 76th Saptarishi year in Magha Nakshatra
with the 1362 B.C. i.e. the beginning year of the Mahabharata war,
according to the 3030 years cycle theory and thus Saptarishis finally
left the Maghaé Nakshatra in (1362 B.C.+36 years=) 1326 B.C,
Saptarishis take 112 years 2 months and 20 days in each Nakshatra?!
1.6. 1010 years for nine Nakshatras, the actual distance between the
end of Magha and the beginning of Poorvashadha. Thus Saptarishis
actually entered in Poorvashadha Nakshatra, precisely in (1326 B.C.+
1010 years=) 316 B.C. the date definitely fell within the reigning
period of Chandragupta Maurya. This synchronism finally validates
the analysis of Puranic chronology from the birth of Parikshit up to
the coronation of Chandragupta Maurya.
104 Chronology of North Indian Kings

VII.3. BUDDHIST CHRONOLOGY

Buddhist Ceylonese chronicle assigns (426-404 B.C.—) 22 years

rule for the 10 sons of Kalashoka. Dr. R.S. Tripathi writes?? :
‘Greek Writer Curtius deposes that Alexander’s Magadhana
contemporary was the son of a barber who by his good look had won
the queen’s heart, and who subsequently assassinated the reigning
sovereign perhaps Kalashoka, represented in the Harsacharita to have
been done death with a dagger thrust into his throat in the vicinity
of his capital—Harsacharita, C.T. p. 193. .. . . At first he pretended to
be the guardian of the young princes (i.e. sons of Kalashoka), they
were ten in number, the most prominent being Nandibardhana and
are believed to have ruled jointly for 22 years, according to the
Ceylonese chronicle.’

Therefore Nanda dynasty ruled for (424-324 B.C.=) 100 years,

exactly in the configuration of (424-402 B.C.=) 22 years as the
guardian ruler over the Sisunaga dynasty (1.6. over the Kalashoka’s
sons equated with the Puranic Nanda Suta)+(402-324 B.C.=) 78
years as an independent sovereign ruler over Magadha. This arrange-
ment in order to include 10 sons of Kalashoka (i.e. Puranic Nanda-
Suta) for 22 years as Buddhist sources intended, in no way mark the
quality and reality of Puranic chronological statement concerning the
Nanda dynasty rule.
The (424-324 B.C.=) 100 years Puranic period for Nanda
dynasty rule over Magadha can further be confirmed by the Bhavya’s
information.” A certain Bhavya wrote a story of the comments on
the splitting-up into schools, Nika ya-Bhedavibhanga-vyakhyana,
which has been inserted in the Tibetan Tanjur. The document
contains three lists of Buddhist sects. The third illustrates the point
of view of Sammatiyas, and starts with the famous description of the
Mahasamghika schism in 137 {0811124 :

“Others say : In 137 after the Buddha’s parinirvana the kings

Nanda and Mahapadma convened the noble Samgha in the town of
Pataliputra, and after the members of meeting had acquired the
Chronology of Nanda Dynasty 105

unattached, cool condition, there entered noble Mahakasyapa, noble

Mahaloma, Mahatyaga, Uttara, Revati and other Arhants who had
acquired perfect knowledge. However, bad bhiksus who were the
opposite to all goodness, dressed themselves in the garments of
bhiksus, and teached the various miracles. From the five doctrinal
points a great schism arose among the bhiksus. The Sthaviras Naga,
Sthiramati and Bahusruta praised the five points and taught them.
They said ; To give in to others, ignorance, doubt, participation, and
to cure one’s own person, that is the ‘Buddha’s discipline’. Then they
split into two schools, the Sthavira and the Mahasamghika...”’
The date of the schism, 137 pBm represents a_ traditional
problem. Lamotte writes® :
“This new tradition differs from the preceding and the next
ones so far as it does not link the schism to anyone among the
three important Buddhist councils—Rajagriha, Vaishali and
Pataliputra—nor tosome glorious reign during the history of
Buddhism, such as the reign of Ajatshatru, or Kalashoka, or
Ashoka.”
Neither did André Bareau solve the problem of the date though
he came, according to Eggermont, quite close to its solution by
identifying Nanda with Ashoka, as the names represent, in fact
synonyms. A. Bareau writes” :
“The strange part of it is that Nanda is not the personal name
of king, as e.g. Mahapadma, but actually the name ofa
dynasty....So the name of Nanda is in the same way as its close
homonym, Nandin, a synonym of Ashoka.”

According to the Ceylonese chronicle, Buddha died in 544 B.C.,

therefore, 137 pBm fell in (544 8.6. 1 137 pBm=) 407 BC. Prof.
Dr. Eggermont suggests that 137 pBm coincided with the 17th year of
Ashoka’s reign?’ (in that year third Buddhist council of Pataliputra
seems to be occurred), but I have found that 137 pBm 1.6. 407 B.C.
actually coincided with the 17th year of first Nanda king, the Nanda
Suta’s (majority of later Puranas, except the Bhavisya, equated wrongly
106 Chrono\ogy of North Indian Kings

the first Nanda king with the Mahapadmananda) reign (424 B.C.+17
regnal years) 407 B.C. in exact coincidence with the Bhavya’s
information,
Pali chronicles viz. Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa omitted this
important Buddhist council of Pataliputra in the reign of king Nanda
Suta, in which the great schism between Sthavira and Mahasamghika
actually had taken place. In reality, this great schism was seeded
initially in Vaishali council held in 100 pBm (Ceylonese chronicle) or
110 pBm (Chinese and Tibetan sources).** Traditions differ as to
why the Vaishali council was called. All the accounts, however,
record unanimously that a schism did take place about acentury after
Buddha’s parinirvana because of the efforts made by some monks for
the relaxation of the stringent rules observed by orthodox monks.
The monks who deviated from the rules were Jater called Mahasam-
ghika while the orthodox monks were distinguished as Theravadins
(Sthaviravadins). The decision of the Vaishali council was in favour
of the orthodox monks. The Vajjians refused to obey the decision of
the majority and were expelled from the Samgha. According to
Dipavamsa (5.25) and Samant Pasadika, the Vaishali council (of 700
Bhiksus) was held in the reign of king Kalashoka, a descendent of
Ajatshatru and Sigunaga. Kalashoka, though formerly in favour of
the Vajjian monks was prevailed upon to give his support to the
council of Theras.
According to Dipavamsa 5.30-31,?° the wicked Bhikkhus, the
Vajjiputtakas who had been excommunicated by the Theras, gained
another party; and many people holding the wrong doctrine, ten
thousand, assembled and (also) held a council. Therefore, this
dhamma council is called the ‘great council’ (mahasamgiti). The
date and place of this mahasamghika council is still shrouded in the
mystery of ignorance, because Buddhist sources are almost silent
about its chronology. In my opinion, it would take a considerable
time interval of at least 20-30 years to gather ten thousand monks to
held another ‘great council’. Therefore, in all probability, it was the
137 pBm’s Pataliputra council during the reign of Nanda dynasty
recorded in Sammatiya texts.
Chronology of Nanda Dynasty 107

Probably, at the time of Pataliputra council, the Vinaya-

pamokkhataship might have been enjoyed by the Ach. Chandavajji
after the death of Thera Sonaka in 124 pBm, who by the name’s
pronunciation seems to be belonged to the Vajji country and might
have favoured the Vajjians. Pali Chronicles viz. Dipavamsa and
Mahavamsa, which belongs to the orthodox Theravadin school
evidently omitted this mahasamghika council of Fataliputra because
Ach. Chandavajji probably favoured the mahasamghikas, therefore,
these Pali Chronicles, when finally edited, omitted the name of Ach.
Chandavajji from their chronological scheme and merely mention his
name just as a parallel Acharya (approximately of equal rank) to the
Thera Siggava. The motivated omission of the name of Ach.
Chandavajji from the chronological scheme of the orthodox school
of Theravadins might be the principal cause to show a deficit of 53/58
years by the Pali chronicles with reference to the coronation of
Ashoka Maurya.
In fact, Ach. Chandavajji enjoyed the Vinaya-pamokkhataship
for 58 years between the Thera Sonaka and Thera Siggava, but in
later time, it becomes 55 years. Further more, Siggava’s Vinaya-
pamokkhataship was in reality to be the 52 years only between the
6th year of Kalashoka’s sons reign (Dipavamsa, 5.99) and 14th year
vf Chandagutta (Dipavamsa, 5.100). This period consists of 16
remaining years of Kalashoka’s sons+22 years of Nanda dynasty 14
years of Chandgutta=-52 years only. 55 years period for Thera
Siggava [is the sum of 52+3=55 years where 3 years excess borrowed
from the Ach. Chandavajji’s period (58-55=) 3 years loss] in fact
raised the total period of Vinaya-pamokkhataship from UpAli to
Moggaliputta Tissa by (55-52=) 3 years with reference to the
Magadha and Ceylon kings-list. Beginning point of the Vinaya-
pamokkhata list coincided with the 8th year of Magadha_ king
Ajatshatru’s reign (with the death of Buddha) and also with the zero
year of Ceylonese king Vajaya (Dipavamsa, 3.60; 11.8). Whereas,
Moggaliputta died 26 years after the Ashoka’s abhisheka and 8 years
after the death of Ceylonese king Mutasiva, 68 years after the enjoy-
ment of Vinaya-pamokkhataship, Between these two reference
108 Chronology of North Indian Kings

points, the arrangement of Buddhist Theras and kings of Magadha

and Ceylon are as follows :
TABLE XX
Buddhist Theras Magadha kings-list Ceylonese kings-list

Uplali 30 Ajatshatru 24 Vijaya 38

Dasaka 50 Udaya 16 Interregnum 1
Sonaka 44 Anuruddha &) Panduvasa 30
Munda ) 8
Siggava ae) Nagadasa 24 Abhaya 20
Moggaliputta 68 Sigunaga 18 interregnum 1)
11851012 28 Pandukabhya 70
Kalashoka’s sons –©o Mutasiva 60
Nandas 22 Devanampiya Tissa 8
Chandragupta 24
Bindusara 28
interregnum 4
Ashoka Maurya 26

247 244 244

This comparison shows clearly that the Vinaya-pamokkhataship

list was inflated by 3 years with reference to the Magadha and
Ceylonese kings-list. This was happened only due to the omission of
Ach. Chandavajji’s name from the chronological scheme and his
58 years of Vinaya-pamokkhataship period. Thus 58 years of Ach.
Chandavajji+52 years of Thera Siggava=:110 years of the original
period got reduced to the 55 years of Thera Siggava’s period only.
The 55/58 years of Ach. Chandavajji, when omitted from the
chronological scheme of Pali chronicles of orthodox school, would
certainly reflected back to the Magadha and Ceylonese kings-list also.
In Magadha kings-list, 80 years (404-324 B.C.) of Nanda dynasty rule
after Nanda Sutas, thus got reduced to the (80-58=) 22 years in the
Pali chronicles because Ach. Chandavajji’s Vinaya-pamokkhataship
period, totally, fell within the reign of Nanda dynasty of Magadha.
In Ceylonese kings-list, on the other hand, interregnum period of
70 years, between the kings Abhaya and Pandukabhya, got reduced
to 17 years only because in Pali ‘Sattati’ (70, Hindi : Sattara) can
Chronologyof NandaDynasty 109

easily be modified in Pali ‘Sattara’ (17, Hindi: Sattarah).°° It gives

a reduction figure of (70-17=) 53 years. When we add this reduction
figure to the Ceylonese kings-list, for compensation, it gives (244
53=) 297 years between the Zero year of king Vijaya and 8 years of
Devanampiya Tissa. Magadha kings-list, on the addition of missing
56 years period in the reign of Nandas plus 2 years up to the end of
Kalashoka’s reign gives (244+58=) 302 years whereas Vinaya-
pamokkhataship list also gives, on the addition of (58-3=) 55 years,
(247-- 55 =) 302 pBm epoch.

The rudiments for this compensation may also be shown in the

Pali chronicles.*4_ Dipavamsa 5.95 gives 74 years for Upali after
Upasampada whereas Dipavamsa 5.96 says: ‘learned Upali was the
whole time Chief of the Vinaya which intended the 74 years Vinaya-
pamokkhataship period for Upali, whereas Dipavamsa 5.94 states:
Tissa Moggaliputta made his pupil Mahinda Chief of the Vinaya and
attained Nibbana eighty-six years (after Upasampada) which in turn
gives (86-12=) 74 years period of the Vinaya-pamokkhataship of
Moggaliputta Tissa. If we insert these two statements in Dipavamsa
5.96, then we got:

TABLE XXi

Upali : 74 years
Dasaka : 50 years
Sonaka –À 44 years
91–ùo8 –¹i : <5 years
Moggaliputta –° 74 years

TOTAL 297 years

This 297 years total is coincided exactly with 297 years of

Ceylonese kings-list after adding 53 years missing in interregnum
period.

If 297 years of Vinaya-pamokkhataship is coincided with the

26 years of the Ashoka’s reign (Dipavamsa 5.102). Then it gives
 110 Chronologyof North Indian Kings

(297-26=) 271 pBm for the Ashoka’s coronation which in turn gives
[271 pBm-(28 years of Bindusara+24 years of Chandragupta=)] 219
pBm or 215 pBm (if we also add 4 years of interregnum between the
end of Bindusara and the coronation of Ashoka Maurya) for the
coronation of Chandragupta Maurya which is in all confirmity with
the Jain Pattavalis. On taking the original ancient Vinay a-pamok-
khataship list :

TABLE XXII

Upali = 30 years
Dasaka ~ 50 years
Sonaka : 44 years.
Chandavajji : 58 years
Siggava : 52 years
Moggaliputta : 68 years

we get 302 years up to the 26 years of Ashoka Maurya. It gives 276

pBm for Ashoka’s coronation whereas 220 pBm or 224 pBm for the
Chandragupta’s coronation.

After the successful placement of Chandavajji’s 58 years in the

Vinaya-pamokkhataship list and its compensation to the Magadha
and Ceylonese kings-list, it is now better to analyse the faulty Pali
chronicle viz. Dipavamsa for year to year synchronism after the
Buddha’s parinirvana up to the death of Moggaliputta Tissa 1.6. 26
years of Ashoka’s abhisheka in detail as follows :

We know from Buddhist source Dipavamsa 3.57/58 that Buddha

attained enlightenment at his age of 35 years and Upali obtained the
Upasampada Ordination | year after the enlightenment 1.6. 36 years
of Buddha’s age. Buddha preached his eternal truth for 37 years
during the Bimbasara’s reign (Dipavamsa 3.59) and 8 years during
Ajatshatru’s reign (Dipavamsa 3.60). Thus according to Dipavamsa
Chronologyof NandaDynasty 111

3.57-60, Buddha lived a total of (35-+-37+8=) 80 years of his age

and preached the eternal truth for (37+8=) 45 years and died (80-
36=) 44 years after the Upasampada of Upali in 544/543 B.C.

According to Dipavamsa 4.34, after the Sambuddha had

attained Parinibban, the great teacher Thera Upali taught then the
Vinaya full 30 years. Dipavamsa 4.38 states that Prince Udaya
reigned sixteen years; when Udayabhadda had completed 6 (years),
Thera Upali attained Nibbana. This 30 pBm period for Upali after
Buddha’s death consists of (544 B.C.-520 B.C.=) 24 years of Ajatsha-
tru (D.V. 3.61)+(520 B.C.-514B.C.=) 6 years of Udaya (D.V. 4.38).
On adding 30 pBm period for Upali’s Vinaya-pamokkhataship period,
to his 44 years period of Upasampada before the Buddha’s death, the
total period of Upali from his Upasampada to his death becomes
(44+ 30 =) 74 years (D.V. 5.95). Thus with all coincidence, Thera
Upali died in 30 pBm ie. 514 B.C.

According to Dipavamsa 4.27/28, sixteen years had elapsed

after the protector of the world had entered Nibbana, it was the
twenty-fourth year of Ajatshattu’s (reign), and the sixteen of the
Vijaya’s—28; learned Upali had just completed sixty years, (then)
Dasaka received the Upasampada ordination from Thera Upali in
16 pBm. After 14 years, in (16+14=) 30 pBm, of the Upasampada
ordination of the Dasaka, the great teacher (Upali) entered Nibbana,
after having appointed his pupil, the clever Thera Dasaka, (10 be
chief) of the Vinaya (D.V. 4.37). According to Dipavamsa 4.43,
Dasaka, in his turn, having made his pupil Thera Sonaka chief of the
Vinaya attained Nibbana in his sixty-fourth year (after Upasampada—
D.V. 5.95). Thus Thera Dasaka served as the chief of Vinaya for
(64-14=) 50 years (D.V. 5.96) 1.6. from 30 pBm to 80 pBm (514-464
B.C.). According to Dipavamsa 5.98, after 8 years of Sisunaga’s
reign, Dasaka attained parinibbana. According to Ceylonese
chronicle (sec. VI.1.3 of this work), Nagadasaka ended in 472 B.C,
therefore, Sisunaga’s 8 regnal year should must coincide with (472
B.C.+8 years=) 464 B.C. Thus Dasaka’s period consists of 10
remaining years of king Udaya+8 years of Anuruddhaka & Munda+
112 Chronology of North Indian Kings

24 years of Nagadasa +8 years of Sisunaga=50 years. Concerning

the Ceylonese kings-list, when eight years of Ajitshattu had elapsed,
Vijaya came hither (D.V. 11.8) for 38 years (D.V. 9.42); after the
fourteen years of Magadha king Udaya, Vijaya expired (D.V. 11.8).
Thus Vijaya’s 38 years exactly in coincidence with the Ajatshattu’s
24 years remaining period+ 14 years of Udaya. Fifteenth regnal year
of Udaya coincided with the one year interregnum between the king
Vijaya and king Panduvasa. Thus king Panduvasa crowned in
Ceylon in 39 pBm i.e. the beginning of 16th regnal year of Udaya
(D.V. 11.8) for 30 years (D.V. 10.5) up to the (39 pBm +30 years=) 69
pBm (ie. last one year of Udaya+8 years of Anuruddha &Munda+
21 years of Nagadasa). According to Dipavamsa 11.10, in the twenty-
first year of Nagadasa, Panduvasa died and they crowned Abhaya in
the twenty-first year of Nagadasa.

The error-figure of 3-years (due to the omission of Ach.

Chandavajji’s name from the Chronological scheme of Pali chronicles
and the Thera Siggava’s original 52 years period increased to 55
years) echoed back up to the Upasampada ordination event of Thera
Sonaka. According to Dipavamsa 4.41, (when) cleaver Dasaka had
completed 45 years and Nagadasa had reigned ten years, and king
Pandu(vasa) twenty, then Sonaka received the Upasampada ordina-
tion from Thera Dasaka. [22581585 45 years (after Upasampada)
epoch coincides with (45 years+16 pBm—) 61 pBm or (464 B.C.-19
years=) 483 B.C. According to the Ceylonese chronicle, Nagadasa
ruled for (496-472 B.C.=) 24 yearsi.e. up to the (544 B.C. +-72 pBm=)
472 B.C., therefore, Nagadasa’s tenth regnal year should coincide
with (496 B.C.+-10 years=) 486 B.C. Here we have got a difference
of (486 B.C.-483 B.C.=) 3 years between the two statements viz. the
45 years of Dasaka’s Upasampada period of the tenth regnal year of
Nagadasa. Thus Dipavamsa 4.41/43 intended that the gap between
the Thera Sonaka’s Upasampada ordination event and the beginning
uf his Vinaya-pamokkhataship had the difference of (64-45 ==) 19 years
only. Whereas, according to the Dipavamsa 5.95, Thera Sonaka died
66 years after Upasampada but serves as the Chief of the Vinaya for
ChronologyofNanda Dynasty” ` 113

44 years (D.V. 5.96) i.e. the difference becomes (66-44=) 22 years.

Here, this 22 years period seems to be in every coincidence with
reference to the 10 regnal years of Nagadasa, at the Upasampada of
Sonaka, and the 8th regnal years of Sisunaga at the death of Dasaka
because 14 remaining year of Nagadasa+8 regnal years of Sisunaga
= 22 years, which in turn gives 42 (=64-22) years after Dasaka’s
Upasampada i.e. (16 pBm-+42 years=) 58 pBm for Sonaka’s Upasam-
pada event and (58 pBm-+22 years=) 80 pBm for Dasaka’s death.

The Thera called Sonaka had just completed forty years, Kala-
shoka had then reigned ten years and half a month in addition (D.V.
4.44),—45. Pakundaka was a robber during seventeen years : (of this
period) eleven years and six months more had passed,—46. When
Thera Sonaka, the chief of the school, admitted Siggava and Chanda-
vajji in the Upasampada ordination. This epoch coincided with the
(58 pBm+40 years=) 98 pBm in Vinaya-pamokkhata list whereas
(24+164-8+24+18+10=) 100 pBm in Magadha list and (38+1-+30
+20+11.5=) 100.5 pBm in Ceylonese list. According 10 Dipavamsa
4.47, at the time, when Bhagwata had been dead a hundred years, the
Vajjiputta’s of Vaishali proclaimed the ten indulgences. Actually, 98
pBm was the epoch for the admission of Chandavajji only in the
Upasampada ordination instead of Siggava and Chandavajji both.

Thera Sonaka serves as the chief of the Vinaya for 44 years i.e.
up to (80 pBM + 44 years=) 124 pBm or (464 B.C. + 44 years =) 420
B.C. According to Dipavamsa 5.99, after Susunaga’s (K alashoka’s)
death, the ten brothers succeeded; they reigned all jointly 22 years.
In the sixth year of their reign, Sonaka attained Parinibban. Thus
Thera Sonaka serves 44 years (=10 years, the remaining period of
Sisunaga+2% years of Kalashoka+6 years of Kalashoka’s sons).
According to Ceylonese chronicle (sec. VI.1.3.) Kalashoka ended in
(544 B.C.+118 pBm=) 426 B.C. and thus 6th regnal year of his sons
should must coincide with (426 B.C.+6 years=) 420 B.C. But
according to our conclusive opinion (Sec. VI.1.7) Kalashoka actually
ended in 424 B.C. instead of 426 B.C. Therefore, Ceylonese chronicle
gota lag of 2 years with reference to the Puranic chronology for the
114. Chronologyof North IndianKings

end of Kalashoka. But this lag of 2 years was immediately compen-

sated by the Pali chronicles by giving (426 B.C.-404 B.C.=) 22 years
for the 10 sons of Kalashoka in synchronism with the Bhavisya
Purana’s Nanda Sutas (424-404 B.C.=) 20 years. Thus the 6th regnal
year of Kalashoka’s sons may also be characterised by the 4th regnal
year of Nanda Sutas in the Puranic language because 10 sons of
Kalashoka actually named as Nanda Sutas and ruled under the
guardianship of their eldest brother Bhadrasena or Ugrasena. If we
take 58 pBm tradition for the Upasampada ordination for Thera
Sonaka, then Sonaka might actually died in (58 pBm + 66 years after
Upasampada=) 124 pBM 1.6. 420 B.C.
Acharya Chandavajji admitted in the Upasampada ordination in
98 pBm and after (66-40—) 26 years in (98 pBm+26 years=) 124
pBM i.e. 420 B.C. he became chief of the Vinaya for 58 years up to
the (124 pBm+58 years=) 182 pBm i.e. (544. B.C.+ 182 pBm=) 362
B.C.
-- Concerning the Ceylonese kings-list, we have seen that king
Abhaya began with 69 pBm, which was the 2151 year of Nagadasa,
for 20 years 1.6. up to the (69 pBm-+-20 years=-) 89 pBm (=last 3 years
of Nagadasa + 17 years of Sisunaga). After Abhaya, according to
H. Oldenberg’s translation of Dipavamsa (11.4), there was an interreg-
num of 17 years before the coronation of Pakundaka. Accordingly,
Oldenberg interprets the verse 11.11 :

‘the first words of this fragment seem to refer to the interreign after
Abhaya’s death which lasted seventeen years. The number twenty-
four I can not explain,’

In my opinion, the first words of this fragment (. , . Seventeen

years) might belong to the end epoch of Abhaya’s twenty years deno-
ting its synchronism with the 17th regnal year of Sisunaga. With the
18th regnal year of Sisunaga, an interregnum of 70 years rather than of
17 years, as Oldenberg’s Dipavamsa intended, began. It consists of 1
year of Sisunaga + 28 years of Kalashoka + 22 years of Kalashoka’s
sons+19 years of Nandas. The second word of the fragment (DV.
Chronologyof Nanda Dynasty 115

11.11—‘twenty four... .’) seems to represent the twenty-fourth regnal

year of Nanda dynasty. Because, the interregnum began after 17
regnal years of Sigunaga, then naturally ‘24’ figure of years with which
the interregnum definitely ended and the reign of Pakundaka began,
can only be belonged to the Kalashoka, who reigned for 28 years (1.6.
more than 24 years according to the Ceylonese Chronicle) or Nanda
dynasty who reigned for a total of 80 years after Nanda Sutas accor-
ding to the Puranas. Kalashoka’s 24th year possibility can easily be
ruled out because if we equate out with it then the period of inter-
regnum becomes 25 years (i.e. last year of Sisunaga + 24 years of
Kalashoka) instead of 17 or 70. On the other hand, other evidences
including Mahavamsa give only 20 years period for Kalashoka. If
we equate the end of the interregnum with the 24th year of Nanda
dynasty then the period of interregnum becomes (1+ 28+-22+24=) 75
years instead of 70. The difference of (75-70=) 5 years, may be due
to the error crept in Buddhist chronicles concerning the coronation
of Sisunaga over Magadha. According to our analysis (sec. VI.1.7)
Sisunaga took the Magadha throne in 467 B.C. for the 23 (=467 B.C.-
444 B.C.) years, whereas Buddhist Ceylonese chronicles give (472-454
B.C.=) 18 years for Sisunaga. On taking 467 B.C. as the coronation
date of Sigsunaga on Magadha throne, Sigunaga’s 17th regnal year (1.6.
Abhaya’s last year of reign) should be coincided with (467 B.C. + 17
years=) 450 B.C. If an interregnum of 70 years began with 450 B.C.
then it should be ended with (450 B.C. + 70 years=) 380 B.C.
whereas Ceylonese chronicle assigns the beginning of Sisunaga with
(544 B.C.-72 pBm=) 472 B.C., thus, 17th year of Sisunaga’s reign
coincided with (472 B.C.--17 years=) 455 B.C. which gives 75 years
of interregnum coincided with 380 B.C.

According to Ceylonese chronicle, 24th regnal year of Nandas

of Magadha list can be equated with (24: Ajatshatru+ 16 : Udaya+8 :
Anuruddha and Munda-++-24: Nagadasa-+ 18 : Sisunaga-+-28: Kalashoka
+22: Kalashoka’s 10 sons+24: Nanda dynasty=) 164 pBm, or,
according to Ceylonese kings-list, with (38 : Vijaya+-1 : interregnum
30 : Panduvasa+20 : Abhaya+-75 : interregnum=) 164 pBm. If we
116 Chronology
of NorthIndianKings
take 544 B.C. for Buddha’s death then 164 pBm would be equated with
the (544 B.C.+ 164 pBm=) 380 B.C. for the end epoch of interregnum
and the beginning epoch for the Ceylonese king Pakundaka.
According to our analysis in sec. VII.2, based on the Bhavisya Purana
studies, Nanda dynasty took the throne of Magadha in (424 B.C., the
end of Kalashoka+20 years of Nanda Sutas=) 404 B.C. Thus the
380 B.C. epoch represented the (404 B.C.-380 B.C.=) 24th regnal year
of Nanda dynasty king. Whereas Ceylonese chronicle also gives
(544 B.C.+140 pBm=) 404 B.C. for the end of Kalashoka’s sons rule
and the beginning of Nandas. On taking 404 B.C. we can exactly
synchronise the 24th regnal year of Nandas with (404 B.C.+24
years=) 380 B.C. according to both the Puranic as well as the
Buddhist sources with reference to the Magadha king-list. Whereas
Buddhist Ceylonese kings-list shows the error of 5 years, due to
which, the missing period of 58 years (of Ach. Chandavajji’s Vinaya-
pamokkhataship) got reduced to (58-5 ==) 53 (=70-17) years error
finally crept in the Ceylonese king-list of Pali chronicles.
After the interregnum, king Pakundaka ruled over Ceylonese
throne for (164 pBm-234pBm or 380 B.C.-310 B.C.=) 70 years.
According to Dipavamsa 11.12 in the fourteenth year of Chandagutta
the king called Pakundaka died, in the fourteen year of Chandagutta,
they crowned Mutasiva. If we take the coronation of Chandagutta
just after the 80 years reign of 8 other Nandas after Nanda Suta in
(404 B.C.+80 years) 324 B.C. then Chandagutta’s 14th regnal year
was in exact coincidence with the (324 B.C.+14 years=) 310 B.C.
Concerning the Vinaya-pamokkhataship list, the omitted Ach.
Chandavajji actually died in 182 pBm or 362 B.C. and Thera Siggava
became the Chief of the Vinaya for 52 years i.e. upto (182 pBm-+
52 years=) 234 pBm or (362 B.C.+52 years=) 310 B.C. i.e. the four-
teenth regnal year of Chandagutta. Dipavamsa, 5.100 confirms it by
saying : ‘Chandagutta reigned for twenty-four years; after fourteen
years of his reign, Siggava attained parinibban. Thus the end of king
Pakundaka’s 70 years reign in Ceylonese kings-list and the death of
Thera Siggava both had coincided with the 14 rengal year of Chanda-
gutta 1.e. in 234 pBm or 310 B.C.
Chronology of Nanda Dynasty 117

According to Dipavamsa 5.81, 12 years before the Thera

Siggava’s Nibban in (310 B.C.-12 years=) 322 B.C. 1.6. (324 B.C.-322
B.C.=) 2 years of Chandagutta’s (reign) had elapsed Siggava had
completed sixty-four (after Upasampada) and king Pakundaka fifty-
eight years, (when) Moggaliputta received Upasampada ordination
from Thera Siggava. Dipavamsa 5.93 says: ‘Wise Siggava made
young Moggaliputta chief of the Vinaya attained Nibbana 76 years
(after Upasampada) during the 14 regnal years of Chandagutta and the
beginning years of Ceylonese king Mutasiva. Dipavamsa 11.5 says :
‘The son of Pakundaka was the prince called Mutasiva, this king
reigned sixty years over Tambapanni’. According to Buddhist
Magadha kings-list, Mutasiva’s 60 years consists of 10.5 remaining
years of Chandagutta+ 28 years of Bindusara+-4 years of interregnum
+17.5 years of Ashoka. According to Dipavamsa 11.13/14, seventeen
years had elapsed after the coronation of Ashoka, then Mutasiva died.
When seventeen years of that king (that is, Ashoka) and six months
of the next year had elapsed, in the sec nd month of winter season,
under the most auspicious Nakkhatta of Asalha, Devanampiya was
installed in the kingdom of Tambapanni. This event should coincide
with (310 B.C.+60 years=) 250 B.C. Because, this event coincided
with the 18th regnal year of Ashoka, thus, Ashoka actually coronated
in (250 B.C.-18 years==) 268 B.C.

Six years of Ashokadhamma’s (reign i.e. in 268 B.C.+6=262

B.C.), sixty years of Moggaliputta (322 B.C.+60 years=262 B.C.; in
D.V. 5.82—Sixty six is given), forty-eight years of Mutasiva (310
B.C. + 48 years=262 B.C.) had elapsed (when) Mahinda received the
Upasampada ordination from Moggaliputta. Dipavamsa 5.102 says,
‘When twenty-six years of Ashoka’s reign had elapsed, the (Thera)
called Moggaliputta, after having exalted the splendour of the
Religion, attained the end of his life and reached nibbana. The 26th
year of Ashoka’s reign coincided with (268 B.C.+26 years=) 242 B.C.
Since, Moggaliputta admitted in the Upasampada ordination in 322
1.–âà i.e. 2nd regnal year of Chandagutta, therefore, Moggaliputta died
(322 B.C.-242 B.C.=) 80 years after Upasampada. Dipavamsa 5.107
118 Chronology of North Indian Kings

confirms it by saying : ‘Tissa Moggaliputta attained Nibbana eighty

years (after Upasampada) after having made his pupil Mahinda chief
of the Vinaya’.
The detailed analysis of Pali Chronicle ‘Dipavamsa’ in preceding
pages of this work for year to year synchronism, clearly shows that
Moggaliputta died in (544 B.C.+302 pBm= ) 242 B.C. Thus Ashoka
coronated in (242 B.C.-26 years=) 268 B.C. or (302 pBm-26
years=) 276 pBm. 218 pBm theory of Pali chronicles for the corona-
tion of Ashoka Maurya was purely due to the omission of the name
of Ach. Chandavajji and his Vinaya-pamokkhataship period of
(276 pBm-218 pBm=) 58 vears. To compensate it, Pali chronicles
motivatedly reduced Nanda dynasty rule over Magadha from 80 years
to (80-58=) 22 years and 70 years period of interregnum between the
Ceylonese king Abhaya and Pakundaka into the 17 years period.
After placing 58 years period for Ach. Chandavajji at their true
historical place, Pali chronicles, tco, allow (22+58=) 80 years for
8 Nanda kings which on the inclusion of 20 years of Nanda Suta, the
first Nanda king of Bhavisya Purana gives (20+80=) 100 years as
majority of Puranas give for nine Nandas.
V1I.4. JAIN CHRONOLOGY

Now we analyse the Jain chronological statements. All Jain

records are uniform in extending the duration of Nandas to 155 years
rather than the unanimous Puranic figure of 100 years. . This inflation
of (155-100=) 55 years in Jain chronology for Nandas was certainly
due to the fact that Puranas collectively named Sisunaga and
Kakavarna as Mahanandi, thus, Mahanandi and Nay-Nandas became
under the same dynastic title and due to it, Jain sources never
mention Sisunaga dynasty before Nav-Nandas separately and they
simply called ‘Nandas’ for the aggregate of Sasunaga (i.e. Mahanandi)
plus Nay-Nandas.
Jain sources preferred to mention the chronology of Ujjain,
instead of Magadha, after the death of Mahavira. . According to Jain
source Avachoori of Prakrit Pattavali named as Dussama-kala-
Shramnasamgha-stva of Dharmaghosasiri of 1300 AV, Jain tirthankar
Chronology of Nanda Dynasty 119

Mahavira and Chanda Pradyote, the king of Ujjain, both died in the
same night of the Kartika Amavasya (i.e. Dipavali festival) of 545
B.C. and simultaneously king Palaka began to rule for 60 years. It
gives (60+155=) 215 years interval between the death of Mahavira
and the coronation of Chandragupta Maurya. Because the above
mentioned Shramnasamgha-stva deals with the beginning of Dussama-
kala of Jain chronology which was, according to some Jain sources
viz. Kalpasitra of Bhadravahu and Triloka Prajfiapti (T.P. 4, 1474)
began 3 years, 8 months and 1 Paksha after the death of Mahavira
1.6. with Ashadha Sukla Ptrnima of 541 B.C. A number of Jain
sources, viz. Kharatargachcha Pattavali, those included the difference
of 4 years between the death of Mahavira and the beginning of
DussamakAla, give (215+ 4=)
219 years interval between the death of
Mahavira (c. 545 B.C.) and the coronation of Chandragupta Maurya
(e. 326 B.C.)

The 326 B.C. date for the coronation of Chandragupta Maurya

shows a clear difference of (326 B.C.-324 B.C.==) 2 years with
reference to the Puranic data but in every coincidence with the
Buddhist Magadha chronology. If we take –âà426 B.C., the precise
Ceylonese chronicle (sec. VI.1.3) date for the end of Kalashoka
(rather than the Puranic end date –âà424 B.C.) and add Puranic 100
years for Nav-Nandas which give precisely (426 B.C.+-100 years=)
326 B.C. for the coronation of Chandragupta Maurya. Prabably Jain
sources were nearer to the Buddhist Ceylonese chronicle in assigning
155 years to Nandas. Buddhist Ceylonese chronicle, after making
the rearrangement for the original historical place to Nagadasa
(=Darshaka of Puranas), gives 479 B.C. for the capture of Ujjain by
Sigunaga from the hands of last Palaka king, the Nandivardhana.
This 479 B.C. beginning of Sisunaga gives precisely 155 years period
to ‘Nandas’ of Jain chronology (=Sasunagas+ Navy-Nandas of Hindu
Puranas) and gives the coronation of Chandragupta Maurya in (479
B.C.+155 years=) 324 B.C. in full accordance with the analysis of
Hindu Puranas (sec. VII.2) and Buddhist sources (sec. VII.3).

Buddhist sources remove their 2 years lag-factor, in comparison

120 Chronology of North Indian Kings

with the Puranic sources, by increasing the period of Kalashoka’s

sons to (426 B.C.-404 B.C.=) 22 years which were the equivalent to
Nanda Suta of Bhavisya Purana ruled for (424 B.C.-404 B.C.=)
20 years only. The 2 years lag factor, crept in Jain chronology, can
also easily be removed by raising the 60 years Palaka’s rule over
Ujjaini (of Jain chronology), by merely 1 year, to 61 years (=545
B.C.-484 B.C.), Pradyote dynasty rule after the death of Mahavira as
intended in puranic kings-list [A] of Avanti (sec. VI.1.1). The
remaining 1 year lag-factor of Jain chronology can be adjusted with
the Nanda’s rule. 155 years Nanda’s rule can be separated in two
historical fractions—(i) (497 B.C.-424 B.C.=) 55 years of Sisunaga
plus Kakavarna which were collectively known as Maha Nandi and
(ii) (424 B.C.-324 B.C.=) 100 years of Puranic Nav-Nandas. The
4 years difference between the death of Mahavira and the beginning
of Dussamakala can only be adjusted with the (479 B.C.-424 B.C.=)
55 years period of Sasgunaga which now becomes (483 B.C.=) 59
(=55+4) years. Here we add the remaining 1 year lag factor of Jain
chronology and now Sasunagas become able to rule (59+1=) 60
years (484 B.C.-424 B.C.) over Ujjain instead of 55 years as Jain
chronology seems to be intended. Puranic kings-list [A] of Avanti
actually gives (484 B C.-444 B.C.=) 40 years of Sisuniga+(444 B.C.-
424 B.C.=) 20 years of Kakavarna 1.e. a total of (40-- 20) 60 years
of Sasunagas over Ujjain. |

Thus according to my concluding opinion Palaka dynasty ruled

(545 B.C.-484 B.C.=) 61 years+ Sasunagas (i.e. Mahanandi) ruled
(484 B.C.-424 B.C.=) 60 years+Nav-Nandas ruled (424 B.C.-324
B.C.=) 100 years. All the three gives (61+60+100=) 221 years
period between the death of Mahavira (–âÀ545 B.C.) and the anoint-
ment of Chandragupta Maurya (–âÀ324 B.C.). Therefore (20+80=)
100 or (22-1-80 ==) 102 years period for Nav-Nandas during 424 B.C.-
324 B.C. or 426 B.C.-324 B.C. is fully confirmed by all the three
sources viz. Puranic, Buddhist and Jainas. Best compromised dates
for the nine individual Nanda Kings might be given as follows :
 Chronology of Nanaa Dvnasty 121

| TABLE XXIII
•P a a Ee
S. No. Buddhist Name Puranic Name Christian calendar date
EOE EEE ` = ~~~
1 Ugrasena Nanda Suta 424-404 B.C.
2 Panduka Pra-Nanda 404-394 B.C,
3 Pandugati Para-Nanda 394-384 B.C.
4 Bhitapala Sama-Nanda 384-372 B.C.
=) Rastrapala Priya-Nanda 372-360 B.C.
6 Govishanaka Deva-Nanda 360-348 B.C,
a Dasaisddhaka Yajfia Bhanga 348-342 B.C.
8 Kaivarta Maurya-Nanda 342-336 B.C.
9 Dhana Maha-Nanda 336-324 B.C.

REFERENCES

1 Jataka no. 283 and 492: A Manual of Buddhism, p. 163 fn; JASB, 1914,
p. 321; For Anga kingdom, please see : Digha Nikaya and Mahabagga.
2. Jain source Kalpasitra, Niryavali Sutra; Law, BC., Buddhist Studies,
p 199; P.H.A.I., pp. 211, 13-14; Mahaparinibbana Sutta of Digha Nikdaya,
and Buddhaghosha’s commentary On it; also see : Studies in Indian History
and Culture, by A.L. Basham.

~>+w Tripathi,
9@ R.S., Hist. of Ant. India, p. 109.

Tripathi, R.S., Hist. of Ant. India, p. 111.

Shastri, K.A.N., The Age of Nandas and Mauryas, pp. 19-20.

Kharvela’s Hathigumpha Inscription.

P.H.A, f., 0. 234 fn.

Myssore and Coorge from the inscriptions, Rice, p. 3; Dynasties of

Kanaries Districts, Dr. Fleet, p. 384, fn. 2; Shastri, K.A.N., Age of
Nandas and Mauryas, p. 18.

9. Mahajan, V.D., Ancient India, p. 217.

10. Bhavisya Purana, Pratisarga Parva, 6/31-35.

11, Mahajan, V.D., Ancient India, p. 218.
12, Venkatachelam, Chron. of Ant. Hindu Hist., pt. 1, pp. 44-47,
122 Chronology of North Indian Kings

Varma, K.C., Age of Bharata War (G, ed. G.C. Agrawal), pp. 112-13.

. Bhavisya Purana, Pratisarga Parva, 6/26-35.

. Mahajan, V.D., Ancient India, p. 217.
Tripathi, R.S., History of Ancient India, p. 110.

. Mahajan, V.D., Ancient India, p. 217.

. Bhattashali, N.K., Maurya Chronology and Connected Problems, J.R.A.S.,

1932, Part II.

. Jain, H.L., Bhartiya Samskriti me Jain Dharma ka Yogadana, pp. 2-9;

P.L. Gupta, Gupta Samrajya, pp. 118-119; Jour. Bom. Br. of Roy. Asiat.
Soc.) 9 (P:C.), 0. 147; Ind Ant. 20; 247.
20. Bhattashali, N.K., Maurya Chronology and Connected Problems, JRAS,
1932, Part II, p. 283: “The murder of Poros by Eudamos and his
retirement from India in 317 B.C. are significant indications. The
breaking-out of the Indian revolt headed by Chandragupta does not appear
to be possible before this date; O. Stein, The coronation of Chandragupta
` Maurya, Archiv Orientalni Vol. J, no. 3, 1939, p. 368: “It is impossible
to reckon with an acknowledged dominion of Chandragupta before 317
B.C.”’; Eggermont, Chronology, •òà131: ‘‘The Puranas grant Chandagutta
and Bindusara respectively 24 and 25 years of reign, making together 49
years of reign in total. Conclusion : 317 B.C.+49 years= 268 B.C. which
is the year arrived at if one takes the dotted records year of the Buddha’s
Mahaparinirvana viz. 486 B.C. as the basis of the early Ceylonese date of
Ashoka’s anointment in 218 pBm.”

24, Prasad, Chro. of Magadha History (Annexture I), p. 15 (19).

2a: Tripathi, R.S., History of Ancient India, p. 110.
fy
<~~ . Bhavya, Tarkajvala, in Mdo, XIX, pp. 162 b6-163 a3 cf. Mdo xc, no. 12.
24. Eggermont rendered into English, the German version ofthe text, published
by Max Walleser, Die Sekten des alten Buddhimus, Heidelberg, 1927,
pp. 81-82.

1 Lamotte, Etienne, Histoire du Bouddhisme Indien: des origines a Ere Saka,

Louvain, 1958 (Bibliotheque du Museon, Vol. 43) p. 315; for full
references also see : pp. 308-309; 315; 574; 576; 590-593; 658.
26. Barau, A., Les premiers conciles bouddhiques, Paris, 1955 (Annals du
Musee Guimet, Bibliothique d’ Etudes, tome 60), p. 91,
Chronology of Nanda Dynasty 123

243 Eggermont, P.H.L., The Emperor Ashoka and the TisyarakshitaLe gend,
0.11;
28. Dipavamsa, 4/47; There are slight divergences in the Chinese and Tibetan
versions. The northern version generally puts the date of the council 110
years after the nirvana of the Buddha—2500 Years of Buddhism, p. 44.

‘° Bapat, P.V., (Gen. ed.), 2500 Years of Buddhism, p. 44; Beal, S., Records
of the Western Countries, Vol. II, •òà 164, says: (810 because in the
assembly both the common folk and the holy personage were mixed
together, it was called the assembly of great congregation.”
30. Oldenberg, H., Dipavamsa, XI, 2-4, pp. 58; 164.
31: Oldenberg, H.. Dipavamsa, Ch. V, A.E.S, Print, Delhi, 1982.
 8
Chronology of Mauryas

VIII.1. GREEK SYNCHRONISM

The chronology of ancient India before the coronation of

Chandragupta Maurya, according to our learned European friends,
was totally based on the unreliable fables, legends and traditional
religious literature. Thus they kept the period before the Chandra-
gupta Maurya under the ‘Proto-History’. With the coronation of
Chandragupta Maurya, they find a some sort of Greek-History
contemporaneousness because they assume that the invasion of
Alexander the great, occurred just a few years before the coronation
of Chandragupta Maurya and they also courageously claimed on the
basis of Greek sources that this Chandragupta Maurya really met,
with the Alexander of Macedonia (Greece), in Punjab to seek the
military aid in order to uproot, totally, the deadly powerful sudra
king of Nanda dynasty.

Our traditional Hindu scholars reacted sharply on this synchro-

nism of Alexander the great with that of the Chandragupta Maurya.
They say that if any such contemporaneousness is possible, in the
total absence of references in our traditional literature, concerning the
greatly publicised invasion of Alexander the (so-called) great, then
this Greek king may only be synchronised with that of the Chandra-
Chronologyof Mauryas 125
gupta of Imperial Gupta dynasty rather than the Chandragupta of
Maurya dynasty. In this way, our traditional Hindu friends found
650 years (European view-point) or 1210 years (traditional view-point)
extra period which provides a greater ease to the traditional Hindu
scholars to solve the mystery of ancient Indian chronology after
Mahabharata war between the vast period of 3102-327 B.C.
In academic circles, European view-point is only considered and
traditional Hindu view-point is totally ignored. Here, we consider
both the arguments and counter-arguments concerning the above
mentioned contemporaneousness with the possible degree of honesty.
VIII.1.1. GREEK REFERENCES ON CHANDRAGUPTA MAURYA
VIIL1.1.1. Meeting of Chandragupta with Alexander
Chandragupta’s first emergence from the obscurity into the full
view of history occurs in 326-25 B.C. when he met Alexander the
great. The fact is recorded by two of the classical writers viz. Justin,
who draw upon the history of Trogans, and Plutarch. The young
Maurya might have acquainted the Macedonian invader with condi-
tions in Eastern India. ‘‘Alexander’’, he is reported to have said in
later times, “narrowly missed” making himself master of the country,
since its king was hated and despised by his subjects for the weakness
of his disposition and the meanness of his origin.’ Details of the
original speech and the manner in which it was delivered are not
recorded. But we are told by Justin that his tone gave offence to the
Macedonian king who gave orders to kill the Indian lad. The later
sought safety by a speedy flight. Curiously enough, some modern
editors amend the text of Justin and propose to read ‘nandrum’ in
place of ‘Alexandrum’. The name Nanda, however, is not known
from any other classical source, and Plutarch, who also refers to the
meeting between Alexander and “‘Androkottos”, makes separate
mention of the king or kings of Prasii. Classical writers record other
instances of Alexander's impatient with boldness of language. The
cases of Cleitus and Callisthenes may be recalled in this connection.?
The narrative of Justin leaves the impression that after his departure
from Alexander’s camp, Chandragupta retired to a forest tract, drew
126 Chronology of North Indian Kings

together a body of armed men and solicited the Indians to overthrew

the existing government, and support a new sovereignty. The “new
sovereignty” of Justin reminds us of the words ‘Maurya nave rajani
of the Mudra-rakshasa just after the 326 B.C.°

VIIL.1.1.2. Coronation date of Chandragupta Maurya

Megasthenes, who came to India in –âà302 B.C. says (quoted by
Arrian, Pliny etc.).®
FRAGM L.C.

Plin, Hist. Nat. VI. XXI. 4-5

Of the Ancient History of the Indians

For the Indians stand almost alone among the nations, in never,
having migrated from their own country. From the days of father
Bachhus to Alexander the great their kings are reckoned at 154,
whose reign extend over 6451 years and three months.
Soltn 52.5

Father Bachhus was the first who invaded India, and was the
first of all who triumphed over vanquished Indians. From his to
Alexander, the great, 6451 years are reckoned with three months
additional. The calculation being made by counting the kings who
reigned in the intermediate period to the number of 153
(vide Mc’ Crindle’s Ancient India, p. 115)

We know that Megasthenes was the Greek ambassador resided

in the court of Chandragupta Maurya and was sent by the Syrian
(Greek) king Seleucus in –âà 302 B.C. According to my analysis,?
Greeks pronunciated Manu Vaivasvata as Father Bachhus. And
Megasthenes (and Pliny etc.) stated that from Father Bachhus upto
the coronation of 154th Indian king viz. Chandragupta Maurya
(whose coronation event is just contemporary to the invasion event of
Alexander), there elapsed only 6451 years and three months. On the
basis of Greek-Babylonian tradition (based on the era of Constan-
tinople), Father Bachhus can be dated to 6775 B.C. Thus the corona-
Chronologyof Mauryas 127

tion of Chandragupta Maurya, the 154th Indian king, may be placed

in (6775 B.C.+6451 years=) 324 B.C.

VUI.1.1.3WarbetweenChandraguptaand Seleucus
The Seleucus (Nikator) carried on many wars in the East after
the division of the Macedonian kingdom between himself and the
other successors of Alexander, first seizing Babylon and then reducing
Baktriane, his power being increased by the first success. Therefore,
he passed into India, which had since Alexander’s death killed
governors...Sandrokottos has made it free...Seleucus came to an
agreement with him and after settling affairs in the East, engage in
the war against Antigonos (302 B.C.).8 He (Seleucus) crossed Indus
and waged war on Sandrokottos, king of the Indians, who dwelt
about it until he made friends and entered into relations of marriage
with him.? Seleucus Nikator gave them (the nations of Ariane) to
Sandrokottos in concluding a marriage alliance, and received in
exchange 500 elephants.4°? On the issue of marriage of Seleucus’
daughter with Chandragupta Maurya, J. Allen expressed his views as
follows—‘“‘If the usual-oriental practice was followed and if we regard
Chandragupta as the victor, then it would mean that a daughter or
other female relative of Seleucus was given to the Indian ruler or to
one of his sons, so that Ashoka may have had Greek blood in his
veins.1?

The objection, that Seleucus’ only daughter Phila II was not yet
born, is idle : he could have had daughters by Apma or an earlier
wife, without our fragmentary sources mentioning them.!2 Accord-
ing to Manjushree Milakalpa, at the time of death of Chandragupta,
his son Bindusara was not fully adult (i.e. a minor), thus, Allen’s
view that Seleucus’ daughter was married with Bindusara is not
correct. The other possibility that Seleucus’ daughter was married
with Chandragupta Maurya holds more water. If we assume that the
age of young Chandragupta when he met to Alexander was not
more than 20 years in 326-25 B.C. then in 306-05 B.C. at the time of
Seleucus’ war, his age should not be more than 40 years. At the
128 ChronologyofNorth IndianKings

same time, Seleucus was 53 years old, because in B.C. 280, Seleucus
Nikator was, in the 78th year of his age, murdered, and was succee-
ded on the Syrian throne by his son Antiochos Soter. In his 53rd
year of age, he might be capable to possess a marriageable daughter.
VIIL.1.2..REACTIONOF TRADITIONALHINDU SCHOLARS
All the ancient fragmentary Greek statements under interpreta-
tion of modern historians (viz. Sir William JONES; Col. Wilford,
C. Lassen; and Prof. Max Muller; V.A. Smith etc.) give the clear clue,
beyond all doubts, that Chandragupta Maurya was the contemporary
king to the Alexander and Seleucus. But our traditional Hindu
scholars of present days (viz. T.S. Narayana Sastry; M. Krishnama-
chariar; Pt. Kota Venkatachelam and M. Troyer) sharply reacted on
this synchronism. In reality, our traditional literature e.g. Puranas
etc. have no any impact or even the mention of the name of
Alexander, the Greek invader. Pt. Kota Venkatachelam, an ardent
traditional Hindu scholar commented on this issue as follows :
“The Greek historians who accompanied the army of Alexander
the great during his invasion of Western Bharata have mentioned of
three successive kings of the country at about the time in their
writings. The names recorded by them clearly were Xandrames,
Sandrocottos and Sandrocyptus. But European orientalists of recent
times have been able to reduce the antiquity of the history and culture
of Bharata by a wrong identification of the kings. They have wrongly
identified the three names with those of Mahapadma Nanda,
Chandragupta and Bindusara successive kings of Magadha and hence
determined (wrongly) the time of Chandragupta Maurya, held he was
the actual contemporary of Alexander in 326 B.C. and his coronation
to have taken place in 324 B.C From this date thus arrived at as
the basis, counting forward and backward for the times of the kings
of the Royal dynasties of Magadha mentioned in our Puranas,
reducing the periods of the reigns of kings and dynasties mentioned
there in arbitrarily to suit their own convenience constructed a false
history and chronology of ancient Bharata. The Puranas definitely
and specifically date the Mahabharata war in 3138 B.C. and record
 Chronolozyof Maury as 129

the names of kings, and the period of their reigns, from the time
onwards, in unbroken succession; and according to their version, the
coronation of Chandragupta should have taken place in 1534 B.C.
By assigning it to 324 B.C. instead, and making this the basis date for
their chronology, the entire chronology of ancient Bharata has been
shifted forward by 1210 years. On the other hand, if the name
referred to as Xandrames were to be identified as the Greek version
of the Chandramas in Sanskrit or Candrasri, last king of Andhra
dynasty, and the other two Sandra-cottos and Sandracyptus with
Chandragupta and Samudragupta of the Gupta dynasty of the kings
of Magadha, that succeeded the Andhra dynasty and _ locating
Chandragupta I of the Gupta dynasty as the contemporary to
Alexander in 326 B.C., and counting back along the dynastic lists of
the Puranas, the date of Mahabharata war should work out to 3138

VIII.1.3. CONCLUSIVE REMARKS ON GREEK SYNCHRONISM

VIIT.1.3.1. Greek References on Nandas

Due to the similarity of the names of Chandragupta of Maurya

` dynasty as well as Imperial Gupta dynasty, the above mentioned
controversy arose. But Greek references also mention the predecessor
of Chandragupta, who was the contemporary to the Alexander’s
invasion period. Those references give the clear clue that they
indicated fully the personage of Nanda kings, as described by our
traditional Hindu sources, who was the definite predecessor of
Chandragupta of Maurya dynasty instead of Chandragupta of
Imperial Gupta dynasty.
The first Nanda bore the name Mahapadma or Mahapadmapati,
“Sovereign of an infinite host” or “‘of immense wealth’, according to
Puranas and Ugrasena according to the Mahabodhivamsa. The
Puranas describe him as a son of the last king of the preceding line
by a sudra woman. Jaina works, on the other hand, represent Nanda
as the son of the coutesan by a barber. This tradition finds support
130 Chronologyof NorthIndianKings
in the classical account of the pedigree of Alexander’s Magadhan
contemporary who was the predecessor of Chandragupta Maurya.'*
Referring to this prince who occupied the throne of Pataliputra when,
according to Plutarch, Chandragupta met Alexander in Punjab.
Curtius’ informs us that “his father was in fact a barber, scarcely
starving of hunger by his daily earnings, but who, from 1115being not
uncomely in person, had gained the affections to the queen, and was
by her influence advanced to too near a place in the confidence of the
reigning monarch. Afterwards, however, he treacherously murdered
his sovereign and then, under the pretence of acting as guardian to
the royal children, usurped the supreme authority and having put the
young princes to death begot the present king.
There has been some difference of opinion as to whether “the
present king’? (Agrammes) of Curtius ruling in 326 B.C. refers to the
first Nanda himself or to one of his sons. The classical testimony
leaves no room for doubt on the point. Agrammes was born to the
purple. His father had already usurped supreme authority and put
the legitimate heirs to the throne to death. The description of “the
present king’’ can hardly be applied to the first Nanda who was the
‘ganikakushijanma’ (born of a courtesan) and whose father did not
exercise sovereign power. We have, therefore, to conclude that
Agrammes or Xandrammes as he called by Deodorus, belonged to
the second generation of the usurping family and his father was the
first Nanda, the Mahapadma Nanda-—Ugrasena of Indian tradition.
The murdered sovereign must have belonged to the line that preceded
the Nandas on the throne of Pataliputra. The ruler who answers best
to the descriptions given by Curtius and Deodorus is ‘Kakavarna—
Kalashoka’ whose tragic end is alluded to the Harshacharita and
whose sons—nine or ten in number—were according to Buddhist
tradition ousted by Ugrasena Nanda. The name Agrammes is
possibly a distorted form of the Sanskrit Augrasainya, “son or
descendent of Ugrasena’’.’®
The Nanda army was a powerful fighting machine and we are
told by the classical writers that the last king of the line ““)B in the
Chronology
of Mauryas 131

field for guarding the approaches of his country, twenty thousand

cavalry, and two hundred thousand infantry, besides two thousand
four-horsed chariots and what was the most formidable force of all a
troop of elephants which ran upto the number of three thousands’’.!”
Deodorus and Plutarch raise the number of elephants to four
thousand and six thousand respectively. The latter puts the strength
of the army of the Gangetic nations at eighty thousands horse, two
hundred thousand foot, eight thousand war chariots, besides six
thouand fighting elephants.1®

It is no wander that the lord of such an immense host should

aspire to be a sole monarch, an Ekrat (of Puranas) of the vast regions
stretching from the Himalayas to the Godavari or its neighbourhood.
The historians of Alexander speak of the most powerful people who
dwelt beyond the Bias as being under one sovereign. Q. Curtius
Rufus, for instance, gives the following particulars, ‘‘Beyond the river
(hyphasis or Bias) lay extensive deserts. Next came the Ganges, the
largest river in all India, the farther bank of which was inhabited by
two nations, the Gangaridae and the Prasii surpass in power and
glory every people in all India, whose king was Agrammes.!® The
account of Deodorus is similar. But he called the king Kandrammes
instead of Agrammes. Pliny informs us that the Prasii, surpass in
power and glory every people in all India, their capital being
Palibothra (Pataliputra) after which some call the people itself the
Palibothri, may even the whole tract of the Ganges.

These long passages from the translations of Greek references

clearly shows that the king, predecessor to Chandragupta was very
powerful having a vast kingdom and_ his all descriptions in greek
references resembles very much with our traditional references viz.
Puranas, Buddhists, and ofJainas to that of Nandas. On the other
hand, the references of the predecessor of Chandragupta of Imperial
Gupta dynasty are in no way tally with the Greek references concern-
ing the Indian monarch contemporary to the Alexander. The
Magadha kingdom was a very little one in the reign of Chandragupta I
of Imperial Gupta dynasty, because according to Prayaga-Prasasti
132 Chronology
of NorthIndianKings
of Samudragupta, the kingdom was greatly widened during the reign
of Samudragupta.
VUI.1.3.2. Bhavishya Purana’s synchronism of Seleucus and
Chandragupta Maurya
It is often claimed by the scholars—traditional as well as
moderns—that traditional sources are silent about the Greek invasions
of Alexander and Seleucus and thus contemporaneousness of an
Indian king with that of the Alexander is not possible on the basis of
indegeneous sources 1.e. traditional literatures. But in fact, Bhavishya
Purana really possess a verse which deals clearly with his synchronism
problem :
“>‘YM’ù8“ù9“é,”Ù&”&”Ù'
“‰?“• ’©?’IA“&”Ù'‘YC’I*’i.”ÒÀ
–Ie42
‘©(”Ù&”Ù0‘yA’©M’I8”Ù$“‰M’ð
“‰B’I>
’©L”¹0“‰>’y?’©$”y
“‰A’I>’éM
–@
“‰A“)5“‰M’ð
’I%”¹&”Ù0“é9”Ù/
’ù>“Y(”,”É&’)$’IM’©0•0
| 43
’©7”Ù “ù5“y‘YC’I
“>‘ÉM’ù
“Y?’‰M’iA“‰>“8”Ù$’IK“Ù-“Y$”ÒÀ
|
’©?’IA“‰M’IA“)M’ù”9$•
“>‘ÉM’ù.“iK‘Y8”Ù$’‰/”¹=’Ù5’IM
–P44
(Bhavishya Pur., Pratisarga-parva, Ch. VI, p. 334)
Following the Buddhist tradition, mentioned in Mahavamsa
etc., Bhavishya Purana too relates the Chandragupta Maurya with
the Solar Kshatriya race of Shakya-kula to which lord Buddha
belonged. According to the verse 42: Chandragupta was the son of
king Buddhi Singh of Shakya family. Chandragupta was married
with the daughter of Paurasadhipati Sultiva ie. the king Seleucus
of Poros kingdom and he became a Greeko-Buddhist (43). He ruled
for 60 years and his son was the Bindusara and the grandson was
the Ashoka (44).
According to the classical Greek sources, the Indians whose
territory “bordered on the Paropanisadae”’ (in the Kabul valley) are
known to have under Pithon {111–âà316 B.C. According to Deodorus,
Eudemus treacherously slain Poros in 317 B.C.2° But there is a

various reading. “• 0–âãp0– (first) for ’@–ã• (Poros)—and left

 Chronology of Mauryas 133

India to help Eumenes 11 his fight against Antipater. The execution

of Eumenes in 316-15 B.C.?! and the exhaustion of Antigonas in the
war of 315 10 312-11 B.C. left the way clear for Seleucus who
returned to Babylon in 312 B.C. and soon made himself master of the
whole Phrygia to the Indus.23 Appian, to whom we are indebted
for the information conveyed by the few words, seems clearly to
suggest that the Indus formed the boundary between the dominians
of Seleucus and Chandragupta before the two kings came to blows.
The former is said to have “‘crossed thus Indus and waged war with
Androkottos, king of the Indians, who dwelt on the banks of that
stream”.

In the above concern, Bhavishya Purana’s verse 43 claims

clearly that at the time of marriage of Chandragupta with the
daughter of Seleucus, the Seleucus was also the king of Paurasa
country. Thus the kingdom of Poros might be the real boundary
between Chandragupta and Seleucus instead of Indus river as Greek
fragments under their modern translation intended. It is an
additional information given by this verse of Bhavishya Purana.

All these lengthy quotations and analyses confirm the thesis that
the Chandragupta Maurya was the real contemporary king to the
Alexander and Seleucus. The end of Nandas i.e. the coronation of
Chandragupta Maurya was taken place precisely in 324 B.C. which is
confirmed not only by the traditional sources viz. Puranas, Buddhists,
and of Jainas as it was fully analysed in Ch. V{I but also now by the
Greek sources.

VIIL1.4. GREEK SYNCHRONISM FOR ASHOKA’S CORONATION IN HIS

ROCK EDICT XIII

Beside the Greek synchronism for analysing the chronology of

Chandragupta Maurya, we find another independent Greek synchro-
nism evidence to analyse the coronation date of Ashoka Maurya,
furnished by Rock Edict XIII of Ashoka himself.?4 It gives the
names of five contemporary Hellenistic monarchs: ‘the Yona king
134 Chronology of North Indian Kings

Antiyoka, and beyond him four kings, viz. Turumaya, Antekina,

Maka and Alikasundra’. The same monarchs are mentioned more
summarily in the second Rock Edict as : ‘the Yona king Antiyoka
and the kings who are the neighbours of this Antiyoka’. These kings
are now identified respectively with Antiochus II Theos of Syria (261-
46 B.C.), Ptolemy II Philadelphus ot Egypt (285-247 B.C.), Antigonus
Gonatas of Macedonia (276-239 B.C.), Magas of Cyrene (c. 300-250
B.C.), and Alexander of Corinth (c. 252-244 B.C.). The date of the
edict, thirteen years after the abhisheka would fall therefore between
252 and 250 B.C., the period when all the kings mentioned were
living, and the year of Ashoka’s coronation must therefore lie between
263 and 265 B.C. and of his accession between 269 and 267 B.C.
Dr. K.A. Nilakanta Sastri assumed®> that 483 B.C. has much better
claims to be considered the true date of the Buddha era, with this, as
the starting point, Prof. Sastri got 265 B.C. date for Ashoka’s corona-
tion and 269 B.C. for his accession by taking Ashoka’s aceession in
214 pBm and his coronation in 218 pBm. It is seen, according to
Prof, Sastri, thus these two lines of reasoning confirm and corroborate
each other.

Some writers prefer to think of Alexander of Epirus who died

about B.C. 255 in the place of less known Alexander of Corinth, and
thus fix the date of R.E. XIII about that date i.e. 255 B.C. and fix the
date of Ashoka’s coronation to (255 B.C.-13=) 268 B.C. and acces-
sion in 272 B.C. For confirmation they took Buddha era beginning
with 486 B.C. instead of 483 B.C. on the strength of the Chinese
dotted record tradition.?®

In my own analysis of Dipavamsa in sec. VII.3, by accepting

the authority of Ceylon-Burma-Siam tradition of Buddha era beginn-
ing with 544 8.6. and by adding Ach. Chandavaiji’s vinaya-
pamokkhataship period of 58 years (420-362 B.C.) in between the
Thera Sonaka and Siggava. We also came to the conclusion that the
Ashoka coronated in 268 B.C. But for this coronation date synchro-
nism, I had, half-heartedly, reduced the period of Thera Siggava from
his mentioned period of 55 years to 52 years in order to conclude a
Chronology of Mauryas 135

dispute of 3 years crept into the Thera’s chronology just from the
statement for the upasampada ordination of Thera Dasaka. Thus if
we take the mentioned 55 years period for Thera Siggava then we
finally reach to the conclusion that Ashoka really coronated in 265
B.C. But how can we pick out the real coronation date of Ashoka’s
coronation out of the two disputed dates viz. 268 B.C. or 265 B.C.,
we are bound to undergo again the lengthy process of statistical
analysis of traditional sources i.e. of Puranas, and Jainas.

VIII. 2, PURANIC MAURYA CHRONOLOGY UP TO ASHOKA

Kautilyas Chandraguptam tu tato rajye buiseksyati

Sat-trimsat tu Sama raja bhavit-Ashoka eva ca

(Maisya Pur., 272/24; D.K.A., p. 27)

e Vayu Va genly & Brahmanda Pur.

Candraguptarh nrparh rajye Candraguptam nrparh rajye

Kotilyah sthapayisyati Kotilyah sthapayisyati
catur-Vimésat sama raja catur-virnsat sama raja
Candragupto bhavisyati Candragupto bhavisyati
bhavita Nandasaras tu bhavita Bhadrasaras tu
pafica-virnsat sama nrpah pafica-Virhsat sama nrpah
sat-trimnsat tu sama raja sat-trimSat tu sama raja
bhavit-Ashoka eva ca Ashoko bhavita nrsu
(Pargiter’s D.K.A.,, p. 28)

Maurya dynasty is given by all the five (historical) Puranas, but

the account of it has suffered more than that of any other dynasty
because its great fame in Buddhism disgraced it in brahminical eyes ?
Three versions exist here, the earliest in the Matsya, the second in
eVayu and the third in the Vayu generally and the Brahmanda. They
agree in general but have many differences. The second forms a
stage of recension intermediate between the first and the third, and is
the only copy that has preserved the names of all the kings. The
136 Chronology
ofNorthIndianKings
Matsya version in all copies is incomplete and has one of its verses
(V. 23) misplaced; the second king is always omitted, and the account
generally begins with that of verse 22, putting the last two kings first,
and then mentions only 4 kings—Ashoka and his three successors.
All the three versions are important. The Vishnu and Bhagawat
mention the kings in the same order as the Vayu and Brahmanda with
some differences in names.

From the above evidences, we have concluded that Matsya

Purana, which was proved more reliable chronologically in our
previous analyses, is silent about the chronology of first two kings.
According to Vayu and Brahmanda, Chandragupta Maurya ruled for
24 years; Bindusara : 25 years and Ashoka : 36 years. The Ashoka’s
duration is also corroborated by the Matsya Purana. Thus according
to Puranic sources, the first three kings of Mauryan dynasty ruled as
follows :
Chandragupta 324-300 B.C.=24 Years
Bindusara 300-275 B.C.=25 Years
Ashoka 275-239 B.C.=36 Years
Thus according to Puranas, Ashoka’s coronation might be occurred
in 275 B.C. which is not in exact coincidence with that of the analysis
of Ashoka’s Rock Edict XIII which gives his coronation date of
either 268 B.C. or 265 B.C. The realiability of the 24 years period
for Chandragupta may be questioned on the basis of following
evidence : Pt. Kota Venkatachelam says?® that the readings in the
present nagari editions of Vayu and Brahmanda Purana (‘©$”5“ù“i$”Ù8’é> “>‘É>
‘©(”Ù&”Ù0‘yA’©M’IK
’Ù5“ù7”Ù/’I?)
is evidently a mistake for (‘©$”8”Ù5““i$”Ù8’é>
“>‘É>‘©(”Ù&”Ù0‘yC’©M’IK
’Ù5“ù7”Ù/’I?)
for the expression (‘©$”5“ù“i$”Ò•
is incorrect, if it should mean 24 then it
ought to be (adataft) in which case the metre of the verse would be
wrong. This type of analysis is how much reliable? I do’nt know
but it would give an_ year-to-year synchronism concerning the
Ashoka’s coronation date 265 B.C. with reference to the analysis of
the Rock Edict XIII by assuming the Aliksundra as the Alexander of
Corinth,
Chronology of Mauryas 137

Chandragupta 324-290 B.C. =34 years

Bindusara 290-265 B.C.=25 years
An alternative supposition may also be tested i.e. Chandra-
gupta might have ruled for 24 years as nagari editions presently
intended, because, this period is fully corroborated with the Buddhist
accounts also. Thus, Bindusara’s period may alternatively, be
extended by 10 years from 25 to 35 years as follows :

Chandragupta 324-300B.C. ==24 years

Bindusara 300-265B.C.=35 years
because different sources give different periods for Bindusara in
contrast to the unanimity to the assignment of the ruling period for
Chandragupta. Puranas give 25 years whereas Ceylonese Burmese
accounts give 27 or 28 years for Bindusara’s reign.
VIII.3. MAURYAN CHRONOLOGY IN BUDDHIST SOURCES

The alternative supposition to assign 35 years for Bindusara is

also corroborated from the analysis of Buddhist literature Manjushri-
Mulakalpa which tells about the accidental death of Chandragupta
by a poisonous explosion (or more correctly boil or tumor) in follow-
ing verse :
‘Y2”Ù/“é#’é?’IM“.“é’éM’ð
‘YC’I ’©M“$“ù,’y
’É9”|
’IG’€faqs “Y?“y8”Ù+”¹;
“€ ’éB‘©M‘¹?’I
–Id441–P

and at that time, Bindusara was not fully 80 ’9>. It was quite possible
because Chandragupta Maurya was the founder of a new dynasty,
therefore, he might have been married few years after the coronation.
So his son might not attain his full adulthood at the end of 24 years
of his father’s ruling period. In contrast, at the time of Bindusara’s
death, Ashoka was. more than an adult person having the years
experience of governorship over the Takshila and Ujjaini etc. along
with the experience of the succession struggle which evidently allows
the much longer ruling period for the Bindusara than that of his
father Chandragupta.
138 Chronology of North Indian Kings

One more reliable evidence can be furnished by the Buddhist

literatures viz. Mahavamsa and Dipavemsa etc.*° concerning his
marriage with the Vidisa-merchant’s daughter “Devi” and the birth
of his two children— Mahinda and Samghamitra—before his accession,
when he halted at Vidisa on his way to the provincial capital Ujjaini.
As Mahinda was 20 years of age in the sixth year of his father’s
coronation,®! his birth would fall 14 years before the coronation or
10 years before Ashoka’s accession and this gives us some idea of the
duration of Ashoka’s political apparenticeship under his father. We
may assume that the minimum age of 18 years for Ashoka when he
got the birth of his son Mahendra and because he coronated at the
14 years age of his son Mahendra, thus, Ashoka was of (18+14=) 32
years approx. of age when he coronated. This corroborates with the
35 years reigning period for Bindusara because Bindusara was not an
adult when Chandragupta died. Probably, he was an unmarried and
issueless person at the time of his coronation. If Bindusara soon
married just around his coronation date then it would certainly take
more than 32 years of reigning period for Bindusara.

But the situation is not so simple, though the internal evidences

securely intended, because, Buddhist sources give only 27 or 28 years
for Bindusara rather than 35 years as my findings require. As
scholars prefer 28 years, the figure of Ceylonese chronicle Mahavamsa,
for Bindusara. Thus, we begin with 28 years of Bindusara’s period
and we seek the genuine reason for the missing of (35-28=) 7 years in
the Buddhist sources.

From sec. VII.3. (Table XX) p. 108 we know that Ashoka’s

26th regnal year was coincided with 247 pBm (in Thera’s list) while
244 pBm (in Ceylonese and Magadha kings-list), according to
Dipavamsa. When we add 58 years for Thera Chandavajji between
Thera Sonaka and Siggava then Ashaka’s 26th regnal year may
coincide with (247 pBm-+-58 years=) 305 pBm according 10 Thera’s
list whereas (244 pBm-++58 years) 302 pBm according to Magadha
and Ceylonese kings-list, In that section, we have relied on the
Chronology of Mauryas 139

authority of kings-list and have reduced Thera’s list by 3 years in the

period of Thera Siggava arbitrarily. But now I believe that the
period of Thera’s list was correct and thus Ashoka’s 26th regnal year
was really coincided with 305 pBm. It means that Ashoka’s corona-
tion took place in (305 pBm-26 years=) 279 pBm or (544 B.C.+279
pBm=) 265 B.C. The short-fall of 3 years in Magadha kings-list
over the Thera’s list may be added to Bindusara’s reign by which it
may be raised upto (28+3=) 31 years. Why in Bindusara’s reign
specifically and not to any one of the others ? This question may
arise! But in sec. VII.3 p. 107, I have already given enough evidence
that Ach. Chandavajji’s vinaya-pamokkhataship of 58 years was
omitted from the list of Theras, and according to my belief, it should
be done just around the epoch of Ashoka’s coronation, when the
orthodox school of Buddhism ie. Theravadins were gloriously
progressing under the able leadership of Thera Moggaliputta Tisya.
‘Due to the omission of Ach. Chandavajji’s 58 years, Ashoka’s corona-
tion was assigned to (276 pBm-58 years=) 218 pBm in Ceylonese
chronicle Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa etc. and Thera’s chronology
was recorrected up to the Thera Dasaka’s upasampada ordination
epoch.

Now we still have missed (35-31=) 4 years for the Bindusara’s

reign which can easily be compensated, if we add the 4 years interre-
gnum period into the Bindusara reign, inserted by the Buddhist
Ceylonese chronicles between the death of Bindusara and the corona.
tion of Ashoka.” Prof. K.A.N. Sastri says : “when Bindusara fell ill
and was near his end, Ashoka left Ujjain and went over to Pushpapur
(Pataliputra) and took charge of the administration of the empire.
Legend implies that this was done against the wish of Bindusara who
had other ideas regarding succession, and there was an interval of
4 years between the end of Bindusara’s rule and the formal abhisheka
of Ashoka from which event his regnal years are counted in the
inscriptions.” Ceylon legends contain two different statements— one
that Ashoka killed ninty-one brothers born of different mothers,
before becomming sovereign*® and the other that after his father’s
 140 Chronology of North Indian Kings

death, he caused his eldest brother to be slain before seizing the

sovereignty of Pushpapur.** The Divyavadana says that when
Bindusara lying on his death-bed wanted to anoint his son Susima,
his ministers substituted Ashoka in his place : and when the dying
monarch discovered the trick and become angry, Ashoka established
his right by successfully calling upon the gods to give him the diadem
if it was his by 11111. But elsewhere in the same work Ashoka
speaks of his attaining sovereignty by killing his enemies,?6

The above mentioned legend in Divyavadana®’ gives a clear clue

that when Ashoka accended to the throne, Bindusara was still alive
though he was lying on the death-bed due to the serious illness. In
light of this legend, I believe that Ashoka fought the succession-war
and became victorious in the life time of his father, when the father
became unable to rule due to his permanent-illness. Ashoka might
have imprisoned his eldest brother Susima and accended to the
throne. But Ashoka still did not able to be coronated for another
4 years until his father Bindusara expired after the long duration bed-
illness. Otherwise, who could be able to restrain an accended king
Ashoka (of atleast 28 years of age) from his coronation, if his father
died before the Ashoka’s victory in his succession struggle. Perhaps
the issue for the succession-struggle was the election of Susima for the
consecration of Prince-royal (Yuvaraja). It may be possible that after
his father’s death, Ashoka caused his eldest brother to be slain (after
the 4 years of imprisonment) before seizing the sovereignty of Pushpa-
pur as Mahavamsa intended.**
If the above theory is correct, then this 4 years period which
was formerly treated by the Buddhist literatures as interregnum
should be added to the Bindusara’s reign and thus Bindusara’s ruling
period becomes (31+4=) 35 years. And by this result, it is safe to
say that Puranas (Vayu and Brahmanda) actually missed 10 years in
their present editions, if they really intend 25 years for Bindusara.
Thus my concluding opinion is that Ashoka really coronated in 265
B.C. in accordance with the analysis of Ashoka’s Rock-Edict XIII, if
Alexander of Corinth is supposed.
Chronologyof Mauryas 141
Vill.4. MAURYAN CHRONOLOGY IN JAINA SOURCES
All the Jaina sources®*—literatures as well as pattavalis—
unanimously announced that Mauryas ruled for 108 years only. Jaina
sources do not give any particular chronological detail for individual
kings, they only mention the sum-totals of the dynasties. Though
Hindu Puranas give 137 years for Mauryas but they give this figure
for Magadha kingdom not for Ujjain. On the other hand, as we
know already that Jaina sources particularly deal with the dynasties
of Ujjain kingdom, thus we now concentrate ourselves on the Ujjain
kings-list. We are almost certain that upto the Ashoka, Magadha
and Ujjain both the capitals were under the sway of single and united
Mauryan king-ship.
A layer of obscurity shrouds the history of Mauryas after
Ashoka. We are left with divergent versions of his successors. “The
only certainty” as held by K.A.N. Sastri is that the great empire
founded by Chandragupta and maintained in all its splendour by his
son and grandson, did not long survive in its entirety. After the death
of Ashoka, there was no strong hand to hold together the various
parts of the empire, let alone check the forces of disintegration.
From the edicts, we learn that be had many sons but the only
name mentioned is Tivra. The literary sources, however, mention
three sons of Ashoka—Mahendra, Kunala, and Jalauka. It is
highly probable that Tivra died before his father and Mahendra
did not ascend the throne. Kunala and Jalauka remained to be the
probable successor of Ashoka. Kalhana, the chronicler of Kashmir,
mentioned Jalauka who became independent after his father’s death.
According to Puranas, Buddhist and Jaina sources, Kunala was
the successor of Ashoka in Pataliputra. According to all Puranas,
Kunala ruled for 8 years only.*! His blindness incapitated him 10
rule and so his son Samprati became his regent. There is a lot of
confusion about the successor of [< 1819. Different sources give
different names. Bandhup§lita is the name of the son of 1<11518 in
the Vayu Purana.. The Buddhist and Jaina (Parisisthaparvan)
traditions call him Samprati. And the Tibetan authority Taranath
142 Chronologyof North Indian Kings

give the name Vigatashoka. In the Matsya Purana, the name given
is Dasaratha. They may be the different names of the same person
or the names of various grandsons of Ashoka. The two prominent
names are—Dasaratha and Samprati. According to Nagarjuni Hill
inscription,*? Dasaratha presented gifts to Ajivakas. In the style of
his grand-father, he took the title ‘Devanampiya’. Dr. V.A. Smith
has suggested that the Maurya empire was partitioned among
Dasaratha and Samprati. While Dasaratha took hold of the eastern
part with Pataliputra as capital, Samprati got the western part with
Ujjain as capital.
The Jaina tradition of Western India has much to tell about the
Ashoka’s grandson named Samprati, who is represented as having
been an eminent patron of Jainism. In fact a Jaina-Ashoka to whom
Taranath says Vigatashoka. We may take Samprati as an able
successor, who according to Bhandarkar, “in the matter of the
propagation of the Jaina faith, the Jaina records speak as highly of
him as Buddhist works do of Ashoka.’’ He constructed Vihars for
the Shramanas and thousands of Jaina temples. He ruled over
Avanti and Western India (in addition to the eastern territories—
Bhandarkar ?). He has two capitals—Pataliputra and Ujjaini
(Bhandarkar) while only one capital— Ujjaini (V.A. Smith).
Here we deal only with the Jaina chronology for Mauryas, thus,
we may restrict ourselves to the Ujjain kingdom only, over which
Samprati’s rule is well attested by the Jaina literatures. We accept
here, provisionally, V.A. Smith’s view that eastern part was ruled by
Daégaratha and the Western part by Samprati after Kunala. According
to Dr. Thomas, ‘after Samprati, the Maurya empire was further
disintegrated. Szalisuka, a successor of Samprati ruled over Patali-
putra with a diminished imperial pretence. After that the under-
current of disintegration came to the surface and the country was
broken into pieces’. Particularly for Ujjain kingdom, we find no any
evidence concerning any Maurya king after Samprati, who ruled (over
Ujjain) only for 9 years according to all the Puranas. Jaina traditions
because dealt with the Ujjain kingdom, therefore, we can now testify
its 108 years duration of Mauryas over Ujjain.
 Chronology
of Mauryas 143

TABLE XXIV

Puranas Buddhist literature =

Chandragupta 24 24
Bindusara 35 28
interregnum — 4
Ashoka 36 ers]
Kunala 8 8 (Puranic)
Samprati 9 9 ( nee gad

Total 112 110

Puranas’ total exceed by (112-108 =) 4 years in comparison to

the Jain tradition due to the fact that Puranas in reality added 4 years,
the so-called interregnum between Bindusara and Ashoka, to both the
kings’ reign viz. to Bindusara (coronated) and Ashoka (accended).
Thus we may conclude that Ashoka actualy ruled for (36-4 =)
32 years after his coronation 1.6. after the death of his father and
4 years before the death of father which makes (324-4=) 36 years
Puranic figure for Ashoka’s reign. Thus Ashoka ruled for 265-233
B-C.; Kunala : 233-225 B.C:-and -Samprati: 225-216 B.C. 11 this
way, Mauryas ruled over Ujjain for (324-216 B.C.=) 108 years
as Jaina tradition intended.™*

As regard Buddhist sources, they have intended 10 coronate

Chandragupta in 326 B.C., thus they give (326-216 B.C.) 110 years for
Maurya dynasty upto Samprati. But we still have to add 3 years
missing period, the short-fall in Magadha and Ceylonese kings-list in
comparison to the Thera’s-list. It raise the figure upto (110+3=)
113 years for Mauryas in Ujjain i.e. only one year higher in compari-
son to the Puranas, but (113-108=) 5 years in comparison to the
Jaina tradition. As regard the Mahavamsa chronology, we may say,
with some certainty that Mahavamsa might add (37-32=) 5 years in
the reign of Ashoka in order to compensate his 5 years deficit in
comparison to the Puranas crept upto the end of Kalashoka’s sons
which took place, accordiog to Puranas, in 402 B.C. but according to
Mahavamsa in 407 B.C.*
144 Chronologyof North Indian Kings
VIII.5. CHRONOLOGY OF JAIN YUGA-PRADHANAS

Prakrit Pattavali named as Dussama-Kala sramna-samgha-stva

of Dharmaghosa-stri also gives the list of Jain Acharyas between
the death of Mahavira and the coronation of Chandragupta Maurya
as follows :
TABLE XXV

1, Gautam 12 Years
2. Sudharma 8 Years
3. Jambu 44 Years
4. Prabhava 11 Years
5. Swaydmbhuva 23 Years
6. YaSobhadra 50 Years
7. Sambhitivijaya 8 Years
8. Bhadravahu 14 Years
9. Sthtlabhadra 45 Years

215 Years

It is said that Ach. Sthtlabhadra’s death and the Chandragupta

Maurva’s coronation year was the same.*® Thus Jain Acharyas’ list,
as given in this Pattavali concludes that only 215 years period elapsed
between the death of Mahavira and the coronation of Chandragupta
Maurya.

But concerning the chronology of the first three yuga-pradhanas

known as Kevalins, there is a great deal of confusion among the
Swetambar and Digambar sources. If compared with each other,
they turn out to have only the Ach. Sudharma and Jambu figuring at
the top of the lists in common. The Digambars start with Gotama—
Sudharma—Jambu, and in a few Swetambar lists, they are mentioned
in that order. However, in the greater part of the Swetamber lists,
Gotama is lacking. According to a 12810087 source (quoted in
pp. 26-27 of H.L. Jain’s book) first three Acharyas, known as
Kevalins, led the Jain samgha after the death of Mahavira for a
total of 62 years 1.6. upto the 62 AV. Their individual periods are
as follows :
 Chronologyof Mauryas 145
1. Gotama 12 years
2. Sudharma 12 Years
3. Jambu 38 Years

62 Years

Whereas Swetamber sources, including Hemachandra’s Parisis-

thaparvan, lacking the 12 years period of first Yuga-Pradhana Gotama,
began with the Ach. Sudharma. According to Parisisthaparvana
(LV, 56-61), the first patriach, Sudharma is said to have acted asa
patriach from 0-20 AV and 1115successor Jambuswamin from 20-60
AV. However the text (IV, 61) says that Jambuswamin died in 64
AV, thus giving him (64 AV-20 AV=) 44 years as given in Dussama-
Kala pattavali. In the absence of any accurate and conclusive
chronological periods for the individual Jain Acharyas and the end
of the Kevalins strictly with the end of Palaka-rule in Avanti,
I suggest the following chronological periods for the three Kevalins as
follows :

1. Gotama 12 Years (Dig. source, p. 26)

2. Sudharma 20 Years (Parisisthaparvana)
3. Jambuswamin 38 Years (Dic 01114 0 0)

70 Years

In this 70 years period of Kevalins after Mahavira’s death, it may

be possible that 62 years Kevalins’ period (as given in Digambar
source, pp. 26-27) may run parallel to the Palaka’s rule (545-483 B.C.)
over Avanti. But certainly speaking, the remaining 8 years of
Kevalins should extend into’ the reigns of Nandas (more
correctly Mahanandins). This 8 years period when added with the
151 years period given to the Yuga-Pradhanas from Prabhava to the
Sthilabhadra, facilitates (151+8=) 159 years (483-424 B.C.) for
Nandas (i.e. Mahanandins+Nav-Nandas) over Ujjain-kingdom after
the 62 years Palaka’s rule. This gives precisely a total of (70+151=)
221 years period between the death of Mahavira and the coronation
of Chandragupta Maurya in (545 B.C.-221 years—) 324 B.C
 146 Chronologyof North Indian Kings

The chronological order, in terms of Christian calendar, of

Jaina Yuga-Pradhanas from the death of Mahavira upto the end of
Samprati’s rule, the last Maurya king of Ujjain, may run as follows :

TABLE XXVI

S. No. Yuga-Pradhadna’s Name No. of Years Chris. Calendar Date

fe Gotama 12 545-533 B.C.

2. Sudharma 20 553-503.
3. Jambuswamin 38 513-475 B.C.
4. Prabhava 11 475-464 B.C.
< Swayambhuva 23 464-441 B.C.
6. Yasobhadra 50 441-391 B.C.
a: Sambhitivijaya 8 391-383 B.C.
8. Bhadravahu 14 383-369 B.C.
9. Sthilabhadra 45 369-324 B.C.
10. Mahagiri 30 324-294 B.C.
11; Suhastin 46 294-248 B.C.
12 Gunasundar 32 248-216 B.C.

329 AV 545-216 B.C.

Thus Gunasundar’s 32nd year is exactly coincided with that of

the end of the Samprati’s rule over Ujjain as intended by the
Dussama-kala pattavali which says that the 108 years rule of Mauryas
end with the 32nd year of Gunasundar.
Therefore, we may conclude the chronology of Mauryas upto
Samprati’s rule best compromised to all sources viz. Puranas,
Buddhist, Jaina, and also to the Greek references as follows :
Chandragupta 324-300 B.C. 24 years
Bindusara 300-265 B.C. 35 years
Ashoka 265-233 B.C. 32 years
Kunala 259-220. Die: 8 years
Samprati 225-216 B.C. 9 years

We may also conclude with all certainty upto the possible extent
that Ashoka certainly coronated in 265 B.C. With this conclusion,
Chronologyof Mauryas 147

we now finish our laborious analysis of chronology of ‘the most

controversial portion of ancient Indian history between the two much
debated points viz. the birth of Parikshit If contemporary to Maha-
bharata war and the coronation of Ashoka Maurya with which the
history of India, according to European view-point, really begins on
the authority of inscriptions.

REFERENCES

1. Plutarch, (leob), pp. 403, 490; Mc’Crindle, Inv. Alex., •òà 313; cf.; also
Curtius and Deodorous in Inv. Alex., pp. 222, 282.

Inv. Alex. p. 327.

Cf. Grote, History of Greece (FLS), XI, pp. 140 ff.; 147 ff.

Justin, Inv. Alex., p. 328; Watson’s translation, p. 142.

Mudrarakshasa, Act. IV, p. 278.
Roy, S.B., Ancient India, p. 113.
Prasad, R.G.N., Greek-Babylonian Effect on Ancient Hindu Chaturyuga
Calendar, Ch. IJ, pp. 2-7.
8. Ancient India, p. 9; Invasion of India by Alexander, p. 328.

9. Appian, Roman History, Vol. If, Book XI, p. 204, Trans. White.
10. Ancient India as described by in Classical Literatures, pp. 88-98; Plutarch’s
Lives, p. 490.
11. Cambridge Shorter History of India, 1934, p. 33.

12. Tarn, The Greek in Bactria and India, p. 174 fn. 3; K.K. Dhruva, J.B. &
–r’ââà 1930; 035.

13. Venkatachelam, Ancient Hindu History, Part II, pp. 17-18.

14. Sastri, K.A.N., Age of the Nandas and Mauryas, pp. 13-14.
15. Mce’Crindle, Invasion, p. 220.

16. Sastri, K.A.N., Age of the Nandas and Mauryas, p. 14.

17. Mc’Crindle, Invasion, pp. 221-22.

18. Classical Accounts of India, pp. 128; 198.
148 Chronology of North Indian Kings

19; Me’Crindle, Invasion, pp. 221-22.

20. Deodorus Siculus, XIX, 14.

24. Inv. Alex., p. 385; Companion to Greek Studies, p. 110.

22. Companion, p. 110.

Appian, Roman History, Vol. II (leob. library)—Syr., XI, 9.55.

24. Sastri, K.A.N., Age of the Nandas and Mauryas, p. 206.
Zo, Ibid., pp. 206-07.
26. J.R.A.S., 1905, p. 51.

27. Prasad, R.G.N., The Date of Buddha’s Mahaparinirvana, ABORI,

67, pp. 78-88.
28. Venkatachelam, Ancient Hindu History, Part I, p. 88.

29: Panthari, Maurya Samrajya ka Samskritic Itihas, pp. 54 fn. 23.58.

30. Mahavamsa, XIII, 8-11; Dipavamsa, VI, 15-17.
a1; Dipavamsa, VI, 21-22, VII, 21-22; and 24.

92; Sastri, K.A.N., Age of the Nandas and Mauryas, p. 209.

9.–p Mahavamsa, V, 20; Dipavamsa, VJ, 21-22.

34. Mahavamsa, V, 40.
25. Divyavadana, pp. 372-73.
36. Divyavadana, pp. 389; 400.
Die Divyavadana, pp. 372-73.
38. Mahavamsa, V, 40.
99 Prakrita Pattavali named as Dussamda-kala Sramna-samgha stva_ of
Dharmaghosha suri, quoted in H.L. Jain’s book, p. 29; P.L., Gupta,
Gupta Samrajya, pp. 118-19; Jour. Bom. Br. of Roy. Asiat. Soc., 9 (PC):
p. 147; Ind. Ant., 2, p. 247.
40. Sastri, K.A.N., The Age of Nandas and Mauryas, pp. 243-44; A,
Bhattacharjee, History of Ancient India, pp. 192-93.
41. Venkatachelam, Ancient Hindu History, J, p. 93; Sastri, Age of Nandas
and Mauryas, p. 244; Bhattacharjee, History of Ancient India, p. 192.
Chronology of Mauryas 149

42. Upadhyaya, V.D., A Study of Ancient Indian Inscriptions, Part II,

pp. 265-66.
43. Ashoka, p. 70; E.H.I., 4th ed., p. 203.

44. Venkatachelam, Ancient, Hindu History, Part I, pp. 93-94; Sastri, Age of
the Nandas and Mauryas, p. 244.
45. Prasad, R.G.N., Chronology of North Indian Kings from the birth of
Parikshit II upto the Coronation of Ashoka Maurya, sec. VI.1.3.

46. Jain data about the accession of Chandragupta Maurya are as follows:
“Sthilabhadra died the same year as the 9th Nanda (Master of Sakatala)
and the year in which Chandragupta ascended the throne (Pattavali of
Tapa-gachcha,”’ Indian Antiquary, (I.A.), XI, •òà251. This took place 219
years after the death of Mahavira (Pattavali of Kharataragachcha), I.A.,
17 246:
“P See yo Ae 9 ’‰K–À•P
ee re –°03 ‘Y@a a
ieee, TE 8 PSS “i –@ 4

’‰M“Y>
ee

rn ase 7 7 –P 7 > “Y? =

4

Era © , i Ve

–¹n
 APPENDIX

Concise Chronological Tables

TABLE XXVII

KURUS OF HASTINAPUR AND KAUSHAMBI

(1339 B.C.-467 B.C.)

S. No. Name of the King Ay. Years Eq Christian Calen. Date

1. Yuddhisthira 37 1339-1302 B.C.

2. Parikshita 60 1302-1242 ,,
3. Harnadeva 15 1242-1227 _ +,
4. Ramadeva 16 IWATA) <5.
5. Vydsadeva 15 AR UI
6. Draunadeva 16 1196-1180 ,,
7. Simhadeva 16 1180-1164 ,,
8. Gopaldeva 16 1164-1148 ,,
9. Vijayananda 15 1148-1133 ,,
10. Sukhadeva 16 0031111,
11. Ramandeva i 1111110. +,
12. Sandhiman 16 1102-1086 ,,

13. Marhandeva & Kamandeva 16 1086-1070 ,,

14. Chandradeva 16 1070-1054 ,,

15. Anandadeva 15 1054-1039 ,,

16. Drupadadeva aA 1039-1016 ,,

17. Harnamdeva ee 1016-993 ,,

(Contd.)
152 Chronology of North Indian Kings

S. No Name of the King Ay. Years Eq. Christian Calen. Date

18. Sulkandeva 23 993-970 B.C.

19. Janamejaya III 34 970-936 ,,
20. Satadnika I 10 936-926 „,

21. Aswamedhadatta 10 926-916 _,,

22. Adhisimakrsna 10 916-906 =,
23. Nichaksu 18 906-888 ,,
24. Usna 18 888-870 ,,
25. Chitraratha 18 870-852 ,,
26. Suchidratha 18 852-834 _,,

27. Vrsnimat iz _ 834-817 ,,

28. Susena 18 817-799 ,,
29. Sunitha 18 TI9-TSi
30. Ruca 18 781-763— _,,
31. Nrcaksus 18 10149 ss
32. Sukhibala 17 745-728 =,
33. Pariplava 18 728-710 —,,
34. Sunaya 18 710-692 = ,,
35. Medhavin 18 692-674 ,,
36. Nrpafijaya 18 674 656 ,.
37. Dhruva Ms 636-639 ,,
38. Tigmatman 24 639-615 _,,
39. Brahadratha 24 615-591...
40. Vasudana 24 29190.
41. Satdnika IT Paramtapa 18 367-549,

42, Udayana 30 249-519. ...,

43. Vahinara 13 519-506 ,,
44. Dandapani 13 506-493 ,,
45. Nirdmitra 13 493-480
46. Kshemaka 13 480-467
Appendix 153

TABLE XXVIII

MAGADHA KINGDOM

S.No. Name of the King Ay. Years Eq. Christian Calen. Date
—

1. Kurus from Hastindpur

1. Yuddhisthira 37 1339=130298,.C.
2. Parikshita 60 1302-1242

3. Harnadeva 19 1242-1227
4. Ramadeva 16 1227-1211

5. WVyasadeva 15 1211-1196
6. Draunadeva 16 1196-1180

7. Simhadeva 16 1180-1164

8. Gopaldeva 16 1164-1148

9. Vijayananda 15 1148-1133

10. Sukhadeva 16 1133-FEL7

11. R&amandeva 15 1117-1102

12. Sandhiman 16 1102-1086

13. Marhandeva & Kamandeva 16 1086-1070

14. Chandradeva 16 1070-1054

15. Anandadeva 15 1054-1039

2. Barhadratha Dynasty

16. Somadhi 1039-1016

17. Srutagrva 1016- 989

18. Ayutayus 989- 974

19. Niramitra 974- 958

20. Sukrtta 958- 935

21. Brahatkarman 935- 926

22. Sendajit 926- 906

(Contd.)
154 Chronology of North Indian Kings
S.Noi.Name
S.No. Name of the King
King. "AAy. Years 1 Eq. Christian Calen. ’@Date

23. Srutafijaya 16 906-890 B.C.

24. Vibhu 11 890-879 ,,

25. Shuchi 23 819-856 ,,

26. Kshema 11 856-845 =,
27. Subrata 26 845-819 ,,
28. Sunetra 14 819-805 ,,
29. Nivriti 23 805-782 =,

30. Trinetra 11 –@ 782-771 = ,,

31. Dyumatsena 23 {11108 +’°

32. Sumati 13 748-735,
33. Achal 13 1;
34. Sunetra 16 –yh.106. ' %;
35. Satyajit 33 706-673 ,,
36. Virajit 14 6173-659 ,,
37. Repufijaya 20 659-639 ,,

3. Bimbasdra Dynasty

38. Kshemadharma 36 639-603,

39. Ksgshatroja 24 603-579,
40. Bimbasara 28 579-551,
41. Ajatshatru 27 $5334" 5,
42. Darshaka 07 Nagadasaka 24 524-500,
43. Udayi 33 500-467,

4. Mahdanandin Dynasty

44, 61501588 23 467-444 ,,

45. Kakavarna or Kalashoka 20 444-424,

(Contd.)
Appendix 155

S.No. Nameof the King Av. Years Eq. ChristianCalen. Date_

5. Nav-NandaDynasty
46. Nanda-suta 20 424-404 B.C.
47. Pra-nanda = i, 404-394,

48. Pard-nanda 10 394-384 ,,

49. Sama-nanda 12 384-372 = ,,
50. Priya-nanda 12 372-360 __,,
51. Deva-nanda 12 360-348 ,,
52. Yajiia-bhanga 6 348-342 ,,
53. Maurya-nanda 342-336 „+
54. Maha-nanda 12 336-324 ,,

| 6. Maurya Dynasty up to Ashoka

55. Chandragupta 24 324-300 +»

56. Bindusara 35 300-265 ,,

57. Ashoka 32 265-233. - 5,
156 Chronology of North Indian Kings

TABLE XXIX
AIKSVAKU KINGDOM

S. No. Name of the King Ay. Years Eq. Christian Calen. Date

1. Kurus from Hastinapur

1. Yuddhisthira 37 1339-1302 B.C.
2. Parikshit II 60 1302212020 =.
3. Harnadeva | sy 1242-1227 `,
4. Ramadeva 16 1227-121) |;
5. Vyasadeva 15 [21 1196-=
6. Draunadeva 16 1196-1180,
7. Simhadeva 16 1180-1164 ,,
8. Gopaladeva 16 1164-1148,
9. Vijayananda 15 1148-1133 ,,

10. Sukhadeva 16 11331107 53

11. Ramandeva iS 1117-1102 ,,
12. Sadhiman 16 1102-1086 _,,
13. Marhandeva & Kamandeva 16 1086-1070,
14. Chandradeva 16 1070-1054 _
15. Anandadeva 15 1054-1039 = ,,

16. Drupadadeva 23 1039-1016 ,,

17. Harnamdeva 23 1016- 993 _ ,,

2. 41–ãCIn4 Dynasty

18. Brhatksya 17 993-976 ,,

19. Uruksya 18 976-958 ,,
20. Vatsavyuha te 958-941 = ,,
21. Prativyoma 18 941-923,
22. Divakara 17 923-906 ,,

(Contd.)
 157
Appendix

S.No. Name of the King Ay. Years Eq. Christian Calen. Date

23– Sahadeva 13 906-893 B.C.

24. Brhadasva 13 893-880

25, Bhanuratha 13 880-367

26. Pratitasva 13 867-854

1 Supratika 14 854-840

28. Marudeva 13 840-827

29; Sunakshatra 13 827-814

30. Kinnarasva 13 814-801

13 801-788 `
at. Antariksha

32; Suparna 14 788-774

gor ` Amitrajit 13 774-761

34 .Brhadbhraja 15 761-746

3.2 Dharmin 746-733

36. Krtanjaya 733-718

1 Rananjaya 718-704

38. Sanjaya 704-691

39. Sakya 691-657

40. Suddhodana 657-584

41. Rahula 584-546

42. Prasenajit 567-547

43. Viruddhaka or Ksudraka 547-527

44. Kulaka 527-507

45. Suratha 507-487

46. Sumitra 487-467

158 Chronology of North Indian Kings

~TABLE XXX

KASHMIR KINGDOM

Names of the Kings Ay. Years Eq Christian Calen. Date

— Gonanda II 1352-1296 B.C.

.
Parikshita II 1296-1254

3oS
V©
4O60
i Harnadeva 1 ’ù> ~

Ramadeva 1227-1211

Vyasadeva 1211-1196 ,,

Draunadeva 1196-1180

Simhadeva 1180-1164 „,

Gopaldeva 1164-1148

Vijayananda 1148-1133 ,,

Sukhadeva 1133-1117
=
~
+
““‚Ramandeva
|"""
’ùK 1117-1102

Sandhiman 1102-1086 .,

Marhandeva & Kamandeva 1086-1070 ,,

Chandradeva 1070-1054

Anandadeva 1054-1039

Drupadadeva 1039-1016

Harnamadeva 1016- 993

Sulkandeva 993- 970

Sinaditya 970- 960

Mangaladitya 960- 950 „,

Khimendra 950- 942

Bhimasena 942- 920

Indrasena 920- 899

Sunderasena 899- 877

Galgendra 877- 856

(Contd.)
Appendix 159

S.No. Name of the King Ay, Years £q. Christian Calen. Date
26. Baldeva 22 856-834 B.C,

24 Nalasena 21 834-813
28. Gokarna 98) 813-791
29; Prahalad 21 791-770

30. Bambru 22 770-748

al; Pratapaseela 21 748-727

Lia Samgramchandra 22 727-705

33; Larikchandra PR! 705-684
34, Biramchandra 2a 684-662

seh Babighana 92 662-640

36. Bhagwant ’p 640-618

91 Lava 39 618-579

38. Kuéa or Pukkusati 39 579-540

39. Khagendra 39 540-501

40. Surendra 39 501-462

41. Godhara 39 462-423

42. Suvarpa 39 423-384

43. Janak 39 384-345

44. Sachinar 31 345-314

45. Unknown King 30 314-284

46. Dharma-Ashoka 48 284-236

160 Chronologyof North IndianKings
TABLE XXxI

POST-WAR CONTEMPORARY KINGS-LIST OF NORTHERN INDIA

Barhadrathas Kurus Aiksvakus Kashmirians

Sahadeva Duryodhana Brahadbala Damodar I

Meghasandhi Gonanda II
Yuddhisthira Yuddhisthira Yuddhisthira Yuddhisthira
Parikshita Il Parikshita II Parikshita I] Parikshita 11
Harnadeva Harnadeva Harnadeva Harnadeva
Ramadeva Ramadeva Ramadeva Ramadeva
Vyasadeva Vyasadeva Vyasadeva Vyasadeva
Draunadeva Draunadeva Draunadeva Draunadeva
Simhadeva Simhaceva Simhadeva Simhadeva
Gopaldeva Gopaldeva Gopaldeva Gopaldeva
Vijayananda Vijayananda Vijayananda Vijayananda

Sukhadeva Sukhadeva Sukhadeva Sukhadeva

Ramandeva Ramandeva Ramandeva Ramandeva
Sandhiman Sandhiman Sandhiman Sandhiman
Marhan & Marhan & Kaman Marhan & Marhan &
Kamandeva Kamandeva Kamandeva

Chandradeva Chandradeva Chandradeva Chandradeva

Anandadeva Anandadeva Anandadeva Anandadeva
Prcsaceden
Somadhi Drupadadeva Drupacadeva
Srutagrava Harnamadeva Harnamadeva Harnamadeva

Ayutayus Sulkandeva Brhatksya Sulkandeva

Niramitra Janamejaya III Uruksya Sinaditya

99
Mangaladitya
Khimendra
Sukrtta 99 –yg

(Contd.)
Appendix 161

Barhadzathas Kurus Aiksvakus Kashmirians

Sukrtta Satanika I Vatsavytha Bhimasena
Brahatkarman Aswamedhadatta Prativyoma os
Senajit Adhisimakrsna Divakara Indrasena
Srutafijaya Nichaksu Sahadeva Sur darasena
Vibhu Usna Brahadasva Galgendra
- “P Bhanuratha om
Suchi Chitraratha Pratitasva
Ksema Suchidratha Supratika Baldeva
Suvrata Vrsnimat Marudeva Nalasena
> FS Sunakshatira ’rÀ
Sunetra Susena Kinnarasva Gokarna
Nirviti Sunitha Antariksha ’p
Trinetra Ruca Suparna Prahalad
Drdhasena Nrcaksus Amitrajit Bambru
(Dyumatse)
» 99 Brhadbhraja ’@
9111811 Sukhibala Dharmin Pratapseela
Achal Pariplava Krtanjaya Sangramachandra
Sunetra –° Rananjaya ’p
Satyajit Sunaya Safijaya Larikchandra
– Medhavin Sakya Birémchandra
Virajit Nrpafijaya 5 3
Repufijaya Dhruva Suddhodana Babighana
Kshemadharma Tigmatman Brother of Suddho Bhagwat

Brahadratha Fa. of Mahakosala Lava

99
Kshatroja Vasudana Mahakosala KuSa or Pukkusat
Bimbasara Satanika II Prasenajit –yg

(Contd.)
162 Chronology of North Indian Kings

Barhadrathas Kurus AikSyakus Kashmirians

Ajatshatru Udayana Viruddhaka Khagendra

Darshaka Vahinara Kulaka =

Udayi Dandapani Suratha Surendra

Niramitra
Kshemaka Sumitra 39

Sisunaga 816078–ó€ 81501828 Godhara

Kakavarna Kakavarna Kakavarna –²•

Nanda-suta Nanda-suta Nanda-suta Suvarna

Pra-Nanda Pra-Nanda Pra-Nanda –°

Para-Nanda Para-Nanda Para-Nanda ”

Sama-Nanda Sama-Nanda Sama- Nanda Janak

Priya-Nanda Priya-Nanda Priya-Nanda 3

Deva-Nanda Deva-Nanda Deva-Nanda 2

Yajna-Bhanga Yajna-Bhanga Yajna-Bhanga Sachinar

Maurya-Nanda Maurya-Nanda Maurya-Nanda 99

Maha-Nanda Maha-Nanda Maha-Nanda 93

Chandragupta Chandragupta Chandragupta Unknown King

Maurya
Bindusara Bindusara Bindusara –yg

Ashoka
~ Ashoka ~ 1Ashoka= 1
 Bibliography

Agrawal, D.P., The Archaeology of India, Scandinavian Institute of

Asian Studies Monograph Series No. 46, Curzon Press, London,
1982. |

Agrawal, G.C. (Gen. ed.), Age of Bharata War, Motilal Banarsidass,

Delhi, 1979.
Annals of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol. XXVII,
Poona, 1946.

Bapat, P.V., 2500 Years of Buddhism, The Publication Division of

India, New Delhi, 24th May, 1956.

Barau, A., Les primiers conciles bouddhiques, Paris, 1955 (Annals du

Musee Guimet, Bibliotheque d’ Etudes, tome 60).
Bhagvata Purana, Nirnayasagar Press, Bombay, 1929; Gita Press
edition : Sanskrit Text, 1965; Hindi translation, 1980, Gorakh-
pur.
Bhandarkar, D.R., Ashoka, Calcutta, 1955; Hindi ed., S. Chand &
Co., Delhi.
Bhandarkar, D.R., Lectures on the Ancient History of India,
(Carmichael Lectures, 1918), Calcutta, 1919.
Bhargava, P.L., India in Vedic Age, The Upper India Publishing
House Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow, 2nd ed., 1971.
164 Chronology of North Indian Kings

Bhattashali, N.K., Maurya Chronology and Connected Problems,

4.2.193;
Bhavisya Purana, Samskriti Sansthana edition, Barelly, 1978.
Bigandet, Bishop P., Life or Legend of Gaudama, 1773 A.D., Quoted
in Kota Venkatachelam’s book “Age of Lord Buddha, Milinda
& king Amtiyoka’’, Vijayavada, 1956; also quoted in Swami-
kannu Pillai’s Indian Ephemeris, p. 472.
Brahmanda Purana, Venkateshwar Press, Bombay, 1935.
Burgess, Ebeneger, Strya Siddhanta, English trans. of Ranganath
Sanskrit Commentary, Reprinted from the edition of 1860,
Indological Book House, Delhi, 1977.
Chaudhary, Pt. Sri Kapileshwar, Mayasura’s Strya Siddhanta, edited
with Tattvamrta Sanskrit Commentary, Kashi Sanskrit Series,
144, 3rd edition, Chaukhamba Sanskrit Sansthana, Varanasi,
1978.
Cowell, E.B. and R.A. Neil (eds.), Divyavadana, Cambridge, 1886.
Eggermont, P.H.L., The Emperor Ashoka and the Tisyarakshita
legend, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica, Belgium, 1980.
Eggermont, P.H.L., The Purana Source of Merutunga’s List of Kings,
Oriental Monograph Series, Vol. IV, Leiden, 1968.
Geiger, W., Mahavamsha (earlier portion of the chronicle by
Mahanama), P.T.S., London, 1908; Eng. trans. (The Great
Chronicle of Ceylon, W. Geiger assisted by Mabel H. Bode),
London, 1912.
Gupta, P.L., Gupta Samrajya, Visvavidyalaya Prakashana, Varanasi,
1970.
Gupta, S.P. and K.S. Ramachandran, Mahabharata —Myth and
Reality, Agam Prakashan, Delhi, 1976.
Imbrie, J. and K.P. Imbrie, Ice-Ages : Solving the Mystery, Ist ed
The Mac-millon Press Ltd., London, 1979
Bibliography 165

Jacobi, H., Parisisthaparvan being an appendix of the Trisashtigalaka-

purushacharita of Hemachandra, B.J., Calcutta, 1883-91. 2nd
Ed., 1932.
Jacobi, H., Kalpastitra of Bhadravahu, Abhandlungen fur die Kunde
des Morgenlands, VII Band, No. 1, Leipzig, 1879; Sacred Books
of East Series XXII.
Jain, H.L., Bhartiya Samskriti me Jain Dharma ka Yogadana, M.P.
Sashana Parishada, Bhopal, 1962 (Reprinted 1975).
Lamotte, Etinne, Historie du Buddhisme Indien; des origines a Ere
Saka, Louvain, 1958 (Bibliotheque du Museon, Vol. 43).

Law, B.C., Buddhist Studies, Calcutta, 1931.

Mahabharata epic, Critically edited by Sukthankar Edgerton,
Belvalkar and others, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute,
Poona, 1927-53.
Mahajan, V.D., Ancient India, S. Chand & Company, Delhi, 1981.
Majumdar, R.C., Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1977.
Matsya Purana, A.S.S., Poona, 1907; Sanskriti Sansthana edition,
Barelly, 1971; Matsya Puranaka, Kalayan Magazine, Vols. 58 &
59, Gita Press, Gorakhpur, 1984-85.
Mayhoff, C. (ed.), Pliny’s Naturalis Historica, Leipzig, 1892-1909.
Mce’Crindle, J.W., Ancient India as described in Classical literatures,
Westminister, 1901.
Mce’Crindle, J.W., Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and
Arrian, Calcutta, 1906.
Mc’Crindle, J.W., The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great as
described by Q. Curtius, Diodorus, Plutarch and Justin,
Westminister, 1896.
Mookerji, R.K., Ashoka, Macmillan & Co., 1928; Motilal Banarsidass
Benaras,
166 Chronology of North Indian Kings

Mookerji, R.K., Chandragupta Maurya and His Times, Motilal

Banarsidass, Delhi, 4th ed., 1966.
Oldenberg, H., Dipavamsha, London, 1879 (A.E.S. Reprint, 1982).
Pandey, Rajabali, Pracheen Bharata, Nanda Kishore & Sons,
Varanasi, 1976-77.
Pargiter, F.E., Ancient Indian Historical Traditions, Motilal
Banarsidass, Delhi, 151ed. (1922), Indian Rep. 1972.
Pargiter, F.E., The Purana Text of Dynasties of Kali Age, Chow-
khamba Arambhabharati Prakashana, Varanasi, 2nd ed., 1962.
Pradhana, Sitanath, Chronology of Ancient India, Calcutta, 1927.
Prasad, R.G.N., Beginning of Agriculture—Synchronism between
Archaeological and Traditional (Puranic) Evidences, Archaeolo-
gical Objectivity in Interpretation, Vol. 3, Part 6, Sec. 1, No. 8,
The World Archaeological Congress, Southampton, Ist-7th
September, 1986.

Prasad, R.G.N., Chronology of Manu Vaivasvata’s Flood Myth at the

Beginning of Geological Holocene Epoch, Hindu Mythology
and its Interrelation to the Mythologies of the World Seminar,
2 September, 1984, Thane.
Prasad, R.G.N., The Date of Buddha’s Mahaparinirvana, 7th Confe-
rence of the International Association of Buddhist Studies,
Bologna, Italy; July 8th-13th, 1985; Annals of Bhandarkar
Oriental Research Institute, Vol. LXVII (1986), Poona, 1987.

Prasad, R.G.N., Genesis of Vikramaditya Samvata and Salivahana

Samvata.
Prasad, R.G.N., Gradational Structure of Universal Time—A Scienti-
fic Resurrection of Ancient Hindu Calendar, Gorakhpur, 1981.

Prasad, R.G.N., Greek-Babylonian Effect on Ancient Hindu Chatur-

yuga Calendar, Gorakhpur, 1984,
Bibliography 167

Prasad, R.G.N., Historical Dates of Kaliyuga Events, Gorakhpur,

1981.
Prasad, R.G.N., Sarga System of Puranas and Modern Evolution
Biology, Itihas Patrika, Vol. 3, No. 2, 27th June 1983, pp. 41-51,
Thane.
Prasad, R.G.N., Solar Activity, Geomagnetism, Carbon-14 and
Climatological Interpretation for the Dharma-pada Concept of
Vaivasvata Manvantara, Gorakhpur, 1982.
Ray Chaudhary, H.C., Political History of Ancient India, VII edition,
Calcutta, 1970.
Rice, Lewis, Mysore and Coorg from Inscriptions, London, 1909.
Rao, S:R., Protohistoric Inscription from the Sea near Bet Dwarika,
Jour. of the Epigraphical Society of India, Vol. 24111,pp. 82-86,
1986.
Rao, S.R., Sunken Ships and Submerged Ports, Science Today, Sept.
1983, pp. 18-23; Science Today, Jan. 1984, p. 8, Times of India
Publication, Bombay.
Roy, S.B., Ancient India, Ins. of Chronology, N. Delhi, 1975.
Roy, S.B., Prehistoric Lunar Astronomy, Institute of Chronology,
1975;
Samchhipta Mahabharata epic (Hindi edition), Gita Press, 3nd ed.,
Gorakhpur, 1978-83.
Sastri, K.A.N., The Age of Nandas and Mauryas, Benaras, 1952,
10.–ã° 101.
Shah, Shantilal, The Traditional Chronology of the Jainas, Bonner
Orientalistische Studien, Heft 9, Stuttgart, 1935.
Sharma, Ach. Pt. Sri Ram, Vayu Purana, Sanskriti Sansthana,
Barelly, 1969.
Sharma, Ach. Pt. Sri Ram, Matsya Purana, Sanskriti Sansthana,
Barelly, 1971.
168 Chronology
of NorthIndianKings

Sharma, Pt. Sri Ram, Bhavisya Purana, Sanskriti Sansthana, Barelly,

1978.
Sharma. Pt. Sri Ram, Harivamsha Purana, Sanskriti Sansthana, 3rd
ed., Barelly, 1979-80

Sharma, Pt. Achyutananda Jha, Varahamihira’s Brhatsamhita,

Chowkhamba Vidya Bhawan, Varanasi, 1977.

shukla, K.S. and K.V. Sharma, Aryabhatiya of Aryabhatta, Parts I,

II and IJ, Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi, 1976.

Smith, V.A., Ashoka, Oxford, 1920; 3rd Indian Reprint 1970, S.

Chand & Co. Delhi.

Smith, V.A., Early History of India, Oxford, 1924.

Taneja, Subhasa Vedalankar, Kalhana’s Rajatarangini, Alankar

Prakashan, Jaipur, 1967; Rajatarangini of Kalhana, Ed. Durga
Prasad, 1892, Eng. trans. of M.A. Steih, London, 1900.
Thibaut, G. and Mm. S. Dvivedi, The Panchasiddantika of Varaha-
mihira, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series LXVIII, Chowkhamba
Publication, Varanasi, 1968.

Tripathi, R.S., History of Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi

(1942), Reprinted 1981.
Venkatachelam, Pt. Kota, Chronology of Kashmir History (Recon-
structed), Vijayavada, 1955.
Varma, K.C., Ancient Indian Chronology and the Date of Emperor
Ashoka, Gaziabad, 1982.

Vayu Purana, A.S.S., Poona, 1905; Sanskriti Sansthana edition,

Barelly, 1969.
Vishnu Purana, Bombay, 1889, Eng. trans. by H.H. Wilson, 5 Vols.,
London, 1864-70; Gita Press, Gorakhpur, 1933; Sanskriti Sans-
thana edition, 1971-72.
 Index

Abhaya, 108, 114-15 Anuruddha, 115

Abimanyu, 61 Anuruddhaka, 77
Ach. Chandavajji, 24, 107, 114, 116, Arrian, 35, 126
139 arrowheads, 34
Ach. Jambu, 144 Aryabatta, 17, 33, 36
Ach. Sudharma, 144-45 Aryabhattiyam, 2
Ach. Udayavira, 35 Ashoka (Maurya), 24, 36, 105, 132,
Agni Purana, 21 137, 140, 144, 146-47
Agrammes, 130-31 —abhisheka, 107
Ahmad, Mulla, 43 —dhamma, 117
Aihole Inscription, 36 —, Rock Edict XIII of, 133,.136, 140
Aiksvaku(s), 49, 51, 93 Asmakas, 51
—Dynasty, 60 Assam, 33
——, kings-list of, 58 ASwamédha Yajiia, 14
—kingdom, 88 Astadhyayi, 33
—Kings, Post Barhadratha Period, 87 Avanti, 25, 40, 48, 70, 87, 145
—throne, 62 —, Kings-list of, 66
Ajatshatru, 40, 69, 75, 77-80, 93, 107, —, Puranic Kings-list of, 120
114 Axes, 34
Ajivakas, 142 Ayodhya, 51, 88
Alexander, 124, 128, 133-36, 140
Alikasundara, 134 Bareau, André, 105
Allen, J., 127 Barhadratha(s), 37, 48, 68, 96
Ancient Hindu Chaturyuga Calender, —Dynasty, 39, 64, 86
Greek-Babylonian effect on, 16 — -Kings-list of, 52
Andhras, 21 —, Regnal years of Post war, 55
Antekina, 133 —, Post war kings, 57
Antiyoka, 134 ——Chronological analysis of, 73
170 Chronology of North Indian Kings

Bhadravahu, 119 Chaturyuga Calender, traditional

Bhagawata Purana, 36, 103 Statements on, 12
Bhagwata, W.V., 38 Chidambara Iyer, P.R., 42
Bhavisya Purana, 12-3, 15, 93, 97-9, Curtius, 104
102-03, 116, 118, 120, 132-33
Bhimasena, 43, 53 Dagaratha, 142
Bigandet, Bishop P., 59 Denton, GH, 3, 12
Bimbasara, 40, 64, 69, 73-5, 86-7, 93 Deodorus, 131
Bindusara, 110, 136-40, 143 Devanampiya (Tissa), 109, 142
Brhadbala, 3, 61, 87 Dharmaghosasiri, 118, 144
Brahatsamhita, 3, 18, 22 Dharmapada, 4
Brahmanda Purana, 74, 135-36 Dhrtarastra, 32
Brahma Dhruva-Samvata, 102
—cycle, 7 Dhruva-samvatsara, 3, 11
—Life Span of, 8 Dipavamsa, 58, 75-6, 78, 106, 108,
=€ 1 110-13, 116-17, 138-39
—yuga, 8 Divyavadana, 140
Buddha, 61, 73 Duryodhana, 53
—discipline, 105 Dussama kala Pattavali, 26, 82
—mahbaparinirvana samvata, 24 Dussama-kalasramma-samgha-stva, 82,
—nirvana, 84 118, 144
——samvata, 59, 83 dvanda-yuddha, 34
—parinirvana, 104, 106, 110 Dwapara, 5, 13, 39
Buddhist mahasamgiti, 24 Dwarika, 45
Buddhisa, 75
Burguess, E., 1, 17 Early contemporary dynasties, 48
Eggermont, P.H.L., 24, 80-1, 105
Era of Alexandria, 12, 39, 102
Carpentier, 26, 80, 83 Era of Constantinople, 39, 102, 126
Ceylon-Burma-Siam tradition, 24
Ceylonese kings-list, 25, 107-09, 114, Fleet, 17
116, 138, 143
Chakravyuha-yuddha, 61 Gandharvaséna, 16
Chakra-yuddha, 63 Ganga, 30
Chanda Pradyota, 25, 64, 82, 86, 119 ganikakushijanma, 130
Chandragupta I, 35, 137 Gangetic Doab, 45
Chandragupta Maurya, 35, 79, 83, 102- Gonanda I, 62
03, 110, 119-20, 124, 136, 144-45 Gonanda II, 63
—Greek Influence on, 125
—coronation date of, 120 Haihayas 51, 93
Chatterji, A.K., 38 Harivamsha Purana, 4
 Index 171

Harnadeva, 43, 51 Kenghe, C.T., 36

Hastinapur, 30-1, 43, 46, 53, 57, 62-3 Kevalins, 144
Hemachandra, 26, 80, 83 Kharataragachcha (Jain Pattavali), 81,
Hindu-Nakshatra system, 2 119
Kosala 40, 59
Krishnamachariar, M., 128
Ice-Ages, 2, 5 Krsna, 13, 53, 63
Imperial Gupta Dynasty, 120, 129 Krauficha-samvatsara, 23
Iran, 35 Krta samvata, 5
Krta yuga, 3, 11-12
Jacobi, 26, 83 --—, Beginning of, 4
Jaina Yuga Pradhana, 146 Kshatriya Dynasty, 49
———, chronology of, 144 Kshatriya Kings, 93
Jambuswamin, 145 Kshatriya rulers 92
Janamejaya III, 43-5, 47, 50 Kshatroja, 73-5
Jarasandha, 53, 63 Kshemadharma, 71, 73-4
Jayasimha, 79 Kunala, 143
Jones, Sir William, 128 Kuru Dynasty, 51
—Kings-list of, 44, 47, 52
Kuru Kings, Post Barhadratha Period,
Kakavarna, 40, 68, 70, 78, 97-8, 120, 86
130 Kurukshetra, 45
Kalachuri samvata, 26
Kalakriyapada, 2
Lal, B.B., 30
Kalashoka, 78, 83-4, 95, 99, 106, 113,
Lamotte, 105
rs
Lassen, C., 128
Kalhana, 19, 43, 141
late-cenozoic glaciation, 6
Kalingas, 51, 93
late-Harappa Ochre Colour Pottery, 45
Kali-samvata, 11
Leverrier, U., 5
1211–©f–ó"À5, 13, 36, 38, 42, 44, 57
Lunar Dynasty, 93
Kalpa, 1
—Ahoratra cycle, 6
Kalpasutra, 26, 119 Magadha, 25, 37, 39-40, 49, 51, 69, 75,
Kapilvastu, 60 0–Òãã
Karlen, W., 3, 12 —kings, Buddhist Kings-list of, 73
K4shi, 51, 87, 93 ——, 20181116kings-list of, 71
Kashmir, 43 —-kings-list of, 71-2, 85, 97, 107-09,
—, Kings-list of, 51, 53, 62 143
Kathasaritasagara, 32, 86, 88 —kingdom, 141
Kaurava, 63 —throne, 73
Kaushambi, 30, 45, 86, 93 Mahabharata war, 31, 33, 38-39, 61,
Kaveeswar, G.W., 38 103
 172 Chronologyof North Indian Kings

Mahabodhivamsa, 78, 93, 99, 129 Nandas, 13, 125

Mahakalpa, 1 —, Buddhist Chronology of, 104
MahakosSala, €0-1 —Dynasty, 13, 102, 104, 106, 115, 124
Mahanandi, 77, 92 ——Puranic chronology of, 94
Mahapadmananda, 21, 38, 40-50, 68- Nandivardhana, 71, 77, 98, 104
–s0 Nath, Amerendra, 31
181185211121118, 106-7 Nav-Nandas, 118, 120
Mahdvamsa, 76, 78, 81, 83, 115, 132, NBP Culture, 30, 46
138-40, 143 Nikaya-Bhedavibhanga-vyakhana, 104
Mahavira, 69, 79-80, 119-20, 145-46
—nirvana, 82
--—samvata, 25 Oldenberg, H., 114
Mahayuga, 1, 3
Majumdar, R.C., 32
Painted Grey Ware, 30
Malava samvata, 16
Pakundaka, 113
Manjushree Malakalpa, 127
Palaka, 70, 80
Manu-Vaivasvata, 3, 11, 126
—-Dynasty 69
Manvantara, 1, 6
Pafichangas, 34
Mathura, 63
—chaturyuga, 1
Matsya Purana, 18, 39, 69, 74-5, 78,
Pandavas, 30, 51, 63
135-6, 142
—Dynasty, 43, 63
Maurya Dynasty, 125, 129, 135-36
Pandukabhya, 108
Mauryan chronology, in Buddhist
Panduvasa, 112
Sources, 137
Pareiter, 21.31; 10 18.20
——, in Jain Sources, 141
Parikshit, 21, 32
Megasthenes, 35, 126 Parikshit II, 42-47, 50, 61, 63-4, 87,
Meghasandhi, 6!
147
Merutunga, 79-81
Parisisthaparvan, 141
microliths, 34
Pataliputra, 104, 131, 141
Milankovitch, M., 2 —, Buddhist Council at, 106-7
Modified Yuga Calendar, Traditional Pava, 80
Statement on, 15 Permo-Carboniferous glaciation, 6
Mohenjodaro, 34 Peshawar, 34
Muller, Prof. Max, 128
Phrygia, 133
Munda, 76-7, 115 Pliny, 25, 126
Mutasiva, 107, 116-17 Plutarch, 130-31
Poddar, Dr. R.P., 38
Poros kingdom, 132
Nagadasa, 112, 115 Prabandhachintamani, 79
Nagadasaka, 75-6 Pradyota dynasty, 25, 70-2, 83
Naga Kings of Kashmir, 51 Prakrit Pattavali, 144
Index 173

Prasénajit, 40, 61 Shakya kula 87, 132

Prasii, 125 Shakyas, 61
Prayaga-Prasasti, 131 Shiva, 16
precambrian glaciation, 6 Shrutasena, 43
Prithvipalaka, 82 Siddhantashastri, R.K., 18, 35-6
Ptolemy II, Philadelphus, 134 Sircar, D.C., 28-9
Punjab, 124 Sigunaga, 8, 49, 98, 106, 115
—Dynasty, 83
Raghawan, Sriniwas K.S., 18, 35 Smith, V.A., 17, 128, 142
Rajagriha, 73 Solar Dynasty, 93
Rajatarangint, 43, 47 SOmadhi, 53, 61
Raman, B.V., 35 spearheads, 34
Rao, S.R., 45 Sravasti, 59-60, 86-7
Ratnavali, 86, 88 Srenika, 75
Suddhddana, 59, 61, 73, 87
Repufijaya, 40, 48-50, 64, 86-7
Sultva, 132
Roy, S.B., 38
Surasena, 51, 93
Stryabdis, 1
Saka Era, 19, 102 Strya Siddhanta, 1, 12
Saka-Kala, 19, 35 Swayambhuva, 6
Sakas, 16 Sweta-Varaha-kalpa, 6
Saka samvata, 26
Samgha, 104, 106
Samprati, 142-43 Takshila, 51, 131
Taranath, 141
Samudragupta, 25, 35, 132
Sandrocottos, 35, 127 Thakur, Upendra, 31
Sandage, Dr. Allan R., 7 Thera Dasaka, 135
Sanjayasena, 59 Thera Siggava, 107, 134, 138
Sankalia, H.D., 29, 24 Thera Sonaka, 107, 111, 113-4, 134,
Saptarishi 136
—Calendar 19-20, 38 Thera Upali, 109, 111
—chara, 3, 19 Theravadins, 106-7
—Cycle, 3, 21-3 Thomas, 142
—era, 11, 22, 103 Tiloya Pananati, 81-82
—samvata, 18, 38 Tissa Moggaliputta, 109-10
Sarga-Pratisarga, 8 Treta yuga, 13, 18, 92
Sastri, Dr. K.A.N., 139, 141 —, Beginning of, 4
§asunaga(s), 77, 96 Triloka Prajnapti, 26, 81-2, 119
— Dynasty, 70, 97 Triveda, D.S., 35
Sattati, 108 Troyer, M., 128
Seleucus, 126-28, 133 Turumaya, 134
Sengupta, P.C., 17, 19. 27-nakshatra Saptarishi Calendar, 21
174 Chronology
ofNorthIndianKings
Udayana, 40, 80 Vikrama era, 16, 58
Udayi, 76, 82 Vikrama samvata, 5, 16, 26, 40
Udayibhaddaka, 76 VimshOshadavarsa, 100-02
Udayin, 77, 80-1 Vinaya-pamokkhataship, 24, 107, 109,
Ujjain, 82, 118, 137, 141, 146 110
Upasampada, 109, 111 Vinaya-Pitaka-Manuscript, 24
—ordination, 114, 117 Vira-nirvana samvata, 26
Ugrasena, 43, 79, 95, 99, 114, 119 Vishnu Purana, 72, 103
Vitihotras, 48, 50-1
Vydsadeva, 14
Vaidya, C.V., 36
Vyasa Rishis, Dynastic Titles, 43
Vaishaii, 113
—Council, 106
—second Buddhist Council of, 84 Yati Vrishabha, 82
Vaisampayana (Rishi), 57 Yuddhisthira, 19, 32, 36, 53
Vaivasvata Manvantara, 3, 11, 23 Yugapada, 18
Varma, K.C., 31, 38 Yuga Pradhana, 145
Varahamihira, 3, 19, 23, 33, 35
Varanasi, 40, 78
Whitney, i7
Vayu Purana, 8, 31, 69, 74, 135, 141
Wilford, Col., 128
Venkatachelam, Pt. Kota, 18, 35, 37,
136
Vikramaditya, 5, 15-6 Xandrammes, 130
 2000 1000 “™?)
1–s6998–ÃSS“
GEOMAGNETIC CYCLE OF 12,000 YEARS DERIVED
FROM CARBON-14 DATA

Fig. I: Record of deviations of relative atmospheric carbon-14 concentration for

tree ring analysis, in parts per mil, for about 7000 years before the present (B.P.)
from Lin et al. [18]. Increased relative abundances (positive deviations) are
plotted downward from the A.D. 1890 norm, which is shown as a dashed line.
Solid curve (from same reference) is a sinusoidal fit which matches very closely
the observed change in terrestrial magnetic field strength. Remaining significant
features are of probable solar cause; some of the ones noted in Table-I are marked
with arrows. M=Maunder Minimum. S—Spoérer Minimum, D—Medieval
Maximum. (Courtesy: Eddy, 1.4 , Climate and the Changing Sun, Climatic
Change, 1, (1977). 177, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland).
It is the first scientific evidence to correlate the ancient Hindu chaturyuga concept
of 10,000 to 12,000 years with a Geomagnetic cyclic phenomenon of the same
duration whose minima coincided approx. 5,000 B.C. whereas maxima with 200
A.D. To a first approximation the overall envelope of the observed Carbon-14
curve is explained as a result of slow and apparently cyclic changes (10,000-12,000
years period) in the strength of the terrestrial magnetic field.
 RADIATION
SUKIMER
a 8 • ©© 200
w >. © 699 ©
THOUSANDS
OF YEARSAGO

CYCLIC CHANGES IN SOLAR RADIATION OVER NORTHERN

HEMISPHERE ACCORDING TO PRECESSION
CYCLE OF EQUINOXES

Fig. If: Milankovitch radiation curves for different latitudes. In 1938, Milan-
kovitch, published these curves showing changes in summer time radiation at 15°,
45°, and 75° North latitude. The effect of the 22,000-year precession cycle is
clearly visible in the two low-latitude curves. Low points in the high-latitude
curves are identified with the four named European ice ages. (Adapted from M.
Milankovitch, 1941.) (Courtesy: Imbrie, J., & K.P., Ice Ages—Solving the
Mystery, p. 108, The Macmillan Press Ltd., London, 1979; Original source :
Milankovitch, M., 1941, Kanon der Erdbestrah lung und seine Andwendung auf
das Eiszeitenproblem, Royal Serb. Acad., Spec. Publ., 133, Belgrade, pp. 1-633.
English translation published in 1969 by Israel Program for Scientific Translation
available from U.S. Dept. Comm.).

Ancient Hindu chaturyuga concept is particularly related, according to ancient

Puranas, to the region of Bharatavarsha i.e. to the lower latitudes only where the
influence of precession cycle, according to Milankovitch, dominates over the
influence of axial-tilt cycle. We use 25,920 years (Plato’s great year) period fora
complete precession cycie and thus two successive chaturyugis of 12,000 years
separated by two junction periods of 960 years each may constitute a full (12,000 +
959+ 12,000 +960 = 25,920) precession cycle. For verification, one may treate the
geological record of climate, statistically. An analysis of deep sea cores, shows
that no pliestocene interglacial has lasted more than 12,000 years and that most of
have had a life span of about 10,000 years,
 PALTRETA yO | KALI
~CLIMATIC
4 |“ ITT
–°ca 1 ’p
=
AGE <_<
3

eec | |

«
Ww
©
J
| 2

69 8 @ 4 2 0
–Ãccj 2605 OF YEARS. AGO

DENTON-KARLEN CLIMATOLOGICAL PLOT APPLIED FOR

THE INTERPRETATION OF DHARMA-PADA
STRUCTURE OF PRESENT CHATURYUGA LE.
VAIVASVATA MANVANTARA

Fig. Ill: Climate of the past 10,000 years. This graph shows general trends in
global temperature, as estimated from geological records of mountain glaciers and
fossil plants. During the Climatic Optimum, temperatures were about 2°C warmer
than they are today. About 300 years ago, during a climatic episode known as
the Little Ice Age, temperatures were cooler than they are today (Courtesy : Imbrie,
J., &K P. Imbrie, Ice Ages—Solving the Mystery, p. 179, Macmillan Company,
London, 1979; Denton, G.H., & W. Karlen, Holocene Climatic Variations—Their
Pattern and Possible Cause, Quaternary Research, 3, 155-205, 1973).

Statistically speaking, the present interglacial, i.e. the holocene, is already on its last
legs, tottering along the advanced age of 10,500 years and can be expected to end
within the next 1500 years. If we equate the Sanskrit term ‘Dharma-pada’ with
the either direction of average global climatic fluctuation, then the Denton-Karlen
plot depicts the same start and end epochs for the individual yugas—Krta; Treta;
Dwapara & Kali as it was calculated on the basis of Strya Siddhanta 1/15-17,
when we start the Vaivasvata manvantara i.e. holocene epoch with 8508 B.C. with
which Dhruva samvatsara i.e, Polar era of Matsya 56/14 and Vayu 39/18 began,
 A / 1/9 wa
| Le eae 61
Va GAS / ~-

eo
ee
‘Y
=
aee
~

ENLARGED VIEW OF MILANKOVITCH RADIATION CURVES

APPLIED TO THE MANVANTARA THEORY OF ANCIENT
HINDU CALENDAR

Fig. IV: According to the Hindu calendar theory, under my calculations, 14

Manvantaras makes a mahayuga instead of 8 Kalpa. Manvantara is an equivalent
term to the Chaturyuga, thus one precession cycle is equal to the two manvantaras
with their sandhi-periods. 6 manvantaras has already past and we live in the 7th,
Vaivasvata manvantara. Therefore, the beginning of the Swayambhuva, the first
manvantara i.e. first cycle out of the last 3 cycle may coincide with the approx.
90,000 years ago epoch as per the Hindu calculation endorses contrary to the lower
–° and geological dates for the framdale epoch beginning.
 Fig. V
Comparison Between the Six substages of 4th (Wurm) Glacial Age with the
Past Six Manvantaras of the Present Mahayuga of Ancient Hindu Calendar
’@
Loess Radio-Carbon Geological Equilibrium Hindu End epoch
(years ago) (years ago) method manyan- (Christian
(years ago) taras calendar)

by by
(Anthenes) (Kay)
6. Valders 11400 11000 Chaksh- 9468 B.C.
(advance) (b) husha
5. Mankato 12000 15000 12000 25000 Raivata 22428 ,,
4. Cary 14000-13000 26000 Tamas 35388 ,,
3. Tazedvell
(sediment) 19000-15000 37000 Uttama 48348 ,,
2. Lowan 23000-21000 51000 Swaros- 61308 ,,
(wood) chisha
1. Framdale 25000-29000 64000 Swayadm- 74268 =,
(wood) bhuva

(a) Equilibrium method: “percent of equilibrium for Uranium, Ionium &

Radium’’.
(b) Sweden 6839 B.C. : De Geers by advance method (see Wheeler : New
Techniques in Archaeology, p. 389, outlines of Modern Knowledge),
(c) The Radio Carbon method gives low dates (about half of the geological
dates. Therefore, in the meantime, respect is held for carefully docu-
mented stratigraphic work and sampling of geologists.
(d) The end of Valders, the 6th substage, or the end of the 6th manvantara,
the Chakshhusha, of ancient Hindu calendar exactly coincides in all the
dating systems viz. radio-carbon; geological; precession cycle and also in
Hindu calendar system.
(e) The end of Mankato or Raivata (of Hindus), the Sth, is estimated to a
latter epoch by radio-carbon and geological methods but the epoch
estimated by equilibrium method (by Kay) is exactly coincided with the
Hindu system of calculation.
(f) The interval between the substages Ist to 5th had an average of 12000
years according to geological method which is approximately equal to the
half precessional cycle of equinoxes and also to the duration of Hindu
manvantaras. The effect of precessional cycle and their duration may
easily be verified by the Milankovitch radiation curves for low latitudes
12019
 jo
(8)1–âãsBãcp
1
2UudDAD
<
•™*’
(6)
(0)
“"• UADADSS
DAPNY
UDAUD
1
WYSIIM
140–©j
DAD
ISI}
1yony
‘€
’
^^1
©
I[IMI
“à
jo
owen
(1)
(‘ò•
(rv)
(–•
= 1–ãP
pur
•ù*‘à
-897°98
-8{7–Õ
-897'
PL
-80–Âél–à
-80–Âã•
81–À
‘Lp
“88E
uoljeinp
‘ù>
000
096
000‘ZI
000°ZI
"‘ù>
000
Dunyquodoug
0[1–¹k1
1’©C’d
DSIYISDIDMS
–Éd
(111–p
11
DUD)
U
[52014400
401140–à
SI} pur UDAUDUL
1UdDADS
DAD]
IIMA}
US
DYSYOG
JYSIpIM}
DULY
TSIM}
(1
CTLI
DULADY
•ù*
“S8E°S€
115
Pe
-87p
-8{
‘ùM‘ð
17
-89p°
“8966
805‘8
-2‘€
GV
-C6r€ pue
002
-%Sr'p
17–ã€
GV
AV
-CSPOL
“CIV
-TIP67
-2–él0–À
-TLETh
“€
GV
-–él–À
jo
’©f–ik–€
–Ék–ãyn
OM
80–Él–à
Od
80–Õ
OF
87–Õ
DO
87–À
8288–Ék–À
28
8–Én7
DADJUDAUDUL
VYSI[IM}
DJDAIDY
JYSIpIA}
DYSHYSYOYD
’A
DjDASDAID
WYSI[IM}
©*’
uoljeinp
096
000°ZI
000"‘ù>
096
jo
yooda
8–çÒ©l£
Od
8–ãy”Ù
89r'IZ
OF
br
896'6
80–³€
AV
–ãcyl
CSP yooda
jo
–ãs•Ð
Li
ZIP
[76
–à
–én–Ãl
4,
ChE
EY
TEE
SS
uoleinp
000°T1
0
|
000–à
096
000°TI
000‘7T
96 pue
’I5“p
-‘ùl–Â
eis
GV
--ZOT
-2621
GW
-–éf–
AV
“WST
~CIC
AW
-–ãn.
•ùJo
yood
–ãin
096–éf–
ICTS
–ãn1
–én1
000‘TI
000‘7I
000°7I
“â•
omen
jo
(–²•
(9)
(–â• Jo
(1)
(‘ù>)
sueu
(–Õ
TIVOIDOTO
STIVLAG
10
+1
SPFYV.INV
JO
AHL
LNASTUd
VONAVHV
(SIL)

L
"–â`
K4ojonposjuy
1–ãC#
96-69/
&–yn
Od
‘St
IA 1UADA

•ù*”Ù7”Ù^–¹j–Ò•
(51–ã3@
 <2 LASTMAJORCLIMATIC
CYCLE
0~ ~ ~ Stacia. @—
ICESHEETS
APPEARINNM.
–yl–³Yg4–À
“l
100- phe < @—
ANTARCTIC
ICESHEETEXPANDS
“P 9 ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET FORMS;
YEARS
OF
MILLONS
AGO PERMO-
byCARBON
HIGLACIAL
IFEROUS
AGE15
MOUNTAIN
THE
GLACIERS
N HEMISPHERE
OCCUR IN

a500=)
© (“ 20 -
_
© 25
600 -‘ÉM‘à =
LATE ’€ @—SMALL GLACIERS ARE WIDESPREAD
feaPRECARA-ˆ ©
‘° 6\40141 £
800 –¹f–À
(5) Oo~ •

900 • @——WATERSAROUND ANTARCTICA COOL

SEA ICE FORMS
b°

EOCENE

a ’yM’€
’`
=
=~ ANTARCTIC-
AUSTRALIAN
PASSAGEOPEN
56 -- 5" CENOZOIC.DECLINE BEGINS

LONG REGIME GLACIATION CYCLE APPLIED FOR THE KALPA-

AHORATRA NOTATION OF ANCIENT HINDU CALENDAR

Fig. VII: The last billion years of climate. Intervals when ice sheets occurred in
polar regions are indicated on the left as glacial ages. An outline of significant
events in the Cenozoic climate decline is given on the right. (Courtesy: Imbrie,
1., & K.P. 17110116, Ice Ages—Solving the Mystery, p. 190, The Macmillan
Company, London, 1979).

Scientifically speaking, it may be related to the Sun’s orbit around the Galatic core.
Hindu calendar computations give {000 mahdyuga period for a Kalpa whereas
2000 11815029 period for an Ahoratra notation of Brahma. An Ahoratra is thus
equal to 365.28 million years period of humans. Therefore, we can find late pre-
Cambrian glaciation of 700 million years ago; Permo-Carboniferous glaciation of
300 milllon years ago and the present, late-Cenozoic began from 55 million year
ago as the day epochs of 34th; 35th (padma) and 36th (varaha) Kalpas respectively
 An ’©A’©0 938-991
wo
A
1 epo} uonearo,;
jo
sedjy
Vv
’©M
suluUIseq
ing
Vv pue~]303209”9
‘seA[ewIP
1H7–ã€
dUdDOIP
CZ
Ayenprsgs
(’*“å¹f–if
’IG •™7
'’©f]•ð
29139–°
69
’p SISS
6–én
Ajjen113
“SB
‘pasio
q a4
DAZ
=–c(050
24
1–ã@
(08D
sivod
01/1) ’ùA“p
sq}
pus
JO
1S]OWIUD3981–ã3@
Ul 7171
$(01111144)
1117141/02
d1IOZOIN
«=
Aleulajyend
euss0]0H{
110
’©M“$“(”ÒÀ
[”ÒÉ0’9A‘y/’§°
oseyd
uew
pr
k8"
–À
:"’©M’
ep u
–
|
: 30205‘
571092
CEI
‘YM“
aus00q
8–°
Jo
"51–ifMOT
Pur]
~“P
piu
’
(‘ù>
20
:
–p
mep—
Ék86 ©M’©
•ù*)
“i*“é
S
1315
"1¶‘
–
d
: ã
uru
’¢•
21020
5,11.41
3
|•7’©>]2
Ur
k
’©>•ð
‘õÐ
–
A
:0320‘y>“P
eq
〠olsse
“Ùf[1
087
115.–
: ysiu
=
1P0l4ad
yoody
BUILDIS
=
j21501020
adnwaf
npuipyy
ADpuajoo
od1oulag
02120/0>0)
1Уĥ
’Bà
AWIL
LUVHO
’I5“é$“Y5“
‘©G’5
’LSV1
8•™$”Ù0’ù*”Ù0
•ù$“Y$
’I>“Y$”Ù$“P
©M“$,
‘ð
SATII
INO
“Ó9 9¢
—-
EY
SUT
JO
•Y7 1–ã#•
sdmem
Ul
2U2903119
SIOZOUSD
\–P
3–if–cÙ”Ù“é$
’—- •òÙf”ÒÀ

152
AW
’©0
AC
“314
^+

’©M“*“à
CS 1 ~

•ù*”Ù*
A
99.60–À
: ep
A
51.8–él
: ep 17617–ã•
A
•ù*”Ù$
: ep
18.
’y”
U
:= Mep—
1
6–ã“`
:
MoT
4810
-€76p
spur]
’{seas
plu’
:voIOUI
©*‘y>’
^spueT
MO]
67909
^: 6068–âà
–ÉnÙMep—
•Y7”Ù*”Ù*“éf
‘’:¹A’
#“é*”Ð

Jo XY A]Suis
priv
PUR]
sv
3807
jo
(’©7”ÒÀ’©M“”Ù0
Jo
31]
-31d
’©M’9>[–€
WIeM
9AISUd]
[BJUsUTINOD
uoneiory3
-0’©M‘éM“YM
‘yC
’9*“à
‘purl 1–ã3
soUssIIWIQNS
’©M“>’©M’IM
souesiowq
Jo
snolajIuOqieo
35–à ‘° Ul
"2119 palvad
SUOI
1–£3r•
UOlVJ
241501
“UOIS
JuBpunqe
9[7880]
’£Yk–€ ’©“âÙ5”9*”Ù
35
suriqiydury
’©M‘ð
-UI
ou
•™*“é
Sous]
sue
‘sasuods
so
May‘y7
“Ù*”ÙM‘ù
1521–ãC#“@S]ISS
-0201070
S[ISSOJ
Ul31142113
•™
"219
Jo ’£)-]’©
]
e11}9
S]ISSOJ
009

sniajIuogies
UvIMI9g •ù7‘ù>’©
UvIDIAOPIO
uevIuoAdg
ueliquies
d10Z09]eg
URLS
2102
210201
’9M’
 ’€
–P
701
A’‰?
or!
da 8.“
*ee
Pt
0

–@
rave
The Author

Dr. Rai Gyan Narain Prasad was borno

5 September, 1948 and basically traine
as Science graduate from Gorakhpt
University in Biological Sciences in 197
and joined his services in North Easter
Railway in Telecomm. Deptt. He evinc
ed keen interestin the history of India’
hoary past even during his student life
He Studied deeply Astronomy: ancier
& modern; Palaeontology; Geophysic
and Climatology etc. He took one of hi
postgraduate M.A. degrees in,Philosoph
and another one in Ancient Histor:
Culture & Archaeology from Gorakhpt
University. He wrote a large number (
outstanding research papers and hi
most remarkable paper entitled ‘Grade
tional Structure of Universal 11716 - ,
Scientific Resurrection of Ancient Hind
Calendar’ appeared in 1980. After it
publication, he was flooded with congré
tulatory messages from scholars all ove
tne world. They all congratulated hi
for the excellent work done by him i
throwing new light on many aspect ¢
Hindu Calendar and chronology of Indi
which till then were shrouded in myster'
He was invited to Italy; W. German
England; R.O.C. and U.S. A. to lectur
on Scientific Indology. Recently, Magad
University awarded the degree of 0061
of Philosophy.

ISBN: 81 - 7186- 00- 36

–WÀ