A very small note on Maha padma Nanda

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

 

The Sisu naga vamsa was ruled for 36 years by 10 kings, the last of

who was Mahanandi. Till here, all the known kings of the land were

Ksatriyas.

 

However, King Nanda has taken over the Magadha in 1634 bce (as per

traditional daing)He was not the son of a ksatriya woman, though his

faterh Mahanandi, the last king of Sisunagas was a Ksatriya. Nanda was

born of the illegitimate sudra wife of Mahanandi.

 

Another name for Nanda (or Maha padma nanda) is Ugrasena. Both Maha

padma and Ugra sena are seen to be just adopted names to denote that

he held a great army. However, it is also possible that Padma is name

of the mother of Nanda and he was called Maha nanda because he was son

of Mahanandi.

 

In any case, he had gone ahead to destroy all the Ksatriya kings in

the known areas of India and proved to be the second Parasu rama. the

Kali yuga raja Vrittanta and Brahmanda purana describe him fiercely.

 

The dynasties destroyed by him included:

 

1. Ikswaku 2. Pancala 3. Kourava 4. Haihaya 5. Kalaka 6. Ekalinga 7.

Soora sena and 8. Maithili

 

The puranas goes on to describe that there are totally 9 Nanda kings

The other names of the Nanda kings are:

 

1. Panduka 2. Pandugati 3. Bhutapala 4.Rashtrapala 5. Govishanaka

6.Dasa Siddhaka 7. Kaivarta and 8. Dhana

 

Hope to hear from the group,

 

Kishore patnaik

[Guest guest]

[Please note that this series follows the traditional dating as given by Viswanatha Satya narayana and Kota Venkata chalam with my own inputs - kishore patnaik ] Dear all, It is known that the Nandas have ruled for 100 years- ie until 1534 bce, till Chandra gupta Mauryan has taken over.

The Puranas are categorical that the Mauryans have ruled for 137 years ie until 1397 bce. Also, it is well known that Chandra gupta Maurya has ruled for 24 years, Bindusara for 25 years and Asoka vardhana for 36 years. The Puranas do not count an interregnum of 4 years in these calculations, which have been listed by Bauddhist texts. Thus, the total number of years by these three kings is 89 years which leaves us 48 years.

The later Mauryans are listed severally by various Puranas. However, they are again unanimous with regard to the last two kings : Satadhanvan (8years) and Brihadratha(7 years) Thus, it leaves us 48 - 15 years = 33 years.

Vayu and Brahmanda puranas list the intermediate kings thus: Kunala (-), Bandhu palita (8yrs), Indra palita (10 yrs) and Devavarma (7 yrs), which makes it that Kunala has ruled for 8 years. Matsya purana gives only two names Dasaratha (8 yrs), Samprati(9 yrs) leaving us a gap of 16 years.

In contrast, Vsnu purana gives us 5 names without any regnal years.: Suyasa, Dasaratha, Samgata, Salisuka and Somavarman.Jain tradition tells us that Samprati is the son of Asoka and waited for Kunala to die to become a king.

From the above, it is opined Kunala and Suyasa are one and the same. Similarly, Somavarma and Devavarma are not different. The only difficulty arises in that both Dasaratha and Samprati are said to be the grandsons of Asoka and both are said to have immediately followed Asoka, which does not seem to be the case. In fact, we can see that Matsya purana gives both names, these two kings ruling for 17 years between them. In fact, Vsnupurana also must be giving both the names separately, if you take Samgati is same as Samprati. Salisuka must have had a small regal period of 1 year in between, which does not seem to be accounted by other sources.

Thus, we can say that Kunala ruled for 8 years, Dasaratha ruled for 8 years, Samprati/Samgati ruled for 9 years, Salisuka for 1 year and then Devavarman/Somavarman ruled for 7 years, which accounts exactly for 33 years.

Salisuka is also considered to be Saubhagasena, who has been mentioned in Greek accounts. (This obviously is not consonance with the traditional dating) It appears he was for most of the time remained a Governor. On the other hand, Samprati , patron of Jainism as a disciple of Acarya Suhasti, is a darling of Jains and they recount that he has ruled for 53 years or so, which certainly is not the case for two things: he was a king in waiting ever since Asokavardhana was ruling and he had to wait more than 16 years to become the king.

In all probability, Samprati of Jain tradition may not be the Puranic Samprati who does not seem to be immediately related to Asokavardhana, unlike the Jain Samprati. Now, I am looking for other sources which will substantiate this dating.

regards, Kishore patnaik