why Sandro cottus is not a Mauryan? (found on web)

[Guest guest]

1. Megastahnese has nowhere mentioned the word Maurya and he makes

absolutely no mention of a person called either Chanakya or Kautilya. 2. Indian historians have recorded two Chandraguptas, one of the Mauryan dynasty and another of the Gupta dynasty.3.

Both of them had a grandson called Ashoka. While the Mauryan

Chandragupta's son was called Bimbasara (sometimes Bindusara), The CG

of the Gupta dynasty had a son called Samudragupta. Interestingly

Megasthenese has written that Sandrakuttos had a son called

Samdrakyptos, which is phonetically nearer to Samudragupta and not

Bindusara.4. The king lists given by the Puranas say that 1500

years elapsed from the time of the Kurukshetra war to the beginning of

the Nanda dynasty's rule. If one assumes the Nandas' period to be 5th

century BCE, this would put the Bharatha war around 1900 BCE whereas

the traditional view has always been 3100 BCE. This gives a difference

of 1200 years which go unaccounted.5. Megasthanese himself says

137 generations of kings have come and gone between Krishna and

Sandrakuttos, whereas the puranas give around 83 generations only

between Jarasandha's son (Krishna's contemporary) to the Nandas of the

Magadha kingdom.. Assuming an average of 20 to 25 years per

generation, the difference of 54 generations would account for the gap

of the 1200 years till the time of Alexander.6. The Chinese

have always maintained that Buddhism came to China from India around

1100 -1200 BCE, whereas the western historians tend to put Buddha at

500 BCE.Based on all these, I would say the Sandrakuttos of

Megasthanese was Chandragupta Gupta and not the Mauryan. Consequently

the Mauryan period and the date of Kautilya, Arthashastra,

Chanakyaneethi etc should be put at 1600 BCE.

[Guest guest]

Hello,

 

After reading this article and a few related replies on this forum. I started looking around for the text of Indika written by Megasthenes. The only link I have been able to find is:

http://www.mssu.edu/projectsouthasia/history/primarydocs/Foreign_Views/GreekRoman/Megasthenes-Indika.htm

 

In this link, there is no reference to Samdrakryptos as said here:

"Interestingly Megasthenese has written that Sandrakuttos had a son called Samdrakyptos, which is phonetically nearer to Samudragupta and not Bindusara."

 

Can anyone point me to more references to read that would substantiate this statement?

 

Much obliged.

Sarang---- On Thu, 9/18/08, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote:

kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 why Sandro cottus is not a Mauryan? (found on web) , , "indiaarchaeology" <IndiaArchaeology >, hinducivilization , akandabaratam Date: Thursday, September 18, 2008, 11:50 AM

Megastahnese has nowhere mentioned the word Maurya and he makes absolutely no mention of a person called either Chanakya or Kautilya. 2. Indian historians have recorded two Chandraguptas, one of the Mauryan dynasty and another of the Gupta dynasty.3. Both of them had a grandson called Ashoka. While the Mauryan Chandragupta's son was called Bimbasara (sometimes Bindusara), The CG of the Gupta dynasty had a son called Samudragupta. Interestingly Megasthenese has written that Sandrakuttos had a son called Samdrakyptos, which is phonetically nearer to Samudragupta and not Bindusara.4. The king lists given by the Puranas say that 1500 years elapsed from the time of the Kurukshetra war to the beginning of the Nanda

dynasty's rule. If one assumes the Nandas' period to be 5th century BCE, this would put the Bharatha war around 1900 BCE whereas the traditional view has always been 3100 BCE. This gives a difference of 1200 years which go unaccounted.5. Megasthanese himself says 137 generations of kings have come and gone between Krishna and Sandrakuttos, whereas the puranas give around 83 generations only between Jarasandha's son (Krishna's contemporary) to the Nandas of the Magadha kingdom.. Assuming an average of 20 to 25 years per generation, the difference of 54 generations would account for the gap of the 1200 years till the time of Alexander.6. The Chinese have always maintained that Buddhism came to China from India around 1100 -1200 BCE, whereas the western historians tend to put Buddha at 500 BCE.Based on all these, I would say the Sandrakuttos of Megasthanese was Chandragupta Gupta and not the Mauryan. Consequently

the Mauryan period and the date of Kautilya, Arthashastra, Chanakyaneethi etc should be put at 1600 BCE.