Guest guest Posted April 18, 2009 Report Share Posted April 18, 2009 Al beruni mentions about Gupta kala which marked the end of the Gupta rule, rather than the beginning of their epoch. He said it was exactly 241 years after Saka era, i.e. it can be attributed to 183 CE. Vallabha era also started simultaneously, marking the era of beginning of the rule of Vallabhas. The jain works Hari Vamsa purana by Jina sena (705 CE) and Tiloyapannatti by Yati Vrishabha mention that Guptas ruled Ujjain for 231 years. If we accept that reign of CG II began in 58 bce rather than in 473 CE, the period of 231 years end in 173 CE, which corroborates the thinking of Al beruni and the dates given by him. Another piece of evidence that comes in this is mentioned by I Tsing. I Tsing, a Chinese pilgrim to India refers to the statement of a Korean pilgrim, Hwui-lun , who said that a king Che li ki to (sri gupta ) was ruling 500 years prior to his time. (175 CE) As this will place the guptas too early, the statement is rather subjectively taken to mean that the king was ruling 400 years ago, which corresponds to a time during the reign of the Gupta (240- 280 CE). However, another main issue being controversial is the name of the first king of Gupta dynasty is simply Gupta, whereas ITsing refers to Sri Gupta. Thus, it is argued that it is possible that I Tsing is not referring to the first king of Guptas at all. More over, the subjective correction of 100 years has no basis at all and accepted at best grudgingly, since there are no other explanations available. Thus, the time mentioned by I Tsing falls (175 CE) around the time of Gupta period ( 58 bce – 173 CE) and as correctly argued, he is not mentioning to the first king of Guptas but rather the last one. Further, the Tiloyapannatti also mentions that the Guptas ruled 727 years after the death of Mahavira. As per some calculations of the mainstream chronology, Mahavira died in 527 bce. This will place the beginning of Gupta king dom in 200 CE which again is too early for the mainstream thinkers. This proves that a set of Gupta kings ruled Avanti between 58 bce to 183 CE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Kishore Ji, This must be a different Harivamsa than the one in the (appendix to ) the Mahabharata. That Harivamsa is considered a Purana and cannot be considered a Jaina text. can you give some more detials of the Harivamasa you are talking about...Kosla (Kaushal) , " Kishore patnaik " <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: > > Al beruni mentions about Gupta kala which marked the end of the Gupta rule, rather than the beginning of their epoch. He said it was exactly 241 years after Saka era, i.e. it can be attributed to 183 CE. > Vallabha era also started simultaneously, marking the era of beginning of the rule of Vallabhas. > The jain works Hari Vamsa purana by Jina sena (705 CE) and Tiloyapannatti by > Yati Vrishabha mention that Guptas ruled Ujjain for 231 years. If we accept that reign of CG II began in 58 bce rather than in 473 CE, the period of 231 years end in 173 CE, which corroborates the thinking of Al beruni and the dates given by him. > > Another piece of evidence that comes in this is mentioned by I Tsing. I Tsing, a Chinese pilgrim to India refers to the statement of a Korean pilgrim, Hwui-lun , who said that a king Che li ki to (sri gupta ) was ruling 500 years prior to his time. (175 CE) As this will place the > guptas too early, the statement is rather subjectively taken to mean that > the king was ruling 400 years ago, which corresponds to a time during the > reign of the Gupta (240- 280 CE). However, another main issue being > controversial is the name of the first king of Gupta dynasty is simply > Gupta, whereas ITsing refers to Sri Gupta. Thus, it is argued that it is > possible that I Tsing is not referring to the first king of Guptas at all. > More over, the subjective correction of 100 years has no basis at all > and accepted at best grudgingly, since there are no other explanations > available. Thus, the time mentioned by I Tsing falls (175 CE) > around the time of Gupta period ( 58 bce � 173 CE) and as correctly > argued, he is not mentioning to the first king of Guptas but rather the > last one. > > Further, the Tiloyapannatti also mentions that the Guptas ruled 727 years after > the death of Mahavira. As per some calculations of the mainstream > chronology, Mahavira died in 527 bce. This will place the beginning of Gupta > king dom in 200 CE which again is too early for the mainstream thinkers. > > This proves that a set of Gupta kings ruled Avanti between 58 bce to 183 CE. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Harivamsha purana is the Jain version of Lord Krishna's story. It is written by Jinasena of Punnatalineage. While the mainstream scholars place him in 8th c., I have no comments on the dating. Hope this clarifies, Kishore patnaik On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Kaushal Vepa <Kosla.Vepa wrote: Kishore Ji, This must be a different Harivamsa than the one in the (appendix to ) the Mahabharata. That Harivamsa is considered a Purana and cannot be considered a Jaina text. can you give some more detials of the Harivamasa you are talking about...Kosla (Kaushal) , " Kishore patnaik " <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: > > Al beruni mentions about Gupta kala which marked the end of the Gupta rule, rather than the beginning of their epoch. He said it was exactly 241 years after Saka era, i.e. it can be attributed to 183 CE. > Vallabha era also started simultaneously, marking the era of beginning of the rule of Vallabhas. > The jain works Hari Vamsa purana by Jina sena (705 CE) and Tiloyapannatti by > Yati Vrishabha mention that Guptas ruled Ujjain for 231 years. If we accept that reign of CG II began in 58 bce rather than in 473 CE, the period of 231 years end in 173 CE, which corroborates the thinking of Al beruni and the dates given by him. > > Another piece of evidence that comes in this is mentioned by I Tsing. I Tsing, a Chinese pilgrim to India refers to the statement of a Korean pilgrim, Hwui-lun , who said that a king Che li ki to (sri gupta ) was ruling 500 years prior to his time. (175 CE) As this will place the > guptas too early, the statement is rather subjectively taken to mean that > the king was ruling 400 years ago, which corresponds to a time during the > reign of the Gupta (240- 280 CE). However, another main issue being > controversial is the name of the first king of Gupta dynasty is simply > Gupta, whereas ITsing refers to Sri Gupta. Thus, it is argued that it is > possible that I Tsing is not referring to the first king of Guptas at all. > More over, the subjective correction of 100 years has no basis at all > and accepted at best grudgingly, since there are no other explanations > available. Thus, the time mentioned by I Tsing falls (175 CE) > around the time of Gupta period ( 58 bce � 173 CE) and as correctly > argued, he is not mentioning to the first king of Guptas but rather the > last one. > > Further, the Tiloyapannatti also mentions that the Guptas ruled 727 years after > the death of Mahavira. As per some calculations of the mainstream > chronology, Mahavira died in 527 bce. This will place the beginning of Gupta > king dom in 200 CE which again is too early for the mainstream thinkers. > > This proves that a set of Gupta kings ruled Avanti between 58 bce to 183 CE. > -- Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities, remember things could have been worse – you could be one of them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.