Kanishka era

[Guest guest]

Dear all, I am happy to inform you that at last we are able to fix the date of Kanishka. It is 761 bce. Needless to say, this is going to be a milestone discovery in Indian historiography that will go a long way, when all the mainstream thinkers are groping in dark.

Isa, the prophet of Mithraism, must have lived sometime around this time. I have mentioned much earlier independently that Satavahanas have ruled from 766 bce. That it falls in place that Bhavishya purana says that Satavahana met Isa.

Hope this confirms the veracity of Puranic chronology, unlike that presented by mainstream thinkers. best regards, Kishore patnaik -- 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!

[Guest guest]

Does this place him before Buddha?

On 4/18/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Dear all, I am happy to inform you that at last we are able to fix the date of Kanishka. It is 761 bce. Needless to say, this is going to be a milestone discovery in Indian historiography that will go a long way, when all the mainstream thinkers are groping in dark.

Isa, the prophet of Mithraism, must have lived sometime around this time. I have mentioned much earlier independently that Satavahanas have ruled from 766 bce. That it falls in place that Bhavishya purana says that Satavahana met Isa.

Hope this confirms the veracity of Puranic chronology, unlike that presented by mainstream thinkers. best regards, Kishore patnaik -- 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!

 

-- Bhalchandra G. ThatteyShubham BhavatuSvalpasya Yogasya Trayate Mahato Bhayat

[Guest guest]

No. The traditionalists place Buddha in 19th century BCE. In

any case, Buddha lived much before Zoraster as per Al Beruni.  Kushans

lived somewhere in between.Kishore patnaikOn Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Bhalchandra Thattey <bgthattey wrote:

Does this place him before Buddha?

On 4/18/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Dear all, I am happy to inform you that at last we are able to fix the date of Kanishka. It is 761 bce. Needless to say, this is going to be a milestone discovery in Indian historiography that will go a long way, when all the mainstream thinkers are groping in dark.

Isa, the prophet of Mithraism, must have lived sometime around this time. I have mentioned much earlier independently that Satavahanas have ruled from 766 bce. That it falls in place that Bhavishya purana says that Satavahana met Isa.

Hope this confirms the veracity of Puranic chronology, unlike that presented by mainstream thinkers. best regards, Kishore patnaik -- 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!

 

-- Bhalchandra G. ThatteyShubham BhavatuSvalpasya Yogasya Trayate Mahato Bhayat -- 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!

[Guest guest]

KISHORE JI, How did you arrive at this date ?

 

, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09

wrote:

>

> Dear all,

>

> I am happy to inform you that at last we are able to fix the date of

> Kanishka. *It is 761 bce. Needless to say, this is going to be a milestone

> discovery in Indian historiography that will go a long way, when all the

> mainstream thinkers are groping in dark.

> *

> Isa, the prophet of Mithraism, must have lived sometime around this time. I

> have mentioned much earlier independently that Satavahanas have ruled from

> 766 bce. That it falls in place that Bhavishya purana says that Satavahana

> met Isa.

>

> Hope this confirms the veracity of Puranic chronology, unlike that presented

> by mainstream thinkers.

>

> best regards,

>

> Kishore patnaik

> --

> 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!

>

[Guest guest]

Kishoreji, Kaniska was not a Satavahana king.

 

-SKB--- On Sat, 4/18/09, Kaushal Vepa <Kosla.Vepa wrote:

Kaushal Vepa <Kosla.Vepa Re: Kanishka era Date: Saturday, April 18, 2009, 4:43 PM

 

 

KISHORE JI, How did you arrive at this date ?, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ ...> wrote:>> Dear all,> > I am happy to inform you that at last we are able to fix the date of> Kanishka. *It is 761 bce. Needless to say, this is going to be a milestone> discovery in Indian historiography that will go a long way, when all the> mainstream thinkers are groping in dark.> *> Isa, the prophet of Mithraism, must have lived sometime around this time. I> have mentioned much earlier independently that Satavahanas have ruled from> 766 bce. That it falls in place that Bhavishya purana says that Satavahana> met Isa.> > Hope this confirms the veracity of

Puranic chronology, unlike that presented> by mainstream thinkers.> > best regards,> > Kishore patnaik> -- > 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!>

[Guest guest]

Whoever said that Kanishka is a satavahana king?Kishore patnaik On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:16 AM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kishoreji, Kaniska was not a Satavahana king.

 

-SKB--- On Sat, 4/18/09, Kaushal Vepa <Kosla.Vepa wrote:

Kaushal Vepa <Kosla.Vepa Re: Kanishka era

Date: Saturday, April 18, 2009, 4:43 PM

 

 

KISHORE JI, How did you arrive at this date ?, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ ...> wrote:

>> Dear all,> > I am happy to inform you that at last we are able to fix the date of> Kanishka. *It is 761 bce. Needless to say, this is going to be a milestone> discovery in Indian historiography that will go a long way, when all the

> mainstream thinkers are groping in dark.> *> Isa, the prophet of Mithraism, must have lived sometime around this time. I> have mentioned much earlier independently that Satavahanas have ruled from

> 766 bce. That it falls in place that Bhavishya purana says that Satavahana> met Isa.> > Hope this confirms the veracity of

Puranic chronology, unlike that presented> by mainstream thinkers.> > best regards,> > Kishore patnaik> -- > 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!>

 

 

-- 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!

[Guest guest]

Dear Kishoreji,

 

You said that the Satavahanas ruled from 766 BCE and also that the date of Kaniska was 761. Do you then mean to say that the Satavahanas and the Kushanas were contemporaries. I shall be thankful if you kindly elaborate.

 

Regards,

 

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Mon, 4/20/09, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote:

kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09Re: Re: Kanishka era Date: Monday, April 20, 2009, 12:40 AM

 

 

Whoever said that Kanishka is a satavahana king?Kishore patnaik

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:16 AM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kishoreji, Kaniska was not a Satavahana king.

 

-SKB--- On Sat, 4/18/09, Kaushal Vepa <Kosla.Vepa@indicstu dies.us> wrote:

Kaushal Vepa <Kosla.Vepa@indicstu dies.us> Re: Kanishka eraSaturday, April 18, 2009, 4:43 PM

 

 

 

KISHORE JI, How did you arrive at this date ?, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ ...> wrote:>> Dear all,> > I am happy to inform you that at last we are able to fix the date of> Kanishka. *It is 761 bce. Needless to say, this is going to be a milestone> discovery in Indian historiography that will go a long way, when all the> mainstream thinkers are groping in dark.> *> Isa, the prophet of Mithraism, must have lived sometime around this time. I> have mentioned much earlier independently that Satavahanas have ruled from> 766 bce. That it falls in place that Bhavishya purana says that Satavahana> met Isa.> > Hope this confirms the veracity of Puranic chronology, unlike that

presented> by mainstream thinkers.> > best regards,> > Kishore patnaik> -- > 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!>

-- 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!