9058009399

TIIE DATĘ OF ŚAŃKARACARYA 11

any casc and thal-hc can bc rcasonably pluccd somcwhcrc bclwccn 650

A. D. and 750 A.D. The tcxlual evidenec Iroin the works of a number of wrilers, which inelude Jain and Buddhists on a large scalę, is quitc strong, almosl massivc and unlcss and umil i( is answered satisfactorily point by point, it will bc ncxt to iinpossiblc to maintain a vcry carly dale lor Sań., particularly in the B.C. period. The Mutt reeords, which arc the mainstay of B.C. theory havc bcen shown to bc ultcrly unreliable and the prolagonisls of that theory, though awarc of the criticism, havc offered no satisfactory argumcnls to provc the reeords. To take for granted, thcreforc, that 509-477

B.    C., dale for Sań. is conclusivcly provcd is begging the qucslion. Similarly, the voluminous cvidcncc of the prcdcccssors and succcssors of Sań., which has bcen adduced by scholars, has bcen sought to bc ncgalivcd by anlc-dating King A&oka or Candragupla Maurya by about a thousand ycars, Lord Buddha and cvcn Maha. by about 1300 yrs. and then llxing the dates of these prcdcccssors and succcssors on the basis of their rcviscd dates, bul cxccpt the cvidcncc of Kalhana^vs Rajuluntńgim and the various Puranas which do not at all givc a eonsislcnl rccord of earlier kings and cvcnts, nothing has bcen brought forward to upset the cxisting chronology. Vcry strong cvidcnce will be rcquired for the purposc. In spite of all this, I wish to place the following lew points bcforc scholars for their scrious eonsideration.

The whole discussion about the ancicnt Indian chronology centrcs round the identity of Sandrakoltus and Candra. Maurya, llrst proposed by Sir Wiliam Jones and acccptcd by Max Muller as the shcct-anchor of Indian history. All the ancicnt Indian chronology was then arranged accordingly and that has alTected the modern Indian chronology also. This identity has bcen qucslioncd cvcr sińce its inccplion by persons likc M. Troyer, but the points raiscd against it have not bcen scriously considered, cxamined and / or attempted to bc answered by sludcnls of history. Shri Shriram Sathe has vcry rcccnlly advanecd a number of arguments against the theory as follows:¹⁹

1) Greek accounls mention three names, viz., Xandramcs or Agrammes, Sandrakoltus and Sandracyptus, as three succcssivc kings. If so, the llrst and the third names should refer to Candra.'s predcccssor and succcssor. According to known history, the predcccssor of Candra. Maurya was Dhandnanda of the Nanda dynasty, while the succcssor of Candra. Maurya was BindusSra. Now, ncilhcr DhanSnanda nor Bindus&ra tallies with Xandramcs or Sandracyptus rcspcclivcly. M. Mtfllcr has, howcvcr, suggested the llrst identity and proposed the seeond.    ,

On the contrary, Xandramcs tallies far better with Candramas, the predcccssor of Gupta Candra., while Sandracyptus or Amilrochades, as this namc has bcen givcn allcrnalivcly, tallies better with Samudragupta, the succcssor of Gupta Candra. than with Bindus&ra.