9058009414

TIIE DATĘ OF ŚAŃKARACARYA 13

those of Aśoka M. Relying on the wriling of Padmamihira, based on chronicles of HelarSja, K. Aśoka is said lo bc ihc son of Sanicara, ihe last of the 8 kings. Aśoka’s son was Jalauka whose son was Damodara O. On ihe contrary, Aśoka M. is said to havc bccn the son of BindusSra, while his own son is said lo bc Tivara by the sccond queen C2ruvakl or a son Mahendra and a daughter Sańghainitrfl or a son Kundla by Asandhimitra.

iii) Aśoka M. bclongcd to Magadha, while K. Aśoka belongcd to Kaśmlra. It is worth noting that the cxtcnsive Rock and Pillar cdicls of Aśoka M. make not the slightest rcfcrcnce to Kdsmlra or the Kaśmlra kingdom, while Kalhana’s work makes no mention of K. Aśoka’s connection with Magadha or any Indian territory.

A lot of discussion centrcs round the llve kings mentioned in Aśoka*s Rock edict No. 13 in particular. Western scholars have idcntificd them with Greek kings from 285 B.C. to 244 B.C. Aśoka’s datę is then automatically settlcd. Thcse kings arc said lo bc rcigning aboul 600 Yojanas (cvcry Yojana about 8 miles) and the king is said in the edict to open medical centres for human beings and animals in the kindoms of those kings. In this connection some poinls havc bccn raiscd as follows:²⁰

a) In the first place, the nanieś of all the kings as identified with the

#

Greek kings are not bcyond doubt. The idenlity ot' TuramUya with Plolemy is an instancc in point. Biihlcr himsclf doubts the idenlity of Amtikona with Antigonus.

b) No Greek historian connccls ihcse names with Candra. or Aśoka.

c) Hislory docs not bcar out the spread of Buddhisls lo Greek regions nor that the Christian einissarics had lo cncountcr the Buddhisls in Greek and Roman countries.

d) Indian or Ccyloncse tradition docs not say that Aśoka had śent his emissaries to Greek or Roman (Egypt) countries. Pcrsonally I have grave doubts whether Aśoka had so much influence with such vcry far off countries as to be ablc lo open such centrcs of medical Help. Maybe, as argucd by Prof. Umesh that thcrc is no cvidcnce that kings mentioned in the edict did rcally rule the territories like Abhisara etc., the distance of 600 Yojanas mentioned in the edict docs not at all apply to these territories. Yet the poinls madę out above also dcservc some altcnlion.

Shri T.S. Narayan Sastry has also discussed the idenlity of Sandra, and Candra. Maurya, which hc calis ‘The Mislakcn Greek Synchronism of Indian Hislory’ (of which it has bccn callcd by Max Miillcr “the sheet-anchor”) and has brought forward a number of objections againsl its acceptance. Nonę of these objections has so far bccn answered satisfactorily by any scholar, Western or ^ jian, as far as I am aware.