have been exploring Indian history Sanatan Dharma and Tamil/s History for the past twelve years and sharing information I have found, through this blog.You shall find many dates of Kings,Events updated.
The so-called scholars get exposed when we scrutinize their statements. Megasthanes, the Greek Historian, is not always correct , especially when he writes on the History of India, lying North of Vindhyas.While most of his writings are constrained to narrate events to show Alexander in heroic proportions. This is evident when one checks his recording details about Ambi , in connection with Purushottam.Ambi was descendant of Sakuni of Mahabharata.And to cap it all, for all his detailed description of Alexander and his conquests, he had never met Alexander in person!
The Chandragupta Maurya he mentions is not the Chandragupta who was married to Selecus Nicator’ s daughter.And the date of this Chandragupta, who, Megasthanes calls as Sandracottus is different from Chandragupta mentioned in puranas . Sandracottus was Chandragupta Vijayaditya.
The statements of Jones and the fiction of Sandracottus.
Sir William Jones, President of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, gave his tenth anniversary discourse on February 28, 1793. The topic was, “Asiatic history, civil and natural,” and it was published in the fourth volume of the Asiatic Researches, first printed in 1807, reprint 1979. This was his third attempt to destroy the culture and the history of Bharatvarsh by mutilating the historic dates.
Jones says in his speech,
“I cannot help mentioning a discovery which accident threw in my way, (I) thought my proofs must be reserved for an essay which I have destined for the fourth volume of your Transactions. To fix the situation of that Palibothra which was visited and described by Megasthenes, had always appeared a very difficult problem.”
“…but this only difficulty was removed, when I found in a classical Sanscrit book, near 2000 years old, that Hiranyabahu, or golden-armed, which the Greeks changed into Erannoboas, or the river with a lovely murmur was in fact another name for the Son itself,
though Megasthenes, from ignorance or inattention, has named them separately. This discovery led to another of greater moment; for Chandragupta, who, from a military adventurer, became, like Sandracottus, the sovereign of Upper Hindostan, actually fixed the seat of his empire at Patliputra, where he received ambassadors from foreign princes; and was no other than that very Sandracottus who concluded a treaty with Seleucus Nicator; so that we have solved another problem, to which we before alluded, and may in round numbers consider the twelve and three hundredth years before Christ.” (pp. xxv to xxvii)
He tells in his speech that he has found a classical Sanskrit book of about 2,000 years old. The other thing he says is that Chandragupt was no other than the very Sandracottus who is described by Megasthenes to have made a treaty with Seleucus around 312 BC; and, to establish that that Chandragupt belonged to the Maurya dynasty, he mentions about some poem by Somdev which tells about the murder of Nand and his eight sons by Chandragupt in order to usurp the kingdom. In this way Jones created a fictitious connection between Chandragupt Maurya and Sandracottus. He says in his speech,
“A most beautiful poem by Somadev, comprising a very long chain of instructive and agreeable stories, begins with the famed revolution at Patliputra, by the murder of King Nanda with his eight sons, and the usurpation of Chandragupta; and the same revolution is the subject of a tragedy in Sanscrit, entitled the Coronation of Chandra.” (p. xxviii)
These were the basic points of his speech that was called the discovery of the identity of Chandragupt Maurya as Sandracottus. Anyone could see that these people were adamantly prone to fabricating false statements all the time just to demean our culture and to destroy the genealogy ofhttps://ramanisblog.in/2021/08/24/chand
