[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Antiquity and Continuity of Indian History (Part 1)
Prasad Gokhale <f0g1@unb.ca> wrote:
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Antiquity and Continuity of Indian History
> (From Swayambhuva Manu to Gupta Dynasty)
> ------------------------------------------
>
> by
>
> Prasad Gokhale
> Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
>
>
[deleted]
>past. The history of India entered the medieval ages almost 5000
>years ago, and even before the advent of Christ, the quintessence
>of philosophy thought and civilizational aspects of India had
>already been accomplished. Evidence testifies that Buddha and Aadi
>Shankara lived 1800 B.C. and 500 B.C respectively. The "golden age"
>in India was ushered with the rise of the Gupta dynasty. It was
>Chandragupta of the Guptas who reigned over the Indian empire
>around 325 B.C., a time when Macedonian Alexander had invaded
>India.
There is absolutely no evidence worth talking about that proves a 500 BC date
for Adi Sankara. Neither is there any evidence for a 1800 BC date for the
Buddha.
I am surprised that you have posted this date again, Prasad. I thought I had
sent a bunch of evidence to you by private email a year ago in this regard.
While there is possibly much to be said against the widespread assumption that
the Aryan Invasion Theory is true, there is absolutely no connection between
this theory and the dates of the Buddha or Adi Sankara.
All available literary, epigraphical and other peripheral reference materials
show that Adi Sankara's date is in the 650 AD - 800 AD range. Similarly. all
available evidence shows that the Buddha's date is around 500 BC. On the other
hand, all evidence for or against an Aryan invasion theory has to deal with
the Rgveda and Indus valley archaeology. For the Buddha and Adi Sankara, we
have to deal with internal literary evidence and records from their respective
traditions. These are two completely different issues.
If the 19th century Europeans were decidedly in favor of late dates for
Indian personalities, the modern day revisionism seems to be decidedly in
favor of impossibly early dates. Both approaches are flawed. The Europeans
relied on the assumption that the Bible provides exact historical details,
and therefore the universe came into existence in 4664 BC or thereabouts.
The modern day revisionists assume that our Puranas give exact historical
details and try to back calculate dates based on this evidence. Both
assumptions are invalid.
Both approaches are also amusingly wrong for yet another reason. For the
19th century Europeans, Christianity was the true religion, and everything
else was fundamentally wrong. For the modern day revisionists, everything
important in India happened ages ago, in ancient times, and therefore, by
definition, happened before Christ. Why, I ask, couldn't there have been
distinguished philosophers and religious leaders in India, who lived
centuries after Christ? The motivations of the 19th century Europeans are at
least understandable, but I fail to understand the motivations behind the
assumption of modern revisionism, that Adi Sankara lived before Christ.
Indian history is not dictated by events in and around Jerusalem.
Those who hope to give revised dates for Buddha and Adi Sankara are as much
in folly as the 19th century Europeans who estimated the age of the vedas
and the upanishads. Both groups end up giving way too much importance to
Biblical chronology in their arguments, an importance that is highly misplaced.
S. Vidyasankar
