How Aryan kings ruled Indian sub-continent

[Sariel]

Perhaps greatest king of India, Ashoka, was merely pure imaginary invention created by the British ruling elite for the political purposes


[size="5"]British manufactured Ashoka[/size]
As investigative historians, many around the world are probing the nooks and crannies of historical archives. South Asian history is still being unraveled. Many knots are being solved. The cloak of Hindu scripture and British colonialist dogma has been lifted and the rays of sunshine are now displaying the true history of the land of the Indus and land of the Ganges. The British simply jumped on the Max Mueller’s bandwagon to propagate the Aryan superiority over all other nations. The three culprits that created these hsitorical figures were. Not only did these three, Princep, Jones and the Lankan missionary,  the architects of bringing back Sanskrit a dead langauge, they also pretty much created Hinduism as we know it today. Ashoka is the Central figure built to create this myth of a huge land mass under the control of one mythical ruler. —Ashoka was a mythical character created by the British–If there is no Ashoka–the whole thing falls apart. –many of the pillars preceded the date ascribed to Ashoka–some of them even preceded Buddha–if he was real. Much has been written about the subject by Dr. Fleet. Some of the vases with Buddhist teachings have been carbon dated and they precede Ashoka. http://www.jstor.org/pss/550283 http://www.jstor.org/pss/25210369 http://www.archive.org/stream/asokagaekw...p_djvu.txt The timeline for Ashoka is all wrong. New carbon dating evidence question the timeline of Buddha and Ashoka.Traditionally, eastern Buddhists give the date of Buddha’s death as 949 B.C. (with variants including 878 B.C. and 686 B.C.), while northern Buddhists gave 881 B.C., and the southern Buddhists provide 543 B.C. as the correct year. More recent scholarship began to settle on the year 486 B.C. or even 368 B.C., so many textbooks usually fudge the issue and say he was born around 500 B.C. All methods rely on lists of kings and councils recorded in the Buddhist tradition itself, tied into known history through the Mauryan Emperors Candragupta and Asoka.
Three Brits arrive in South Asia in the 18th century–get some rudimentary knowledge of Pali and Sanskrit and within a few weeks of their arrival they conjure up “Ashoka” the greatest king that ever was! For Hundreds of years no Bharati had ever mentioned Ashoka, nor written about him. All of a sudden three White men describe Ashoka and he now is represented on the Bharati flag, currency notes and what not. A clear case of manufactured history— In order for Ashoka to exist–there must be historical references to his rule–either by historians of his time or Greek invaders who intermingled with the society, and impacted South Asia dramatically. The Hellenic influences were the genesis of the Gandhara Civilization. Amazingly the Greek, great historians from the Homer days–never mention King Ashoka or any corruption of his name. Neither do any Bharati historians list Ashoka by name. Historians are curious to find out where the connection between the mythical figure and Sir James Princep’s narrative. There is no record of a Lankan priest describing anything to the British linguist. It should be noted, however, that neither of the Chinese pilgrims, Fa-hien and Yuan Chwang, has described the inscriptions they had noticed as the inscriptions of Asoka. They generally describe  them as belonging to, and recording the events of, earlier times. Pre-Asokan might be supposed the two pillars Yuan Chwang had seen on his way to Rajagriha from Bodh- Gaya, as referred to above. To the same category might perhaps belong the pillar discovered by Cunningham at Bakror near Bodh- Gaya with two stumps in situ and part of the main shaft above 16 ft. in height. It was made of sandstone bricks of size 154 x loj x 3 J in., the standard Asokan brick being 16x10x3 in. in size. The main shaft was removed to Gaya [ASR i. 12]. Cunningham saw two other similar and uninscribed pillars, one at Taxila and the other ” with an eight-lion capital ” at Latiya ne^gjasggr^ while he also saw ” the capitals of six other Sankisa, Bhilsa, Sanchi and Uday Orissa) [Corpus, p. 3]. In this connect^ the conjecture that perhaps the Bhitari j inscription it bears, was originally a characteristic marks it shows, viz., its capital, 3 ft. 2 in. high, http://www.archive.org/stream/asokagaekw...p_djvu.txt
First Mr. Princep tried to pin Piyadasi on Buddha–then on other people. They finally settled on a new name which didn’t exist–Asoka. Here is another excerpt which kind of uses the inscriptions to portray the territory. Of course it is a fact that all the inscriptions do not belong to a single date–they are all over the place–even in China and Korea.For a while, Prinsep thought that the Devanampiya Piyadasi of the inscriptions was actually Devanampiya Tissa of Lanka – but he gave soon up the idea because there was no evidence of King Devanampiya Tissa having ruled those areas where the inscriptions were found. Of course soon after that, Prinsep and Turnour hit upon the correct identity of King Devanampiya Piyadasi in the inscriptions – Ashoka
Of course there is a huge anomaly in the inscriptions also. None of the inscriptions mentions Buddha or Buddhism.However, if you read the actual wording of the pillars of Asoka (I highly encourage it, they are short reads), the Buddha is never mentioned. The only thing mentioned remotely Buddhist is the word dharma. On pillar #11 “proper behavior towards servants and employees, respect for mother and father, generosity to friends, companions, relations, Brahmans and ascetics…” Only Minor Edict 3 mentions the Buddha by name, and also the Sangha, and even presumes to advise on the specifics of Buddhist texts to be read! What can we say? Itsticks out like a sore thumb from the rest of the edicts, and it is almost certainly a forgery much after the fact, not done by Asoka at all. It doesn’t even begin with the proper salutation “Beloved of the gods speakes thus:”.
Am I the only person to look at this with any common sense? The translator even makes this point in the footnotes: “This edict was found inscribed on a small rock near the town of Bairat and is now housed at the Asiatic Society in Calcutta. Its date is not known.” (see http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html for the translation and footnotes I am using.)
The Minor Pillar Edicts 1 and 2 are also so obviously, even in translation, of a different style and subject, it is a wonder how they were ever classified with the others. The translator admits in the footnotes concerning the 2nd minor pillar: “Allahabad version, date of issue not known.” From the same website we see evidence that the pillar supposedly erected at the Buddha birth place has some problems of provenance: “As the centuries passed, both the language of the inscriptions and the sites themselves were lost. In the 14th-C Sultan Feroz Shah had two of the pillars transported to Delhi. Another was rediscovered and re-erected in 1896 in the Lumbini Garden, where it had first been erected in 254 BC, to mark the site of the birthplace of the Buddha.” Critical thinking indicates that something “rediscovered and re-erected in 1896″ is not the best historical source, and would tell us more about 1896 than what occurred 2000 years before.
The purity of those inscriptions is highly doubtful to begin with, such dealing with the problem of later forgeries. The work of the first modern translator of those inscriptions, working in the latter 1800′s is described here: “Prinsep and others plunged into an intense effort to decipher these inscriptions. This was not an easy task. Many letters were worn away and some were obliterated by later inscriptions.” It gets worse: Asoka is tied up with the modern Hindu and Buddhist political self-image (totemism, again), so it is really no wonder no one approaches this critically: “And according to Jawaharlal Nehru ‘we have associated with our flag not only this emblem but in a sense the name of Ashoka, one of the most magnificent names in India’s history and the world.’ Today every school child in India learns about Emperor Ashoka’s righteous rule over a vast empire, and about the Maurya and the Gupta dynasty, now referred to as the Golden Age of India” (http://sidshome1.blogspot.com/2006/09/ki...i-and.html). In my own state of perplexity, facing the possibility that a whole section of ancient history, what I have been taught to read and accept as true in every single history book, is false, I am like the child proclaiming “the Emperor has no clothes!” Here is an excerpt that describes how Ashoka was transformed from ephemeral myth to some semblance of reality by three Britishers—who based their entire theory on two vague inscriptions–hardly “an overwheleming body of evidence”. The first breakthrough came in 1834. According to Prinsep, “upon carefully comparing them [the Delhi, Allahabad and Lauriya Nandangarh inscriptions] with a view to finding any other words that might be common to them … I was led to a most important discovery; namely that all three inscriptions were identically the same … except for a few lines at the bottom which appear to bear a local import”. The next clue would come from the great Stupa at Sanchi near Bhopal. Prinsep had received drawings and copies of inscriptions found at Sanchi. These included some short inscriptions found on stone railings around the main shrine – it were these “apparently trivial fragments of rude writing [wrote Prinsep] that have led to even more important results than the other inscriptions.” What followed was described by Prinsep in June 1837. “While arranging and lithographing the numerous scraps of facsimiles [from the Sanchi stone railings], I was struck by their all ending in the same two letters. Coupling their circumstance with their extreme brevity, which proved that they could not be fragments of a continuous text, it immediately occurred that they must record either obituary notices, or more probably the offerings and presents of votaries, as is known to be the present custom … ‘Of so and so the gift’ must then be the form of each brief sentence; … [this] led to the speedy recognition of the word danam (gift), teaching me the very two letters d and n, most different from known forms. … My acquaintance with ancient alphabets had become so familiar that most of the remaining letters in the present examples could be named at once on re-inspection. In the course of a few minutes I became possessed of the whole alphabet, which I tested by applying it to the inscription on the Delhi column.” Thus was deciphered the earliest Brahmi script, now known to be the most ancient post-Indus-Valley Indian script and the precursor of all Indian scripts in use today. So what did the inscription on the Delhi Pillar reveal? Prinsep read the first line as: Devanampiya Piyadasi laja evam aha Now that these inscriptions could be read, they still had to be understood. Prinsep – a Sanskrit scholar himself – along with a distinguished pundit set about the task. The language turned out to be one of the Prakrit languages, vernacular derivations of classical Sanskrit, which made translation a little difficult. But in a few weeks the translation of the “Delhi no 1” was ready: Thus spake King Devanampiya Piyadasi. In the twenty-seventh year of my annointment I have caused this religious edict to be published in writing, I acknowledge and confess the faults that have been cherished in my heart … Let stone pillars be prepared and let this edict of religion be engraven thereon, that it may endure into the remotest ages. The question now was, who was this person Devanampiya Piyadasi? Prinsep initially thought it could be the Buddha himself, for, so far as scholars then knew, no single Indian monarch had ruled over such a vast territory as was covered by the pillars and rock inscriptions. This explanation, however, had soon to be given up because the inscriptions referred to ‘such and such year of my reign’, and the Buddha had never been a monarch. Unfortunately, wrote Prinsep, “in all the Hindu genealogical tables with which I am acquainted, no prince can be discovered possessing this very remarkable name”. The mystery was solved within a few short months, with information gleaned, not from archeological sites in India, but from distant Sri Lanka. George Turnour, a member of the Ceylon Civil Service, had taken upon himself the task of translating Sri Lankan Buddhist texts in Pali into English – a rather daunting task, since “no dictionaries then existed … and no teacher could be found capable of rendering them into English”. Turnour persisted, however, and his work threw light not only on the history of Sri Lanka but also on the history of Buddhism in India. Around August 1837 while going through a major work of Pali Buddhist literature, the Dipowanso, he came across one passage, which read: Two hundred and eighteen years after the beatitude of Buddha, was the inauguration of Piyadassi … who, the grandson of Chandragupta, and own son of Bindusara, was at that time viceroy at Ujjayani. So finally, the mystery was solved. King Devanampiya Piyadasi was none other than Ashoka, already known from the Sanskrit king lists as a descendent of Chandragupta Maurya and, from Himalayan Buddhist sources, as a patron of early Buddhism. Now, his historicity was dramatically established. With the discovery of Ashoka as the righteous ruler of a vast empire, a glorious chapter in the history of India was thrown open. Of course, much work still remained to be done. More and more evidence would be found over the years confirming Ashoka as King Devanampiya Piyadasi – but it would not be until 1915 that the matter was settled beyond all doubt when a rock edict referring to Ashoka explicitly as “Ashoka” was found in Maski in Raichur district in Karnataka. However much of the “evidence” has now been refuted through carbon dating. that early date for the reign of the Emperor Kanishka has been overthrown by the carbon dating of ancient Buddhist writing, and is no longer tenable. So the middle 100’s A.D. is a more accurate timetable for those first Buddhist-inspired artifacts [from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=82&ObjectID=10371631].
The oldest extant Buddhist writings we have are the so-called “Dead Sea Scrolls of Buddhism,” the Kharosti Scrolls. Currently housed at the British Library, these scrolls are 60 fragments of text written in the ancient Kharosti script on birch bark, and are the earliest known Buddhist writings. They were produced by monks in the Greco-Buddhist society around Gandhara (more on that later). They are dated as early as 130-250 A.D. The Pali Canon, the mother of all Buddhist scriptures, is usually asserted be first-century B.C. in origin, reflecting hundreds of years of oral tradition. However, that claim is itself based on legend, and the manuscripts we have available are no older than the 18th or 19th centuries A.D., and “the textual traditions of the different Buddhist countries represented by these manuscripts show much evidence of interweaving” [[i]http://www.palitext.com/subpages/lan_lite.htm[/i]]. The basic fact is, in the Pali Canon, there is a lack of historical dates or descriptions of the Buddha that would provide any historical context or clues. The Pali Canon mostly details teachings and rules for monks, not Buddha as a person.
Serious questions are being raised about the time-line of Buddha.there was a Greek writer, Megasthenes, who lived for ten years, around 300 B.C., in the very heartland of where the Buddha had taught, and he makes no mention of Buddhism when describing the religious or social practices of India. There were also no sculptures or art that exist from B.C. that talk about Buddha.
New Delhi considers itself the successor state to Ashoka. This is the only figure that the bigots can find to justify the unity of the conglomeration of more than 570 states. The 80 year rule is considered the map of “Greater India.” The figure of Ashoka has a larger than life presence for the Hinduvata and New Delhi. Many extremist Hindus base their ideology on Ashoka and try to build a case that Ashoka’s empire should be resurrected as “Akhand Bharat“. Pakistani history is being hijacked by people outside the borders of Pakistan. Now scholars are questioning the existence of Ahoka and many others.there is also little evidence for even assuming they were written B.C. It is a huge body of literature, with many obvious layers [“there are texts within the canon either attributed to specific monks or related to an event post-dating the time of the Buddha or that can be shown to have been composed after that time” [from http://www.buddhacommunity.org/scriptures.htm].
Which passages are the oldest, when were they written? Very hard to say. [Read some of the mind-numbing discussion of the issues related to dating the Pali Canon here. See a nice basic overview summary of the Canon here and a more in-depth summary, here
.] Another basic problem is that if the lists of kings and masters are not accurate, then the chronology is totally thrown off. The variability of the chronologies accounts for the wide range in dates used traditionally by the various Buddhist schools. In fact, it is not until the time of the commentaries of Buddhaghosa, Dhammapala, and others — that is to say, the fifth to sixth centuries A.D. — that we can know anything definite about the actual contents of this canon, according to the leading expert in Pali Canon studies, Dr. Gregory Schopen. http://religionnewsblog.blogspot.com/200...dence.html

For centuries historians have been trying to establish the chronology of early “India”. The question of whether Chandragupta can be identified with the figure known in Western texts as Sandrokottas is an important element in fixing the chronology. The philologist William Jones began the systematic study of the chronology in the late 18th century. His work and that of his contemporaries are still highly regarded.[4] However, even William Jones could not believe in the antiquity of the Bharata War since… Very little is known about the entire Maurya dynasty. For example little is known about Chandragupta’s youth. Much of what is known about his youth is gathered from later classical Sanskrit literature, as well as classical Greek and Latin sources which refer to Chandragupta by the names “Sandracottos” or “Andracottus”. He was paragon for next rulers. Dr. Naveed Tajammal has written some fascinating articles on Ashoka. He claims that Ashoka never existed and is simply a figment of the imagination of the Hinduvata who needed a figure to justify the myth that India belonged to the Hindus and on one else. As, per the records submitted to Sir William Jones, acclaimed as father of Indianology by Pandit Radhakantta of Calcutta.in 1770-1780, a period when world chronology was redefined,the term "ashoka" was invented
It is a fact that the name Ashoka did not exist in the chronologies of historians before the British Indianologist started talking to the religious figures of the Hinduvata. Is it possible that Ashoka might have been a composite figure made out of many kings and his stature embellished with the passage of time.

[Sariel]

[size="3"]The greatest Indian royal dynasty was Jat in origins. Jats are Scythians from the Iranian (Aryan) plateau.

From the Iranian secret society of Aryan lineage, Iran Chamber Society

[/size][size="3"]I[/size][size="3"]n 1979 the famous Jat historian B.S.Dehiya published a paper entitled "The Mauryas: Their Identity", Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal, Vol. 17 (1979), p.112-133. In this now classic treatise, B.S.Dehiya proved several points, including the following: [/size]

• [size="3"]The Mauryas, Muras, or rather Mors, were Jats, and hence Scythian or East Iranic in origin.[/size][size="3"]Consequently, Ashoka, Chandragupta and all other emperors of the Mauryan Dynasty were Scythian Jats (p.116).[/size][size="3"]The Atharva Veda was the creation of Iranic sun-priests or Magas, and was not part of the original Vedic tradition (p.128).[/size][size="3"]The primordial Jat religion was that of the original Iranic race, namely monotheist Sun-worship, which they and their Maga priests carried wherever they migrated (p.119, 128).[/size][size="3"]Chanakya or Kautilya, brain behind the Mauryan Empire and author of the famous Artha-Sastra, was an Iranic sun-priest or Maga (p.128).[/size][size="3"]The Mauryas or Mors were close kin of the Amorites of Babylonia and Egypt. (p.131)[/size][size="3"]The Jat immigrants are close kin of the ancient Gutians of Sumeria (p.131), and the Goths or Gots (p.125), known in Latin as Getae.[/size]

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/artic...uryas1.php

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/artic...uryas2.php

[Sariel]

[size="3"]India never had a king of their own origins, but had been ruled by invading Aryan people from Sumeria and Central Asia.


[/size]