Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
Earl
Joined: 06-Apr-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 287
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Asoka of Kashmir Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 09:45 |
Very interesting indeed!
Hope you would have gone through my postings appearing above.
From where you got the geneology with chronology?
From Rajatarangini or some other source?
How you correlate "Asoka" here?
What date was assigned to him according to your chronology?
|
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.
|
|
ishwa
Janissary
Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 14:01 |
Originally posted by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
Very interesting indeed!
From where you got the geneology with chronology?
From Rajatarangini or some other source?
How you correlate "Asoka" here?
What date was assigned to him according to your chronology? |
Dear Ramakrishna,
These are the dates as extracted from the given data in the Rajatarangini itself. The work gives Samvats, related to certain important kings in its verses. This, thus, is not my chronology, but the one of Kalhana, based upon older works from various sources and disciplines available to him.
The link of Gonanda I with Jarasandha is given by the Rajatarangini. The Kula into which Jarasandha is born is given in the Mahabharata and Puranas.
Ashoka, as per Kalhana's data, must be before the given date of Gonanda (III), 1181 B.C.E. He was 7 generations of rulers earlier in time. in that sense it may have been around 1400 B.C.E., as per Kalhana's chronology.
|
|
K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
Earl
Joined: 06-Apr-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 287
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Jul-2007 at 22:19 |
You would have noticed that in my very first sentence, I have mentioned it.
Have you then attempted to differentiate the Asokan's inscriptions accordingly?
Have you thought of the implication of Asoka in c.1400 BCE would take his inscriptions also to that period?
|
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.
|
|
ishwa
Janissary
Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Jul-2007 at 08:36 |
Dear Ramakrishna,
I have noticed it.
About Piyadassi's inscription relating to two different Ashoka's? I think that is a difficult matter and a discipline apart for professional epigraphists and Prakrita savants to check with fresh looks.
The Aramaean and Greek texts in the inscriptions can't date back to 1400 B.C.E.
What exactly is probably recarved on older monuments is something for the professionals to decide.
|
|
K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
Earl
Joined: 06-Apr-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 287
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jul-2007 at 11:27 |
What the Armenean and Greek monuments to do the "Asoka" of Kashmir?
|
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.
|
|
ishwa
Janissary
Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jul-2007 at 17:40 |
Let's put it differently, to see that I do understand you correctly:
You asked:
"Have you then attempted to differentiate the Asokan's inscriptions accordingly?
Have you thought of the implication of Asoka in c.1400 BCE would take his inscriptions also to that period?"
My question:
Which inscriptions of Kashmiri Ashoka exactly you are referring to?
|
|
K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
Earl
Joined: 06-Apr-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 287
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 01:58 |
I have already mentioned about the prevalent of difference of opinion attributing the so-called "Asokan inscriptions" to "Mauryan Asoka".
But, All inscriptions have been attributed to him!
So the inscriptions have to be separated to fit into each Asoka.
|
History is not what was written or is written, but it is actually what had happened in the past.
|
|
Yagya
Knight
Joined: 07-Jun-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 65
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Jul-2007 at 13:54 |
Originally posted by K. V. Ramakrishna Rao
I have already mentioned about the prevalent of difference of opinion attributing the so-called "Asokan inscriptions" to "Mauryan Asoka".
But, All inscriptions have been attributed to him!
So the inscriptions have to be separated to fit into each Asoka.
|
It is said "all" Ashokan pillars have inscriptions which "read quite similar". Is this not true?
|
|
M. Nachiappan
Consul
suspended
Joined: 09-Jun-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 315
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Aug-2007 at 05:21 |
1. All pillars are not "Asokan" pillars.
2. All pillars do not have inscriptions.
3. All inscriptions do not belong to Asoka.
4. All inscriptions also "cannot be read quite similar".
|
|