Sunil,

It is all very well to berate Koenraad day in and day out, but certain
fundamental questions remain unanswered in any attempt to propose new dates
for Buddha, Ashoka, the Guptas, Aryabhata and any other landmark of
established chronologies of the historical period (I won't discuss
protohistoric issues here).

The first is to explain how everyone else could get it wrong for so long.
Using the old excuse of colonial bias won't do: for all the above landmarks
we have solid work done by respected and experienced Indian archaeologists,
historians and epigraphists who cannot by any means be accused of prejudice.
Let me take the case of Aryabhata below (with a single "t", please): you do
not seem aware that eminent Indian savants like KS Shukla or KV Sarma, in
their critical edition of Aryabhatiya, read the verse you partly quote very
differently and reached the accepted date of 499 CE. Or if you are, you
clearly do not feel the need to tell us how they -- and many others -- could
bungle so badly.

A second shortcoming in your approach is to overlook any evidence
corroborating the chronology you set out to revise. Let me return to
Aryabhata: a French Sanskritist and mathematician, Roger Billard, did in
1971 an independent statistical study of Aryabhata's planetary positions and
proved that they must have been observed around 510 CE. (See his paper
summarizing his French book at http://tinyurl.com/d5y4td.) Billard's
approach was endorsed by the well-known historian of science Van der Waerden
(see http://tinyurl.com/dyhbf8 ). The match between 499 and 510 is excellent
and confirms the correctness of Shukla's and Sarma's reading. So now you
have to prove also where Billard and Van der Waerden went wrong. You will
never be taken seriously if you run away from discussing and disproving your
predecessors.

Thirdly, those who have of late proposed new chronologies never feel
compelled to look at the consequences of their conclusions. To locate Buddha
in 1800 BCE is one thing, but what kind of social context do we have in the
middle Gangetic plains at the time? Archaeology is categorical that there
was nothing resembling the cities and kingdoms described in Buddhist texts,
so must we conclude that the latter are all imagination? Again, how do you
expect a rural society around 1300 BCE to produce an Aryabhata and a whole
school of savants preceding and following him? I have read several
"discoveries" of the date of Rama sometime in the sixth millennium BCE,
blissfully unaware not only of the impossibility of kingdoms and cities, but
even of metallurgy of any sort!

In short, the recent revised chronologies can be accepted only by
disregarding the work of numerous painstaking savants, brushing aside all
contrary evidence, and refusing to build a model consistent with established
hard evidence. Not a very good methodology, I dare say.

Your only line of argument, insofar as I have read your posts, seems to be
that the Puranas dictate a different chronology. But which one? I remember
reading Pargiter, Pusalker, Kota Venkatachela, Sethna and several others,
and the one sure conclusion is that the Puranic dynasties and other clues
lend themselves to such widely different conclusions that they will remain
soft evidence at best. Of course you will assert that your interpretation of
the Puranas is the correct one -- and expect us to take your word for it. I
am convinced that the Puranas do contain some history, but matching it with
independent hard evidence will require more patience than you appear to
have.

Regards,

Michel


> Re: [Abhinavagupta] Re: California History Book Controversy
> Posted by: "sunil_bhattacharjya@..."
> Date: Wed Apr 1, 2009 7:30 pm ((PDT))

[...]

> What kind of scholarship is this to make vegue statement? Please
> make specific statement as to where did you catch me. What are
> you hiding from the forum members. Please be transparent and
> speak out. Let the Forum members know about your self-vaunted
> scholarship. On the contrary I caught you. [...]


> Re: [JyotishGroup] Suryasiddhanta
> Posted by: "sunil_bhattacharjya@..."
> Date: Fri Mar 27, 2009 7:29 pm ((PDT))

[...]

> Aryabhatta said that he was 23 years of age in "Sashtyaabdaanaam
> Sashtyaardha (ie. sixty multiplied by half of sixty) from the
> start of Kali yuga". This means he was born in 3102 - (60 X 60 /
> 2) + 23 = 1325 BCE. Aryabhatta did not mention any other kala as
> the other kalas such as mentioned by Varahamihira and Brahmagupta
> were not there during his time. So he had to express in terms of
> the Kali era. In his time the 60- year Brihaspati-chakra was used
> in place of centuries. On the otherhand at a much later date
> Varahamihira mentioned Sakendrakala starting from 551 BCE and
> Brahmagupta mentioned Sakanta kala starting from 78 BCE.