Indian History – What Do We Really Know?

Chandragupta Maurya and his prime minister, Cāṇakya Paṇḍita, may be the most celebrated (and, at the same time, the most elusive) figures in Indian history. Aside from the Edicts of Aśoka, very little contemporary epigraphic or archaeological evidence of the Mauryan dynasty has been found to date. The reasons for this could be the nature of India’s harsh climate and its deteriorating effect on manuscript materials, or the repeated destruction of ancient Indian libraries such as those at Takśaśila and Nālanda. In any case, when it comes to historical mysteries such as the Mauryan dynasty and the dating of Lord Buddha, the writings of the late Indian researcher and author Kota Venkatachalam should interest the reader.

(Kota Venkatachalam)

Kota Venkatachalam was born in 1885 to a Telugu brāhmaṇa family in Machilipatnam, South India. Beginning at the age of eight, Venkatachalam was educated in traditional śāstrika disciplines, including Sanskrit, Jyotiṣa (astronomy/astrology), mathematics, geography, and Purāṇika literature. During a time when European influence on India was at its peak, Venkatachalam noticed the strong bias of Western scholars in their treatment of Indian history. Aiming to set the record straight, Venkatachalam made it his life’s work to present an independent, self-consistent chronology of the Vedas, Purāṇas, and Itihāsas. At the age of seventy-two, Venkatachalam accepted the order of sannyāsa under the name Jagadguru Śrī Advayānanda Śaṅkarabhāratī Svāmī and took up the role of pīṭhādhipati (head priest) at Śrī Abhinava Virūpākṣa Pīṭham in Andhra Pradesh.

Among the many errors committed by European Indologists, Venkatachalam identified the Āryan Invasion Theory (AIT) as the most grievous. Unable to give credit to the indigenous cultural contributions of ancient India, early Indologists claimed that Vedic culture arose outside the subcontinent and was gradually adopted by its inhabitants.

During the period when Indology was developing, the prevailing view among European scholars was that the world had begun only 6,000 years earlier (4004 BCE), and Biblical narratives were accepted as historical truth. Scholars of the time also proposed that Vedic culture and the Sanskrit language (along with Greek, Latin, and Persian) must have originated from an undiscovered parent language known as Proto-Indo-European. For anyone familiar with the story of the Tower of Babel,* it should be obvious how greatly Biblical ideology influenced the conception of modern philology and Indic studies.

*The Biblical Tower of Babel purports that a single language was once common to the world, and how God’s destruction of a mythical city of Babylon led to one language breaking into the many.

Venkatachalam’s critique of mainstream Indian chronology can be summed up as follows — Western indologists beginning with Sir William Jones have mistakenly conflated different aspects of Indian history in order to fit a recognisable Eurocentric timeline. Over time, Venkatachalam concludes that these distortions have led to a compression of Indian chronology. Venkatachalam’s writings are his attempt to reconstruct that chronology.

Venkatachalam’s work begins by challenging the conventional dating of Lord Buddha. According to the mainstream academic consensus, the birth of Lord Buddha is dated to around 500 BCE, or approximately 2,500 years ago. The strongest body of evidence supporting this dating comes from the stone edicts of Emperor Aśoka, a powerful Indian ruler said to have converted to Buddhism three centuries later (268 BCE). The carved edicts and pillars identified with Emperor Aśoka are found throughout India, as well as in present-day Pakistan and Afghanistan. For modern Indologists, the language of the Aśokan edicts, the Sri Lankan Buddhist chronicles, and the longstanding footprint of Buddhist activity in Bodh Gayā (where the Buddha attained enlightenment) are sufficient to support the date of 500 BCE.

(Grecian Buddha statue and the Ashokan Pillar)

According to Venkatachalam, however, dating Lord Buddha to around 500 BCE does not align with Purāṇika chronology. After a detailed examination of the dynastic lists contained in the Vedic literatures, Venkatachalam places Lord Buddha’s appearance at around 1,887 BCE. Beginning with the period after the Mahābhārata war (3138 BCE), the author traces Lord Buddha’s descent through the Ikṣvāku dynasty:

Bṛhadbala (Ikṣvāku king) was killed in the Mahābhārata War by Abhimanyu. His son ‘Bṛhadkṣaṇa” became king after the war. The Purāṇas declare the Lord Buddha was the son of ‘Śuddhodana.” (The 23rd king in the Ikṣvāku dynasty.) Siddhārtha renounced the mundane life in his 29th year and after a continued penance of 6 years attained Buddhahood while he was sitting in meditation under the Bodhi tree. (‘The Plot in Indian Chronology’, Kota Venkatachalam)

Venkatachalam corroborates this early date with further evidence of the Magadha lineage, another prominent dynasty that emerged after the onset of Kali-yuga:

The first coronated king of Magadha in 3138 BCE, was Somadhu. From him to Mahāpadma Nanda ruled thirty-seven monarchs. In all these 37 Sovereigns ruled for a total of 1504 years and at that interval Buddha must have existed. The 4th king in Śiśunāga dynasty, or calculated from Bharata Battle the 31st ruler was Kṣemajit who was the contemporary to Śuddhodana, the father of Buddha. His reigning time was 1892-1852 BCE. (‘The Plot in Indian Chronology’, Kota Venkatachalam)

Remarkably, Dr. Thiruvenkatācharya, a mathematics professor at Rajahmundry College in South India, arrived at almost the identical date for the Buddha’s lifetime through astronomical calculations. By establishing the date of Lord Buddha’s disappearance based on descriptions in Buddhist literature, Dr. Thiruvenkatācharya provides the following data:

Death of Buddha; Vaiśākha full moon Nakshatram Viśākhā. Tuesday a little before day break. 27-8-1807 B. C. is a full moon (Tuesday) ending at 37 gh. 12 v. gh.Vaiśākha begins at 55 gh. 12 v. gh. on 26-3-1807 and ends at 1 gh. 12 v. gh. on 28-3-1807 BCE.
(V. Thiruvenkatacharya, Head of the department of Mathematics, Government Arts College, Rajahmundry)

Another point of contention raised by Venkatachalam pertains to the identity of Aśoka the Great, widely recognised as the great patron and evangelist of Buddhism. In particular, the author questions why the name Aśoka is mentioned only once throughout the many edicts, and why the name Devānampiya Piyadasi (“Beloved of the Gods”) is the only common identifier found among them. The author further remarks that the word dhamma (dharma in Prakrit), inscribed on the many monuments, does not seem to denote Buddhist dharma at all, but rather dharma in a more general sense.

Everywhere… I have arranged for two kinds of medical treatment: medical treatment for humans and medical treatment for animals… Along the roads I have had wells dug and trees planted for the benefit of humans and animals. (Major Rock Edict II)

Respect for mother and father is good. Charity to friends, acquaintances, relatives, brāhmaṇas and ascetics is good. Not killing living beings is good. Moderation in spending and moderation in saving is good. (Major Rock Edict III)

Devānampiya feels deep remorse for having conquered the Kalingas… Devānampiya now considers the conquest by Dhamma to be the foremost conquest. (Major Rock Edict XIII)

Indeed, if Emperor Aśoka adopted Buddhism only three years after his coronation (as is generally accepted), it does seem unusual that he would advocate charity toward brāhmaṇas and ascetics, considering that varṇāśrama-dharma and asceticism were two practices Buddhism sought to abolish.

(One of the Ashokan Edicts)

Today, scholars are adamant that the ruler mentioned in the stone edicts was Aśoka Maurya, grandson of the great Chandragupta Maurya, but the name Maurya is nowhere to be found on the stone edicts. Academics instead draw on other sources, such as the Sri Lankan chronicles and a treaty between Hellenistic Greece and an Indian emperor named Sandrokottos, to substantiate their dating of the Mauryan Empire.*

*Sandrokottos is a Greco-Romanised equivalent for Candragupta.

The Mauryan dynasty and its rulers—Chandragupta Maurya, Bindusāra, and Aśoka—are clearly listed in the Purāṇas. The legendary prime minister and “king-maker,” Cāṇakya Paṇḍita, is also described in the dynastic lists. Based on Venkatachalam’s calculations, Chandragupta Maurya reigned around 1534 BCE. This would make the Mauryan era several centuries older than the earliest histories of ancient Greece. While modern scholars claim that the dynastic lists were retroactively added to the Purāṇas in later editions, Venkatachalam maintains that Śrīla Vyāsadeva and the other ṛṣis who compiled the Vedic literatures were competent to present an accurate chronology and supports his thesis with overwhelming evidence.

When I first heard about Venkatachalam’s chronology, I must admit that my initial reaction was to reject it. After having encountered so many baseless and sensational revisions of Western history in my own research, I’ve adopted a healthy degree of skepticism toward alternative timelines. Moreover, as I’ve already written a number of articles that reference the conventional dating of Lord Buddha and the Mauryan dynasty, I must also admit to some personal bias on the subject. However, as it is the duty of any seeker of truth to examine a topic from as many different angles as possible, I have done my best to present Venkatachalam’s work in an honest light.

The primary evidence that Emperor Aśoka adopted Buddhism comes from Sri Lankan chronicles written in the fifth century CE.*

*The Sri Lankan chronicles are primarily known today from the editions of Hermann Oldenberg (1879), who collated several relatively late Sri Lankan manuscripts.

These accounts form the basis for identifying King Piyadasi with Aśoka Maurya. In the Dīpa-vaṁsa and Mahā-vaṁsa, the story of Piyadasi Aśoka, the grandson of Chandragupta, is narrated:

Twenty-four years Candragupta reigned, and his son Bindusāra reigned twenty-eight years. Bindusāra had one hundred glorious sons; Aśoka stood high above them all in valour, splendour, might, and wondrous powers. After his father’s death Aśoka slew his brothers, all save one, and assumed the sovereignty in the splendid city of Pāṭaliputra. (Mahā-vaṁsa V.18–21)

“Three years after his consecration King Piyadasi was converted to the Buddha’s religion.” (Dīpa-vaṁsa VI.18–19)

“By expending ninety-six crores of great treasure, eighty-four thousand monasteries have been erected by me, in honour of the eighty-four thousand sections of the Doctrine taught by the most excellent Buddha. (Dīpa-vaṁsa VII 10-11)

Along with the Sri Lankan chronicles, several Minor Rock Edicts also appear to mention an emperor named Devānampiya Aśoka, who addresses a Buddhist assembly:

A proclamation of Devānampiya Aśoka: “More than two and a half years have passed since I became an upāsaka. But for more than a year I was not very zealous. Then, for more than a year, I approached the Saṅgha and became very zealous. (Maski Edict)

His Majesty, the King of Magadha, Piyadasi, salutes the Saṅgha and hopes they are in good health and living happily. Venerable sirs, you know how deep my confidence in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha is.(Bhabru Edict)

Venkatachalam acknowledges these sources but remarks that Western Indologists rely too heavily on them to establish the dating of the Mauryan dynasty. He also adds that, as ancient texts were translated into the vernacular over the centuries, further mix-ups were possible. Perhaps at some point a king known as Aśoka did adopt Buddhism, but whether he was indeed Aśoka Maurya remains a subject open to debate.

As for the treaty signed between the Greeks and the Indian king Sandrokottos, Venkatachalam is confident that this individual was not Chandragupta Maurya, but Chandragupta I of the Gupta dynasty:

These European orientalists and historians seem to have started a theory of their own that the basic fact of ancient Indian History was the supposed contemporaneity of Alexander the Great (326 B. C.) and the Sandrocottus mentioned by the Greek historians who was wrongly identified by them as Chandragupta Maurya of Magadha. The European scholars were aware of the two Chandraguptas, famous in Indian history and tradition… (Kota Venkatachalam – ‘The Plot in Indian Chronology’)

(Alexander the Great in battle with King Porus of India)

According to conventional historians, however, Chandragupta I is dated to around the fourth century CE, nearly 800 years after the time of Alexander.* Venkatachalam’s model therefore pushes the Gupta dynasty back to around the fourth century BCE, the Sātavāhana dynasty to the fifth century BCE, and the Kuṣāṇa era to the sixth century BCE. Venkatachalam also points out that the Purāṇas give a detailed account of this epoch, including the names of foreign powers that once ruled India before being driven out around 57 BCE. The Magadha kingdom associated with the ruler mentioned in the stone edicts, the capital of Pāṭaliputra, and even the Sri Lankan chronicles are thus concluded by the author to be markers of the Gupta era rather than the Mauryan era described throughout the Purāṇas.

*Chandragupta I is conventionally dated to the fourth century CE on the basis of archaeological evidence, including Kushan-era coins and artefacts recovered from earlier stratigraphic layers.

Venkatachalam continues:

…Students of Indian literature are acquainted with Chandragupta of the Maurya dynasty of Magadha, as well as that other Chandragapta the founder of the famous Gupta dynasty of Imperial Magadha. The last king of the Andhra Satavahana dynasty was the well-known Chandrasree or Chandrabija or Chandramas or the Zandrames of the Greek writers. He was assassinated by his general Chandragupta who placed Chandrasree’s minor son Puloma on the throne and ruled on his behalf as regent. Chandragupta’s son Samudragupta was a renowned warrior who assisted his father in protecting the empire, defeating all the enemies. In those times the Greek invasion of India under Alexander {326 B. C.) took place. In the crisis for the empire, Chandragupta, the regent put to death the minor king Puloma of the Andhra Satavahana dynasty, proclaimed himself emperor, shifted the capital from Girivraja, incorporated the North-western part of the Magadha kingdom in his own dominion and was crowned at Pāṭaliputra, a city in that region. (Kota Venkatachalam, ‘The Plot in Indian Chronology’)

Ultimately, the dynastic lists given in the Purāṇas follow a specific sequence outlining Indian history and can be reasonably interpreted within both Venkatachalam’s model and the conventional model. The main difference between the two models lies in the anchor each uses to establish its chronology. Venkatachalam anchors his chronology of Indian history at the commencement of the Kali-yuga era (3102 BCE) and consults all other forms of evidence in relation to the Purāṇas. Conversely, mainstream historians rely on academic consensus as their primary evidence (such as the accepted dates of the stone edicts) and then consult the Vedic scriptures in relation to that. With all of this in mind, one could argue that both models are internally self-consistent. The choice of which chronology carries more weight in a given context, therefore, is a writer’s own prerogative.*

*A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada consistently references the conventional dating of both Lord Buddha and the Mauryan Empire in his writings.

With regard to the significant gap between Venkatachalam’s dating and the conventional date of Lord Buddha, B.R. Śrīdhara Deva Gosvāmī Mahārāja also offers an interesting explanation:

Śrīdhara Mahārāja: There are two different Buddhas. Buddha means wise – from buddhi; Buddha – wise man. Buddha is not one. There are different Buddhas. There are different Kapilas. Kapila is also not one. One Kapila is Godless. One Buddha is Godless. Another Buddha is an incarnation of God.

The first recognition is given in Bhāgavatam – Daśāvatāra Buddha. That is another Buddha. And this Buddha is another. Nāstika Buddha – atheist Buddha. Buddha does not believe in the existence of soul. Not only God, but that the jīva-soul does not exist. He only believes in transfiguration. He believes in the mental system and transfiguration. Cārvāka, like Epicurus, thinks that with the dissolution of this body nothing remains. But Buddha says with the dissolution of this body, the mental system remains. And when the mental system is dissolved, nothing remains. That is the atheist Buddha.

And the avatāra-Buddha, incarnation-Buddha, he came to preach against the yajña. The karma-kāṇḍiya – “You take to kill the animals… …leave them! It is reactionary! You rather take the holy path towards realisation. You are making too much of the sacrifice of the beasts in the name of the Lord.” He came with that object. When the sacrifice of the beasts was increased to the highest degree, then as a reaction to that, Buddha came to preach. “Take some sāttvika course.”

There was a case in Bodha-Gayā between the Buddhists and the Śaṅkara school. The Śaṅkara school accepts Buddha as an incarnation of God. And the atheist Buddhists, they demanded that Bodha-Gayā come under their administration. But the Śaṅkara school put a lawsuit in the court that, “This is not their Buddha, it is our Buddha, he is avatāra! He is not an atheist!” And I was told that the Śaṅkara school gained the case.

Devotee: Guru Mahārāja, are they dealing with the same personality? Or two different persons entirely?

Śrīdhara Mahārāja: Two different persons.

Devotee: Then when did the atheistic influence appear?

Śrīdhara Mahārāja: It is not particularly known. In Bhāgavatam it is mentioned, buddho nāmnāñjana-sutaḥ. Añjana-suta Buddha. Kīkaṭeṣu bhaviṣyati – And that Buddha’s mother was Mahāmāyā, not Añjanā. In Bhāgavatam it is mentioned that Añjanā was the mother of Buddha: buddho nāmnāñjana-sutaḥ kīkaṭeṣu bhaviṣyati. That Buddha’s mother’s name was Mahāmāyā.”

Devotee: Yes, he appeared in Nepal.

Śrīdhara Mahārāja: In Nepal. And that Buddha appeared in Gayā, Bodha-Gayā, Bihar.

(Conversation with Śrīla Śrīdhara Mahārāja, Jan. 12th, 1983)

Although students of the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava school reject the overall ideology of Śaṅkarācārya and his followers, we nevertheless recognise the role he played (as an incarnation of Lord Śiva) in the evolution of the theistic conception. After a long period of Buddhist dominance in India, Śaṅkarācārya appeared at a time of great need to re-establish the authority of the Vedas. As such, Venkatachalam’s research is a commendable effort to restore the dignity of the Vedic literatures in that tradition.

(Adi Saṅkara)

Perhaps even more intriguing than Venkatachalam’s chronology is his response to the Aryan Invasion Theory itself. Not only does Venkatachalam thoroughly dismantle the AIT in his writings, but he also offers a substantial explanation for why so many of the world’s cultures share a common foundation of knowledge and linguistic heritage. Beginning with the Ṛg Veda, Venkatachalam explains how the words Ārya and Dasyu actually refer to adherents of sanātana-dharma (Āryas) and the degraded kṣatriyas (Dasyus) who broke away from Vedic civilisation in the remote past. Citing the Purāṇas, the Itihāsas, as well as Persian sources such as the Zend Avesta, Venkatachalam presents a compelling thesis that illustrates how aspects of Vedic culture diffused throughout the world.

Kota Venkatachalam was not a lightweight researcher. His work spans more than twenty-three books, carefully compiled over a period of fifty years, and contains thousands of citations from Vedic scriptures and other source documents. Even today, countless researchers in the alternative history community, Hindutva-vādīs, and Hare Kṛṣṇa devotees alike draw upon the work of Venkatachalam, yet many fail to give him credit for his pioneering research. Some even go so far as to use Venkatachalam’s dates as though they were presenting them as the product of their own scholarship. In any case, for anyone seeking to enrich their perspective on Vedic culture and history, Venkatachalam’s books would be a welcome addition to any personal research library.

References:

1. Venkatachalam, Kota. Age of Buddha, Milinda and Amtiyoka, and Yugapurāna. Self-published, 1956.
2. Venkatachalam, Kota. The Plot in Indian Chronology. Self-published, 1953.
3. Venkatachalam, Kota. Chronology of Ancient Hindu History. Part I. K. Venkatachelam, 1957.
4. Pargiter, F. E., editor. The Purāṇa Text of the Dynasties of the Kali Age: With Introduction and Notes. Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, 1913.
5. Oldenberg, Hermann, editor and translator. The Dīpavaṃsa: An Ancient Buddhist Historical Record. Williams and Norgate, 1879.
6. Mahānāma. The Mahāvaṃsa, or The Great Chronicle of Ceylon. Translated by Wilhelm Geiger, assisted by Mabel Haynes Bode, Pali Text Society, 1912.

• 📖 When Wise Men Speak Wise Men Listen by Swami B.G. Narasiṅgha Mahārāja (Book)
• 📚 The Myth of the Aryan Invasion Series
• Vedic Global Civilisation by Śrīla Bhakti Gaurava Narasiṅgha Mahārāja
• UFOs – Is Anyone Out There? by Śrīla Bhakti Gaurava Narasiṅgha Mahārāja
• Modern Science and the Vedas by Śrīla Bhakti Gaurava Narasiṅgha Mahārāja
• Giants – Myth or Fact? by Śrīla Bhakti Gaurava Narasiṅgha Mahārāja
• Timiṅgila – Myth or Fact? by Śrīla Bhakti Gaurava Narasiṅgha Mahārāja
• Makara – Myth or fact? by Śrīla Bhakti Gaurava Narasiṅgha Mahārāja
• Śrī AI Uvāca – When AI Replaces Realisation in Vaiṣṇava Writing by Gaura Gopāla Dāsa
• Lost Ancient Technology by Kalki Dāsa
• Here Be Dragons! by Kalki Dāsa
• The Great Flood – Are Manu and Noah the Same Person? by Kalki Dāsa
• Zarathustra and The De-evolution of Theism by Kalki Dāsa
• Did Darwin Borrow His Theory of Evolution from the Vedas? by Kalki Dāsa
• Vedic Knowledge in The Golden Age of Islam by Kalki Dāsa
• Along The Silk Road by Kalki Dāsa

• What is a human? by Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura