Aryans and Dravidians

[Srinivas Sunder]

Hi y'all.

Since the new theories about who the As and the Ds were brings to this list
the specter of pre-historical revisionism, I thought I'd also mention some 
new theories that would fall into the category of historical revisionism (not
used in a pejorative sense).
 
For instance, I have been told that Adi Sankara was not an 8th Century AD
figure as is conventionally believed, but actually a 5th Century BC person.
This is on account of the fact that the baseline for dating Indian historical 
events is the date of Alexander's incursion (invasion?) into India, which was
323 BC or thereabouts, with the Maurya dynasty and all subsequent historical
events and figures being dated from then onwards. 

The "new" theory(-ies) claim that that was a different, later Chandragupta;
i.e., the Chandragupta who defeated Seleucus Nicator was NOT the Maurya, but 
really Chandragupta I, the father/predecessor of Samudragupta and grand-dad to 
C-gupta Vikramaditya - which sets the clock back by some 600 years, since 
C-gupta V. is generelly assumed to have been a 3-4th cen. AD guy. The Ashoka of 
the edicts was not a Maurya, but actually Ashoka of the Gonadiyas, a Kashmiri 
dynasty (no idea how he was so id'd). The Lords Buddha is designated as an 1800
BC figure, not 500 BC. Adi Sankara "drove" Buddhism out of India in the 5th
cen. BC, and Ashoka (Gonadiya) revived Buddhism in about 280 BC. Then, when did 
the _real_ Chandragupta Maurya live? 1550 B.C. (reason for this conclusion 
unknown to me). Then, adding a 1000-odd years to this (the difference between
C-gupta Maurya and Adi Sankara), we have Adi Sankara at about 500 BC.

Also unknown (to me, that is) is whether this new theory believes that Kautilya 
was contemporaneous with the earlier or later Chandragupta. Ditto for what it
does to the dates of Kanishka, and yet later figures like Ramaanujacharya and 
Madhavacharya. And of course, Kalidasa, and other figures among the Navaratnas.
And the chronologies of the various mutts supposedly estd. by Adi Sankara.
Further questions abound. How did Buddhism die out in India again? No idea, at 
least so far. I guess if you want to know, you'll just have to Read The Books 
(North Americans on this list will be familiar with this marketing technique - 
the same employed by TIME-LIFE books to hawk its wares on TV).

I don't claim to believe any of this. But in case you open minds are interested 
in adding to the already considerable material you have to sift through, some of
the tomes that suggest these alternate dates are listed below. I haven't read 
them. My source who swears by these also mentioned an Australian author (a 
woman whose name he forgot), who also has similar theories based on the 
similarity between the social conditions during the Gupta dynasty and the 
conditions described by the Greeks at the court of Chandragupta (the one 
believed by unrevised history to be the Maurya).

Speaking as one of those Indo-North American science types with a stricly 
amateur interest in the history and accomplishments of his ancestors, I might 
add that this had been an enjoyable couple of weeks, the occasional frayed 
temper and wisecrack notwithstanding (funny how Austin,TX seems to have its 
fair share of both types, eh?).

Oh, the books.

"Problems in Historical Chronology" by Shripad Kulkarni
"Age of the Buddha"                 by Sriram Sathe
"Satyartha Prakash"                 by Maharishi Dayanand Saraswathi
[I read parts of this in my high-school days, but perhaps not the parts
 that have to do with alternate dates for historical events/figures]

According to my source, David Frawley (and Prof. Kak?) is (are) in agreement 
with these new dates. So there's another connection with the ongoing debate 
(catfight?).


Srinivas Sunder
Austin, TX