34. Appendix 5.1: Introduction to the History of Ferishta to the Era of Alexander (§§627-781)

The Six Days of Creation     www.christianhospitality.org     Online Index     Feedback/Discussion

34. Appendix 5.1: Introduction to the History of Ferishta to the Era of Alexander [Continued] (§§627-781)





682.1. Note on the chronology of the Hindus: 1) In the original Zoroastrian scheme Zoroaster appeared half-way through the second cycle of 6000 years, that is, the latter portion of the 12000-year Long Period. Thus a date c 800 BC for Zoroaster (Xuartes) takes one back to 3800 BC (800 + 3000) for the beginning of the second cycle of 6000 years and to the era of Gayomart (Adam), who flourished then according to the Biblical chronology also.

2) In the traditional king-lists of India, employing multiple sources, Pargiter (ut cit. infra, p. 144ff.) reckoned a total of 95 kings inclusive from the first, Manu, to Abhimanyu son of Arjuna son of Pandu at the time of the Mahabharata war. From Abhimanyu’s son Parikshit to Chandragupta, the contemporary of the Greek historian Megasthenes, the traditional king-lists give approximately 60 reigns, making something like 155 reigns in total to the time of Megasthenes. Megasthenes himself records there were 153 kings before his time going back to the first king of India, “Dionysus,” comprising a period of 6042 years (apud Arrian, Indica IX) or 6451 years 3 months till the 154th king, the invader Alexander of Macedon (apud Pliny Nat. Hist. VI. xxi. 4-5). This is confirmation of the antiquity of the traditional king-lists as regards the number of kings, and, at the same time, a corrective to the fantastical chronology of the yugas within which the kings are located in the extant native Indian sources. Placing the Mahabharata war at an era proportionate to that reported in the traditional Hindu accounts, but employing the scheme of Megasthenes, one would date it two fifths of the total period before Megasthenes’ era (60 out of 155 kings), viz. around 2700 BC (one fifth = 1200 years, two fifths = 2400 years, Megasthenes c. 300 BC, 300 + 2400 = 2700 BC). Vyasa and Zoroaster, being older contemporaries of the war, might be dated in this chronological system, c. 2700 BC.

3) What is noticeable about this date is it is roughly half way through a cycle of 6000 years, which is Zoroaster’s position in the (second) 6000-year cycle in the Zoroastrian Long Period. Vyasa was a pupil of Zoroaster, according to the Parsi tradition recorded supra, and this implies the Zoroastrian cycle, the Long Period, was adopted in India in the circle of Vyasa, and thus passed down to the era of Megasthenes. One has then to consider how the historical date for Zoroaster (Xuartes-Zoroaster, Munir Suarta) c. 800 BC came to be exchanged for the earlier date c. 2700 BC. A clue may be found in the Majmal (§687, below, >>), which dates the Pandavas and Mahabharata war to the time when Ham son of Noah died. At the very moment of his death, according to the Majmal’s mysterious account, Ham generated Pan the eponymus of the Pandavas. Ham was a more specifically Hindu Zoroaster, being the ancestral patriarch of the Hindus, and long preceded the sage Xuartes. The conclusion would seem to be warranted that at some point in the transmission of the Zoroastrian chronological tradition before it reached Megasthenes, the prophet Zoroaster c. 800 BC dropped out of consideration, and Ham took his place. This is likely to have occurred when the Hindus, or, rather, certain Hindu schools, abandoned Zoroastrianism in its pristine form. Zoroaster (Ham) might now be dated c. 2700-3600 BC: as this was Ham’s era according to the LXX chronology favored by the Egyptians and Ethiopians (Ethiopians = Sabaeans, including Hindus). The details of that chronology are as follows: Ham was born 500 years before the Flood (Hebrew and LXX text of Genesis), the Flood being dated to c. 3100 BC in the LXX. Ham died at some time (not specified in the Biblical text) following the dispersion of the sons of Noah to their respective territories. In the same stream of tradition which identified Ham with Zoroaster, Ham was also identified, as in the pseudo-Clementines (§92ff., above, >>), with Egyptian Ptah, the Greek Hephaistos, the first god-king of Egypt, and Ptah-Hephaistos is said to have flourished after the Dispersion from the Tower. (§626.30, above, >>.) The date for the latter event, according to the LXX chronology, was c. 2727/6 BC (§253, above, >>), and that means Ham was thought to have been alive as late as c. 2700 BC. By the same calculation, Zoroaster (that is, Ham) could be dated between c. 2700 (death) and c. 3600 BC (birth).

4) Given further the dating of Zoroaster in that same Zoroastrian scheme half-way through a 6000-year cycle, this would lead to a date c. 5700-6600 BC for the beginning of the cycle (2700-3600 + 3000). In the original Zoroastrian scheme the cycle began with Gayomart (Adam). In the revised Hindu scheme it began with Manu (= “Man, Adam”). In the LXX chronology Adam could be reckoned to have preceded Ham by approximately 2400 years (Adam c. 5500 BC and Ham at the time of the Flood c. 3100 BC), and Manu (Adam) could be held to have preceded the generation of Zoroaster (Ham), by a similar interval (c. 3100 [Zoroaster] + 2400 = 5500 [Adam/Manu]). In some variation on this scheme, Noah, the post-diluvian Adam, might be exchanged for Adam himself, and the ninth-century BC prophet, Xuartes-Zoroaster, for Ham, without much affecting the relative, as opposed to the absolute, chronology (original scheme: 800 BC [Xuartes-Zoroaster] + 2400 = 3200 BC [Noah-Manu], revised chronology c. 3100 [Zoroaster] + 2400 = 5500 [Manu]). To one who believed the theory of metempsychosis, Noah was simply Adam in another form, and Xuartes, Ham in another form. Zoroaster’s identification with Ham son of Noah seems eventually to have been forgotten, abandoned, or rendered irrelevant, through the theory of metempsychosis, for the majority of Hindus. The Hindu date hypothesized for Zoroaster’s traditional contemporary Vyasa, the more important figure in Hinduism, was now c. 3100-3600 BC, and the scheme would therefore begin c. 6100-6600 BC with Noah (= Manu, the reincarnated Adam), and it would date the contemporaries of Vyasa, viz. the participants in the Mahabharata war, c. 3100-3600 BC. The date for Manu (Noah) c. 6100-6600 BC coincides with the Indian date for Dionysus in Megasthenes, where Noah may be presumed to be Dionysus (as in Tzetzes §125, above, >>) and Dionysus is dated c. 6400 BC. In this system Dionysus is the ancestor of all the subsequent kings of India as is Manu in Hinduism. Similarly in Plato and other Classical Greek writers (Xanthus, Eudoxus, Aristotle, Hermippus, Hermodorus) Zoroaster himself is dated c. 6200-6500 BC, and here, according to those same assumptions, Zoroaster would have originally been Ham, the contemporary of Noah. If likewise, with Troyer, one took the traditional Hindu genealogies and a modern estimate for the average length of each generation as the bases of the calculation, and c. 3100 BC as the date of the Mahabharata war, then Manu (Noah) and his son Ikshvaku would be dateable c 6100 BC.

5) The difficulty would be that the end of the cycle in the original Zoroastrian scheme (that is, the end of the final cycle of 6000 years) and consequently the end of the world, should then have occurred in the late first millennium BC or early centuries AD about Megasthenes’ own era (5800-6600 BC minus 6000 = c. BC 600 to c. AD 200, Megasthenes’ floruit being c. 300 BC) which was not how things materialized. So a refashioning of the Zoroastrian 12000 years (6000 + 6000 years) scheme would be required, extending the final 6000 year cycle well into the future, rather than having it terminate at the end of the first millennium BC or the beginning of the Christian era. Such a solution was achieved in what is now the standard Hindu scheme of 4 yugas:

a) The 12000 years (two cycles of 6000 years) of the Zoroastrian scheme were converted into 12000 divine years, each divine year being composed of 360 human years, and the whole period was divided into 4 yugas, of 4800, 3600, 2400 and 1200 divine years each (in 4:3:2:1 ratio): the last yuga of 1200 divine years comprises in this scheme 432,000 (1200 × 360) human years. The inspiration for the Hindu reconstruction was almost certainly the earlier Mesopotamian scheme found in Berossus. Berossus’ “daughter,” it should be noted, was the Sibyl Sambethe, the “Queen of Sheba,” and Sheba = Hind/India. In Berossus’ scheme the last corrupt age before the Flood (120 years in the Biblical account) was converted into the same sum of 432,000 years: 432,000 = 3600 × 120. That is, 120 years of 360 days each in the Biblical scheme, which was the 120 years leading up to the Inundation of Noah, was exchanged for 120 Babylonian “shars,” each “shar” or “cycle” being 3600 (360 × 10) years long. These are simply different mathematical ways of visualizing the same era. Another way of visualizing it would be: 1200 (120 × 10) × 360 = 432,000 years, that is 1200 “divine years,” each “divine year” comprising 360 human years. The Hindus adopted the latter figure of 1200 “divine years” as their sum for the duration of the last, corrupt, age. This period ended in the Mesopotamian scheme with the Flood of Xisuthros-Noah, who was Manu in the Hindu scheme. It was the final yuga of an earlier cycle in the Hindu conception, terminating in an universal destruction, to be followed by a new cycle of 4 yugas ending likewise with a final age (yuga) of 432,000 years. The end of the newer cycle, that is, the last yuga of 432,000 human years, would allow sufficient time for the consummation of world history, given its commencement, as explained infra, c. 3100 years BC. This consummation would be analogous to the destruction of the Flood at the end of the preceding cycle. The 4 yugas in this scheme are called the Satya, Treta, Dvapara and Kali Yugas.

b) The last (Kali) age commences c. 3100 BC in the new Hindu scheme, and the Mahabharata war is dated to that pivotal point in history. As explained supra, an earlier scheme, in which Zoroaster (Ham-Zoroaster) was dated c 3100 BC, has been taken as the basis of the new scheme, but the contemporaries of the later Zoroaster (Xuartes) in the Mahabharata war era have been relocated to the era of the earlier Zoroaster (Ham), as evidenced in the Majmal, on the abandonment of Zoroastrianism by the Hindus. A rationale for this relocation may have been that the nephilim who fell in the time of the Flood, the era of Ham-Zoroaster, were still present in the era of the later Zoroaster (Xuartes) at the time of the Mahabharata war, and the latter reduplicated on earth, according to the theory of metempsychosis, the cosmic battle between good and evil evidenced in the original fall of the nephilim. Remnants of the process of rationalization may be traced in the extraordinary long life ascribed in the Hindu accounts to Parashurama, the “Brahmin” of the Majmal’s account, who was held to have slaughtered the Haihaiya kshatriyas no less than “twenty-one times,” and was considered one of the “Immortals,” and the sixth incarnation of Vishnu. His victorious career began in the Treta Yuga (the era of Ham and the immediate post-diluvian nephilim, the Emim, see infra) and continued over the vast interval which lay between, according to the Hindu conception, to the transition between the Dvapara and the Kali Yugas at the time of the Mahabharata war. In that later era he interacted with Bhishma, Drona and Karna. Thereafter he retired to the mountains in order to pursue a life of devotion and ascetic austerities, and is believed still to be so engaged, having left the succeeding incarnation of Vishnu with whom he briefly conversed before his departure, Rama Dasharathi, the hero of the Ramayana, to continue his salvific work amongst men.

c) Any historical period of 360 years could be converted mathematically into an era on the scale of a Kali Yuga by multiplying the total 360 by 1200 to produce the sum of 432,000 human years. This evidently is what was done in the Hindu scheme, the notional commencement for that era being the Mahabharata war c. 3100 BC (originally c. 800 BC). The vast time-span of the Kali Yuga in the Hindu scheme replaced the last period in the original Zoroastrian scheme, running from Xuartes-Zoroaster to the consummation of history. The 3000 or so historical years preceding the Mahabharata war, that is, the period reaching back to Manu (Noah) and Ikshvaku (the Cushite eponymus) c. 6100 BC (around 3000 years before c. 3100 BC), was now likewise conceived of as comprising so many cycles of 360 years each, making a total of 9 cycles or, more precisely, 3240 years (360 × 9). These were portioned out into three yugas in a ratio of 4:3:2, the fourth, last, or Kali Yuga, which postdated the Mahabharata war, being the basic unit (1). Thus from earliest to latest, the first or Satya Yuga (also known as the Krita Yuga), the “golden age,” was 4 cycles long (360 × 4 = 1440 years [× 1200]), the second or Treta Yuga, the “silver age,” was 3 cycles long (360 × 3 = 1080 years [× 1200]), and the third or Dvapara Yuga, the “bronze age,” was 2 cycles long (360 × 2 = 720 years [× 1200]). The fourth or Kali Yuga, the “iron age,” as already explained, was a single cycle long (360 years [× 1200]). In the original historical scheme, the years were simple historical years. The idea of larger cycles had been adopted secondarily, as aforesaid, to remove the end of the final age (the present age) to a far-distant future. For a restoration of the historical scheme underlying the Hindu modification, we should replace the standard chronology of the Hindu scheme dating the Mahabharata war c. 3100 BC, with the historical chronology which dates the same event c. 800 BC, and exchange the artificially inflated cycles of the Hindu yugas, with the historical cycles of 360 ordinary years. The result is then as outlined infra. The first figures are based on a chronology like that of the LXX, which was favored by the Sabaeans, dating the Flood of Noah c. 3100 BC. The Biblical chronology dating the Flood to 2435 BC reduces the whole period by a factor of 1.27, for which the equivalent Biblical estimates are given following.

Dvapara Yuga = 720 years (360 × 2), LXX-like chronology, c. 800-1520 BC = Biblical chronology 567 years, c. 800-1367 BC.

Treta Yuga = 1080 years (360 × 3), LXX-like chronology, c. 1520-2600 BC = Biblical chronology 850 years, c. 1367-2217 BC.

Satya (Krita or Dharma) Yuga = 1440 years (360 × 4), LXX-like chronology, c. 2600-4040 BC = Biblical chronology, 1134 years c. 2217-3351 BC.

Some form of historical verification can be achieved by comparing the sparse data given in the Hindu accounts preceding and following and comparing them with the Biblical, historical chronology. For example: 1) Noah was born at the end of the 4th millennium BC and Manu flourished at the beginning of the Krita Yuga, that is (according to the reconstruction supra) c. 3300-3000 BC; 2) The war between the devas and asuras just after the Flood of Manu is dated in the Vishnu Purana to the Treta Yuga, and that corresponds to a date for the same period (reconstructed supra) c. 2200 BC (shortly after the Noachide Inundation in 2435 BC); 3) Bharata is dated to the Dvapara period in Ferishta and the Mahabharata war traditionally to the transition between the Dvapara and the Kali Yuga c. 800 BC; implied further on account of the number of reigns between those eras (15 reigns = 15 × 14.5 or 15 × 18 years [see infra] = approx. 217.5-270 years) is a date for Bharata towards the middle of the Dvapara c. 1018-1070 BC, which is where he is placed in Ferishta. The chronology is further confirmed by Pargiter’s calculation in the 20th century (Ancient Indian Historical Tradition, 1922, p. 179ff.), working back from the Maurya king Chandragupta in the era of Alexander of Macedon, and employing traditional king-lists and modern regnal averages as means to calculate the interval from 382 BC, that the Mahabharata war occurred around the turn of the 9th century BC. Pargiter himself selected a date c. 950 BC for the war, using a “liberal” average reign of 18 years and 26 reigns for the later period in that interval, plus an average of 20 years and 5 reigns for the earlier period in that same interval immediately after the war. He admitted, however (ibid., p. 182), the preferred modern regnal average for oriental monarchs is 14.5 years, and he offered no adequate, historical explanation for the higher average of 20 years in the earlier period, except perhaps that there was more violence and therefore reigns were shorter in the later period: thus on Pargiter’s own evidence a consistent average of 14.5 years and 31 reigns in all takes one back to c. 832 BC as a more credible date for the Mahabharata war. This accords with the evidence adduced elsewhere in this study.



d. From the Majmal al-Tawarikh (footnotes in round brackets supplied at the end of each section).


683. Op. cit., p 104ff.:

<p. 104> The Jats and Meds(1) are, it is said, descendants of Ham. They dwelt in Sind and (on the banks of) the river which is called Bahar. By the Arabs the Hindus are called Jats. The Meds held the ascendancy over the Jats, and put them to great distress, which compelled them to take refuge on the other side of the river Pahan, but being accustomed to the use of boats, they used to cross the river and make attacks on the Meds, who were owners of sheep. It so came to pass that the Jats enfeebled the Meds, killed many of them, and plundered their country. The Meds then became subject to the Jats.


684. “One of the Jat chiefs (seeing the sad state to which the Meds were reduced) made the people of his tribe understand that success was not constant; that there was a time when the Meds attacked the Jats, and harassed them, and that the Jats had in their turn done the same with the Meds. He impressed upon their minds the utility of both tribes living in peace, and then advised the Jats and Meds to send a few chiefs to wait on king Dajushan [Duryodhana], son of Dahrat [Dhritarashtra {spelled Dhrita infra}], and beg of him to appoint a king, to whose authority both tribes might submit. {We are at this point of the narrative in the Hindu Heroic Age.} The result of this was satisfactory, and his proposition was adopted. After some discussion they agreed to act upon it, and the emperor Dajushan nominated his sister Dassal [Duhshala], wife of king Jandrat [Jayadratha], a powerful prince, to rule over the Jats and Meds. Dassal went and took charge of the country and cities, the particulars of which and of the wisdom of the princess, are detailed in the original work. But for all its greatness, and riches and dignity, there was no brahmin or wise man in the country. She therefore wrote a long letter to her brother for assistance, who collected 30,000 brahmins from all Hindustan, and sent them, with all their goods and dependents, to his sister. There are several discussions and stories about these brahmins in the original work.


685. “A long time passed before Sind became flourishing. The original work gives a long description of the country, its rivers and wonders, and mentions the foundation of cities. The city which the queen made the capital, is called Askaland.(2) A small portion of the

————–

1. [See note in Appendix on “the Meds.” {not included here}]

2. This is no doubt the Ashkandra of Pottinger and others. See note in Appendix K{not included here}.

————–

<p. 105> country she made over to the Jats, and appointed one of them as their chief; his name was Judrat. Similar arrangements were also made for the Meds. This government continued for twenty and some years, after which the Bharat{a}s lost possession of the country,

{A large section of the original is omitted here in the extract of Elliot-Dowson. The following is the missing section, supplied from the French of Reinaud:}


686. “which is the subject of the next chapter.



The Rule of the Bharatas and the Pandavas.


687. “It is found in this book that Fur {Poros}, king of the kings of India, was one of the sons of Mahran, who lived in the time of Dhohhak and Feridun, and were descended from Ham. At the moment of his death Ham (sic) had two sons; one of them was called Dhrita and the other Pan.

{Note: The wording here might might merely be loose. Hind and Sind were the two sons of Ham, and their descendants, the “sons of Mahran,” whose ancestral roots went back to the Abrahamic era of Zohak and Feridun, included in a much later generation Dhrita and Pan, and, later still, Fur, the contemporary of Alexander of Macedon. However, the curious detail that Ham begot two sons “at the moment of his death” suggests a mystical interpretation of the event: viz. Ham, being an incarnation of Zoroaster (note the mention of the Iranian figures Zohak and Feridun), is a form of the Immortal Al Khidr, and therefore also of Vishnu, Buddha and Hermes. Hermes is Adam, the Iranian Gayomart, and Gayomart had two children, Mashya and Mashyana, precisely at the moment of his death, these two children being the ancestors of the human race. Here Ham (= Al Khidr = Gayomart) has two children at the moment of death, and they are the ancestors of the Indian race (Sind and Hind). Al Khidr as Vishnu (Ham in the present episode), had another incarnation, and that was the Immortal sage Vyasa, who was the father of Dhrita and Pan. These are the children “of Ham” mentioned here. In other words, three personalities have been fused into one through their identification with Al Khidr/Vishnu/Buddha/Hermes: 1) Gayomart (Adam), who had children at the point of death, 2) Ham himself, ancestor of Sind and Hind, and 3) Vyasa, father of Dhrita and Pan. The work proceeds to describe the traditional background to the Mahabharata war and the war itself, followed by an account of Parashurama (“Brahmin”), dated explicitly 164 years after the generation of the Mahabharata war and 15 reigns before Gushtasp (in this case Gushtasp = Hystaspes, the father of Darius I, as in Ferishta), and therefore c. 700 BC. The sage Vyasa, a contemporary of the Mahabharata war, and the father of Dhrita and Pan, is dated to the era of the Second Zoroaster c. 800 BC in Parsee tradition. Pan and Dhrita belong to the Hindu Heroic Age c. 900-700 BC.}

Dhrita was blind and Pan was a minor. Enemies in consequence raised their heads on all sides, and each apprised himself of some province or other. But until Pan came of age, Dhrita made him appear before him and gave him many counsels, saying, “Take in hand the interests of this empire and do not neglect it, so that the name of our fathers may continue, and our reputation remain untarnished, lest it be said we have not done what was in our power to do.” Pan, in conformity to these instructions of his brother, and in order to put his counsels into effect, raised an army and set off to the border regions. On his way through all the countries of India, he accomplished so many mighty exploits that the empire was delivered of the evils that afflicted it, and all its enemies were no more to be seen. Then he returned to his brother’s audience, and with head held high, offered his best wishes, and said, “All the king commanded, I have done.” Dhrita rose, and held his brother to his bosom; then he made him take his seat on the throne and said to him, “You have conducted yourself in the manner of men of true heart, and every thought of reproach has been driven away from us. Now the empire is yours: for I have become old, I am deprived of sight, and you are in a better state than I to exercise authority.” Pan replied, “God forbid that I should ever seek to elevate myself above you; I am like a slave devoted to your commands. If the king were to ordain that I throw myself in the fire, I should endure it, to the end I should obtain a good reputation amongst men.” That very moment, he passed over the royal ring on Dhrita’s finger, and placed the crown on his head. Dhrita replied, “The authority is yours!” That very moment, he committed to his brother half the empire.


688. “Pan gave himself wholly to the exercise of authority and justice. Dhrita had many sons, as well as a daughter, all born of one and the same mother, called Ghandari. The firstborn amongst the sons was called Dajushana; as for the daughter her name was ………; he has already made mention of these. The whole of this race bore the name Bharatas. The other family was called the Pandavas; it was composed of five brothers born of Pan. The name of the firstborn was Yudisht; the second was called Bhimasena; the third Arjuna; the fourth Sahadeva; and the fifth Nakula. Each of the five brothers was distinguished by a particular talent of his own.


689. “It is recorded that Pan was a great lover of the chase. All night he traveled on foot seeking game. Once a band of Indian brahmins and anchorites had established their abode on a mountain; amongst them was an anchorite who, for his sanctity, had acquired the divine favor to see all his wishes fulfilled. {This comment is used in the original to justify the preposterous story which follows. The anchorite is alleged to have obtained the miraculous power from “the Most High God” to be transformed into a gazelle, so he could engage in an act of bestiality! Unfortunately for him Pan was out hunting that night and shot him, thinking in the darkness he was an animal.}


690. “…. The anchorite fell, and resuming his form, he rolled over covered in blood. At that same moment he offered up this wish: “Oh my God! since some man has frustrated my satisfying my passion, the first time that passion takes hold of him, cause him also to die!” Pan came up that same instant. He was wholly amazed at the strange sight and addressed certain questions to the anchorite. The latter, who could only breathe with difficulty, told him his story. Pan replied, “I did this in ignorance!” At the same time he requested forgiveness. The anchorite replied, “I forgive you, but the wish I have made still stands.” As he said these words, he expired. Pan retired, overwhelmed with sorrow.


691. “Pan had two most beautiful wives, both the one and the other daughters of a king. One was called Kunti and the other Madri. He reported to king Dhrita and told him what had befallen him. This news pained Dhrita. Pan added, “Now, I have lost all attachment to life, since kingship no longer befits me, I shall retire on the mountain of the anchorites, to pass the remainder of my days in the practice of devotion, since I give credit no more to the pleasures of the world.” This saying struck Dhrita with dumbfoundness, and he had no power to answer him a word. Pan abandoned his authority immediately and retired to the mountain. His wives told him, “We shall go with you wherever you go.” And they did as they said.


692. “Some time passed. Pan made great progress in the life of devotion; his wives followed his example, and they came to see all their prayers fulfilled. But it is our duty to repeat what is found in the original, absurd though it be, and we must not fail in the responsibility placed upon us.


693. “One day when, about the time the sun slipped below the horizon, Pan had retired for the night, Madri said to Kunti, “Keep him awake, until he has eaten something.” In fact, it was the custom to eat at this time; and, after the moment that the sun retired for the night, they scrupulously observed the custom of eating nothing again till the morrow, at the same hour. Kunti replied, “I shall go and attend to the matter, till Pan arouses himself, and has been able to eat something.” Presently the sun retired for the night and the stars appeared over the horizon. Two hours of the night passed before Pan asked of Kunti what it was she desired. Kunti told him. Pan replied, “What interest have I in the pleasures of this world? … And why should I preserve myself longer for the sake of this life?” Pan ordered a meal to be prepared, and donated all he possessed to the brahmins. At the same time he said to his wives, “Let no man obtain your favors.” Then he made ready to do what Kunti had asked; but, at the moment his love was excited and he was about to satisfy it, he gave up the ghost. He was thoroughly consumed.


694. “Of the five sons of Pan of which we have knowledge, Yudisht, Arjuna and Bhimasena were born of Kunti. As for Sahadeva and Nakula, they were born, both the one and the other, from Madri. The original relates that both wives outlived Pan a considerable time. When lust overcame them, they had commerce with children of the air. The author makes the most ridiculous stories out of this subject.


695. “At this point in time the children of Pan were in their minority, and each was committed to the trust of a pious man, who was charged with raising and instructing them. Pan also had another son called Pan, like himself, who lived in the presence of king Dhrita.


696. “In the meanwhile the pious men said, “Let us conduct the children of Pan into the presence of their uncle Dhrita.” Each brahmin addressed a prayer to the Deity, to obtain, in favor of his charge, that which he desired. Yudisht had asked for a position of power and authority, and a solid minister; Bhimasena, an imposing force of character; Arjuna, great aptitude in bowmanship; Nakula, a bravery and application on horseback such as none before him had attained; finally Sahadeva, who had made progress in the study of wisdom, and never spoke till he was asked, sollicited a knowledge of the stars and the understanding of hidden mysteries. In the event, the five brothers became unique, each in his own sphere, as if he had been made to see his true calling, and the empire was transferred from the Bharatas to them. These brothers were given the general name of Pandavas.


697. “The brahmins conducted the five princes, with their mothers, into the presence of Dhrita, who publicly demonstrated his great joy. Dhrita lodged them in the pavilion and arcade of their father, and treated them with great favor like his own sons; then he assembled all the rulers of India and all the sages, and handed over to his nephews half his dominions. Yudisht was entrusted with the supervision of them all. The other half of his dominions was given to his own sons, and he placed at their head Dajushana. At the same time Dhrita gave much counsel and advice to both sets of sons. He recounted histories and anecdotes to them, recommending equity and justice to guide their actions, and mutual amity.


698. “But the people had a partiality for Yudisht, on account of his intelligence and good manners. Dajushana, perceiving this, was racked with jealousy, and looked for an artifice by which he might destroy his rival. In concert with Yudisht he had constructed in a certain place within his dominions a great pavilion for him and his retinue. At the same time he gave instructions for a pavilion to be erected for Yudisht and his brothers, and he charged Pan, son of Pan, with the following stratagem. He arranged for a gap to be left in the walls of the pavilion; a considerable quantity of wood was hidden in the recess, and a man received the order, when Yudisht and his brothers were present in the pavilion, to place naphta on the wood, and set it alight during the night.


699. “Chance had it that at the moment the work had been completed, Yudisht requested of his uncle permission to retire to his domain. Dhrita gave him much advice and said to him, “Take care to show proper respect to Dajushana, as he is your superior; but at the same time put no trust in him, because he is jealous of you; on the contrary, be on your guard.” Yudisht replied, “I shall do as you say.” At the same time he bade adieu to his uncle; but at the moment he left, Dajushana said to him, “O my brother, I beg you to come see the dwelling-place I have had constructed for you, and lodge there in your pavilion.” Yudisht replied, “I am at your command.” Then he set off with his brothers and their mothers, all together in one party. Now, it is said that the five brothers had an uncle called Bhimasena, who was strongly attached to them. This uncle sent a man to make a tunnel in the pavilion, and to prepare a subterranean means of exit from it. At the same time he warned his nephews of the danger impending upon them: “When you see the fire,” he said to them, “you must exit by this route.” So it came to pass; but the man who was charged with the task of lighting the fire, was consumed in flames, along with two women and five men who happened to be presented to Yudisht at that time in order to bring a suit before him. The inhabitants of the town, persuaded that the remains which were discovered after the fire were those of Yudisht, of his brothers and their mothers, mourned their death; and Dajushana, deceived by this false report, was filled with great joy. He had reunited the powers of state under his sole authority. Dhrita died some while after this.


700. “Yudisht, his brothers and their mothers comprised seven individuals. They retired together somewhere or other and passed through various adventures. Finally, they appeared before a brahmin, then joined the retinue of king Drupada, whose daughter, named Dropadi, became their wife, on account of the success which Arjuna achieved with his bowmanship in hitting the eye of a golden fish placed on top of a tower. Dropadi served as the wife of all five brothers. The story goes on to relate some remarkable things on this subject.


701. “After that, the five brothers retired to another country, and each of them strove to shine in the exercise of the talents with which he had been gifted. The relation of their adventures with the divs is too long to repeat here. They traveled through many countries, and at last obtained the kingdom.


702. “When several years had passed, the war commenced between them and Dajushana. The latter summoned his brother-in-law Jayadratha of Sind, and, with his hundred brothers accompanying him, set forth to battle. In vain Yudisht sent him message after message, inviting him to render up to him the four or five provinces which his father Dhrita had ceded to him. Dajushana had no desire to reach a compromise. In the end, they were all slain: Yudisht destroyed Dajushana in a moment, and none of them survived. When the news of this disaster reached the daughter of Dhrita, she groaned in agony, and gave up the ghost.


703. “It is recorded that when Dajushana and his brothers had perished, their mother Ghandari went to weep over their corpses. A brahmin came to give her certain counsels but she refused to hear him: all the efforts of the brahmin were futile. Then this brahmin said to the princess: “May God cover you with shame, since you refuse to hear my words.” Then he withdrew. When two or three days had passed, this woman became as one in a daze, on account of her grief and the fact that she was not eating. It was as though she was outside of herself, but she wept continually. One night, by chance, something resembling an item of food appeared in the air, and passing in front of Ghandari, she stretched out her hand to take hold of the object, but was unable to reach it, and finally fell heavily. The next day at sunrise, she took the corpse of one of her sons and stood erect upon his chest, but she was unable to obtain the same objective, which seemed always to be on the point of being achieved. In vain she placed the corpses of her hundred sons one upon the other, until a pile was formed of the hundred children; this object was always found to be too high to sieze. By divine appointment, the brahmin chanced to pass that place and said, “You refused to hear my advice, and now you are doing this!” Ghandari replied, “You have said the truth, and your utterances against me have come to pass. Now the veil is ripped asunder. Look where the desire to eat has taken me!” Then the princess made her way down to the brahmin, who gave her something to eat. Next day she cremated the corpses of her children according to the Indian custom, and then took some rest. God alone knows the truth of this!




704. “The Empire of the Pandavas.

Yudisht took his place on the throne, and the whole of Hindustan was subject to his laws. Senjuara, the son of Jayadratha pleaded for mercy, and it was granted, Sind being ceded to him. From this time on Yudisht exercised sovereign authority, and caused justice to flourish amongst his subjects, just as it had in the days of his ancestors. Finally he summoned his brothers into his presence and said to them, “The things of this world are of momentary duration. I have formed the intention of retiring upon the mountain of the anchorites, and of devoting myself to the worship of God. Take the authority, and exercise it as our ancestors did and as I have done.” His brothers made this reply: “All your wishes accord with our own.” So they placed on the throne Parik, the son of Arjuna, and all five brothers retired to the mountain of the brahmins, where they devoted themselves to the exercise of piety till their deaths.


705. “Parik imitated the conduct of his uncle, and reigned thirty years. He had for his successor his son Janamejaya. He was a solid and just man(1) [(1) It was under this prince and for him that the Maha-bharata is thought to have been composed.]; he reigned twenty years, and he was replaced by his son Safsanika, who reigned for the space of twenty-five years. In his turn Safsanika exercised justice and equity: he was a man of good conduct and gracious manners. His reign was twenty-four years. After him, his son Yesra reigned fifty years, and the people freed themselves from his authority. Disorder fell upon the empire. At his death, he was replaced by his brother, Kuyahur, son of Safsanika. His conduct was bad. He failed to practice the customs established by his ancestors, and the kingdom departed from the power of the Pandavas. He was killed after having reigned in this manner for fifteen years. God knows the truth!






706. Recommencement of the extract from Elliot-Dowson:

Account Of The Fall Of The Pandavas And History Of Brahmin.(2) — Injustice was the cause of the fall of the dynasty of the Pandavas. Fortune had grown indifferent towards them, and they ended by becoming tyrants. One day they carried off the cow of a brahmin, and were about to kill him, when the brahmin warned them, and said, “I have read in books that the prosperity of the Pandavas will fall when they shall kill a brahmin for the sake of a cow — do not kill me.” They did not heed him, but killed both him and the cow. That brahmin had a son named Brahmin, a strong and tall man, who dwelt upon a mountain. When he heard of this nefarious business he arose, and said to himself, I will go and take away the sovereignty from the Pandavas, for they have killed a cow, (and) a brahmin: the words of the sages cannot prove false, so the time of the fall of their dominion is come. Men laughed at him, but a party assembled round him. He took a city, and his power increased day by day, until he had a large army; and he went on capturing cities until at length he reached the city of Hatna,(3) which was the capital. Kuyahurat {Kuyahur, supra} marched out to the battle, but was slain, and Brahmin assumed the sovereignty. Wherever he found any one of the race of the Pandavas he slew him. But a few escaped, who concealed their extraction, and employed themselves as butchers and bakers, or in similar crafts. Brahmin acquired the whole of Hindustan. They say that a daughter of Bol [Nakula], son of Pandu {Pan supra}, went to him, and gave him such counsels as induced him to desist from slaying the Pandavas. But he put them all in prison until a large number was collected, when as a condition of



————–

1. [{Persian text omitted ….}. An and is a period of 15,000 years, or any number between three and ten.]

2. [This history is explained by the legend of Parasurama {Parashurama}, son of Jamadagni, called here Brahmin. Kuyahurat {Kuyahur} is Kartavirya; Fasaf, Kasyapa {Kashyapa}; Sunagh, the Muni Sunaka; and the cow, Kamadhenu.—Reinaud.]

3. [Hastinapur.]

————–

<p. 106> their deliverance he made them follow certain trades, so that no one would give their daughters to them, or take theirs, or associate with them. He proclaimed this throughout his dominions. Their position was lowered to such a degree, that they took to the occupation of musicians. It is said that the Hindu lute players belong to this family; but God knows.


707. “History Of Sunagh.—They say that Brahmin felt remorse for the slaughter of so many persons, and said, I substitute worship on the summit of a mountain for the slaughter of men. One day a brahmin named Fasaf [Kasyapa {Kashyapa}] came to him and admonished him. Brahmin said, It is even so; I myself repent, and I will now give this kingdom to thee. Fasaf said, It is no business of mine; but Brahmin replied, Do thou receive it from me, and appoint some one over it by thy own authority. There was a servant named Sunagh, and him Fasaf seated on the throne. Brahmin then returned to the scene of his devotions. Sunagh practised justice and equity, and pursued a worthy course. The sovereignty remained in his family until fifteen kings had sat upon the throne. Then they became tyrants, and the sovereignty departed from them. This was in the reign of Gustasf {Gushtasp, Hystaspes, the father of Darius I}, king of Persia. It is said that in the life-time of this Gustasf, Bahman {the contemporary of Ahasuerus/Cyaxares I and Esther} led an army to Hindustan and took a portion of it; as to the other parts every one (that could) seized a corner. No one of the family (of Sunagh) retained any power. Bahman founded a city between the confines of the Hindus and the Turks, to which he gave the name of Kandabyl, and in another place, which they call Budha, he founded a city which he called Bahman-abad. According to one account this is Mansura; but God knows. At this time he returned to Persia, when he received the news of the death of Gustasf, and assumed the crown. This account I found in this book, but I have not read it elsewhere. The mother of Bahman is said to have been of Turk extraction; but God knows.”



End of citation.



e. The Kings of Kashmir




707.1. H. H. Wilson began his inquiry into the history of Kashmir by stating: “The only Sanscrit {Sanskrit} composition yet discovered, to which the title of History, can with any propriety be applied, is the Raja Tarangini, a history of Cashmir {Kashmir}.” (Wilson, Asiatic Researches XV, 1825, p. 1.) The Raja Tarangini is the work of Kalhana AD 1148. This is the source of the following passages. It provides clear evidence of the manipulation of earlier historical accounts in order to accommodate the traditional 4-Yuga chronology, as will be demonstrated. The Persian histories of Kashmir, which incorporate significant elements of the same tradition, further demonstrate the derivation of the Lunar line of the Pandavas from Soma = Yama = Jam, the “Moon,” that is Jamshid (identified in them, as commonly elsewhere, with the Hebrew king Solomon), the same as the Jam of Samma tradition, that is, the patriarch Shem son of Noah or, more precisely, the eponymus of that line. The first citations from the Raja Tarangini infra comprise a series of rather technical chronological notices, which are important to elucidate the way the 4-Yuga chronology was employed to restructure the traditional historical narrative, and will be explained in the notes following.

First kings of Kashmir for 1266 years c. 2100 BC to 9th century BC:

Raja Tarangini of Kalhana I. 14-20, 25-27, 44-45 and 48-56:

14. Eleven works of former scholars containing the chronicles of the kings, I have inspected, as well as the [Purana containing the] opinions of the sage Nila.

15. By looking at the inscriptions recording the consecration of temples and grants by former kings, at the laudatory inscriptions and at written works, the trouble arising from many errors has been overcome.

16. Among fifty-two rulers whom those [former scholars] do not mention, on account of the loss of tradition, four, viz. Gonanda and [his successors], have been taken [by me] from the Nilamata [Purana].

17-18. Having read the opinion of the Pasupata Brahman Helaraja who formerly composed a ‘List of Kings’ (parthivavali) in twelve thousand Slokas, Padmamihira entered in his work the eight kings beginning with Lava, who preceded Ashoka and his successors.

19. The five kings also, among whom Ashoka is the first, the illustrious Chavillakara has declared [to have been recovered] from the fifty-two [lost ones]. For his verse is as follows:

20. ‘The five [rulers] from Ashoka to Abhimanyu who have been named, were obtained by the ancients from among the fifty-two [lost ones].’

….

25. Formerly, since the beginning of the Kalpa, the land in the womb of the Himalaya was filled with water during the periods of the [first] six Manus [and formed] the ‘Lake of Sati’ (Satisaras).

26-27. Afterwards when the present period of the [seventh] Manu Vaivasvata had arrived, the Prajapatii Kashyapa caused the gods led by Druhina {Brahma}, Upendra {Vishnu} and Rudra {Shiva} to descend, caused [the demon] Jalodbhava, who dwelt in that [lake], to be killed, and created the land by the name of Kashmir in the space [previously occupied by] the lake.

….

44. In that [country] fifty-two rulers up to (preceding) Gonanda [the Third {sic. Stein’s conjecture, but Gonanda the First in the Persian versions}], who in the Kaliyuga were contemporaries of the Kurus and of the sons of Kunti (Pandavas), have not been recorded.

45. In those times there were assuredly in consequence of the demerit of those rulers of Kashyapa’s land (Kashmir), no poets of creative power who would produce their bodies of glory.

….

48-49. The kings Gonanda [the First] and his successors ruled Kashmir during twenty-two hundred and sixty-eight years in the Kaliyuga. {That is, according to Kalhana’s reconstruction, 1266 years of the dynasty of Gonanda I, followed by 1002 years of the dynasty of Gonanda III.} This calculation of the duration of these [kings’ reigns] has been thought wrong by some [authors] who were misled by the statement that the Bharata [war] took place at the end of the Dvapara [Yuga].

50. If the years of those kings, the duration of whose reigns is known, are added up, leaving aside the above [2268 years of Gonanda I and his successors], no rest remains from the passed period of the Kaliyuga, as [will be seen] from the following.

51. When six hundred and fifty-three years of the Kaliyuga had passed away, the Kurus and Pandavas lived on the earth.

52. At present, in the twenty-fourth year of the Laukika [era], one thousand and seventy years of the Saka era have passed.

53. On the whole, at this time two thousand three hundred and thirty years have passed since [the accession of] Gonanda the Third.

54. Twelve hundred and sixty-six years are believed [to be comprised] in the sum of the reigns of those fifty-two [lost] kings.

55. On this [point] a decision is furnished by the [words of the] author of the [Brhat]samhita who [with reference to the fact] that the Great Bear moves from one Nakshatra to the other in a hundred years, has thus [indicated] its course:

56. ‘When King Yudhishthira ruled the earth, the Munis (the Great Bear) stood in the [Nakshatra] Maghah. The date of his reign was 2526 years [before] the Saka era.’”




707.2. Saka era = AD 78

Therefore in Raja Tarangini (ed. trans. Stein) I. 48-56:

lines 48-50: Gonanda I and his successors ruled 2268 years within Kali Yuga

line 51: Kurus and Pandavas lived on earth 653 years from the beginning of Kali Yuga

line 52: Kalhana Pandita was writing 1070 + 78 = AD 1148

line 53: Gonanda III lived 1148 − 2330 = 1182 BC {sic, about 1500 years too early!}

line 54: the line of 52 kings left unnamed went back to 1182 + 1266 = 2448 BC

line 56: Yudhishthira reigned 78 − 2526 = 2448 BC

This is internally consistent and is Kalhana’s own chronology.


707.3. Kali Yuga, according to the traditional reckoning followed by Kalhana, comprises 432,000 years commencing 3101 BC, and in the earliest phase of it (otherwise at the transition of the Dvapara and Kali Yugas) occurred the Mahabharata war. Kalhana calculates the date of that war (strictly the coronation date of king Yudhishthira, a contemporary of the war) c. 2448 BC, 653 years after the very beginning of the Kali Yuga, but still, considering the vast duration of that Yuga (432,000 years), at its “commencement.” Gonanda I, according to Kalhana, was a contemporary of Yudhishthira, a participant in the Mahabharata war. This chronology follows the common scheme of 4 Yugas. From the native Kashmiri tradition Kalhana understands there were 52 kings at the start of Kashmir’s history whose names were unrecorded because of their “demerit.” Preceding them was Kashyapa who drained the lake with which Kashmir was filled in the era of Manu Vaivasvata (the survivor of the universal Deluge). These 52 “unnamed” kings ruled for 1266 years, and this period, according to Kalhana, was located within a greater period of 2268 years of the Kali Yuga. By Kalhana’s own admission, he and preceding investigators had “recovered” certain named kings “from among” the 52 unnamed kings (I. 16-20). The 1266 years are located, therefore, in Kalhana’s chronology within the longer period of 2268 years, comprising what might be termed the first phase of Kashmir’s dynastic history within the 432,00-year-long Kali Yuga.


707.4. The figure 2268 years was evidently the result of combining the period of 1266 years of “unnamed” kings with the total of 1002 for the reigns of the succeeding dynasty of “named” kings starting with “Gonanda.” 1266 + 1002 = 2268. Probably Kalhana used an earlier construction, whereby the dynasty from Gonanda I to Abhimanyu, lasting somewhat over 1000 years, followed immediately on the total of 1266 years of “unnamed” kings. That is the pattern in the Persian versions of the tradition (see infra). But Kalhana, knowing of the synchronism of Gonanda I with Yudhishthira at 653 years into the Kali Yuga, would have to throw back the beginning of the period of 1266 years in that case into the preceding Dvapara Yuga. He rejected that chronological construction, according to his own admission. He presumed the total period of 2268 years all fell within the Kali Yuga.


707.5. First among the “named” kings Kalhana considered to have been recovered from “among” the “unnamed” kings, therefore, was Gonanda I, a contemporary, according to the historical context of Kalhana’s tradition, of the Mahabharata war and of Yudhishthira. Yudhishthira was crowned king 653 years after the commencement of the Kali Yuga, according to the 4-Yuga Hindu chronology employed by Kalhana, therefore Gonanda I was dated by Kalhana to that precise time. He seems to have assumed Gonanda I commenced his reign some time within the period of 653 years. Since also the 1266 years were understood to have run their course “up to (preceding)” a king called “Gonanda” (I. 44), then this later Gonanda, according to Kalhana’s understanding, must have been Gonanda III, who reigned a thousand years and more after Gonanda I. (Gonanda II would have been excluded because he reigned only a short period after Gonanda I, being the latter’s grandson.) Kalhana dated this Gonanda (III) 1266 years after Gonanda I, following the tradition that a “Gonanda” was preceded by 52 kings without names reigning 1266 years, “among” which latter the name of Gonanda I had been “recovered.” That means Gonanda III, according to Kalhana, reigned at 1182 BC (1266 years after Gonanda I and Yudhishthira at 2448 BC).


707.6. Now the only problem with this otherwise internally consistent chronology of Kalhana is that it is utterly wrong! Kanishka, the famous Buddhist Kushan ruler, the precursor of Gonanda III, lived no less than 1500 years later than in Kalhana’s chronology! If all the kings in Kalhana’s scheme are shifted down the same amount of time, Gonanda I would have to be dated around the 9th century BC.


707.7. This suggests some of the more historical sources which Kalhana drew on directly or indirectly, dated Gonanda I in the 9th century BC, and Kalhana, or a previous investigator whom he followed, backdated the chronology 1500 years or so to suit the 4-Yuga traditional chronology of the Mahabharata war. Comments throughout his account emphasize that the chronology Kalhana depended on, in spite of differences among interpreters, was a traditional 4-Yuga scheme.


707.8. The question, then, centers around the termination of this period of 2268 years in the 9th century BC. We can deduce from Kalhana’s phrase “Gonanda and his successors (I. 48-49)” that Kalhana presumed the period of 1266 years of kings without names, some “among” which had been “recovered,” was followed by the dynasty of Gonanda III lasting 1002 years. This indeed is how he constructs his chronology: 1) the beginning of Kali Yuga at 3101 BC; followed 653 years later by 2) the coronation of Yudhishthira, during the reign of Gonanda I, at 2448 BC; followed by 3) a period of 1266 years of unnamed kings, followed by 4) the reign of one “Gonanda,” conceived, in that case, to be reign of Gonanda III, at 1182 BC; this was followed by 5) a succession of other kings comprising the dynasty of Gonanda III up to the end of the aforesaid period (of 1266 + 1002 = 2268 years of the line of Gonanda in two dynasties, the first beginning with Gonanda I, and the second beginning with Gonanda III, all within Kali Yuga).


707.9. In the Persian versions of the Raja Tarangini the period of 1266 years of 52 “unnamed” kings is immediately followed by “Gonanda,” but in them “Gonanda” is Gonanda I, not Gonanda III. Otherwise a series of more than 50 kings of Kashmir (52 in Bedia-eddin), beginning with “Suliman” and reigning for 1266 years, is followed by Gonanda (I) after them. This is the schema reproduced in Ain-i-Akbari (Abu’l Fazl): there “53” unnamed kings are referred to and these are said to have been followed by Gonanda (“Gonerda”) I. Gonanda I, therefore, reigned towards the end of the era of 50 plus “unnamed” kings.


707.10. As we have said, the historical date of Kanishka, as recovered by modern historians, 1500 or so years later than in Kalhana’s scheme, would necessitate a redating of Gonanda I, along with him, 1500 years or more later than in Kalhana, to the 9th century BC. This suggests that in some earlier tradition, preserved in the Persian versions, the “Gonanda” of Raja Tarangini I. 44, who was preceded by 52 “unnamed” kings for 1266 years (see the translation supra), was Gonanda I, not Gonanda III. The first kings of Kashmir, 52 of them, are said to have ruled in this (original) tradition for 1266 years from the draining of the lake of Kashmir up to Gonanda I in the 9th century BC. This implies the Mahabharata war also in this tradition was dateable to the 9th century BC, since Gonanda I was a contemporary of the war.


707.11. We can see clearly, then, why Kalhana or the authorities he followed should have attempted to amend the original tradition. It contradicted the common Hindu 4-Yuga chronology, which dates the Mahabharata war, not to the 9th century BC, but to the beginning of the Kali Yuga (around the period 3101 BC to 2448 BC, and, more precisely, the latter date in Kalhana). Thus Gonanda I, the contemporary of the Mahabharata war, would need to be retrojected back over 1500 years, and with him the whole line of kings of Kashmir, from the 9th century BC to 2448 BC!


707.12. An adjustment of Kalhana’s chronology by several hundreds of years was contemplated already by Wilson, Chronological Table, Asiatic Researches XV, 1825, p. 81, though that was based on what Wilson considered to be the true historical date for Buddha. It can be shown that Wilson’s “Adjusted Dates” of the Kings of Kashmir, with Gonnanda III (immediately following Kanishka) at “388 BC” (for Kalhana’s 1182 BC), should be further adjusted downwards by approx. 520 years: this is so because Kanishka is now known to have reigned c. AD 130, 518 years later than Wilson’s 388 BC. Thus also Wilson’s Adjusted Date for Gonanda (“Gonerda”) I at 1400 BC should be adjusted downwards by the same 520 years, to c. 880 BC. This corresponds to the era computed supra, viz. the 9th century BC.


707.13. In Kalhana’s reconstruction of the tradition, the 1266-year period of “unnamed” kings, ending with a Gonanda, was maintained, but this period coincided in its earliest phase with the period of the Mahabharata war (and Gonanda I the contemporary of the war) 653 years or thereabouts after 3101 BC. The Gonanda who followed that period was taken by Kalhana to be Gonanda III. Since the names of Gonanda I, and of other of these kings of Kashmir, the successors of Gonanda I, were known in tradition, or from remains on the ground, Kalhana and the earlier investigators he followed presumed their names had been “recovered from among” the 52 “unnamed” kings of that earliest period in the history of Kashmir, which, according to their 4-Yuga chronology, fell towards the beginning of the Kali Yuga. In other words, the retrojection of the line of Gonanda I into the period of the 52 “unnamed” kings, led to an intermingling of the “named” kings of the line of Gonanda I, with the “unnamed” kings of the original tradition in the minds of these Hindu historians.


707.14. The 52 first kings are said to have been left nameless because of their “demerit.” This is a religious term, meaning they were, from the later Hindu perspective, “unorthodox.” This is confirmed by the Persian versions which relate that one of the earliest of the 52 kings expelled “idolatry” from the country, though it was restored by a succeeding king in the list, and the idolatry consisted of the cult of Sadashiva (the five-faced Shiva). (Klaproth, Histoire du Kachmir, Paris, 1825, p. 15.) He and many other kings of the 52 are actually named in the Persian versions, because, as we may conclude, the Persians did not share the religious scruples of the Hindus.


707.15. To estimate the relative importance of the Persian component in Kashmiri history we have only to consider the composition of Kashur, the native Kashmiri language: Kashur is a polyglot, in which on average out of every 100 words, 25 are Sanskrit, 15 Hindustani, 10 Arabic, 10 Tibetan, Turki, Dogri and Punjabi, and no less than 40, that is, the major part, Persian. More than 30 of Kalhana’s “unnamed” kings are found named in the Persian versions of the Raja Tarangini (Klaproth). The first of the series is “Suliman” (Solomon). He is identified in a variety of sources as the famous Israelite king Solomon son of David, and is said to have employed the “dev” Kashyapa to drain the lake that originally covered Kashmir. This event (the draining of the lake by Kashyapa, though without any mention of “Suliman”) is referred to by Kalhana as being dateable to the commencement of the present era of Manu (Vaivasvata), the hero and survivor of the universal flood, Raja Tarangini I. 26-27. In this context, and in a list of the earliest kings of India, “Suliman” cannot be Solomon son of David, but must be a figure from the Patriarchal era immediately after the Noachide flood. In Kashmir the flood-draining Suliman is commemorated at Takht-i-Suleiman, which is a notable shrine in the area. The ruins of Persepolis in Iran are known identically as Takht-i-Suleiman, but alternatively as Takht-i-Jamshid, identifying Suleiman (Suliman) in this case with Jamshid. Many sites in Iran show the same exchange in nomenclature. Dinawari refers to the common Iranian tradition that Jamshid is the same person as Solomon (otherwise spelled Suliman, Suleyman etc.), but rejects the notion that this could be Solomon the son of David. He writes (section Numrud): “It is related that Ibnu’l-Muqaffa {a notable Persian Zoroastrian} said: ‘Ignorant Iranians allege and they that have no knowledge [say] that king Jamm {Jamshid} was Sulayman son of Dawud, but this an error, for between Sulayman and Jamm there were more than three thousand years.’” In Dinawari Jamshid (Jamm) is not Solomon son of David but the son of Vivanghan son of Arphaxad son of Shem in the generation immediately following the flood of Noah. Likewise in the Samma tradition (infra) Jamshid (Jam) is Shem himself or a son of Shem (the eponymus passing down through the line), and he is the ancestor of the Samma Jats (Hindus). The name Jamshid is commonly applied in ancient Iranian/Arabic tradition to members of the immediately post-diluvian line of Shem. Jamshid is dated to the era of the Noachide flood, and this shows the Suliman of the Kashmiri tradition and of the Kashmiri Takht-i-Suleiman, dateable to that same diluvian era, is Jamshid (Shem or a son of Shem) under the sobriquet “Solomon son of David.” Zoroaster’s birthplace Shiz in Ardabil province Iran is also called Takht-i-Suleiman, and that “Solomon” here is the



In the following chart the original Kashmiri chronology is in the red column (left) and Kalhana’s reconstruction is shown in the right-hand columns. The period of 1266 years before a king called “Gonanda” in the sources used by Kalhana (meaning Gonanda I originally, but misidentified by Kalhana as Gonanda III) is in light blue. So, the 1000+ years of the dynasty of Gonanda I (green left) was relocated higher (blue right) to begin in 2448 BC, and was held to extend over 1266 years, whilst the original dynasty of Gonanda I was replaced by the dynasty of Gonanda III.



Historical Dates





Mythical Dates in Kalhana



3101 BC





Beginning of Kali Yuga











































































2448 BC

Redated Gonanda I


































Suliman

circa
2106 BC




































1226 YEARS before “Gonanda” (III)






















































1226 YEARS before “Gonanda” (I)










































1182 BC



Redated Gonanda III















































Gonanda I

circa
880 BC






































1002 YEARS


























































c. 1000 YEARS























































Kanishka followed by Abhimanyu and Gonanda III












AD 130






















same figure as in Kashmir is evident by the similarity of the traditions explaining the toponyms: “A tradition exists that this part of the country {Ardabil} was formerly a lake, and that Solomon commanded two deeves {devs} or genii, named Ard and Beel, to turn off the water into the Caspian, which they effected by cutting a passage through the mountains; and a city, erected in the newly-formed plain, was named after them Ard-u-beel.” Home, Sketches on the Shores of the Caspian, 1845, p. 42. Some have traced the name Caspian from the same noun Kashyapa seen in Kashmir. Compare the almost identical Kashmiri tradition: “Noah built a boat to rescue select animals. When, in accordance with the divine plan, the skies ceased their storming, the earth soaked up the water, and Kashmir’s land came into being. In this land lived Sati, the wife of Shiva, who liked to bathe in a lake called Satisar, in which lived the demon Jalodhbhava. This demon caused havoc on the people of this region, until, at Sage Kashyap’s request, the gods drained the lake through a passage in a mountain. The drained water formed lakes and ponds in low-lying areas while the higher elevations became land. This land came to be called Kashyap Mir after sage Kashyap and his wife, Mir. When the Prophet Solomon traveled around the world on his flying throne, he landed on a mountain in Kashmir, and seeing before him the land submerged in water, deputed the jinns {genii} Kashaf and Mir to drain the water and make the land fit for habitation. This they did, and people began to inhabit the land, making it famous as Bagh-i-Sulaiman {Garden of Solomon}.” (Nabi Khanyari’s Wajiz-ul-Tawarikh, 1857.) The older version of the last part of the tradition is found in Haider Malik’s Tarikh (1621): “…. when the prophet Solomon … landed in this land by the order of God … one leg of his blessed throne rested on the top of the mountain now known as Koh-i Sulaiman {Mountain of Solomon}. At this time, except the mountain ranges, all the low-lying land was submerged under water. Since the prophet found the climate of that place extremely pleasing, he assigned the task of removing that water (from the lake) to two jinns, one called Kashf and the other Mir. So they carried out the order of the prophet Solomon … and cleared this land of water. Thus it was named Kashf-Mir, and because of the efforts of the two persons, it became habitable. The name then changed into Kashmir as a result of its great usage.”


707.16. Confirmation that Suliman in the Persian accounts is this early post-diluvian Jamshid (Shem) can be found:

1) In the Samma tradition that the Jats (Ferishta equates Jats and Hindus) descend ultimately from Jam (Jamshid), who, according to the Samma, is Shem son of Noah or a son of Shem (dateable therefore to the era of the Noachide Flood). The Jat (Hind) line in Ferishta includes the Kuru family and Pandavas and accordingly, in the Persian versions of the Raja Tarangini, “Suliman” is the ancestor precisely of the Kuru family and of Pandu (I) the eponymus of the Pandavas. “Suliman” in the Persian Kashmiri tradition = Jam = Shem of the Samma Jats.


707.16.1. 2) In a similar tradition found in Nepal. There Manjushri (a.k.a. Dipankara Buddha) is said to have drained the lake that once covered Nepal, as Suliman did in Kashmir, and Manjushri is a form of Yama, the god of the Underworld, who is Yima (Jamshid) in Iran. Thus Manjushri = Yama = Yima = Jamshid = Suliman. Accordingly the central region of Kashmir around Srinagar is termed Yamraj, the “Realm of Yama.” Manjushri is the Buddha of the Past in the common Buddhist Trinitarian scheme, and is exchanged in some accounts in that role for Kashyapa. In Himalayan Buddhist astrology, Kashyapa, the Turtle, is an aspect of Manjushri. Manjushri is also the eponymus of the Manchus, being held to have been incarnate in each successive Manchu sovereign, and his sacred mountain is Wutai in Shanxi, China. It is said he migrated from Wutai to Nepal. This explains how the figures of Jamshid (Jam, Yima, Yama, Manjushri) and his one-time companion Cush Fil-dendan came to be located for the duration of the earliest phase of their forest wanderings in “Chin” (China) in the Kush-nama, though Chin was commonly also, for a particular ethnological reason, confused with “India” as explained more fully at §813.5, below, >>. In Persian Kashmiri tradition Suliman (Yima) interacts with Kashyapa, in a way analogous to the interchange of Manjushri (Yama) and Kashyapa in the Buddhist Trinitarian scheme, and Kashyapa is present with Suliman in a mystic sense, being the “dev” under his control, that is, the means by which the lake was drained. Manjushri, otherwise Yama and Mahakala or Kala, Heruka, Bhairava or Shiva, is the Herakles of Megasthenes’ account, who can be equated with Jamshid (Yama/Yima) and with Firoz (Soma), the ancestor of the Somavansha, as referenced in the chart supra. The same god was held to have been multiply re-embodied in the descendants of that line, so Jamshid/Yama was Shem himself, and his troublesome offspring Cush Fil-dendan (Cush Fil-dendan brother of Zohak, son of Maran son of As son of Aram son of Shem), as well as Jamshid (II) the great-grandson of Shem (Jamshid son of Vivanghan son of Arphaxad son of Shem) and Firoz the descendant of Cush Fil-dendan (Cush = Kishan). The role of Yama (Shem), under the title Ishana, passed down to his descendant Cush, according to that genealogy, and thus became attached to Kishan/Krishna/Vishnu. In Japan Ishana (Yama) is called Izanagi, and he and his divine spouse Izanami (Ishani) are creator-gods like the Hindu Vishnu, famous, as Vishnu is, for curdling the cosmic ocean at the beginning of creation. In this way Jamshid (Yama/Manjushri) and Cush Fil-dendan (Ishana/Izanagi) found their way to the very extremes of the Orient in China and Japan.


707.17. The Kashyapa tradition shows the era of Manu and Kashyapa was contemporary in the original tradition with the earliest of the 50 plus kings, viz. at the beginning of the 1266 year period which ran from Manu to Gonanda I. This shows Manu (Noah), “Suliman” (Jamshid, Jam, viz. Shem), Kashyapa, and the draining of the lake, were originally dated in the Kashmiri tradition c. 2100 BC, 1266 years earlier than Gonanda I in the 9th century BC, without any reference to the Yuga theory.


707.18. In the Persian Kashmiri tradition Suliman was originally Yama/Yima (Manjushri), and he is said to have employed Kashyapa (Kasheb, Kashep) to help him drain the lake. In some versions of the story of the draining of the lake Kashyapa himself employed the services of Vishnu or Kishan (Krishna-Vishnu) to accomplish the task, and the latter did so by beheading Jaladev, the water monster resident in the lake. This is a reference to the retreat of the waters of the Flood of Noah (Manu) whose mountain of descent (“Manus’s Descent”), Naubandha, is traditionally located above the remnants of the lake in Kashmir. It is also a reference to Shem (“Suliman”) and Cush (Kishan), who were both present on Noah’s boat, and were founding fathers of the new post-diluvian world. In the Babylonian creation story similarly, Cush (Kishan) is the demiurge (Bel > Vishnu) who split apart the flood-monster (Tiamat > Jaladev) in the beginning to order the new world around its central city, Babylon. The account in Tarikh-i-Hasan (Hasan Pir’s History of Kashmir, AD 1896) actually employs the form Kishan for Vishnu: “According to the Nilamata Purana Kashmir was a lake called Satisar in which lived a dev named Jaladev, who was a cannibal. He was a devotee of Brahma, from whom he had received a boon that he would be undefeated in the water. Once Brahma’s grandson, Kashyap Rishi, was wandering by the lake, and was surprised to find no humans near such a beautiful place. When he learned of Jaladev’s atrocities, he became determined to vanquish the demon, and prayed to Brahma for one thousand years. Finally Brahma agreed to help him and along with the other gods, attempted to kill Jaladev. Since Jaladev hid in the water from the gods’ attacks, Sri Kishan-ji {= Kishan, Krishna, Vishnu} used the Sudarshan chakra to create a breach in the mountain from which the water flowed out, and a bird took a piece of the mountain in its beak and dropped it on Jaladev. Once the water receded, land appeared, and streams and gardens were created. The gods selected portions of this beautiful land for their own habitation and these places still remain pilgrimage spots. Then Kashyap Rishi populated this beautiful land with Brahmans from all over the world and called it KashyapMar {Kashmir} or the home of Kashyap.”


707.19. Note 1) on Suliman in the following translation of Wilson. The first king Suliman (Solomon) is represented in the legends of Kashmir to have been “Solomon son of David,” the master of jins (genii), who sent the dev (spirit), Kasheb (Kashyapa) to drain the lake of Kashmir in the time of Manu. The Davidic chronology here, of course, is impossible, and is explained by the common Persian/Arabic tradition that two thousand or so years before Adam, and also in the generations immediately following him, there were many Solomons, that is, supreme rulers of the jins: there were 72 according to one account, 40, according to another, and these were identified in some cases with spiritual beings like Jan ben Jan, the builder of the Great Pyramid, or Biblical offspring of Adam, like Jared father of Enoch, or the Persian king Hoshang, etc. (Herbélot, Bibl. Orient. art. Soliman Ben Daoud. Compare the multiple Jamshids of Iranian tradition, the successive Samma kings called Jam after their founding father Jam/Shem, and the multiple Manjushris [Yamas] of the Manchus.) A common Iranian tradition was that Jamshid was one of these Solomons, hence Persepolis was known as Takht-i-Suleiman, the Platform of Solomon, and otherwise as Takht-i-Jamshid, the Platform of Jamshid. There is a Takht-i-Suleiman at Srinagar in Kashmir, which is identified as the Platform of the Kashmiri Suliman who drained the lake. According to the Samma Jamshid is their ultimate ancestor Shem (Sam) son of Noah (Nuh); alternatively he is a descendant of Shem in the line of Arphaxad (as in Dinawari and many subsequent writers), who engendered the royal line of the Hindus (Jats). That we are dealing here with Suliman = Jamshid is shown by the evidence adduced supra. Further, that he is a human king, not a spirit, in this tradition is indicated by the tracing of the line of kings of Kashmir back to Isaun, the “cousin” of Suliman. As also this Suliman is the ultimate ancestor of the Hindu kings known as the Pandavas, we know we are dealing with the same figure as in the Samma tradition, that is, Jam (= Shem, or the descendant of Shem through Arphaxad), the ancestor of the Jats, which latter are the Hindus of the line of the Pandavas, according to the Majmal.

Note 2) on Isaun. Isaun = Ishana = Ishvara = Ashur/Anshar = Cush Fil-dendan. That Isaun the “cousin” of Suliman is Ishana (Shiva) is indicated, among other evidences examined infra, by the type of idolatry said to have been combated by Isaun’s descendant, Sunder-khan, and re-adopted by the latter’s grandson of the same name: that is the cult of Sadashiva, Shiva of the five faces, which is common in Kashmir. The principal face (aspect) of Sadashiva is Ishana (the “Master” from ish, master, the root also of the name Ishvara). We have already seen that Ishvara (Shiva) the “god of the Hindus” was Ashur son of Shem, §132, above, >>, and would thus be of the line of “Suliman” (Jam, Shem) in terms of the Kashmiri genealogy. Ashur = Ishvara = Ishana (Isaun). However, the Kashmiri king Ishana is referred to as “cousin” and specifically not as “son” of “Suliman” (Jam = Shem), though other kings in the line are almost without exception father and son in successive generations. This implies Ashur (Ishvara, Ishana) here is not Ashur son of Shem but the man-god Ashur/Anshar = Cush, according to the alternative, and common Mesopotamian scheme. Indeed Ishana (Isaun) in the Kashmiri genealogy is the ultimate ancestor of the Kushan (= Cushite) kings of Kanishka’s dynasty (Kanishka c. AD 130). The Persian epic Kush-nama claims Kushan received its name from Cush Fil-dendan, Cush Elephant-tooth, the king of India and Ethiopia, latterly worshiped as a god (the sun-god, Ra in Egypt, Bel and Ashur [Ishvara, Ishana] in Mesopotamia). The latter is represented in the same work to be the brother of Zohak (son of Maran [Merdas, Mirdas in Firdausi] son of [Ad son of] As [Uz], son of Aram, son of Shem), and would thus be in the ancient Oriental sense a “cousin” of Jamshid son of Vivanghan, son of Arphaxad son of Shem (which is Jamshid’s genealogy in Dinawari). In fact Merdas the father of Zohak is “Death,” otherwise in Hinduism Yama (= Yima, Jamshid), or Mara, the personification of Sanskrit mertyu, death, cf. Indo-Iranian mertyush, Persian mordan, Parthian marhu, “die,” with the forms Mirdas and Ma(h)ran illustrating the disappearance or softening of the last consonant t/d: Zohak slew his own father Merdas as he slew also the latter’s alter ego Jam, Jamshid (Yima, Yama). Yama the son of Vivasvat, of the sun-god, Surya, is also himself a form of Surya. Yama is the sun (Surya) when it has set, the “dead” sun in the underworld, known otherwise in Hinduism as Martanda, the “death-egg.” (Also Martanda = Bhairava, the ferocious form of Yama/Kala, who is equated in turn with Manjushri, the latter featuring in the Nepalese flood tradition in a role equivalent to that of Suliman.) Vivasvat (Surya) father of Yama (Surya) is thus also Merdas father of Zohak, that is, the sun dispatched into the underworld by the dragon of darkness and storm, Zohak (Azi Dahaka, Ahi, Vritra). Jamshid and his offspring are said in the Kush-nama to have wandered with Cush Fil-dendan in the forests of India and China in the days of Feridun (in this case the elder or earlier incarnation of Feridun, Noah) in an attempt to elude their murderous opponent Zohak. Here, likewise, we find Suliman (Jamshid) and Isaun (Ishana, Ishvara, Sadashiva) as the first settlers and kings of Kashmir, the latter having notably (like Cush Fil-dendan) the animal aspect (face) of an elephant. Though Kalhana omits the names of the 52 earliest kings of Kashmir he refers indirectly to the first of them, Suliman and Isaun, in Book II of the Raja Tarangini (ad fin.), where he gives the name of Samdhimat(i) (= Sandiman, Suliman) to the wise servant of an otherwise unknown king, and that of Ishana to Samdhimat’s subordinate minister. (See further infra.) Samdhimat is said to have been murdered and dismembered by his over-suspicious royal master (as Jamshid is said to have been slaughtered and dismembered by Zohak), but then to have been supernaturally revived from the dead and recomposed (like Jamshid) to become the next king of Kashmir, Arya Raja. The name Samdhimat stands here for Jamshid as the founder of the royal line, multiply re-embodied in his descendants. Finally Samdhimat (Arya Raja) is said to have devoted himself to the life of an ascetic and to have wandered in the company of Ishana through Kashmir, erecting shrines to the god Ishvara.




707.20. H. Wilson Asiatic Researches XV, 1825, History of Cashmir, p. 11ff. (with slight alterations to orthography):

According to Bedia ad-din {otherwise transcribed Bedia-eddin, etc.}, after the settlement of the country by

Suliman,

he left the sovereignty to his cousin, Isaun, who reigned over Kashmir twenty-five years, and was succeeded by his son

2. Kassalgham, who fixed his capital at Islamabad and reigned nineteen years.

3. Maherkaz; this son succeeded and reigned thirty years; being childless, he adopted for his son and successor

4. Bandu or Pandu-khan. The birth of this prince was miraculously effected, his mother becoming pregnant from bathing in a reservoir or tank: his death was equally marvelous, as upon bathing himself in the same reservoir, he dissolved, and returned to the element whence he sprang: he is said to have had a most numerous offspring, and to have seen in his life time, no fewer than fifteen thousand descendants: these were the Pandavas, afterwards so celebrated in Indian History .…

5. Ladi-khan, son of Pandu-khan.

6. Ledder-khan, his son.

7. Sunder-khan in whose reign the idolatry of the Hindu worship again made its appearance: the prince was slain in endeavoring to obstruct its progress, and was succeeded by

8. Kunder-khan his son, who reigned thirty-five years.

9. Sunder-khan, the second. Idolatry was now the national religion, and the king erected a temple to Sadashiva.

10. Tundu-khan.

11. Beddu-khan, who reigned 115 years.

12. Mahand-khan.

13. Durbinash-khan.

14. Deosir-khan.

15. Tehab-khan. This prince was attacked and slain by his neighbor and relation, the king of Kabul, who seized upon the throne of Kashmir, and reigned under the name of

16. Kalju-khan; after a reign of seven years he was driven out by his Pandava relatives, who raised to the throne

17. Surkhab-khan; his reign lasted 191 years.

18. Shermabaram-khan.

19. Naureng-khan; this prince was a great conqueror and extended his dominions to the kingdom of China.

20. Barigh-khan.

21. Gawasheh-khan.

22. Pandu-khan the second; he recovered the provinces that had been subject to the crown of Kashmir, and which extended, to the shores of the Indian sea.

23. Haris-khan; his reign lasted 23 years.

24. Sanzil-khan.

25. Akber-khan.

26. Jaber-khan.

27. Nauder-khan, he introduced the worship of fire.

28. Sanker-khan, who was attacked and slain by Bakra-raj, a neighboring chief who headed the Kashmirian nobles driven into rebellion by the tyranny of their king.

The six sons of Sanker-khan succeeded in due order to their father’s sovereignty, and also to his fate. Their accession and deaths were the work of a few hours, whence originated the proverb, said to be still current in Kashmir;



One Cauldron, on one fire, saw seven kings before the flesh was boiled;

….

29. Bakra-raj then took possession of Kashmir, and bequeathed it to his descendants: their names are however unknown, and a blank interval precedes the succession of

Augnand {Gonanda I} the first monarch ….”




707.21. First Gonanda Dynasty 1000 + years, historically 9th century BC to AD 169 (the names and/or reigns in square brackets are from Hasan’s History of Kashmir, excerpted by Anand Koul, reference infra, though their absolute chronology is based on the traditional 4-Yuga system):

Gonanda {“Augnand/Gonerda”} I [17 years]

Damodara I [13 years]

[Yashovati queen 15 years]

Gonanda II [40 years]

35 kings whose names are “lost”

{[From Pandit Anand Koul, in Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. VI, No. 4 [N.S.], April 1910, p. 205ff. According to the recovered, and soon thereafter lost again, copy of the Persian History of Kashmir by Mullah Ahmad discovered in Pindori, Rawalpindi, by Hasan Pir (latter 19th century), the gap between Gonanda II and Lava was filled by the following kings of the Pandava dynasty. (An account by Anand Koul of Hasan Pir and his discovery is found in the same Journal, Vol. IX, No. 5 [N.S.], May 1913, p. 195ff.) The record of these kings from the “Ratnakar Purana” is alleged to have been inserted into a Persian translation of the Raja Tarangini made by Mullah Ahmad for the king Zainulabdin of Kashmir AD 1423-1474, by order of Zainulabdin himself:

Harnadeva, son of Parikshit, grandson of Arjuna, and of the Pandava brothers, who arranged for the assassination of Gonanda II, 30 years

Ramadeva his son 69 years

Vyasdeva his son 56 years

Druna his son 58 years

Simhadeva his son 54 years

Gopaldeva 13 years 3 months

Vijayananda his brother 25 years

Sukhadeva his nephew 14 years

Rama Nanda his cousin 57 years

Sandiman his son 65 years.

He is said to have built 21 temples, including a notable one to Mahadeva (Shiva), and the temple to Jyeshteshvara on Takht-i-Sul(e)iman hill. The name Sul(e)iman is taken in Koul’s summary of the account of Mullah Ahmad in Hasan Pir’s lost History of Kashmir to be a corruption of Sandiman. The same king also built a city on what latterly became, after a devastating earthquake and flood in the days of his descendant Sundersena, the bed of Vular Lake, called popularly after him Salabatnagar, originally Sandimatnagar, and this shows a similar corruption of the name.

Marhandeva for 55 years (opposed by his brother Kamadeva)

Chandardeva his son 52 years

Ananda his brother 28 years

Drupadadeva his son 51 years

Harnamdeva his brother 39 years

Sulkandeva his son 28 years

Sinaditya his son 17 years

Mangaladitya his brother 39 years

Khimendra his son 66 years

Bhimsena his son 61 years 7 months

Indrasena his son 46 years

Sundarsena his son 41 years.

The remaining 12 of the 35 “lost kings” of Kalhana reigned after Sachinara (Shacinara) according to Hasan Pir’s book.]}

Lava elected king [60 years]

Kusha [7 years]

Khagendra [30 years]

Surendra [43 years]

Godhara [37 years]

Suvarna [35 years]

Janaka [32 years] {According to Bedia-eddin, cited by Klaproth, Histoire du Kachmir, Paris, 1825, p. 23, Janaka sent one of his sons against Persia in the reign of queen Homai, who succeeded Bahman son of Isfendiyar (the date is therefore around 600 BC), but he was repulsed and slain by Darab son of Bahman. This accords with the relative chronology of the following reigns in Hasan Pir’s book, which total 322 years from Galgendra to Bhagwant: the era of Janaka’s son coincides with that of Shacinara, viz. within the 40 years followed by the 322 years preceding Ashoka, who is historically attested c. 250 BC, which results in a date for the Persian expedition c. 612-572 BC.}

Shacinara [Sachinara 40 years]

{[The remaining 12 of the 35 “lost kings” of Kalhana reigned here according to Hasan Pir’s book.}

Galgendra his nephew 45 years

Baladeva his son 43 years

Nalsena his son 25 years

Gokarna of the Jammu Rajas elected 36 years

Prahlad his son 11 years

Bambru his minister 8 years

Pratapashila descended from Galgendra 36 years

Sangram Chandra his son 1 year 4 months

Larik Chandra his uncle 41 years

Biram Chandra his son 45 years

Babighana his son 17 years

Bhagwant his brother 14 years.]

End of excerpt from Hasan’s History by Anand Koul. Total years of Dynasty of Gonanda I up to Bhagwant according to this reckoning: 1675 years. However, Hasan’s chronology is based on the traditional Yuga system, from Gonanda I beginning at 3120 BC through the reign of Bhagwant ending 1445 BC, which is historically impossible, considering the latter’s immediate successor, Ashoka, reigned c. 250 BC, and that the latter is consistent with the similarly historically attested reign of Ashoka’s penultimate successor Kanishka, c. AD 130.}

Ashoka {historically attested c. 250 BC}

Jalauka

Damodara II

{the following 3 kings of Kushan (“Tartar”) stock}

Hushka

Jushka

Kanishka {historically attested c. AD 130}

Abhimanyu.



781. Below the genealogies of the Suryavansha (Solar Line) and Somavansha (Lunar Line) are listed, with approximate dates based on Manu (= Noah) c. 2400 BC, Vyasa c. 900-800 BC, and historical Yuga dates, according to the Biblical chronology, reconstructed as explained supra. Italics show contemporaries with reliable attestation in the literature, and other traditional contemporaries are in normal typeface: in either case the contemporaries are marked with an equal number of symbols.



Yuga

Solar Line (Vishnu Purana)

Lunar Line

Yuga



(Mahabharata)

Haihayas


End of
Krita Yuga

Manu



Manu



End of
Krita Yuga

Treta Yuga
c. 2217 BC

Ikshwaku (Ikshvaku)

Ila


Treta Yuga
c. 2217 BC


Vikukshi

Pururavas




Puranjaya††

Ayus††




Anenas§

Nahusha§




Prithu§§

Yayati§§




Viswagaswa

Puru

Yadu (son of Yayati)



Ardra

Janamejaya

Sahasrajit



Vrihadaswa

Prachinwat

Satajit



Kuvalayaswa

Sanyati





Ahayanti





Sarvabhauma





Jayatsena





Avachina





Mahabhauma




Dridhaswa

Ayutanayi




Haryyaswa

Akrodhana




Nikumbha

Devatithi




Sanhataswa

Arihan




Krisaswa

Riksha




Prasenajit¶¶

Matinara¶¶




Yuvanaswa

Tansu




Mandhatri¶¶¶


Haihaya¶¶¶


Dvapara Yuga c. 1367 BC

Purukutsa



Dvapara Yuga c. 1367 BC


Trasadasyu





Sambhúta





Anaranya


Dharma



Prishadaswa


Netra



Haryyaswa


Kunti



Sumanas


Sohanji



Tridhanwan


Mahishman



Trayyaruna


Bhadrasenaka



Trisanku


Durmada



Harischandra‡‡


Dhanaka‡‡



Rohitaswa‡‡‡

Ilina

Kartavirya‡‡‡



Harita

Dushmanta (Dushyanta)

Arjuna (a.k.a. Sudarshana, killed by Parashurama)



Chunchu☼☼

Bharata☼☼




Vijaya☼☼

Bhumanyu




Ruruka





Vrika





Bahu

Hasti




Sagara

Vikunthana




Asamanjas○○

Ajamidha○○




Ansumat

Samvarana




Dilipa





Bhagiratha





Sruta





Nabhaga





Ambarisha





Sindhudwipa





Ayutaswa





Rituparna





Sarvakama





Sudasa#

Kuru#




Saudasa

Viduratha




Asmaka

Anaswan




Mulaka

Parikshit




Dasaratha

Bhimasena




Ilavila

Pratisravas




Viswasaha

Pratipa




Khatwanga

Santanu




Dírghabáhu

Dwaipayana (Vyasa)


c. 900-800 BC


Raghu

Pandu




Aja


(Parashurama [The Majmal’s “Brahmin”] considered to have survived to this era, and to still be alive)



Dasaratha





Rama









c. 700 BC













Previous     Next