Alexander The Great In A Wider World
The Jonesian bag of lies concerning Palibothra has sullied world history. Even after more than two millennia, the spectacle of the party of the Greeks and Macedonians streaming out of Europe and risking their lives across continents and seas to mingle with the exotic peoples of Africa and Asia appears stupefying. Alexander belongs to the whole world and his history has to written from a world perspective. He was aware of his unique role in history and had expert writers in his train to chronicle his mission yet there is little about him that is beyond doubt. This is due to two factors, the inability to stamp out the lies spread by his own generals who succeeded him (and probably poisoned him), and more importantly, bungling in geography.
If Jones' idea is rejected, Patali in Karman-Baluchi-stan becomes Palibothra where Alexander had come. Only Justin wrote that he had defeated the Prasii, and though this is generally ignored, it not only seems to be true but also calls for a drastic re-assessment of the history Alexander. In the new geographical scenario, Moeris, Orontobates, Sashigupta and Orontes all appear to be aliases of Chandragupta Maurya who was once an ally but later turned a foe. From the fact that Chandragupta's rise coincides with the fall of Alexander it is judicious to suspect a link between the two. This is hinted by the crucial fact that Diodotus of Erythrae, co-editor of Alexander's diary, was in fact none other than Chandragupta. There is, therefore, ample ground to suspect that he had a hand in the poisoning of Alexander.
Written history is at times an imperfect mirror of truth. In Alexander's history, Orontobates is usually relegated to footnotes yet it was together with him that Alexander created history. He fought against Alexander in the battle of Gaugamela but there is much more to his history than can be gleaned from a literal interpretation of Arrian, Plutarch or Diodorus. The crucial fact that he was a close confidant has escaped the notice of all. He was a gifted and multi-faceted personality who masqueraded under many aliases. Diodotus of Erythrae, Mithridates-II and Andragoras were also names of Moeris. Arrian wrote that Orontobates who was present in Darius' army at Gaugamela hailed from the Persian Gulf area. From Diodorus' report it turns out that Tiridates who handed over the Persian treasury at Persepolis was also from the gulf area. From a careful study of Mauryan history it can be seen that Tiridates was the same as Orontobates/Sashigupta. There can be no doubt that Alexander considered chicanery to be a valid instrument of war and diplomacy. The great Hellenic scholar Sir William Tarn noted that Alexander had no control over Armenia ruled by Orontes. This was Chandragupta who had retreated from Prasii.
The Alexander-Orontobates saga has, in fact, a cinematic touch. It is stunning to realize there is a Princess between Alexander and Orontobates. It is very likely that Ada II, daughter of Pixodarus, whom Alexander once wanted to marry, became the wife of Orontobates. Thus Alexander must have known him long before the expedition. It is very likely that Sashigupta joined hands with the generals to poison the king. Dr. Rani Iyer of Pullman, USA, holds that Sashigupta was the son of the Satrap Mazaeus.
Tarn wrote that Alexander gave a call for Brother-hood of Man at the Opis Banquet but this has been disputed by E. Badian whose arguments apparently satisfied the scholarly community. However, there there are grave flaws in Badian's standpoint. Although Tarn-bashing has now become a favourite sport, he had a far greater insight into the eastern civilizations. Badian on the other hand, relied solely on the Greco-Roman reports and totally missed that Alexander sat on a throne that was probably adorned by Gomata who was the same as Gotama Buddha (see infra).
Due to the heinous Nepalese forgeries the crucial hint hidden in the name Alexandria Prophthasia has been missed by all. Prophthasia was Kapilavastu, an abode of Prophets like Gotama Buddha, Zoroaster and Abraham. This adds a totally new dimension to his call for amity which is the central plank of Buddhism.
Regrettably, the Harvard professor also missed the very significant fact that the Opis Banquet was was held in the month of Mithra and probably on the day of Mithra when the traditional feast of Mithra is held. It is common knowledge that an important motto of the Mithraists was Brotherhood. Alexander's call for Homonoia was later followed up by Asoka who was the same as Diodotus-I.
The paucity of direct archaeological proof of Alexander's expedition has disturbed many scholars. Great archaeologists like Sir Mortimer Wheeler were baffled by the absence of any trace of the 12 grand altars which he had set up to commemorate his arrival in India. However, a careful study shows that at least some of these pillars were re-inscribed by Ashoka.
A contemporary scholar writes,
It is nonsense to report on the politicians without informing the reader on the philosophers with whom they studied and consorted, or to discuss Jesus without reference to the politics of Roman Judaea.
Alexander studied under Aristotle, the greatest Greek philosopher of the day, and the stamp of Aristotle can be clearly seen in many of his actions but as Mary Renault wrote, in his later years he was also greatly influenced by the Indian sage Calanus. But who really was this sage? It can seen that Calanus was Asvaghosha (Sphines of Plutarch or Aspines). Alexander's relationship with this great philosopher and playwright invalidates the imputations of E. Badian and P. Green that he was some kind of a conquistador.
Sadly due to Jones' error, it has been overlooked that the locale of the drama Mudrarakshasa was not Patna but the North-west where Alexander had come. It appears that Chandanadasa of the drama is a ghost of Alexander. The respectful treatment of Chandanadasa in the drama shows that Alexander was very different from the the villain he has been painted as by Badian and Green. The fact that the mother of Darius III courted death by refusing food after hearing about Alexander's death and that the Prasiians treated his altars with great respect shows that Badian was wrong.
Groomed by such great thinkers as Aristotle and Asvaghosha, Alexander embodied not only Western science but also Eastern religiosity - he had become an Anagarika (world-citizen) in the true sense of the term. His call for Homonoia (Samanvaya in Sanskrit) was echoed by Moeris' grandson Diodotus-I, and had a momentous impact on history. J. G. Droysen wrote with great insight that during the Hellenistic era Greek and Eastern cultures mingled in the lands conquered by Alexander to form the cultural milieu which became the crucible of Christianity. If almost no words are commensurate for the description Diodotus-I/Asoka, the same is true of Alexander the Great who swept away all, as it were. His impact on the civilizations of both the East and the West is immense.
The Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka has highlighted the exploitive role of both Christianity and Islam in Africa but notwithstanding the bloodletting it caused, Alexander's expedition had a very different outcome. Ignoring the vast Indian literature and adopting an overly Europeanist view, writers like E. Badian and A. B. Bosworth have failed to grasp why he was called 'Great' even by the Romans, centuries later. Despite some lapses, Tarn, who had a better understanding of the East,appears to have been closer to the truth.
Alexander's Dream of a United Nations
Discovery of Alexander's Missing Altar
Alexander's Mission and World Peace
Alexander the Great in a
Sanskrit Drama
Sashigupta and the Poisoning
of Alexander
A Letter to Alexander From an Indian Sage
The Lost Palace of Palibothra and The Blunder of Sir William Jones
Sir William Jones was an eighteenth century Jurist and Orientalist whose founding of the the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1784 (with Charles Wilkins) was a landmark in Oriental studies. Jones, the chief justice at the Calcutta Supreme Court, was a prolific linguist and and studied the ancient Indian Law books in Sanskrit. His translation of the drama Shakuntala of
Kalidasa created a worldwide stir and highlighted the literary heritage of ancient India. Jones also observed that Sanskrit was related to classical Greek and Latin and held that they were linked to Gothic, Celtic and Persian. He is famous for the observation that Sandrocottus of the Greek writers was Chandragupta.
However, Jones was unaware that many famous cities in modern India had older counterparts in Iran-Baluchistan and his idea that Patna in eastern India was Pataliputra which was Megasthenes' Palibothra was in fact a fatal error that has no archaeological support. Jones' idea is proved beyond doubt by reports of the Chinese travellers, claims Martin Carver and this also supported by Dilip Chakrabarti but it is not proper to consider the Chinese reports as valid sources for Mauryan history as they were written nearly a thousand years later. Like Chakrabarti or Carver, Jones had no idea that there was an India within modern Iran. Great scholars like Sir Aurel Stein and Sir Charles Eliot were aware that Eastern Iran was Ancient India.
Jones' identification of the crucial state of Magadha with Bihar has no firm basis. The first epigraphical mention of Magadha is in Ashoka's Bairat edict, located far from Bihar. Thus there is no warrant for placing ancient Magadha in Bihar. Magan in west-Baluchistan must have been the early Magadha. The Sumerian texts cite Dilmun, Magan, and Melukhkha always in that order which shows that Magan was nearer to Sumer than Melukhkha. No trace of the Sishunagas or Kakavarnas of Magadha has been found from the Bihar area whereas the Susinaks and the Kak-kings like Kak-Siwe-Tempti were famous figures of Magan.
Appian wrote that the Indian king Androcottos dwelt near the Indus. If one ignores Jones' idea, it turns out that Moeris of Pattala was Chandragupta Maurya who was being chased by Alexander through Gedrosia. After the arduous campaign he rejoiced his 'victory over the Indians' near Kohnouj.
The Palace of Palibothra where Alexander rejoiced was near Patali
Incidentally this was near Patali (28°19'58" La., 57°52'16" Lo.) near Jiroft which must have been Pataliputra, the capital of Orontobates/Chandragupta. Jiroft, or more exactly Djiroft, was Dvaravati, capital of Kamboja. Nearby city-names like Kohnouj, Konarak, Multan etc. show that this was the India of yore. Patali is an ancient city dating to the fourth millennium B.C., and excavations here may yield the remains of the famed Royal Palace of Palibothra and relics of Alexander the Great.
Patali near Jiroft was Pataliputra, capital of Chandragupta/Orontobates
Jones' geographical error can be clearly seen from Herodotus' report (Herodotus, I, 125) which shows that some of Cyrus' tribes were actually Indians,
"The rest of the Persian tribes are the following: the Panthialaeans, the Derusiaeans, the Germanians, who are engaged in husbandry, the Daans, the Mardians, the Dropicans and the Sagartians".
The Derusiaeans were related to the Druhyus and the Panthialaeans are the Panchalas of a later era. The Sagartians seem to be descendants of the people of King Sagara who were linked to Sogar in the Persian Gulf area which was 'India'. The Dropicans echo Drupada. The Daans remind one of Gotama Buddha whose name, according to Al-beruni, was Buddho-dana.
Although a Palibothra at Patna effectively crippled Indology by banishing great figures like Chandragupta, Rama and Manu from Indian history proper, it became very popular in India as it brought Palibothra near the Imperial capital Calcutta. However, a high price had to be paid for the boon. Chronology became a bane of Indology. Despite a century of research and two London conferences the date of Kanishka still remains indeterminate. Emboldened by Jones' false idea, R. L. Basham and R. Thapar of SOAS, London, have gone so far as to portray the great Rama as a minor tribal king bloated up by poetic fancy. Gotama came down to the 5-4th century BC and Kalidasa, who used to be dated to the 2nd century BC, has been labelled as a Gupta age poet. Even the Bhagavad Gita, ascribed to the 2nd century B.C. by many scholars including J. L. Brockington, has been dragged to the Gupta age.
Jones had a high regard for Indian culture and his mistake was inadvertent, but there were others in the colonial administration who aided a thug, Dr. A. Führer who moved pillars and other relics to locate Gotama Buddha's birth-place in Nepal by producing fake inscriptions. The great Buddhist scholar B. M. Barua refused to recognize the Chandragupta of Patna and Vincent Smith strongly protested against Führer's fraud. Dilip Chakrabarti, author of a book on the history of Indian Archaeology, focusses on some lapses of the colonial era but refrains from highlighting the atrocious frauds in Nepalese archaeology.
However, once the heap of Jonesian and Führerian rubbish, accumulated over the centuries, is cleared, a renascent Non-Jonesian Indology emerges that exposes grave flaws in the mammoth Encyclopedia Iranica which attempts to delineate Iranian history using only the Greco-Roman and Persian documents in deference to the crucial Sanskrit and Pali sources. No sane discourse on world history can ignore the priceless data contained in the Indian texts. Jones' blunder and Führer's skullduggery have seriously distorted world history.
Colonial Indology and the Blunder of Sir William Jones
Asoka, Diodotus-I and the Hellenistic Miracle
After Asoka was hijacked to the dank surrounds of Patna, his history went haywire. Sir Mortimer Wheeler, one of the finest minds on ancient India, failed to pinpoint Jones' mistake, but gave important clues regarding Asoka. He noted the unmistakable Achaemenian imprint on his architecture and wrote that he could have been a half-Greek. Yet no one could imagine that this half-Greek was the Indo-Greek king Diodotus-I, known to all classics scholars for his matchless coins. Historians have been deluded by the figure of thundering Zeus on these coins which illustrates the vigour of Diodotus' youth but have failed to comprehend his multi-faceted personality. Sadly, the crucial implication of the absence of his inscriptions and other relics has been overlooked.
By which name was Asoka known in the west? From the fact that the Greco-Roman writers do not refer to Asoka or Piyadassi, R. Thapar readily declares that he was unknown in the West. This is ridiculous, they must have used a different name. The most frequent name in the Edicts is Devanampiya, not Asoka. As 'Nam' and 'Dat' both mean 'law', Devanam (piya) is the same as Devadatta or Diodotus. Asoka (Diodotus) was very well known in the Greco-Roman world.
Again, the bilingual Kandahar Edict shows Asoka as the master of Arachosia while the coins point to Diodotus as the ruler. In fact Asoka's history matches that of Diodotus-I line by line. The studies on the Bactrian Aramaic texts by S. Shaked miss the finer points of Bactrian history.
Significantly, just as Diodotus has only coins but no inscriptions, his contemporary and neighbour Asoka has only inscriptions but no coins. This clearly indicates that Asoka and Diodotus complement each other. H. P. Ray's satisfaction about Asoka's coins is bizarre. Asoka never refers to his neighbour Diodotus because he was Diodotus himself. It is very likely that the Asokan Pillar which was brought to Delhi from Punjab was in fact a re-inscribed altar of Alexander.
Asoka seems to have died when Diodotus died. R. Thapar notes that his Edicts abruptly stopped appearing by about 245 BC but owing to visions centered on Patna, fails to notice that this is exactly the year of Diodotus' death. Both were fierce warriors in their youth but later became saviors, sôtêr. Pliny indicated three Kalingas of which one must have been in the Parthian region. The location of Konarak in the Gulf area also shows that Asoka's Kalinga war had nothing to with Orissa but is linked to the strifes linked to Diodotus and the Parni. Sachchidananda Bhattacharya pointed to several discrepancies in Ashoka’s version of the war.
It can be seen that Mauryan history is linked to that of the Arsacids. According to Strabo (xi,1-12) the Parthians were a tribe of the Parni or Aparni who belonged to the larger tribe of the Dahae. The name Parthian is related to that of Parthava, the first Iranian region conquered by them. They are identified with the Pallavas in the Indian texts but non-classical sources usually describe them as Arsacids after the name of their founder Arsaces or Assak who, in the opinion to some classical authors, was a Bactrian like Diodotus. As Gotama is said to have been related to the Nandas, the Mauryas also appears to be related to the Achaemenians. Sir Mortimer Wheeler repeatedly stressed the link of the Asokan pillars with Achaemenid art. Also the Arsacid claim of descent from the Achaemenians, which is discounted by R.N. Frye and others, is in fact true.
The name Assak is clearly linked to Asoka and gives a different derivation of the name Asoka (or Ashoka) from that based on the Sanskrit 'shoka' or 'grief'. The name may be linked to the Assakenians who were linked to Chandragupta by many scholars. The Arsacids were also called Arshakuni which shows the clear link with the Shakas. M. Witzel and H. Falk consider the Shakas to be 'foreigners' in India but as Cynthia Talbot notes, this is short-sighted. The Arsacids claimed to be linked to the Achaemenids who were also Shakas. This is indicated by names such as Dar(a)shaka in the Indian texts. Gaumata's abode was Sikayavatish which also shows the link with the Sakyas. It is likely that Chandragupta was also known by the same name Arsaces or Assak. Ashkh of the Shahnama appears to be Chandragupta.
In the Minor Rock Edict I Asoka describes his dominion as Jambudvipa which is usually assumed to be modern India. In the version of the edict found at Nittur in Tumkur district of Karnataka, Asoka calls himself a ruler of Pathavi which echoes Parthia, Diodotus' domain. K. P. Jawasawal noted that Jambudvipa was a wider territory covering nearly the whole of civilized Asia. The name Jambu or Gambu may be linked to names like Sisygambis, mother of Darius-III.
Asoka calls himself 'Piyadassi laja magadhe' which is uncritically thought to allude to Magadh in Bihar. Early Magadha, like Kalinga and Vanga (Bengal) was also in the North-West. Magan in south east Iran was the early Magadha. The Mauryan homeland is given in some sources as Pippali (vana) which may be Babil in Seistan which may be a transform of Kapilavastu. Babyl(on) in Iraq later became known as Babil. Names like Kabul and Vasht echo Kapilavastu which was the greatest religious centre of the ancient world. The Mauryas are linked to the Nandas who in turn are linked to the Buddhist Sakyas. Babil in Seistan also may have been the Baveru of the Jatakas. Asoka is said to have been the founder of Sanchi which is likely but is not backed by hard evidence.
After rejecting Jones' idea of Palibothra at Patna it becomes logical to link Asoka with Kanganhalli in Karnataka where his inscribed portraits have been found. Kanganhalli (Halli=City) corresponds to Bandar-e Kangan near Patali (28°19'58" La., 57°52'16" Lo.) in the gulf area which was once India. That Moeris, the grandfather of Asoka or Diodotus-I was the same as Orontobates has already been indicated. Arrian wrote that Orontobates who fought against Alexander the Great was from the Gulf area. Bandar-e Kangan was
Inscribed Portrait of Asoka from Kanganhalli (Courtesy ASI)
near Konarak and Patali and about 10-days boat journey from Kanganhalli. This was once India proper.
Bandar-e Kangan was near Patali and Konarak
Another Bandar-e Kangan was near Firuzabad (Gour) and Katak in Iran. Kangan may be the same as
Geng nearZabol, Zaranz and Gowd (Courtesy Philips Atlas)
Gangan and may be linked to the names Ganga and the Gangaridae mentioned by the Greeks.
Diodotus' father Bindusara, who can be identified with Bagadates is linked to Gauda in some texts which may be Gour in modern Iran or Istakhr (Asthagoura of Ptolemy?). 'Khwarra' and 'Goura' meant 'bright' or 'shinning'. Bagadates is known to have been a priest-king from Istakhr.
Snake-motifs from Kanganhalli and Jiroft
The snake-motif of Kanganhalli leads one to the Nagas of Indian literature who were associated with snakes. Incidentally the snake was also the most important motif of Jiroft art. Nagas were seen as semi-divine and were strong and handsome. Asoka, who was allegedly very naughty in his youth, was sent to Pingala Naga for good education. Naga maidens were famous for their beauty and many Epic heroes had Naga wives. Their kingdom is called Naga-loka, or Patala-loka, which is filled with resplendent palaces, ornamented with precious gems. Nagas were usually associated with wealth and treasure. L. B. Keny notes their maritime links,
Not only were the Nagas a civilized people, but they were a great maritime race since very early times. The civilization of Burmah and some Chinese countries is ascribed to the Naga people of Magadha. They seem to have had a very early trade with the Persian Gulf also. The Buddhist literature speaks of the Nagas of the sea and the Nagas of the mountains.
The Nagas of the sea were clearly Hindus, Buddhists and Zoroastrians from southeast Iran. Nagaloka, the sphere of the Nagas was also called Patala which resembles Pattala in lower Indus near Mohenjodaro. The name Babhruvahana, son of Arjuna and a Naga princess is significant and may be linked to Baveru and Babil.
The Hellenistic World Community and Diodotus
Diodotus' 13th Edict, written after the Kalinga War is a matchless document of world history. The havoc created by the war filled the king's heart with remorse and totally transformed his character. He adopted Buddhism and became a Soter. This was a great moment in world history and led to a blending of Greek and the Indo-Iranian cultures which Alexander dreamed of. Just as Alexander's history cannot be fully grasped without Diodotus/Asoka, the reverse is also true. In a sense Alexander created the platform from which Diodotus operated. The Encyclopedia Britannica states,
The empire of Alexander and his successors created a great world community which, whether in Macedonian, Greco-Roman, or its later Christian form, established a cultural unity that was destined to be broken only 1,000 years later with the advent of Muslim imperialism (beginning in 7th century AD). This empire was so vast as truly to stagger the imagination. Extending from the Strait of Gibraltar to the Indus River, from the forests of Germany and the steppes of Russia to the Sahara Desert and the Indian Ocean, it took in an area of some 1.5 million square miles (3.9 million square kilometres; most of Europe, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, Africa, Persia, and the borderlands of India) and had a total population of more than 54 million.
In the 13th edict, after declaring that he had himself found pleasure rather in conquests by Dhamma than in conquests by the sword, Diodotus says that he had already made such conquests in the realms of the kings of Syria, Egypt, Macedonia, Epirus, and Kyrene, among the Cholas and Pandyas in South India, in Ceylon and among a number of peoples dwelling in the borders of his empire. This was a great event in the history of Hellenistic civilization and led to, as Asoka saw it, the Kingdom of God.
Everywhere men conform to the
instructions of the King as regards the Dhamma; and even where the kings
emissaries go not, there when they have heard of the King’s Dhamma, the
folk conform themselves, and will conform themselves to the duties of
the Dhamma …..
In his celebrated History of Hellenism J. G. Droysen made the far-reaching observation that in the Helleni-stic era Greek and Near Eastern cultures mingled in the lands conquered by Alexander the Great to form the cultural matrix from which Christianity emerged. If Alexander was the harbinger of this Hellenistic miracle , Diodotus was its greatest champion. Tarn wrote that most of the Bactrian Greeks became Buddhists. This was due to Alexander and Diodotus-I, due to whom momentous events took place in the Orient that altered human destiny.
Much has been written about Hellenistic culture that fails to recognize Asoka's determinant role in it. S. M. Burstein rightly emphasizes the interaction of Greeks and non-Greeks during the Hellenistic period in outposts such as Ptolemaic Egypt and Heraclea on the Black Sea but other great centres of Hellenistic culture were Sanchi, Besanagar, Amaravati and Nagarjunakonda.
The Hellenistic upsurge ultimately paved the way for the rise of Christianity and Islam. J. Z. Smith writes in the Encyclopedia Britannica (1979),
Finally, the central religious
literature of both traditions – the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative
compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the
later patristic literature of the Early Church Fathers – are
characteristic Hellenistic documents both
in form and content.
Only misjudgment of historians has denied Diodotus his rightful place in world history.
A Coin-Portrait of Asoka or Diodotus-I
Discovery of Alexander's Missing Altar
Gotama Buddha and the Nepalese Bluff in World History
Truth, in the ultimate analysis, is at times stranger than fiction. Gotama was a prince but after he was abandoned in the wilderness of the Nepalese Terai by the thug Führer, his history went to pieces. Fortunat-ely after cleansing Buddhist history of the Nepalese mud, it turns out that he was in fact related to Rama and the royal Achaemenid house of Darius-I.
Although fanciful textual tales abound in the literature, the eminent Belgian scholar E. Conze writes with circumspection,
To the modern historian, Buddhism is a phenomenon which must exasperate him at every point and we can only say in extenuation that this religion was not founded for the benefit of the historians. Not only is there an almost complete absence of hard facts about its history in India; not only is the date, authorship and geographical provenance of the overwhelming majority of the documents almost entirely unknown, ......
Vincent Smith was aware of Führer's misdeeds and rejected Kapilavastu in Nepal but the Buddhist scholar E. Lamotte held, without proper warrant, that if miracles are sieved out from Buddhist legend, only a travesty remains. The American archaeologist D. B. Spooner ignored Nepal and wrote in 1915 that Chand-ragupta and Gotama were from Iran. Spooner was branded as an upstart by the Jonesian lobby and textual hearsay continued to be paraded as sober history. About Buddhism in Iran, R. E. Emmerick, a principal contributor to the Encyclopedia Iranica, writes,
How far west Buddhism spread in Iran we do not know. On
the basis of archaeology it seems possible to infer that it never
flourished west of the line joining Balkh to Qandahar, the so-called
Foucher line. The Russian discovery of a Buddhist stupa at Gyaur Kala
near Bairam ‘Ali more than four hundred kilometers west of Balkh in the Merv oasis is hardly sufficient evidence to induce us to consider that
Buddhism was ever very prominent further west. The common adage often
applied to the spread of Buddhism to the east is relevant to the west:
one swallow does not make a summer.
This obtuse assessment ignores Hsuan Tsang's report that Lang kie (ka)-lo in Persia had more than 100 monasteries and more than 6000 brethren. Where did Mani find the Buddhists? Balkh,suggests Emmerick, but it may also have been southeast Iran which was 'India'. A strong refutation of Emmerick comes from Al-beruni, the greatest scholar of the world of his day
In former times, Khurasan, Persis, Irak, Mosul, the country up to the frontier of Syria, was Buddhistic, but then Zara-thustra went forth from Adharbaijan and preached Magism in Balkh (Baktra). His doctrine came into favour with king Gushtasp, and his son Isfendiyad spread the new faith both in East and West, both by force and by treaties. He founded fire-temples through his whole Empire, from the frontiers of China to those of the Greek Empire. The succeeding kings made their religion (i.e. Zoroastrianism) the obligatory state-religion for Persis and Irak. In conseq-uence the Buddhists were banished from these countries, and had to emigrate to the countries east of Balkh.
This crucial data confirms the presence of Buddhists in Iran in the 6th century BC beyond any doubt and calls for drastic reform in Iranian history. A precious clue is offered by Xerexes. In a trilingual inscription, he boasts over his destruction of the Daivas,
Among these countries (that submitted
to him) was (one) where previously daivas were worshipped. Then, by the
favour of Ahura Mazda, I destroyed that daiva place, and I had
proclaimed, the daivas shall not be worshipped. Where previously the
daivas were worshipped, there I worshipped Ahura Mazda properly with the
Law (arta).
The identification of the Daivas is a serious problem in Persian history. R. N. Frye does not recognize the true Gaumata yet writes with clear insight,
It is generally agreed that
the daiva worshippers were not Babylonians or Egyptians but rather
Iranians, or at least Aryans. One may ask whether the Indians living
within the Achaemenid empire, who worshipped the old gods, may have been
regarded as daiva worshippers.
Due to the Nepalese smokescreen, no one follo-wed up Frye's cue. For syndicated art writers like T. Kawami and Pratapaditya Pal, Buddhist art is solely defined by its Indian idiom. Contrarily, Dr. Spooner wrote that Gotama was from Iran (part of which was India). Niharranajan Ray did not hide behind jargon and stated categorically that Indian Buddhist art was only Hellenistic Greco-Indian art of a later phase,
The fact remains therefore that we have no examples extant of either sculpture or architecture that can definitely be labelled chronologically as pre-Mauryan or perhaps even as pre-Asokan.
Keen observers like M. Rostovtzeff noted Parthian influence on Buddhist Art and D. Schlumberger, who succeeded Foucher, boldly wrote that Greco-Buddhist art was the Indian descendant of Greco-Iranian art. Sadly, modern scholars have neither the taste nor vision for studying Buddhist art of the 6th century B.C.. Pratapaditya Pal rightly highlights the glory of the Buddhist art of Alchi but has no clue regarding its strong Iranian features. Holding on to a creaky Nepalese perspective he makes a vain attempt to read the mind of the Buddha,
The religion that created Alchi is so far removed from early Buddhism that if Buddha Sakyamuni himself were to visit the monastery today, he would be no less bewildered by its iconographic complexity than the average visitor.
T. Kawami ignores that though no ancient Buddhist text is known from India or Nepal, 300 Buddhist palm-leaf manuscripts have been found near Merv and that Buddhism and Zoroastrianism were sister religions,
The site, a monastery and stupa, is dated 3-4th cent. and was remodeled and enlarged several times, the stupa simply being encased in a larger "shell" each time. There was large sculpture as a larger than life clay head of Buddha was found. Curiously, the famous "Merv vase" painted with figural scenes containing zoroastrian elements was excavated in the Buddhist ruins.
Only the absurd idea of the birth of Buddhism of Nepal obscures that there is nothing curious in the co-existence of Zoroastrianism and Buddhism. This was suspected by Sir Charles Eliot. To study Buddhist art of the 6th century B.C. one has to venture to the North-west. The claim that Buddhism is not as old as Zoroastrianism is false as there were many Buddhas before Gotama.
Significantly it is Seistan-Baluchistan that provides the most ancient traces of Buddhism. This area is now in the periphery of India but it was once India proper. Place-names like Budaha, Kapilavastu (Zabol), Vasht, Zabulistan and Dharmasthan prove beyond any doubt that this was the true cradle of Buddhism.
Darmashān near Zabulistan (Courtesy Encyclopedia of Islam)
In his famous book entitled "The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians"(edited by John Dowson) Sir H. M. Elliot wrote about a district named Budha in Seistan-Baluchistan.
Budaha in Baluchistan (Courtesy Encyclopedia of Islam)
Sir Aurel Stein, one of the greatest antiquarians of all times, found a very ancient shrine at Kuh-e Khwaja in
The magnificent ruins of Kapilavastu or Prophthasia (Kuh-e Khwaja)
Seistan which he labelled as Buddhist. He found
nothing ancient in Nepal yet, due to Führer, saw only Bodhisattvas and missed that this was the birthplace of Gotama Buddha. This created a sensation but has been duly forgotten. Roman Ghirshman, a noted
Iranologist missed the full import of Stein's discovery but wrote with unfailing instinct that the murals of Kuh-e Khwaja are the precursors of Gandhara art, which points to the great antiquity of the site. Nearby Dahan-e Gholaman is heedlessly termed a 'slaves entrance' but to any discerning observer Gholaman is a clear echo of Gotama. Seistan is not only the home of all ancient Iranian lore including the Shahnama, it is also the locale of the Lalitavistara.
Kuh-e Khwaja was Kapilavastu. The important Buddhist text Mahaparinibbana Sutta states that the "Mauryas", a kshatriya people, had received the relics of the Buddha. The Mauryas are said to be from Pipphali-vana which appears to be Babil in Seistan.
Babil is cognate with Kapilavastu and there are several sites named Vasht in Seistan. Vasht reminds one of Queen Vashti of the Book of Esther. Herzfeld wrote about Bawer, said to have been founded by the legendary Jamshid, which is Babil. Kapilavastu was the holiest religious centre of the ancient world. The Tarikh-i Seistan states that Ali, son-in-law of Prophet Mohammed, was buried in Seistan. E. Herzfeld wrote that the Magi went to Palestine from Kuh-e Khwaja. I. M. Diakonoff held that the Prophet Zoroaster was from Seistan. This is also stated by Gnoli who, unfortunately, is hoodwinked by Führer. Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti, founder of the venerated Indian shrine of Ajmer Sharif which stands for amity amongst people of all creeds hailed from Seistan.
The history of Alexander the Great shows that Kuh-e Khwaja was Alexandria Prophthasia, the abode of Prophets. Deluded by Führer's misdeeds, great scholars like Tarn and Herzfeld missed the clear hint in the name Alexandria Prophthasia. Herzfeld mistakenly dated the stepped fire altar at Kuh-e Khwaja to the first century B.C. which is accepted by T. Kawami without circumspection. Y. Yamamoto, on the other hand, correctly identifies it as the oldest surviving Zoroastrian altar.
This mural of Kuh-e Khwaja may be the earliest depiction of Gotama's nativity
In art Gotama is often shown seated on a lotus which may be related to his true origin. Nelumbo nucifer (Nelumbonaceae) or the Indian lotus is not native to modern India but to wetlands of northern Iran. From there it probably spread to Egypt, India and further east. Persian history provides crucial information about the history of Buddhism.
A careful study shows that Gotama was the same as Gaumata who hangs like a ghost in Persian history. His tussle with Darius-I as recorded in stone at Behistun is one of the greatest stories and scandals of history yet little is known about the nature or cause of his revolt. P. Briant's account of Gomata in the Encyclopedia Iranica lacks insight but historians like Toynbee and Olmstead suspected Darius’ veracity and concluded that Gaumata was not an imposter. Although R. N. Frye fails to notice the overlap with Indian history, Gaumata was a namesake of Gotama. Gut-ama in Sumerian means ‘one whose mother is a cow’ which agrees with the meaning of Gau-mata in Sanskrit and old Persian. Gaumata was an immensely popular figure. That Darius had lied is also noted by Chester Starr, Dandamayev and W. Culican. T. C. Young Jr. a noted expert on Iran, also saw through the tirades of Darius-I and came very near recognizing the true nature of Gaumata who was also a religious leader. Young writes with rare insight,
Finally, it should be remarked that Darius hurls the epithet ‘Magian’, ‘priest’, at Gaumata almost as though this were the worst possible thing he could say about the rebel in order to discredit his enemy and to support his own cause in the eyes of his followers, if not in those of the populace.
He also suggests with remarkable insight that Gomata may have preached a new religion,
He then tells us that, 'As before, so I made the sanctuaries which Gaumata the Magian destroyed.’ Clearly Darius and Gaumata had a difference of opinion about sanctuaries, and, therefore, we may assume about religion or, at least, about ritual forms of religious expression. The details of this disagreement escapes us. Indeed, we are not even sure who was the innovator; the Achaemenians may have introduced forms of religion which adherents of an older faith reacted against under Gaumata’s leadership; or the Magian could have been attempting to introduce a new religion which offended the establishment. What is critical in the present context is that the story of Darius’ overthrow of Gaumata probably contains evidence of a religious as well as dynastic, social/economic and political struggle.
This new religion propounded by Gomata is Buddhism which proves beyond any doubt that Gaumata was the true Gotama. There are many other references to Gotama in the Persian and Jewish sources which have not been recognized. Tattenai (6th-5th century BC) who was the Persian governor of the province west of the Euphrates River (eber nari, "beyond the river") during the reign of Darius I was Gotama, whose name was Tathagata. The Book of Ezra (V: 3,6) states that he led an investigation into the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem about 519 B.C. He sent a report to Darius, who responded with instructions to allow the work to proceed. Tattenai is cited in a cuneiform tablet of 502 B.C. A. Kuhrt refers to the 'good Iranian name' of Bagapa the satrap of Babylon during Darius' reign and even considers the link with Tattanu but is unaware that Tattenai and Bagapa could be Gotama's names Tathagata and Bhagava. The Book of Ezra also cites the names Shether and Boznai which agree with Gotama's names Shiddhartha and Buddha. The name Shethar occurs in the Book of Esther. The name Buddho-Dana of Gotama given by Al-beruni puts him in the same bracket as Daniel the Jew who was a contemporary of Nebuchadrezzar-II.
It can be seen that Prophet Abraham was also from the abode of Gotama and Zoroaster. The startling discoveries of Sir Leonard Woolley at Ur in Sumer had such a dazzling effect on scholars that it was not realized that this could not be Ur Kasdim, the home of Abraham. W. F. Albright disagreed with Woolley but no one realized that Ur of Abraham was Urva, one of the sixteen good regions of the Avesta.
It is indeed uncanny that the patently absurd notion of the rise of Buddhism in Nepal has survived scholarly scrutiny for nearly a century. Sir Aurel Stein whose untiring efforts established the material basis of Buddhism, found nothing in Nepal. The vanishing of Buddhism from India may be due to the fact that after Afghanistan and Seistan ceased to be parts of 'India', Buddhism was seen as an extraneous creed. R. G. Bhandarkar blamed the decline on the rise of the Mahayana which weakened it from within. It is significant that Mahayana, from its very inception, was an essentially 'foreign' doctrine. The Mahayanists were often hostile to the Bhakti cult and other forms of Hinduism, yet the generally tolerant approach of the Buddhists to other faiths resulted in the assimilation of Buddhism in a reformed Hinduism. In this sense Buddhism did not disappear from India.
Gotama and Zoroaster in a Non-Jonesean Frame
Rostam, Rama and Achaemenian Origins
Persian history without Rostam, the greatest hero of the Iranian tradition, is sadly incomplete. Similarly the Jonesian vision of Rama being a tribal king bloated up by poetic fancy, turns Indian history into a caricature. Another gross miscarriage is that while the greatness of Hammu-rabi is recognized, the true stature of his contemporary Rim-Sin is unknown. Scanty data often falsifies history - that Iran had no Bronze Age culture was a fond cliché disproved by the accidental discoveries at Jiroft. Yet a greater danger is that of misreading of history due to a false preconceptions. Even though learned scholars like Sir Charles Eliot, Arnold Toynbee and Sukumar Sen held that India and Persia are deceptive labels, this has been lost on modern writers. As South-east Iran was 'India' and part of India was under the Achaemenids, it is natural to expect an overlap between the Indian and Iranian traditions. The true Heritage of Persia cannot be grasped without the Heritage of 'India'.
Commonsense dictates that Naqsh-i Rostam (carvings of Rostam) is a memory of Rostam but he is placed in the Arsacid era by common consent. As this was the traditional burial place of the Achaemenids, it is natural to suspect that Rostam could have been their ancestor. The suspicion is further reinforced by an unknown pre-Achaemenid relief found here which was effaced in the Sasanid era. The very fact that it was copied from an earlier relief at Kurangun (~18th
cent. B.C.) hints that the name Naqsh-i Rostam may be due to this relief. Thus it is very likely that the horned king is a depiction of Rostam.
The Achaemenian inscriptions do not mention Rostam, instead they mention Arya-Ram-Ana (7th cent. B.C.) whose name echoes Rama, the greatest hero of ancient India whose history is strikingly similar to that of Rostam. Rama's life story, the Ramayana, is akin to a scripture for many Indians. J. L. Brockington writes that it was the greatest Epic of the world which influenced a large part of humanity from Indo-Iran to Japan. That Indian archaeology has failed to
unearth Rama's relics from UP is because Rama's India was a wider world that extended up to Elam. Jonesian writers like R. Thapar and A.L. Basham have held that Rama was a minor tribal hero of UP which is absurd. Contrarily, Sukumar Sen wrote with rare insight that Rama, also called Rama Margaveya, was from what is now Iran (Margu). Rama of Margu is clearly an older namesake of Arya-Ram-ana.
Kurangun is near the ancient site of Sih-talu which provides the link with the Indian texts. This must have been Sutala, capital of Vali, a famous figure of the Ramayana. In Sumerian history also Valih is a great figure. The king and his wife in the relief can thus be Rama and his wife Sita. Rama was an Ikshaku king which corresponds to the term Uksha-man (Bull-man) or Achaemenian. Shutruk-Na-hhunte is an younger namesake of Shatrughna, Rama's half-brother. Shimut Wartash may be Warad-Sin or Bharata, another brother. The name of Tan Rukurater (~2004 B.C.) echoes Raghu, Rama's ancestor, and Dasa Ratha. Lukh-Ishshan (~2350 B.C.) may have been an ancestor of Lakshmana, Rama's brother.
Historians like R. N. Frye are totally unaware of the crucial significance of Rama even though Persian history resounds with his name.
1) Rama and Vayu are venerated in the Avesta.
2) Arya-Ram-ana was an early ancestor of Darius-I.
3) The Sasanid ancestor Ram-Behist was a Bazrangi
4) The Ram Bazrang were a
Kurdish tribe of Fars.
5)
Ramannuya (PF1855)
was close to Darius-I.
6) Many Sasanian city-names had the prefix 'Rama'.
7) Shutruk-Na-hhunte echoes Shatrughna.
The study of the Persepolis tablets has yielded much information about important figures like Darius and Parnaka yet crucial data remains unknown due to improper prognosis. Even a meticulous scholar like Hallock failed to note the echo of Rama in the name Ramanuya. The name of the Mitannian king Tushratta echoes Dasharatha, Rama's father. Chedor La'omer of Genesis 14 corresponds to Kudur Laghumar of the Babylonian texts and Raghupati was Rama's name.
Rama's presence in the Indus cities is unattested although the frequent symbol of the bow-man in the seals may, in fact, stand for Rama. Post-Islamic Iran also ignores him although his name may be hidden in the many Ram-names like Ramadan, Ram-allah etc.
Fortunately, the Sumerian texts provide priceless data about Rama. The Sumerian king-lists show that Rama was the same as Ram-Sin of Larsa (~18th cent. B.C.) who ruled Sumer, Elam, and the Indus cities. Although Ram-Sin was deified and his memorial has been found at Ur, his relics are unknown from Elam, said to be his homeland. Rim-Sin (also called Ram-Sin) was the longest ruling monarch (60 years) of Sumer and his reign is termed the golden era of Sumer by the great Assyriologist C. J. Gadd. Significantly, Ram-Sin is called an Elamite in the Sumerian texts.
Khotanese literature, which is almost exclusively Buddhist, describes Rama as a Buddhist hero. Imagining the Buddhists to be from Nepal and Rama from Ayodhya in U. P., the eminent linguist Sir Harold Bailey discounted the Buddhist claim that Rama was one of their own. A careful study, however, shows this suspicion to be misplaced.
The Buddhist sources trace the genealogy to the primeval Maha Sammata (Maha=great) which agrees with Shem, father of Elam in the Old Testament. This shows the basic unity of the Indian, Elamite and the Judaic traditions. Even if Rama is relatively unknown, the names of his half-brothers Shatrughna and Bharata are radiant ones in Elamite history.
The Buddhists traced their genealogy to Okkaka, said to be an ancestor of both the Sakyas and the Kollians. Okkaka is a transform of Ukshaka which is the same as Ukshaman or Achaemenian. According to Buddhaghosa, there were three dynasties with Okkaka at the head of each, all of whom were lineal descendants of the primeval king Maha Sammata or Great Sammata. This may correspond to the three wives of Dasharatha. Bardiya and Cyrus may have been the offsprings of Bharata (Warad-Sin), brother of Rama. Toynbee noted that Cyrus (Kurash) may have been linked to the Indian Kurus. The Achaemen-ids seem to be linked to Gotama as his relative Bhaddia is clearly Bardiya. Gaumata of the famous Behistun record can be seen to be Gotama and both Darius-I and Gaumata were known as Sphendadates. Part of the Rama Story is submerged in the Rostam Saga. Like Rama in India, the greatest Iranian hero was Rostam, immortalized in the Shahnama, about whose history little is known. There are traces of the Rama story in the Rostam saga which may have been emended by Surena, who defeated the Romans in the crucial battle at Carrhae and displaced Rama as the mightiest Iranian hero. His personal name is not known but his link with Rama is written in the name of Ram Sahristan, his capital in Seistan. Just as in the Rostam-Sohrab story, Rama's sons fought with him, unaware that he was their father.
The late Babylonian texts indicate that another name of Rama was Rostam. Rostam's early name was Rotastahm which echoes the names Dasharatha and Dharma (Durma-Ilani) of Rama's father. Naqs-i Rostam can also be read as Naqs-i Rama. Rama may have been the ruler of the Indus cities, Iran and Iraq. He was also an ancestor of Gotama Buddha and the Achaemenian kings. I. M. Diakonoff and D. McAlpin have pointed to a link of Elamite with Dravidian but the links between Elamite and Indian civilization also extend to history. Although Rama is usually thought to be an Aryan, he was called Elamite and in Indian art he is usually painted in Blue, whereas his brother Lakshmana and wife Sita are shown as light-skinned.
Ram-Sin of Larsa was the Historical Rama
Terah, Eastern Judaism and Buddhism
As Judaism is older than Abraham, many Judaic traits may in fact be continuations from the religion of his ancestors. But where was his homeland? A careful study shows that Abraham was from Kapil or Babil in Seistan, which was an abode of Prophets. Herzfeld rejected the local tradition of Kuh-e Khwaja that it was the abode of Ibrahim but this may have been a mistake. His father Terah may have been Yadus-Tera or Yudhisthira of the Epic Mahabharata. Yudhisthira's cousin was the great Yadu (Yadava) hero Krishna who may have been an Eastern 'Jew'. Yaudheya, his son, also appears to be a Yadu. After the fateful Bharata war Yudhisthira started a westward journey which may have been continued by Abraham. The Yadus vanished from Indian history after the Bharata war (~1750 B.C.) which appears to be linked to Abraham's westward journey. The early Yahdus may have been from the Indus Cities. The name Jaddua of the high-priest at the time of the second temple echoes Jadu. D. P. Mishra noted the uncanny parallels between the Indian and the Judaic traditions (Studies In The Proto-History of India, p. 126).
The biblical authors were only dimly aware of the socio-political background of the Patriarchs. E. A. Speiser wrote that the Patriarchal stories contain traditions and social data that do not fit in with the later times in which they were written down. This can be seen from the confusion regarding Shinar which is equated with Sumer without proper warrant. In Gen. x. 10 the beginning of Nimrod's kingdom is said to have been "Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar." Two points are to be noted here. Firstly Nimrod (Nim=great) of the Old Testament is the divine archer Rudra of the RigVeda which clearly suggests a location in Indo-Iran. Secondly Babel need not be Babylon but can be Kapil or Babil in Seistan. Shinar is clearly the Sineru of the Buddhist texts. In Gen. xi. 2, Shinar is the site of the tower of Babel which has to be reconsidered in view of the great discoveries in the Jiroft area.
Terah is said to have been an idol-maker and a pagan but the Indian evidence shows him as a righteous king (Dharmaputra). Just as E. Badian ignored the Pali and Sanskrit texts in Alexander's history, modern scholars on Judaism like R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, E. S. Gruen and S. Shaked disregard the evidence of the Mahabharata as Judaism, in their view, was only a product of Egypt and Palestine. On the other hand, the eminent Sanskritist Nicholas Sutton notes the clear traits of monotheism in the religious doctrines of the Mahabharata which offers insights into the religion of Terah.
Although a full-fledged meditative tradition is absent in Rabbinic Judaism and Krishna's tenets of love appear rather dissonant in it, a different picture emerges from the Jewish mystical tradition and Kabbala. It uses mandalas, such as the ten sefirot, to help explain reality. It has even been conjectured that the star of David originated as a Kabbalistic mandala. Rather like a Buddhist teacher Maimonides counsels on seeking internal peace and personal enlightenment in the Mishneh Torah.
The central plank of Kabbala is the startling doctrine of the deity. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan writes that many of its features like the potency assigned to letters, the use of charms and amulets, the theory of emanation as opposed to creation ex nihilio, the doc-trine of the correspondence between the macrocosm and microcosm, belief in rebirth and a definite panth-eistic tendency, are alien to the spirit of Rabbinic Judaism and akin to that of the Indian Upanishads and Tantrism. The roots of Tantrism go back to the earliest phases of human civilization and can be seen in 3rd millennium B.C. Sumer. Werblowsky writes in The Concise Encyclopedia of Living Faiths (p. 26),
Of course Kabbalah is not the same as Jewish mysticism, of which it is merely one phase, though the most important and far-reaching in its effects. In spite of its name which means '[esoteric] tradition' and in spite of the Kabbalist's sincere belief that they only revived the old mystical teachings of Moses and and earlier sages, there can be no reasonable doubt that the system as such evolved in the thirteenth century in Southern France and Spain.
This skepticism is shared by the majority of Judaic scholars but is very short-sighted. Werblowsky wonders in vain,
How must one explain the resurgence of myth in the midst of what is usually considered to be the moral enemy of mythical religion? By what channels or mechanisms did mythical and Gnostic symbols reassert themselves in medieval Jewry? What is the relation of the old, Oriental Gnosticism and the almost explosive reappearance of similar ideas ........ For our present purpose we can ignore these questions .... .
The answer lies in the Eastern Judaism of Terah. A. Edrei and D. Mendels have written about the split between the eastern and Western Diaspora but their Eastern Jews are only from Babylonia and Russia. Had they been aware of the crucial import of the Indian tradition, writers like Werblowsky and E. S. Gruen would not have missed the link of the term Kabbala with Kaivalya of the Jainas and Moksha of the Hindus. Mani used a similar term Kephalia.
Significantly, Seistan was the home of Gotama and also Abraham and Zoroaster. The common origin of Gotama and Abraham suggests that Buddhism is linked with Judaism. Jerusalem, in fact, is less ancient than Kuh-e Khwaja near ancient Shahr-e Shokhta which was larger than contemporary Ur in Sumer. It was called Uri-Salem in the Amarna letters which echoes the name Shilavati or Shilahatta of the birth-place of Joshaphat or Gotama. It can be recalled that many of the early Indian texts were translated by learned Jewish scholars.
It is stunning to realize that this humanistic Eastern Judaism was the cradle of Buddhism. Gotama's name Buddho-Dana reminds one of Daniel and hints at some link between the Jews and the Buddhists. This is corroborated by inscriptions. Due to the Nepalese forgery it has been missed by all that Sudda-Yauda-Saramana cited in numerous Persepolis tablets was not only an eastern Yahdu but also the father of Siddhartha who is Sedda-Saramana of the tablets (Sedda-arta). Sedda-Saramana is the Sethar of the Book of Ezra. The conflict between Orthodox Jews and Eastern religion is evident from the history of Nebuchadrezzar and the clashes between Tattenai (Gotama) and the Palestinian Jews. If Josephus' data that Alexander the Great had prostrated before the high priest Jaddua is true, he may have known about a very different brand of Judaism.
Dharmapala and Gour West of Baluchistan
The link of modern Bengal with the Yavana lands dates to the pre-Islamic era. The name Vaňga means 'broken' in Bengali and Sanskrit and Bengal or Vaňga-desha appears to have been a country split in two halves with an eastern part in modern Bengal and an western one in the Baluchistan area. Kalidasa’s remark that his hero Raghu uprooted and replanted the Vanga people like rice plants is very significant. This is a clear hint at a geographical relocation.
Dharmapala, the famous Pala king of Bengal, was one of the greatest rulers of India who controlled not only the whole of the East, Central and North India but also the Yavana lands. This is usually taken to be Baluchistan but his dominion may have extended further West. Significantly,Vaidyadeva's Kamauli grant of Assam links the Palas to Mihirasya vamsa or Sun/ Fire worshipping Iranians. Moreover, Sandhyakar Nandi, a court poet of the later Palas, stated that the Pala dynasty belonged to Samudrakula (Ocean lineage). This appears to be an allusion to the sea-links of the Palas with Gour in the the Fars area.
The Buddhist text Arya-Manjushri-mula-kalpa refers to the rise of his father Gopala in Gauda, which is identified with Gaur in modern Bengal where relics of the Palas have been found, but the scenario is complicated by the fact that there was another flourishing city named Gour (Firuzabad) in the land of the Yavanas which Dharmapala controlled.
Dharmapala's vast empire included the Yavana lands
The Arya-Manjushri-mula-kalpa gives the crucial data that the people of Gauda spoke an Asura dialect which again suggests a location in the Baluchistan area. Incidentally, the Kambojas, who are closely linked to the history of Bengal are called Asuras in the Markandeya Purana.
As place-names like Konarak and Katak in south-east Iran show that this was once early Kalinga, the presence of Vanga in this area can be easily inferred. The Aitareya Āraņyaka refers to Vaňga-Magadhāh which indicates that the Vaňgas and the Magadhas were neighbouring peoples. As Magadha has been identified with Magan in the Baluchistan area it follows that there must have been another Vaňga in the north-west. Anga, Vanga and Kalinga were adjacent states and the as city-names like Zaranj(Dvara-Anga) and Mohenjodaro (Maha-Anga-Dvara) indicate ancient Anga was in the north-west. Pundra is linked to modern Bengal and this clashes with Punt in the Gulf area which is referred to in very early Egyptian documents.
Gopala, the founder of the Pala dynasty is a shadowy figure in Indian history but a careful study of his history and geography shows him as a great ruler and clears some of the basic misconceptions of Indology. There is a plaque near the great lake at Bhopal in Madhya Pradesh which says that the name Bhopal is a transform of Gopala who was the ruler of the area. This appears to be very likely but there is much more to Gopala, the true extent of whose empire remains a mystery. He was certainly linked to Gaur in modern Bengal but it does not have the characteristics of the capital of such a great ruler.
Furthermore, as Iranian history does not know who ruled the Fars area in this period, it is possible that Dharmapala ruled Gour in Iran. Incidentally there was another prosperous city named Gour in Eastern Iran (Firuzabad) which shows the true complexities in ancient geography. That this area was once within greater India has already been stated.
The origin of the Palas has been ascribed to the Sea, Samudrakula, which appears to be an allusion to the Persian Gulf area which was once a part of India. The strong influence of Buddhist art in eastern Iran has been noted by R.N. Frye. (The Golden Age of Persia, p.41). V. Elisseeff (Encyclopedia of World Art, Asiatic Prehistory) also remarks with striking clarity that from the viewpoint of archaeology , eastern Iran was closer to India.