Prachin Jain Itihas Sangraha Part 05

This document is Part 5 of the "Prachin Jain Itihas Sangraha" (Collection of Ancient Jain History), authored by Dr. Tribhuvandas Laherchand Shah and translated into Hindi by Muni Gyan Sundarji Maharaj. It was published by Ratnaprabhakar Gyanpushpmala in Phalodi.

The core argument presented in this volume, particularly through the translation of Dr. Shah's work, challenges the prevailing historical understanding that the ancient inscriptions and edicts found across India, commonly attributed to the Buddhist Emperor Ashoka, actually belong to Emperor Samprati, a devout Jain.

Here's a breakdown of the key points and arguments made:

Central Thesis:

• The author contends that the numerous ancient stone inscriptions, pillar edicts, and royal decrees, long attributed to Emperor Ashoka (a supposed follower of Buddhism), were in fact authored by Emperor Samprati (also known as Priyadarshin), a prominent Jain emperor.
• This reinterpretation aims to rectify historical inaccuracies and highlight the significant contributions of Jainism and its followers to Indian history and culture.

Methodology and Evidence:

The author employs a multi-faceted approach, relying on:

1. Re-evaluation of Historical Timelines and Buddhist Calendars: The text delves into establishing precise timelines for key events in Jainism (Mahavir Nirvana) and Buddhism (Buddha Nirvana) to create a reliable chronological framework. It questions the accuracy of timelines based solely on Buddhist accounts, particularly those linking figures like Chandragupta Maurya to Alexander the Great.
2. Linguistic and Semantic Analysis of Inscriptions: The core of the argument lies in analyzing the language, terminology, and underlying philosophical concepts within the inscriptions. The author argues that specific words and phrases used in these edicts are inherently Jain in nature and not Buddhist.
   • Examples:
     • Words like "Anarambh" (non-violence, starting point), "Mangalam+Dharmam" (auspiciousness of Dharma), "Samvadhi" (which the author connects to Samprati), "Dharmamangal," "Devapriya" (used by Jain ascetics), "Swamivatsalyata" (a key Jain concept), "Pap" (sin), "Shwet" (white, referring to the Shvetambara sect), "Bodhi," and specific fasting periods like "Chaturmas" and "Attahi" are presented as distinctly Jain.
     • The author argues that Buddhist doctrines, as understood, do not align with the emphasis on these terms in the inscriptions.
3. Genealogical and Historical Connections: The text attempts to establish the lineage and timelines of the Maurya dynasty, re-evaluating the roles and periods of Chandragupta, Bindusara, Ashoka, and Samprati. It proposes that "Sendocottus" mentioned by Greek historians refers not to Chandragupta but to Ashoka or even Samprati himself.
4. Discrediting Traditional Attributions: The author systematically challenges the traditional attribution of these inscriptions to Ashoka by:
   • Highlighting the supposed inconsistencies in Ashoka's biographical accounts with the content of the edicts (e.g., Ashoka's alleged violent nature versus the non-violence preached in the edicts).
   • Questioning the timeline of Ashoka's life and reign in relation to the inscriptions.
   • Suggesting that the popular narrative of Ashoka's conversion to Buddhism and subsequent propagation of the religion might be a misinterpretation or embellishment.
5. Literary and Artistic Analysis: The text also considers artistic elements, such as the lion capital of the pillars, suggesting that the lion symbol is more deeply rooted in Jainism (as the symbol of Mahavir) than in Buddhism.

Key Arguments for Samprati/Priyadarshin as the Author:

• Linguistic Evidence: The prevalent use of Jain terminology and philosophical concepts in the inscriptions.
• Chronological Reordering: Placing Samprati in a period where his reign aligns with the inscription's content and challenging the established timeline for Ashoka.
• Philosophical Alignment: The emphasis on non-violence (Ahimsa) and other Jain principles in the edicts, which the author argues are more central to Jainism than Buddhism.
• Historical Context: The author posits that Samprati, as a powerful Jain emperor, would have patronized such monumental inscriptions to propagate Jainism.
• The "Priyadarsin" Connection: The author strongly argues that "Priyadarshin," as mentioned in the inscriptions, is not a title for Ashoka but refers to Samprati. The text provides a detailed narrative explaining how Samprati's father, Kunal, was blinded, and how Samprati was later installed as a ruler under Ashoka's regency, potentially earning him the name "Priyadarshin" due to his pleasing appearance or the joy he brought to Ashoka.

Specific Areas of Discussion:

• The "Sendocottus" Identification: Debating whether "Sendocottus" mentioned by Greek historians refers to Chandragupta Maurya or Ashoka.
• Mahavir Nirvana and Buddha Nirvana Timelines: Establishing a relative chronology between the two spiritual leaders.
• The Maurya Dynasty Genealogy: Reconstructing the lineage and reigns of Maurya rulers.
• Analysis of Specific Inscriptions: Detailed examination of various edicts, including the Girnar inscription and others, to support the central thesis.
• Symbolism: Interpreting symbols like the lion capital as having Jain significance.
• The Role of Samprati: Highlighting Samprati's significant contributions to Jainism, including temple construction, promoting religious practices, and his extensive empire.

Overall Impact and Significance:

This book aims to be a significant revisionist work in Indian historiography, shifting the focus from Ashoka's Buddhist patronage to Samprati's Jain patronage. It seeks to:

• Restore the historical importance of Samprati and Jainism.
• Correct what the author perceives as a long-standing misattribution of monumental Jain achievements to a Buddhist ruler.
• Provide a new framework for understanding ancient Indian history, emphasizing the influence of Jainism.

The text is written with the conviction that a thorough examination of the available evidence, particularly linguistic and contextual clues within the inscriptions, will lead to the conclusion that Emperor Samprati, not Emperor Ashoka, was the true author of these significant historical records.