Make your own free website on Tripod.com

WARNING!!!! WARNING!!!! WARNING!!!!

This is not a history page! This page is part of describing the puranic genealogical trees. Go back to the top page to see the context in which it appears. But the place I got it from had some more information which I am summarising here. Caveat Emptor!

Consistency checks

As a check of the chronology derived, one can assume that one generation is 300 months. Then one gets the following table:

generation  name          months      calculated         mentioned
 number                             (Yu=Yuga, ma=manu, sa = sandhyA/sandhi,
                                               mu = mukha)
   1      svAyambhuva         0     1 Yu, 1 ma, kR      1 ma, krtyAdi
  84      dakSa prAcetasa 24900    13 Yu, 6 ma, tresa   13 Yu, 6 ma, tresa
  87      vaivasvata      25800    13 Yu, 7 mamu, tremu 13 Yu, 7 mamu
  99      karandhama      29400    15 Yu, tre           tre Yumu (4)
 105      vali            31200    16 Yu, 8 ma          8 ma (4,5)
 106      mAndhAtA        31500    16 Yu, tre           15 Yu, tre
 111      tRNavindu       33000    17 Yu, tre           tre 3 Yu (4)
 125      sagara          37200    19 Yu, tre           19 Yu, tre (1)
 141      mUlaka          42000    21 Yu, tre-dvAsa     21 Yu, tre-dvasa (2)
 151      rAma            45000    23 Yu, dvA           24 Yu, tre (3)
 181      vRhadvala       54000    28 Yu, kasa          28 Yu, kasa

(1) jAmadagnya in 19 Yu taught sagara
(2) parashurAma troubled mUlaka in tre-dvAsa
(3) two previous rAmas and previous rAvaNa in treta: so probable confusion?
(4) not in ikSvAku line
(5) vali, son of sutapA

Things that are very wrong:

vA 62 78 "tretAYuge tu prathame".  This does not match.  
  34      dhruva           9900           3 ma          tre 1 Yu

ma in describing saptami snAna says kRtavIrYa was n kR 25.  But,
kArtavIrYa arjuna is contemporary with rAma in 24 Yu.

va 88 122 "nAtyarthaM dhArmmiko$bhUt sadharmme satya Yuge tathA"
probably does not mean sagara was in satya Yuga, but rather he was not
like the kings of that time.

vA 92 17 dhanvantari in dvApara 2.  ga 149 42 puts him in 20 Yu.

karandhama in tremu and tRNavindu tre 3 Yu.  These are in tre.

vA 99 437 puru dynasty devApi and shIghraputra maru will start the satya
Yuga in 24 Yu and 20 Yuga.

panjikA lists of kRta and tretA does not agree with purANa: purANa has no
cakravartins before tre.  

When was the mahAbhArata war?

vA 73 16:   aSTAviMshe bhavitrI tvaM || (about vyAsa)
vi 4 1 23:  sAmprataM bhUtale$STAviMshatitamamasya
            manoshcaturYugamatItaprAyam Asanno hi tat kalih ||
            (revatIs marriage with balarAma)
vA 98 97:   aSTAviMshatime taddvAparasyAMsha sankSaye |
            naSTe dharmme tadA jajne viSNurvRSNikule prabhu ||
vi 5 23 25: purAgargenNa kathitamaSTAviMshatime Yuge |
            dvAparAnte harerjjanma yadorvvaMshe bhaviSyati ||
vi 4 24 36: yadA sa pAdapadmabhyAM psparshemAM vasundharAm |
            tAvat pRthvIpriSvange samartho nAbhavat kalih ||
vi 5 38 8:  yasmin dine hariryAto divaM santajya medinIm |
            tasminnevavatIrno$yaM kAlakAyo valI kalih ||
vi 4 24 34: te tu parIkSite kAle maghAsvAsan dvijottama |
            tadA pravRttashca kalirdvAdashabda shatatmakah ||

Thus it is possible that the 28th Yuga is actually not in dvApara, but in the kali sandhyA as expected if the meanings of these units have been correctly assigned. kali hadn't yet started, but the end of the 27th Yuga saw the end of dvApara sandhyAMsha.

mabhA Adi 2 13 antare caiva samprAte kalidvAparayorabhUt | samante pancake YuddhaM kurupAndava senayoh || Now, the length of kalisandhyA is 500 months or 42 years: so, kRSNa cannot be more than 42 at that time. ma bhA ashvamedha 66 says that parIkSita was born immediately after the war. mabhA Adi 120 10 suggests that arjuna was at least 25 years older than abhimanyu, and abhimanyu must have been at least 16 when parIkSita was born. And kRSNa is 6 months older than arjuna. So, the war must have happened exactly as the kali sandhyA touched kali. Note that YudhiSThira must be about three four years older than arjuna and dhRtarASTra 20 years more and bhISma another 20. So, bhISma by this calculation is 85 years old and fighting!

And what about the timing of rAma?

vA 88 134 sagara learnt from jAmadagnya (also in vi). sagara is son of bAhu from ikSvAku line whom haihayas defeated. jAmadagnya parashurAma is bhArgava (vi 4 7 16). He is both of jahNu line and candra line. vA 91 58 jahNu married granddaughter of YuvanAshva from ikSvAku line. There are two kings by that name in the ikSvAku line: but this person may not have been a king. he is the grandson of mAndhAtA and son of ambarISa: generation count therefore 108. jAmadagnya is nine generations down from jahNu: so generation number is 119. sagara is 125: 119 and 125 is acceptable variation. He destroyed the kSatriyas and helped sagara against haihaya.

Another parashurAma is from the haihaya line vi 4 4 43 (sakalakSatriyakSayakAriNamasheshahaihayakulaketubhUtanca parashurAmamapAstu vIrYyavalAvalepaM cakAra) calls him "haihayakulaketu". Fearing him, mUlaka 10th generation ancestor of rAma, hid as a woman. So, he can't be contemporary of rAma: note that vi 4 4 43 does not claim he is. This parashurAma is also the same as the one who was doing rudhiratarpaNa in syamantapancaka. He is in the 21 Yu and tredvAsa. mabhA 1 2 3 says tretAdvAparayoh sandhyau rAmah shastrabhRtAM varah | asakRt pArthivaM kSatraM jaghAnamarSacOditah ||

kArtavIrYa arjuna was killed by parashurAma. This guy had rAvaNa "pashuriva baddhA svanagaraikante sthApitA". He was born in the haihaya line. Who is the parashurAma here? It normally would have fit dAsharathi rAma: so maybe this is the result of confusion!

vA calls bhArgava jAmadagnya parashurAma of the 19th Yu as avatAra. dAsharathi rAma of 24th Yu is also avatAra. There is no indication that haihaya parashurAma of 21 Yu is an avatAra.

vA 58 86 says "gotreNa vai candramasah pUrvve kaliYuge prabhuh | dvAtriMshebhyudite varSe prakrAntaM viMshatiM samA ||" about a kalkI avatAra called pramati. ma 144 52 has 30 instead of 32. Difficult to figure out who this is: the 30 years is difficult to figure out. The kali might just be referring to his being born at a time when religion was in trouble. If we replace 30 by 3000, then he comes to the time of jAmadagnya parashurAma and his work looks much like his.

Thus in tretA there were two rAmas and one rAvaNa: in dvApara there is dAsharathi rAma and lankeshvara rAvaNa. However, one imagined rAma as an avatAra of tretA.

Late dynasties

vi 4 21 4 brahmakSatrasya Yo YonirvaMsho rAjarSi satkRtah | kSemakaM prApya rAjAnAM sasaMsthAM prApsyate kalau || vi 4 22 3 ikSvAkunAmayaM vaMshah sumitrAnto bhaviSyati | yatastaM prApya rAjAnaM sasaMsthAM prApsyate kalau || vi 4 24 1,2 Yo$yaM ripunjayo naama vArhadratho$ntyah tasya suniko nAmAmAtyo bhaviSyati sacainaM svAminaM hatvA svaputraM pradyota nAmAnamabhiSekSyati || Then come shishunAka, then nanda: at his time there was no one of the main ikSvAku or puru dynasties: though there were small regional leaders from these families. ma 271 14 sumitrah surathAjjAto anyastu bhavitAnRpah | ete caikSvAkavAh proktAh bhaviSya Ye kalauYuge || After nanda is maurYa, then shunga then kaNva and then andhra.

For varhadratha dynasty, all purANas say that they ruled for 1000 years. vA 99 308 says there were 32 rulers: but names only 22. bRhadratha is descended from uparicara basu and there is a gap of nine genrations between him and jarAsandha (ma 50 26 has the names of these nine). The individual times in va are not believable (e.g. niramatra ruled for 100 years), but it adds up to 997. ma adds up to 835.

pradyota and shishunAka are treated together by all the purAnas. vA says that the total of pradyota is 138 and shishunAka is 362, but the individuals add up to 148 and 332. ma gives the same numbers as 152(?) and 360, but the individuals add up to 155 and 344. vi gives the totals as 138 and 362. But before coming to magadha, shishunAkas were kings in vArANasI for about 30 years: this seems to be in the total. munika, father of pradyota ruled for 10 years: this may have been omitted in the total. The nanda dynasty was altogether 100 years, but in magadha for less than that. maurYa were 137 years in magadha, shunga 112, kANvAyaNa 45 and andhra 456 years. Pradyota shishunAka had 15 kings giving an average of 32 years per king, nanda 9 kings giving 11.1 maurYa 10 with average 13.7, shunga 10 with average 11.2 kANvAyaNa 4 with average 11.2 and andhra 30 with average 15.2. aikSAkava divAkara, paurava adhisImakRSNa and barhadratha senajit were contemporaries. bRhadvala to divAkara is 7 generations, YudhiSThira to adhisImakRSNa is 7, and sahadeva to senajit is 8. The first of the ikSvAku and barhadratha are dAyAda and abhimanyu of the puru line died young. So, if one counts brhadratha as generation 181, one can count senajit as 186.

kalkipurANa mentions that kruddhodhana, bRhadratha and vishAkhaYupa were contemporaries. This also shows that the different dynasties were keeping in sync as to there generation numbers.

bRhadvala is 181, parikSita 183. parikSit was born when abhimanyu was ruling, he is 182. nanda is 217: so there are 35 generations. Using pradyota and shishunAka as examples, if we assume there were 30 years per generation, we get this as 35 * 30 = 1050 years. vA gives this number exactly, but vi gives 1015, which gives 29 years per generation. Now, kali started with maghA: 42 years after that parikSita was born. nanda is in pUrvASADh.A maghA to pUrvASADh.A is 1100 years. So, if nandas reighn did not cross beyond pUrvASADh.A, then 1050 cannot be the correct number as he ruled for 28 years.

vA 99 321-325 says shaishunAka bhaviSyanti rAjAnah kSatrabAndhavAh | etaihsArdhaM bhaviSyanti tAvatkAlaM nRpaH pare || aikSvAkavashcturvviMshat pAncAlA pancaviMshatih | kAlakAstu caturviMshaccaturviMshattu haihayah || dvAtriMshadvai kalingAstu pancavimshastathA shakAh | kuravAshcApi SaTtriMshadaSTAviMshati maithilAh || shUrasenAstrayoviMshadvItihotrAshca viMshati | tulyakAlaM bhaviSyanti sarvva eva mahIkSitah || These are probably small kings who ruled during the time of shishunAka and pradyota dynasties. The fact that the main ikSvAku and puru lines died out six generations back is no problem: after all nanda did dethrone a lot of these small kings.

nanda must have been in the second satya Yuga (kalkIpurAna says that vishAkhaYupa started the second satya Yuga). But, nanda is shudrajAta and people considered that as the beginning kali. Knowing that beginning of kali must be 27 Yugas from the beginning: and confusing Yuga with saptarSi Yuga, they got a number of 2700! Assuming this is how we get the year 1934 AD as the year 5035, we can calculate 5035 - 2700 - 1934 = 401 BC as the start of nanda's rule.

ajAtashatru is after parikSita but before nanda. Vincent Smith thinks that he started ruling in 554 BC (before buddha died in 543 BC) ajAtashatru is generation number 212 and nanda is 217: so assuming 28 years per generation, nanda could have come to power in 414 BC (Vincent Smith calculates it to be 413 BC). 100 years after this is the time of candragupta: so he started ruling around 314. Vincent Smith thinks it should be 322-325 BC which is consistent with the rough calculation.

andhra ends 836 years after nandas rise to power: that is then 422 AD (or if we assume 401 BC for nanda's rule, it is 435 AD). Vincent Smith says that this cannot be correct: andhra is contemporary with maurYa at least, and it ended about AD 220 or 230. However, if this is true, then there is a very dark period in history till the beginning of gupta a century later. Wilson however claims that chinese sources say that andhra YajnashrI is in 408 AD. matsya says that YajnashrI ruled for 9 years, then vijaya 6, then caNdashrI 10 and then pulomA 7 to end the andra dynasty. Thus, according to this, andhra dynasty ended in 440 AD.

From this parikSita is in 1428 BC, or 1416 BC if we use 401 BC for nanda's time.

According to Greek, jaina and buddha stories, nanda was born of the queen of mahAnandI and a barber, and killed mahAnandI. According to the purANas, he is born of mahAnandI and a shUdrA mother, and did not kill his father. In fact according to this in 403 BC, he ruled for his father and in 401 BC became the king. (Similarly, ajAtashatru did not kill his father). In 315 BC, candragupta took magadha, but it took him another 12 years (vA says 16) to subdue all the small nanda rulers. candragupta defeated selucus nicator in 303 BC and defeated all these small rulers.

ma 272 18-21 says tatah prabhRti rAjAno bhaviSyAh shUdraYonayah | ekarAT sa mahApadmo ekacchatra bhaviSyati || aSTAshIti tu varSANi pRthivyAnca bhaviSyati | sarvvakSatramathotsAdya bhAvinArtheNa coditah || sukalpAdi sutAhyASTau samA dvAdasha te nRpAh | mahApadmasya parYyaye bhaviSyanti nRpAh kramAt || uddhariSyati kautilyah samA dvAdashabhih sutAn | bhuktA mahIM varSashataM tato maurYAn gamiSyati || vA is difficult to follow: mahApadma ruled for 28 years according to that, and out of his 1000 sons, 8 ruled for 12 years and were thrown away by kautilya in 16 years: vA 99 330 uddhariSyati tAn sarvvAn kautilyo vai dviraStabhih ||

nanda is in pUrvASADh.A vi 4 24 39 praYasyati YadA te ca pUrvvASADh.AM maharSayah | tada nandAt prabhRtyeSa kalirvRddhiM gamiSyati || this is the third according to praYuga and 20th according to the new Yuga. The mahAbhArata destruction of kSatriyas was in the 20th praYuga. vi 24 45 devApih pauravo rAjA marushcekSvaku vaMshajah | mahAYogavalopetau kalApa grAma saMshrayau || After a major destructions, the kSatriyAs sitting in the mythical kapAla village restart the lines. devApi is brother of shAntanu who went to the forest early. There are two marus in ikSvAku dynasty: one 6 generations before bRhadvala, and one 11 generations after him. Some purANas call him manu instead. ma 273 55-58 devApih pauravo rAjA aikSvAko yashca te mata | mahAYogavalApetau kalApagrAmamAshritau || etau kSatra praNetArau nava viMshe caturYuge | suvarccA manuputrasta aikSvAKadyo bhaviSyati || nava viMsha Yuge so vai vaMshasyAdirbhaviSyati | devApi putrah satyastu ailAnAM bhavitA nRpah || kSatrapravarttakAvetau bhaviSye tu caturYuge | evaM sarvveSu vijneyaM santAnArthantu lakSaNam || suvarccA and satya were destroyed by nanda. vA 99 437-439 says devApih pauravo rAjA ikSvAkoshcaiva Yo matah || mahAYoga valopetah kalApagrAmamAsthitah || suvarccAh somputrastu ikSvAkostu bhaviSyati | etau kSatrapraNetArau caturvviMshe caturYuge || nava viMshe Yuge somavaMshasyAdirbhaviSyati | devApirasapatnastu ailAdirbhavitA nRpah ||

Valid HTML 4.0! Valid CSS!