He rejects Kalasoka and accepts but Dharmasoka--in
accordance with "Greek" and in utter conflict with Buddhist chronology.
He knows not--or perhaps prefers to ignore--that besides the two Asokas
there were several personages named Chandragupta and Chandramasa.
Plutarch is set aside as conflicting with the more welcome theory, and
the evidence of Justin alone is accepted. There was Kalasoka, called by
some Chandramasa and by others Chandragupta, whose son Nanda was
succeeded by his cousin the Chandragupta of Seleucus, and under whom the
Council of Vaisali took place "supported by King Nanda" as correctly
stated by Taranatha. (None of them were Sudras, and this is a pure
invention of the Brahmans.) Then there was the last of the
Chandraguptas who assumed the name of Vikrama; he commenced the new era
called the Vikramaditya or Samvat and began the new dynasty at
Pataliputra, 318 (B.C.)--according to some European "authorities;" after
him his son Bindusara or Bhadrasena--also Chandragupta, who was followed
by Dharmasoka Chandragupta.
Pages:
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530