According to the European notion of historiography, dates are a must. Similar is the impression of many of the Indians influenced by the abilities of the Britishers. We shall try to understand the notion of the Indian historiographers.

Let us consider the dates of the Buddha as he is unanimously accepted as a historical figure. The first convention of the Buddhists took place in the year of his nirvana. In that convention, his teachings were compiled and recorded but not his date. It is not that they did not know the date but they did not feel the necessity of putting it down in writing. The second Buddhists convention took place in the reign of Asoka the Great. Then also the date was not put in writing. It is said to be just 200 years after the nirvana. The all powerful monarch could easily have secured the date if he had desired, may be that he had the knowledge of it. Not that he had not written down only the Buddha's date, nowhere in his inscriptions he has given the date of his coronation also. Perhaps he did not feel of giving those dates.

Similar is the case of Vyasa who wrote the epic Mahabharata . He was present when the war took Place. He had full knowledge of the date. What can be the reason for not stating the date? The epic contains about one lakh Stanzas. He has given so many minute details regarding the astronomical positions of the different events in the War. It cannot be that he did not note down the date of the War because of inertia or carelessness. It will be a grave charge. Similar is the position regarding the date of the Buddha. What can be the reason for not stating the dates?

[ Back ] [ Bharateeya Historiography ] [ Up ] [ Next ]