1.     The fact that at there were two Asokas had been known to the British scholars in the context.

2.     As pointed out one Asoka of Kashmir flourished during c.1400 BCE. He is mentioned as a �Jain� or �Buddhist� suppoting Saiva religion also.

3.     Another personality, as identified by the British as �Asoka� flourished during c.270 BCE., who is projected as a Buddhist, but the grand son of a Jain, who had chosen to come to Sravanabelagola and die �facing north�.

4.     So, if we go by the interpretation the British and based on the Rajatarangini, the following are the possibilities:

�  Asoka, the Jain Ruler flourished c.1400 BCE in Kashmir Based on Rajatarangini).

�  Asoka, the Buddhist fourished c.1400 BCE in Maghada (based on Rajatarangini and Puranas).

�  Asoka, the Jain Ruler flourished c.270 BCE in Kashmir (Edward Thomas, H. H. Wilson).

�  Asoka, the Jain converted to Buddhism flourished c. 1400 BCE / c.270 BCE (Edward Thomas).

�  Asoka, the Buddhist fourished c.270 BCE in Maghada (most of the modern historians).

5.     However, in identifying the countries mentioned in the inscriptions and the kings thereof, the scholars have not been unanimous. Therefore, in between, there must have been a king who conquered the countries mentioned and he could be Vikramaditya, as he has also been suppressed and dubbed as �mythical king� by the British.

OK!

OK.

So, you say that Chandragupta Maurya was the first Asoka, also known as "Kalasoka" and the second one was "Dharmasoka" i.e, the real Asoka attributing the inscriptions to both. But the following questions arise:

1. Both belong to Maurya dynasty, but Kalhana's Asoka is different.

2. According to you, then, the first Asoka followed Jain religion and issued iscriptions with titles Devanampiya etc., which tallies with the view of Edward Thomas.

3. Then, the inscriptions of two Asokas are to be identifiued and separated.

4. Then what about the inscriptions and stupas of Asoka of Kashmir?

As you are in Kashmir, you can post the monuments for the benefit of readers.

The discussion of George Buhler, E. Hultzsch and John Faithful Fleet on Kalhana, Rajatarangini, Kashmir history, chronology of India, and connected issues:

First, let us see what Buhler writes:

�I would not fill the intervals between the historically certain dates of Asoka, Kanishka and Durlabhaka by cutting down the years of the kings placed between them by Kalhana. But, I would altogether ignore all Kashmirian kings for those existence we have no evidence from other sources, be it through Indian or foreign writers, or through coins, buildings and inscriptions. If Kalhana had merely given stories reported by Suvrata and other predecessors, there might be a hope that we could re-arrange them. But, we do not know what materials he had, nor how he traced them, if any particular case he lengthened or shortened the reigns and if he disposed or added kings or not. General Cunnigham�s constant search for Kashmirian coin, which as I learn from his private letters is attended with good results, will eventually throw a great deal of light on this dark period of Kashmirian history. Full certainty regarding the era of Guptas, which now seems to be near at hand, will also assist in settling the dates of some kings� especially of Toramana, Matrigupta and Pravarsena.

�For the period which begins with the Karkota dynasty not much remains to be done. The discovery of the initial date of Saptarishi or Laukika era which I obtained in Kashmir, makers it possible to fix the reigs of Avantivarman with perfect accuracy. The beginning of the Saptarishi era is placed by the Kashmirians on Chaitra Sudi I of the twenty fifth year of the Kaliyuga amd 24^th year, or 1148 AD, in which Kalhana wrote, is consequently the Saptarishi year 4224. For,

From Kaliyuga 25 to the beginning of the Saka era is 3154

From Saka Samvat 1 to Kalhana�s time (1148 AD) is 1070

                                                                                    ---------

                                                   Total Saptarishi years 4224

                                                                                    --------

My authorities for placing the beginning of the Saptarishi era in Kali 25 are the following. First, P. Dayaram Josti gave me the subjoined verse, the origin of which he did not know:

कलेगतैः सायक नेतऱ सपतषिवया खिदिवं पयाताः।

लोके हि संवतरपतरिकायां सपतषिं मानं परवदंति संतः॥

Kalergathaiha sayaka netra varsaiha saptarshavarsha kidhivam prayataha

Loke hi samvasarapatrikayam satarsha manam pravadhanti santaha.

[For authority, I have typed the verse, but for certain words, I could not add reflexions etc., so excuse me for such wrongly appearing typing]

�When the years of the Kaliyuga marked by the �arrows� and the �eyes� (i.e, the five and two, or, as Indians dates have to be read backwards, 25) had elapsed, the most excellent seven Rishis ascended to heaven. For in the calendar used in the wold the virtuous declare the computation of the Saptarsishi (years to begin from that point)�. Pandit Dayaram explained the verse as I have done in the above translation and added that each Saptarishi year began on Chaoitra Sudi I and that its length was regulated by the customary mixing of Chandra and Sauramanas.

�The correctness of his statement is confirmed by a passage in P. Sahebram�s Rajatatangini sangraha where the author says that the Saka year 1786 (AD 1864) in which he writes, corresponds to Kali 4965 and to Saptarishi or Laukika Samwat 4940. One of the copyists, to, who copied the Dhvanyaloka for me in September, 1875, gives in the colophon, as the date of his copy, the Saptarishi year 4951. These facts are sufficient to prove that P. Dayaram�s statement regarding the beginning of the Saptarishi era is not an invention of his own, but based on the general tradition of his country. I do not doubt for the moment that the calculation which throws the beginning of the Saptarishi era back to 3076 B.C., is worth no more than that which fixes the beginning of the Kaliyuga in 3101 B.C. But it seems to me certain that it is much older than Kalhana�s time, because his equation 24 = 1070 agrees with it. It may therefore be safely used for reducing the exactness the Saptarishi years, months and days mentioned in his work to the years of the Christian era. The results will be thus obtained will always closely agree with those gained by General Cunningham, who did use of the right key.� (Indian Antiquary vol. Ed. 1877, pp.264-268.)      

About Rajatarangini E. Hultzsch writes from Bangalore in the context �

�In the matter of the adjustment of Kalahana�s chronology, Prof. Wilson considered in the subjects in the remarks attached to his abstract account; and Gen. Sir. A. Cunningham has dealt with in 1843, in his paper on �the ancient coinage of Kashmir� in the numismatic Chronicle, Vol. pp. 1-38. But no very satisfactory results at least for the early period, have as yet been attained, As good as illustration of this as can be wished for, is to be found in connection with the king Mihirakula. His initial date as deduced from Rajatarangini itself is Kaliuga Samwat 2397 expired or B.C. 704; and the end of his reign, seventy years later, Prof. H. H. Wilson brought him down to 200 B.C. (loc. Cit. p. 81). And Gen. Sir A. Cunningham arrived at the conclusion that he should be placed in A.D., (163 loc. cit. 18). With the help. however, of newly discovered inscriptions, which are the really safe guide, Dr, Fleet (ante. Vol XV , p252) has now shown  that his true date was un the beginning of the sixth century A.D, that as nearly as possible the commencement of his career was in 5215 AD and that AD 530, or very soon after, was the year in which his power in India was overthrown, after which he proceeded to Kashmir and established himself there. This illustrates very pointed by the extent of the adjustments that will have to be made in Kalhana�s earlier details; and furnishes us with a definite point from which chronology may be regulated backwards and forwards for a considerable time. A similar earlier point is provided by Kalhana�s mention, in Taranga I, verse 18, of Turuksha king Kanishka, who, according to his account, was anterior by two reigns to BC 1182, the date of the accession of Gonanda III, but who us undoubtedly the king Kanishka, from the commencement of whose reign in all probability runs the Saka era, commencing in 77 AD. And a still earlier point is furnished by Kalhana�s mention of king Asoka in Taranga I verse 101. According to Kalhana, he stood five reigns before 1182 BC������ (E. Hultzsch, second paper in Indian Antiquary, Vol.XVIII, pp.65-66).  

�Kalhana�s narrative opens with a fragmentary account of 52 kings who were supposed to have reigned for 1266 years. The earliest definite strasight-point taken by him is the Coronation of Yudhistira; his authority for which (verse56) is a verse given by Varahamihira in the Brihat Samhita XIII-3, as being according to the opinion of Vriddha Garga.

�When king Yudhistira ruled the earth, the (seven) seers (i.e, the constellation of Ursa Major) were in the (Nakshatra) Magha; the Saka era (is) 2526 (years after the commencement) of his reign. Accordingly, the coronation of Yuddhistira took place 2526 years before the commencement of the Saka era, or at the expiration of Kaliyuga Samva 653 (verse 51) and in 2448 BC. Kalhana himself was writing (verse 52) in Saka Samvat current i.e, 1148-49 AD.

�At this present moment in the twenty-fourth Laukika year (of the popular Kashmiri reckoning by cycles of a hundred years) there have gone by one thousand years increased by seventy of the Saka era. And as an intermediate point, but now arrived at he does not expolain, he had the accession of the fifty-third king Gonanda III, which took place on the whole, roughly 2330 years before his own time i.e, in 1182 BC� (Ibid. p.66). [emphasis added by me].

The above discussion clearly points out the following:

6      The scholars knew the importance of Kalhana�s work in Indian history and chronology.

6      The dates mentioned have close linkage with the era followed, which tallies.

6      However, they wanted to reduce the reign of many Indian kings, leave some kings conveniently with scant regard for history.

6      They knew the Asoka of Kashmir, who was ruling before the Maurya Asoka.

6      Kalhana places him in 1448-1400 BCE, which upset their chronology, because, all the existing monuments, inscriptions, coins and other evidences had to be separated to these periods.

6      Incidentally, there had been reports about the missing of certain manuscripts of Rajatarangini also.

I would be very much obliged, if the AE members could throw more light on the subject matter.