Talk:Sophagasenos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ON THE LINEAGE OF SOPHAGASENUS or SOPHAGASENOS (Sanskrit: SUBHAGASENA)

(IMPORTANT NOTE: According to Taranatha: ASOKA had a son KUNALA (who did not rule), who had a son VIGATASOKA (=VITASOKA), who had a son VIRASENA (restored by scholars as SURASENA), who had a son NANDA, who had a son MAHAPADAMA (See: Taranatha’s History of Buddhism in India, Trans, 1998, pp 6, 68-80, Dr D. P. Chattopadhyaya; Taranatha’s Geschichte des Bouddhismus, pp, 2, 50-51, trans: Dr A. Schiefner.

See Chapters VI through XI of the Synopsis of Taranatha's RGYA-GAR-CHHOS-HBYUNG ("History of Buddhism in India"), pp 31-33 at link: [1]). This links (Trans by N Dutt) has restored from Tibetan text of Lama Taranatha, the name of king VIRASENA to its actual name SURASENA.

A QUESTION TO PONDER:

There is no evidence on the birth year of King Asoka. According to Buddhist text Asokavadana/Divyavadana, Bindusara, father of Asoka, had been reigning in Pataliputra for a while when a beautiful girl called Saubhadrangi was brought from Champa to Pataliputra with the intention that she be the queen of ruling king Bindusara. As luck would have it, She did not find instant approval from reigning king due to jealousies of other queens in the imperial palace, but after a while, she was able win the favors of king Bindusara and was finally married to him and in due course, she bore the monarch a son (Asoka) SEE LINK:

[2] (Dr Rājendralāla Mitra).

[3] (Dr Vincent Arthur Smith).

This story gives some clue to the possible year of birth of Asoka. Since Bindusara mounted the throne in 298 BCE, hence (and if ONE IS TO BELIEVE ASOKAVADANA), it can be safely assumed, after reading the Asokavadana story very carefully, that Asoka may have been born a COUPLE OF YEARS after 298 BCE and in all probability it may not have happened prior to 295 BCE. Let's stick to this probable date for Asoka's birth year.

Now let’s follow Taranatha as Dr F. W. Thomas does:

1.Asoka bore a son called Kunala
2.Kunala had a son called Vigatasoka (Vitasoka)
3.Vigatasoka (Vitasoka) had a son called Virasena
4.(And as Dr F. W Thomas and other scholars assume), Virasena had a son called Subhagasena who was ruling in Kabul valley in 207/206 BCE

Polybius (Born in Megalopolis in Arcadia in about 204 BCE, death 122 BCE) powerfully attests that Syrian Greek king Antiochus III marched across the Caucasus into Kabul in 207/206 according to Dr V. A. Smith and 206 BCE according to Willem Vogelsang (This is reasonably precise date though some scholars write that Antiochus III marched onto Kabul in about 212/210 BCE). And since there is also a reference to this Syrian king having renewed his friendship with Sophagasenus during former's march into Kabul valley in about 207/206 BCE, this must mean that Sophagasena had been ruling in Kabul at least FEW YEARS prior to this Syrian incursion of 207/206 BCE by Antiochus III into the kingdom of Kabul( was probably a strategical/military visit to an ally). At least, it tells us that Sophagasenus had carved out an independent kingdom in Kabul/Kapisa probably around/about 210 BCE, at the latest. The creation of kingdom at Kabul by Sophagasena may have been with a possible intrigue (H. C. Raychaudhury, G Chakraverty) in which the Greeks--- probably, the Greek rulers of Syria, may have been involved--- and the reference to "RENENWAL OF FREINDSHIP" holds a powerful clue to previous alliance/dealing between Antiochus III and Sophagasenus. It indeed points to some sort of collusion between the two rulers, which may have happened around 210 BCE or about and the collusion treaty may have been directed against the Mauryas of Magadha as well as a safeguard against the Bactrian Greeks.

LET's BE REASONABLE and STICK TO THIS FIGURE OF 210 BCE as the PROBABLE YEAR when Sophagasenus might have taken control of an independent kingdom at Kabul/Kapisa, probably in intrigue with the Greek rulers of Syria.

NOW we are not sure if the son born to ASOKA, and then son to KUNALA, and then son to VIGATASOKA and then to son VIRASENA (OF TARANATHA) were the eldest issues, or the middle issues, or the youngest issues, out of their respective wedlocks. To be generous to DR F W Thomas and his followers, let us assume that KUNALA, VIGATASOKA & VIRAESENA were the eldest or first issues out of the wedlocks of their respective parents. AND, also assume that the marriage was celebrated after about 18/19 years of age and the FIRST ISSUE WAS BORN WITHIN ONE YEAR of their respective wedlocks (a very reasonable assumption). Then, it can be seen that ASOKA (probable birth year 295 BCE) had his first issue (=KUNALA) born when Ashoka was 20 years which means that Kunala was born in about 275 BCE. Similarliy assuming the same parameters, VIGATASOKA was born to Kunala at the age of about 20 years i.e VIGATASOKA was born in year 255 BCE. Similarily, VIRASENA (of Taranatha), son of Vigatasoka (of Taranatha) must have born about 235 BCE or about.

NOW if SOPHAGASENUS was indeed the son/successor of VIRAENA as these scholars assume, then SOPHAGASENUS must have been born to Virasena in about 215 BCE according the same reasonable parameters. But he has to be the first issue of his parents to qualify for this year of birth.

IMPORTANT OBSERVATION FOLLOWS:

If SOPHAGASENA (year of birth ~215 BCE, according to above parameters) was indeed the son of Virasena (whose year of birth ~235 BCE), then this king Sophagasenusl was merely 5 or 6 years old when he might have assumed the rulership of Kabul and entered into possible collusion (first friendship treaty) with Antiochus III of Syria in about 210 BCE or little after it, but it must have been prior to 208 BCE (which year Antiochus III had invaded Bactria).

Now Sophagasenos (born in 215 BCE according to above line of thought), rebels against the Mauryas of Magadha, and becomes the independent ruler of Kabul around 210 BCE, and enters into a first friendship treaty with Antiochus III in about 210-09 at the age of 5-6 years!!!!. This looks silly and absurd. How is it possible?. This goes to disprove Thomas's hypothesis on the Maurya origin of Suphagasena.

This line of thought is also a good argument to refute the ASOKA_KUNALA-VIGATASOKA-VIRASENA lineage for Sophagasenus, the ruler of Kabul/Kapisa.

Therefore, In all probability, Sophagasenus was a local ruler from Kabul area/and probably was traceable to dominant Ashvaka (Kamboja) background.

P.S.

ANOTHER QUESTION TO PONDER:

WHAT IF KUNALA, VIGATASOKA, VIRASENA & SOPHAGASENA WERE NOT THE FIRST ISSUES OUT OF THE RESPECTIVE WEDLOCKS OF THEIR PARENTS? WHAT IF THEY WERE (1) THE MIDDLE ONES, OR (2) THE YOUNGEST ONES? (3) OR SOME OF THEM WERE ELDEST AND THE OTHERS WERE YOUNGEST ISSUES?. IT IS NOTABLE THAT FINITE PROBABILITY EXISTS FOR EACH OF THE ABOVE ALTERNATIVES. ONCE AGAIN, TO BE SAFE AND REASONABLE, ONE MAY WANT TO FOLLOW THE LAW OF GOLDEN MEAN i.e KUNALA, VIGATASOKA, VIRASENA & SOPHAGASENUS (SUBHHAGASENA) were the middle-born issues of their respective parents. This means that each of the above prince may have been born, at least, 5-6 years after the wedlocks of his respective parents.

The above assumption would make the year of birth for SOPHAGASENUS fall within last decade of the third century (210 BCE- 200 BCE) OR in the first decade of second century or (between 190BCE to 200 BCE). This is apparently absurd looking in the light of known facts of history. Hence, Sophagasena in all probability, did not belong to the line of Asoka Maurya of Magadha. He may have been a local ruler instead.

Satbir Singh (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)