The Puranas were originally in prakrit (local)
language. What we have now is the Sanskritized version of older prakrit shlokas.
The Bhavishya Puran existed in the 3rd century AD and
Matsya Puran borrowed what the Bhavishya contained before the Gupt era
(320 AD). Then Vayu, Brahmand and Vishnu Puran were compiled accordingly.
The brahmans fabricated the passages, and the
later readers of the Puranas further fabricated the details of the text.
The brahmans converted prakrit words of
the Puranas into Sanskrit and substituted future tense for past tenses…
and altered them to the form of a prophecy uttered by Ved Vyas.
(Intro/10 to 27)
Comments. Every Hindu, who has some understanding
about the Bhagwatam and the Gita, knows that all of the Vedas and the
Puranas were written by the descended Divine Personality Ved Vyas in
Sanskrit language, and Mahabharat war had happened before kaliyug
started. Also, every educated person who has consulted the yearly Kashi
Hindu Vishvavidyalaya calendar, called the Panchang, which is a
reputed calendar of India, knows that over 5,000 years have passed since
kaliyug started because the calendar itself gives the exact year
of the start of kaliyug which comes to 3102 BC.
Accordingly, the Mahabharat war had happened in 3139
BC. But Pargiter brings the date of Mahabharat war down to 950 BC, kills
our historic years right away by 2,189 years and again says that the
Puranas were written in local (prakrit or Pali) language around the
third century AD by the brahmans who further fabricated and
expanded them. If one has a regard for Hindu religion, could he tolerate
to hear or read such falsehoods? Yet, the writer of these lines is called
a great historian.
Even the topmost critic of the Vedic religion, Max
Müller, has not written such a thing that the Puranas were written in
local language which Mr. Pargiter fabricated from his judicial brain.
These are such blunders that instantly reveal the motivation of the writer
and without any further evidence they tell that he was doing it on
purpose. As he was already in the service of the British government, it is
obviously evident that he was working on their instructions, and as such,
to mutilate the history and the Vedic culture, he was trying new ways to
distort our historic dates and to abuse the Sages and the Sanskrit
literature in order to please his superiors.
Take the example of the Mahabharat war: 3139 BC is
the date that is recognized by all of the acharyas, Jagadgurus
and the Divine Masters. But, Pargiter, rejecting all those evidences,
assumes a date 950 BC in his mind and, squeezing the reigning period of
all the dynasties that ruled Magadh, he just terminates 2,189 years out of
his free will and says that Mahabharat war happened in 950 BC.
The Bhagwatam says that the four dynasties, 21 kings of
Brihadrath, 5 of Pradyot, 10 of Shishunag and Mahapadm Nand Family ruled
for 1,598 years (1,000 + 138 + 360 + 100). So, 3139 BC (-) 1,598 years of
the total reign of four dynasties comes to 1541 BC, which was the
coronation year of Chandragupt Maurya who succeeded after Mahapadm Nand.
Instead of 1541 BC, Pargiter took 322 BC for
Chandragupt Maurya because it was stated by Sir William Jones, and thus,
terminated 1,219 years in one shot. Then he reduced 970 years more from
the total reigning period of the four dynasties (1,000 + 138 + 360 + 100 =
1,598). He took only 628 years instead of 1,598 years, and thus,
fabricated a round figure of (322 BC + 628) 950 years BC.
It is quite amusing how he arrived at the 628 year
figure. Pargiter gave 80 years to Mahapadm and his sons, the last
of the four dynasties. Then he gave 448 years to the 31 kings of
the first three dynasties (at the rate of 14.45 years per king), starting
from Sanjit, the seventh king of the Brihadrath dynasty, and up to the
last king of Shishunag dynasty. Then he gave the remaining 100
years to the first 6 kings of Brihadrath dynasty which were left out.
Thus, he completed the figure of 628 years; 80 + 448 + 100 = 628. (He
counted 22 kings of Brihadrath dynasty, 5 of Pradyot and 10 of Shishunag
Showing his intellectual skills, he gives an extensive
argument telling that the reigning period of the kings according to the
Puranas seemed too long to him so he reduced them. Isn’t it ridiculous,
that the reigning period of our historical kings is at the mercy of
Pargiter which he may reduce at any time according to his whim. To be more
practical, why didn’t he argue with his Queen Victoria to resign
immediately from her Queenship as she was already over-reigning? (Pargiter
was in the judicial services during the period of Queen Victoria who
reigned for 64 years.)
Thus, it is evident that the writings of F. E. Pargiter
were also the exploitations of British diplomacy.