259 B.C., in other words, if he reigned sixty or seventy years later than any of the Greek kings named on the Piyadasian monuments, what had he to do with their vassalage or non-vassalage, or how was he concerned with them at all?  Their dealings had been with his grandfather some seventy years earlier—­if he became a Buddhist only after ten years occupancy of the throne.  And finally, three well-known Bhadrasenas can be proved, whose names spelt loosely and phonetically, according to each writer’s dialect and nationality, now yield a variety of names, from Bindusara, Bimbisara, and Vindusara, down to Bhadrasena and Bhadrasara, as he is called in the Vayu Purana.  These are all synonymous.  However easy, at first sight, it may seem to be to brush out of history a real personage, it becomes more difficult to prove the non-existence of Kalasoka by calling him “false,” while the second Asoka is termed “the real,” in the face of the evidence of the Puranas, written by the bitterest enemies of the Buddhists, the Brahmans of the period.  The Vayu and Matsya Puranas mention both in their lists of their reigning sovereigns of the Nanda and the Morya dynasties.  And, though they connect Chandragupta with a Sudra Nanda, they do not deny existence to Kalasoka, for the sake of invalidating Buddhist chronology.  However falsified the now extant texts of both the Vaya and Matsya Puranas, even accepted as they at present stand “in their true meaning,” which Professor Max Muller (notwithstanding his confidence) fails to seize, they are not “at variance with Buddhist chronology before Chandragupta.”  Not, at any rate, when the real Chandragupta instead of the false Sandrocottus of the Greeks is recognized and introduced.  Quite independently of the Buddhist version, there exists the historical fact recorded in the Brahmanical as well as in the Burmese and Tibetan versions, that in the year 63 of Buddha, Susinago of Benares was chosen king by the people of Pataliputra, who made away with Ajatasatru’s dynasty.  Susinago removed the capital of Magadha from Rajagriha to Vaisali, while his successor Kalasoka removed it in his turn to Pataliputra.  It was during the reign of the latter that the prophecy of Buddha concerning Patalibat or Pataliputra—­a small village during His time—­was realized. (See Mahaparinibbana Sutta).

It will be easy enough, when the time comes, to answer all denying Orientalists and face them with proof and document in hand.  They speak of the extravagant, wild exaggerations of the Buddhists and Brahmans.  The latter answer:  “The wildest theorists of all are they who, to evade a self-evident fact, assume moral, anti-national impossibilities, entirely opposed to the most conspicuous traits of the Brahmanical Indian character—­namely, borrowing from, or imitating in anything, other nations.  From their comments on Rig Veda, down to the annals of Ceylon, from Panini to Matouan-lin, every page of their learned scholia appears, to one acquainted with the