[world-vedic] Looking for more hsitorical answers

[Guest guest]

>Dear devotees:>Pranams Prabhupada ki jya. let me congratulate your megazine,

the>Sadaputa das,>explanation about the Bhumandala is amazing, but I have a

question on the>Bhagavatam 12.2.26 Sukadeva goswami said: From your ( King

Pariktsi)>birth up>to the coronation of king Nanda, 1150 years will pass". But

Pariksit was>born>in the star of Kali-yuga, c. 3102 b.C., and by epigraphical

and historical>evidence the Nanda King taked birth around the IV century b.C.,

that>means 2808>pass between the Pariksit and Nanda king. So can you explaind

this aparent>discrepancy. With objective historical evidences.>Atte. Your

servent Hare Krsna Das.>Reply from Sadaputa dasa (Bhaktivedanta Institute):Yes,

this is a problem. Another way of putting it is that 12.2.27-28 and12.2.31-32

indicates that 1000 years elapse from the start of Kali-yuga toKing Nanda

(since there are 10 naksatras from Magha to Purvasadha). Nandaand his sons last

100 years (12.1.9-10), followed by the Mauryas, who last137 years (12.1.14). If

Kali-yuga begins in 3102 B.C., then the Mauyas arefinished by 3102-1000-100-137

= 1865 B.C. Since Asoka (mentioned in 12.1.12)came after Buddha, this places

Buddha before 1865 B.C.Clearly something has to give. One possibility is to

push back the date ofBuddha (and Candragupta Maurya, etc.). There are many

native scholars inIndia who advocate something along these lines. However, it

is verydifficult to make a good case for such a radical revsion of history.

Imention Buddha because his date is particularly well established.Another

possibility is to move forward that starting date of Kali-yuga. The3102 B.C.

date is based on astronomy, and it is not mentioned in theBhagavatam. In india,

the Jyotisa Sastras such as Surya-siddhanta assume analignment of the planets on

Feb. 18, 3102 B.C., which is considered to bethe beginning of Kali-yuga. One

could reject the Jyotisa Sastras' datewithout rejecting the Bhagavatam.

However, the 3102 B.C. date is firmlyembedded in Indian tradition, and Srila

Prabhupada referred to it repeatedlyin round terms by saying that Kali-yuga

began about 5000 years ago.A third possibility is to accept the 3102 B.C. date

for Kali-yuga and theaccepted dating of Buddha and other important historical

figures. In thiscase, the 12th Canto of the Bhagavatam must be giving erroneous

information.One could inquire as to whether or not the text might have been

corrupted.Thus the purport to 12.2.26 mentions 1500 years of royal dynasties,

whereasthe verse itself mentions 1150 years. The other verses that I cited

indicate1000 years (based on the naksatras). So the figures in the text are

notinternally consistent, and perhaps an even larger error crept in at

somepoint. The possibility of corruption in the Bhagavatam is

unpalatable.However, we certainly wouldn't want to totally reject the

Bhagavatam simplybecause some numbers got miscopied.

Anuncio

Su mensaje aquí

Attachment: (image/gif) 006101bf1ccb$69216bc0$LocalHost (AT) mexnet (DOT) mcsa.net.mx [not stored]