Guest guest Posted March 31, 2004 Report Share Posted March 31, 2004 Hare Krishna, one will also have to explain why there are several pilgrimage sites in the area in which Srimati Sita-devi was believed to have been held captive. The area in present-day Sri lanka is the area known as Nuwara-Eliya (Noor-Eliya for short). I have been there on two occasions. There is a flowing river which is supposed to have originated from the digging of Sitadevi Herself. There is also a alarge garden which supposedly belonged to Ravana, and the most amazing of all, there is one heavy-set footprint in solid stone which is attributed to Hanuman! Last time I went there, they had nearly completed the building of a nice little Rama temple there. It would be finished by now, certainly. Hare Krishna, Sanjay "Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP" <Hari.Sauri.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net> wrote: > In the Ramayana we learn that Lanka was 100 yoganas from the > mainland. Since a yogana is about 8 miles that would mean that it was > about 800 miles from the mainland. Much further than current Sri Lanka aka > Ceylon. Also the Suryasiddhanta mentions that the meridian which passes > through Ujjain also passes through Lanka. (The Suryasiddhanta and all of > the Jyotish literature uses the meridian passing through Ujjain as the > reference point just as today the meridian of Greenwich is used for > astronomical calculations and time keeping.) Ujjain is 75 degrees 47 > minutes east of Greenwich if you look south in the Indian Ocean the > closest land would be the Maldive Islands in the Lakshadvip Sea (100,000 > Islands sea). So I would suggest that is the actual area of the original > Lanka not Ceylon which only recently (1972) renamed itself as Sri Lanka. > The actual Lanka is submerged and only some of its highest points are > above the ocean. In any case the real Lanka was several hundred miles to > the South West of current Ceylon-Sri Lanka. Just a thought: since the action narrated in the Ramayana took place about one and half million years ago isn't it quite possible that the positions of the land masses could have changed considerably during that period? Why would we expect to find everything exactly as it was then especially when we read that King Mucucunda fell asleep in one yuga and on his awakening in another was surprised to see that everything had gotten much smaller? Wouldn't distances also get smaller? Your humble servant, Hari-sauri dasa ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Katha-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net Radha-Krishna prana mora yugala-kishora; jivane-marane gati aro nahi mora. "The Divine Couple, Radha and Krishna, are my very life; In life or death I have no one else but Them." - Srila Narottama das Thakura Mahasaya Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2004 Report Share Posted April 3, 2004 > *>*>| We may leave the matter for expert geologists to > *>*>| research because the changing universe has > *>*>| different phases of geological development. Over 5,000 years we may not expect much change but Srila Prabhupada does accept that there are different geological periods, and a span of over a one million (or 19 million as the case may be) seems sufficiently long that some phase changes could have occurred. And certainly modern expert geologists would agree with that. Your humble servant, Hari-sauri dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2004 Report Share Posted April 4, 2004 > > *>*>| We may leave the matter for expert geologists to > > *>*>| research because the changing universe has > > *>*>| different phases of geological development. > > Over 5,000 years we may not expect much change but Srila Prabhupada > does accept that there are different geological periods, and a span of > over a one million (or 19 million as the case may be) seems sufficiently > long that some phase changes could have occurred. And certainly modern > expert geologists would agree with that. > > Your humble servant, > Hari-sauri dasa According to Plate Tectontics it would definitely take a lot more than 1 million years for Lanka to move almost 1000 miles. By 1000 miles I mean it not only went from being 800 miles off shore to a mere 20 miles but also moved about 500 miles to the East. So using the Pythagorean theorem we get about 1000 miles of motion. According to: http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:mgehgtlDRiEJ:piru.alexandria.ucsb.edu/c ollections/archuleta/01%2520w/lec0101.pdf+tectonics+%22rate+of+motion%22&hl= en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8 "Plate velocities range from about 0.3 cm/yr to 10 cm/yr." Speeding along at 10 cm/year it would take only 16 million years to move 1000 miles (1600 Km) but at a rate of 0.3 cm/yr it would take over 533 million years to move 1000 miles. So if the speed were somewhere in between it would take a very long time for Lanka to move that far. Yet when we consider that the Maldives are already very close to where Lanka should be, and that the Maldives were a lang mass that sank into the ocean they seem to make a better choice. Anyway glad this text stimulated some polite and friendly discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2004 Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 > > According to Plate Tectontics it would definitely take a lot more than 1 > million years for Lanka to move almost 1000 miles. By 1000 miles I mean it > not only went from being 800 miles off shore to a mere 20 miles but also > moved about 500 miles to the East. So using the Pythagorean theorem we get > about 1000 miles of motion. > > According to: > http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:mgehgtlDRiEJ:piru.alexandria.ucsb.edu > /c > ollections/archuleta/01%2520w/lec0101.pdf+tectonics+%22rate+of+motion%22&h > l= en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8 > > "Plate velocities range from about 0.3 cm/yr to 10 cm/yr." > > Speeding along at 10 cm/year it would take only 16 million years to move > 1000 miles (1600 Km) but at a rate of 0.3 cm/yr it would take over 533 > million years to move 1000 miles. So if the speed were somewhere in > between it would take a very long time for Lanka to move that far. Good points. I haven't much idea about modern theories of geology. To my tiny brain a million years seems long enough but obviously this science deals with much longer periods. Interestingly, if it did take approx. 16 million years for such a drift to occur, that would put it within the realm of possibility of being the original island if Lord Rama's appearance were 4 divya-yugas ago (19 million years). > > > Yet when we consider that the Maldives are already very close to where > Lanka should be, and that the Maldives were a lang mass that sank into the > ocean they seem to make a better choice. > > Anyway glad this text stimulated some polite and friendly discussion. Yes, its nice to have some exchanges that deepen our realizations and understandings about sastra. Your humble servant, Hari-sauri dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2004 Report Share Posted April 5, 2004 > > > > According to Plate Tectontics it would definitely take a lot more than 1 > > million years for Lanka to move almost 1000 miles. By 1000 miles I mean > > it not only went from being 800 miles off shore to a mere 20 miles but > > also moved about 500 miles to the East. So using the Pythagorean theorem > > we get about 1000 miles of motion. > > > > According to: > > http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:mgehgtlDRiEJ:piru.alexandria.ucsb.e > > du /c > > ollections/archuleta/01%2520w/lec0101.pdf+tectonics+%22rate+of+motion%22 > > &h l= en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8 > > > > "Plate velocities range from about 0.3 cm/yr to 10 cm/yr." > > > > Speeding along at 10 cm/year it would take only 16 million years to move > > 1000 miles (1600 Km) but at a rate of 0.3 cm/yr it would take over 533 > > million years to move 1000 miles. So if the speed were somewhere in > > between it would take a very long time for Lanka to move that far. > > Good points. I haven't much idea about modern theories of geology. > To my tiny brain a million years seems long enough but obviously this > science deals with much longer periods. > > Interestingly, if it did take approx. 16 million years for such a > drift to occur, that would put it within the realm of possibility of being > the original island if Lord Rama's appearance were 4 divya-yugas ago (19 > million years). That would have to assume that the motion was at top speed. If it was anything less than top speed it would not come close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 > > can anyone draw us a map in PPT to show us all these geographical > > formations > > Attached is the author's map that formed part of his article. The latitude > lines, not legible, are from 22° to 26 North from bottom to top. The > blurred place name just above 23° N and west of 77° W longitude is Bhopal. > By "New Name" in the table at right he obviously means "Present Name". > Interestingly, looking at an ordinary present day map, there is a town by > the name of Sagar not far (to the north east) from Bhopal. what's missing in the map is a kilometer scale (and present day corresponding map of area in MP) so you can try to visuallize 'where" lanka etc was. what do the Indologists think about this map opinion? obviously the SL govt wouldn't accept it. what about the indologists?> TridaNDi BhikSu, Bhakti Visrambha MAdhava Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.