Guest guest Posted July 19, 2003 Report Share Posted July 19, 2003 > If he or anyone else says that such long lifespans as mentioned in the > Ramayana are mythological or exageration then that just means the person > has performed Sastra-ninda, and is a Nastika -- atheist and not worthy of > speaking to and should be shunned by the wise. Thank you Shyamasundara prabhu for nice and logical explanations. Regarding Mr. Rath, he recently said..... --------- 6> Do people live longer in different yugas? Many puranic stories narrate penance done for several 1000 years. Also Krishna lived for only 125 years in Dwapara yuga. What was the dasa system in vogue then? [s.Rath:] Yes. People live for 125 years in kali yuga, 250 in treta, 500 in dvapara and 1000 in satya yuga..(maximum life span). --------- ....obvious avidya regarding vaishnava teachings. ys Dadhibhak¢a d€s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2003 Report Share Posted July 21, 2003 Dear prabhus, PAMHO, AGTSP. > 1) Mr Rath says: "Readers will appreciate that the periods are exactly as > per > the Ramayana." In his analysis he says that Rama got diksha from Visvamitra > during Mars Dasa which he has calculated to be between 20-23. But according > to the Valmiki Ramayana (Gita Press edition) 1.20.2 Rama was less than 16, > that is 15 years of age when Visvamitra took him to kill that Rakshasas and > at which time he was initiated into the use of celestial missiles. He was > also married to Sita Devi at the age of 15. After the marriage and return to > Ayodhya of the all the four married couples we don't hear much about > Visvamitra what to speak of his giving Diksa to Rama. This all took lace > prior to the wedding. I'm quoting the Sanskrit for the above mantioned Sloka 1.20.2. (2ns Shloka od 20th Sarga of Baalakanda) from Valmiki Ramayanam. pUrvamathaM pratishrutya pratijnAm hAtumicchasi rAghavaNam ayukto'ya kulasyAsya viparyayaH I don't recognise the word sixteen (shodasa) anywhere here. What can be wrong? Maybe the shloka number? Can anyone point to the right shloka? > 2) Mr. Ratha says Rama was sent to the forest at the beginning of Sani Dasa > or 24 years of age. But according to Valmiki Ramayana 2.20.45 Sri Rama was > 27 years old at the time of exile. This is confirmed by the Padma Purana, > Uttarakhanda 250.19.181-183 (as quoted by Gita Press editors) where it says > that the exile happened 12 years after the marriage of Rama to Sita, which > took place at age 15. Interestingly, the 20th Sarga of Ayodhyakanda has only 36 Shlokas, so could anyone point out the Sanskrit for the missing one? And the 250th Adhyaya of Uttarakhanad of the Padma Purana has only 92 Shlokas. So Shlokas 181-183 do not exist. And Shloka 19 is the following short one: svacApanirmuktena bANena taM parighaM ciccheda This speaks about Lord Siva's fight with Banasura if I'm not mistaken. But again, no mention of any numbers like 12 (dvadasa) in this shloka at least. So I think when we quote verses already quoted in some other text, it's useful to go back to the original text and check if these shlokas indeed exist. I was using the Sanskrit pdf files of Ramayana and Padma Purana which can be downloaded from the following site: http://mum.edu/vedicreserve/ However I have found the following quote from the Skanda Purana: Skanda Purana Book III Brahma Khand Section II: Dharmaranya-Khand Chapter 30 Sloka 12. In the twenty-seventh year of Rama, even as the King was to crown him heir apparent to the throne, Kaikeyi requested him for two boons. Slokas 13 - 14. With one of them Rama accompanied by Sita and Laksmana was to go in exile wearing matted hair, for fourteen years* "May my Bharata be the heir apparent" was the seocnd boon. It was due to being deluded by Manthara's words that she chose this boon. But for this I do not have the Sanskrit so if anyone has it please provide, also if anyone has info on the above missing Shlokas. Your servant, Gauranga Das Vedic Astrologer gauranga (AT) brihaspati (DOT) net Jyotish Remedies: WWW.BRIHASPATI.NET Phone:+36-309-140-839 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2003 Report Share Posted August 7, 2003 Camp: Villagio Hare Krsna, Bergamo, Italy Dear Maharajas, Prabhus and Matajis, Hare Krsna! I could not respond earlier because I was either preparing for travel or travelling in Europe. > Dear prabhus, > > PAMHO, AGTSP. > > > > 1) Mr Rath says: "Readers will appreciate that the periods are exactly > > as per > > the Ramayana." In his analysis he says that Rama got diksha from > Visvamitra > > during Mars Dasa which he has calculated to be between 20-23. But > according > > to the Valmiki Ramayana (Gita Press edition) 1.20.2 Rama was less than > > 16, that is 15 years of age when Visvamitra took him to kill that > > Rakshasas > and > > at which time he was initiated into the use of celestial missiles. He > > was also married to Sita Devi at the age of 15. After the marriage and > > return > to > > Ayodhya of the all the four married couples we don't hear much about > > Visvamitra what to speak of his giving Diksa to Rama. This all took lace > > prior to the wedding. > > I'm quoting the Sanskrit for the above mantioned Sloka 1.20.2. (2ns Shloka > od 20th Sarga of Baalakanda) from Valmiki Ramayanam. > > pUrvamathaM pratishrutya pratijnAm hAtumicchasi > rAghavaNam ayukto'ya kulasyAsya viparyayaH > > I don't recognise the word sixteen (shodasa) anywhere here. What can be > wrong? Maybe the shloka number? Can anyone point to the right shloka? Is this the Guta Press version? > > > 2) Mr. Ratha says Rama was sent to the forest at the beginning of Sani > Dasa > > or 24 years of age. But according to Valmiki Ramayana 2.20.45 Sri Rama > > was 27 years old at the time of exile. This is confirmed by the Padma > > Purana, Uttarakhanda 250.19.181-183 (as quoted by Gita Press editors) > > where it > says > > that the exile happened 12 years after the marriage of Rama to Sita, > > which took place at age 15. > > Interestingly, the 20th Sarga of Ayodhyakanda has only 36 Shlokas, so > could anyone point out the Sanskrit for the missing one? Interestingly enough it has at least 55 slokas long, you must have looked in the wrong khanda. Did you look in the Gita Press (Gorakhpur) edition? I said I was quoting from that edition. I have attached to this text a gif of the bottom half of that page (I am travelling so am limited to slow dial up connections hence limiting the size of uploads). It doesn't give the devanagari but it does give the relavant portions of the text. > > And the 250th Adhyaya of Uttarakhanad of the Padma Purana has only 92 > Shlokas. So Shlokas 181-183 do not exist. And Shloka 19 is the following > short one: > > svacApanirmuktena bANena taM parighaM ciccheda > > This speaks about Lord Siva's fight with Banasura if I'm not mistaken. But > again, no mention of any numbers like 12 (dvadasa) in this shloka at > least. > In the attached gif is also the quoted reference from padmapurana. They gave the reference in Roman Numerals and it is a bit difficult to read some of the text so it would seem that I translated the number wrong. On a second look it appears to say 269 chapter of the Uttarakhanda but such a chapter doesn't exit in my copy of the Padmapurana. Since I am travelling I can not look into these matters. However the attached gif shows exactly to what I was refering to. > > So I think when we quote verses already quoted in some other text, it's > useful to go back to the original text and check if these shlokas indeed > exist. I would say that it would be useful to look into the same edition of Ramayana as I was quoting from. And as for the Padmapurana quote I admit that I quoted the passage number wrong because it is not exactly legible in the context that I found it in. The main thing I have noticed from the responces is that you and others focus on what I called the "weak" arguments. I called them "weak" because I know very well the mentality of mental wranglers--those who will juggle numbers till it comes out the way they want it to be. And you have proved me to be right. However there is no response to my main assertion that it is folly to use Jyotish methods recomended for Kali Yuga on living entities from previous Yugas when life spans were very much longer in duration. To insisit on doing so exemplifies the pinnical of assinine arogance. In all honesty we should simple admit that we do not know what methods of prognostication where applicable then. There is no dishonor in admitting one's ingnorance, but it is the greatest rascaldom to speculate and assert possession of non-existent knowledge. To be habituated to such habits of mental specualation is symptomatic of a materialistic person. One need only search the Veda Base program for the entry "mental speculation" to get an idea of how condemned it is. Shyamasundara Dasa www.ShyamasundaraDasa.com 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.