Guest guest Posted October 10, 2008 Report Share Posted October 10, 2008 hinducivilization , " Avtar Krishen Kaul " <jyotirved wrote: Shri Kishore Patnaik-ji, Namaskar! <i have notified you earlier that my research reveals that the Eras such as Samvata era and Saka era are repetitive.> I have clarified it already that no worthwhile astronomical phenomenon repeats itself that quickly---within a few centuries---if at all any phenomoneon does repeat itself! As such, it is just possible that the same era was " invented/discovered " at different periods of time under different styles by different people---with any relation to any astronomical phenomena! Sometimes this was done by back calculations by postulating certain improbable --- nay even impossible!---hypotheses----like the " world famous " Kali Era---a couple of thousand years back! It is also said in those very works/sidhantas that such phenomena would keep on repeating themselves! As we known by now, no such phenomenon like all planets having zero mean longitudes about 5000 years back took place! As such, there is no question of the same repeating tiself! <matsya purana suggests the same> I wish you had quoted the exact references, since without them it is just like looking for a needle in a haystack! In any case, we have to be very very careful about what has been said in the Puranas especially about dating system, since we do not know as to whether they were later interpolations by some jyotishis or they are actual " calculated " phenomena! Even if they are the latter, they could not have been correct since by now we know that India never had any correct system of astronomical calulcations till the advent of modern astronomy---hardly a couple of centuries back! And even that is being harnessed (exploited!) to prove the veracity of one system of preidictions over all the other systems instead of doing some worthwhile research of past history! <We know that pariskit started his rule in 3102 bce and hence>.... How do you know it? Almost 90 per cent of Indian scholars have proved " astronomically " that the Mahabharata war ended much later than 3102 BCE! Do you mean to say that Parikshit was born even before that war had ended? As already explained, there is no astronomical proof that Kali Era started in 3102 BCE---and Kaliyuga, as per the Bhagavata Purana, is said to have started the day Parikshit put a dead snake's skin around the neck of a Rishi! <Puranas state that it is 1500 years between King Pariskit and the start of rule of nandas, We know that pariskit started his rule in 3102 bce and hence, the rule of Nandas is dated to 1602 bce. Nandas have ruled for 100 years i.e. till 1502 bce.> Since there is big question mark on the date of Parikshit, all the later " superstructures " just fall to ground! As such, it is all a wishful thinking to presume that Nandas ruled till 1502 BCE. < matsya purana declares that " after this, there is a king Saka who came by and ruled for 26 years " Thus, we can take 1302 bce to be the first saka era.> This is yet another wishful thinking! <it is stated by Varaha mihira , a famous astronomer, that Yudhistara started ruling as king 2526 years before start of Saka . Varaha mihira was quoting from Garga Samhita produced sometime in 2nd bce and hence, this could not be the 78 CE saka era we know of.> I beg your pardon sir! Varahamihira was anything but an astronomer! He could be an astrologer---one who could make correct predictions from incorect data---like from horoscopes prepared from the most monstrous astronomical work viz. the Surya Sidhanta! Besides, as we have seen above, even if we presume it on the strength of Garga's statemnt that Yudishthira started ruling as king before 2526 years of Saka, how can you say that Yudishthira ruled before 3102 BCE when the Mbh war itself ended much later than that? It certainly could have been the Shaka Era of 78 CE, and that seems more plausible! There is also a lot of confusion about Garga! There is one Garga who is a well known astrnomer in the Mbh! And if the Mahabharata was compiled by Krishna Dwaipayana Veda Vyasa around 3100 BCE, who is this Garga of second century BCE? Is it a different one or was the same Garga of Mbh still going strong for about 3000 years? Or could it be that some jyotishi had made some interpolations in some Garga- Samhita etc. to make that look like a work of second century BCE? Well, we have to grope in darkness! Thus we can safely say that Yudishthira could have ruled till about 78 (the current Shaka Date)-2526 years i.e. around 2448 BCE. Again, this is also a conjecture---but it is a safe guess! <Now that we have calculated the two Saka eras,> No! they are not as per calculations but just presumptions! If at all there did exist any other Shaka Era it could have been anywhere between 155 BCE and 88 BCE---from the date of settlement of Shaka immigrants in Seistan by Mithradates-I to the year of death of Mithradates-II, the poweful Parthian emperor. But then Indian sidhanta-makers chose 78 AD as the shaka year for their calculations! With regards, A K Kaul hinducivilization , " kishore patnaik " <kishorepatnaik09@> wrote: > > Dear all, > > i have notified you earlier that my research reveals that the Eras such as > Samvata era and Saka era are repetitive. matsya purana suggests the same > > A. 1st Saka era : > > Puranas state that it is 1500 years between King Pariskit and the start of > rule of nandas, We know that pariskit started his rule in 3102 bce and > hence, the rule of Nandas is dated to 1602 bce. Nandas have ruled for 100 > years i.e. till 1502 bce. After this, Nandas have ruled for 137 years, with > Brhdratha, the last king ruling for 7 years. ie till 1365 bce.Till here, > most of the Puranas agree. It is here that Matsya purana gives us extra > information. > > While Brhdratha was killed by his Sunga commander, his descandents have > ruled for 63 years more (since the purana states that it is 70 years > inclusive of brhdratha, we have taken 63 years, after deducating 7 years of > his rule) this will land us in 1302 bce. > > matsya purana declares that " after this, there is a king Saka who came by > and ruled for 26 years " Thus, we can take 1302 bce to be the first saka era. > > > B. 2nd Saka era: > > it is stated by Varaha mihira , a famous astronomer, that Yudhistara > started ruling as king 2526 years before start of Saka . Varaha mihira was > quoting from Garga Samhita produced sometime in 2nd bce and hence, this > could not be the 78 CE saka era we know of. > > The encyclopaedia of Jainism states that the saka era started sometime > towards the end of 7th C. (602 bce or so) during the reign of Vinayamitra > Dewal, king of Khotan, Central Asia. > > Since Mbh war took place in 3138 bce and Yudhistir became king in the same > year, Saka era of 7th C can be accurately placed at 612 bce (3138 - 2526 = > 612 bce) > > Now that we have calculated the two Saka eras, it may be note worthy to see > that they are set apart by exactly 690 years from one another > > 1302 bce+ 690 = - 1302 + 690= 612 bce + 690 =-612+690= 78 Ce > > This is a new discovery in the Traditional chronology. > > best regards, > > Kishore patnaik > --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2008 Report Share Posted October 11, 2008 , " Avtar Krishen Kaul " <jyotirved wrote: hinducivilization , " Avtar Krishen Kaul " <jyotirved@> wrote: Shri Kishore Patnaik-ji, Namaskar! <i have notified you earlier that my research reveals that the Eras such as Samvata era and Saka era are repetitive.> I have clarified it already that no worthwhile astronomical phenomenon repeats itself that quickly---within a few centuries---if at all any phenomoneon does repeat itself! As such, it is just possible that the same era was " invented/discovered " at different periods of time under different styles by different people---with any relation to any astronomical phenomena! Sometimes this was done by back calculations by postulating certain improbable --- nay even impossible!---hypotheses----like the " world famous " Kali Era---a couple of thousand years back! It is also said in those very works/sidhantas that such phenomena would keep on repeating themselves! As we known by now, no such phenomenon like all planets having zero mean longitudes about 5000 years back took place! As such, there is no question of the same repeating tiself! <matsya purana suggests the same> I wish you had quoted the exact references, since without them it is just like looking for a needle in a haystack! In any case, we have to be very very careful about what has been said in the Puranas especially about dating system, since we do not know as to whether they were later interpolations by some jyotishis or they are actual " calculated " phenomena! Even if they are the latter, they could not have been correct since by now we know that India never had any correct system of astronomical calulcations till the advent of modern astronomy---hardly a couple of centuries back! And even that is being harnessed (exploited!) to prove the veracity of one system of preidictions over all the other systems instead of doing some worthwhile research of past history! <We know that pariskit started his rule in 3102 bce and hence>.... How do you know it? Almost 90 per cent of Indian scholars have proved " astronomically " that the Mahabharata war ended much later than 3102 BCE! Do you mean to say that Parikshit was born even before that war had ended? As already explained, there is no astronomical proof that Kali Era started in 3102 BCE---and Kaliyuga, as per the Bhagavata Purana, is said to have started the day Parikshit put a dead snake's skin around the neck of a Rishi! <Puranas state that it is 1500 years between King Pariskit and the start of rule of nandas, We know that pariskit started his rule in 3102 bce and hence, the rule of Nandas is dated to 1602 bce. Nandas have ruled for 100 years i.e. till 1502 bce.> Since there is big question mark on the date of Parikshit, all the later " superstructures " just fall to ground! As such, it is all a wishful thinking to presume that Nandas ruled till 1502 BCE. < matsya purana declares that " after this, there is a king Saka who came by and ruled for 26 years " Thus, we can take 1302 bce to be the first saka era.> This is yet another wishful thinking! <it is stated by Varaha mihira , a famous astronomer, that Yudhistara started ruling as king 2526 years before start of Saka . Varaha mihira was quoting from Garga Samhita produced sometime in 2nd bce and hence, this could not be the 78 CE saka era we know of.> I beg your pardon sir! Varahamihira was anything but an astronomer! He could be an astrologer---one who could make correct predictions from incorect data---like from horoscopes prepared from the most monstrous astronomical work viz. the Surya Sidhanta! Besides, as we have seen above, even if we presume it on the strength of Garga's statemnt that Yudishthira started ruling as king before 2526 years of Saka, how can you say that Yudishthira ruled before 3102 BCE when the Mbh war itself ended much later than that? It certainly could have been the Shaka Era of 78 CE, and that seems more plausible! There is also a lot of confusion about Garga! There is one Garga who is a well known astrnomer in the Mbh! And if the Mahabharata was compiled by Krishna Dwaipayana Veda Vyasa around 3100 BCE, who is this Garga of second century BCE? Is it a different one or was the same Garga of Mbh still going strong for about 3000 years? Or could it be that some jyotishi had made some interpolations in some Garga- Samhita etc. to make that look like a work of second century BCE? Well, we have to grope in darkness! Thus we can safely say that Yudishthira could have ruled till about 78 (the current Shaka Date)-2526 years i.e. around 2448 BCE. Again, this is also a conjecture---but it is a safe guess! <Now that we have calculated the two Saka eras,> No! they are not as per calculations but just presumptions! If at all there did exist any other Shaka Era it could have been anywhere between 155 BCE and 88 BCE---from the date of settlement of Shaka immigrants in Seistan by Mithradates-I to the year of death of Mithradates-II, the poweful Parthian emperor. But then Indian sidhanta-makers chose 78 AD as the shaka year for their calculations! With regards, A K Kaul hinducivilization , " kishore patnaik " <kishorepatnaik09@> wrote: > > Dear all, > > i have notified you earlier that my research reveals that the Eras such as > Samvata era and Saka era are repetitive. matsya purana suggests the same > > A. 1st Saka era : > > Puranas state that it is 1500 years between King Pariskit and the start of > rule of nandas, We know that pariskit started his rule in 3102 bce and > hence, the rule of Nandas is dated to 1602 bce. Nandas have ruled for 100 > years i.e. till 1502 bce. After this, Nandas have ruled for 137 years, with > Brhdratha, the last king ruling for 7 years. ie till 1365 bce.Till here, > most of the Puranas agree. It is here that Matsya purana gives us extra > information. > > While Brhdratha was killed by his Sunga commander, his descandents have > ruled for 63 years more (since the purana states that it is 70 years > inclusive of brhdratha, we have taken 63 years, after deducating 7 years of > his rule) this will land us in 1302 bce. > > matsya purana declares that " after this, there is a king Saka who came by > and ruled for 26 years " Thus, we can take 1302 bce to be the first saka era. > > > B. 2nd Saka era: > > it is stated by Varaha mihira , a famous astronomer, that Yudhistara > started ruling as king 2526 years before start of Saka . Varaha mihira was > quoting from Garga Samhita produced sometime in 2nd bce and hence, this > could not be the 78 CE saka era we know of. > > The encyclopaedia of Jainism states that the saka era started sometime > towards the end of 7th C. (602 bce or so) during the reign of Vinayamitra > Dewal, king of Khotan, Central Asia. > > Since Mbh war took place in 3138 bce and Yudhistir became king in the same > year, Saka era of 7th C can be accurately placed at 612 bce (3138 - 2526 = > 612 bce) > > Now that we have calculated the two Saka eras, it may be note worthy to see > that they are set apart by exactly 690 years from one another > > 1302 bce+ 690 = - 1302 + 690= 612 bce + 690 =-612+690= 78 Ce > > This is a new discovery in the Traditional chronology. > > best regards, > > Kishore patnaik > --- End forwarded message --- --- End forwarded message --- 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.