Dating of the Ramayana (fwd)

April 17, 2001

In a message dated 4/18/01 12:05:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

krishna writes:

> The actual Raamaayanam took place in Treta-Yuga, which is universally

> acknowledged has having been over 2 million years ago.

Actually thats about 19 million years ago in the 24th Treta (vs the current

28th Kali) according to several puranas and Srila Rupa Gosvami's Laghu

bhagavatamrta.

GS

April 18, 2001

This is an interesting article claiming to be able to date the events of the

Raamaayanam based on astrologic data. Obviously, the dates are wrong, since

the author comes to the conclusion that the events occurred around 7000 B.C.

The actual Raamaayanam took place in Treta-Yuga, which is universally

acknowledged has having been over 2 million years ago. That being the case,

the question naturally arises: is this the product of Hindu nationalist

scholarship? Or could it be that the methodology was correct, but limited by

the erroneous assumption that earlier dates which also satisifed the

astrological data were unsuitable (due to the current paradigms which hold

that homo sapiens are no more than 100,000 years old). Anyway, it is food

for thought....

-----------------

Dating the Ramayana With Valmiki's Clues

By SAURABH KWATRA

PLACING the Ramayana in the historical context is yet an unfinished task, as

witness the endless debates among archaeologists, historians and literary

pundits. The present analysis is a modest attempt to use astronomy,

astrology and the science of time together in elevating the status of

Ramayana from an epic to a chronological reality.

Astonishingly, the ancient Indians had an accurate method of time

measurement. They regularly and systematically recorded the `tithis', days

marked according to the phases of the Moon, the months, the seasons,

solstices, equinoxes and the positions of astrologically relevant luminaries

like the Sun, the Jupiter, the Venus, and so on. In other words, the timings

of events were recorded in the astronomical format. To convert this coded

information on heavenly positions into a simple calendrical timeline, all

that is needed is a database of ephemeris.

Sage Valmiki, the celebrated composer of the Ramayana records the birth of

Rama in Uttarayana (the Divine Half-year), in the Chaitra month, in the

bright fortnight, on the ninth day, in the Punarvasu nakshatra, on a Monday,

and under Karka lagna. Valmiki further details the birth with various

planetary positions in the zodiac : Sun in Mesha at 10 deg., Mars in

Capricorn at 28 deg., Jupiter in Cancer at 5 deg., Venus in Pisces at 27

deg. and Saturn in Libra at 20 deg. These starry configurations are so

unique that they have occurred only once so far in measurable history and

this helps us to fix the important date, the birthday of Rama, as the 4th of

December, 7323 B.C. Due to the slow yet continuous precession of the Earth,

Rama's birthday anniversary, celebrated as Ram Navami, has since shifted by

about four months over a period of about 9300 years.

Valmiki has also beautifully described the sky at the moment when Rama left

Ayodhya on his 14-year exile. He states, "Crux (Trishanku), Mars, Jupiter

and Mercury have cornered the Moon. Vaishakha and Milky Way are shining in

the sky". Using this additional input, astronomical rules help us to fix

Rama's exile to a time when he turned 17 years of age. Another event,

Hanuman's return from Lanka after discovering Sita (in Sunderkanda , one of

the most evocative chapters of Ramayana) can be similarly pinpointed as

occurring on a Pushya Poornima.

Using the above techniques, the following pivotal events of the Ramayana can

be fixed at the following dates: Rama's birth: 4th December 7323 BC; Rama's

marriage with Sita: 7th April 7307 BC; Rama's exile: 29th November 7306 BC;

Hanuman's entry in to Lanka : 1st September 7292 BC; Hanuman's meeting with

Sita: 2nd September 7292 BC; construction of Setu (bridge): 26-30th Oct.

7292 BC; the beginning of the great war: 3rd November 7292 BC; Kumbhakarna's

death: 7th November 7292 BC; Ravana's killing by Rama: 15th November 7292

BC; and Rama's return to Ayodhya: 6th December 7292 BC. The last event,

celebrated as Deepawali, should also have advanced by about four months, but

strangely the festival of lights now falls in Oct-Nov. each year.

Complicated explanations have been put forth by many researchers to explain

this anomaly, but I find none of them satisfactory.

Astrological interpretations of Rama's birth chart provide us further

insights. In fact the matching and the mapping between his natal chart and

the course of his life is so precise that it can be used as a case study in

support of the science of astrology itself! The natal chart of Ramachandra

indicates a yogic Rajayoga, a rare planetary pattern, wherein the native

rises to be a King in the materialistic sense even while renouncing all

worldly pleasures. It is an established fact that Rama during his reign over

the kingdom of Ayodhya lived a simple hermit's life. Mars being exalted in

the 7th house of marriage indicates a bold and courageous spouse, but at the

same time this made her sharp-tongued. It is this latter maleficent effect

of Mars that led Lakshmana to leave Sita alone in the cottage in search of

Rama. Venus' exalted position in the 9th house of travel and destiny gives a

public life with spouse. Sita followed Rama during his exile, while in

contrast, Lakshmana left his consort behind in Ayodhya. The Jupiter-Moon

conjunction in Cancer forms the well-known Gajakesari yoga; it blesses the

native with simplicity, honesty and religiosity and confers fame due to

these qualities. Sun, the significator of soul in deep exaltation (in Aries)

in the 10th house of karma suggests that Rama was a higher, perhaps a dual

soul: he was the King of Ayodhya, and the Divine Incarnate of Lord Vishnu

simultaneously.

------------------------

April 18, 2001

> In a message dated 4/18/01 12:05:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> krishna writes:

>

> > The actual Raamaayanam took place in Treta-Yuga, which is

universally

> > acknowledged has having been over 2 million years ago.

>

> Actually thats about 19 million years ago in the 24th Treta (vs the

current

> 28th Kali) according to several puranas and Srila Rupa Gosvami's Laghu

> bhagavatamrta.

But that depends on which version of Ramayana we are refering to. The

Rama avatara appears in every chatur-yuga. Different Puranas are

describing different occurences of the lila.

_______

Get your free @ address at

April 18, 2001

In a message dated 4/18/01 7:48:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jn

writes:

>

> But that depends on which version of Ramayana we are refering to. The

> Rama avatara appears in every chatur-yuga. Different Puranas are

> describing different occurences of the lila.

>

Which caturyuga does the Ramayana place the story? The half-a-dozen Puranas

that do date it all give the same date.

GS

April 20, 2001

> Which caturyuga does the Ramayana place the story? The half-a-dozen

Puranas

> that do date it all give the same date.

I don't have the necessary reference texts available at the moment, but

the following statment by Prabhupada in his Gita commentary should be

noted:

----

treta-yugadau ca tato vivasvan manave dadau

manus ca loka-bhrty-artham sutayeksvakave dadau

iksvakuna ca kathito vyapya lokan avasthitah

"In the beginning of the Treta-yuga [millennium] this science of the

relationship with the Supreme was delivered by Vivasvan to Manu. Manu,

being the father of mankind, gave it to his son Maharaja Iksvaku, the

king of this earth planet and forefather of the Raghu dynasty in which

Lord Ramacandra appeared." Therefore, Bhagavad-gita existed in the human

society from the time of Maharaja Iksvaku.

----

This is a well known purport from the fourth chapter that I am sure

everyone remembers. Srila Prabhupada is arguing that Ikshvaku, the

forefather of Ramachandra, received the Gita roughly 2 million years

ago.

_______

Get your free @ address at

April 23, 2001

In a message dated 4/23/01 8:48:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

krishna writes:

> > I don't have the necessary reference texts available at the moment, but

> > the following statment by Prabhupada in his Gita commentary should be

> > noted:

> >

> > ----

> > treta-yugadau

Srila Prabhupada does say *roughly* 2 million to point out its antiquity.

However, most of these demigods hold their posts from the beginning of the

manvantara, and that is probably when the instruction took place.

Gerald

April 23, 2001

> I don't have the necessary reference texts available at the moment, but

> the following statment by Prabhupada in his Gita commentary should be

> noted:

>

> ----

> treta-yugadau ca tato vivasvan manave dadau

> manus ca loka-bhrty-artham sutayeksvakave dadau

> iksvakuna ca kathito vyapya lokan avasthitah

If memory serves, this is from Mahaabhaarata.

yours,

K

April 24, 2001

Srila Prabhupada does say *roughly* 2 million to point out its antiquity.

> However, most of these demigods hold their posts from the beginning of the

> manvantara, and that is probably when the instruction took place.

>

> Gerald

Maybe I'm not following you, but if it was about 2 million years ago, that

is a lot different from 19 years ago. Why do you think the instruction took

place before 2 million years ago? What is the basis for that?

Krishna

April 24, 2001

In a message dated 4/23/01 11:19:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

krishna writes:

>

> Maybe I'm not following you, but if it was about 2 million years ago, that

> is a lot different from 19 years ago. Why do you think the instruction took

> place before 2 million years ago? What is the basis for that?

>

The role of (Vaivasvata) Manu, Iksvaku, Vivasvan and demigods at this level

is to propagate dharma in all the planets within their respective

jurisdictions.

(Brahma, the Kumaras, etc. are superior gods who live and teach for the whole

kalpa. Remember: A kalpa is subdivided into 14 manvantaras. We are in the 7th

of the 14 manvantaras; and the 28th of the 71 yuga cycles. Each cycle

consists of Satya, Treta, Dvapara and Kali.).

Therefore their roles begin more or less at the beginning of their reigns. To

say that this critical instruction in the form of Gita occurred *precisely*

(rather than "roughly") a few million years ago would mean that they have

been ruling for 120,000,000 years without it and they are only now getting

enlightened (in respect to the Gita) when over one-third of the manvantara

(28/71) is over. That doesn't make sense.

Rather, it make more sense to accept that Lord Rama's pastimes occurred 19

million years ago as stated in the English translations of Brahmanda,

Devi-bhagavata, Vayu and some other Puranas and confirmed in Srila Rupa

Gosvami's Laghubhagavatamrta. Then if one looks at the family tree from

Iksvaku up to Lord Rama (june 91 BTG), then we can understand that Manu and

Iksvaku were long before Him (on the magnitude of many caturyuga cycles). So

the Gita instruction to Vivasvan definitely occurred more than 19 million

years ago, and if the respective demigods have been doing their full duty all

along, it most likely it was a full 120 million years ago.

Srila Prabhupada's mention of the "2 million" figure is, then, not for the

purposes of accurate dating but rather to shatter the importance given to

modern Gita interpretations.

Gerald S

April 24, 2001

In a message dated 4/24/01 7:52:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Mrgerald

writes:

> Then if one looks at the family tree from

> Iksvaku up to Lord Rama (june 91 BTG), then we can understand that Manu

and

> Iksvaku were long before Him (on the magnitude of many caturyuga cycles).

Correction: ...Manu's and Iksvaku's reigns began long before Him....

April 24, 2001

achintya, Mrgerald@a... wrote:

> Therefore their roles begin more or less at the beginning of their

reigns. To

> say that this critical instruction in the form of Gita occurred

*precisely*

> (rather than "roughly") a few million years ago would mean that

they have

> been ruling for 120,000,000 years without it and they are only now

getting

> enlightened (in respect to the Gita) when over one-third of the

manvantara

> (28/71) is over. That doesn't make sense.

The underlying assumption seems to be that the instruction of

Bhagavad-giitaa had to occur at the beginning of the reigns of

Ikshvaaku and Manu. I don't see why this must be so. Keep in mind

that Ikshvaaku and Manu may have been instructed in other Vedic

literatures (specifically shrutis, which was the prevailing custom

among all twice-born classes), but not instructed in Bhagavad-giitaa

(the summary of the Vedas and Upanishads) until much later.

Anyway, I think what Srila Prabhupada dates at 2 million years

(again, based on explicit shaastric pramaana from Mahaabhaarata I

must point out) is Ikshvaaku's instruction to Manu. If that is the

case, then I am not contesting the theory that Ikshvaaku got the

instruction earlier. We just don't know either way.

> Rather, it make more sense to accept that Lord Rama's pastimes

occurred 19

> million years ago as stated in the English translations of

Brahmanda,

> Devi-bhagavata, Vayu and some other Puranas and confirmed in Srila

Rupa

> Gosvami's Laghubhagavatamrta.

Well, first of all, you know the customs just as well as I do. We

need to see explicit shaastric evidence, and not merely allusions to

the same. Let's see the original Sanskrit and the translations. If

you cannot provide the Puraanic references, at least provide them

from Laghubhaagavataamrita which I happen to know that you posess in

Sanskrit and English. I would also like to know the context of this

statement in Laghu...

Then if one looks at the family tree from

> Iksvaku up to Lord Rama (june 91 BTG), then we can understand that

Manu and

> Iksvaku were long before Him (on the magnitude of many caturyuga

cycles).

If Manu's instruction took place 2 million years ago, why must it be

that it took place before the Raamaayana? I don't believe BG 4th

chapter specifies the paramparaa after Manu. If memory serves the

paramparaa is only Vivasvaan - Ikshwaaku - Manu. And there is no

reason to think that Manu would have perished before Raama's advent,

so it still makes sense to say that Manu got the instruction not much

before the Raamaayana.

So

> the Gita instruction to Vivasvan definitely occurred more than 19

million

> years ago, and if the respective demigods have been doing their

full duty all

> along, it most likely it was a full 120 million years ago.

The only problem with this logic is that the Mahaabhaarata is dating

at 2 million years. Are we contesting that Treta-yuga began

approximately 2 million years ago?

> Srila Prabhupada's mention of the "2 million" figure is, then, not

for the

> purposes of accurate dating but rather to shatter the importance

given to

> modern Gita interpretations.

If he had said "at least 2 million years," the way some devotee

academics do, then you might have a case. But saying approximately 2

million years makes no sense if the instruction really took place 19

million years ago.

regards,

Krishna

April 24, 2001

> Srila Prabhupada does say *roughly* 2 million to point out its

antiquity.

> However, most of these demigods hold their posts from the beginning of

the

> manvantara, and that is probably when the instruction took place.

But the reference is refering to Ikshavku, not just the demigods. And

the dating of this Ikshvaku, who is the forefather of Rama, was from

this Treta-yuga, which is why it is said "roughly 2 million years". But

even then, in the same purport he says "some 2,005,000 years ago Manu

spoke Bhagavad Gita to his sone and disciple Ikshvaku". Why add that

5,000 years? Doesn't look like the intention is to say maybe 2,005,000

years, or maybe up to 20 million years. Even though it may be an

estimate, he is being too precise to brush it aside.

If it was only a previous Treta Yuga (occuring in the 24th divya-yuga),

it may be more appropriate to say, roughly 20 million years. There is

quite a gap between the two.

As a side note, the Kurma Purana contains the instructions between

Narayana and Vivasvan described in the Bhagavad Gita, but the date for

that would be irrelevant, as it is the instructions between Manu and

Ikshvaku that are required.

But I would still suggest that Srila prabhupada's version is that

Bhagavad Gita has been existing in human society for roughly 2 million

years (through Ikshvaku). And since he is the forefather of Ramachandra,

that would indicate that Ramachandra also incarnated in this present

Treta-yuga.

_______

Get your free @ address at

April 24, 2001

> I think you inadvertently interchanged Manu and Ikshavku in your post,

> since Ikshvaku was the son and disciple of Manu.

You are right, thanks for pointing out the error.

yours,

Krishna

April 24, 2001

>It seems to be quite direct. This does not mean there wasn't a Rama

>avatara in prior treta-yugas. There is a rama avatara in every

>treta-yuga.

The kalpa (day of Brahma) is a unit of history. Every kalpa occurs more or

less with the same sequence of events, the same avatara-descents, etc. These

avataras are then called kalpa-avataras--Krishna, Rama, Nrsimha, Catuhsana,

etc. Occasionally some appear more than once in a single kalpa like Varaha,

and Matsya. Still more rare is one who appears in every single manvantara

(Matsya). Srila Rupa Gosvami mentions these exceptional cases and does not

qualify Rama's appearance in any such way. Furthermore, Rama is a very

confidential appearance of the Lord like Lord Krishna, and it would be out of

character for an avatara of His stature to appear in every single Treta yuga

(at least as far as the whole lila goes).

>Certainly Vaivasvata Manu received the instructions much before

>Ikshvaku, exactly when is not clear. Prabhupada offers estimates as to

>when the instructions were given to Vivasvan and Manu. In regards to

>Vivasvan he says "at least 120 million years ago", which does not appear

>to be a limiting duration.

Yes.

>I looked at it but missed the point about the many catur yugas. It is

>obvious that Manu is from long before (because he rules the manvantara),

>but Ikshvaku in particular?

The time-scale of the family tree spans over the whole kalpa. Iksvaku is

early in the sequence after Vaivasvata Manu. So my guess is that he was

instructed early on.

One evidence is Sridhara Swami's comment (Vireswarananda translation) on 4.2:

he says that King Nimi taught the Bhagavad-gita just as his ancestor Iksvaku

had in the past. Now King Nimi (father of King Janaka) is earlier than Lord

Rama, therefore even Iksvaku's instruction is far before Lord Rama. So in

summary here is the chronology:

1.Krishna instructs Vivasvan at least 120 M yrs ago

2.Vivasvan instructs Manu

3.Manu instructs Iksvaku

4.King Nimi (father of Janaka) learns Bhagavadgita according to Iksvaku's

parampara (just before Rama episode)

5.the Rama episode

6. Krishna instructs Arjuna 5000 yrs ago

I'll have to look up the Laghubhagavamrta verse on Lord Rama's 24th Treta

date for you.

>Generally controlling devatas live for the one kalpa. But certainly

>Brahma and the Kumaras do not fall into this category. Perhaps this was

>inadvertent.

Different demigods have different lifespans: I am not sure who lives for the

entire universe (maha-kalpa) besides Brahma, but demigods on the level of

Vivasvan and Indra live only for a manvantara. Do Shiva and Catuhsana live

for a kalpa or maha-kalpa?

>But this 2,005,000 figure is mentioned along with the 120 million year

>figure. Thus it shows he did have a discrimination of time, or he would

>have just labeled both events as "before 2 million years."

>

>Prabhupada's purport says Vivasvan received the Gita at least 120

>million years, and Ikshvaku received it roughly 2,005,000 years ago.

The comment on Iksvaku occurs in reference to the Mahabharata quote which

simply says "Treta" without identifying *which* of the hundreds of bygone

Tretayugas. Srila Prabhupada does, for the sake of establishing the Gita's

antiquity, seem to identify it with the the most recent one, but historical

events ultimately need to be seen consistently with the overall Puranic

chronology.

ys

Gerald Surya

April 24, 2001

In a message dated 4/24/01 11:58:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

krishna writes:

>

> The underlying assumption seems to be that the instruction of

> Bhagavad-giitaa had to occur at the beginning of the reigns of

> Ikshvaaku and Manu.

What is clear is that Iksvaku was instructed way before Lord Rama's

appearance which was in the 24th Treta (since King Nimi is prior to Lord

Rama).

I don't see why this must be so. Keep in mind

> that Ikshvaaku and Manu may have been instructed in other Vedic

> literatures (specifically shrutis, which was the prevailing custom

> among all twice-born classes), but not instructed in Bhagavad-giitaa

> (the summary of the Vedas and Upanishads) until much later.

Sridhara Swami specifically states that the line of saintly kings who

transmitted Bhagavadgita mentioned in 4.2 specifically includes King Nimi.

Therefore we are not talking of any other Vedic literature.

>

> Anyway, I think what Srila Prabhupada dates at 2 million years

> (again, based on explicit shaastric pramaana from Mahaabhaarata I

> must point out) is Ikshvaaku's instruction to Manu. If that is the

The "explicit" pramana says "Treta" not "2 million years".

> case, then I am not contesting the theory that Ikshvaaku got the

> instruction earlier. We just don't know either way.

>

> > Rather, it make more sense to accept that Lord Rama's pastimes

> occurred 19

> > million years ago as stated in the English translations of

> Brahmanda,

> > Devi-bhagavata, Vayu and some other Puranas and confirmed in Srila

> Rupa

> > Gosvami's Laghubhagavatamrta.

>

> Well, first of all, you know the customs just as well as I do. We

> need to see explicit shaastric evidence, and not merely allusions to

> the same. Let's see the original Sanskrit and the translations. If

> you cannot provide the Puraanic references, at least provide them

> from Laghubhaagavataamrita which I happen to know that you posess in

> Sanskrit and English. I would also like to know the context of this

> statement in Laghu...

The context is the the course of dating the 25 avatars mentioned in the SB

1.3.

Parasurama was in the 22nd caturyuga, Rama in the 24th, Vyasa and Krishna in

the 28th.

>

> Then if one looks at the family tree from

> > Iksvaku up to Lord Rama (june 91 BTG), then we can understand that

> Manu and

> > Iksvaku were long before Him (on the magnitude of many caturyuga

> cycles).

>

> If Manu's instruction took place 2 million years ago, why must it be

> that it took place before the Raamaayana?

Because King Nimi's acceptance of the Gita was both according to Iksvaku and

prior to Rama.

I don't believe BG 4th

> chapter specifies the paramparaa after Manu. If memory serves the

> paramparaa is only Vivasvaan - Ikshwaaku - Manu. And there is no

> reason to think that Manu would have perished before Raama's advent,

> so it still makes sense to say that Manu got the instruction not much

> before the Raamaayana.

Manu lives until the end of the manvantara, so he is even now a contemporary.

Sridhara Swami, however, refers to Iksvaku as an "ancestor" (Vireswaranada

translation) of King Nimi implying that Iksvaku had already disappeared by

the time of King Nimi.

>

> So

> > the Gita instruction to Vivasvan definitely occurred more than 19

> million

> > years ago, and if the respective demigods have been doing their

> full duty all

> > along, it most likely it was a full 120 million years ago.

>

> The only problem with this logic is that the Mahaabhaarata is dating

> at 2 million years. Are we contesting that Treta-yuga began

> approximately 2 million years ago?

>

> > Srila Prabhupada's mention of the "2 million" figure is, then, not

> for the

> > purposes of accurate dating but rather to shatter the importance

> given to

> > modern Gita interpretations.

>

> If he had said "at least 2 million years," the way some devotee

> academics do, then you might have a case. But saying approximately 2

> million years makes no sense if the instruction really took place 19

> million years ago.

>

I'm actually suggesting it took place much earlier than that, and that Srila

Prabhupada's statements in this case need to be appreciated in the context of

overall Bhagavatam chronology rather than at face value.

ys

Gerald Surya

April 25, 2001

> Anyway, I think what Srila Prabhupada dates at 2 million years

> (again, based on explicit shaastric pramaana from Mahaabhaarata I

> must point out) is Ikshvaaku's instruction to Manu. If that is the

> case, then I am not contesting the theory that Ikshvaaku got the

> instruction earlier. We just don't know either way.

I think you inadvertently interchanged Manu and Ikshavku in your post,

since Ikshvaku was the son and disciple of Manu.

_______

Get your free @ address at

April 25, 2001

Here is the particular statement from Bhagavad Gita 4.1 purport:

"At the present moment we have just passed through five thousand years

of the Kali-yuga, which lasts 432,000 years. Before this there was the

Dvapara-yuga (800,000 years), and before that there was Treta-yuga

(1,200,000 years). Thus, some 2,005,000 years ago, Manu spoke the

Bhagavad-gita to his disciple and son Maharaja Iksvaku, the king of this

planet earth."

It seems to be quite direct. This does not mean there wasn't a Rama

avatara in prior treta-yugas. There is a rama avatara in every

treta-yuga.

_______

Get your free @ address at

April 25, 2001

> The role of (Vaivasvata) Manu, Iksvaku, Vivasvan and demigods at this

level

> is to propagate dharma in all the planets within their respective

> jurisdictions.

But Ikshvaku was specifically the ruler of the earth.

> (Brahma, the Kumaras, etc. are superior gods who live and teach for

the whole

> kalpa. Remember: A kalpa is subdivided into 14 manvantaras. We are in

the 7th

> of the 14 manvantaras; and the 28th of the 71 yuga cycles. Each cycle

> consists of Satya, Treta, Dvapara and Kali.).

Generally controlling devatas live for the one kalpa. But certainly

Brahma and the Kumaras do not fall into this category. Perhaps this was

inadvertent.

> Therefore their roles begin more or less at the beginning of their

reigns. To

> say that this critical instruction in the form of Gita occurred

*precisely*

> (rather than "roughly") a few million years ago would mean that they

have

> been ruling for 120,000,000 years without it and they are only now

getting

> enlightened (in respect to the Gita) when over one-third of the

manvantara

> (28/71) is over. That doesn't make sense.

Certainly Vaivasvata Manu received the instructions much before

Ikshvaku, exactly when is not clear. Prabhupada offers estimates as to

when the instructions were given to Vivasvan and Manu. In regards to

Vivasvan he says "at least 120 million years ago", which does not appear

to be a limiting duration.

> Rather, it make more sense to accept that Lord Rama's pastimes

occurred 19

> million years ago as stated in the English translations of Brahmanda,

> Devi-bhagavata...

Devi-bhagavata is a recent text compiled under the order of a wealthy

shakta to compete with the Srimad Bhagavatam. That is a whole different

topic, so perhaps later.

> if one looks at the family tree from

> Iksvaku up to Lord Rama (june 91 BTG), then we can understand that

Manu and

> Iksvaku were long before Him (on the magnitude of many caturyuga

cycles).

I looked at it but missed the point about the many catur yugas. It is ob

vious that Manu is from long before (because he rules the manvantara),

but Ikshvaku in particular?

One can also refer to when the Ganga was brought to earth by Maharaj

Bhagiratha.

> So

> the Gita instruction to Vivasvan definitely occurred more than 19

million

> years ago, and if the respective demigods have been doing their full

duty all

> along, it most likely it was a full 120 million years ago.

It is agreed that Vivasvan received the Gita "at least 120 million years

ago".

> Srila Prabhupada's mention of the "2 million" figure is, then, not for

the

> purposes of accurate dating but rather to shatter the importance given

to

> modern Gita interpretations.

But this 2,005,000 figure is mentioned along with the 120 million year

figure. Thus it shows he did have a discrimination of time, or he would

have just labeled both events as "before 2 million years."

Prabhupada's purport says Vivasvan received the Gita at least 120

million years, and Ikshvaku received it roughly 2,005,000 years ago.

_______

Get your free @ address at

April 25, 2001

But the flaw with this is that the Bhagavatam is not concerned much with

chronology. Many different events are described as a single event,

without any care to mention that this style is being used. It is only

the commentaries that tell us when such usage occurs. We actually do not

know what details of each avatar actually took place in what yuga. The

fact that the Mahabharata and Bhagavatama have completely different

versions of the recent (Kurukshetra era) history prooves this. Two

books, which are commonly believed to be describing a single event, are

actually describing different occurences of the same pattern. Just see

the death of Parikshit according to the two texts. There is no

similarity, yet they are both being described as though they just

occured. The Puranas don't care about chronology. Their aim is to

provide evidence for the shruti.

Chronology may be a low priority, but it is not irrelevant. How can history be

related without some sense of chronology? Regarding the difference between

Mahabharata and Bhagavatam, Madhva suggests that the Mahabharata is what

recently occurred. I think once Tripurari Maharaja suggested that the

Bhagavatam consists in what Vyasadeva saw in trance, rather than recent

history. Both these suggestions seem reasonable and compatible with each

other. ys

Gerald Surya

April 25, 2001

In regards o the Varaha Avatara:

"16 In the beginning of the kalpa no one had been born yet, even from

Manu. Where, then, was the Pracetas' son Daksha? Where was Diti?

Where was Diti's son?"

Simple question. Since Hiranyaksha was a son of Diti, and Diti was yet

to be born, how did Varaha kill Hiranyaksha in the begining of the

kalpa? Chronology was not the first priority:

Chronology is natural and important. Therefore Arjuna asks, "how can i

understand that You instructed Vivasvan in the beginning since You are

posterior to him in birth?" The first Hiranyaksa is a different demon (which

Madhva calls Adi-Hiranyaksa). Both Varahas also saved the earth.

A problem arises in that some acharyas state this incarnation appeared

on the first day of Brahma's life, others say it occurred in the present

day of Brahma. Both Kalpas bear the same name, since the kalpas are

cyclical like the days in a month. But then things become more mixed up,

because the names given to these kalpas are just nicknames, and the same

nickname is used to refer to multiple kalpas based on the events that

occured within the kalpa. Names such as padma-kalpa, varaha-kalpa,

sveta-kalpa, etc., are used to refer to a number of different kalpas

simultaneously. Chronology becomes meaningless.

We are in the first kalpa of the second half of Brahma's life (Today is his

fifty first birthday). Varaha appeared at the beginning of this kalpa and again

more recently. The chronology is consistent in regards to the avatars as

discussed in Laghubhagavamtra.

I would like to see the sanskrit for this particular verse. Based on the

English words "In this, the first kalpa..." a few things can be meant.

If it is stating that both Varaha avataras occurred in the First Kalpa,

then we are in a situation where we in this Kalpa also have a Diti,

Hiranyaksha, Hiranyakashipu, Prahlada, Bali, Ravana, Ramachandra etc.

Everyone is tied together by being related, or having met the other

personality. What happens to the chronology? If you push Hiranyaksha

back to the first Kalpa, then Ramachandra ends up there too by having

interacted through the chain of personalities. Nothing wrong with that,

since Ramachandra performs His lila multiple times. But in the process,

the conception of chronology is completely lost.

I have the Sanskrit, I'll look that up too. But I see no confusion in calling

this kalpa the first kalpa.

That was a different Hiranyaksa.

It is also possible that one of the two varaha avataras occured in the

first Kalpa, and the fighting with Hiranyaksha occurred in the present

Kalpa. Since they are both the "First Kalpa" of the particular parardha

it wouldn't be so odd to describe them together. But again, chronology

isn't given much importance.

I don't see why "first kalpa" should refer to the first kalpa of the previous half-life of Brahma.

"62. These thirteen lila-avataras, from the Four Kumaras to Maharaja

Prthu, all appeared during the reign of the first (Svayambhuva) Manu.

Lord Varaha and Lord Matsya, however, appeared again during the reign of

Caksusa Manu."

Again the chronology is not being made clearly.

It seems clear. The whole point of the sentence is to establish chronology. They appeared again.

The Bhagavatam describes two matsya avataras, but here it is mentioned

there are 14 matsyas in the Kalpa. Also Matsya is described as a

Two Matsyas are well known so Bhagavatam describes them.

Kalpa-avatara. Why is there this repeated inconsistency, of saying they

appear once in the Kalpa, and then listing numerous incarnations that

occured within that Kalpa?

The term kalpa-avatara generally applies to all, except where Rupa Gosvami gives

these exceptions: Varaha and Matsya.

But below is another inconsistancy:

"67 In the Padma Purana it is said that on the demigods' request He

lifted the earth. In another scripture also it is said that He appeared

in the beginning of the Kalpa and lifted the earth."

Okay, so Kurma may have more than once appearance. So this is an exception to

the rule based on a shastra. Where is a single shastric statement suggesting

Rama is another exception?

Here it says he appeared in the beginning of the Kalpa. Different

puranas describe different events occuring in different periods.

"76 Fair-complexioned Lord Parasurama appeared as the son of Renuka-devi

and Jamadagni. Some say He appeared during the 17th catur-yuga, and

others say He appeared during the 22nd catur-yuga."

This is the syle of Laghubhagavatamrita. If we are looking for a

definitive answer to anything, you won't find it here. It is more of a

cut and paste from various Puranas, which themselves don't care much

about chronology. The main concern is the topic, being the description

of the Lord's incarnations.

This is not a "style" just one example of the lack of a definitive answer.

It is not hard to reconcile if we accept that certain avatars occur

repeatedly in the Chatur yugas.

Sheer speculation. Other than Sukla, Rakta, Krsna, Shyama, Kalki and Buddha what

other repetitive catur-yuga avataras are there?

In our available texts we either have

descriptions of one particular occurence of an incarnation, or a couple

occurences described. It would be unreasonable to expect every occurence

to be described. The fact that Vishnu Purana was written in the previous

Where is this information regarding Vishnu purana's composition?

Chatur-yuga, but contains stories similar to the present chatur-yuga

seems to indicate that these events occured many times. Also the fact

that the Bhagavatam differs completely from the Mahabharata in various

descriptions shows they are describing two separate events. This is

called yuga-bheda, the difference in lilas based on the yuga it is

performed in.

Actually kalpa-bheda.

Regarding Rama's incarnation:

"78 Splendid as a new blade of durva grass, and accompanied by Sumitra's

two sons and by Bharata, He appeared in the Treta-yuga of the 24th

catur-yuga as the son of Kausalya and Dasaratha."

This indicates the description of rama-avatara found in the Bhagavatam

(if it is indeed a single description and not a composite one) is from

the 24th chatur-yuga. This does not necessarily compare to that of

Valmiki ramayana or other Puranas.

Where is the evidence that Rama appeared more than once in this kalpa? Varaha

and Matsya were exceptions not the rule.

As there were multiple matsyas, multiple varahas, and multiple

parashuramas, there were also multiple ramachandras. Simply on the basis

that they were kalpa-avataras does not indicate that they actually only

come once in a kalpa.

Okay, so where are multiple Parasurama's and Rama's mentioned?

"84 In the scriptures it is said that Apantaratama Muni became

Dvaipayana Vyasa. Is Vyasa a jiva who attained sayujya-mukti, or is He

an amsa-avatara of Lord Visnu? Some say He is an avesa-avatara."

More classic Laghubhagavatamrita. No definitive answer.

This is a second example of a non-definitive answer.

"96. These 25 avataras are called kalpa-avataras because for the most

part they appear once in each kalpa."

Is this actually true?

Yes it is. The words "for the most part" indicate the Varaha/Matsya exceptions discussed.

The answer is no. Vyasa, a "kalpa-avatara"

appears every chatur-yuga. Kalki, another kalpa-avatara, also appears in

The Vyasas of other caturyugas can't compare to Krsna-Dvaipayana Vyasa who

composed both the Srimad Bhagavatam and the Mahabharata. The other Vyasas are

like sages are never described as avataras of the Lord.

every chatur-yuga. Buddha at least appears in many chatur-yugas if not

in all.

Already Matsya and Varaha have been shown to appear multiple times in

the kalpa.

Yes, so these are exceptions. Where is Rama diescribed as an exception?

Now let us look at the yuga avataras. Who are the avataras who appear as

white, red, and black in every chatur-yuga? If you consider Krishna,

the kalpa-avatara, to be the yuga avatara for dvapara yuga, then again

it is the case of appearing in every chatur-yugas.

The "Krishna" yugaavatara as nothing to do with the son of Devaki. So there is no confusion.

The same goes for

whomever you identify as the yuga avataras for the other yugas. Some say

yajna-varaha is the yuga-avatara for treta-yuga, as he is red in color

Where is this stated?

and he is the deity of yajna, the yuga-dharma for the age (since the

yuga-avatara comes to establish the yuga-dharma). Whatever the case may

be, the point is chronology has no role in any of this.

My contention is still that Ramachandra appears in every Treta-yuga, and

that Manu instructed his son roughly 2,005,000 years ago in the science

of Bhagavad Gita.

And where are either of these statements made?

ys

Gerald Surya

April 25, 2001

> I'm actually suggesting it took place much earlier than that, and that

Srila

> Prabhupada's statements in this case need to be appreciated in the

context of

> overall Bhagavatam chronology rather than at face value.