Are the 'eras repetitive?

September 13, 2008

Dear all, Indians believe that history is repetitive. Westerners thought that the repetition of seasons in India has led to this feeling. But then, repetition of seasons exist all over the world and hence, it is funny why this should be an exclusive Indian thought.

The later literature started talking of Yugas - for eg kali yuga is of 4,32,000 years. This is not exactly nonsense though it is very difficult to understand. For eg.,the rough estimates of the scientists when the present world was born ( 2 billions) seem to be on the same lines of these yuga calculations (1.95 billion years).

However, this seems to be more of an astronomical calculation since the Indian astronomers have calculated that the age of sun is 4,32,000 years too!But all this may not have much to do with Ancient Indian History, though we are certainly interested in Vedanga Jyotisham.

The purpose of the present post is discuss the historical eras, which seem to be repetitive too.- the samvat era, the saka era and the gupta(or more correctly, jagruthi) eraThese eras seem to be dependent on the astro events rather than political event such as the birth/birth of a saint or accession of a king. For eg., the transition of the

equinox from Aries to Pisces is represented by Samvat era in 53/58 bce. On the other hand, human events are represented by other eras such as mahavira era, vallabha era, ayu era and so on.

We are not sure if the other two eras mentioned above i.e. Saka era and Jagruti era are also astronomical in nature. If that be the case, If all the three eras are astro eras, then they have got to be repetitive too.

I have not verified these hypotheses but there is some evidence to believe that all the three eras are repetitive:

1. An earlier Saka era (centuries earlier to 78 AD) has been proposed

by Narahari Achar referring to Yuga purana.

Yuga purana, as quoted by Varaha mihira in his Brihat Samhita, says

that the saptarshi-s were in ma_gha when Yudhisht.hira was ruling and

to get the epoch of s'aka kala one should add 2526 years to the epoch

of Yudhisht.hira. Since Garga lived much earlier to the Salivahana

saka that we know today, Achar has proposed that the saka era that

Garga talking is of Cyrus (550 bce) However, Cyrus did not start any era.

(http://tinyurl.com/k2hhd)

On the other hand, an Encyclopaedia of Jainism does not refer to Yuga

purana but states that Saka era should be ascribed to the rule of one

Vinayamitra Dewal of the last years of 7th Century, Bce. He has ruled

Khotan.

In other words, many scholars who follow traditional dating, think

that there is a saka era during 7th and 6th centuries.

Most of the the calculations fall in place by taking Yudhistir epoch

to be the beginning of kaliyuga and not the beginning of Yudhistir's

rule. Thus, the saka era falls in 612 bce, which tallies with what has

been said Encyclopaedia of Jainism.In fact, this book goes a little further and attributes even an earlier saka era to one king Sudraka.

2. Sethna has proposed that the samvat era was in 712 bce. He

depended on the Kota venkatachalam's calculations.

The gap between (any) saka era and samvat era is 135 years. Thus, the

Samvat era should be 612 bce + 135 = 747 bce (35 years earlier to what

has been proposed by Sethna. There is a constant difference of 34/35

years between Venkatachalam and my calculations, which has been

witnessed in dating Nanda rule also)

2. Alberuni says there is a gap of 241 years between saka era and

VAllabha/Gupta era. ie the earlier Gupta era started in 612 bce - 241

= 371 bce.

Let us see if this falls in line with my calculations.

In an earlier message, I have pointed out that the rule of Andhras has

come to an end by 766 bce. Andhra brityus have ruled for 450 years,

which will make the beginning of chandragupta's accession on 316 bce.

Let us take a U turn into past now.

The last king of Andhra bhrityus have ruled for 8 years ie from 324

bce to 316 bce. He was preceded by Krishna sri, who has ruled for 10

years. ie between 334 bce to 324 bce, which tallies with the Greek

writing that prassi was being ruled by Xandramas at the time of

Alexander's invasion.

Thus, the traditional dating falls in line with external evidence.

Now, Chandragupta (or Sandrocottus) has taken over in 316 bce, which

is 55 years after the Jagruthi era calculated above.

Interestingly, the inscription made in the era 61 states that it is

the 5th year of reign of Chandragupta vikramaditya. The historians

have taken this CGV to be CG II but the truth is he is the CG, father

of Samudra gupta, as attested above.

Thus,there is evidence to show that all the three eras seem to be

repetitive with exact gap of 135 and 241 years within the cycle and the gap between the two cycles is exactly 690 years. However,

this nature of repetitiveness is to be proved by astronomical calculations also.

I will be grateful if someone throws light on the significance of this cycle of 690 years.

regards and thanks,

Kishore patnaik

September 15, 2008

Dear Kishoreji:I do not understand most of the stuff you mention, but I'd like to comment on the initial part.Indeed, the scales are _really_ interesting to me as a person with some interest in astronomy.

Although there isn't complete consensus on the age of the universe, it's generally believed to be12+ billion years old. Also, the sun has been shown to be about 5 billion years old.But I don't see any evidence of the various branches (history, astronomy/physics, evolution timelines)

coming close to agreeing on anything. In fact, very recently, carbon dating methods have been shownto be wrong beyond a certain time-epoch. But the expected error isn't too wild. Nor do we knowtoo many things about evolution (was the rate slower/faster/different in the past?).

There are just too many questions, and not enough leads yet! :)Best wishes,RavindraOn Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 3:46 PM, kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 wrote: