Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Vikramaditya (Valorous Sun)

Expand Messages
  • sreesog
    Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji, Let us accept the chronology you propose for now. //the different Vikramadityas as nobody would care to know what is the
    Message 1 of 7 , Dec 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji,
        Let us accept the chronology you propose for now.
      //the different Vikramadityas as nobody would care  to know  what is the difference between the Sakendra kala (or the Saka-nripa kala or the Saka-bhupa kala) used by Varaha mihira and the Sakanta kala used by Brahmagupta and also what were the correct dates for the Satavahana dynasty etc.//
       Can you please explain, as per the chronology you suggest what would be the period of these Vikramadityas and how they differ?
        Sakendra kala = Saka-indra-kala = Period of Saka king ?
        Sakanta kala = Saka-anta-kala = Period of the king who ended the saka rule?

       Sakendra kala/Saka-nripa kala/Saka-bhupa kala - Was it the period of Vikramaditya who was a Saka king?
       Sakanta kala/or the period of Sakari - Was it the period of some other Vikramadity who was NOT a Saka king but a Hindu king?
        Awaiting your clarifications and elaborations.
      Love and regards,
      Sreenadh

       
      --- In ancient_indian_astrology@yahoogroups.com, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya@...> wrote:
      >
      > Dear Sreenadhji,
      >
      > These confusions arose mainly for the reason that under the influence of the Max Mullerian Aryan Invasion theory (AIT) the ancient Indian Chronology was severely distorted to bring it in line with the AIT chronology. Max Muller, an honest man that he was, realized the mistakes he made in formulating the AIT and he essentially revoked his AIT by saying that the date of the Vedas could  even be 3000 BCE or earlier and thus contradicting his own earlier surmise that Vedas could have been composed around 1200 BCE. But unfortunately the colonial historians and their Chamchas,  the Indian historians like the Marxist and Islamic historians including Prof. Romila Thapar, Prof Irfan Habib, Prof. Panikker and prof. R.S Sharma tried to keep the AIT alive, despite Max Muller's own doubt on the AIT. Further even after the recent archaeological, anthropological and genetic studies no one seems to condemn the AIT chronology.
      >
      >
      > It appears to me that people are not going to give up the AIT chronology,  which brought forward Lord Buddha's date by 13 centuries and Chandragupta Maurya was made the contemporary of Alexander etc. With the ghost of AIT hanging around it is futile to try to explain who were the different Vikramadityas as nobody would care  to know  what is the difference between the Sakendra kala (or the Saka-nripa kala or the Saka-bhupa kala) used by Varaha mihira and the Sakanta kala used by Brahmagupta and also what were the correct dates for the Satavahana dynasty etc. The historians so far bulldozed the accounts of Alberuni and others so that they can continue to stick to the AIT chronology.
      >
      > I wish a book on Indian History should appear now which, would give the correct chronology of ancient Indian history based on the historical records and you will see that all these issues will fall in line. Let it take its own time. We have to remember that a child cannot be produced in less than nine months (roughly).
      >
      > Regards,
      >
      > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

    • sreesog
      Dear Siva ji, One unknown cannot be answered with another unknown - only unknown will result. [;)] Love and regards, Sreenadh ... Bairava Temple is possile
      Message 2 of 7 , Dec 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Siva ji,
         One unknown cannot be answered with another unknown - only unknown will result. ;)
        Love and regards,
        Sreenadh


        --- In ancient_indian_astrology@yahoogroups.com, "siva" <sarasalai_siva@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > || Om Namo Narayana ||
        >
        > Namaskar Sreenadh JI,
        >
        > I am not good in history . But the time period of the Kala Bairava Temple is possile time line of Vikramathitan.?
        >
        > Actually this temple deeply signifes God Shiva ?
        > Because even to-day the Sadhus of this temple live in the CEMETARY
        > site. Shiva is the only God prefers cemetary.
        >
        > I expect the members to throw more light on this issue.
        >
        > regadrs
        > sarasalai_siva

      • Sunil Bhattacharjya
        Dear Sreenadhji, I shall just give some basic points. You can think about it or work on that. I wish to prepare a detailed write-up but that is going to take
        Message 3 of 7 , Dec 1, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Sreenadhji,

          I shall just give some basic points. You can think about it or work on that. I wish to prepare a detailed write-up but that is going to take time.
          1)
          Max Muller suggested the date of Adi Sankaracharya to be 8th century CE so that there is no opposition to his AIT. But the the Dwaraka math and the Pri math has proof that Adi Sankaracharya was born in 509 BCE. incidentally te Kanchi Kamakoti math also supports that. The Sringeri math however accepts Max Muller's date.  From Adi Sankarachry'as work we know that  king Hala of the Satavahanas was his contemporary.  So that gives us the idea when the Satavahanas ruled.
          2)
          Sakendrakala started from 551 BCE. It was introduced in India by the Saka governors in Western India. Varaha Mihira mentions this and from this we know that varaha Mihira lived in the 2nd century BCE
          3)
          We also know that Hala mentioned his contemporary Vikramaditya. Alberuni mentioned about one Vikrama era from the time of this Vikramaditya.
          4)
          The Malwa king Vikramaditya defeated Hunas and not Sakas. The Vikrama Samvat came from the date of his demise in 57 BCE
          5)
          Sakantakala started from the date when the Sakas were defeated in 78 CE.

          Regards,

          Sunil K. Bhattacharjya


          --- On Wed, 12/1/10, sreesog <sreesog@...> wrote:

          From: sreesog <sreesog@...>
          Subject: [AIA] Re: Vikramaditya (Valorous Sun)
          To: ancient_indian_astrology@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 12:22 AM

           

          Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji,
            Let us accept the chronology you propose for now.
          //the different Vikramadityas as nobody would care  to know  what is the difference between the Sakendra kala (or the Saka-nripa kala or the Saka-bhupa kala) used by Varaha mihira and the Sakanta kala used by Brahmagupta and also what were the correct dates for the Satavahana dynasty etc.//
           Can you please explain, as per the chronology you suggest what would be the period of these Vikramadityas and how they differ?
            Sakendra kala = Saka-indra-kala = Period of Saka king ?
            Sakanta kala = Saka-anta-kala = Period of the king who ended the saka rule?

           Sakendra kala/Saka-nripa kala/Saka-bhupa kala - Was it the period of Vikramaditya who was a Saka king?
           Sakanta kala/or the period of Sakari - Was it the period of some other Vikramadity who was NOT a Saka king but a Hindu king?
            Awaiting your clarifications and elaborations.
          Love and regards,
          Sreenadh

           
          --- In ancient_indian_astrology@yahoogroups.com, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya@...> wrote:
          >
          > Dear Sreenadhji,
          >
          > These confusions arose mainly for the reason that under the influence of the Max Mullerian Aryan Invasion theory (AIT) the ancient Indian Chronology was severely distorted to bring it in line with the AIT chronology. Max Muller, an honest man that he was, realized the mistakes he made in formulating the AIT and he essentially revoked his AIT by saying that the date of the Vedas could  even be 3000 BCE or earlier and thus contradicting his own earlier surmise that Vedas could have been composed around 1200 BCE. But unfortunately the colonial historians and their Chamchas,  the Indian historians like the Marxist and Islamic historians including Prof. Romila Thapar, Prof Irfan Habib, Prof. Panikker and prof. R.S Sharma tried to keep the AIT alive, despite Max Muller's own doubt on the AIT. Further even after the recent archaeological, anthropological and genetic studies no one seems to condemn the AIT chronology.
          >
          >
          > It appears to me that people are not going to give up the AIT chronology,  which brought forward Lord Buddha's date by 13 centuries and Chandragupta Maurya was made the contemporary of Alexander etc. With the ghost of AIT hanging around it is futile to try to explain who were the different Vikramadityas as nobody would care  to know  what is the difference between the Sakendra kala (or the Saka-nripa kala or the Saka-bhupa kala) used by Varaha mihira and the Sakanta kala used by Brahmagupta and also what were the correct dates for the Satavahana dynasty etc. The historians so far bulldozed the accounts of Alberuni and others so that they can continue to stick to the AIT chronology.
          >
          > I wish a book on Indian History should appear now which, would give the correct chronology of ancient Indian history based on the historical records and you will see that all these issues will fall in line. Let it take its own time. We have to remember that a child cannot be produced in less than nine months (roughly).
          >
          > Regards,
          >
          > Sunil K. Bhattacharjya


        • Beloved Paddy
          i believe adi sankara was born in keria he travelled through india if there is no trace of christianity/islam in his writtings then probably bce date seems
          Message 4 of 7 , Dec 1, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            i believe adi sankara was born in keria
            he travelled through india
            if there is no trace of christianity/islam in his writtings then probably bce date seems true

            On Wed Dec 1st, 2010 9:54 AM PST Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote:

            >Dear Sreenadhji,
            >
            >I shall just give some basic points. You can think about it or work on that. I wish to prepare a detailed write-up but that is going to take time.
            >1)
            >Max Muller suggested the date of Adi Sankaracharya to be 8th century CE so that there is no opposition to his AIT. But the the Dwaraka math and the Pri math has proof that Adi Sankaracharya was born in 509 BCE. incidentally te Kanchi Kamakoti math also supports that. The Sringeri math however accepts Max Muller's date.  From Adi Sankarachry'as work we know that  king Hala of the Satavahanas was his contemporary.  So that gives us the idea when the Satavahanas ruled.
            >2)
            >Sakendrakala started from 551 BCE. It was introduced in India by the Saka governors in Western India. Varaha Mihira mentions this and from this we know that varaha Mihira lived in the 2nd century BCE
            >3)
            >We also know that Hala mentioned his contemporary Vikramaditya. Alberuni mentioned about one Vikrama era from the time of this Vikramaditya.
            >4)
            >The Malwa king Vikramaditya defeated Hunas and not Sakas. The Vikrama Samvat came from the date of his demise in 57 BCE
            >5)
            >Sakantakala started from the date when the Sakas were defeated in 78 CE.
            >
            >Regards,
            >
            >Sunil K. Bhattacharjya
            >
            >
            >--- On Wed, 12/1/10, sreesog <sreesog@...> wrote:
            >
            >From: sreesog <sreesog@...>
            >Subject: [AIA] Re: Vikramaditya (Valorous Sun)
            >To: ancient_indian_astrology@yahoogroups.com
            >Date: Wednesday, December 1, 2010, 12:22 AM
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >

            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >Dear Sunil Bhattacharjya ji,
            >  Let us accept the chronology you propose for now.
            >//the different Vikramadityas as nobody would care  to know  what is the
            >difference between the Sakendra kala (or the Saka-nripa kala or the
            >Saka-bhupa kala) used by Varaha mihira and the Sakanta kala used by
            >Brahmagupta and also what were the correct dates for the Satavahana
            >dynasty etc.//
            > Can you please explain, as per the chronology you suggest what would be the period of these Vikramadityas and how they differ?
            >  Sakendra kala = Saka-indra-kala = Period of Saka king ?
            >  Sakanta kala = Saka-anta-kala = Period of the king who ended the saka rule?
            >
            > Sakendra kala/Saka-nripa kala/Saka-bhupa kala - Was it the period of Vikramaditya who was a Saka king?
            > Sakanta kala/or the period of Sakari - Was it the period of some other Vikramadity who was NOT a Saka king but a Hindu king?
            >  Awaiting your clarifications and elaborations.
            >Love and regards,
            >Sreenadh

            >--- In ancient_indian_astrology@yahoogroups.com, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya@...> wrote:
            >>
            >> Dear Sreenadhji,
            >>
            >> These confusions arose mainly for the reason that under the influence of the Max Mullerian Aryan Invasion theory (AIT) the ancient Indian Chronology was severely distorted to bring it in line with the AIT chronology. Max Muller, an honest man that he was, realized the mistakes he made in formulating the AIT and he essentially revoked his AIT by saying that the date of the Vedas could  even be 3000 BCE or earlier and thus contradicting his own earlier surmise that Vedas could have been composed around 1200 BCE. But unfortunately the colonial historians and their Chamchas,  the Indian historians like the Marxist and Islamic historians including Prof. Romila Thapar, Prof Irfan Habib, Prof. Panikker and prof. R.S Sharma tried to keep the AIT alive, despite Max Muller's own doubt on the AIT. Further even after the recent archaeological, anthropological and genetic studies no one seems to condemn the AIT chronology.
            >>
            >>
            >> It appears to me that people are not going to give up the AIT chronology,  which brought forward Lord Buddha's date by 13 centuries and Chandragupta Maurya was made the contemporary of Alexander etc. With the ghost of AIT hanging around it is futile to try to explain who were the different Vikramadityas as nobody would care  to know  what is the difference between the Sakendra kala (or the Saka-nripa kala or the Saka-bhupa kala) used by Varaha mihira and the Sakanta kala used by Brahmagupta and also what were the correct dates for the Satavahana dynasty etc. The historians so far bulldozed the accounts of Alberuni and others so that they can continue to stick to the AIT chronology.
            >>
            >> I wish a book on Indian History should appear now which, would give the correct chronology of ancient Indian history based on the historical records and you will see that all these issues will fall in line. Let it take its own time. We have to remember that a child cannot be produced in less than nine months (roughly).
            >>
            >> Regards,
            >>
            >> Sunil K. Bhattacharjya
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.