[INDOLOGY] Converting "Kali chronograms"

yanom at cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp yanom at cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp
Thu Mar 27 22:16:04 EDT 2014


First of all you should clearly distinguish Gregorian calendar and 
Julian calendar.

Since Gregorian calendar started on 15 October 1582, dates before should
be given in Julian calendar. Thus you should be careful when you use 
the online tool http://www.usvishakh.net/php/kaligreg.php which does
not show Julian Calendar.

Here is my comments according to my pancanga program which you can run 
at:
http://www.cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp/~yanom/pancanga/index.html.

Julin day 1611111 falls on 1310 Feb.11 (Wednesday) by Julian calendar.
The same day can be 1310 Feb. 19 by Gregorian calendar, but as I wrote
above, this is misleading.

JD 84508610 is impossible (too large number!).

`Converter: 1500 April 1 (Sunday)'  would be also in Gregorian, 
and it should be 1500 April 12 (Sunday) (JD 1680569) in Julian calendar.
 

JD 1680548 falls on 1500 March 22 (Sunday) in Julian Calendar, not 
Gregorian.
The solar calendar date is Mina 27, Kali 4601. (4600 is wrong. Mina 26
is possible depending on the definition of solar date). 

In this sense K. Ramasubramanian's dating is misleading.

JD 1723201 falls on 1617 January 10 (Tuesday) by Gregorian calendar.
JD 1723261 falls on 1617 March 11 (Saturday) by Gregorian calendar.
Both are OK.

JD 1712210 falls on 1586 December 8 (Monday) by Gregorian calendar which 
is
1586 November 28 by Julian calendar.

Remember that Gregorian calendar was officially in use only after 1752
in British ruled countries including India. (This is the reason why the
pancanga program gives double dates between 1582 and 1752).

With best wishes,
Michio Yano

----- Original Message -----
> Dear list,
> 
> in trying to solve the discrepancy between two different Gregorian 
dates (1310 AD in Kunjunni Raja 1958, but 1314 AD KSSC) given on the 
basis of the same "chronogram"
> puṇyāṭavyām yatis syāt
> denoting the Kali days according to the kaṭapayādi system of writing 
the numbers:
> pu (1) - ṇyā (1) - ṭa (1)  - vyā (1)  - mya (1) - ti (6)- ssyaat (1) = 
1611111
> 
> I came across the following useful on-line tool
> 
> http://www.usvishakh.net/php/kaligreg.php
> 
> which in this case gives the following precise date: 1310 February 19 
(Wednesday).
> 
> I made some new testing on the basis of a few more Kunjunni Raja (1958)
's dates:
> 
> • p. 61 (Tantrasaṅgraha of Nīlakaṇṭha Somayājī): he  viṣṇo nihitaṃ kṛ
tsnaṃ =
> 1500 AD (he  vi-ṣṇo ni-hi-taṃ kṛ-tsnaṃ = 84508610)
> 
> Converter: 1500 April 1 (Sunday)
> 
> But  in K. Ramasubramanian, Tantrasaṅgraha of Nīlakaṇṭha Somayājī, 
2011
> http://books.google.be/books?id=TGYxXjZXIGwC , p. xxxvii, differently:
> "(...) the Kali chronogram of the date of the commencement of the work,
 which turns out to be 1680548, and corresponds to Mina 26,4600 gatakali 
(elapsed Kali years) according to the Indian calendar, which corresponds 
to March 22, 1500 CE according to the Gregorian calendar"
> 
> • p. 129 (Prakryāsarvasva): "yatnaḥ phalaprasūḥ syāt  [and]  kṛtarā
garasodya
> representing 1723201 (ya-tnaḥ-pha-la-pra-sū-ssyāt)
> and 1723261  (kṛ-ta-rā-ga-ra-so-dya) respectively
> ... give the dates January and March of 1616 AD"
> 
> But converter : 1617 January 10 (Tuesday) and 1617 March 11 (Saturday) 
respectively
> 
>  • p. 130 : "the Nārāyaṇīya (completed) on 27th November 1586, 
expressed by the chronogram āyurārogyasaukhyam denoting the Kali date 
1712210 ( ā-yu-rā-ro-gya-sau-khyam)"
> 
> But  converter : 1586 December 8 (Monday)
> 
> My question to the specialists of calendars/chronology : what explains 
these slight differences; is the on-line tool right or not in these 
cases ?
> 
> Best wishes
> –––––––––––––––––––
> Christophe Vielle
> Louvain-la-Neuve
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> http://listinfo.indology.info


More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list