Talk:Hindu units of time/Archive 1

Untitled
I've moved this article to vedic timekeeping, since the use of these metrics isn't entirely limited to hindu scripture, and the sytem may in fact predate hinduism. Mkweise 18:19 29 May 2003 (UTC)


 * It has been suggested that we are entering a short period of relative light within this otherwise dark time for humanity and the higher beings. PLEASE CORRECT THIS IF NECESSARY.

Irrelevant and/or just plain of paragraph above cut out. Jpatokal 16:38, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

203.199.120.7 massive copyright violation
The basically took a whole slab of text from http://www.ambedkar.org/riddleinhinduism/21C.Riddles%20in%20Hinduism%20PART%20III.htm and copied it from the article. I've rolled back, and as this user insists on doing this for all Hindu articles I'm rolling back all changes. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

THIS IS JUST A CLARIFICATION:

In verse #23 of the Surya Siddhantha that you've quoted, doesn't it say that we are in the 28th cycle of the Mahayuga and in that the Satya Yuga has passed therefore the Surya Siddhantha MUST have been written in the Treta Yuga which is anywhere from ~2 million to 900,000 years ago?? Seems like a stretch but according to the time scales, that's what the date of the Surya Siddhantha must be! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.39.64 (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

not per se hindu
but it is probably hard to explain anyways. just a general tendency that i have observed about everything to do with ancient india. i have no suggestion to alleviate the error (as yet).

references are still missing. the part about the pitrs is different to vayu purana 57, 9 (a month is a day of the pitrs).--87.178.192.168 (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Alan Watts Disagrees
This wiki is in dire need of cleanup and factual checking. According to Alan Watts, an interpreter of Eastern religions and professor of Theology, this wiki has it wrong. The kalpa is the primary unit of measurement in Hinduism, and it lasts 4,320,000 Earth-years. According to Watts, there are two types of kalpa: Manvantara and Pralaya. Manvantara is the period of time in which the universe is manifested, and Pralaya is the period of time when the universe is un-manifested; when the Godhead does not dream but is aware of its own nature. These are called, respectively, the days and the nights of the Brahman, and this goes on forever. Furthermore, according to Watts, first Yuga is called Krita, not Satya. My reference is his lectures, and they are available (for a short time) on the Alan Watts podcast, the most relevant episode being "The Mythology of Hinduism #4". http://www.alanwattspodcast.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.59.55 (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

check the merriam webster dictionary (http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/tamil/) for "Rta" and "satya" ( please dont change the spellings). Enter them in the text box labelled "Word in Primary Language (Sanskrit, Tamil, Pahlavi):".

Peace! 09:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Jayaram Uparna 3 Jul 2007.

Who is Alan Watts? In Hinduism it doesn't matter what Harry and dick says but what does matter is Vedas. So no need to give reference of your non Hindus rather if you have reference from Vedas then it is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.123.3 (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Alan Watts is a dump! "Kalpa" means in vedic texts an astronomic cycle of undefined lenght, that's why it is used in different meanings. On Top of that what he means is a Mahayuga not a Kalpa. A Mahayuga consists of 4 Yugas, a Kalpa of Brahma should consist of 1000 Mahayugas.--87.178.192.168 (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The Surya Siddhanta has concise definitions for nine timescales (manas). It includes definitions for Kalpa, Manvantara, Brahma Mana etc. Alan Watts should sit down and read Chapters 1, 12 and 14 of the Surya Siddhanta and then go back to teaching.Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to Alan Watts
The original article is based on Bhagavatam and other puranas. That a kalpa is 4.32 billion years is correct. What Alan Watts refers as 4,320,000 Earth years is called a Maha-yuga. One thousand Mahayugas is a day of Brahma or a Kalpa. This is substantiated by Gita verse VIII - Verse 17.

I have not seen the usage of Manvantara Kalpa and Pralaya Kalpa said to have been used by Alan Watts. Manvantara is a technical name for the period of 71 successive Mahayugas.

The word Pralaya means 'deluge'. 'Small' pralayas occur at every twilight period, each such period lasting for 4 x 432,000 years. It is called a Sandhya period. After every Manvantara there is a Sandhya. There is a Sandhya before the beginning of the first Manvantara and thus we have, in a kalpa 71 Mahayugas plus 15 Sandhyas. And this is correctly stated in the article.

Also Krita-yuga and Satya yuga are both the same. Both nome nclatures are in vogue.

The external link cited in the article has all this in all details and it goes back to Bhagavatam as its source.

--Profvk 22:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

DON'T MERGE
This is not JUST about Hindu units of time, and these are not exactly only Hindu. Happy8 21:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Figures on pages inconsistent
This: "The lifespan of the Devas is 100 years of the Devas (= 36,000 human years)" does not concur with this: "12,000 years of the Devas = 1 day of Brahma (4320,000,000 human years)"

If the lifespan of the deva is 36,000/100 then a deva year is 360 human years If 12,000 deva years is a day of Brahma then a day of Brahma is 12,000x360 human years which is 4,320,000, not 4,320,000,000. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.44.16.10 (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Isn't it stupid to suggest that this system/article doesn't belong to hinduism
What is Hinduism? How stupid it is to say that this system doesn't belong to Hinduism only? All those scriptures belong to what else? Thanks to some good guys in the west that Hinduism was studied and hence is known to west to some extent, else Hindus themselves hardly know what is there in their scriptures. Unfortunatelythere are others in the west who seem to fear Hinduism so much that they will say nothing belongs to Hinduism. That is amazing indeed. Truth eventually belong to one who understands it, but why fear attributing ideas to those people who actually originated them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skant (talk • contribs) 05:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree to the substance of this message. The time classification system is most definitely Hindu - as is evidenced by its discovery in Hindu Holy Scriptures.

A user above there also points out that "this system may predate hinduism". Please validate and enlighten us !

Peace.Upparna 10:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Jayaram Uparna 3 Jul 2007

History of astronomy versus   weights_&_measures
I had no intention of touching Hindu units of measurement, but while I was working on Hindu Time Cylces, DaGizza appended a tag to it for merger with Hindu units of measurement. I am a specialist of ancient Indian astronomy, and Hindu Time Cycles form part of first chapter of all ancient astronomical texts of India. But in Wikipedia, my attempts to describe this topic has been thwarted thrice by those who regard it to be a part of mythology instead of being a part of History of astronomy. History of astronomy is a topic quite different from units of weights and measurement, although some parts may overlap (in the time section). Before I touched it, Hindu units of measurement was sourced merely to Vishnu Purana (a mythological work) and to some dubious websites. I have no interest in wasting my time over mythology. Can I start a new article Hindu time cycles with a direction of expansion towards History of astronomy? Vinay_Jha 18:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably best to work in User:Vinay Jha/sandbox in the first instance. -- RHaworth 18:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Pls. Consider renaming till proper content arrives
This is a re-iteration of what was said many a times, above. As this article merely describes the units of Time measurement, it can be accordingly renamed. Else every one is misguided, about, that the Hindus have only time measurements, & not any other units, where as, they have a vast uniot system, with a proper calculation, approximation, etc for all the quantities, including mass, length, time & else, a much like the modern SI units. Better it be renamed accordingly, atleast for the time, one prepares the article for the other units too. then let the article be merged into the present named article. Till thattime, let Hindu units of time be redirected to this article, (to be named like Hindu time units, or calculation, etc).--आशीष भटनागर (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I propose that the article be renamed to Hindu Chronological units of measurement. -Mayuresh 17:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sidereal Day
The article refers to the sidereal day as a unit of measurement, yet it also states that this day begins a dawn rather than when some sign of the zodiac rises. This is a contradiction. Perhaps, sidereal day is a poor translation into English of some Hindu term. If this is a well extablished poor translation, then the article must make this clear, possibly by linking appropriately. Note that the Sidereal day is approximately 4 minutes shorter than the mean interval between dawns. These 4 minutes add up to one day over one sidereal year. Karl (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency
It is stated that "a truti is the time needed to integrate 3 trasarenus, or 1/1687.5th of a second." However the graph shows a truti as about 3*10^-7 second. Something is wrong. Ray Tomes (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the image is wrong. The "small units of time in the Vedas" section was also wrong, but only by a factor of about 2. This was evident from comparing "kashthas" as a fraction of a sidereal day (should actually likely be a tropical day, but close enough). The error likely came from using the final measure which was "1/4 of a day or a night" and computing 4 rather than 8 per 24 hours. The links were all to interpretave glosses of a Purana in a Hare Krishna site, so I linked instead to a footnote with the same content (but which notes its unreliability) which is in the same page of the same Purana edition at sacred-texts.com which is referenced in other parts of the article.Enon (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor note about the term 'atom'
I note that the word 'atom' is used in the above, which clearly has a special meaning in this case; but the word is hyperlinked to the wikipedia article 'atom' which discusses the properties of a physical atom. Thus it is never stated what an 'atom' is in this context. Clarification is needed I think.

I'm editing to ventilate the neuron in me. Perhaps it is revealing.

In the name of differing languages, in fact we are missing what the letters want to reveal. Atom to me implies at om revealing that everything exists at om only. This takes us to the term Om. M is the dot/anusvaar/ayogavaah of Devanagari, the non dimensional m/n. O denotes the sphere with infinite radius, m=. being the center of the sphere infinite. M is pronounced as am implying I'm, i.e., my being/ I exist. In fact, I'm at/in o.

This is the universally significant truth, atom wants to keep us, the atoms reminding.

Isn't it revealing Dear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshav Dayal Singh Kaushal (talk • contribs) 07:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Less reliable sources
Please add some reliable sources. Reliable sources are primarily Books, Research papers and Newspapers. Websites are not that reliable, when it comes to something other than products. Here, only Burgess and Katz sources are reliable. Rest all need to be removed from References. I will make such changes to the article! - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Time as perceived by my neurons
I have observed that time is the only present equally available to every subsystem making everyone aged, older and experienced.

Humans today consider themselves incapable of verifying what existed before big bang around 15 billion years ago.

But it can be safely assumed that whatever was there could create our universe with us perceiving and creating literature as well as machinery even robots.

It is clear the absolute Time is immeasurable. The timeline as line is really endless on both the ends, past or future. The best way only is to consider the present to be zero.

Past has been giving us the opportunity to contribute and transform.

It has been giving us the day and night since we don't know when.

The Oxygen oxidizes the carbon within the body to make us energetic.

The exhaling produces sounds that can transcend and transform our being into omnipotence and omniscience.

Still, we can only assume that life is eternally immortal as a systemic whole but never as a subsystem.

May be, it is a cycle of around 40 billion years or so, history repeating itself again and again humans to remain engaged in inventing and reinventing repeatedly. That is research.

Keshav Dayal Singh Kaushal (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Rename
I suggest the article to be renamed at vedic units of time, as has been earlier established in these talks that these are per se not only hindu as they predate hinduism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.94.98.87 (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

sources for different measurement systems: user Mkweise, and Murali Krishnan
I notice the first entry uses a base 60 system that goes down to the truti. im very interested in the source. please if possible link or give the scripture? not in any purana or siddhanta i can find does it use 60 down to the truti. users Mkweise, and Murali Krishnan, seem to have made these entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimifoil (talk • contribs) 06:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hindu units of time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222065203/http://vedabase.net/sb/3/11/19/en1 to http://vedabase.net/sb/3/11/19/en1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Bad math in "For Brahma" section
This section in For Brahma is just a bad math:

12 months of Brahma = 1 year of Brahma (3.1104 trillion human years) 50 years of Brahma = 1 Parārdha (156,764,160,000,000 human years)

It should be: 3.1104 x 50 = 155.52 = 155,520,000,000,000 human years

The book in the reference (Bryan E. Penprase. The Power of Stars. Springer. p. 182.) estimates 72 Maha-yugas in 1 Manvantara, while ut should be 71 Maha-yugas, just like explained here : 71 Chaturyugas = 1 Manvantara (1 life span of Manu)

This difference between 71 and 72 makes a confusion, so the reference given above should be reconsidered and all entries should be made consistent. --Miodrag1963 (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)