Click here for the previous question
Question – 22
Presently 18th
February, 3102 BCE is quoted by many as the beginning of Kali Maha Yuga; but
you present another date 23rd January, 3101 BCE. What is the reason
for the difference in dates? Justify your date (3101 BCE).
Answer:
Until the Gregorian
calendar was introduced in India, the Indians were using the Shaka era, which is
Shalivahana Shaka (which is the current Shaka). In Gregorian years, it started in
78 CE. All the civil, legal, and religious works were mentioned in this Shaka
era only. Since Kali yuga was nearing 4000 years at the time of this Shaka,
people thought it is easy to express the year in Shaka years and if needed one
can convert the Shaka year into Kali year. To convert the Shaka year to Kali year,
one must just add 3179. This is found mentioned in the guidebooks to Panchanga
and Siddhanta-s. This is because Kali Yuga began 3179 years before the Shalivahana
Shaka.
This information
was used by the colonial British, particularly Ebenezer
Burgess, a US Missionary to Western India to derive the date in their
calendar. He used the Julian days furnished by the US Nautical Almanac Office, to convert the total number
of Kali Days until then, into Julian days. This gave him the date 18th
February, 3102 BCE.
This was picked up
by Indians too, without realizing two defects in this.
1. The Julian day is not the same as the sidereal day used by the Indians. Also, the Julian year was longer than the Gregorian year. It accumulated 12.7 days by 1582 CE when the Gregorian year was introduced. The gap was more 5000 years ago when Kali Yuga began. Julian day continues to be in use in astronomy for certain advantages, though it is not reflective of the exact duration of the day or year. A conversion table between Julian and Gregorian days is now available. For the Kali year given by Burgess, which was 18th February, 3102 BCE, the conversion into Gregorian shows the date was 23rd January, 3102 BCE.
The Gregorian equivalent was one year longer than the Kali Year, I deduced in the previous answer.
2.
The
Julian calendar does not have 0 year between CE and BCE. The difference of one
year as shown above is due to this reason. In the Kali Yuga, years are continuous,
giving 3101 as the year when 78 CE is deducted from 3179 years. Nowadays, zero
year is incorporated in simulators, by which we get the year 3101 BCE, but the
date is Julian.
Since we follow
the Gregorian year, it is better to express it in the Gregorian date, with zero
year incorporated. The date will then be what I gave, which is 23rd
January, 3101 BCE.
