« PredošláPokračovať »
Year of 360 days.
Month of 360 days.
Light half ofthe Moon.
Day and night.
1 12 = 24 =
These tables agreeso entirely with the three Hindu tables, given in my first Letter, as to leave no doubt but that the prolonged periods of all eastern nations may be decyphered thereby. I shall, therefore, only make a few remarks on the essay that follows
that of Mr. Wilford, in the same volume of the Asiatic Researches.
Mr. Bentley presents us with an entire new system without coming nearer the truth. By introducing poetic and astronomical eras, he places the birth of Adam in the first year of the Cali age, which he admits to have been in the 906th year of the world. With the exception of that respecting Nanda, I cannot but think every statement of his erroneous : his system is professedly formed on a conviction, that the Buddha of Sir William Jones, stated by him to have been born in the 1002d year of the Cali age, was the Budha of the Lunar dynasty, said to have married Ila the daughter of Noah. To substantiate which, he strikes out an hundred and fifteen years, and places the birth of Budha at A. m. 1787; and then, to ascertain the dates, that should be placed against the names of his descendants he consults the bills of mortality of the present day : thereby reducing the average age of man, stated both by the Hebrews and Hindus at 857 years, to 33. Now should we admit Budha to have been the son-in-law of Noah, instead of the grandson of Adam, yet, when the age of man was reduced to one-half, the average age was then 427 years. Shem, the son of Noah, is stated to have lived at least six hundred years. For he is supposed to have been alive at the marriage of his grandson Isaac of the tenth generation : Arphaxad, the son of Shem, lived 438 years; Selem, his grandson, 433; and Eber, his grandson, 464 : and it was not until A. M. 2515, which is 613 years after the pundits all agree that the Solar dynasty became extinct, that the age of man was shortened to eighty years. To account for these supposititious dates (for Mr. Bentley does not even pretend to copy from Hindu accounts) he says, “ from the bills of mortality it appears that the mean duration of human life does not exceed thirty-two, or thirty-three years. Admitting the mean duration to be thirty-three, we cannot admit more than seventeen at the utmost for the reign of each.” Now it appears that Mizraim, the grandson of Noah, reigned sixty-two years; Athothes, his great grandson, fifty-nine years; and that, on an average, the twenty-first kings of Egypt, reaching to A. M. 2423, reigned above thirty years each ; although several of them were more than two hundred years of age, when their reign commenced. Strange, that those who attempt to explain the Chronology of the Hindus should be so ill informed, relative to that of their own religion. This author proceeds to state, 'thirdly and lastly, that there was but one Budha (sage) in the time of Noah, who is said to have married Ila the daughter of Noah.” Hence he infers, " that the Buddha (prophet) who appeared in the 1002d year of the Calijug, or in the year 1907 of the creation, was the very same who married Noah's daughter, recorded as living near the beginning of the Tritajug of the poets, and as being contemporary with the sons of Noah.” It has been already proved, that the beginning of the Tritajug commenced with the fifth century, and that it was at that period, that this race returned to the city of their great ancestor Swayambhuya or Adam. But, waving this circumstance, and admitting Budha to be postdiluvian, unless Mr. Bentley means to deny the deluge altogether, from what stock does his Budha descend ? If all created beings, save Noah and his sons, were destroyed at that period, from whom did the contemporary of Noah's sons spring, whom Ila married A. M. 1907 ? (according to the Hindus A. M. 400.) If Ila was the daughter of Noah, she was the sister of Japheth, who was born A. m. 1557. Now supposing her born two hundred years after her brother, and when her father was seven hundred years
age, she must, according to this author, have been two hundred years of age, when the youthful Budha led her to the altar. And, as we find in the Mosaic account, that none of the descendants of Noah were more than thirty-five years of age, when their first child was born, it appears“ monstrously absurd, and contrary to nature
and reason,” to suppose that a contemporary of one of these should have chosen a bride who had attained her two hundredth year; more particularly, as two hundred years after, the birth of Isaac was considered miraculous, Sarah being 90 years of age. “ Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in years, therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old, shall I have pleasure, my lord being old likewise?” This was in the year of the world 2107: but if we suppose, that this Budha was born, instead of having married in the 1002d year of the Cali age, and that his son was born when he was thirty, the average period in the race of Noah, then his wife Ila gare birth to that son, from whom the race of the Moon descended, in the two hundred and thirtieth year of her age. And this very incongruous history rests on no better foundation than the bills of mortality, more than four thousand years after. Bateren tbe parist registers might there taught this author bener. Tbey would have shewn tim that the greater number
chüleren of the present time dje unoer two year's of age. Gezveral history would have informed him, that the proportion of princes, who asceni a trade ondor that are is as one to an fundred And a wart superficial konpleage of the English Lismory wolid have inírmad ham. Lihat in modern time when the Ine of man is mied te zhreescore Treets