their extended numbers, have been accounted for. A very little attention to dates and punctuation, will enable us to do away every seeming contradiction in the Purana. The part which alludes to the prophecy ends with the word "attendants," in the sixth line of p. 63. Buddha having retired from the province of Dravira, over which Satyavatar ruled, this prince "humbly waited for a time, which the Ruler of our senses had appointed," not the deluge, but the end of the first Calpa, when, the first night of Brahma being completely ended, the sign would be given, which was to prove the divine origin of the prophet, his translation to heaven: when, by the favour of the Deity, the mind of Satyavatar would be abundantly instructed: that is, the religion which the prophet taught, and the life eternal which was promised in his revelations (on which the Vedas are founded) should all be confirmed by his ascension to heaven, (the translation of Enoch.) And so the ancients believed, who inform us that the sacred volumes were delivered by the Deity to Enoch. The remaining part of the Purana alludes to the descendant of Satyavatar, the prince who was saved in the ark. In another part we read, "the Lord of the universe intending to preserve him from the sea of destruction," gave orders relative to the ark the obvious meaning of which is, his race, i. e, in his seed, should mankind be renewed. Not that Satyavatar himself should live until that period. In like manner, when the promise was given to Abram, the Lord said: "I will make of thee a great nation." Yet the patriarch never supposed he should himself be aggrandized; on the contrary, having no children, he was led to suppose that the prophecy would be fulfilled in the child of Eliezer of Damascus, who was born in his house. Should we be less tolerant to the Hindu, than to the Hebrew Scripture? Certainly not: first, as we profess to believe the latter to be compiled from the works of an inspired writer; and secondly, as we have numerous Hebrew scholars, but very few indeed who understand the Sanscrit language: owing to which, the commencement of this Pralaya is rendered nearly unintelligible. In the translation we read, "at the close of the last Calpa there was a general destruction, owing to the sleep of Brahma; whence his creatures in different worlds were drowned in a vast ocean." Brahma being inclined to slumber, desiring repose after a lapse of ages, the dæmon Hayagriva stole the Vedas." No one, not intimately acquainted with the subject, would understand these two paragraphs, thus blended, to denote two occur Vide p. 59. rences at the distance of more than 1200 years from each other. Yet such is the case. The former of the two paragraphs denoting the period when the deluge occurred; the latter of them, the period when idolatry was introduced: and it should be rendered as follows: "At the close of the last Calpa during the sleep of Brahma, there was a general destruction." The last Calpa ended with the year 1500: consequently, the general destruction, that took place during the sleep of Brahma, was between the years 1501, when his night commenced, and the years 2000, when it ended. The Purana proceeds to inform us, that "this destruction was owing to the dæmon Hayagriva having stolen the Vedas, towards the close of the first Calpa, or when six Menwantaras, equal to 426 years of 360 days, were passed; at which time (the evening twilight of the first day) Brahma felt inclined to slumber." All which is merely a figurative way of indicating that idolatry was introduced at that period, when the race of Atri, or Cain, returned. There are many passages in this Purana, which agree in the minor details, with those of the Jewish Rabbis. "The pious prince having entered the ark with his attendants and the chief of Brahmans, some doubts entering their minds, they thus addressed the prince." "O king, meditate on the Deity, who will surely deliver us from this danger, and grant us prosperity." Rabbi Ben Syrach records, that the flood not ensuing immediately on Noah's entering the ark, he thus addressed the Deity: "O thou, Lord of the world, wherefore hast thou brought me into the ark, to save, or to destroy me?" The Deity, thus invoked, according to each of these authors, appeared, and assured the patriarch of his protection. That Satyavatar was equally the name of the third and seventh Menu, in the race of the Sun, is very probable. It is not unlikely, that the prince who was actually saved in the ark, and who was born just six hundred years before the period foretold for that event, the immediate descendant in a direct line from Buddha, should have been named after his great ancestor, to whom the prophecy is believed to have been delivered; and who, according to the Hebrew text, lived an hundred and eighty years after the birth of Noah: Cainan died A. M. 1236, and Noah was born A. M. 1056. two distinct characters have been blended, appears certain. In the beginning of the Purana, it is stated that by the introduction of idolatry, the race of man became corrupt with the exception of Satyavatar and the seven Rishis. The Rishis in this sense, denote the ten children of Brahma, or the ten patriarchs in the Solar race. Whereas at That no period of Noah's life were seven of the patriarchs living, exclusive of himself. The introduction of idolatry A. M. 420; the prophecy a few centuries after, and the translation of the prophet at the close of the first night of Brahma, or at the end of the first thousandth year of the world, are all said to have happened during the time when Satyavatar was ruler over the province of Dravira, south of Carnata. All of which events, we know, happened before the birth of Noah. Satyavatar was appointed a Menu before the deluge, during the second Calpa, by the title of Sraddha-diva. Cainan succeeded to the supreme command of that country to which Seth had retired, on the death of Enos A. M. 1141; which was the hundred and fifty-sixth year of the second Calpa. " When Cainan had appointed his eldest son Mahalaleel to be his successor, he died on the fourth day of the month Chizram* A. M. 1236." The Hindus record that the prince saved in the ark was appointed a Menu by favour of Vishnu, when the waters of the deluge had subsided, Anno Cali 757, or A. M. 1657; and to prevent a possibility of his being mistaken for his ancestor Satyavatar, he was commanded to assume the patronymic of the solar Menus, Vaivaswata: thereby, without blend * Elmachmus, |