Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

ing the individuals, intimating that mankind were preserved in the seed of Satyavatar or Cainan, according to the promise made by the prophet: whereas, had the reign of the prince, saved in the ark, commenced before the flood, he would have been a Menu without creation.

Satyavatar was the governor of a province This was one hundred years after the birth of Cainan. The Hindus, we have seen, place the deluge when 1680 prophetic years of 360 days were past; consequently, the prince who was saved in the ark, began his reign 1230 years after Satyavatar became ruler of Dravira; and supposing the age to answer to the Hebrew text, which we have no reason to doubt, then, if Satyavatar who ruled at Dravira, was the prince saved in the ark, he had attained the age of one thousand three hundred and thirty years, before he became the ruler of the new world : whereas the average life of the antediluvian patriarchs, according to the Hindus, was eight hundred and fifty-seven years; and, from an extraordinary coincidence in the periods when the two patriarchs Cainan and Noah were born, the epithet Satyavatar became applicable to both. For as each millenary contained four ages, and the first four hundred years of each were named Satya, or the first age, Noah, who was born A. M. 1056, might

south of Carnata A. M. 420.

very appropriately be termed the Saty-avatara of the second Calpa. He was likewise the Satya, or first Avatara of the postdiluvian world. It is therefore very probable that he was so designated in the Purana, from which the Matsya-avatara is extracted, and which is said to contain fourteen thousand stanzas. From these, properly understood, what funds of antediluvian history might be obtained.

[ocr errors]

Having so far explained the Hindu cypher as to enable you to apply it to any authentic record, you may wish to study, I shall reserve the explanation of the Buddhas for a future Letter.

I remain,

my dear Sir,

your's very faithfully,

[ocr errors]

LETTER II.

MY DEAR SIR,

As the system of Chronology which I have adopted, militates entirely against that of all modern authors, I shall commence this Letter, by giving you their opinion on the subject. For if it should appear that the Cali age did not commence 3102 years before the Christian era, or, which is the same thing," that the common opinion that 4888 years of it had elapsed prior to the year of Christ. 1788 is erroneous," then, the whole of my system is false. These authors say, (that is, Sir William Jones, whom the rest have copied from) "that when the Chinese government admitted a new religion from India in the first century of our era, they made particular enquiry concerning the age of the old Indian Buddha; whose birth, according to Couplet, they place in the 41st year of the 28th cycle, or 1036 years before Christ. And they call him, says he, Foe the son of Moye or Maya. But Mr. De Guines, on the authority of four Chinese historians, asserts that Foe was born about

the year before Christ 1027, in the kingdom of Cashmir. Giorgi, or rather Cassiano, from whose papers his work is compiled, assures us that by the calculations of the Tibetians, he appeared only 959 years before the Christian epoch: and M. Bailly, with some hesitation, places him 1031 years before it; but inclines to think him far more ancient, confounding him, as I have done in a former tract, with the first Buddha, or Mercury; whom the Goths called Woden, and of whom I shall presently take particular notice. Now, whether we assume the medium of the four last-mentioned dates, or implicitly rely on the authorities quoted by De Guines, we may conclude that Buddha was first distinguished in India, about a thousand years before the beginning of our era. And whoever, in so early an age, expects a certain epoch, unqualified with about or nearly, will be greatly disappointed hence it is clear, that whether the fourth age of the Hindus began about one thousand years before Christ, according to Goverdhan's account of Buddha's birth, or two thousand, according to that of Rhadacant, the common opinion that 4888 years of it are now elapsed is erroneous." This account was written A. D. 1788*.

From the foregoing it appears, that the Hindu

* See Tract on Chronology, Vol. IV. p. 22. of Sir W. Jones.

chronology in general, and the commencement of the Cali age in particular, is meant to be regulated by the birth of Buddha; which is in itself an absurd hypothesis: because no Hindu era commences from the birth of any one of the Buddhas, although it is a received opinion, that " the third age being completely ended, Buddha closed his mortal career." This was the first Buddha, or Adam; who, according to the Hebrew text, died in the thirty-first year of the Cali, or fourth age, A. M. 931. This error originates in the word appeared being rendered the birth, in lieu of the appearance at a particular epoch: but that the Hindu chronology should be regulated by the birth of a Chinese Atheist, born on the borders of Tartary, is contrary to every rational system. Besides which, the Pralaya, or destruction, which was the subject of my last Letter, was translated by this author for the express purpose of proving, that the Buddha of the ninth Avatar was Noah: that Noah was Saturn; and Saturn Satyavatar*. Now according to the Hebrews, Noah was born A. M. 1056; and according to the Chinese in the year B. C. 2952, which corresponds therewith. So that if Buddha was Noah, "and first distinguished in India about a thousand years before the begin

See Works of Sir W. Jones, Vol. III. p. 332.

« PredošláPokračovať »