Bingming

this wouldn't be really weird, after all there is a difference of more than 4 mahāyugas b/w Rāma and say Jarāsandha (who had his capital in Girivraja).

in other words, there's a Girivraja (Rājagṛha) in northwest India, and another in Magadha, that's east India

there being two locations of the same name

it would be strange for a kingdom that northwest, to have a capital in the far-east, most likely Kekayapura (Girivraja) is not what's called Girivraja in Mahābhārata.

Kaikeyī was a princess of Kekaya, there is no doubt regarding that

firstly, where is Kekaya exactly located? It's in north-western Bhārata right?

now, either there are two places with the name Girivraja, or Magadha's capital wasn't Girivraja, during the time of Rāmāyaṇa.

in Mahābhārata, etc.

hmm, the problem is that the Girivraja is said to be the capital of Magadha as well

or perhaps, the kingdom of Magadha had a different capital, during the time of Rāmāyaṇa

the problem would be that how can the two kingdoms Kekaya and Magadha have the same capital city?

I meant, many yugas from Rāmāyaṇa

I think, it may be the same place, which is Rājagṛha in Mahābhārata too, but it has been a lot of time, many yugas, so the scenery might have changed a bit.

Anyway, I checked the commentaries on 2.68.21, the comms. Amṛtakataka and Tilaka state that Girivraja is Kekayapura and is also known as Rājagṛha. Other comms. such as Bhūṣaṇa, Tattvadīpikā, Śiromaṇī, etc. state that Girivraja is Kekayapura, but don't mention Rājagṛha.

may I ask, what is the śloka where they are mentioned to be in Rājagṛha?

Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa doesn't mention Rājagṛha as the capital afaik, plus you equated both places, what was the basis of doing so? This question is still not answered.

On what basis did you conclude that Girivraja is the same place as Rājagṛha?

@User29449 None of the Vedāntācāryas of old reject Purāṇic view of yugas. This stance of rejection among a section of Hindus, is primarily since colonial times, when the Indian Hindus started thinking themselves 'educated' and adopted the opinions of their colonial masters. You may reject, as you wish. But this is very much a part of tradition. Śruti is not the only śāstra out there. In tradition, śruti is considered with Purāṇas, etc.

Well, I don't bother much with people having standpoint like User29449. Science can't say anything on the matter of yugas. In matters in which science has the ability to comment upon, we do take its opinion, but the issue of yugas is beyond science, as in western empirical investigation and analysis. @Haridasa A 'scientist' can't say anything on there being a pralaya at the end of kalpa, but śāstras do say that.

That's right. @Haridasa

The ones cited in the messages are śāstras written by historical ācāryas, who belonged to a proper paramparā. So, these śāstras aren't like Purāṇas. Purāṇas come from time immemorial, from Brahmā himself. They have existed even before Vyāsa. @Haridasa

@Haridasa The jyotiṣa śāstras I quoted aren't part of the Veda. So, they aren't śruti. However they come under the Jyotiṣa Vedāṅga, which is one of the 6 aṅgas of Veda (śikṣā, vyākaraṇa, chanda, kalpa, & jyotiṣa)

Alright, that's your personal opinion, so I have nothing more to say. @User29449

@User29449 You can read Āryabhaṭīya, Siddhāntaśiromaṇi, etc. your ownself. They accept the durations of the yugas mentioned in Purāṇas. They aren't mentioning their own made-up durations. They were part of a proper tradition, unlike say modern-day Indologists, or people like Frawley or Yukteshwar. If you reject the durations mentioned in jyotiṣa śāstras of time cycles, you reject the time durations of Purāṇas too simply, because they're aligned. Now, it's upto you to reject śāstras or not.

Dharmaśāstras deal with the matters of kārya & akārya, these are jyotiṣa śāstras. Please don't confuse the two @river

@river The above msg is also addressed to you.

@User29449 show me any śāstra which contradict the ones I have mentioned. I am quoting Laghubhāskarīya too, in a moment. So, these would be śāstras of Āryabhaṭa I and his commentators such as Sūryadeva, Nīlakaṇṭha, etc., Lalla, Bhāskara I, and Bhāskara II. How much more support do you need? The whole jyotiṣa paramparā concurs on this fact.

What nonsense? @river These are proper jyotiṣa śāstras. No one in tradition disagrees with them, on this issue. Who told you these aren't śāstras? Śāstras doesn't mean only itihāsa-purāṇa fyi.

@Hope Also, I have made some corrections to the post.

It's a śāstra, but it must contain the relevant info. @Hope People are just going on saying Sūryasiddhānta mentions the starting date of Kaliyuga, when it doesn't. If it does, they should quote the ślokas. But how can they? Most of them haven't even read the śāstra.

Also, don't bring this nonsense 'prakṣipta'. Manusmṛti is not so-called interpolated, it has lots of commentaries on it. We have a tradition, on how it was passed on too, This nonsense was first perpetrated by colonial scholarship, and isn't valid in tradition. There is no-pre colonial proper Hindu ācārya who would dare to insult or reject the authority of Manu, etc. Even Rāma, Bhīṣma, etc. accepted Manu's authority. Great Ṛṣis such as Bhṛgu had attained this vidyā from Manu. And Manu had attained it from Brahmā himself. Veda itself accepts Manu's authority.

if smṛtis are conflicting with each other on some issue, then there are either laying down optional alternatives or talking in different contexts. In short, both are to be taken as valid. This is said by both Medhātithi in Manubhāṣya (2.15) and Devī Bhāgavata Purāṇa (11.1.21-25). Of course, mostly there isn't actually a conflict, but due to one's lack of interpretative skills, one perceives a conflict. This is why, it's important to consult traditional commentaries.

Kulārṇava tantra (17.11-12) defines ācārya. archive.org/details/… You can check it. Also, don't put down all ācāryas, simply because there might be some people, who are insincere. If you can't trust current ācāryas, you don't need to doubt the authority of ācāryas of old, such as Ādi Śaṅkara, Ṛṣis such as Vasiṣṭha, etc. smṛtikāras such as Manu, Yājñavalkya, etc. and so on

Stop trusting a random western psychologist who knows nothing about rebirth, trust your ācāryas of old, Ṛṣis, etc., who did possess jñāna. Rebirth is true, and that doesn't need a 'scientific' validation. As for memory of past life, i have already shared points regarding it.

The people who speak of 'aura' testing and all via instruments, are in pseudoscientific territory, they are neither traditional nor scientific. Aura to begin with, is nothing traditional, but a made up western concept.

Well, sciences don't accept the traditional standpoint. Medical science doesn't accept rebirth. Traditional standpoint is not pseudoscientific, unless you do a nonsensical mix-mashup with science (which isn't sound in scientific framework but pretends to be scientific) like say Deepak Chopra, etc. do and how theosophists (Blavatsky, etc.) did.

Also, to have recognition of past life, you don't need to be some so-called saint. As per Bauddha framework, upon attaining yogipratyakṣa, one attains recognition of the past lives too, just like Buddha. However, yogipratyakṣa is not some child's play, one has to do tremendous sādhanā. That is why, it's better not to believe the random people you may hear about on news, etc. You can trust Ṛṣis, yogins, ācāryas of old, Buddhas, etc. but not these people. Rest is upto you.

If you trust these unreliable people just like that, you would neither be taking a traditional standpoint nor scientific standpoint. You would be in the chasm, and in a pseudoscientific territory, which you did enter when you said things about birth mark and scientists verifying past life with it.

there is no way to ascertain the truth validity of that still, even if a person has a birth mark on forehead, where s/he might claim to have been shot in prev. life.

Śāstra doesn't say to believe the words of any random people and taking them as truth. You should trust śiṣṭas, but not ordinary people, on such matters. Also, science can't say anything on such matters. If you go on medical science, your birth mark has nothing to do with a so-called 'past life'. Medical science doesn't accept or reject rebirth, by default it doesn't take rebirth into consideration.

Of course, in the case of siddhas, Ṛṣis, yogins, Buddhas or Bodhisattvas, you can trust their words, if they say so-and-so was their past life. There is no problem in trusting śiṣṭas.

Well, in this matter, you can't trust people, there is no way to verify what they're saying regarding their past life, unless you yourself are a Ṛṣi, etc. The person who is claiming his/her past life was so-and-so, might be paranoid, or making it up (and believed that made-up truth), or just imagining. Even if the so-called memories of past life aren't made-up exactly, you can't say for certain if they are truth or not.

@Haridasa For e.g. If I don't accept the validity of Bauddha śāstras or Buddha, that doesn't necessarily imply I disrespect or insult the śāstras or Buddha. By just not accepting Buddha, I won't be insulting him actually. However, if I heap abuses, etc., then I would be insulting him. If I say wrong things about him, that would be insult too.

Not all pāpas are aparādhas. If a Brāhmaṇa drinks wine, he would commit a pāpa, but not an aparādha. The Rājā cannot give a daṇḍa to him, in this case. But Yama can surely give him a daṇḍa. Thus, the authority of governing such a pāpa or puṇya, is beyond the domain of the Rājā.

@Haridasa Rudely insulting or criticizing devatās and not believing in devatās by one's own self, are two different things. The latter may not necessarily insult the devatās. Although, s/he might commit pāpa by rejecting devatās, but not an aparādha, by just disbelief/rejection alone. So, it would be better, if you stop confusing the two things.

@Haridasa Basically, one's aśraddhā simply, doesn't make one deserving of being daṇḍita by the Rājā. However, if one commits an aparādha, on its basis, then surely one deserves an appropriate daṇḍa for it. For e.g. just because a person A doesn't accept an Īśvara or svarga, doesn't make him/her deserving of being punished by the king, for s/he hasn't committed any fault in the legal sense. This is the dharmaśāstrika opinion

That nāstika might attain narakagati due to his/her aśraddhā or not, is beyond the sway of Rājadaṇḍa. @Haridasa But if a nāstika commits an aparādha, then s/he does fall within the sway of Rājadaṇḍa. Therefore, it's not like nāstikas can't stay within the rājya.

However, if the nāstikas do commit aparādha, on the basis of their aśraddhā or otherwise, then surely they should be daṇḍita appropriately by the Rājā, just like anyone else in his prajā.

@Haridasa Here, nāstikam is defined by Medhātithi as "nāsti paraloko nāsti dattaṁ nāsti hutamiti." This seems more akin to a Cārvāka, than to a Buddhist or Jaina. This is because even though Bauddha and Jaina don't havanas, do not accept Īśvara, but they still uphold the sāmānya dharmas, hold dāna highly and accept a paraloka. Furthermore, Manusmṛti (8.309) still doesn't imply that the Rājā should exile the nāstikas.

@Haridasa I am not sure what you mean by cohabitation? Do you mean having a married relationship with them? Or do you simply mean living together with them, like with any other person within the same town, village, city, or country? If you mean the latter, I am not aware of dharmaśāstras really speak anything against it.