Talk:Kali Yuga

Shaivism section neutrality

The "In Shaivism" section doesn't seem neutral at all. It uses the POV of one Babaji as its only source to represent all of Shaivism. If neutral sourcing can't be found, perhaps the section should be deleted. Jroberson108 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The POV section has been deleted. If there are any beliefs about Kali Yuga in Shaivism as a whole that differ from the rest of Hinduism, discuss on the talk page. Jroberson108 (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Aryabhata

Doesn’t Aryabhata put dates for his work based on an earlier calendar? This article suggests that Aryabhata calculated the date. When the Wiki page Aryabhata say it is the other way around.

Aryabhata mentions in the Aryabhatiya that he was 23 years old 3,600 years into the Kali Yuga

He does not seem to make calculations of the date of the commencement of the Yuga. I think Aryabhata was using a calendar system which was already established by his time. ChandlerMinh (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see where it says Aryabhata calculated the date. Both articles give the same info as far as what he wrote. Jroberson108 (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Edits on Kali Yuga article

Hi - I noticed you reverted some of my edits on the Kali Yuga article citing the MOS:LEAD policy. I understand the lead section is what most people will read and felt including background information on the other yuga cycles would provide some good context on where Kali Yuga sits within the cycle Starlights99 (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Starlights99: Correct, this edit was reverted with an edit summary of "Revert per MOS:LEAD; should summarize Kali Yuga article content. Text seems copied from Yuga Cycle; no need to duplicate here." I understand your intentions. This article doesn't cover a kalpa or manvantara. The lead already briefly explains when this yuga occurs in the Yuga Cycle and the yugas that immediately precede and follow. The info you added is already on the more appropriate Yuga Cycle article. Jroberson108 (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Start date of Kali Yuga

Hi, @Jroberson108. This is regarding (Revert, not an improvement. The section is about the start date, which nothing added talked about) on page Kali Yuga .

1. Nowhere in Surya Siddhanta the start date of Kali Yuga is given.
2. Similarly No where mathematician Aryabhata, says that Kali Yuga started in 3102 BCE.
3. In the case of Aryabhatiya, K.S. Shukla has shown that the Aryabhatiya text is not as per Hindu tradition. The division of time is as per Jain tradition.
4. Brahmgupta confirmed this contention of 3 above.

In both cases 1 and 2, it is the view of the translator/commentator. In the first case it is Rev. Burgess. In the second case it is Prof. K.S. Shukla. Perhaps, you are unaware of these details. You may like to confirm these and revert the edit. A081950 (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@A081950: Moved the discussion here so other's can also comment. Per the edit summary, the main issue is that you added something outside the section's topic, the start date. The section has been there for a long time, but could use some cleaning up in my opinion. The Aryabhata part does sound confusing. I tried to clean it up and added some more sources. If there are other start dates worth mentioning, then it can be appended with WP:RS. Hopefully that helps some. I'm not sure if the Aryabhata part is needed, but I left it there since it's been there for a long time. Jroberson108 (talk) 08:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Jroberson108. There is only one start date for the current Kali Yuga that is stated in the section, Kali Yuga. There is no issue.

One attributed to Surya Siddhanta is now removed. It addressed point 1 raised by me. Looks good.

Now the confusion about Aryabhata. The Source reference [1] says "The beginning of kaliyug. (3102 BC)". Adding 1 to change from BC to BCE is new research. General impression is Aryabhatiya is a Hindu astronomy treatise. However, in the light of two additions I made, this appears to be not a correct view. In the first one, KS Shukla shows that the Aryabhatiya text is as per Jain traditions.[2] In the second one, WE Clarks indicates that Brahmgupta's speaks the same thing: "differed from smrti or tradition". [3]

In my opinion scholars who intermix the two, Surya Siddhanta and Aryabhatiya commit mistake. Adoption of a date of KY 3102 BC based on a book as per Jain traditions may not be correct as per Hindu traditions. Hope this helps. A081950 (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@A081950: Adding one when converting number of years to BCE/CE isn't really new. You'll note the source uses 3601 instead of 3600 + 1. This at least explains it. I added a link to year zero to further clarify if readers want to learn more.

As far as I know, Aryabhatiya is generally accepted as a Hindu text or at least used by them. Further analysis doesn't seem relevant in that section. It does sound like something to discuss at Talk:Aryabhatiya. Jroberson108 (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

WE Clarks mentioned at page 54 , The terminology is distinctively Jaina.¹ In spite of evidences to the contrary, if people wish to believe "Aryabhatiya is accepted as a Hindu text," I have nothing to add. A081950 (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)