Mahabharata Date-discussion on a recent publication

7/30/2019 Mahabharata Date-discussion on a recent publication

1/6

Dear Scholars,

Here is my feedback on Chapter 7 of the book "The Mahbhrata War: its Date on the

basis of Astronomical References" by B.N.Narahari Achar

Thanks

RN IyengarCentre for Ancient History & Culture

Jain University, Bangalore

----Feedback:

It is true that mainstream historians have ignored the analysis of sky pictures contained in

ancient Sanskrit texts. As Prof.B N Achar (abbr: BNA) implies, this indifference on thepart of historians is due to the prevalent concept of the so called Aryans entering the

Indian subcontinent from outside around 1500 BCE. Having said so it should also be

pointed out that archaeoastronomy alone cannot be the final deciding factor in fixingancient dates. It is necessary to demonstrate unambiguous physical correlation between

the texts and the artifacts dug out from the geographical locations from where theastronomical observations are stated to have been done. In the well known MB sites the

oldest cultural layers can be stretched to c 1500 BCE but nothing older than this date (Lal1950-52).

With availability of computers anyone can use a variety of planetarium software to printout sky pictures of the past. Familiarity and working knowledge of Astronomy is

sufficient to use the software. This is certainly a powerful tool for historians. But this is

only a tool and the derived result cannot be treated as primary evidence without further

justification. MB under scrutiny here are not astronomical in a modern sense. There isconsiderable ambiguity in interpreting the basic data that forms the input to the

planetarium software. Hence translation of the Sanskrit text and dispassionate

presentation of the sky data contained therein are more important even if they turn out tobe uncertain. The basic weakness of the present paper lies in the absence of textual

criticism to first establish the reliability or otherwise of the data that is used as input to

the software. This has led to a series of assumptions which are later asserted as proved ordemonstrated. This is glaringly evident when the author assumes, in the bhsma-parvan

ofMB, planets to be comet apparitions wherever the text is found to be inconvenient for

his thesis. In a serious research on ancient astronomy some assumptions may be

necessary as a way forward. But any such study is expected to report sensitivity of thefinal results to the assumptions made.

One of his interpretative basis is contained in his claim astronomical references in the

Bhsma Parva and the Udyoga Parvaform a very consistent set and in the context ofomens as indicating impending calamities, agree closely with the tradition of omens in

Atharvaveda and its pariistas. By the latter he means the Atharvaveda-pariista (AVP)

which he quotes in many places without critical analysis, under the assumption that it ismore ancient than the epicMB.

But, AVP contains statements which were possible only in the last centuries of the first

millennium BCE. It does not have any chapter or verses known asyuddhalaksanam. The

only yuddha or war that AVP knows is chapter 51 named grahayuddham referring to

1


2/6

conjunction and circling of planets among themselves. There is also a portent ofbid la-

ul ka-yuddha i.e. skirmish between cats and owls (AVP 64.6.9). The table presented as a

comparison betweenMB andAVP can hardly be taken as textual analysis.

Chapter 64 in AVP is titled utptalaksanam (Character of Anomalies) and has nothing

specially to do with wars. The original verse ofAVPcited by the author is

arke abhraparighdnm pariveso arkacandrayoh|

lkslohitavarnatvam sarvesm ca vicranam || (64.57)

The verse is in no way specific to predicting war as claimed by the author. His partialquotations onparivesa are;

snigdhesu parivesesu catursvetesu nrada|

sandhyym atra varnesu vrstim tesvabhinirdiet ||prthivym rjavamynm mahad bhayam upasthitam|

lokaksayakaram vidyd yadi devo na varsati || (AVP 61.1.4 & 16)

The above verses are about clouds and rainfall. The last line above makes it clear that if it

does not rain, it creates great fear among the people and the royal families. Verse before

and after the above in Chapter 61 ofAVPare also about clouds and rainfall. In no way

these are relevant for interpreting the astronomy of the Epic.

The third citation fromAVPis about eclipses, which again the author quotes partially.

tmro bhavati astrya rkso bhavati mrtyave|bahvkras tu bhtnm ghoram janayate jvaram ||

dhmavarno'gnivarno v grmesu nagaresu v|

agnyutptn grhasthnm karotha mahgrahah || (53.5,1-2)

A dotted line is shown for the last line of the second verse above, as if the text is missing

in the original manuscript ofAVP. Actually the text is fully available and it is no portent

for agreat war among kings but an omen forfire accidents among householders. There isnothing to show any special correspondence between MB and theAVP. It is disappointing

to see the author seeking support from AVP a late text which presupposes MB, as itknows itihsa (AVP1.15.1; 68.2.62) as available to the society already. What was the

itihsa to which AVP pays obeisance if it was not MB? Disciples of Vysa namely,

Jaimini, Vaiampyana, Paila were known to AVP(43.4.14-17). AVPpays respects to

Pnini by name. One may argue that like several other texts AVPmay contain old andalso later information in a layered fashion. But definitely it is not an accented text with

mantras and hence cannot claim Vedic authority like the Samhit and the Brhmana

texts. EvenMB is traditionally known to have at least three layers. Hence to argue for thedating ofMB with the help of a text that got fixed very late is to put the cart before the

horse. The AVPtext prescribes a foreign currency, the golden dinra to be given awaytato mndaliko rj dnrnm gavm atam|pranamya raddhay tasmai dadyd uddhara mm iti || (AVP 36.26.3)

Thus it is obviousAVPshould be assigned to the last few centuries of the first millennium

BCE, prior to c100 CE when Kushans, with dnra as their currency, were ruling in thenorthwestern part of India.

2


3/6

BNA is fond of accusing me as having made ad hoc hypotheses in dating the MB

statements. This criticism of BNA refers to the MB dating of 1493-1443 BCE

demonstrated by me by reconciling the two conflicting positions of Saturn to beastronomically valid statements separated by fourteen or fifteen years between the

gambling episode and the war (Iyengar 2003). For the present feedback, whether I am

right or wrong is irrelevant. Anyway, BNA has no qualms in taking anaicara as Saturnin one place(MB V.141.7) but as a comet a few verses later in the same book. His main

effort is to somehow interpret conflicting statements about planets as referring to comets.

He claims Vysa leaves no doubt to the fact that in bhsmaparvan, the wordgraha refersto a comet That BNA is writing without evidence will be clear to any one taking

the trouble to read the original text. In the bhsmaparvan the word graha appears some

twenty times. Since the word is a generic one, it could be used to refer to comets. But it is

not exclusively reserved for comets as claimed. In the bh.parvan (3.29) quoted by BNA,the word refers to Sun and Moon. In (13.40) it refers to Rhu, the eclipse causer. In (17.2)

seven grahas are mentioned, which obviously cannot all be taken to be comets. In (96.35-

36) the grahas are said to five in number and affecting Sun and Moon. About the

nomenclature of comets, BNA likes to take support from Varha-mihira. Varha in theBrhat-samhit on Ketucra clearly says he is borrowing his information from Garga,

Parara, Asita and Devala. So what is the relevance of comets of Brhat-samhit for theastronomy ofMB? It is true that ancient writers describe some groups of comets or

meteorites as grahaputrh (planet-children). Hence sryaputra might mean a comet in

MB instead of Saturn as in later traditions. But the statement he also refers to thecomets by the name of the parent planets, i.e., Jupiter to indicate the comet son of

Jupiter is a figment of imagination. The difficulties of BNA are clearly with the position

of Jupiter and Saturn said to be nearvikha. The relevant verses are

grahau tmrrunaikhau prajvalantviva sthitau|

saptarsnm udrnm samavacchdya vai prabhm||

samvatsarasthyinau ca grahau prajvalitvubhau |vikhayoh sampasthau brhaspatianaicarau||

The first half-verse which is quoted by BNA, could refer to comet bodies as claimed. But

these were near U. Major in the northern sky as can be understood from the context insecond half which the learned author conveniently forgets to quote. His claim of Jupiter

and Saturn being names of comets in the second verse above is negated as these two

objects are qualified as being year-long stationary near the ecliptic stars vikha. These

two celestial objects brhaspati andanaicara are said to be bright and shining. This doesnot in any way mean Vysa intends them to be comets of that name.

The further specious claim of BNA is that the purported usage of denoting the son by the

name of the father .is quite according to Sanskrit grammar. If it is so, the authorshould have supported his claim with justifications from an authoritative text on Sanskrit

grammar. In the absence of such support his statement is just a piece of empty rhetoric.

The author adds the phrase son of in front of every planet the position of which provesinconvenient to his preconceived chronology. This type of wishful translation is as good

as deriding the original composer of the Epic for lack of vocabulary. Similar is the

authors dismissal that star Dhruva mentioned to be drifting during the MB war cannotrefer to the Polestar. BNA gives no reason for ignoring this astronomical statement. Is it

3


4/6

because he knows that -Draconis was the Polestar during 3200-2400 BCE and its

movement as recorded inMB would assign the latter to a date later than 2400 BCE?

BNA assumes that Karna was able to predict a forthcoming solar eclipse. What is the

basis for this ad hoc assumption? Further he takes that this was near starjyesth which is

nowhere mentioned to be so inMB. The argument of BNA that there was a lunar eclipse

on krtika-prnim and a solar eclipse in jyesth star is an extrapolation in the realm ofpossibility but not attested by the MB text. Figure 4 is supposed to represent a solar

eclipse on 14th October 3067 BCE. But was this visible in Kuruksetra? Similarly Fig.8 is

claimed to represent a lunar eclipse on 29th September of the same year. One has to justbelieve the author for this assertion. Results obtained from other planetarium software do

not support the authors claim. These and such other issues casting doubts on the results

of the author have been raised earlier also (Chandra Hari 2003). But BNA has remainedreluctant to subject his results to alternate methods of computations which are openly

available to anyone seriously interested in scientific archaeoastronomy.

Any observation will have errors and hence it is necessary to find out how sensitive thefinal result is to the various assumptions done. The author claims that his results are

consistent with the text. What is meant by consistency? The author does not define this

nor state a criterion against which his consistency can be verified. Textual criticism andthe Indian tradition of astronomy about MB statements are irrelevant to the author. For

example, Bhattotpala (9th -10th Cent.) the celebrated commentator on the Brhat-samhit

takes that the eclipse duo mentioned in MB occurred in the thirteenth (intercalary) month;not at thirteen day interval. With difficult planetary positions being ignored whimsically

as comets, the principle followed is loud and clear. Following such a method, of course,

any date can be demonstrated for the MB war. Those who crave for modern scientific

analysis to show that the traditional Kaliyuga start was in 3102 BCE will initially feelelated, till they realize that it is a pyrrhic victory gained by distorting planets to be comets

on the bizarre claim that denoting the son by the name of the father is as per Sanskrit

grammar. Other than this imaginary interpretation of the author there is no authority fortaking Vysas planets as comets. An offshoot of this is the anticlimax that his result of

3067 BCE for theMB war depends solely on imputing convoluted and spurious meanings

to well attested usages of Sanskrit words. Hence the hard work of the author is anexample to show that a straight forward reading of the text does not lead to 3067 BCE for

theMB war.

To arrive at the authors MB war date of 3067 BCE one has to firmly believe that ends

justify the means, because several untenable assumptions are necessary as described by

the author himself. It has to be first assumed that Karna was able to predict solar eclipses

based on portents. Only one planet namely, Saturn near starrohin(Aldebaran) sighted byKarna in the udyogaparvan has to be taken as a real observation. Eventhough Karna

meant that Mars was visible near star anrdh after having retrograded underjyesth,it has to be taken to mean that on the conversation night it was well pastanrdh. This

special pleading, not voiced by the author, is essential since as per the planetarium

software results shown, Mars would have been near starravana and invisible to Karnaon the night of conversation. Beyond the above concession, according to the author, all

other planets mentioned by Vysa are to be treated as comets carrying the name of

4


5/6

planets. Following the author, unless the planets angraka, (Mars in retrograde near star

magh), brhaspat, ukra, anaicara, in the bhsma-parvan are assumed to be comets, the

above date cannot be arrived at. The original text itself unambiguously refers to two orthree comets or such apparitions in the sky. Hence, the approach of the author leads the

reader to reckon with a formidable array of ten or more comets simultaneously appearing

at the time of the war. Prof. Achar, after taking planets to be comets, feels no scientificcompulsion to discuss the possibility and/or probability of a swarm of comets occupying

the night sky around the purported date of 3067 BCE from the perspectives of modern

Astrophysics.

In conclusion, those who passionately hold on to the doctrine that the MB war date

should match with thesiddhntic astronomical Kaliyuga start of 3102 BCE, will have to

unconditionally subscribe to the authors approach of text torturing and distortion. Otherswill easily infer that whatever may be the real date of Krishna and MB war, the naked eye

astronomical observations mentioned inMB do not historically belong to 3067 BCE.--

Lal, B.B. (1950-52) Excavation at Hastinpura and other Explorations in theUpper Gang and Sutlej Basins in Ancient India, Bull. Arch. Survey of Ind. No.10 &11,

(5-151).

Iyengar, R.N. (2003) Internal Consistency of Eclipses and Planetary Positions in theMahbhrata, Ind.J Hist. Sci., 38.2, (77-115).

Chandra Hari K. (2003) Date of the Mahbhrata War- A Review of some RecentStudies in Kamath (ed) The Date of the Mahabhrata War Based on Astronomical Data ,

Bangalore, The Mythic Society, (117-143).

---------

From: Girish Nath Jha

Date: Dec 28, 10:47 pm

Subject: Book on Origin of Indian CivilizationTo:

Dear scholarsA new edited volume titled "Perspectives on the Origin of

Indian Civilizations" has been published by the Center of Indic Studies, UMASSD and

DK Printworld. The goal is to assimilate various perspectives in the light of newer dataand research.

The blurb image is attached. You are requested to publicize the volumeand give your valuable feedback

thanks--Dr. Girish Nath Jha

Associate Professor, Computational Linguistics

Special Center for Sanskrit Studies,J.N.U., New Delhi - 110067http://www.jnu.ac.in/faculty/gnjhahttp://

sanskrit.jnu.ac.in

ph.26741308 (o)

5
mailto:[email protected]://www.jnu.ac.in/faculty/gnjhahttp:/http://sanskrit.jnu.ac.in/http://www.jnu.ac.in/faculty/gnjhahttp:/http://sanskrit.jnu.ac.in/mailto:[email protected]


6/6

Mukesh and Priti Chatter Distinguished Professor of History of

Science, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth,

USAhttp://www.umassd.edu/indic/facultyandstaff/

Perspectives on the Origin of Indian Civilizations.jpg

765KViewDownload

6
http://www.umassd.edu/indic/facultyandstaff/http://www.umassd.edu/indic/facultyandstaff/

Mahabharata Date-discussion on a recent publication

Documents

Transcript of Mahabharata Date-discussion on a recent publication