Maha Bharata : The Dating of A Timeless Epic.

Graham Hancock, one of the leading proponent of the school of forbidden archaeology, has argued passionately that the temple complex at Angkor Wat mirror the the constellation Draco, not as it existed in the 12th century CE, but the 12000 years BP. This school and their ilk are so obsessed with the extreme antiquity of early history, they conveniently ignore other factors that have contributed to our understanding of history. The problem with this new stream is the data is not empirical( like archaeology and linguistics) but mostly conjectures and assumptions....

Well, I don't think you've read the link that I've posted nor do you seem familiar with Prof Elst's general outlook & work. I'd leave it at that.
 
Well, I don't think you've read the link that I've posted nor do you seem familiar with Prof Elst's general outlook & work. I'd leave it at that.

I'm aware of the papers of scholars, whom E Bryant calls Indigenous Indo-Aryanists, Like Koenraad Elst, Shrikant Talageri and S. Kalyanaraman. I've gone through this paper and although i cannot claim any expertise in Astronomy and astrology, what I'm saying is that historians doubt the integrity and methodology of using astronomical texts to establish ancient archaeology and generally don't use this data in writing historical chronology, not as much as they do with Archaeological data or linguistics.
 
I'm aware of the papers of scholars, whom E Bryant calls Indigenous Indo-Aryanists, Like Koenraad Elst, Shrikant Talageri and S. Kalyanaraman. I've gone through this paper and although i cannot claim any expertise in Astronomy and astrology, what I'm saying is that historians doubt the integrity and methodology of using astronomical texts to establish ancient archaeology and generally don't use this data in writing historical chronology, not as much as they do with Archaeological data or linguistics.
None of these historians you refer to have even paid cursory attention to these astronomical treatises. To begin with it doesn't suit their agenda ( AIT) & their knowledge of astronomy seems inadequate.

Granted that astronomy per se is no substitute for archaeology but it certainly goes a long way in confirming the veracity of the areas under consideration in the Vedas, the MB, Ramayan, the puranas, etc. for certain astronomical phenomena , as the link bears out , would be visible at a certain era only from a certain place.

Today, after much hemming & hawing we seem to have a consensus between scholars, historians , academics , etc - both AIT & OIT that the Vedas belonged to a specific sub branch of one of the prominent Indo Aryan tribes namely the Trtsu - Bharatas of the Puru ( later Kuru Panchal) tribe .

The geography of the composition of the Rg Veda has now narrowed down to between the BMAC to NW India ( inclusive of course of NW Pakistan - namely KPK & Pakistani Punjab) whereas it was previously speculated to be in between the Pontic Steppes & BMAC.

Much like how Schleemann went solely by his copy of Homer's Iliad, if one were to test the astronomical observations in the Vedas & other scriptures you narrow it down to a particular geography which in turn then depends on what archaeological excavations in that area reveal.

The dating of the MB or the Rg Veda will never be established solely by one branch of determination . Rather an inter disciplinary approach where archaeology teaming up with linguistics, paleo archaeology, genetics, archaeo astronomy, etc would determine the historicity of these treasured epics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: S. A. T. A
None of these historians you refer to have even paid cursory attention to these astronomical treatises. To begin with it doesn't suit their agenda ( AIT) & their knowledge of astronomy seems inadequate.

Granted that astronomy per se is no substitute for archaeology but it certainly goes a long way in confirming the veracity of the areas under consideration in the Vedas, the MB, Ramayan, the puranas, etc. for certain astronomical phenomena , as the link bears out , would be visible at a certain era only from a certain place.

Today, after much hemming & hawing we seem to have a consensus between scholars, historians , academics , etc - both AIT & OIT that the Vedas belonged to a specific sub branch of one of the prominent Indo Aryan tribes namely the Trtsu - Bharatas of the Puru ( later Kuru Panchal) tribe .

The geography of the composition of the Rg Veda has now narrowed down to between the BMAC to NW India ( inclusive of course of NW Pakistan - namely KPK & Pakistani Punjab) whereas it was previously speculated to be in between the Pontic Steppes & BMAC.

Much like how Schleemann went solely by his copy of Homer's Iliad, if one were to test the astronomical observations in the Vedas & other scriptures you narrow it down to a particular geography which in turn then depends on what archaeological excavations in that area reveal.

The dating of the MB or the Rg Veda will never be established solely by one branch of determination . Rather an inter disciplinary approach where archaeology teaming up with linguistics, paleo archaeology, genetics, archaeo astronomy, etc would determine the historicity of these treasured epics.

The reason for citing the example of Hancock and his Angkor thesis was to show how a modern historical data( the the temple complex and its supposed astronomic layout)can to misinterpreted and juxtaposed to create extreme antiquity. Aside from the AIT Vs Indigeous school of opinion, i don't the historian community is averse to bringing scientific precision to historical data and use that data to arrive at chronology. After all Historians have embraced such methodology as the C-14 dating, Thermoluminescence dating, into their discipline, precisely because they provide unambiguous empirical data. If astrological texts could provide similar precision and empirical data, I'm sure the community will embrace it too. Unfortunately astrological texts which these studies are based, themselves are of much later period and scholars within these disciplines have no consensus on the various interpretation of the texts. SO you can understand why the Historians, who have no training in this discipline, are skeptical about the data from this field.
 
Last edited:
To begin with, the Vedas, etc have recorded astronomocal observations not astrological ones. The Vedanga Jyotisha is Vedic Astronomy not Vedic astrology. Predictive astrology as we understand it today was never part of the Vedic religion who used these astronomical observations to prepare an Almanac which was supposed to be a guide as to proper selection of the time / season for Vedic yagnas.

Perhaps this primer may help.


Now astronomical observations & calculations can be either validated or invalidated without any scope for debate. Besides as sophisticated as Vedic Jyothisha was, calculus wasn't invented then for the ancients to antedate what they considered to be historical events recorded along with astronomical observations. That was the crux of Prof Elst's blog post if you've read it.

You're citing of Hancock & his experiments with Angkor Wat is totally out of place in this instance. There's no parallel whatsoever.


The reason for citing the example of Hancock and his Angkor thesis was to show how a modern historical data( the the temple complex and its supposed astronomic layout)can to misinterpreted and juxtaposed to create extreme antiquity. Aside from the AIT Vs Indigeous school of opinion, i don't the historian community is averse to bringing scientific precision to historical data and use that data to arrive at chronology. After all Historians have embraced such methodology as the C-14 dating, Thermoluminescence dating, into their discipline, precisely because they provide unambiguous empirical data. If astrological texts could provide similar precision and empirical data, I'm sure the community will embrace it too. Unfortunately astrological texts which these studies are based, themselves are of much later period and scholars within these disciplines have no consensus on the various interpretation of the texts. SO you can understand why the Historians, who have no training in this discipline, are skeptical about the data from this field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vstol Jockey
To begin with, the Vedas, etc have recorded astronomocal observations not astrological ones. The Vedanga Jyotisha is Vedic Astronomy not Vedic astrology. Predictive astrology as we understand it today was never part of the Vedic religion who used these astronomical observations to prepare an Almanac which was supposed to be a guide as to proper selection of the time / season for Vedic yagnas.

Perhaps this primer may help.


Now astronomical observations & calculations can be either validated or invalidated without any scope for debate. Besides as sophisticated as Vedic Jyothisha was, calculus wasn't invented then for the ancients to antedate what they considered to be historical events recorded along with astronomical observations. That was the crux of Prof Elst's blog post if you've read it.

You're citing of Hancock & his experiments with Angkor Wat is totally out of place in this instance. There's no parallel whatsoever.

Of course i'm not suggesting that Hancock's argument is the same as Prof Elst, however the methodology is the same, using much recent architecture style( or texts) to speculate on antiquity. The Vedic Mantra texts( the four samhitas) are not astronomic or astrological texts, to assume any celestial observation found in it to be precise or scientific. The Vedanga branch of the Vedic corpus itself is much later than the Samhita texts and it is generally assumed that the oldest of the branch, Nirukta( on etymology) of Yaska , is from 5th century BCE ( little more earlier than its most famous successor treatise by Panini). Vedanga Jyotisha is from much later period and cannot be of much for arriving at date for a period at a millennia older.
 


As @AudreyTruschke recently triggered a discussion on Mahabharata, a thread on the same

Key questions

1. Is there a historical kernel to Mahabharata?
2. If yes, which epoch's events does it describe?
3. How old is the text itself as opposed to the events
4. Who are its authors?

Now the common issue in public discourse is -

We tend to mix up 2 and 3

Mahabharata's social milieu is definitely pre-Buddhist by a very long margin.

Possibly belonging to the middle-Vedic period (possibly contemporaneous with the composition of the Brahmana texts)
But this does not mean that all 100K verses in the vulgate versions that exist today also date back to the middle-Vedic period

That would be a stretch. And even many traditionally rooted scholars have not taken that view, if one examines the historiography of the epic
First Question 1 -

What makes us think the Mahabharata has a historical core?

In part because several of its characters and its polities find mention in Vedic literature. Including its purported early author krSNa dvaipAyana vyAsa
To be precise it is in the Kathaka brAhmaNa of the Krishna Yajurveda (Black YV) that vyAsa parAsharya finds mention

Of course it may be argued that there is more than one vyAsa, but there is little doubt that a character bearing that title was around during middle Vedic period
Besides vyAsa, parts of Shatapatha brAhmaNa (affiliated to White Yajurveda), speaks of the mutual flourishing of Kurus and Panchalas - attesting to their historical existence

The same brAhmaNa also refers to Janamejaya Parikshita - a descendant of pANDavas
Mr CV Vaidya who published a study of Mahabharata in 1905, uses these references to argue that the Mahabharata war likely took place during the time the Shatapatha brAhmaNa was being composed
In Upanishadic literature too, there are references to the characters of the Epic

Most notably kRSNa devakIputra in Chandogya Upanishad - who is described as a student of Ghora Angirasa, and also a musing on the descendants of Parikshita in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
There are also references to Parikshita in Atharva veda, DhrtarAshtra Vaichitravirya (Yajur veda), Janamejaya (Aitareya brAhmaNa)

So there is little doubt that a historical core underlies the epic
Moving to Question 2 -

When do we date the events described in the epic (as opposed to the epic itself)?

In other words, when do we place the Kurukshetra war?

There are many candidate dates -

1. Circa 1000-900 BCE - Consensus in modern Indology
2. 3100 BCE - Traditional dating in brahmanic circles
3. 1400 BCE - based on a verse in Vishnu Purana
4. 2600 BCE - based on a reading of Varahamihira
The conventional dating of ~1000 BCE stems from the near consensus that the early Vedic period dates to 1500 BCE-ish, and hence the middle Vedic period (which is contemporaneous with the events and milieu of the Epic) has to fall sometime close to 1000 BCE
Among Indian scholars, BB Lal has also backed a date circa 1000-800 BCE based on Puranic genealogy and archeological evidence from the Painted Grey ware sites
The evidence stems from this pAurANika verse which states -

“When Hastinapura was flooded by Ganges, Nichakshu (a descendant of Parikshit) will abandon the city and shift his Kuru base to Kaushambi”
Now the flood has been confirmed by archeological evidence.

The purAnika genealogies also suggest that Nichakshu is the 5th generation descendant of Parikshit, Udayana (contemporary of Buddha) is 24th generation descendant of the War princes
Using an average reign of 15 years per ruler, we get to a date of 850-900 BCE.

So the ~1000 BCE conjecture of modern academics can be aligned with some verses in pAurANika literature

Now let’s move to a few other dates (with more traditional backing)
3102 BCE : This is the “traditional” date that most traditionalists accepted for a long time

Now what is the basis for this date? It stems from the understanding that the Kali Yuga begins in 3102 BCE, and the Kurukshetra war is supposed to coincide with the dawn of the Kali age
The dating of the beginning of Kali age to 3102 BCE itself is based on astronomical conjecture.

However 3102 BCE is not a new fangled date. Mr CV Vaidya in his work from early 1900s argues that even at the time of Chandragupta Maurya, traditional authorities backed that date!
This conclusion is arrived at from a Greek work (possibly derived from Megasthenes) which states that 138 generations separated “Heracles” (likely Hari-krishna) from Chandragupta Maurya.
Taking 20 years per generation, 2760 years separate the two. As Maurya ruled circa 310 BCE, you arrive at the dating of 3100 BCE which is also consistent with the understanding that the Kali age began then!
So clearly for 2000+ years, the Indian elite have backed the 3100 BCE date, though it is likely not accurate as suggested by modern Indology and also BB Lal
There are two other traditional sources which do not back the 3100 BCE date.

Varahamihira

Vishnu Purana
Varahamihira - who states that Yudhisthira precedes the Shaka era by 2526 years - placing the war circa 2600 BCE

viSNu purANa - which states that 1065 years separate the coronation of Mahapadma Nanda and King Parikshita
The Vishnu Purana verse would give a date of 1400 BCE to the Kurukshetra war - which does seem more plausible than the date of 2600 BCE or 3100 BCE.
So that’s the overview of the dates ascribed to the War

The traditional date of 3100 BCE appears to have had the backing for a v long time (maybe for 2000+ years)

But the viSNu purANa date of 1400 BCE is closer to the academic view that tends to a date around 1000 BCE
Next we move to Questions 3 and 4 -

3. When did the text take shape?
4. Who are its authors?
The text itself possibly has taken shape over a millennium (1200 BCE to 300 BCE) , possibly reaching its final form 2-3 centuries prior to the Common Era, with its early layers dating back to the “events” of the Epic themselves
Tradition ascribes the epic to kRSNa dwaipAyana Vyasa. Who likely authored the earliest core of the epic - which possibly composed of 8800 verses (as opposed to 100K in the present vulgate editions)

But how did the epic attain its present bulk? Do we know who edited it further?
Possibly the work of two subsequent individuals…

Sage VaisampAyana

Ugrasrava Sauti (possibly the final editor, and the narrator of the epic in its present form)
CV Vaidya’s hypothesis is that Vyasa’s epic was Jaya, Vaishampayana’s epic was “Bharata” , which eventually attained its present bulky form “mahA-bhArata” in the hands of Ugrashrava Sauti
Among these three authors, vyAsa and vaishampAyana were likely RSis of the brAhmaNa varNa, while Sauti was likely a member of the Suta
Caste - renowned for charioteering and storytelling.
Vaidya’s hypothesis is -

The original Jaya epic was likely a work of history - outlining the Kuru fortunes

Vaidya attributes the composition of Gita to either Vyasa or Vaishampayana - the Gita probably took shape before Sauti got his hands on the Epic
Vaidya’s other hypothesis is that progressively the Vaishnavite character of the Epic grew in the hands of later editors.

It was possibly in Vaishampayana’s edition that kRSNa’s life - the Harivamsha was added to the Epic, and maybe the Vishnu Sahasranama too
But I am not sure if these hypothesis can be validated by anyone

What is clear though is that what was originally a work of history assumed the character of a religious text, with important tracts on Dharma, and Vaishnavism

That's undeniable
Why did it assume the bulk that it did?

Possibly the religious character of the Epic became very important to counter heterodox creeds that were gaining popularity post 700 BCE
The Mahabharata perhaps became a central repository of orthodox brahmanical theistic ideas to counter the heterodox creeds (including Buddhism) that were gaining favor with the rulers at the time
On when do we date the final form of the Epic - is a tricky problem

It is quite likely the earliest epic is much closer in time to 1000 BCE than 500 BCE
Vaidya’s hypothesis is that most of the Epic had taken shape by 300 BCE, except perhaps the stray references to Yavanas etc which might have been added after that date
There is also a reference to Nagna Kshapanaka (possibly a Digambar Jain) in the Adi Parva. So accretions to the Epic post 400 BCE cannot be ruled out.
That brings us to the end of this survey.

Clearly MB is a work of history in its original conception, which assumed a pronounced religious character as the centuries wore on

It describes events possibly set in the middle Vedic period (1300-900 BCE)
It is likely the work of three major figures, as acknowledged by tradition

But there is little reason to doubt the fact that it had assumed its present form for the most part much before 300 BCE

So @AudreyTruschke 's categorical statement dating Mahabharata to 0CE is unfounded
Post script : Thread is influenced by CV Vaidya’s fine book on Mahabharata -

“Mahabharata - A Criticism” (1904)



Before trying to argue with @AudreyTruschke know her background a bit. Shes a jewish woman working towards her talmudic goals. Her knoledge of sanskrit is limited to Williams sanskrit dictionary. She will block you if you ever try to argue against her. Her father in law (most probably a crypto jew as these people dont marry outside their community) runs a Christian converting organisation called 'BLess India' to convert people and mint money.
 
The Vedic Mantra texts( the four samhitas) are not astronomic or astrological texts, to assume any celestial observation found in it to be precise or scientific.
Those astronomical observations tallied with recent astronomical software packages have dated them to as early as 3500 BCE. Besides what would be the motivation of the ancients to align specific incidents which they considered epochal to certain celestial occurrences & not others considering skeptics may tend to view the ancients as having made it up as you do.

Can't these simply be an extremely primitive way of recording the timing of such incidents?

The Vedanga branch of the Vedic corpus itself is much later than the Samhita texts and it is generally assumed that the oldest of the branch, Nirukta( on etymology) of Yaska , is from 5th century BCE ( little more earlier than its most famous successor treatise by Panini).
Hence my post was specifically restricted to astronomical phenomena as these could essentially be mathematically calculated to a reasonable degree of accuracy even in ancient times. Something which can easily be proved or disproved today.

Incidentally physicists & astronomers from late 18th century Europe were astounded by these observations which tallied well with astronomical table made then in Europe using what was then modern calculus leading some of them to declare that the oldest of these astronomical observations were well over 4000 BCE ( 4500 BCE to be precise) ago. The arguments as to why would the ancients forge such observations has been made above.

Excerpts from the said blog post by Prof Elst whose link I've attached in my previous post.

In 1790, the Scottish mathematician John Playfair demonstrated that the starting-date of the astronomical observations recorded in the ephemeris tables still in use among Hindu astrologers (of which three copies had reached Europe between 1687 and 1787) had to be 4300 BC. His proposal was dismissed as absurd or as blasphemous by some, but it has so far not been refuted by any scientist. Playfair's judicious use of astronomy was countered by John Bentley with a scriptural argument which will not convince many people today. Bentley (1825/1990:xxvii) objected: “By his [= Playfair's] attempt to uphold the antiquity of Hindu books against absolute facts, he thereby supports all those horrid abuses and impositions found in them, under the pretended sanction of antiquity. Nay, his aim goes still deeper, for by the same means he endeavours to overturn the Mosaic account, and sap the very foundation of our religion: for if we are to believe in the antiquity of Hindu books, as he would wish us, then the Mosaic account is all a fable, or a fiction.” Bentley (1825/1990:111), whom we would now call a “creationist” upholding Biblical chronology literally, also extrapolated his chronology (thus providing the public with a first test of its plausibility) to “prove” that Krishna was born on 7 August in AD 600, while the most conservative estimate elsewhere is the 9th century BC. Likewise he “proved” (1825/1990:158 ff.) that Varaha Mihira (AD 510-587) was a contemporary of the Moghul emperor Akbar (r.1556-1605). Bentley did not object to astronomy per se, in so far as it could be helpful in showing up the falsehood of Brahminical scriptures. However, it did precisely the reverse. Falsehood in this context could have meant that the Brahmins falsely claimed high antiquity for their texts by presenting as ancient astronomical observations recorded in Scripture what were in fact back-calculations from a much later age. But Playfair showed that this was impossible. Back-calculation of planetary positions is a highly complex affair requiring knowledge of a number of physical laws, universal constants and actual measurements of densities, diameters and distances. Though Brahminical astronomy was sophisticated for its time, it could only back-calculate planetary position of the presumed Vedic age with an inaccuracy margin quickly rising to at least several degrees of arc. With our modern knowledge, it is easy to determine what the actual positions were, and what the results of back-calculations with the Brahminical formulae would have been, e.g.: “Aldebaran was therefore 40’ before the point of the vernal equinox, according to the Indian astronomy, in the year 3102 before Christ. (...) [Modern astronomy] gives the longitude of that star 13’ from the vernal equinox, at the time of the Calyougham, agreeing, within 53’, with the determination of the Indian astronomy. This agreement is the more remarkable, that the Brahmins, by their own rules for computing the motion of the fixed stars, could not have assigned this place to Aldebaran for the beginning of Calyougham, had they calculated it from a modern observation. For as they make the motion of the fixed stars too great by more than 3” annually, if they had calculated backward from 1491, they would have placed the fixed stars less advanced by 4° or 5°, at their ancient epoch, than they have actually done.” (Playfair 1790/1983:87) So, it turns out that the data given by the Brahmins corresponded not with the results deduced from their formulae, but with the actual positions, and this, according to Playfair, for nine different astronomical parameters. This is a bit much to explain away as coincidence or sheer luck. That Hindu astronomical lore about ancient times cannot be based on later backcalculation, was also argued by Playfair's contemporary, the French astronomer (and first
Revolutionary mayor of Paris, 1789-91, beheaded in 1793) Jean-Sylvain Bailly: “the motions of the stars calculated by the Hindus before some 4500 years vary not even a single minute from the [modern] tables of Cassini and Meyer. The Indian tables give the same annual variation of the moon as that discovered by Tycho Brahe -- a variation unknown to the school of Alexandria and also to the Arabs”. (1787, quoted in Sathe 1982:32) Fabricating astronomical data going back thousands of years requires knowledge of Kepler’s and Newton’s laws describing the mechanics of the solar system and a mastery of differential equations. Failing this advanced knowledge, the data in the Brahminical tables must be based on actual observation. Ergo, the Vedic seers were present in person to record astronomical observations and preserve them for thousands of years: “The observations on which the astronomy of India is founded, were made more than three thousand years before the Christian era. (...) Two other elements of this astronomy, the equation of the sun's centre and the obliquity of the ecliptic (...) seem to point to a period still more remote, and to fix the origin of this astronomy 1000 or 1200 years earlier, that is, 4300 years before the Christian era”. (Playfair 1790/1971:118) Disputants may start by trying to prove Playfair and Bailly factually wrong. Indeed, I think it is high time to recheck their argumentation on the basis of all their original data. Meanwhile , it remains something of a scandal that Playfair's and Bailly's findings have been lying around for two hundred years while linguists and Indologists were publishing speculations on Vedic chronology in stark disregard for the contribution of astronomy.


Vedanga Jyotisha is from much later period and cannot be of much for arriving at date for a period at a millennia older.

The earliesr astronomical phenomena described in the Vedanga Jyotisha said to be authored by one Laggadha can be accurately dated back to around 1400 BCE. This much is proved. However, as per Witzel the language used in the composition of this sutra was classical sanskrit reflecting Paninian Grammar. Hence as per him the said text could not be older than 400 BCE.

However, like everything connected to the Vedas this too is being fiercely opposed with both schools of thought proposing their dates in accordance with their schools of belief - OIT & AIT / AMT .

 
  • Like
Reactions: S. A. T. A
Those astronomical observations tallied with recent astronomical software packages have dated them to as early as 3500 BCE. Besides what would be the motivation of the ancients to align specific incidents which they considered epochal to certain celestial occurrences & not others considering skeptics may tend to view the ancients as having made it up as you do.

Can't these simply be an extremely primitive way of recording the timing of such incidents?


Hence my post was specifically restricted to astronomical phenomena as these could essentially be mathematically calculated to a reasonable degree of accuracy even in ancient times. Something which can easily be proved or disproved today.

Incidentally physicists & astronomers from late 18th century Europe were astounded by these observations which tallied well with astronomical table made then in Europe using what was then modern calculus leading some of them to declare that the oldest of these astronomical observations were well over 4000 BCE ( 4500 BCE to be precise) ago. The arguments as to why would the ancients forge such observations has been made above.

Excerpts from the said blog post by Prof Elst whose link I've attached in my previous post.

In 1790, the Scottish mathematician John Playfair demonstrated that the starting-date of the astronomical observations recorded in the ephemeris tables still in use among Hindu astrologers (of which three copies had reached Europe between 1687 and 1787) had to be 4300 BC. His proposal was dismissed as absurd or as blasphemous by some, but it has so far not been refuted by any scientist. Playfair's judicious use of astronomy was countered by John Bentley with a scriptural argument which will not convince many people today. Bentley (1825/1990:xxvii) objected: “By his [= Playfair's] attempt to uphold the antiquity of Hindu books against absolute facts, he thereby supports all those horrid abuses and impositions found in them, under the pretended sanction of antiquity. Nay, his aim goes still deeper, for by the same means he endeavours to overturn the Mosaic account, and sap the very foundation of our religion: for if we are to believe in the antiquity of Hindu books, as he would wish us, then the Mosaic account is all a fable, or a fiction.” Bentley (1825/1990:111), whom we would now call a “creationist” upholding Biblical chronology literally, also extrapolated his chronology (thus providing the public with a first test of its plausibility) to “prove” that Krishna was born on 7 August in AD 600, while the most conservative estimate elsewhere is the 9th century BC. Likewise he “proved” (1825/1990:158 ff.) that Varaha Mihira (AD 510-587) was a contemporary of the Moghul emperor Akbar (r.1556-1605). Bentley did not object to astronomy per se, in so far as it could be helpful in showing up the falsehood of Brahminical scriptures. However, it did precisely the reverse. Falsehood in this context could have meant that the Brahmins falsely claimed high antiquity for their texts by presenting as ancient astronomical observations recorded in Scripture what were in fact back-calculations from a much later age. But Playfair showed that this was impossible. Back-calculation of planetary positions is a highly complex affair requiring knowledge of a number of physical laws, universal constants and actual measurements of densities, diameters and distances. Though Brahminical astronomy was sophisticated for its time, it could only back-calculate planetary position of the presumed Vedic age with an inaccuracy margin quickly rising to at least several degrees of arc. With our modern knowledge, it is easy to determine what the actual positions were, and what the results of back-calculations with the Brahminical formulae would have been, e.g.: “Aldebaran was therefore 40’ before the point of the vernal equinox, according to the Indian astronomy, in the year 3102 before Christ. (...) [Modern astronomy] gives the longitude of that star 13’ from the vernal equinox, at the time of the Calyougham, agreeing, within 53’, with the determination of the Indian astronomy. This agreement is the more remarkable, that the Brahmins, by their own rules for computing the motion of the fixed stars, could not have assigned this place to Aldebaran for the beginning of Calyougham, had they calculated it from a modern observation. For as they make the motion of the fixed stars too great by more than 3” annually, if they had calculated backward from 1491, they would have placed the fixed stars less advanced by 4° or 5°, at their ancient epoch, than they have actually done.” (Playfair 1790/1983:87) So, it turns out that the data given by the Brahmins corresponded not with the results deduced from their formulae, but with the actual positions, and this, according to Playfair, for nine different astronomical parameters. This is a bit much to explain away as coincidence or sheer luck. That Hindu astronomical lore about ancient times cannot be based on later backcalculation, was also argued by Playfair's contemporary, the French astronomer (and first
Revolutionary mayor of Paris, 1789-91, beheaded in 1793) Jean-Sylvain Bailly: “the motions of the stars calculated by the Hindus before some 4500 years vary not even a single minute from the [modern] tables of Cassini and Meyer. The Indian tables give the same annual variation of the moon as that discovered by Tycho Brahe -- a variation unknown to the school of Alexandria and also to the Arabs”. (1787, quoted in Sathe 1982:32) Fabricating astronomical data going back thousands of years requires knowledge of Kepler’s and Newton’s laws describing the mechanics of the solar system and a mastery of differential equations. Failing this advanced knowledge, the data in the Brahminical tables must be based on actual observation. Ergo, the Vedic seers were present in person to record astronomical observations and preserve them for thousands of years: “The observations on which the astronomy of India is founded, were made more than three thousand years before the Christian era. (...) Two other elements of this astronomy, the equation of the sun's centre and the obliquity of the ecliptic (...) seem to point to a period still more remote, and to fix the origin of this astronomy 1000 or 1200 years earlier, that is, 4300 years before the Christian era”. (Playfair 1790/1971:118) Disputants may start by trying to prove Playfair and Bailly factually wrong. Indeed, I think it is high time to recheck their argumentation on the basis of all their original data. Meanwhile , it remains something of a scandal that Playfair's and Bailly's findings have been lying around for two hundred years while linguists and Indologists were publishing speculations on Vedic chronology in stark disregard for the contribution of astronomy.




The earliesr astronomical phenomena described in the Vedanga Jyotisha said to be authored by one Laggadha can be accurately dated back to around 1400 BCE. This much is proved. However, as per Witzel the language used in the composition of this sutra was classical sanskrit reflecting Paninian Grammar. Hence as per him the said text could not be older than 400 BCE.

However, like everything connected to the Vedas this too is being fiercely opposed with both schools of thought proposing their dates in accordance with their schools of belief - OIT & AIT / AMT .

Almost all ancient societies did some amount of star gazing and charted the path of celestial bodies, however complex, sophisticated and dedicated astronomical studies are generally thought to have arose in heavily urbanized agrarian societies. While Mesopotamians in general (including Sumerian, Babylonians and Assyrians) had very sophisticated astronomical texts, the Egyptians, who less urbanized than the former, didn't (although off late attempts are being made to ascribe to Egyptians sophisticated knowledge of the cosmos that is alleged to be reflected in the alignment of the Pyramids.). The early and middle Vedic societies were quiet pastoral and semi sedentary in their economic outlook and wealth was not gauged by possessing fertile agrarian land, but by their cattle stock. Historians believe that while some interest in the cosmos may have prevailed in the early Vedic society, but in absence of any sophisticated agrarian urban society (like Mesopotamia or IVC) sophisticated astronomy, like it would emerge in the post Vedic period and much later in the historical period, would be pointless.


Some of the earliest references are often attributed to the Satapatha Brahamana and other post samhita texts. Most of these are isolated references and usually are not taken to be astronomic observation per say ( Raahu and Ketu in the traditions are to be literally take as one of the Navagraha or among the 9 planetary bodies, but because of the recent advances in cosmology, they are now interpreted as lunar nodes). We cannot speculate on possible motivation, perhaps there none or perhaps in best Indian tradition, they tried to associate favorable and unfavorable ancient events to good and bad position of stars and planets as understood by them in best astrological traditions of their time.
 
Almost all ancient societies did some amount of star gazing and charted the path of celestial bodies, however complex, sophisticated and dedicated astronomical studies are generally thought to have arose in heavily urbanized agrarian societies. While Mesopotamians in general (including Sumerian, Babylonians and Assyrians) had very sophisticated astronomical texts, the Egyptians, who less urbanized than the former, didn't (although off late attempts are being made to ascribe to Egyptians sophisticated knowledge of the cosmos that is alleged to be reflected in the alignment of the Pyramids.). The early and middle Vedic societies were quiet pastoral and semi sedentary in their economic outlook and wealth was not gauged by possessing fertile agrarian land, but by their cattle stock. Historians believe that while some interest in the cosmos may have prevailed in the early Vedic society, but in absence of any sophisticated agrarian urban society (like Mesopotamia or IVC) sophisticated astronomy, like it would emerge in the post Vedic period and much later in the historical period, would be pointless.
If the astronomical observations date to 4500 BCE by the Vedic people in the Rg Veda, it's in keeping with the general observation of the early Vedic people being a pastoral community. I say this for one of the founding principles of the OIT school is the theory that the Sindhu Saraswati Civilization ( SSC) is the same as the Vedic civilization. The earliest books of the Rg Veda are marked with exclusive celestial observations.

Now the mature Phase of the SSC is from 2500 BCE onwards based on the extant archaeological findings. The later books of the Rg Veda are seen to contain what can be considered a departure from mere astronomical observations into rudimentary mathematical calculations of celestial objects which can now be safely considered to be primitive astronomy. Prof Elst is of the opinion that the procedures for Vedic Yagnas laid down in the other Vedas namely Atharva & Yajur Vedas though under compilation from an earlier age were formalised only somewhere around the early to middle 3rd millennium based on the contents of these later Vedas i.e 2800 BCE onwards. Of course, he concedes this is speculative to an extent.

The above details works more in favor of the OIT school than the AIT / AMT school, if you ask me. Small wonder then, that the purveyors of the latter theory either ignore this wealth of information or selectively seek to distort it.


Some of the earliest references are often attributed to the Satapatha Brahamana and other post samhita texts. Most of these are isolated references and usually are not taken to be astronomic observation per say ( Raahu and Ketu in the traditions are to be literally take as one of the Navagraha or among the 9 planetary bodies, but because of the recent advances in cosmology, they are now interpreted as lunar nodes).
Rahu & Ketu aren't strictly astronomical phenomena & have more to do with predictive astrology. Correct me if I'm wrong @vstol Jockey

The Shatapatha Brahman itself is more of a commentary on the Yajur Veda principally concerned with the Vedic Yagnas,
though it contains recording of astronomical phenomena, mathematical calculations , observations of usage of metals namely iron, other scientific discoveries, etc.

My emphasis throughout this thread has been only on the Vedas of which the focus is on the Rg Veda, The MB & the Ramayana. The other samhitas, sutras, etc viz Vedanga Jyothisha, Shatapatha Brahmana, Puranas, etc though important are somewhat peripheral to these principal texts.
 
Last edited:
We cannot speculate on possible motivation, perhaps there none or perhaps in best Indian tradition, they tried to associate favorable and unfavorable ancient events to good and bad position of stars and planets as understood by them in best astrological traditions of their time.
You seem to be conflating astronomical observations with predictive astrology once again which I repeat wasn't a function of the Rg Veda or the shrutis. I've just demonstrated in the previous post why antedating prominent events observed with certain Celestial phenomena was impossible as the ancients lacked the mathematical tools for it.

Moreover, similar such celestial phenomena were observed over a period of time across millennia. Why did the ancients not choose to align such epochal events with similar later celestial phenomena then? After all unlike the present they would certainly derive no prestige or advantage in faking their antiquity.
 
If the astronomical observations date to 4500 BCE by the Vedic people in the Rg Veda, it's in keeping with the general observation of the early Vedic people being a pastoral community. I say this for one of the founding principles of the OIT school is the theory that the Sindhu Saraswati Civilization ( SSC) is the same as the Vedic civilization.

Now the mature Phase of the SSC is from 2500 BCE onwards based on the extant archaeological findings. This works more in favor of the OIT school than the AIT / AMT school, if you ask me. Small wonder then, that the purveyors of the latter theory either ignore this wealth of information or selectively seek to distort it.



Rahu & Ketu aren't strictly astronomical phenomena & have more to do with predictive astrology. Correct me if I'm wrong @vstol Jockey

The Shatapatha Brahman itself is more of a commentary on the Yajur Veda principally concerned with the Vedic Yagnas,
though it contains recording of astronomical phenomena, mathematical calculations , observations of usage of metals namely iron, other scientific discoveries, etc.

My emphasis throughout this thread has been only on the Vedas of which the focus is on the Rg Veda, The MB & the Ramayana. The other samhitas, sutras, etc viz Vedanga Jyothisha, Shatapatha Brahmana, Puranas, etc though important are somewhat peripheral to these principal texts.

Whether the early Vedic society emerged post late Harappan period or whether they formed part of the IVC social milieu during the mature and the later phase, is contested. In my studies on this subject, both arguments are pretty persuasive. Based on the recent aDNA studies, we can speculate that the Early Vedic may have emerged by the co-mingling of IVC and central Asian pastoral nomads during the IVC mature phase itself, but never formed the part of the IVC elites. However, the post IVC phase, due their specific skill of pastoral lifestyle, may have given them an advantage over other social groups in the Indo-Gangetic plain. Of course this is all speculation.

The cyclical nature of planetary bodies makes it easier to not only predict their paths and position into the future, but also to postulate their positions in the past. In my opinion much is made of out of stray references to celestial events in ancient texts. Linguistic paleontologists have made similar speculation, again from stray references to flora and fauna in Vedic texts to, to suggest a home for IE closer to Europe.

P:S – As per the Indian tradition, the Samhita texts including the Mantra texts, the Brahmanas( including SatapathaBrahmana & Upanishads) are considered part of the Sruti category, which chronologically dated to earlier that the Smriti category of texts( of which Mahabharata forms a part)
 

Astronomical Proof of the Mahabharata War and Shri Krishna: Part I
September 1, 2010 by Ramesh Panchwagh

Why one more date based on the astronomical evidence quoted from the Mahabharata? I have made this effort for the following reasons:
  • All the previous dates by various scholars are from misunderstood quotes, incorrect translations and incorrect conversions between the Gregorian calendar and the Indian astronomical calendar. These scholars here spent a lot of effort to come up with theses dates, and must be commended. However, these dates, if they do not match with all of the original quotes, cannot be accepted.

  • Mahabharata & Krishna have been declared as mythology by the Western Indologists from the 19th Century until now. Some Indian scholars and leaders also believe the same. Therefore, I decided to investigate further. I believe in the saying, “investigate before castigate,” and Ronald Regan’s famous quote, “trust but verify.”
Without relying on the stories and myths, I wanted to investigate purely on astronomical and scientific facts and phenomena like the conjunctions, eclipses, earthquakes, meteor showers and comet sightings. Since the powerful PCs with very accurate astronomical programs like Planetarium have become available, it is possible to construct the sky map of any day and time in the past and review the positions of the planets and other astronomical events. A whole new science called “Archaeoastronomy” has now evolved. Eclipses have become very predictable and accurate now, and are a great tool to date the past events. There may be no written or archeological evidence of the ancient past, but the sun, moon and stars are still the same and move per the same natural rules. Therefore, I decided to research the past astronomical phenomena and verify if the epic is history or fiction.

Mahabharata is the closest epic to our time and is replete with many references to the astronomical phenomena. Krishna’s Bhagvat Gita is the most unique philosophical gem; but it would be interesting to see if it came from a real person and time.

My research took me about 2 years of continuous study of the original critical Sanskrit Mahabharata (published by the Bhandarkar Oriental Studies Institute in Pune after 60 years of research).

I used 4-5 different computer programs to compare the accuracy before I finalized on the latest Cyber Sky Planetarium program based on JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) ephemeris 404, with an accuracy of ½ to 1 arc seconds for the periods 3000 BCE and older, and the Delta T value of less than 23 hours.

The full results of my research will be published in a forthcoming book entitled Astronomical Proof of the Mahabharata War and Sri Krishna. The book will include the original Shlokas (stanzas) with translation, detailed computer maps of each event, and its Panchang (Indian astronomical ephemeris) positions of the Sun, Moon, planets, and comets.

This current article is a summary of the salient features in the book. I wish to take the readers on the same journey I took while researching.
The first item of the task was to find the century of the Mahabharata War. The Mahabharata epic is full of the time references right up to the war that Dwapar Yuga (the 3rd part of the 4 Yuga system) is ongoing and the Kaliyuga (the 4th part) would be coming soon. The Surya Sidhanta, a very ancient treatise on the Indian astronomy, mentions that when a new Yuga starts, all 7 planets will line up along the ecliptic (the Earth’s annual path) in the constellation Pisces, just before Aries on a Phalguni Amavasya day (the last day of the year).

There could be a solar eclipse on that day. The Prajapati Smriti and the Matsya Puran provides the same prediction. Western translators of these scriptures doubted this; because it does not make sense that so many planets moving in their own orbits millions of miles apart at high speeds, can line up in one sign on the ecliptic line on a specific day and time.

The Gregorian calendar date for this event is February 18, 3102 BCE at 2:27:30 AM. Anybody with a good astronomy software can verify that this event if did indeed occur. Now, the eastern as well as the western astronomers have all accepted this date for the start of the Kaliyuga. A map on the last page will verify this. It does not show the North Node (Rahu), but both Rahu and Ketu (the south node) were in the same line 180 degrees apart.
This event has not happened for thousands of years before or thereafter. The closest recorded grand conjunction recorded, was in China in 1953 BCE, of 5 planets. With the establishment of the accepted Kaliyuga start date, the dates for Mahabharata War which were after 3102 BCE, are not applicable.

These include Professor N. Achar (3067 BCE), Dr. Balkrishna (2559 BCE), Dr. K.S Raghvan and Dr. Iyengar (3067 BCE), R. Vaidya (2789 BCE). Only scholars Dr. P.V. Vartak (5561 BCE) and Dr. P.V. Holay (3143 BCE) had dates earlier. Out of the two, Dr. Vartak’s date is almost 2500 years earlier and so may not be acceptable. Now, shlokas (stanzas) in the Vishnu Puran, 38th chapter (5.38.8), Bhagvat Puran (1.18.6) and Brahma Puran (212.8), all state that the Kaliyuga started the moment Sri Krishna died.


In Mahabharata Stri Parva, Queen Gandhari, mother of Kauravas had cursed Sri Krishna that in spite of being cable to prevent it, he watched the terrible slaughter of all of her sons and relatives, Therefore, Krishna would die in similar circumstances with his kith and kin, alone, wandering in a deserted place from a very frivolous weapon in 36 years.

The Kaliyuga start date of 2-18-3102 BCE did also have a solar eclipse and a back to back lunar eclipse in two weeks similar to the Mahabharata War. There were earthquakes with meteor showers on both dates, and on the lunar eclipse day, a giant tsunami drowned the Dwarka city, which Krishna had advised to vacate.

With Krishna’s death also established now on 2-18-3102 BCE, his birth dates by scholars Dr. Vartak (5626 BCE), n. Achar, Sampath Ayengar and Sheshgiri (3112 BCE), are no more applicable.

Now we will proceed to place the Mahabharata War start’s month and day. Again, as written in Mahabharata, Bhishma, the grandfather of both the Kauravas and Pandavas, passed away on a winter solstice day at midnight, when the moon was in Rohini (Alderberan) star.

Bhishma declares that it has been 68 nights since the war started, and 58 nights, since he was lying on the bed of arrows. As the Sun has turned to go north, he is ready to die. The winter solstice was on January 14 in that time period. The day was Magh month (bright half, eight’th day per the Indian calendar).

Counting backwards, 7 nights of Magh month, plus 30 days of Pousha month plus 30 days of Margashirsha month, the 68 night and the war start day would be the Kartik month Amavasya (new moon day).

This would be on November 6th.

It is well known from the Mahabharata quote in which Krishna gives the message to Karna, that the month of Margashirsha was very suitable and so the war should start on a Shakra Amavasya day (the day when the moon would be in Indra’s star of either Vishakha or Jyeshtha). The night before the war, Sage Vyas, who made several astronomical observations, mentions that he has seen the Lunation periods 14, 15, 16 days apart but never 13 days apart (tithis to be exact.

A day is not a tithi, since a tithi is based on the lunar phase at the sunrise and when the difference between the Sun and the Moon is 12 degrees). He also mentions it to be an Amavasya with an unseen solar eclipse, followed by a lunar eclipse in 13 tithis.

Like all scholars, I also took 36 years per the Gandhari’s curse, added to 3102 BCE to find the eclipses around November, from the program, “Lunar Phases and Eclipses”. However, there were no back to back November eclipses found in years from 3102 to 3140.

The only year which met all the eclipses criteria was year 3126 BCE, when there was Amavasya on 5th and 6th November (Amavasya and solar eclipse started at 8:37 PM on 5th) and the following full moon in 13 tithis (not days) on November 19-20, both days. The earlier lunation also had occurred 13 tithis before on October 21-22 (Kartik Purnima).

Since all these events matched except the 36th year, I revisited the original verse, and found out that there were two different letters used in the Sanskrit word for 36th. One which all scholars had accepted was “shati trimshe” (in the 36th year). But the Bhandarker critical edition gave the word “shati trymshe,” meaning in the part of 36 years. (When people write down words recited by rote memory for generations such mistakes are normal).

So the curse did have finite circumstances but not the finite time. Thus our war start date of November 6th, 3126 BCE matched of all the quotes and criteria. In those days, large number of years was grouped as Tapas or 12 years. 36 years represented the maximum 3 Tapas time, which actually happened in 2 Tapas or 24 years or 2/3rd part of 36 years.the

I proceeded further to check the dates of all associated events for a match with computer generated sky maps, planet by planet. They all did match including two surprise observations about Neptune and Uranus! There would be more interesting information about the Rohini Shakat Bheda (piercing the star Alderberan Cart) by Saturn, which is indicative of terrible manslaughter.

I will present the summary of this information in the next article to follow. I will provide more information about why the western scholars, as well as Indian scholars, missed these dates and how Archaeoastronomy in this computer age, works (when the times are converted properly).

Astronomical Proof of the Mahabharata War and Shri Krishna: Part II
September 4, 2010 by Ramesh Panchwagh

In the last article, we have established that 1) The Mahabharata war took place starting on November 6, 3126 BCE, and 2) Shri Krishna died and the Kaliyuga started on February 18, 3102 BCE.

Both conclusions were based on the Computer generated sky maps for the specific dates, the planetary positions indicated therein and the quotes from the Epic and other scriptures about the events, which matched. The match would not occur if the dates were wrong. As to the computer program, it is based on the same algorithms used to launch the space shuttle. So we may assume it to be correct.

The Mahabharata contains 3-4 events around the war time, which provide many astronomical observations at the time together with the associated omens. We have neglected the omens and focused only on the astronomical aspects so that we can compare them with the computer maps. These events were:

a) When Krishna started on a Peace Mission to Hastinapur to avert the war on October 21, 3126 BCE (on a Kartik day with the moon in Revati star-Zeta Piscium), he stopped on the way and reached Hastinapur. After an unsuccessful attempt, he left with Karna on October 28, with the Moon in Punarvasu in the AM and in Pushya in PM. The conversation between the two describes many astronomical phenomena,

b) Sage Vyas visited the blind King Dhritarashtra on the eve of the war on November 5, to warn him of the impending dangers if the war goes forward. His descriptions of the astronomical observations of the time are the most important event helping this archaeo astronomical research.

c) Balaram shows up on the last day of the war on November 24 (also a Pushya day because of the lost tithis in the Lunation), and makes some astronomical observations.

d) The Queen Gandhari’s curse to Shri Krishna after the conclusion of the war.

e) Bhishma’s death on January 14th after the war. He died at mid day. The typo in Article 1 said at midnight.

Let us now examine these events in light of the Epic quotes and the computer maps and compare them to see if they match. If they do match, then it will be a Proof that the events are a history and the dates will be proven.

a) Karna’s remarks to Krishna: Saturn is afflicting Rohini. Mars is retrograde in Anuradha. The sign on the moon has shifted. Mahapat planet afflicts Chitra (Vyas called it as Shweta planet). The Sun is being approached by Rahu (the north node). There is a meteor shower in the day. The earth is shaking and a black ring appears near the Sun.

My forthcoming book provides sky position maps of these days with a day to day ephemeris based on the Indian system. It is not possible to provide the maps in this short blog. I have provided the Map of the war starting day on the last page. I have also described what I saw in the maps along with the astronomical explanation.

Saturn is seen at 355 degrees in the map, near Rohini. The Vernal Equinox in those days was in Rohini. Today, it is in Uttara Bhadrapada. Mars was in retrograde and re-retrograde between Magha and Jyeshtha as also described by sage Vyas. Planets, due to the optical illusion created, when the fast moving earth passes at a higher speed, appear to be in retrograde; very similar to the two trains travelling in the same direction. From a faster train, the slower train appears to be stationary or going backwards. The computer map cannot show the retrograde motion. The Mahapat planet mentioned seems to be Neptune, as it is seen in Chitra, moving to Swati.

The Moon’s sign which we see every day was seen as moved. Sage Vyas has also mentioned the same. This phenomenenon occurred because the moon was orbiting at the fastest speed of about 13-17 degrees a day as opposed to the normal 12 degrees. At the normal speed, it takes 15 days for the Moon to travel the distance of 180 degrees to go from Amavasya to Purnima and vice versa. However with the fastest speed it travelled the same distance in 13 days (tithis). The computer confirmed this when monitored from day to day. The moon and earth’s orbit times are locked in place, so we always see only the lighted face of the moon. Except for the video taken by the Soviet spacecraft in 1959, nobody has yet seen the dark side of the moon. Because of the moon’s fastest speed, its synchronization with the earth’s orbit was affected and the moon’s sign seemed to have slightly shifted as described. More details about this event are in my forthcoming book. The Moon travels faster when its orbit is closest to the earth.

The meteor shower is also mentioned by Vyas. As Halley’s Comet is orbiting the sun in Pushya at that time, the sun evaporated the ice and the dust particles falling down were lighted up due to the friction in the atmostphere.This phenomenon occurs even now regularly every year. The Aquarid and Orinid showers which happen today in late October to December come from the Halley’s Comet which orbits the sun every 76.3 years. The black circle around the sun seems to be a result of the sun’s flares and atmospheric refraction of the color.

b) Sage Vyas’s comments: Even Arundhati has passed Vasishtha. Saturn is troubling Rohini and the sign on the moon is obscured. The earth is shaking, and the white planet has crossed Chitra and is stationary in Swati.The sun is being swallowed by Rahu.The comet Mahaghora has attacked Pushya. The Mars is retrograde in Magha and the Jupiter is retrograde in Shravana The Venus has circled Purva and Uttara Bhadrapada.The darker planet is in the Indra star Jyeshtha. The shady planet (Rahu), is sitting between Chitra and Swati. Retrograde planets Mars and Jupiter are afflicting Rohini and Shravan.

The Saptarshis (Ursa Major) are dimming due to the blaze of two bright stars. Saturn and Jupiter are stationary for a year near Vishakha. I know of lunation in 14, 15 or 16 days (tithis) apart, but I have never seen those 13 tithis apart. This is indicative of a terrible manslaughter.

The computer map shows Vasishtha (star Mizar) is slightly behind star Acor or Arundhati. Apparently they were lined up at one time before. Both of these stars (also called horse and rider in the west) have separate motions.

The Saturn at 12 degrees is seen in the map in Rohini (Alderberan). When Saturn is between 12 to 15 degrees in Rohini and its southern declination is 2.34″ or more, it is considered to be in the Rohini Shakat Bhed (piercing the cart like cluster of stars in Rohini) especially when the Vernal Equinox is also in Rohini as was the case. The southern declination in the map measures at 2.48″. As mentioned it is considered as the worst kind of planetary configuration indicating terrible things. This event occurs only once in thousands of years.

The reference to the earth’s shaking indicates earthquakes and continuous tremors. Rahu is indicated to be near Swati at 199 degrees. The map does not show Rahu as it is not a real planet, but is the intersection point of the moon’s orbital path with the ecliptic (earth’s orbital path around the sun). It has swallowed the Sun means there is a Solar Eclipse in effect, with the moon is shown at 199 degrees on the 5th and 204 on the morning of the 6th of November. The map showing these positions is attached on the last page.

The comet Mahaghora or what Karna called Mahapat is the Halley’s Comet. It is not shown in this map but is included in a Starry Night Program map included in the forthcoming book. It is in Pushya as described.

The Mars at 165 and the Jupiter at 325 degrees, are both outer planets and both are retrograde. They are slower than the earth’s normal speed of 30 Km/sec. When the earth speeds up being closer to the sun, these retrograde planets can be seen up to 30-60 degrees behind. The Venus at 176 degrees has crossed Purva and circled Uttara to look at Hasta as quoted.

The lightly dark planet at 247 degrees in Jyeshtha is Uranus. Vyas has aptly named both Neptune and Uranus from the colors as he saw. Interestingly, the Hubble telescope images show the same. As to how he saw the planets ‘discovered in the 20th century’, is a mystery.

Regarding Vyas’s description of Saturn and Jupiter to be near Vishakha has confused all the scholars. Since he has described them to be in Rohini and in Shravan, in retrograde, as well as in Purva and near Vishakha. These cannot be in 2-3 places at the same time. When you consider that these planets had occupied a position and had a sight on two other positions at180, and 120 degrees apart, the riddle is solved.

Regarding the 13 tithis apart lunation, we have discussed the same in the article 1. The short lunation is called a Vishwaghasra Paksha lunation which indicates a terrible manslaughter. In Mahabharata war time, there were two such lunations, back to back, and it is an extremely rare event. Such one lunation did take place in Kartik month of 1941, resulting in huge human loss in World War 2.

I believe, these matches nail down the war start date as November 6, 3126 BCE, as no other date would work and match these entire quotes. I have provided more matches with the computer maps in my forthcoming book.

c) Balaram’ comments: He showed up on 24th November to witness the duel between Duryodhana and Bhima when he said: I left (Dwaraka) 42 days back. I left on Pushya (on 23rd October) and came back on “Shravana”, which is what all scholars interpreted. The other simple meaning of the word is, after “hearing” about the duel, I have come back. This one makes sense and does not confuse the nakshatras and dates.

Thus, now, there are no more anomalies about the War date, and it is proven that the event is very historical. Let us review very briefly the opinions of several western indologists, which shaped the opinions of Indian scholars and leaders. These include A.Basham, M Witzel, H. Kulke, D Rothermund and the famous F.Max Muller. Most believed that Mahabharata as a mythology or it happened not earlier than 10th century BCE. Going by the archaeological evidence as a prerequisite for determination as history, they placed the Vedic period not earlier than 19th century BCE.

Max Muller, when translating the Bhagvat Puran, came up to the Shuka Muni’s predictions that Saptarshis travel one nakshatra in 100 years, and that in Nanda’s time (prior to Chandragupta Maurya), they would be in Magha. Considering that in his time, 19-20 th century, they are in Chitra/ Swati, he counted from Magha and declared that all the Hindu astronomical descriptions are imaginary. They would be if his counting in straight line is considered. However, when you consider them backwards since they move in the reverse direction, they are perfectly correct. 27 nakshatras traversed from Magha to Magha from 3000 BCE to 300 BCE. Add to this, the 23 nakshatras up the present period, you get to 5000 years. Max Muller’s comments appeared in the introduction portion of the Rigved, which he translated.

Another instance is of a British translator of the Surya Sidhanta. It said that in Krita Yuga, a Mayasur prayed to Sun god to reveal the science of time. The sun replied that it will be revealed through a Yavana from the Romaka City. The translator promptly assumed this to be the City of Rome and the Yavana to be the Greek; and a myth was born that the Indians received the Astronomy science from the Greeks.

In spite of such incidents and myths, these Indologists have performed yeoman’s work in bringing the ancient scriptures to light, and should be commended. I am also grateful to all the scholars who have researched for the Mahabharata war date. It is a very painstaking and tedious work which only can be done as a labor of love. I have presented my research to the readers. As to the repercussions of finding this historical link, I leave it to the readers to judge. For the believers, it will not matter and for the non believers, it may not be enough. For the interested, my forthcoming book will provide more details. The Mahabharata start day sky position computer map is provided on the next page. I have also researched the birth dates of Balaram and Sri Krishna, which will be included in my book, as this blog is already too long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vstol Jockey
Was it 25 or 36?
Lord Krishna was cursed to die within 36 years of the date of curse. so it could be anytime within 36 years. But as per my own knoledge he died in the 25th years of the curse. so if his day of death is 3102, add 24/25 to it and you get 3126/3127 as the year of Mahabharat.
 

If you guys haven't watched this video, watch this. It has so many details regarding River Saraswati, chronology of Mahabharat war and Ramayan.
 

If you guys haven't watched this video, watch this. It has so many details regarding River Saraswati, chronology of Mahabharat war and Ramayan.
This guy's dating & chronology is outlandish even by outlandish standards. He considers the MB to have occured in 5000 - 6000 BCE & the Ramayan to have occured around 10,000 - 10,500 BCE. His theories have been debunked.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ashwin
I could never figure out if the characters depicted in Ramayan especially for vanar sena were monkey-like humanoids or not.
Kishkindha seems to be a real place, but the inhabitants are suggested as vanaras?

Was it a term for tribals back in the day and later due to lost in translation/Smriti style reproduction morphed into monkey-like characters or was this the original intent.

Hanuman with his monkey characteristics also transcended Indian borders and went into China and was celebrated as the monkey king.

Kishkinda's vanar kings Mainda and Dwivida also find a reference in Mahabharat's side missions of sahdeva.

this entire monkey aspect of Ramayan and Mahabharat has always perplexed me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustCurious
I could never figure out if the characters depicted in Ramayan especially for vanar sena were monkey-like humanoids or not.
Kishkindha seems to be a real place, but the inhabitants are suggested as vanaras?

Was it a term for tribals back in the day and later due to lost in translation/Smriti style reproduction morphed into monkey-like characters or was this the original intent.

Hanuman with his monkey characteristics also transcended Indian borders and went into China and was celebrated as the monkey king.

Kishkinda's vanar kings Mainda and Dwivida also find a reference in Mahabharat's side missions of sahdeva.

this entire monkey aspect of Ramayan and Mahabharat has always perplexed me.
Could be Austro Asiatic aboriginals much like the aboriginals of Australia were a century & a half ago. Their appearance, way of living etc may have been primitive enough for the ancients to classify them as not entirely apes but not human as well.