Reviews - Books I Read - DRJG: Mahabharata War – Year and Date 16th Oct. 5561 BCE? by Prabhakar Phadnis.

................................................................................................

Mahabharat War - Year and Date 16th Oct. 5561 BCE ?: Critical Comments On The book of Mr. Nilesh Oak –

When did the Mahabharat War Happen?

The Mystery of Arundhati.

by Prabhakar Phadnis.

................................................................................................

This could be a minor point, or perhaps not so, but what Vartak, Oak and now Phadnis also, have overlooked, is that Gregorian and Julian calendars aren't impervious to precession of equinoxes; that as can be seen even on Wikipedia, 6,500 years ago, January 3rd was autumn equinox.

................................................................................................

While reading them - Oak and now Phadnis - as they talk of Abhijit in context of the 27 nakshatras, it occurred to one that there are plenty of other nakshatras that have always had names in India in Sanskrit, but never got counted along with the 27, except for Abhijit.

Solution occurred when one thought about Oak talking of Vernal equinox in some nakshatra, wondering which one it is now; well, as per Nirayan system, Sun enters Ashwini on about 14th of April, and one counts backwards to 21st March, it's roughly Uttara Bhadrapada.

This brought the realisation that, just as one needs 27 Nakshatras to account for a lunar month, a solar year needs 28! That would get one one Nakshatra per week, roughly.

Hence Abhijit? Counted when it was, once, close to ecliptic?

................................................................................................

Oak has interpreted "Fall of Abhijit" as Abhijit becoming North Pole and thus no longer being part of ecliptic; he compares it to Sannyas and being no longer part of worldly concerns. This he equates with Fall of Abhijit.

It makes no sense in terms of Indian mindset, world view or philosophy. Sannyas is never seen as fall, but rising. Also, becoming North Pole is seen as achieving a position of permanent high stature. The very term Dhruvapada has connotation of high altitudes apart from permanence.

Phadnis has a far better grasp than Oak of not only Sanskrit but the astronomical part here too, and his solution here is for better. He points out that the term fall of Abhijit refers, not to Abhijit becoming North Pole, but to no longer being close to it, and literally falling - off horizon! So the timeline for this event is pushed a few millennia further into past.

"1. Abhijit and Nakshatras.-The Nakshatras identified by our ancestors, are all, more or less, strung along the Ecliptic, more or less equidistant. This is consistent with their purpose of serving as a reference frame for marking the position of Sun, Moon and Planets from time to time, as they move along the ecliptic. There are 27 of them because moon completes a round in 27 days. So they are called 27 houses of Moon. Now the question is, where does Abhijit come in? It is a very prominent bright star but is nowhere near the ecliptic. It is in fact almost 60 degrees away and has always been so. How could it ever have been counted as a nakshatra? It is definitely not a 28th Nakshatra!

"2. I conjecture that in the days when the Nakshatras were identified by our ancestors, the Celestial North pole was fairly close to Abhijit and hence, along with the Nakshatras, Abhijit was an excellent reference point in the sky for mapping. That is why, probably, it was counted by our ancestors along with 27 as a Merumani."

"4. Dr. P. V. Vartak, whom Shri. Oak refers to, has in fact given a correct translation (inस्वयम्भु). Shri. Oak has quoted it but seems to differ from it.

"‘नक्षत्रं गगनात् च्युतं’ has been explained by Shri. Oak and Dr. Vartak too as ‘Abhijit moving towards North Pole.’

"I strongly believe that Abhijit getting closer to North Pole or remaining close to North Pole cannot be interpreted as its FALL from the sky, by any stretch of imagination. ... "

Yes, that did seem twisted. It's the opposite interpretation in fact of the very word Dhruvapada.

" ... In fact, when near the North Pole, it would be prominently visible and ‘steady’ too. The picture shown below will clarify the point."

"5.The reason for dropping Abhijit from list of nakshatras needs explanation based on a proper interpretation of ‘च्युतम्’. Krittika must have, necessarily, always been included in list of nakshatras because if you leave out Krittika, a big gaping gap along the ecliptic will remain between Bharani and Rohini. ... "

Exactly!

" ... Why those wise men, who built the reference frame of Nakshatras, would leave such a gap? Abhijit is nowhere near this gap, by the way. To say, as Shri. Oak says, that Abhijit was dropped and Krittika was included in its place in list of Nakshatras is meaningless. Krittika always formed a part of 27 nakshatras.

"6. The interpretation of the Mahabharat Shlokas by Shri. Oak is incorrect and the time frame for the event, proposed by him, therefore becomes baseless. Problem is how to interpret ‘Krittika going to Vana for Tapa?’ (assuming Devi refers to krittika). Can it mean that Summer solstice had moved near Krittika? ... "

Brilliant!

"7. Other observation noted by Indra and mentioned to Skanda as causing him worry is the fall of a nakshatra from the sky. Which one? The choice of Abhijit for this role seems unanimous. What is meant by fall from the sky? It should literally mean Disappearing from the Sky. This could not have happened to Abhijit for any observer in northern hemisphere, (in northern India in particular, with Latitudes around 25-30 degrees), anytime in those ancient days, when Abhijit was never too far from the North Pole. It would remain visible during its journey round the Pole. At best the words can mean Abhijit disappearing below the horizon during a part of its journey around the North Pole, every day-night. I therefore conjecture that Indra meant exactly that! He just means, ‘The star Abhijit which was once close to north pole, was helpful in mapping the sky and was always above the horizon has now moved so far away from the pole that now, for a part of its path, it actually goes below the horizon. In other words, it has fallen from the sky!’"

Makes far more sense.

"8. Abhijit was closest to north pole around 12000BC, about 5 degrees away. Earlier, for about 2000 years, it was close enough and was actually moving towards the North Pole. However, by about 6000-6500BC, north pole had moved sufficiently away from Abhijit to make Abhijit dip below horizon. Timing of Indra-Skanda Dialogue therefore can be considered to be around 6000-6500 BC, in my opinion.

"9. As I have mentioned above, Abhijit has always been way far too distant from the ecliptic to be counted as a Nakshatra. They are all strung along the ecliptic, more or less. It was simply the most important star in the sky besides the nakshatras, being at that time pretty close to the north pole. My conjecture therefore, is that the Nakshatras themselves were probably identified and named, at some time in the past, when Abhijit was fairly close to North Pole, say between 14000BC to 12000BC.

................................................................................................

Phadnis discusses Oak’s work on Mahabharata and brings clarity to the verbose confusion strewn, one suspects, deliberately by Oak. His claims about corroboration of his timeline by excerpts quoted regarding the War are, rarely if any, convincing, and Phadnis brings a few selected ones to point out that this is so.

A huge discrepancy is about the 14th day of War, and about the day, not night. Oak foes not recognize it explicitly nor mention the events other than Arjuna killed Jayadratha, despite his very verbose claims about appreciation of visual observations of astronomical nature for testing his hypothesis and timelines.

But the most spectacular, conspicuous, vital of such details, unmistakable as visual observation of astronomical nature, is the solar eclipse on the 14th day of War, coming just prior to and ending before, Sunset. What's more, it's vital to the story.

................................................................................................

"The problem of complete darkness after sunset for several hours on 14th day of war is not amenable to any easy solution, if war did commence on Amavasya, whatever the year!

"It is, in a way, a side issue and if not resolved, it need not be considered a disqualification of a proposed year and date of war. Shri. Oak could have left it at that. He has preferred to insist on his solution which unfortunately is not acceptable.

"The description of the events of the 14th day, after Jayadratha was killed late in the evening before Sunset, is very clear. The skirmishes between main warriors on both sides continued with hardly any interruption due to Jayadratha’s killing. ... "

Why is Phadnis, too, ignoring Jayadratha Vadha?

................................................................................................

From Wikipedia -

"Dronacharya arranged a combination of 3 vyuhas in order to protect Jayadratha from Arjuna: The first one was Shakata vyuha (the cart formation), the second one was Suchimukha Vyuha (the needle formation), and the final was Padma Vyuha (the lotus formation).

Arjuna Kills Jayadratha with Pashupatastra

Jayadratha's head falls in his father's lap

Bhima, Satyaki, and Arjuna tear through the Kaurava army. But as the maharathi after maharathi collapses back to defend Jayadratha, it becomes clear that Arjuna couldn't reach him before sunset. At a climactic moment, with the sun nearly set and thousands of warriors still between Arjuna and Jayadratha, Krishna sends his Sudarshana Chakra in order to mask the sun and create an illusion of sunset. The Kaurava warriors rejoice over Arjuna's defeat and look forward to his imminent suicide. Jayadratha, who was hiding behind Duryodhana, is relieved that he was saved and comes out of the formation to mock Arjuna. Suddenly, the sun is free from the eclipse and Krishna tells Arjuna what he had to do then. He then points at the hiding Jayadratha, telling Arjuna to sever his head and shoot it into the lap of Jayadratha's father. Arjuna quickly shoots the Pashupatastra at Jayadratha, decapitating him. Jayadratha's head is taken with the arrow far from the battlefield, finally landing on the lap of his father, Vridhakshatra.[4]"

So having checked that one wasn't harping on a story made up for drama later, that Jayadratha Vadha was, as one recalled, related to a solar eclipse that commenced and was over so close to Sunset that everyone except Krishna thought Sun had set, Arjuna got his funeral pyre ready, and Jayadratha came out to gloat, when Sun was suddenly revealed again and Arjuna, commanded by Krishna indicating the Sun and Jayadratha, instantly proceeded slay him.

Why is Phadnis, too, like Oak, not thereby concluding that this amounts to a solar eclipse of a short duration over slightly before Sunset? Which amounts to an Amawasya on day 14, which in turn amounts to war began on or close to Pournima. With Tithi prolonged it could amount to Gita Jayanti being the beginning of the war.

Else everyone is comfortable with a miracle performed by the living God, Krishna hiding the Sun by using his Chakra.

................................................................................................

"After full darkness set in and the soldiers could not distinguish between friend and foe, many large oil lamps were brought in by both sides and fierce fighting continued in whatever light they could provide. There are repeated descriptions of skirmishes by lamplight and warriors rushing from darkened areas to spots better lighted by even a few lamps. Ultimately, everybody was utterly exhausted. Arjuna invited all to stop fighting for a little while, not leaving the battlefield but just resting and refreshing a little. Out of utter exhaustion, the foot soldiers on both sides asked the charioteers to accept the short truce and fighting stopped for a while.

"Arjuna’s call for truce ----

"‘Beholding this condition of the soldiers, O bull among men, Vibhatsu in a very loud voice, said these words: all of you, with your animals, are worn out with exertion and blind with sleep. Ye warriors, ye are enveloped in darkness and with dust. Therefore, if ye like, ye may rest. Indeed, here, on the field of battle close your eyes for a while. Then when the moon will rise, ye Kurus and Pandavas, ye may again, having slept and taken rest, encounter each other for the sake of heaven. Hearing these words of the virtuous Arjuna, the virtuous warriors (of the Kuru army) assented to the suggestion, and addressing one another, loudly said, 'O Karna, O Karna, O king Duryodhana, abstain from the fight. The Pandava host hath ceased to strike us.' Then at those words of Phalguna, uttered loudly by him, the Pandava army as also thine, O Bharata, abstained from battle.’

"It is noteworthy that Arjuna clearly mentions ‘when the moon will rise’

"Description of moonrise -----

"Then the moon, that delighter of eye and lord of lilies, of hue white as the checks of a. beautiful lady, rose, adorning the direction presided over by Indra. Indeed, like a lion of the Udaya hills, with rays constituting his manes of brilliant yellow, he issued out of his cave in the east, tearing to pieces the thick gloom of night, resembling an extensive herd of elephants. That lover of all assemblage of lilies (in the world), bright as the body of Mahadeva's excellent bull, full-arched and radiant as Karna's bow, and delightful and charming as the smile on the lips of a bashful bride, bloomed in the firmament. Soon, however, that divine lord having the hare for his mark showed himself shedding brighter rays around. Indeed, the moon, after this seemed to gradually emit a bright halo of far-reaching light that resembled the splendor of gold.

"The description leaves no doubt whatsoever in any reader’s mind that there was complete and heavy darkness for almost whole night, until, early morning, moon rose some time before the Sun. The words in the description of moonrise, point out that it Rose In The East (Direction presided over by Indra). Moon is ‘full arched’ and like Karna’s bow or a crescent in other words. It cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be considered as a (nearly) full moon becoming visible after dust settled down. If it was a near-full moon, which was obscured by dust the whole night, it would, when freed from dust, reappear early morning near the western horizon and not in the east. It would also not be a crescent."

Yes.

"The description matches a moonrise on Krishna Trayodhashi or Chaturdashi in timing, shape and place."

Yes. But then Jayadratha Vadha is to be admitted as an eclipse caused by the Divine Action by God Sri Krishna who used his Chakra to hide Sun just before sunset, presumably? No rational covering up by explaining it as an eclipse that only he was aware of as forthcoming?

................................................................................................

"This is one more topic which Shri. Oak could have well left alone! It is not really relevant to proving or disproving the proposed year and date of war. For any researcher proposing any year and date, this topic is a problem topic. Shri. Oak, like Dr. Vartak, has tried to solve the puzzle by playing on words! ... "

Oak isn't unaware that his achievement was limited to Epoch of Arundhati, and perhaps he counts what he wrongly calls fall of Abhijit because he wasn't aware of his wrong interpretation of of this phrase; but since that was at best good enough for a short note, he's tried yo make a book by chaff of verbosity to inflate his work, after testing a few timelines of others and claiming corroboration of celestial details where they really are not. His inclusion of this episode is a part of this inflating an excellent small note in your a book with mostly incorrect and verbose chaff, attempting to confuse and exhaust readers into stupification.

................................................................................................

" ... what points I expect any claim of the war year, based purely on astronomy and verification by software must satisfy. This is only as a common reader and lover of Mahabharat.

"1. For any year under consideration, the Julian date of winter solstice and autumnal equinox get fixed automatically.

"2. I firmly believe that Bhishma spent 57 days on death bed ending on winter solstice, as he himself has said. Counting first 10 days for which he led the Kouravas, the first day of war gets automatically fixed. It will obviously be some 23-24 days after Autumnal Equinox.

"3. The lunar dark fortnight between these two dates should be a very short one, of 13 days, (12 days between Purnima and Amavasya days). Vyasa is very emphatic about this."

This would fit traditional assumptions of a Gita Jayanti beginning of War on Kartika Shukla (or Shuddha) Ekadashie, with a solar eclipse beginning very close to Sunset and ending just before Sunset on day 14th.

"4. On the Purnima day of this fortnight, there should be a total Lunar eclipse. Vyasa has clearly said so.

"5. Within 3-4 days after Purnima there should be a Revati day when Krishna left Upaplavya.

"6. Should there be an Amavasya on the first day of war already established? Not necessary. It could be 10th or 12th day after Amavasya. If it is so, it will take care of dark night on 14th day of war."

Perfect.

"11. Most of the large no. of other references examined by Shri. Oak are really just Upamas. Satisfying them is not essential at all. If some are met, more the merrier.

"12. About Epoch of Arundhati, Shri. Oak has done a fine job. I do believe that the proposed year should be in that part of the epoch when Arundhati was maximum or near maximum ahead of Vasishtha."

No, it's good enough if Arundhati was ahead, or getting ahead, and distsnce wasn't seen to be reducing.

Besides, fall of Abhijit consideration must take correct timeline to way before that proposed by Vartak and seconded by Oak.

" ... However, if most of the above constraints are met, the proposed year would still be a good candidate, even if it is outside the epoch. It would amount to ignoring only one specific mention of Vyasa. No year will satisfy all points.

"13. The story should not be twisted to suit astronomy. Events not mentioned or even hinted therein should not be assumed to explain astronomical mismatches.

"14. Other researchers will keep on putting forward other years. The subject is not a closed one as Shri. Oak claims!

"The Jury is still out as they say!"

................................................................................................

REVIEW

................................................................................................

Fall of Abhijit

................................................................................................

" ... My comments are as follows.

"3. Shri. Oak has framed a ‘Problem’ faced by Indra based on a 4 shloka quotation from Mahabharat. ‘अभिजित्स्पर्धमाना..etc.’ I quote the problem from his book, -

"- Abhijit (Vega), younger sister of Rohini (Aldebaran), desiring seniority (over Rohini?) went to the forest to perform austerities.

"Thus, Abhijit (Vega) slipped/moved from the sky. At that time (as a result) Indra approached Skandha and asked Skandha to discuss the matter with Brahma. Brahma ordained the beginning of time from Dhanishtha (Sualocin), while previous to this incident the beginning of time was from Rohini and the appropriate number of nakshatras existed (for time reckoning). Being told like this by Indra, Krittika (Pleiades), the nakshatra with Agni as its deity and with the shape of a cart (or with seven heads) became happy and went up in the sky.

"This framing of a Problem is full of errors and does not follow the quotation at all.

"The quotation is as under.

"1. अभिजित्स्पर्धमाना तु रोहिण्याः कन्यसी स्वसा

"इच्छती ज्येष्ठतां देवी तपस्तप्तं वनं गता.

"2. तत्र मूढोस्मि भद्रं ते नक्षत्रं गगनाच्च्युतम्

"कालंत्विमं परं स्कंद ब्रह्मणासह चिन्तय

"3. धनिष्ठादिस्तदा कालो ब्रह्मणा परिनिर्मितः

"रोहिण्याद्यः अभवत्पूर्वम् एवम् संख्या समाभवत्

"4. एवमुक्ते तु शक्रेण त्रिदिवं कृत्तिकागताः

"नक्षत्रं शकटाकारं भाति तद्वन्हिदैवतम्"

"The quotation says that ‘Devi, daughter-like younger sister of Rohini, desirous of seniority and competing with Abhijit, went to ‘tapastapta Vana’. Shri. Oak says, Abhijit, younger sister of Rohini went to forest to perform austerities! He also calls this a fall of Abhijit. Quotation says ‘Nakshatram Gaganat Chyutam’

"First three shlokas are clearly what Indra said to Skanda. Indra says in the third Shloka that ‘Brahma had earlier set up system of time with Dhanishtha at number one. Rohini has also been number one. Shri. Oak interprets it as though Brahma set up time reckoning just then, on Indra asking Skanda to discuss with Brahma. Skanda was still listening and had not gone to Brahma yet!

"With such free-lance framing of a problem, no wonder Shri. Oak has not found any worthwhile solution."

"4. Dr. P. V. Vartak, whom Shri. Oak refers to, has in fact given a correct translation (inस्वयम्भु). Shri. Oak has quoted it but seems to differ from it.

"‘नक्षत्रं गगनात् च्युतं’ has been explained by Shri. Oak and Dr. Vartak too as ‘Abhijit moving towards North Pole.’

"I strongly believe that Abhijit getting closer to North Pole or remaining close to North Pole cannot be interpreted as its FALL from the sky, by any stretch of imagination. ... "

Yes, that did seem twisted. It's the opposite interpretation in fact of the very word Dhruvapada.

" ... In fact, when near the North Pole, it would be prominently visible and ‘steady’ too. The picture shown below will clarify the point."

Exactly!

Brilliant!

" ... Shri. Oak says, correctly, that Summer Solstice was near Krittika long back in antiquity, in 22000BC. It would happen again in AD 4000. So Indra cannot say so, a long time after Brahma setting start of year from Dhanishtha.

Makes far more sense.

"10. How to interpret the reference to Dhanishtha in Indra’s statement that Brahma had set up time from Dhanishtha? Was one of the Cardinal points of Sun at Dhanishtha at that time? Summer Solstice at Dhanishtha appears logical. If Nakshatras were first identified and system of counting time got a frame of reference, around 14500BC ( when Abhijit was also close to North Pole), Summer Solstice was at that time occurring with Sun in Dhanishtha. Rains in India start around Summer Solstice and it was appropriate to count year start from Dhanishtha as arranged by Brahma!"

No, somehow spring equinox and Chaitra Pratipada for India seem natural. Western New Year did change from spring equinox to January at a later point, hence the last four months are Sept, Oct, Nov and Dec, but are now +2.

"11. Around 6000-6500BC, when Indra finds Abhijit fallen from sky, Summer Solstice had moved well away from Dhanishtha and also no other CP was near it! On the other hand, Winter Solstice was close to Krittika - Rohini.

"12. This is Indra’s problem. 1. Should the beginning of the year be shifted from Dhanishtha to Rohini i. e. from Summer Solstice to Winter Solstice? and 2. What should be done with Abhijit? He asks Skanda to discuss this with Brahma, as Brahma’s system of starting year from Dhanishtha had now lost relevance. It looks like Brahma decided to give the honour of First Nakshatra to Krittika rather than Rohini as Winter Solstice was closer to Krittika rather than Rohini, by 6000BC! Krittika was competing with Abhijit for prominence! No wonder Krittika was pleased and brightened up! Poor Abhijit got dropped from Nakshatras. This is my interpretation of the Shlokas."

Very plausible. But then it wasn't just named for convenience of solar year counting? There are plenty of other nakshatras, stars and constellations are all nakshatras and many have names in Sanskrit, are brilliant, but aren't part of 27, as the 28th! Sirius, Vyaadha, for example, or Agasti aren't counted as the extra one.

Why was Abhijit the 28th?

"14. It would be necessary to check how the last word in first line is written in the original text. कृत्तिका गताः (two words) does not make sense. Is it a single word कृत्तिकागताः ? I have read it as कृत्तिकाः आगताः with sandhi and therefore preferred ‘came’ rather than ‘went’ used by Dr. Vartak.

"15. There is one problem with the interpretation of the first shloka.The meaning of Krittika going to Vana for Tapa is not really clear as Summer Solstice had not moved near Krittika from Dhanishtha. It was near Rohini/Krittika way back, in 22000BC, and would not be anywhere near them until 4000 AD. So does ‘Devi’ in the first Shloka really refer to Krittika?

"16 ... Which isअभिजित्स्पर्धमाना,रोहिण्या कन्यसी स्वसा? Because of mention of Krittika in the last shloka, Dr. Vartak, and so far, myself also, have been treating Krittika as the one who went to tapastapta vana. The first shloka actually mentions the name Devi.S.S. was near Dhanishtha around 14500BC. It was near Krittika-Rohini way back in 22500 BC and will be again so in future, in AD 3500. So Krittika did not go to Summer Solstice! So which nakshatra is Devi?

"I noticed something from Mr. Iyengar’s writing quoted by Oak. Shri. Iyengar (and also Shri. Holey) has mentioned that both Rohini and Jyeshtha were once called Rohini. Shri. Oak has not rejected this claim! Assuming it is valid, does Devi stand for younger sister of Jyeshtha (and not of Rohini?) i. e. for Vishakha or Anuradha? Summer Solstice had shifted near them around about 9500BC. Based on this possibility, I offer an alternative interpretation that Vishakha (or Anuradha), not Krittika, was the Devi competing for recognition as No.1, as start of year fixed earlier from Dhanishtha had lost relevance. Indra says,‘Bhrahma had created time beginning from Dhanishtha and beginning from Rohini also happened’ He refers to Jyeshtha,- alternate Rohini. SS had indeed moved to Jyeshtha from Dhanishtha!

"Indra also is worried or confused that Nakshatra has dropped or moved from sky. Recognition of 27 Nakshatras along the ecliptic and time keeping with their help was set up by Brahma and Dhanishtha was given first place, Summer Solstice being then near Dhanishtha, this can be considered to have occurred sometime around 14,500BC. At that time Abhijit was the only prominent star, close enough to CNP to help in mapping the sky and time keeping. Although it was not anywhere near the ecliptic and was not part of the chain of 27, it was then given a pride of first place along with the 27 nakshatras.

"However, the picture had changed over the centuries. Abhijit had initially moved closer to CNP for some millennia and came within 5 degrees of CNP around 12000 BC and although it started moving away from CNP thereafter, it still remained close enough to be relevant, for some further centuries. However, by around 9500BC, it has moved away from CNP considerably, and now daily drops down close to the horizon (as seen at places in North India) and as time passes it will surely start actually dipping below the horizon every day! So what to do with it? Indra is naturally worried. The picture below shows the position.

"Around 9500 BC therefore, (a)Summer Solstice has moved from Dhanishtha close to Vishakha-Anuradha, (b)Winter Solstice, alternative starting point for year, is near Krittika-Rohini and (c)Abhijit has moved a long way away from CNP! Brahma’s system is in a crisis! Indra sends him an SOS with Skanda. I suggest that the event in the shlokas occurred around 9,500 BC.

"17. ... 1. Brahma set up the system of marking time and gave first place to Dhanishtha.

"2. The Indra-Skanda dialogue, about which Markandeya talks to Yudhishthira in these four shlokas, is itself in sufficient antiquity – around 9500 BC, proposed by me - and Brahma setting up start of year from Dhanishtha at Summer Solstice is even much more so.

"18. Brahma decided to start a new year when Sun reached Dhanishtha because Summer Solstice coincided with that time. Before that, how much preparation had taken place? Recognizing the existence of a specific path along which sun, moon and planets moved, mapping of the path with 27 Nakshatras, identified and named, recognizing usefulness of Abhijit at the North Pole for mapping, noting the phenomena of solstices and equinoxes, all this happened long before Brahma’s edict, which itself was issued as far back as 14,500 BCE ! We Indians can certainly take great pride in our ancestry! If at the same time Brahma had issued a second edict to keep a count of the years, we would have had a ‘Brahma Shaka’! Valmiki and Vyasa would have mentioned everywhere that ‘such and such event took place in the year so-and-so! There would have been no need of research for deciding the year of Mahabharata War! Alas, it did not happen!"

................................................................................................

................................................

May 22, 2022 - May 22, 2022.

................................................

................................................................................................

Epoch of Arundhati.

................................................................................................

Phadnis explains Oak’s work on the topic.

"In my view, since the time people started taking note of and gave names to Saptarshis (and Arundhati), Vasishtha-Arundhati were far too close together to conclude who was ahead. Saptarshis got their names, probably some time after Rama era. (Vasishtha, Atri, Arundhati were living on earth at Rama times). When, slowly but surely, Arundhati moved ahead sufficiently, people may have started questioning who is ahead. Vyasa or someone else, a keen observer, became convinced that she was definitely ahead, and Vyasa recorded that conclusion. This has to be around the time of her max aheadness, which is just about half minute. What Vyasa recorded was the observation, ‘no longer together, but now, definitely ahead’."

................................................................................................

................................................

May 22, 2022 - May 22, 2022.

................................................

................................................................................................

Year and Date of War.

................................................................................................

"A large number of scholars have made their own assessments of the timing and Shri. Oak, instead of making his own selection for the Year of War, has examined the years proposed by various other researchers. He has straightaway rejected all proposed dates outside of ‘Epoch of Arundhati’. Shri. Oak has examined only two proposed years, both within the ‘Epoch’, rejecting one by Mr. Lele for reason not specifically stated. He has accepted the year, 5561BC, proposed by Dr. P. V. Vartak. The book deals extensively with examining and verifying a large no. of astronomical quotes from Mahabharat in the context of that specific year.

"As far as the year 5561 BCE is concerned, although Shri. Oak's interpretations and arguments are not acceptable in many cases, ... I will deal with specific cases where I have questions about 5561 BCE!"

"Any proposed year outside the ‘Epoch’ however, should be assessed and accepted/rejected on the merit of the case made out, if based on aspects other than astronomical observations from Mahabharat. Rejecting all such claims, only because they fall outside the ‘Epoch’, without assessment is questionable. ... "

"1. I begin with the Ref. 6, exp. No. 10. – 'Jupiter and Saturn Near Vishakha on first day of War'.

"Shri. Oak says, one year prior to 16th Oct. 5561BC, Jupiter was in Mool and Saturn in Hasta, i. e. 3 and 3 nakshatras away from Vishakha on either side. On 16th Oct. 5561 however, Jupiter had moved to Uttarashadha, two nakshatra farther away from Vishakha and Saturn was still at Chitra – Uttara F., which really means ‘stayed in Hasta’. Gap between the two planets has actually opened out to 8 nakshatras! Shri. Oak claims this as satisfactory corroboration of ‘both near Vishakha’! Not acceptable."

Yes.

"If this reference is to be met satisfactorily, the year should be such that Saturn was actually at Swati-Vishakha and the date or month of the war such that Jupiter was also at or near Vishakha. Surely, software can locate such years within the Epoch, particularly when Arundhati was also near-maximum ahead of Vasishtha."

Yes.

"2. Ref 10 Exp 11.—Saturn attacking Bhaga (Uttara Falguni). What Shri. Oak finds is that Saturn was in Bhaga 2 years prior to the war date but had already begun ‘approaching Chitra’ which means it had left Bhaga (and Hasta), thus stopped troubling it and at war time, was at end of Hasta. So, no corroboration at all!"

Yes.

"3. Ref 11, 13 and 14 talk about movement of Mars from Magha to Shravan, mentioning two Vakra motions and also a ‘apasavya or retrograde’ motion. Exp. 13 claims all these movements as correct.

"I must congratulate Shri. Oak for his novel interpretation of Vakra motion as ‘crossing of ecliptic.’ ... "

"Many questions however remain.

"1. Mars is not seen crossing the Ecliptic at Magha, it does so near Rohini, five nakshatra earlier. At Magha it does nothing! By his own definition, not ‘मघासु अंगारको वक्रः’

"2. The other Vakra motion of Mars also does not match the location Jyeshtha. It is well before Anuradha.

"3. Can a visual observer really identify with any certainty a crossing of Ecliptic by a slow moving planet like Mars or Jupiter?"

"Curiously, even after making and publishing the video of Mars’ motion, clearly showing Mars crossing ecliptic at Rohini, well before reaching Magha, Shri. Oak still claims that Mars went Vakra at Magha! Strange!"

No, that's Oak’s typical dishonesty.

"No corroboration I am afraid!

"4. Ref 11 Exp 14 – Shri. Oak claims to find Jupiter showing Vakra motion, as per his definition, ‘crossing of ecliptic'. It supports his idea. Fine. Vyasa says in second line of Ref 11, ‘श्रवणे च बृहस्पतिः’ Actually, Jupiter five times crosses ecliptic from 6th April 5560 BCE onwards, last being on 16th Jan. 5559BCE. All these however are much later, well after the War! How is Vyasa talking about it and that too in present tens? Maybe, ‘Sharavane cha bruhaspatih’ simply means what all others say, 'Jupiter in Shravan'. In any case, by April 5560 BCE, Jupiter would be well beyond Shravan. So no Vakra motion of Jupiter at Shravan and no corroboration!"

Correct.

"5. Ref 18, Exp. 15.

"‘शुक्रः प्रोष्ठपदे पूर्वे समारुह्य विशांपते

"उत्तरे तु परिक्रम्य सहितः प्रत्युदीक्षते’

"‘The planet Sukra, ascending towards Purva Bhadra, shineth brilliantly, and wheeling towards the Uttara Bhadra, looketh towards it, having effected a junction (with a smaller planet).’

"– Translation by Ganguly.

"Shri. Oak says Venus was actually between Shravan and Dhanishtha on 16th Oct., first day of the war. Subsequent motion of Venus described by Shri. Oak at Purva Bhadrapada, going round Neptune, etc. and returning to Shatabhishaj, took place long time thereafter. From his own Tables and diagrams it is seen that Venus reached Uttara Bhadrapada almost 5 months after the start of war!"

Oak claims corroboration, of course, as usual, unless he can claim disdain due to "traditional beliefs".

"On the other hand, Vyasa, before war began, is describing it in past tense, ending with ‘प्रत्युदीक्षते’ (present tense), as if all that motion had already taken place! There is a clear mismatch here which Shri. Oak has conveniently ignored!"

As usual! Close enough for Oak’s claim!

"Shri. Oak sees Neptune in his software so he talks about Venus going around Neptune. The quotation says nothing about Neptune. Naturally! Vyasa could not have seen Neptune with naked eyes. Vyasa uses the word ‘Sahita’ to mean Venus shone along with Uttara Bhadrapada Nakshatra, not with Neptune!"

Yes.

"6. About Shweta, Tivra and Tikhshna referring to Urenus, Neptune and Pluto. I find it impossible to accept the tall claims, especially about Pluto, unless any independent evidence is available to establish that there were powerful telescopes in use at that time. Even today, Pluto cannot be seen with ordinary telescopes."

At the very least, one, names of those planets along with that of instruments would survive, not epithets. Two, if anyone could see Pluto they had to have seen Ceres, and asteroid belt, before that, and of course, moons of Jupiter, at least four of them - of none of which there's a mention.

No, Oak just fitted in what's visible on his program to make claims thoughtlessly.

"7. Ref 26 - Exp.17. - This Ref is from GP only, not from BORI. Is it authentic? Assuming it is, the quotation with pre, post ref. needs to be looked into. As given in the book, -

"रोहिणी पीडयत्येवं (पीडयति एवं)उभौ च शशिभास्करौ"

" - does not mean ‘Sun/Moon are troubling Rohini.’ (It means Rohini is troubling Sun and Moon!)If Sun and Moon are troubling Rohini, the quotation should be

"रोहिणीं पीड्यतः एवं उभौ च शशिभास्करौ.

"An instance of ignoring Sanskrit grammar by Shri. Oak."

"‘Both the Moon and the Sun are afflicting Rohini.’ – Translation by Ganguly.

"As observed by Shri. Oak, Sun and Moon, in Jyeshtha, were setting when Rohini was rising. It is to be noted that on any Jyeshthaa Amavasya this will be the position! Nothing unique! As they were directly opposing each other, stretching a point, the reference can be considered corroborated."

Stretching is usual for Oak’s corroboration.

"8. Ref. 12. Exp. 18. – ‘बृहस्पती रोहिणीं संप्रपीड्य बभूव चंद्रार्कसमानवर्णः’

"The planet Jupiter, afflicting the constellation Rohini assumed the hue of the moon or the sun. – Translation by Ganguly.

"I assume, Shri. Oak verified by his software that Jupiter was actually on or above western horizon when Rohini was rising in the east. How far above? Probably about 30 degrees. The last two words of the quote, ‘बभूव चन्द्रार्कसमानवर्णः’ simply mean, ‘became of the same colour (not position) as sun and moon’, i. e. white and bright. After Sunset, Jupiter, 30 deg. above horizon, can become bright enough to justify this description.

"Shri. Oak says – ‘After sunset, on the 17th day of War, Jupiter was on the western horizon, same position occupied by the Sun and the Moon on the first day of War while afflicting rising Rohini on the opposite (east) horizon. The Sun and the Moon were not together on the 17th day of War and thus I assert that Mahabharata reference of ‘similar to the Sun and the Moon’ is referring to the observation of first day of War, when they were afflicting Rohini.’

"Well, the quote does not at all say ‘in the same position as sun and moon on first day ’ as Shri. Oak ‘asserts’! It says ‘same colour’. An instance of Shri. Oak’s disregard for Sanskrit and wrong interpretation."

He did declare disregard for "all traditional beliefs".

"Further, why Jupiter should be considered as troubling Rohini if it is well above the western horizon, while Rohini was rising on the eastern horizon? At this rate, any planet can be considered to be troubling any Nakshatra from anywhere!. Hardly a case of ‘संप्रपीड्य’. To justify this word, Jupiter should be at Rohini! Thus it does not corroborate either the year or the date."

Astrological aspect of 180° is supposed to be not always good, but Jupiter is always benevolent, and Rohini belongs to a friend, Moon. If the angle is 150° instead, it's a non-benevolent aspect.

Astrology is the only possibility of making any sense out of these verses about a planet troubling a star.

"9. Ref. 21 Exp.16. The reference talks about a planet at Krittika. (कृत्तिकासु ग्रहः तीव्रः) Dr. Vartak and Shri. Oak claim it to be Pluto. Shri. Oak actually finds Pluto, but ‘rather closer to Rohini’, not near or at Krittika. I presume Pluto is very slow-moving. It would remain at Rohini for some more years and then move forward to Mrug. It would have been at krittika several years back! I also do not find the same object called ‘a nakshatra’ anywhere in the quotation!नक्षत्रे प्रथमे ज्वलन् does not mean that at all! I am not sure of the meaning but it seems to say ‘having burned in the nakshatra earlier’. (The word ‘Prathame’ can also be read as an adjective of Nakshatra, as Krittika was designated as ‘first’ Nakshatra after Indra-Skanda dialogue.) No translation or interpretation of the second line is given by Shri. Oak here. I am also not sure about what it says. Use of word धूमकेतुरिवस्थितः has some significance. All this rigmarole is supposed to prove it to be Pluto and Shri. Oak calls it ‘sufficient corroboration’! Really? No comment is needed. (Is ‘तीव्र’ an appropriate name for Pluto? Hardly!)"

Interestingly, astrological significance of Pluto are considered similar to Mars.

Which is not to say this is a successful corroboration or that Vyasa could see Pluto.

Unless one asserts, that is, either that he knew all about the various other objects of solar system too, upto Kuiper belt, possibly whole universe, and therefore one questions why he'd mention only three outer ice planets known until recently, not a great many more; and one must question if this was knowledge due to yogic power and abilities of the sage.

"10. Ref. 8 and 9, Exp. 19. - Both references are about Saturn troubling Rohini. Shri. Oak finds that as Rohini was setting, Saturn was the only planet, ‘somewhere in the eastern sky’, i. e. quite away from Rohini. Being the only available planet, the duty of troubling Rohini seems to have fallen to Saturn! This troubling from a safe distance is like a first year college student whistling at the college queen from a safe distance! Saturn also is a slow moving planet and the relative position would be unaffected over a large time span on both sides of the proposed war year and date.

"As the position of Saturn vis-à-vis Rohini is so vague, similar situation could occur in many other years. Saturn affecting Rohini should actually mean Saturn should be AT Rohini. Both Karna and Vyasa have mentioned this as a particularly bad omen for the Rulers i. e. Kauravas. Saturn troubling the setting Rohini from ‘somewhere in the eastern sky’ can hardly be considered as a corroboration of the bad omen. Ref 8 says ‘(प्राजापत्यं)ग्रहः तीक्ष्णः महाद्युतिः शनैश्चरः (पीडयति)’. Second and third word, bothare clearly adjectives of शनैश्चरः. It is clear therefore, that ‘tikshna’ is not another planet but refers to Saturn only!"

That last does make sense in astrologyas well.

"Problem is that Saturn can be either at Vishakha or at Rohini. For the proposed year and date it is at neither of the places!

"No corroboration I am afraid."

Yes.

"11. Ref. 17 Exp.21

"– भृगुसूनुधरापुत्रौ शशिजेन समन्वितौ

"चरमं पांडुपुत्राणाम पुरस्तात् सर्वभूभुजाम्

"The planets Venus and Mars, in conjunction with Mercury, appeared at the rear of the Pandavas and to the front of all the (Kaurava) lords of Earth. – Ganguli’s translation.

"This shloka occurs in ShalyaParva at the start of the description of the final day battle between Shalya and the Pandavas, in other words, in the morning of the 18th day.

"The three planets could be seen only some time after Sunset as mercury is also mentioned. Venus is also never far away from Sun. How did they ‘appear’ behind the Pandavas in the morning? On the other hand, by the evening the Kourava army was all destroyed and what remained of Pandava army was also not organized in formation to be facing East and having the three planets behind them. All were wandering in search of Duryodhana.

"The reference mentions three planets and Shri. Oak says he found those three planets in the western sky on the 18th day’s evening. Mercury and Venus are never too far from Sun. On many days they will be close together, morning or evening. Corroboration of the year or date? Yes and No! Not significant.

"12. Ref. 24 Exp 22.

"--- ‘मघाविषयगः सोमस्तद्दिनं प्रत्यपद्यत

"दीप्यमानाश्च सम्पेतुर्दिवि सप्तमहाग्रहाः’

"The shloka is at the start of the first day’s description of war i. e. at morning.

"Soma approached the region of Pitris. The seven large planets, as they appeared in the firmament, all looked blazing like fire. – Ganguli’s translation

"मघाविषयगः here is an adjective of Soma (moon). (Does it mean ‘in the Pitru Region? Does it mean moon in Magha? This was first day so moon was in Jyeshtha with sun! ). Shri. Oak has ignored the first line altogether. It says something about moon. The second line talks about seven planets but nothing is said about sun.

"Shri. Oak says ‘Voyager does confirm presence of seven planets from east to west: Neptune, Uranus, Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Mercury and Saturn. Positions of all planets, with respect to the position of the Sun, were to the east, only with the exception of Saturn which was to the west of the Sun.

Did Vyasa see Neptune and Urenus? Impossible. (No Pluto?)

"If Saturn was to the west of Sun and others to east, all could not have been seen after sunset, Saturn would be below horizon. ... "

But the description is of "at the start of the first day’s description of war i. e. at morning", as Phadnis says.

" ... In the morning, before war started, only Saturn could possibly have been seen, before actual sunrise. ... "

True. And presumably Vyasa is not talking about before sunrise; they certainly waited for Sun before battle.

" ... Vyasa talks in the morning, about seven planets. They should all be to the east to be seen in the morning. ... "

No, being seen in the morning amounts to rising before the Sun, so they would be west of the Sun.

But yes, if they were above horizon during day they'd not be seen.

" ... Shri. Oak speculates that the planets could be seen during the day itself because of the solar eclipse! This is idle speculation. When the occurrence of Solar Eclipse itself is not established by Shri. Oak beyond doubt, the assertion that all seven were seen ‘during the eclipse’ cannot be made with any certitude. The eclipse was anyway not total even according to him so there was no question of seeing the planets, during the day. Also, Solar Eclipse, if any, was in the afternoon. How could it enable seeing seven planets in the morning? ... "

Valid, every objection there.

" ... Which seven planets did Vyasa see during the day? Not stated in the quote. (If Mars, Jupiter, etc. were all five to the west of Sun, then counting sun and moon, Vyasa would see seven planets.) ... "

Um, strictly speaking no, Mercury certainly wouldn't be visible after sunrise. Rest need to be far enough to be visible, it's just possible just before sunset so it should also just after sunrise. That's six total, whether counting Mercury or Sun. Uranus is discernible to naked eye but during daylight, doubtful.

" ... The quotation and so-called verification proves nothing about the year or date of war."

No it's just meant as another notch on corroboration belt, but it's completely cuckoo, claiming seven visible planets early in morning because there was a partial eclipse later.

It's the usual cheating by Oak.

"13. Ref 23 Exp 23

"…ते पीडयन्भीमसेनं क्रुद्धाः सप्तमहारथाः

"प्रजासंहरणे राजन् सोमं सप्तग्रहाः इव."

"Shri. Oak asserts that it is an observation on the 14th night. According to him 14th day of war was a Shukla Chaturdashi, so no question of moon ‘rising’. At sunset it would be already above the Eastern horizon. If the seven planets were ranging from East to West, not all near the moon, how were they attacking the moon?"

Oak would repeat his disdain for "traditional beliefs" in answer. He's not about making sense, especially when it's about India.

"In seven planets, Shri. Oak includes Pluto, Neptune and Urenus! Did Vyasa see all these? Voyager does not corroborate the Shloka at all!"

And Oak claims corroboration nevertheless.

"Further Shri. Oak has completely ignored प्रजासंहरणे from the second line! "

Sloppy as usual.

"In my view, Vyasa here is alluding to some anecdote by the word ‘प्रजासंहरणे’.

"The actual translation of the reference by Ganguli is 'Excited with wrath, those seven great car-warriors began to afflict Bhimasena, O king, like the seven planets afflicting the moon at the hour of the universal dissolution.' So Vyasa here is giving a दृष्टान्त.The word ‘इव’ says so clearly. There is no question of there being seven Planets actually attacking the moon on that night."

That's Oak’s normal behaviour, claiming every poetic imagery as visual observation of astronomical nature and claiming corroboration when there's none.

"14. Ref. 25 Exp 24. ‘निश्चरन्तो व्यदृश्यन्त सूर्यात्सप्त महाग्रहाः’

"निश्चरन्तो व्यदृश्यन्त does not translate as ‘appeared moving away from’. Since चर means move, निश्चर should mean ‘not moving’ . If sandhi is removed, the word appears to be निश्चरन्ताः व्यदृश्यन्त सूर्यात् which seems to mean ‘appeared not moving from Sun’. The translation by Ganguli is ... The seven great planets including the Sun seemed to proceed against one another (for combat).. This also does not appear correct to me as सूर्यात् cannot mean 'including the Sun'"

That's making much more sense.

"Shri. Oak enumerates seven planets shown by Voyager which include his favorites, Pluto, Neptune and Uranus!

"What the quote says, what Shri. Oak interprets and what Voyager shows are all different! No corroboration!"

That's usual.

"15. Ref. 19 and 20 . Exp. 26. As Shri. Oak has finally concluded that Shweta and Shyama cannot be positively identified, they can be left out. About Shyama, the adjectives, प्रज्वलितः,सधूमः,सहपावकः though, appear to point to a comet or Meteor.

"16. Ref. 21 and 22. - Shri. Oak says both these quotes refer to Comet at Pushya. While ref 22 second line clearly says that a महाघोरः धूमकेतुः has settled at Pushya, Ref 21 does not say so at all. It simply says the planet Teevra is at Krittikaand is –धूमकेतुरिव – like a comet. वपूंष्यपहरन्भासा does not at all mean 'at Pushya'! वपुंसि अपहरन् भासा may mean ‘as if abducting bodies’. I am not sure of this and an authentic translation must be referred. Ganguly has not translated this line and also second half of first line, ‘नक्षत्रे प्रथमे ज्वलन्’.

"Where does Shri.Oak see ‘Pushya’ here? He sees whatever he wants anywhere with complete disregard for Sanskrit language!"

Yes.

"17. At the end of chapter 7 Shri. Oak says that he checked 38 specific years, within 6500 BCE and 3500 BCE, for a combination of Saturn near Bhaga (UttaraFalguni) and Jupiter near Shravan. Out of three alternate positions of Saturn and two of Jupiter, Shri. Oak seems to consider these positions more important. Does 5561 BCE qualify for this position? He does not claim so specifically. What he actually found for 16th Oct 5561 BCE is - On 16th Oct. 5561, Jupiter was in Uttarashadha, and Saturn in Hasta. They are one nakshatra away from the desired positions and both being slow-moving, would remain so for maybe some months either side. After 5561 BCE Saturn will go further away from Hasta to Chitra although Jupiter will move towards Shravan. So does 5561BCE pass this condition? Not really. Did any other of the 38 do any better?"

No, Oak was too lazy to check for a specific astronomical feature, and having found it easier to do so simply tested Vartak’s timeline, claiming corroboration when there's none.

"Saturn in Hasta is neither near Vishakha nor near U. Phalguni! Not at Rohini at all! Of course, if it satisfied one it cannot meet the other two conditions. In the proposed year and date it satisfies none of the three locations. Same is the case with Jupiter. So how does the year qualify?

"That brings us to end of chapter 7 which claims 5561 BCE as the Year of war. Have all the references and EE experiments passed scrutiny? Not so, in many cases, as pointed out above. I have left out many other minor discrepancies."

Yes.

" ... Shri. Oak has inherited a particular year from Dr. Vartak and tried to prove it! I would only say that many of the references examined by Shri Oak in this chapter do not pass muster."

Yes.

"With multiple positional references for Saturn (At Vishakha, at U. Phalguni, at Rohini) and Jupiter (At Vishakha or at Shravan) I wonder whether any year will fit. If Saturn is to meet one position, other two will need to be ignored. The year 5561 BCE leads to a via-media position for Saturn which does not satisfy any of the three! Other researchers seem to attach maximum importance to Saturn at Rohini as a strong bad omen for the rulers i.e. Kouravas. Shri. Oak does not seem to agree."

One, being at a nakshatra is different from trouble making, so one needs only to zero in on one positional reference. Two, Oak disagreeing with others is about his disdain for traditional beliefs, which would - and very strongly does - astrology. Three, Saturn and Jupiter combinations repeat every sixty years, so it's not difficult to list all possible years and begin checking, with software he has, but Oak is lazy, sloppy and does shoddy work and cheats.

................................................................................................

................................................

May 23, 2022 - May 23, 2022.

................................................

................................................................................................

First day of war.

................................................................................................

"1. Exp 28 and 29, Ref. Nos. 9, 27, 28, 29 and 64. - The quotes refer to what Karna and Vyasa said to krishna and Dhritarashtra resp.

"Ref 9 and 27 are identical.व्यावृत्तं लक्ष्म सोमस्य is the wording in both cases. This has been translated by K. M. Ganguli slightly differently for the two shlokas.

"(A)The sign of the deer in the Moon hath deviated from its usual position and (B)The spot on the lunar disc hath changed its position.

"Both these description are rather obscure in meaning. What can cause the spot on moon’s surface to deviate? These two translations are literal. In any case, the translations do not describe the event as a Lunar Eclipse. Also no tithi is mentioned in the two references. These references do not describe a lunar eclipse, but some persisting change in the appearance of the moon, whatever the cause. In fact, an eclipse does not cause any lasting change in the appearance of Moon.

"On the other hand, Ref. 28 which quotes Vyasa talking to Dhritarashtra, is far more explicit. Ganguly translates it as -

"‘On (even) the fifteenth night of the lighted-fortnight in (the month of) Kartika, the moon, divested of splendor, became invisible, or of the hue of fire, the firmament being of the hue of the lotus.’

"I don’t see where-from the word lotus comes. Fire and lotus are not really ‘समवर्ण ', the word used in the ref. for the sky, meaning,‘of the same colour as moon’. Moon is called अग्निवर्ण.So both moon and sky were reddish, moon had lost itsप्रभा and was अलक्ष्य or invisible. This seems to say that on Kartik Purnima a total lunar eclipse had occurred. Shri. Oak says he found a ‘doubtful’ eclipse on 30th Sept. not a Total one as Vyasa describes.

"A progressive multiple photograph of a recent total Lunar Eclipse, clearly shows the red color moon when in Total Eclipse phase. Sky however does not show a reddish hue, maybe because of multiple exposures.

The photographs might not, but yes, it's possible. Not as strongly as the Moon, but one can't say it's unlikely or didn't seem so. We saw one in winter a few years ago, this photograph seems similar.

"There is another problem here. From 30th Sept the first day of war proposed, 16th Oct., is 16 days away! Was 16th Oct. then an Amavasya? 16 days after Purnima? A very long Shukla Paksha. More about this later."

No, from Pournima to Amawasya is Vadya Paksha. As to 16 days, Tithi can elongate or shorten, as can a lunar month or half month.

"Ref 29 does not say anything about a lunar eclipse on the Next Purnima. Vyasa talks about an abnormally short fortnight, (12 days between Last purnima and the days’s Amavasya), on the evening before the first day of war. Shri. Oak’s finding a Lunar Eclipse on 30th Oct. has really no relevance. In the entire description of war on 15th day, (30th Oct.), nothing is mentioned about a Lunar Eclipse. Further, if war began on 16th Oct., how could Vyasa, on the previous day, in his talk with Dhritarashtra, have talked about Lunar Eclipse of 30th Oct.?

"Shri. Oak mentions that Ref. 64 from Karna Parva points to lunar eclipse on 30th Oct. He has given no translation of the reference. 30th October was 15th day of war when Drona died. The reference on the other hand, is from Karnaparva, near end of the battle between Arjuna and Karna on 17th day. The discrepancy is easy to notice and cannot be ignored.

"The quotation and Ganguli’s translation are as follows.

"तथोपयातम् युधि धर्मराजं

दृष्ट्वा मुदा सर्वभूतान्यनंदन्

"राहोर्विमुक्तं विमलं समग्रं

"चंद्रं यथैवाभ्युदितं तथैव."

"'Beholding king Yudhishthira the just, arrived there like the resplendent full Moon freed from the jaws of Rahu and risen in the firmament, all creatures became filled with delight.' This is obviously just an UPAMA . Note the use of ‘यथैव –तथैव ‘. Mahabharat is full of such upamas."

Most Indian literature is! Oak habitually, with determination, claims it all as "visual observation of astronomical nature", including the five exalted planets at moment of birth of Rama, which he claims must be interpreted as they were above horizon, since he claims there's no end to astrology, as a reason to avoid any possible interpretation of exalted as astrological characterisation.

"The conclusion is that Vyasa talks about only two things, (a)A total Lunar Eclipse on past purnima and (b) A very short – 13 days’ – fortnight ending with Amavasya of that night. Was there a Solar Eclipse on the first day of war? It does not follow from this talk of Vyasa with Dhritarashtra on the evening prior to war. Nothing is mentioned by Vyasa about Solar Eclipse in this talk.

"To summerize, - 1. Vyasa describes a total lunar eclipse on Kartika Purnima, Shri. Oak finds a doubtful one. 2. Vyasa talks of an abnormally short fortnight ending on Amavasya, Shri. Oak finds an abnormally long fortnight -30th Sept to 15th/16th Oct. 3. Shri. Oak finds a definite Lunar Eclipse on 30th Oct, on 15th day of war but it is not mentioned anywhere in the description of 15th day’s war. Shri. Oak refers to a quotation from 17th day’s description, claiming it to prove a lunar eclipse on 15th day, though it is just an Upama. Corroboration? None!"

Yes.

"2. References 34, 35 and 36, Exp. 30 to 34. –

"The references are related to Solar Eclipse on 16th Oct., the first day of war. Translations of the references by Ganguli are as below.

"Translation of Ref 34 - The Sun, when he rose, seemed to be divided in twain. Besides, that luminary, as it appeared in the firmament, seemed to blaze forth in flames.

"Translation of Ref 35 - And as (both) the armies stood at dawn of day waiting for sunrise, a wind began to blow with drops of water (falling), and although there were no clouds, the roll of thunder was heard. And dry winds began to blow all around, bearing a shower of pointed pebbles along the ground. And as thick dust arose, covering the world with darkness large meteors began to fall east-wards, O bull of Bharata's race, and striking against the rising Sun, broke in fragments with loud noise. When the troops stood arrayed, O bull of Bharata's race, the Sun rose divested of splendor, and the Earth trembled with a loud sound, and cracked in many places, O chief of the Bharatas, with loud noise.

"Translation of Ref 36 - And the Sun himself was shrouded by the dust raised by the combatants.

"From the translations it is clear that, at best, Ref. 34 alone can be considered as talking about a solar eclipse, in that it describes Sun as seeming to blaze in flames. Ref. 35 and 36 talk about dust raised by the combatants causing darkness, hardly a description of solar eclipse. Ref. 35 talks about events at Sunrise. The only words here, somewhat relevant to an eclipse, are ‘Sun rose divested of splendor’. Vyasa has laid far more emphasis on heavy dust causing darkness and splitting of Sun and earth.

"Thus in all three references there is no direct mention of a solar eclipse. If there was an eclipse what was preventing Vyasa to be specific and call it a solar eclipse? Why leave it to inferences?

"The Experiment no. 30 talks about a solar eclipse actually occurring on 16th Oct. but the timing is well after noon. Was it a total eclipse? Shri. Oak himself is not sure. What was the duration? Normally Solar Eclipses, partials or even totals don’t run into several hours. It is therefore not likely that in the morning there was any effect on the Sun at all. Fanciful events mentioned in Ref 35, all at sunrise, before the skirmishes began, cannot be attributed to the eclipse, if any, which occurred only well after noon.

"The description of Ref. 34, ‘Sun seemed to blaze forth in flames’ seems to suggest the Solar Flares which are seen when a ‘Total Eclipse’ occurs. Well, there was obviously no total eclipse at sunrise.

"The only reference, which somewhat points at a possible solar eclipse, is what Karna said to Krishna, viz. Rahu approaching Sun. Well, Rahu being a spot on the ecliptic, sun would always approach it (unless the next location of Rahu is behind the sun)! Solar eclipse occurs only if moon also reaches the spot at the same time. So at best, Karna hinted at a possibility of Solar Eclipse on coming Amavasya.

"In conclusion I would say that there was no solar eclipse on the first day of war as per the text. If there was any, it must be about to end at sunrise.

"Actually, Mr. Oak finds a solar eclipse at noon on 16th Oct. and he does not claim it as total or major. At sunrise it could not have any effect on Sun’s appearance."

Right.

"3. Ref 38 Exp.35

"शुशुभाते तदा तौ तु शैनेयकुरुपुंगवौ

"अमावास्यां गतौ यद्वत्सोमसूर्यौ नभस्तले.

"Translation of the reference by Ganguli is as follows.

"And Sini's grandson and that bull of Kuru's race looked resplendent like the sun and the moon when together in the firmament after the last lunation of the dark fortnight has passed away.

"On any Amavasya / Shukla Pratipada at the time of sunset, the Sun and a small crescent of Moon can be seen close together near the horizon. The reference simply compares Satyaki and Abhimanyu on same Ratha to Sun and Moon Crescent setting close together on the western horizon. (सोमसूर्यौ गतौ नभस्तले) on an Amavasya day. Wherefrom does Shri. Oak conclude that it refers to the Amavasya three days back? The wordsगतौ नभस्तले referto Sun and Moon (सोमसूर्यौ) and by no means to the past Amavasya as Shri. Oak claims!

"It is an instance of Shri. Oak’s motivated, freewheeling translation with no cognizance of grammar rules! (Gatau being dvivachan cannot refer to amavasya! It refers to somasuryou!)"

To be fair, Oak’s claim isn't of a translation but of a general insistence that any reference by any Indian poet to any celestial bodies can only be due to an instant observation of astronomical nature, and he relaxes that when he needs corroboration not quite instant.

"4. Exp 36, Ref – Various. Shri. Oak claims that the description of war for first 11 days is consistent with amavasya being the first day. There are some doubts.

"The skirmishes go on whole day and extend a little beyond sunset occasionally. For first ten days, Bhishma was keeping some control on the conduct of war so after sunset the skirmishes generally ended.

"The 7th day and 8th day’s descriptions of war, at the end of the day , mention ‘pitch darkness’.

"7th Day - 'thy troops and the Pandavas, ceased to fight when darkness came.'

"8th Day - 'Kurus and the Pandavas withdrew their armies, when that awful night of pitchy darkness came.

"As these are days of Shukla Paksha, on progressive days, moon would be higher up and nearly half size at the sunset and time for ‘pitch darkness’ to set in would be some hours after sunset. There is an inconsistency here in the description of darkness immediately after sunset.

"Shri. Oak claims to the contrary. I quote –

"‘This then is the chronological account of the first 11 days of the War, which includes ‘absence of moon references’ for the first 8 days and accounts of fighting continuing into the night with each progressing day of the War, as corroborative evidence for ‘Amawasya’ as the first day of War.’

"Absences of moon reference and skirmishes continuing, but in darkness after sunset, on these days is in fact against amavasya being the first day! On progressive days, moon will be bigger and brighter after sunset it being Shukla Paksha! No corroboration!"

Yes.

First day being Amawasya is untenable for several reasons, one of which is traditional practices throughout India being against anything planned for such a "muhourta" by choice, with understanding that occult forces of an Amawasya are too strong and not to be trifled with; but Oak’s assertion regarding not caring about traditional belief is rather milder than his real attitude, which is a belligerent opposition to anything of the sort as long as its of Indian origin.

So much so, he cheats about the Jayadratha Vadha by mentioning it as briefly as possible, when in reality that's the one single visual observation of astronomical nature that is of vital importance to the story, and must, in accordance with Oak’s own declaration of principles, be taken into account.

"5. Ref. 48 Exp. 37.

"अपसव्यं ग्रहाश्चक्रुः अल्क्ष्माणं निशाकरम्

"अवाक्शिराश्च भगवानुदतिष्ठत चंद्रमाः"

"This reference quotes what Drona said to his son around noon on the tenth day. He is describing many bad omens and is fearful that Arjuna will kill Bhishma today. So he asks all Kuru warriors to protect Bhishma. Among the many bad omens he lists the above, about the moon.

"Ganguly translates the second line of the reference as …

"‘The illustrious Moon riseth with his horns downward.’"

"( उदतिष्ठत should translate as ‘Arose’ rather than ‘riseth’. Also, Ganguli has not translated the first line of the shloka. The first line appears to say that the planets turned backwards as they could not see the moon.)

"Actually the day had by no means even half finished. It was most probably still some time before noon, because here onwards, there occurred many skirmishes, repeated attacks on Bhishma and vigorous and desperate efforts by all Kaurava warriors to push the Pandava warriors back and protect Bhishma. When, much later, Bhishma finally fell down, it was a little before sunset.

"This was 10th day of war, so it was a Shukla Navami. Moon would become visible, just over eastern horizon, only quite some time after noon, being more than 90 degrees behind Sun. Further, being Navami, the moon would be slightly more than half and would hardly have pointed ends! It will not be a crescent!"

Exactly! If it were the correct Tithi as claimed by Oak, that is.

"Here is a photo of moon on Shukla Navami of Shravan, at 6-30 PM (On Aug. 24, 2015 in San Ramon CA), showing moon, at some height above Eastern horizon. It could have been seen rising on Eastern horizon, earlier at about 3 PM, not before noon as Drona said to Ashvatthama. It is more than half, not a crescent and has no downwards pointing ends!"

Phadnis gives a beautiful photograph, instantly recognisable as to the Tithi.

"The description of the moon does not match what it would look like when it rose well after noon on a Shukla Navami. On Shukla chaturthi or panchami, the rising moon may show downward pointing ends.

"There is thus a discrepancy between the shloka and what should be seen if first day was Amavasya."

Correct.

"6. Under Exp. 38, Shri. Oak has listed a large number of references where many warriors killed or lying on the ground are compared to moon. All these are mere Upamas and nothing else. Vyasa or Sanjaya had no need to see full or nearly full moon in the sky in the night following these events for using the Upamas. Moon is routinely used as a ‘Upamana’ by Sanskrit poets and they don’t need to have moon in the sky in front of them for that. These references prove or disprove nothing regarding the tithi of the day or amavasya as the first day. Shri. Oak’s claim is meaningless."

Absolutely!

It's completely cuckoo of Oak to claim - or imply - that anyone comparing a loved one or anyone to a celestial object is doing so by looking instantly up, whether Vyasa or Sanjaya or any other poet or any parent in India, looking at an infant of theirs!

"7. Ref. No 50. Exp 39.

"Translation of this reference by Ganguli is as follows –

"'Decked, O monarch, in garlands of flower, and with a white umbrella held over his head, he looked like the full moon when in conjunction with the constellation Krittika.'"

"This is a description of Bhagadatta on the 12th day of war. Shri. Oak says this corroborates with the first day being an Amavasya. How? Moon may be in Krittika but it was not a full moon night, Ekadashi only. On Purnima, moon wont be in Krittika! But Bhagadatta is compared to full moon!"

Oak just gets verbose, going round churning the given description and confusing the whole thing to the best of his ability, hoping to exhaust readers and make them give up and nod assent just to shut him up, not expecting patient and painstaking dissent, or even one awake.

"This again is nothing but an Upama. For using it Vyasa does not require to see a full moon in Krittika on that day or night. One cannot read anything more in it. Corroboration of Amavasya as first day? Neither yes, nor no. Not a relevant issue.

"8. Ref. 57 Exp. 40-

"‘विशाखयोर्मध्यगत: शशी यथा’

"Ref. compares Raja Paandya’s fallen head with full moon within Vishakha. This is 16th day of the war. Translation of reference by Ganguli– ‘That head also, graced with a face bright as the full Moon, having a prominent nose and a pair of large eyes, red as copper with rage, adorned with earrings, falling on the ground, looked resplendent like the Moon himself between two bright constellations.’

"Shri. Oak finds moon on that night to be at Punarvasu, nowhere near Vishakha. Finding moon between the four stars of Punarvasu, Shri. Oak makes a nice attempt to call these as two branches of Punarvasu. It is ingenious but not useful. Moon in two branches of Punarvasu and moon within Vishakha are completely different! Once again it is nothing but just an Upama. Shri. Oak accepts that it is only an Upama here. Here it suits him!"

Yes.

"9. Ref. No. 58 Exp. 41.

"Translation by Ganguli --

"The sons of Draupadi, desirous of battle, stood by the side of the son of Prushata. They were clad in excellent coats of mail, and armed with excellent weapons, and all of them were endowed with the prowess of tigers. Possessed of effulgent bodies, they followed their maternal uncle like the stars appearing with the Moon.

"This is 17th day. Moon must have moved out of Punarvasu’s four star of previous day. Shri.Oak still compares the four stars and moon with five sons of Droupadi protecting son of Prushata i.e. Dhrishtadyumna and claims corroboration!

"Once again, this is just an Upama. Nothing more should be read in it.

"10. Ref. 59. Exp. 42

"Translation --- Each of those two heroes, standing by the side of Yudhishthira’s car, looked resplendent like the constellation Punarvasu by the side of the moon.

"This is also 17th day. How far behind moon were the two stars of Punarvasu? Also four stars and two warriors! Still, corroboration claimed.

"Again it is just an Upama and nothing more.

"I have dealt with the various references in this chapter covered by Shri. Oak. All are not really astronomical like those from Karna-Krishna dialogue or from Vyasa-Dhritarashtra dialogue. Most of them are just Upamas. Some match some don’t. It makes no difference really. Situation will be equally inconclusive for some other year or date. All upamas will still be valid even if picture in the sky would not match for some other year/date combination."

Indeed.

"Did the war start on Jyeshth Amavasya? Shri. Oak himself suggests that, maybe, it started on next Amavasya to give sufficient time for war preparations or war rituals! If that is so, then all moon positions in these various references will change!"

Phadnis means Ashwin, since we are speaking of Oak’s assertion regarding Kartika Amawasya and an extra month going back is Ashwin.

"Considering only those references verified by Mr. Oak in these two chapters, I would say that there are many problems with both, the year viz. 5561 BCE and the Date viz. 16th October (Julian). Mr. Oak’s claim that the verifications done by him corroborate the year and date cannot be accepted."

Absolutely correct.

"I believe that any proposed year should meet the actual ‘astronomical’ references of Karna and Vyasa as much as possible, better than Shri. Oak’s proposed year.

"Regarding the date, apart from many of the so called astronomical references listed by Shri. Oak not matching in many cases and not really mattering, being mostly just upamas, the main problem is different.

"The date proposed is 3 and ½ month prior to Winter solstice or 15 days before Autumnal equinox, or before end of rainy season. It is not acceptable at all, on that count alone! The war could start only after rains ended and ground dried sufficiently for movement of rathas and elephants. There is not a single mention of rain in the detailed description of the 18 days of war! To suit astronomy you cannot twist nature!"

That's consistent with war beginning on or after beginning of Ashwin, not at end of Kartika. Beginning of Kartika satisfies most of these considerations. Plus one about 14th day.

"There are many other problems with matters covered in subsequent chapters. Instead of commenting on each chapter I will write about the individual issues."

................................................................................................

................................................

May 23, 2022 - May 23, 2022.

................................................

................................................................................................

Krishna Shishtai

................................................................................................

"Shri. Oak has proposed a time line of Krishna Shishtai and subsequent events. I am unable to accept some of the points. The text of Mahabharata is very clear and unambiguous about the timing and duration of the event. Also it has the merit of being natural.

"1. Krishna must have left Upaplavya for his visit only near end of Sharad Rutu. There was no reason to do it very much before the end of monsoon which happens only after Autumnal Equinox. No one was going to start the war until the climate was suitable. It was not as though Pandavas had already encircled Hastinapur and war was imminent. If Sharad Ritu is to be considered to straddle the Autumnal Equinox, if the visit starts some days after Autumnal Equinox it would be in the end part of Sharad. Vyasa clearly says Krishna left ‘शरदन्ते हिमागमे’. The wordशरदन्ते may have been used to indicate ‘near the end of Sharad’. Any date prior to Equinox is not natural and cannot be accepted.

"2. The text clearly describes daily events. Krishna spent two days in travel, rested at Vidura’s place on reaching Hastinapur and attended at Kuru Darbar on third day. All the protracted arguments, ending with Krishna provoking the Kuru elders to overrule Duryodhan, the attempt by Duryodhan to capture Krishna himself in retaliation but his wisely giving it up, Krishna realizing that nothing can be achieved by further talks and finally telling the Darbar that he will go back and report to Pandavas, all these happened on that third day itself. Krishna went to Vidura’s place thereafter and talked to Kunti on the same evening and left Hastinapur same day or, more probably, next morning. Nothing remained for him to do in Hastinapur.

"3. When returning he invited Karna on his ratha and had a dialogue with him when he told Karna that he was Kunti’s son and should leave Duryodhan’s side and come over to Pandavas’ side. Karna refused and then Krishna told him to report to Kauravas that we should meet at Kurukshetra in a week’s time and commence the battle as the ground conditions and climate are now suitable for it.

"4. There is no scope or justification to conclude that the event occurred long before end of monsoon or that war itself actually began before end of monsoon. Simply because his proposed war date, viz. 16th Oct, falls 16 days before Autumnal Equinox, Mr. Oak has ignored or twisted the text, and given all unacceptable explanations. The hostilities simply could not have commenced before end of monsoon. A large number of noted Maharathis, right from Bhishma, Drona, Krupa, Shalya, Bhagadatta, Drupad, Virat, down to Kauravas’ and Pandavas’ sons, were involved and they all would have laughed at the idea! If battle began before ground was dry, not only Karna’s but everyone’s Ratha would have stuck in mud! One cannot wish away all realities to suit astronomical references and their interpretations.

"5. It is also a favorite idea of researchers that what Krishna and Karna decided was not ‘to commence war at Kurukshetra after seven days’ but only ‘to start war preparations or rituals’. Commencement of war is claimed on 16th Oct, Kartika amavasya, so Shri. Oak speculates, (but does not insist on,) that the amavasya Krishna talks about was the previous one! (Unfortunately, the previous one was not Shakra Amavasya!) As it is, moon being in Jyeshtha on 16th Oct., it would be in Revati, the day of Krishna’s departure on 28th Sept. If the visit is to be pulled back to the previous Revati Day, it would be 1st Sept. Summer Solstice and commencement of rain was on 30th July so Krishna’s visit would be just after one month of start of rains! Does Shri. Oak seriously suggest it? Now about war rituals, where are any descriptions of ‘War Rituals’ in the Text? There is no mention of rain an the entire description of 18 days’ war. On the other hand, there is plenty of dust as ground was dry."

"6. Shri. Oak claims that Krishna spent several days in Hastinapur in negotiations. There is no description or even vague mention of any separate meeting of Krishna and anyone else. Whom did he meet and when and what transpired? Nothing in the text. Krishna is claimed to have waited until Duryodhana finally rejected the peace proposal on Pushya day and asked his supporters to move to Kurukshetra. If Krishna had returned after that day, the Pandavas would miss the Pushya muhurta! But after Krishna returned, the text says he asked Pandavas to move to Kurukshetra on Pushya day! After Krishna returned and Balaram heard that war is inevitable he left for yatra, on Pushya day! No, Krishna returned on fourth day i. e. Krittika day and both Kouravas and Pandavas moved to Kurukshetra on the following Pushya day. Actually, Duryodhana had already rejected even Yudhishthira’s minimum demand of 5 villages on the day of the meeting itself. He only asked his supporters to move to Kurukshetra on Pushya day when Krishna had already left.

"7. Consider also the position.

"A. Krishna’s visit was itself just a formality to save blame from posterity. Pandavas, Vidur or Krishna himself were not expecting any positive results.

"B. No one, not even Krishna, was unequivocally claiming that Pandavas had completed 13th year of Adnyatavas. Duryodhana had always rejected the claim. Bhishma had explained the arithmetic of Pandavas but had not endorsed it! Duryodhan had a strong case for rejecting Pandavas’ claim, at least from his point of view.

"C. Krishna therefore strategically laid emphasis on the desirability of peace and addressed his arguments to Dhritarashtra and Bhishma-Drona and not to Duryodhana.

"D. Everybody, even Gandhari, was trying to persuade Duryodhana with the threat that he cannot win but Bhishma, Drona, Krupa, Ashvatthama or any other Kuru Senior (Balhika?) was not prepared to threaten Duryodhana that he would not fight for him.

"E. Duryodhana was totally adamant. He was prepared for a war. He knew he had to fight with Pandavas some day or other and present time was as good as any.

"F. There was thus no chance of success for peace talk.

"8. There was nothing to be achieved by wasting time in any further talks after the events of the day of Shishtai. Why Krishna should stay on? He did not stay even a day more! Krishna Shishtai is just a four-day affair.

"9. The war started, in my opinion, some 20-22 days after Autumnal Equinox. The ground conditions were sufficiently dry and no one had any hesitation to commence hostilities. Supporters had already gathered at both Pandava and Kourava camps and they just moved on to kurukshetra when, as expected, Krishna’s last-minute effort failed.

"10. For the proposed year 5561 BCE, Autumnal equinox was at end Oct. Start of war therefore has to be around 20th Nov. One Revati day in that year was on 28th Sept. The next would be 25th Oct. Did Krishna start on this Revati day? It would be near end of Sharad and enough days remained thereafter for Shishtai to complete and both sides to mobilize and war to commence on 20th Nov. It wont be an Amavasya however. Well, you cannot have everything. Or, you can always check some other year!"

................................................................................................

................................................

May 23, 2022 - May 23, 2022.

................................................

................................................................................................

BheeshmaNirvan.

Did Bhishma spend 95+ days on deathbed?

................................................................................................

"Shri Oak has made a strange claim in his book that Bhishma spent 95+ days on his death-bed or bed of arrows. Having started with 16th Oct (Julian) as the first day of war and winter solstice for the year of war, viz. 5561 BCE, being on end Jan. the arithmetic works to that period but the facts do not.

"Shri Oak always claims that he has a long list of references from Mahabharata to support this claim. I will first take a look at the Mahabharat References quoted by him in his book and comment on them.

"They are numbered from 108 to 130 in the book.

"They are mostly from Shanti and Anushasan Parva.

"108 – Shanti, GP 47-1 – 4.

"Bheeshma’s life ended on start of Uttarayana. – Accepted. No comment needed.

"109- Anu, GP167 – 26-28

"Bheeshma says he spent 58 nights on deathbed.

"– My mainstay. No comment needed.

"110 – Shanti, GP47 -3 -Additional Text.

"I cannot say whether this is authentic. It seems it is not found in CE, only in GP. It is probably inserted by someone much later to suit his theory. It gives a tithi reference for the day of Bhishma’s death which may or may not be correct.

"111- Stree GP26 – 24-43

"Description of mass burning of all bodies and last rights of some sort or other – Pandavas fulfilling their obligation. How many days elapsed in this is not clear. This period should be counted 20th day onwards, since 19th day had kept Pandavas fully busy with Ashvatthama.

"112- Stree GP26- 44

"Yudhishthira along with Dhritarashtra goes towards Ganga.

"Presumably all other pandavas also went. Here, there is no mention of the no. of days spent in travelling. Ganga is fairly distant from Kurukshetra or Hastinapur. All men and large no. of women also probably went so the journey could have taken a few days. Stree - GP27 says that after reaching bank of Ganga, ‘all’ gave jalanjali to their dead relatives. How many days it took? Presumably, only a day. The purpose of going to Ganga thus seems to be giving jalanjali. All these descriptions under 110 to 112 don’t help in deciding the exact no. of days gone since end of war on 18th day till the day of jalanlali.

"113 – Shanti GP1- 1-2

"After udakakriya or jalanjali (I presume same), Pandavas stayed on bank of ganga for a month. At which place near Ganga? Not mentioned. No month or tithi is mentioned for the jalanjali day or for the last day of stay at Ganga bank.

"114 – Shanti GP37 – 30

"Yudhishthira, along with Dhritarashtra, enters his Town, meaning Hastinapur. Apparently, Dhritarashtra had also stayed at Ganga. No comment is needed except that there is no mention of month name or tithi of this day. Lack of mention of month name or tithi for any of the activities after end of war till now does not permit any estimation or checking of days gone.

"Here Shri. Oak has not taken note of a significant earlier reference. A little prior to entering Hastinapur, in Shanti - GP37 itself, shlokas12-16 say that Vyasa told Yudhishthira to meet Bhishma and seek knowledge of Rajadharma ‘before he ends his life’. Yudhishthira replied that he was afraid of or ashamed of meeting him. He blamed himself for Bhishma’s impending death. Krishna also advises him to do what Vyasa said. After this dialogue, Yudhishthira enters Hastinapur. Dhritarashtra, also Gandhari, rode ahead of him on elephant. Kunti is not mentioned but must be there. It means that till now, entire Kurukula (or what was left of it) had abandoned the capital. Also, Pandavas had not visited Bhishma till this day.

"115 – Shanti GP37 – 35-36

"Yudhishthir and his entourage enter Hastinapur. Even here, there is no mention of month name or tithi.

"116 – Shanti GP 38 – 2.

"Welcome to Yudhishthira. No timeline issue. No comment.

"117 – Shanti GP38-16

"Yudhishthir surrounded by brahmanas like bright moon surrounded by stars. Yet another upama. No timeline issue.

"118 – Shanti GP47- 105-108

"Yudhishthir finally went to meet Bhishma. Here also there is no mention of tithi or month. Here the list of visitors includes many names, besides Pandavas and Krishna-Satyaki. How many days have passed since end of war before this visit? It is not specifically mentioned."

"Any of these references are not much useful to conclusively fix no. of days lapsed till then, from end of war on 18th day. It could be anything from 30 to 45 days."

"119 Shanti GP 48 – 1-6

"When the Visitors reached Kurukshetra where Bhishma was lying, they saw on the way many remains of dead bodies of humans and animals lying around. This is a bit surprising as many days had passed since end of war. Pandavas had dealt with dead bodies of Kurus. Large common funeral pyres had also been arranged. Followers of prominent persons from other families of kings, presumably, would have taken similar action. Flesh-eating animals would have also been in action since kurukshetra was abandoned."

Presumably that gory description, completely unnecessary for any purpose of the work, was provided by Oak just for pleasure of his readers in West.

"120 Shanti GP 51 – 14

"After Pandavas and others reach Bhishma’s death-bed, Krishna says to Bheeshma that your life on bed of arrows is 56 days balance. (Literal meaning).

"पंचाशतं षट्च कुरुप्रवीर शेषं दिनानां तव जीवितस्य."

"This particular reference is the crux of the problem and needs careful scrutiny.

"Let us examine Krishna’s statement.

"1. Neither Bhishma nor Yudhishthir nor anyone else from many others gathered around Bhishma had asked Krishna to state how many days of Bhishma’s life remained. Why ask? They all knew! Bhishma being a Dnyani, must have known, on the day he fell down itself, how many days remained till start of Uttarayan.

"2. On the tenth war day also, the subject of ‘days to Uttarayan’ was not raised by anyone from among all the assembled Kourava-Pandavas or all Rajas or rishi-munis. All knew it with reasonable accuracy.

"3. When Vyasa asked Yudhishthir to meet Bhishma to learn Rajadharma he had invoked a sense of urgency, by his advice to do so ‘before Bhishma ends his life’. Obviously, not many days of Bhishma’s life were left at that stage.

"4. ‘56 days still balance’ from this day of visit onwards therefore appears very doubtful.

"5. One has to carefully read the text of the shloka. Although I don’t claim deep knowledge of Sanskrit, I believe the shloka does not rule out a simple interpretation that ‘56 days remaining’ were from the event of the fall of Bhishma, not from the day of this conversation. The text does not say ‘शेषं’ from that day, unambiguously.

"6. On the other hand, 56 total days on deathbed would mean 57 nights, counting the night of Bhishma’s fall, till the morning of first day of uttarayana. Compare this with what Bhishma said just before dying, ‘he spent 58 extremely painful nights’. The matching is far too perfect to ignore!

"7. It calls for only one conclusion. Krishna and Bhishma are saying the same thing! 57 or 58 nights on deathbed. There is no contradiction. (Bhishma may have spent one extra day to be sure that Uttarayana had really started.)"

"Remaining references 121 to 130.

"These references pinpoint some events during the long conversation between Bhishma and Yudhishthir in Shanti and Anushasan Parva. Mention is made of Yudhishthira returning at end of first and second day and of his going to Bhisma on the second day. No other breaks at end of day are highlighted. After the end of the dialogue, Bhishma asks Yudhishthira to go back to Hastinapur and return when Uttarayan occurs. How many days were actually spent in this dialogue? There is no way to establish. Maybe 5 or 6 days at most.

"Ref 129 describes Yudhishthira returning with many others to Hastinapur. After Yudhishthira’s return, under Ref. 130, there is again mention of Abhishek to Yudhishthira, payment of compensation to war victims, admin. appointments etc and spending 50 days in the town before realizing that the time to visit Bhishma had arrived. Had Yudhishthira not taken care of all these matters much earlier, immediately after returning from Ganga and entering Hastinapur? This description and mention of 50 days is clearly a latter day interpolation. It could mean total time gone by from fall of Bhishma.

"On the other hand, in (Ref. 127), in Shanti-GP 302 – 4, almost at the end of Shantiparva, when returning from his last visit to Bhishma, Yudhishthir specifically told Bhishma ‘your days while in dakshinayana are almost over.’ So obviously he did not spend 50 days thereafter in Hastinapur.

"It is clear that after Yudhishthira first visited Bhishma and then made some further visits for a dialogue over 5-6 days, Dakshinayan was almost over.

"What remains is that both Krishna and Bhishma are saying that Bhishma spent 57-58 nights on deathbed. There is no contradiction. A realistic Time line of Yudhishthira’s various actions in these 57 days may be taken as 8 + 1 balance days of war, 30 days for funerals, travel to Ganga, jalanjali and stay for ashoucha at Ganga, 8 days for coronation, administrative and other duties, 5-6 days for visits to and a dialogue with Bhishma about essentials of Rajadharma and returning to Bhishma after balance few days when Uttarayan began. This also fits well between start of war about 20-22 days after autumnal equinox , Bhishma fighting for 10 days and 57 days later, ending his life on winter solstice.

"The several hundreds of pages of text of the Bhishma-Yudhishthir dialogue in Shanti and Anushasan Parva are just a comprehensive compilation of all accumulated knowledge and wisdom available at that time. Obviously the entire material was not physically spoken out carefully and slowly by the dying and suffering Bhishma to enable Yudhishthira to absorb it fully! Bhishma and Yudhishthira, quite probably, did have a dialogue over 5 or 6 days which helped Yudhishthira to overcome his grief and guilt and to regain peace of mind and to get some essential knowledge of Rajadharma too. Vyasa (or later, Vaishampayana/Souti) used the occasion to make the comprehensive compilation for posterity. As far as I know, that is the general consensus view of Mahabharat Lovers.

"I do not know of any other researcher, astronomical or otherwise, concluding that Bhishma spent 95+ days on deathbed, other than Shri. Oak. Everyone else has taken Bhishma’s statement just before death about spending painful 58 nights as true. There is no contradictory statement or view by anyone in the entire Mahabharat. Bhishma was considered as a learned man and he was dying. Why he would make a grossly inaccurate statement? Had he lost his mind? How is it, that no one around him, then or later, has questioned the days? How Krishna, Yudhishthira, Vyasa, Vaishampayana, or Souti have said nothing contradictory?

"Even in today’s world a man’s dying declaration is accepted by Judiciary as true if properly recorded. Bhishma made his statement in the presence of many and Vyasa has recorded it. Shri. Oak has robbed Bhishma of the right to a dying declaration. His only basis for that is, Krishna’ statement literally interpreted to mean 57 days ‘thereafter’. He has of course just ignored two specific statements, 1)Vyasa showing urgency in his advice to Yudhishthira to visit Bhishma and 2)Yudhishthira, at end of last visit, within 5-6 days of the first visit, saying that only a few days of dakshinayana remained.

"The Mahabharat war just could not have begun till well after rains ended for obvious physical reasons and this has been pinpointed by Vyasa usingशरदन्ते (after Autumnal Equinox or in latter half of Sharad Ritu), as the time for Krishna’s departure for Shishtai. Start of war therefore has to be at least 20 days after Autumnal Equinox. Fortunately, no one questions (so far as I know) that Bhishma died just after Uttarayan began. These two fixed points of time are thus binding for ANY year of war, any researcher proposes. The Julian dates of the autumnal equinox and winter solstice get determined based on the year proposed. Other events must be timed and dated accordingly.

"Shri. Oak’s claims that war began long before autumnal equinox (i. e. at the start of Sharad Ritu) and Bhishma spent 95+ days on death-bed are illogical and must be rejected."

................................................................................................

................................................

May 23, 2022 - May 23, 2022.

................................................

................................................................................................

14th day of War.

................................................................................................

"The problem of complete darkness after sunset for several hours on 14th day of war is not amenable to any easy solution, if war did commence on Amavasya, whatever the year!

Why is Phadnis, too, ignoring Jayadratha Vadha?

From Wikipedia -

"Arjuna Kills Jayadratha with Pashupatastra

"Jayadratha's head falls in his father's lap

"Bhima, Satyaki, and Arjuna tear through the Kaurava army. But as the maharathi after maharathi collapses back to defend Jayadratha, it becomes clear that Arjuna couldn't reach him before sunset. At a climactic moment, with the sun nearly set and thousands of warriors still between Arjuna and Jayadratha, Krishna sends his Sudarshana Chakra in order to mask the sun and create an illusion of sunset. The Kaurava warriors rejoice over Arjuna's defeat and look forward to his imminent suicide. Jayadratha, who was hiding behind Duryodhana, is relieved that he was saved and comes out of the formation to mock Arjuna. Suddenly, the sun is free from the eclipse and Krishna tells Arjuna what he had to do then. He then points at the hiding Jayadratha, telling Arjuna to sever his head and shoot it into the lap of Jayadratha's father. Arjuna quickly shoots the Pashupatastra at Jayadratha, decapitating him. Jayadratha's head is taken with the arrow far from the battlefield, finally landing on the lap of his father, Vridhakshatra.[4]"

Else everyone is comfortable with a miracle performed by the living God, Krishna hiding the Sun by using his Chakra.

" ... Karna and Duryodhan expressed their anguish that in spite of all efforts by all their prime warriors against Arjuna, they did not succeed in stopping Jayadratha’s death. Duryodhana blamed Drona for allowing Arjuna to bypass him, first thing in the morning. Drona realised that it was now his turn to face the combined efforts of Dhrishtadyumna, Arjuna and all others to corner him.

"Why the battle did not stop with Sunset? Everybody realized that the turning point of the war was on hand. Abhimanyu on previous day and Arjuna today had carried out extensive carnage of Kuru army. Bheem and Satyaki no less. Even in the absence of Arjun, Bheem and Satyaki, Dhrishtadyumna and others had successfully defended Yudhishthira against Drona’s attempts to capture him. The tide had clearly turned against Kauravas. So this continued fight was a desperate effort to stem the rot. Pandavas on the other hand were in full fighting mood, Arjuna having achieved the task of killing Jayadratha against all odds.

"Descriptions of the skirmishes, which continued during the night, are in full details, very long and vivid. (The major event of the night was Karna ‘s use of Shakti against the demon warrior, Ghatotkacha who was proving quite a handful for Kouravas.)

"Arjuna’s call for truce ----

"It is noteworthy that Arjuna clearly mentions ‘when the moon will rise’

"Description of moonrise -----

Yes.

"The description matches a moonrise on Krishna Trayodhashi or Chaturdashi in timing, shape and place."

"Following is the description of what happened after the battle resumed with moonrise.

"Sanjaya said, 'When three-fourths of that night had worn away, the battle, O king, once more commenced between the Kurus and the Pandavas. Both sides were elated with joy. Soon after, Aruna, the charioteer of Surya, weakening the splendor of the moon, appeared, causing the welkin to assume a coppery hue. The east was soon reddened with the red rays of the sun that resembled a circular plate of gold. Then all the warriors of the Kuru and the Pandava hosts, alighting from cars and steeds and vehicles borne by men, stood, with joined hands, facing the sun, and uttered the prayers of the twilight of dawn.’"

"It is thus clear that the moonrise was quickly followed by Arunodaya and the Sunrise. No major skirmish took place between moonrise and sunrise. With Sunrise however, the war resumed full force.

"I wonder why Shri. Oak neglects all these clear descriptions and insists on attributing the darkness throughout the night to just the dust obscuring a near full moon. I would advise Shri. Oak to go to a village, and step out at midnight of a full moon, cloudless, night and see for himself the amount of light thrown by the moon and then imagine it being converted to complete darkness due to ‘dust’ throughout the night. Readers can imagine how much dust it would take.

"I totally reject Shri. Oak’s dusty explanation of the 14th day dark night. We have to look for the explanation somewhere else."

Yes, it's untenable. Especially the crescent part is very clear. Elsewhere he's insisted that a Navami Mion rising is a crescent upside down!

"1. One possibility is that the war did not start on an Amavasya but near or on a Pournima."

The War was planned, and had an auspicious muhourta selected, which would never be Amawasya with its untenable tremendous occult forces. Nor does solar eclipse of day 14 comply with day 1 being Amawasya.

"2. Shri. G. V. Kavishvar’s proposal is an alternative explanation, in case war did start on Amavasya.He has proposed in his book, ‘महाभारताची गूढ रहस्ये’, that war did not take place on every day. There was a rest day after each war day! That makes the 14th day effectively 27th day and if war did begin on Amavasya, the 14th day was a krishna trayodashi!"

That's very plausible, given that the war was fought in India like a tournament.

"3. Some day some other explanation may be found. Vyasa himself says ..

"कालोह्ययं निरवधिर्विपुलाच पृथ्वी"

Yes.

................................................................................................

................................................

May 23, 2022 - May 23, 2022.

................................................

................................................................................................

Balaram Tirthayatra.

................................................................................................

"Krishna came back to Upaplavya after the Shishtai failed and reported that the war was now unavoidable. Balaram came to Pandava camp at that time and came to know the position. He went on a Yatra as he did not wish to witness the war between Kurus and Pandavas. He came back from the Yatra on the last day of the war to umpire the Gadayuddha between Bheem and Duryodhan. He said that ‘I left for yatra on Pushya nakshatra and have come back on Shravan (Nakshatra) and my Yatra was of 42 days.’ Between Pushya and Shravan 42 days are correctly accounted for (27 + 14) . Krishna had started back from Hastinapur on Krittika nakshatra, fourth day after departure from Upaplavya on Revati. Pushya was five days later so Balaram starting on Pushya for the yatra is acceptable. Pandava army also moved to Kurukshetra on Pushya.

"Did he return on the 18th day of war on ‘Shravan’ nakshatra? If he did, the nakshatra on the first day of war works out to be Mruga. This mismatches with the first day being Kartik or Jyeshthaa Amavasya when moon has to be in Jyeshtha!"

Why does Phadnis keep thinking Kartika follows Jyeshtha? The two are separated by four months!

"Shri. Oak and Dr. Vartak have tried to wriggle out of the mismatch of 42 days by playing with the word श्रवणे. They say Balaram came to witness the duel between Bheem and Duryodhan on hearing of it. (For this meaning, the word should have been श्रुत्वा.)

"Let us take a look at sequence of events. Karna was killed on the 17th day in the evening and skirmishes ended for the day. On 18th day, Shalya was given the Generalship. By noon he was also killed and the Kuru army was completely routed. Ashavtthama, Krupa and Kritavarma, survived but ran away. Duryodhan, on horseback, also ran away and hid in a lake for rest. Pandavas went is search of him. They found him by evening, challenged him for a duel and made him come out of lake. Till this time no one knew that Bheem and Duryodhan would duel with Gada as a last chapter of the war. So question arises as to wherefrom did Balaram hear of it, to make him return from yatra?

"If one reads the text from Shalyaparva GP 33 onwards there is a clear continuity. After Yudhishthira chides Duryodhana for hiding etc. he came out of the water and then Bheema and Duryodhana are described to be about to begin the fight. In GP 34 the fight is just about to start when Balarama arrives. Everybody is pleased to see him and invites him to witness the fight. Here Balarama says clearly that he spent 42 days in the Teerthyatra and “I left on Pushya and am returning on Shravana.” When in the first part he mentions nakshatra of departure, the second part should be mentioning nakshatra of arrival as a counterbalance. Balarama is NOT saying that I am returning because I ‘heard’ about this combat. If he wanted to say so, there was no reason for him not to state it unambiguously. He mentions 42 days, departure nakshatra and a nakshatra which matches the days, as arrival nakshatra. The combat began then and there, where Duryodhana had emerged from the hiding place. This is all logically sequential. Only problem is that it was a Pushya day, not Shravan day, war having started on Jyeshthaa day and it being the 18th day.!

"Hereafter, in GP, from Ch. 35 onwards, there is a long meandering story of Balarama’s tirthayatra around Sarasvati. In GP 54 it finally ends in Narada meeting Balaram on a hilltop somewhere and telling him of the impending combat of his shishyas. What time of the day it happened? Not clear. Looks more like in morning from the text there, when Shalya was yet to become Senapati, fight till noon and die! There is a completely confusing narration about where this meeting took place. Once Yamuna, then Sarasvati, one tirtha, then another, follow in complete disorder ending with Balaram getting down from a hill near Yamuna (or sarasvati! ) and proceeding to witness the combat. (How did Narada know in the morning, what was to happen at end of the day? Well, after all he was trikaladarshi Narada!) After arriving, Balaram here, strangely, says nothing about days spent, or departure / arrival nakshatras or that he has arrived because he heard of the duel taking place. Balaram advises all to proceed to Samatapanchak on the south bank of Sarasvati, obviously some distance away, because anyone dying there will get moksha! So all the tired folks walk down there! By GP 55 – 18 this meandering story finally ends and the fight begins! All the material in GP from Ch.35 to Ch. 55-18 is thus, very obviously,a latter-day addition, main purpose of which is to add details of various tirthas visited by Balaram and also Samantapanchak. Even this long story does not support the claim that Balarama returned ‘श्रवणे’ because Balaram does not say so at all!So the claim that 'श्रवणे' means 'On hearing' has no basis.

"Dr. Vartak and Shri. Oak try another stunt. They propose that Balarama returned from yatra on Pushya! For this purpose Dr. Vartak suggests that the word ‘संप्रयातोस्मि’ should be read as ‘संप्राप्तोस्मि’! Shri. Oak claims it is so used in some alternative edition. ‘पुष्येनसंप्रयातोस्मि' becomes ‘पुष्येनसंप्राप्तोस्मि’! (Returned on Pushya).

"Unfortunately for them the Anushtubh Chhanda does not permit it. Vyasa has written thousands of verses correctly in Anushtubh Chhanda so how will he write against the rule of Anushtubh? It requires 8 letters per ‘Charan’. Original text of Ref 88 (‘पुष्येनसंप्रयातोस्मि श्रवणे पुनरागतः’) is in correct meter. If Vyasa wanted to say Balaram returned on Pushya, he would have easily found correct words to fit in the Anushtubh Chhanda.

"What to do with last word? Shri. Oak says in some edition it is written as समागतः. So the line becomes ‘पुष्येन संप्राप्तोस्मि श्रवणे समागतः’ Both halves not in Anushtubh! Then Shri. Oak breaks the word asसमा andगतः and says Sama means assembly andगतः means returned! ( On hearing, I have returned on Pushya, to this assembly of you people). Really? Only Shri. Oak can find such meaning for the words.For this meaning, the words need to beसमायाम् आगतः Not enough room for these words in the Charan.

"All this circus with the quote is a fruitless effort to solve the problem somehow! Why not leave it unsolved until a clearly satisfactory explanation is found?

"Shri. Oak has tried to bypass the anomaly by assuming ‘श्रवणे’ to mean ‘on hearing’. The word should then have been ‘श्रुत्वा’ for that purpose, followed by words to say on hearing what. Any rational reason why Vyasa would use a wrong word? Sanskrit does not permit us to make fanciful interpretations. Shri Oak is well aware of the correct meaning of श्रवणे.(Rememberमघास्वंगारकोवक्रः श्रवणे च बृहस्पतिः?). Let us stick to that meaning."

"My (fanciful) proposal - As time passed, Sarasvati tirthyatra got standardized as a 42 day yatra from Pushya to Shravan. Then, assuming that Balaram must have observed the rule, someone interpolated Pushya and Shravan in Mahabharat in Balaram’s mouth. What had actually taken place was only that Balaram happened to come back from the yatra, just in time for witnessing the 18th day Gadayuddha between Bheem and Duryodhan. It was neither a Shravan day nor 42nd day at all!

"I have read a novel alternative explanation of this problem in a Marathi book by a reputed scholar, Prof. G. V. Kavishvar. Translation of the Marathi title (महाभारतातीलगूढ रहस्ये) would be ‘Puzzles of Mahabharat’."

A more correct translation is "Deep Mysteries of Mahabharata".

" ... It is an old book and handles many intricate problems. His solution in this case is simple. He proposed that the war was not fought continuously every day for 18 days. After every day of war there was a day of truce, when the warriors rested, tended to their injuries and planned new strategies. This continued until the 14th day when Jayadratha was killed by Arjuna. (Actually 27th day) The war did not stop with that or with the sunset or darkness but continued throughout the night with a short spell of resting when all were deeply tired and there was complete darkness also. But it resumed with moonrise and continued uninterrupted next day till Drona’s death (28th day). Thus the last day of war was not 18th but 33rd day which matches with Shravan! He himself has of course stated that there is no direct evidence of the rest day in Mahabharat. Readers may find this an interesting proposal."

"Maybe, some day someone will find a rational explanation. It makes no difference to year of war."

................................................................................................

................................................

May 23, 2022 - May 23, 2022.

................................................

................................................................................................

Final Comments.

................................................................................................

" ... what points I expect any claim of the war year, based purely on astronomy and verification by software must satisfy. This is only as a common reader and lover of Mahabharat.

"1. For any year under consideration, the Julian date of winter solstice and autumnal equinox get fixed automatically.

"3. The lunar dark fortnight between these two dates should be a very short one, of 13 days, (12 days between Purnima and Amavasya days). Vyasa is very emphatic about this."

"4. On the Purnima day of this fortnight, there should be a total Lunar eclipse. Vyasa has clearly said so.

"5. Within 3-4 days after Purnima there should be a Revati day when Krishna left Upaplavya.

Perfect.

"11. Most of the large no. of other references examined by Shri. Oak are really just Upamas. Satisfying them is not essential at all. If some are met, more the merrier.

"12. About Epoch of Arundhati, Shri. Oak has done a fine job. I do believe that the proposed year should be in that part of the epoch when Arundhati was maximum or near maximum ahead of Vasishtha."

No, it's good enough if Arundhati was ahead, or getting ahead, and distsnce wasn't seen to be reducing.

Besides, fall of Abhijit consideration must take correct timeline to way before that proposed by Vartak and seconded by Oak.

"13. The story should not be twisted to suit astronomy. Events not mentioned or even hinted therein should not be assumed to explain astronomical mismatches.

"14. Other researchers will keep on putting forward other years. The subject is not a closed one as Shri. Oak claims!

"The Jury is still out as they say!"

................................................................................................

................................................

May 23, 2022 - May 23, 2022.

................................................

................................................................................................

Mahabharat War - Year and Date 16th Oct. 5561 BCE ?: Critical Comments

On The book of Mr. Nilesh Oak

– When did the Mahabharat War Happen?

The Mystery of Arundhati.

by Prabhakar Phadnis

(Author)

San Ramon CA. USA

Format: Kindle Edition

Kindle Edition

................................................

April 19, 2022 - May 18, 2022 -

May 22, 2022 - May , 2022.

Purchased March 31, 2022.

Publisher: ‎Prabhakar Phadnis

(1 August 2016)

Language: English

ASIN:- B01JJB1GX0

................................................

................................................................................................

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4675537193

................................................................................................

Example of what Phadnis is critiquing.

With my exasperated critical corrections.

................................................................................................

The Historic Rama

Indian civilization at the end of Pleistocene

Nilesh Nilkanth Oak

................................................................................................

"Solar Eclipse – The First day of War

"Voyager conjunction search shows that the solar eclipse of 16th October 5561 B.C. occurred at 12:57 PM and with a separation angle of 1.8°. I request experts to shed some light on the type of solar eclipse this would have been. The Mahabharata text does not specifically state the occurrence of the solar eclipse on the first day of War. Vartak identified Mahabharata observations 34, 35, which allude to the occurrence of the solar eclipse on the first day of War. I identified additional observations alluding to the same phenomenon."

This disproves the dates proposed and Oak has not realised it!

The famous - or, rather, very infamous - solar eclipse that happened during Mahabharata War couldn't have been on first day at noon, since it was after Abhimanyu had been trapped and set upon by a gang of enemies against the rules and butchered; Arjuna, who was fighting elsewhere, came to know of it, and vowed he'd kill the murderer of his son before sunset or else give his own life. He couldn't find the killer, hidden by the enemies. As it darkened and Arjuna prepared to climb his funeral pyre, the killer came out gloating, and so did the Sun reappear. Krishna promptly instructed Arjuna to aim, and it was done.

This, presented in Mahabharata as action by Krishna hiding the Sun by using his Chakra, has been argued by those unwilling to credit a weapon wielded by an Avatar, the God, Krishna, doing the job, as something that couldn't have been anything but a solar eclipse close to Sunset, thus giving illusion of a sunset, bit getting over before Sun set.

Obviously this was neither on first day of Mahabharata nor at noon. And since the War didn't go on over a month, but was of much shorter duration, there couldn't have been two eclipses.

"Error Elimination – Experiment 37

"The moon rising with its pointed ends down48

"The planets were described, on the 10th day of War, as circling either the Sun (or the Moon) in an abnormal direction signifying inauspicious omens, while the Moon was described as rising with its pointed ends directed downwards48."

That sounds more like a partial lunar eclipse than any other possibility of an explanation. It's definitely not poetic and definitely is a visual description.

"I could not interpret the circling of planets around either the Sun (or the Moon) however the rising of the Moon with its pointed (non-smooth) ends downward corroborates well with the rising (or visible) moon during ‘Shukla Paksha’ of any month, i.e. bright half of the lunar month. I present this observation in support of ‘Amawasya’ as the first day of War."

This was tenth day, and if War began on Amawasya, it was well past half Moon; a gibbous Moon doesn't look anything like what Oak describes which sounds more like a crescent facing down, but that's out after half Moon has passed. So the only other possibility is of a partial lunar eclipse at moonrise.

................................................................................................

"My Proposed Timeline

"The Mahabharata War timeline begins with Krishna leaving Upaplavya to visit Hastinapur before the War and ends with the passing away of Bhishma, when the Sun turned north, after the War."

What follows is Oak’s list of his matching of events of Mahabharata with the single timeline he's picked, but there are three major faults.

One, he doesn't point out that the dates are his conclusions. Two, having gone on and emphasised over and over that he treats all celestial descriptions as visual observations of astronomical nature, he resorts to calling them poetic only if he can't date them or if they go against his thesis, but otherwise forces a visual correspondence if he finds farfetched justifications.

Three, he completely ignores the one event of humongous importance which cannot but be admitted as a visual observation of astronomical nature corresponding to an event on the battlefield. If he did mention it, he'd have to admit either that his timeline and all rest of his work here failed, and look independently for another timeline not given by previous authors, or admit Divine Action.

"1. Krishna left Upaplavya on Maitri (Anuradha) Muhurta, Revati nakshatra and in the month of Lotuses: 31 August 5561 B.C.

"2. Duryodhana ordered his royal friends to leave for Kurukshetra on the day of Pushya: 6-7 September 5561 B.C.

"3. Krishna-Karna meeting, 7 days before Jyeshtha Amawasya & before Krishna left for Upaplavya: 9-10 September 5561 B.C.

"4. Shakra (Jyeshtha or possibly Vishakha) Amawasya: 16-17 September 5561 B.C.

"5. Balarama left the Pandava camp, to proceed on Saraswati Tirthayatra, on Anuradha (Maitri) nakshatra: 17 September 5561 B.C.

"6. Balarama began Tirthayatra of Saraswati around 22 September 5561 B.C.

"7. Kartika Purnima (Full moon): 30 September – 1 October 5561 B.C.

"8. Krishna left along with the Pandavas for Kurukshetra on Pushya: 4-5 October 5561 B.C.

"9. Both armies arrived at Kurukshetra on Magha: 6-7 October 5561 B.C.

"10. Vyasa met Dhritarashtra: 15 October 5561 B.C.

"11. The First day of Mahabharata War: 16 October 5561 B.C.

"12. Bhishma fell in the battlefield on the 10th day of War: 25 October 5561 B.C.

"13. Abhimanyu was killed on the 13th day of War: 28 October 5561 B.C.

"14. Arjuna killed Jayadratha and the fight continued into the night at the end of the 14th day of War: 29 October 5561 B.C.

"15. Drona was killed on the 15th day of War: 30th October 5561 B.C.

"16. Arjuna killed Karna on the 17th day of War: 1 November 5561 B.C.

"17. Shalya was killed by noon and Bhima killed Duryodhana at the end of the day on the 18th day of War: 2 November 5561 B.C.

"18. The Pandavas spent a month on the bank of River Ganga: 2-3 November- 30 November 5561 B.C.

"19. The Pandavas entered Hastinapur after spending a lunar month on the bank of Ganga: 30 November 5561 B.C.

"20. Coronation of Yudhishthir, assignment of offices & palaces, and honoring of Krishna: 30 November-5 December 5561 B.C.

"21. Yudhishthir and his brothers, Krishna, Satyaki, Yuyutsu, Kripacharya and Sanjay go to Kurukshetra to visit Bhishma, 56 days before passing away of Bhishma: 5-6 December 5561 B.C.

"22. Yudhishthir along with his brothers, Dhritarashtra, Gandhari and ministers visits Bhishma for last but one time, 51 days before passing away of Bhishma: 10-11 December 5561 B.C.

"23. Yudhishthir leaves for Kurukshetra, after spending 50 nights at Hastinapur, to meet Bhishma when the Sun turned north: 30-31 January 5560 B.C.

"24. Bhishma Nirvana: 30-31 January 5560 B.C."

Dating Mahabharata by counting days, between events such as discussions prior to War and subsequent Bhishma Nirvana on or past winter solstice, is only a primary bit.

But not dating the one event of vital importance that must be fitted into timeline, makes this whole effort worthless as anything but work.

This event, ignored by Oak for most part except a barest mention, is the day Arjuna almost died, but for Krishna, who either knew about an impending solar eclipse while others obviously did not, and knew how people would react, or he used his Chakra as author of Mahabharata explicitly states, to hide the Sun just before sunset, and revealed it before it set, just as Jayadratha the murderer came out of hiding to see Arjuna climb onto his own funeral pyre.

Despite all tomtomming Oak dies about treating all celestial descriptions as visual observation of astronomical nature, he ignores the one description that is nothing but visual observation of astronomical nature, ignores the vital importance of correlation of this observation with events unfolding on battlefield, ignores vital importance of consequences of alternative, and pretends it's non-existence by not even mentioning it.

Oak couldn't be more dishonest if he vowed to do so.

B005CDXTTO

Reviews - Books I Read - DRJG

Monday, May 23, 2022

Mahabharata War – Year and Date 16th Oct. 5561 BCE? by Prabhakar Phadnis.

Light Explodes Across Heavens

Blog Archive

Serene, Reflecting

Contributors

Followers

My Shelfari Bookshelf