aGnani11 Posted April 25, 2006 Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 Jay Sri Narayana, I have a question about the historical figure of Lord Krishna. What date(s) do scholars (both Hindu scholars and Western) accept Krishna to have lived? Hindu smrutis believe him to have lived several thousand years ago, but I am wondering about the anthropological study of Krishna as an actual human being who walked the earth. When did he live? When was the Bhagavat Gita written? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2006 Report Share Posted April 25, 2006 5,000 yrs. ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 The orthodox view is the one stated above. Krishna lived in 3000 BC, 5000 years ago. However, from an anthropological perspective, it is diffferent. Although some believe Krishna to be fake, most (western and eastern) certainly do believe him to be a historical king of north india. There are two major streams of thought in terms of dates. One says that Krishna was porbably living during the couple centuries before or after christ. This view is an unpopular one howeever, even among most anthropologists The most popular belief is that Krishna was a king who lived during the period between 1500 BC and 600 BC, the period between the so called earliest Rg Veda and the Buddha. However, this does not take into account the dating of the city of Dwaraka, which at the youngest iis from the Harappan time. According to wikipedia, the bhagavad gita was written down 400 years before Jesus, but was orally transmitted for what could easily have been 1000 years before that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 The orthodox view is the one stated above. Krishna lived in 3000 BC, 5000 years ago. However, from an anthropological perspective, it is diffferent. Although some believe Krishna to be fake, most (western and eastern) certainly do believe him to be a historical king of north india. There are two major streams of thought in terms of dates. One says that Krishna was porbably living during the couple centuries before or after christ. This view is an unpopular one howeever, even among most anthropologists The most popular belief is that Krishna was a king who lived during the period between 1500 BC and 600 BC, the period between the so called earliest Rg Veda and the Buddha. However, this does not take into account the dating of the city of Dwaraka, which at the youngest iis from the Harappan time. According to wikipedia, the bhagavad gita was written down 400 years before Jesus, but was orally transmitted for what could easily have been 1000 years before that. That 1500 year dating seems rather antiquated to me. Even though many anthropoligists haven't rejected the AIT theory, haven't many of them pushed back the Rig Vedic period a lot further back? Or at least the supposed immigration of Aryans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 ...but I am wondering about the anthropological study of Krishna as an actual human being who walked the earth. As far as anthropolgy, indology or modern history, there never was a person Krishna, so you will have trouble finding his date. There are dates given for the Gita and scriptures, but that is assumed to have been authored by many people over many years (according to modern indology). The acharyas and scriptures state Krishna to have lived 5,100+ years ago. Kali yuga began when Krishna left the planet and returned to Vaikuntha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 That 1500 year dating seems rather antiquated to me. Even though many anthropoligists haven't rejected the AIT theory, haven't many of them pushed back the Rig Vedic period a lot further back? Or at least the supposed immigration of Aryans? Considering the Mahabharata mentions the Buddha, it is obvious that at least some part of it is not older than 600 BC. The tradtitional view is Krishna lived and died just before Kali-yuga. Someone at some point calculated the start of Kali-yuga to be approx 5000 years from now. The basis for these calculations is not correctly known and there are now different interpretations. This calculation is also highly dubious as these dates do not find support in other forms of evidence like archaeology, etc.Traditionally, Indians were not exactly keen on dates and historical accuracy, which has created a major mess with dating people and events. Alternate views: 1. There is no reason to doubt the existence of a physical Krishna. But his actual life may have been different from how it is portrayed in literature. The serious personality of the original Mahabharata Krishna is later changed into a flamboyant one in the Puranas. 2. Skeptics cannot accept that the BG was a text spoken on a battlefield while everyone else waited around. It was common practise to write down instructions in the form of a conversation between two people. Most works were written this way during that time. So it is more reasonable to take the approach that the BG is a set of instructions developed and written by some unknown personality just like the Anu Gita and a bunch other similar texts. The final form of the BG is dated in the range of 400-200 BC. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 The serious personality of the original Mahabharata Krishna is later changed into a flamboyant one in the Puranas. Is it fair to admit the puranas are mythology? Mahabharata being Itihasa comes as a historical epic poem, hence more historically accurate than puranas. It was common practise to write down instructions in the form of a conversation between two people. Most works were written this way during that time. So it is more reasonable to take the approach that the BG is a set of instructions developed and written by some unknown personality just like the Anu Gita and a bunch other similar texts. The final form of the BG is dated in the range of 400-200 BC. Bhagavad Gita is really an Upanishad and that is probably why it is seen as an authoritative text of Vedanta. The teachings of the Gita were already there in various Upanishads. Krishna made the philosophy of the Upanishads practical. If the Gita is dated from 400-200 BC then isn't it unlikely that it is the words of the historical Krishna? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 Considering the Mahabharata mentions the Buddha, it is obvious that at least some part of it is not older than 600 BC. That is assuming your atheistic world view is correct and that the Mahabharata isn't written by a divine empowered incarnation, Vyasa, and also assuming that it is impossible for future prophecies of Buddha to have been forseen and written. That is more or less the traditional indological view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 Bhagavad Gita is really an Upanishad and that is probably why it is seen as an authoritative text of Vedanta. The teachings of the Gita were already there in various Upanishads. Krishna made the philosophy of the Upanishads practical. If the Gita is dated from 400-200 BC then isn't it unlikely that it is the words of the historical Krishna? Note that when texts are dated, it is usually the end date as most of these texts are supsected to have been revised over a long period of time by different generations. Since this approach is taken for most texts, it is impossible to put an origin date on many of them. We can only hope to say, a text was complete by a certain point in time. So it is still possible that there was a historical Krishna who advised Arjuna to do his duty even if he did not like it, but not in 700 verse covering different kinds of Yoga, Sankya, fmodes of worship, etc. The extras may have been added over time. The Mahabharata contains some archaic portions, that are written in pre-panian style and some portions written in post panian style. This is also true if some of the major upanishads (Mandukya? I need to check...). So if not anything, this is a strong indication of texts being revised. The 13th century Madhva explains how difficult it is to find an authentic version of the Mahabharata due to interpolations. He does not consider the Valmiki Ramayan as authentic. Btw, this Ramayana is written in classical, post-Panian sanskrit and is clearly of later origin than the Mahabharata. In short, it is not easy to date these texts for all the reaons mentioned above. We can only speculate based on the scant evidence. That is assuming your atheistic world view is correct and that the Mahabharata isn't written by a divine empowered incarnation, Vyasa, and also assuming that it is impossible for future prophecies of Buddha to have been forseen and written. This has nothing to do with Atheism. Like I said earlier, Iskcon's unwillingness to attribute a miracle to Sai baba does not make iskconites atheists. If one cannot accept that Vyasa write about Queen Victoria in the Bhavishya Purana and SwamiNarayan in the Skanda Purana, then by the same logic one will not accept the predictions of Buddha and King Ashoka either, theist or atheist. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 Vyasa himself is also probably not one person. Vyasa in old times was a title meaning 'writer'. Veda Vyasa is the revered writer of the vedas. As for Krishna's words from the mahabharata, obviously this could not have been spoken on one battlefield in one day. One should not look to interpret our scriptures literally. One should look at it with a scientific analytic mind and understand that the basic tenets of the story are probably the parts based in history and much of it added to make the story complete. As for the Vedas being brought back, there is general agreement that the Vedas were composed at a time much before the writing of it. The written version of the Vedas is agreed to have come frmo about 1500 BC but the contents were believed to be recited orally from at least the 5th millenium BC. This, however has little bearing on the historical Krishna. Krishna is sitll believed by many "scholars" as having lived sometime in the 2nd millenium BC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 Vyasa in old times was a title meaning 'writer'. According to Vishnu Purana Vyasa is identified as a particular individual for each chatur yuga, the present being Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa and previous being Parashara Muni. The previous 28 vyasas (for the last 28 chatur yugas) are listed in Vishnu Purana. Many of them are notable names, such as Valmiki for the 24th chatur yuga. The next Vyasa (for the next kali yuga) will be Ashvathama. As for Krishna's words from the mahabharata, obviously this could not have been spoken on one battlefield in one day. It easily could have been spoken in one day. You can recite the Gita in one muhurta (45 minutes) if you are fluent in reciting sanskrit. This was their mother language, and it would have easily flowed in a short span of time. With the huge armies assembling, and with the rules of fighting that they followed, it would have been simple for Krishna and Arjuna to have this conversation in the midst of both armies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 Vyasa himself is also probably not one person. Vyasa in old times was a title meaning 'writer'. Veda Vyasa is the revered writer of the vedas. As for Krishna's words from the mahabharata, obviously this could not have been spoken on one battlefield in one day. One should not look to interpret our scriptures literally. One should look at it with a scientific analytic mind and understand that the basic tenets of the story are probably the parts based in history and much of it added to make the story complete. As for the Vedas being brought back, there is general agreement that the Vedas were composed at a time much before the writing of it. The written version of the Vedas is agreed to have come frmo about 1500 BC but the contents were believed to be recited orally from at least the 5th millenium BC. This, however has little bearing on the historical Krishna. Krishna is sitll believed by many "scholars" as having lived sometime in the 2nd millenium BC. In other words, suck the spirituality and the seemingly miraculous aspects of the text out, and transcribe it to what our current perception of reality is, correct? Sorry I disagree with this idea. It's not only an atheist perspective, it deprives the Mahabharata of any special significance and puts it on the level of just a fairytale. I believe the Mahabharata occurred for the most part as written, but not entirely on this plane of reality. It clearly indicates several planes of consciousness that were where the Mahabharata took place, and thus whatever evidence we could hope to find would be nonexistent in this particular plane of consciousness yet present on other planes. And besides, what is your reason for Krishna being unable to tell Arjuna the entire Bhagavad-Gita on the battlefield? Simply because there was a war about to take place and the warriors would be impatient waiting for Arjuna to be convinced? I'm sorry, but who says that Krishna actually SPOKE those words to Arjuna? He could have telepathically communicated everything to him, or something and endowed all the information on a plane of consciousness where things are transmitted much quicker. During near death experiences, a person is generally out for only a few minutes or so, but it feels like an eternity for them for having come back, and they claim to have learned so much in the other planes of consciousness. So it's possible for Krishna to have done the same thing with Arjuna, as far as I'm concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nekozuki Posted April 26, 2006 Report Share Posted April 26, 2006 So because you cannot find historical records on someone means they don't exist. Since his life is told in story form he doesn't exist. What people fail to realize is that the ancients did that a lot, they told stories to explain things. Look at The Iliad for example, everyone thought it was just a made up story until someone found Troy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2006 Report Share Posted April 27, 2006 I believe the Mahabharata occurred for the most part as written, but not entirely on this plane of reality The Mahabharata itself does not mention multiple planes of reality. I have found it is easy to get into an apologetic mode of multiple planes, yugas, etc., in defense of unrealistic stories. By unrealistic stories, I am refering to the Sudarshana chakra, baby born with armor, etc. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2006 Report Share Posted April 27, 2006 Vyasa himself is also probably not one person. Vyasa in old times was a title meaning 'writer'. Veda Vyasa is the revered writer of the vedas. As for Krishna's words from the mahabharata, obviously this could not have been spoken on one battlefield in one day. This, however has little bearing on the historical Krishna. Krishna is sitll believed by many "scholars" as having lived sometime in the 2nd millenium BC. Vyasa means compiler. Veda Vyasa refers to the compiler of the Vedas. Badrayana could be another Vyasa who compiled the Brahma Sutras. The Gita could have easily be spoken in a day. It just takes a few hours to read the entire Gita. The two sides could have been preparing themselves within this time. When two sides go to war they do not fight as soon as they see each other, they wait and prepare and the battle starts when the horns or in this case Conch-shells are blown. When two sides gather on a battlefield to fight, it could take hours before they actually fight. This is enough time for the Gita to be recited, let alone spoken by Krishna. On a side note, some appologists and Gandhians, Nehruvians in India like to downplay India's ancient military past by saying Mahabharata was a small tribal war or family scuffle that was exagerated. they imply that Indian civilisation was not developed enough to have armies, chariots, etc. They seem to forget that even Ramayana before the Mahabharata had epic wars and we know about characters like Chandragupta Maurya, Asoka, were historical figures etc founded Empires and defeated enemies. Krishna is believed to have lived historically, but what can we know as proof of what he actually taught? The Krishna of the Mahabharta appears to have quite a different personality to the Krishna of the Bhagvatam, but most Hindus believe them to be the same. There are even some who think that Krishna and Vyasa (Krishna Dwaipanya) were the same person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2006 Report Share Posted April 27, 2006 Veda Vyasa refers to the compiler of the Vedas. Badrayana could be another Vyasa who compiled the Brahma Sutras The traditional view is they were the same person. One person broke up the vedas into 4, composed the huge Mahabharata and then the harivamsha and then followed it up by composing 18 Major Puranas. Added to this are the Vyasa Smriti, Brahma Sutras and other texts which were probably squeezed in during spare time. The BG in one place refers to the Brahma Sutras and one of the Sutras is interpreted by most commentators as refering to the BG. This cyclic dependancy is resolved by stating both works were composed by the same author. Scholars however have other ideas. Nakamura for instance, says the usage of Brahma sutras in the Bg does not refer to the text Brahma Sutras as he opines that the BG is earlier than the sutras. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yegan Posted April 27, 2006 Report Share Posted April 27, 2006 From : http://www.hinduism.co.za/oldest.htm NASA Images Discover Ancient Bridge Between India & Sri Lanka Space images taken by NASA reveal a mysterious ancient bridge in the Palk Strait between India and Sri Lanka. The recently discovered bridge currently named as Adam's Bridge is made of chain of shoals, c.18 mi (30 km) long. The bridge's unique curvature and composition by age reveals that it is man made. The legends as well as Archeological studies reveal that the first signs of human inhabitants in Sri Lanka date back to the a primitive age, about 1,750,000 years ago and the bridge's age is also almost equivalent. This information is a crucial aspect for an insight into the ancient epic RAMAYANA, which was supposed to have taken place in treta yuga (more than 1,700,000 years ago)...... For more images visit http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=STS033&roll=78&frame=73 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2006 Report Share Posted April 27, 2006 Shiv, you've brought up something I forgot to mention. Harivamsha The Harivamsha is the story of Lord Krishna, but I wonder why it is not so popular. The story of Rama in Ramayana is very popular amongst Hindus, and so is the Mahabharata which has Krishna as a chacter in it but focuses on the Pandavas. I don't know of anyone who has read the Harivamsha let alone seen a copy of it. Don't the Vaishnavas study it? I would have thought it would have been very popular. When does the Harivamsha date? Perhaps it has more clues to the historical Krishna or maybe just the same stories we already know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yegan Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 DATING THE KURUKSHETRA WAR http://www.ignca.nic.in/nl002503.htm <table border="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr> <td valign="top" width="100%"> Scholars from across the world came together, for the first time, in an attempt to establish the 'Date of Kurukshetra War based on astronomical data.' Undoubtedly, it was an amazing collation of information presented in a colloquium, held on January 5 and 6, 2003 at the Mythic Society, Bangalore. The colloquium was jointly organized by The Mythic Society, Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts - Southern Regional Centre and Sir Babasaheb (Umakanth Keshav) Apte Smarak Samithi Trust. </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="100%"> Inaugurating the two day session, Dr. Raja Ramanna, Member of Parliament and eminent nuclear scientist, emphasized that the 'best clock for dating was the sky itself and the position of stars.' He added that 'research and scientific theory should be questioned although he found that many homes and libraries hampered the progress of research by keeping ancient manuscripts to themselves.' </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="100%"> Dr. Kalyan Raman clarified the purpose of the colloquium in his introductory remarks. Well-known historian, Dr. Suryanath Kamath, in his Presidential address explained the objective as an ' exploration of the authenticity of dates using planetary software and textual evidences containing over 150 references.' He felt that 'chronology was most important for the history of any society since history without chronology is like a body without a skeleton.' He also gave a detailed explanation of the development of the Mythic library and the collections. The other dignitaries present on the dais were Dr. M.K.L.N. Sastry - Hon. Secretary, Mythic Society, Prof. P.V. Krishna Bhat - Hon. Coordinator, IGNCA-SRC and Shri K. Narahari - Managing Trustee, Apte Trust. The opening session set the tone for the mind stirring sessions with various interpolations found in the Mahabharata. Several scholars put forth their perception and calculated derivations. Dr. S. Balakrishna (NASA, USA) proved the occurrence of 'two eclipses in (a span of) 13 days prior to Mahabharata'. Analysing the astronomical possibility of Vyasa's statement in Bhishma Parva "Amavasya occured on the 13th day. Two eclipses in a month, on the thirteenth day." he presented the data of eclipses during the period 3300 BCJ (Before the Calendar of Julian Ceaser) to 700 BCJ visible at Kuruxethra, using Lodestar Pro software. He stated the possibility of 672 eclipse pairs, ten 'thirteen day lunar first' eclipse pairs and concluded that 2559 BC eclipse pair was nearest to the text of Mahabharata. Prof. R.N. Iyengar (I.I.Sc., Bangalore) systematically dealt with "Internal consistency of eclipses and planetary positions in Mahabharata". Verifying all double eclipses of 501-3000 B.C. and when Satur + Jupiter were near Vishaka, he concluded that 1478 B.C. was the most likely year of the war. Dr. B.N. Narahari Achar (Dept. of Physics, University of Memphis, U.S.A.) gave a brief description of various available planetary software, a review of the works of astrophysicists Kochhar, Siddharth and astronomers, Sengupta and Srinivasa Raghavan and other astronomical references in the epic. He critically examined the limitations and the reliability of simulations and concluded that the astronomical events in the Mahabharata pointed to 3000 B.C.E. (Before Common Era)* and simulation of events to 3067 B.C.E., identical to the one given by Raghavan. Speaking on 'The date of Mahabharata War with reference to Bhishmashtami', Dr. Kalyan Rama (Chennai) validated the ground truth of River Saraswati of Vedic times that established the historicity of the Mahabharata. Dr. Shambhu Shastry (Franklin, USA) and Dr. Venkateswara Reddy dealt with 'Natural cycles in the Solar System and Chaturyuga Cycles.' Dr. Kalyan Raman (Chennai) validated the ground truth of River Saraswati of Vedic times that established the historicity of the Mahabharata. Dr. Shambu Shastry (Franklin, USA) and Dr. Venkateswara Reddy dealt with 'Natural cycles in the Solar System and Chaturyuga Cycles.' Dr. Shambhu Shastry showed that the chatuyuga and manavantara schemes of Hindu chronology are directly from natural astronomical cycles and based on this, he stated, that the human race is about five million years old. He concluded that this helped demythologize the Mahabharata and Ramayana and placed them in the last descending Chaturyuga segment over a time span of not more than 6000 years. Shri P.V. Holey (Nagpur) was of the opinion that the war began on the 13th day of November 3143 B.C. He sourced this to crucial events with planetary positions after a comparative study of astronomical dates based on nakshatra, the Julian and Gregorian systems. On the second day, Dr. Mohan Gupta (Ujjain) dealt with Puranic and Astronomical evidences. Based on genealogical and astronomical calculations he concluded that 17th October 1952 B.C. Thursday, Marga Krsna Amavasya kali 1157 or shakapurva 2029, Julian year 2762 as the date when the Mahabharata war began. Dr. S.R. Rao based his derivation on archaeological evidence obtained from onshore and offshore excavations conducted in Dwaraka, Bet Dwarka and in the Kurukshetra region and found 1900-1700 B.C. as acceptable. Dr. N.S. Rajaram (Bangalore) expressed a need to exercise caution while interpreting astronomicla statements and that it should take into account both the literary evolution and interpolated passages. He felt 3100m B.C. had the best astronomical support. Shri K.V. Ramakrishna Rao (Thiruvananthapuram), felt that due to periodical corrections in Indian astronomical works, changes had crept it and without the significance of the two ears - kali and saka - dates cannot be determined, Dr. M.V. Subba Rao (Secundrabad) gave astrological references of Sri Krishna and felt that the dates could be calcutated from the day of Ktrishna's birth. Shri M.V. Narasimhan (Mysore) spoke of a research methodology using the shastric and the scientific inputs. Referring to Pulakesin's inscription and comet at Nagercoil he concluded 3100 B.C. as the year of the war. Despite the inspiring deliberations, it was observed that further resource data from varied fields was required to calibrate supportive evidence. Thus the concluding session unanimously drew a plan of action. Dr. S. Nagaraju reviewed the colloquium with regard to the two objectives set at the beginning - to establish internal consistency with respect to dates and chronology mentioned in the Mahabharata and whether it could be proved using planetary software and secondly, if a correct date of the Mahabharata could be derived from the 150 astronomical references and have a sheet anchor of chronology of pre-Buddhist India? He said that at least four papers dealt with the problem directly and clarified a non-discrepancy with respect to the dates given. This is he felt was the most important contribution of the colloquium. But a problem he sighted was, out of the one-lakh odd sholkas, to distinguish what was added at what time. In this context he suggested that more interactions might be had with people who had knowledge of geography and other related areas of study. Secondly, he felt that the dating of the Mahabharata war could not be done merely on the basis of astronomy alone. Since there are a number of texts one should find out the correct text and establish a critical edition giving all details. Dr. R. Subramaniam in his observations also agreed that there was a need to develop a critical editions of the verses with interpretations in consensus with astronomy, history, archaeology, Sanskrit astrology and mathematics. He suggested that verifications should take into account occurrence of double eclipse, Saturn in Rohini and the use of all available software and data. Another valid point he raised was the absence of direct reference to winter solstice in the Mahabharata. Once that is available it was felt that 'everything could be nailed.' 'Where do we go from here?' Answering the self-query Dr. Kalyan Raman voiced the common desire to 'trash Western Indological work done with motivation and instead rewrite Indian history.' The fundamental task would bring to light traditional works which can be achieved in a series of colloquiums. Truth, he felt, should be perceived in terms of our national heritage and his colloquium had established the reliability of this tool. The Chairperson, Prof. K.I. Vasu addressed the various issues discussed and surmized that the Mahabharata could be 'considered a historical document'. - Report from Southern Regional Centre * (B.C.E. - Before Common Era (indicates dates before the Chiristian era, used especially by non-Christians; B.C.J. - indicated the Julian Calendar. The Julian Calendar is names after Julius Caesar who ordered its adoption in 45 B.C.E. upon the advice of Greek astronomer Sosigenes and decided to use a purely solar calendar. The Julian Calendar also established the order of the month and the days of the week as they exist in present day calendars. Caesar's Calendar consisted of 11 months of 30 or 31 days and a 28 day February with no leap year. In 1582 Pope Gregory XIII ordered another reform of the calendar, which came to be known as the Gregorian calendar. The Gregorian calendar is still in official use and was adopted throughout Europe. It is used today throughout most of the Western world and in parts of Asia.) </td></tr></tbody></table> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yegan Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Underwater Dwarka Newspaper article about Dwarka-Friday January 8th 1999 http://www.iskcon.net/hktv/news1.htm <hr>India Abroad News Service BANGALORE - Nearly two decades after marine archeologists found the lost city of Dwarka off the coast of Gujarat the state government continues to drag its feet on a proposal to estab-lish the world's first underwater museum to view the remains of the city submerged in the Arabian Sea. <hr>The proposal for the museum, submitted by the Marine Archeology Center of the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) in Goa, involves laying a submarine acrylic tube through which visitors can view through glass windows the ruins of the city said to have been be ruled by Sri Krishna, 3,500 years ago.An alternative suggestion is to have acrylic wells, to be accessed through boats, from which the remains can be viewed.Another proposal that remains on paper is for setting up a marine archeology museum of Dwarka antiquities found in the sea. Discovered in 1981, the well-fortified township of Dwarka extended more than half a mile from the shore and was built in six sectors along the banks of a river before it became submerged. The findings are of immense cultural and religious importance to India. <hr> "The search for the lost city has been going on since 1930," S.R. Rao, former adviser to the NIO who is still actively involved in the excavations, told India Abroad. "It is only after marine archaeologists started exploring the seabed near modem Dwarka from 1981 that the structural remains of the city were found." Rao said that if a fraction of the funds spent on land archeology were made available for under-water archaeology, more light could be thrown on Dwarka, which had much archeological signifi-cance because it was built during the second urbanization that occurred in India after the Indus Valley civilization in northwestern India.Dwarka's existence disproves the belief held by Western archeologists that there was no urbanization in the Indian subcontinent from the period between 1700 B.C. (Indus Valley) and 550 B.C. (advent of Buddhism). As no information was available about that period, they had labeled it the Dark Period. <hr>Among the objects unearthed that proved Dwarka's connection with the Mahabharata epic was a sea engraved with the image of a three-headed animal.The epic mentions such a seal given to the citi-zens of Dwarka as a proof of identity when the city was threatened by King Jarasandha of the powerful Magadh kingdom (now Bihar).The foundation of boulders on which the city's walls were erected proves that the land was reclaimed from the sea about 3,600 years ago. The epic has references to such reclamation activity at Dwarka. Seven islands mentioned in it were also discovered submerged in the Arabian Sea. Pottery, which has been established by thermoluminiscence tests to be 3,528 years old and carrying inscriptions in late Indus Valley civilization script; iron stakes and triangular three-holed anchors discovered here find mention in the Mahabharata. <hr> "The findings in Dwarka and archeological evidence found compatible with the Mahabharata tradition remove the lingering doubt about the historicity of the Mahabharata," said Rao. We would say Krishna definitely existed."' What is needed, he added, is the political will to reconstruct the cultural history of the Vedic and epic periods of northern India. The maritime museums at sites of ' wrecks and submerged ports are absolutely essential, and portable antiquities should be conserved properly, lie emphasized. If the proposal to have a maritime museum is accepted by the Gujarat government, it would be the first of its kind in India, he pointed out.Recounting the start of exploration for Dwarka, Rao said, "We carried out the original survey with just four scuba divers, while the operation called for the services of around 200 divers and other staff."But for the work to progress now, more equipment is needed, besides funds and time, he warned, adding: "We need two barges, one mounted with a crate, and equipment such as an airlift. We need 30 or 40 divers and engineers. The work should go on for at least six months and cannot be halt-ed midway." <hr>According to Rao, the project would need at least Rs. 20 million ($476,000).Funds would have to be provided by the Gujarat government and its tourism department Other possible sources are the federal Depart-ment of Ocean Development (DOD), which organizes big projects such as expeditions to Antartica, the Department of Science and Technology (DST) and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), which have not contribute much, Rao said. <hr>"The findings in Dwarka and archeological evidence found compatible with the Mahabharata tradition remove the lingering doubt about the historicity of the Mahabharata. We would say that Krishna definitely existed" S.R. Rao. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yegan Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 Continuation of post 19 & 20 The Scientific Dating of the Mahabharat War By Dr.P.V.Vartak <center> <hr>INTRODUCTION </center> The Mahabharat has excercised a continuous and pervasive influence on the Indian mind for milleniums. The Mahabharat, orginally written by Sage Ved Vyas in Sanskrut, has been translated and adapted into numerous languages and has been set to a variety of interpretations. Dating back to "remote antiquity", it is still a living force in the life of the Indian masses. Incidently, the dating of the Mahabharat War has been a matter of challenge and controversy for a century or two. European scholars have maintained that the events described in the ancient Sanskrut texts are imaginary and subsequently, the Mahabharat derived to be a fictitiou tale of a war fought between two rivalries. Starting from the so- called Aryan invasion into Bharat, the current Bharatiya chronology starts from the compilation of the Rigved in 1200 B.C., then come other Ved's, Mahaveer Jain is born, then Gautam Buddha lives around 585 B.C. and the rest follows. In the meantime, the Brahmanas, Samhi- tas, Puranas, etc. are written and the thought contained therein is well-absorbed among the Hindu minds. Where does the Ramayan and Mahabharat fit in ? Some say that the Ramayan follows Mahabharat and some opine otherwise. In all this anarchy of Indian histography, the date of the Mahabharat (the mythical story!) ranges between 1000 B.C.to 300 B.C. Saunskrut epics were academically attacked occasion- ally - an attempt to disprove the authencity of the annals noted therein. For example, the European Indologiest Maxmuller, tried the interpret the astronomical evidences to prove that the observations recorded in the Hindu scriptures are imaginary, probably because it did not match the prevelant views of European historians! On the contrary, many Bharatiya scholars have vehemently maintained the actual occurance of the Mahabharat War. Astronomical and literary evidences or clues from the Pauranic and Vaidik texts have been deci- phered to provide a conclusive date for the Mahabharat War. The fifth century mathematician, Aryabhatta, calculated the date of the Mahabharat War to be approximately 3100 B.C. from the planetary posi- tions recorded in the Mahabharat. Prof. C.V. Vaidya and Prof. Apte had derived the date to be 3101 B.C. and Shri. Kota Venkatachalam reckoned it to be 3139 B.C. However, the astronomical data used by the above, and many other, scholars contained some errors as examined by a scho- lar from Pune, Dr. P.V. Vartak. Using astronomical references and variety of other sources, Dr. Vartak has derived the date of the ini- tiation of the Mahabharat War to be 16th October 5561 B.C. This pro- posed date has been examined by a few scholars and has been verfied. This may prove to be a break-through in deciding the chronology of the events in the history of Bharat (and probably the World). In the following few posts, I have made an attempt to provide a glance at the proofs provided by Dr. Vartak in propounding the date of the very important landmark in the history of Bharat (World?), i.e., Mahabharat War. Only major points have been extracted from two sources: Dr.P.V. Vartak's Marathi book "Swayambhu" and "Scientific Dating of the Mahabharat War" in English. <hr width="100%"> <center>INSCRIPTIONS </center> Some scholars rely on the various inscriptions found in the temples and elsewhere to fix the date of Mahabharat War. If there is no other alternative then this method is tolerable, otherwise it is not reli- able because all the known inscriptions are dated as far back as 400 AD. Those who prepared those inscriptions were not conversant with the scientific methods available now in the modern Science Age. So, why should we depend on the conjectures of the ancient people? Why not use scientific methodology to come to the conclusion ourselves? I will prefer the use of the modern scientific ways to fix the date of Mahabharat War rather than to rely on the Inscriptions which are vague and inconclusive. Let us examine two famous inscriptions always quoted by the scholars. <hr width="100%"> <center>AIHOLE INSCRIPTION </center> All the scholars have relied on this inscription found in the Jain Temple at Aihole prepared by one Chalukya King Pulakeshi. It says, according to scholars, that the temple was constructed in 30+3000+700+5 = 3735 years, after the Bharat War and 50+6+500 = 556 years of Shaka era in Kali era. Today Shaka era is 1910. Hence 1910- 556 = 1354 years ago the temple was constructed. Thus the year of inscribing this note is 634 AD. At this time 3735 years had passed from the Bharat War. So the date of the War comes to 3101 BC. This is also the date of Kali Yuga Commencement. Naturally, it is evident that relying on the beginning of Kaliyuga Era and holding that the War took place just before the commencement of Kaliyuga, this inscription is prepared. It is obvious from the Mahabharat that the War did not happen near about the beginning of Kaliyuga. (I have considered this problem fully at a later stage.) If we can see that the inscription is prepared by relying on some false assumption, we have to neglect it because it has no value as an evidence. Moreover the interpretation done by the scholars is doubtful because they have not considered the clauses separately and they held Bharat War and Kali Era as one and the same. The verse inscribed is : Trinshatsu Trisahasreshu Bhaaratdahavaditaha | Saptabda Shatayukteshu Gateshwabdeshu Panchasu | Panchashatasu Kalaukale Shatasu Panchashatsu cha | Samatsu Samatitasu Shakaanamapi Bhoobhujaam || I would like to interprete the verse considering the clauses of the verse. It says "3030 years from the Bharat War" in the first line, ( Trinshatsu Trisahasreshu Bhaaratdahavaaditaha) where the first clause oF the sentence ends. in the second line, the second clause starts and runs upto the middle of the third line thus ( Saptabda.....Kalaukale) This means 700+5+50 = 755 years passed in the Kali Era. The remaining third clause is ( Shatasu Here the verse does not specifically say the Shalivahan Shaka but Scholars have taken granted that it is Shalivahan Shaka without any base or reasoning. The verse may have mentioned some other Shaka kings from ancient era. So we we neglect the doubtful part of the Shaka counting which is useless and adhere to the Kali era expressly mentioned. It is clear from the former portion of the verse that 3030 years passed from the Bharat War and 755 years passed from Kali Era. Kali Era started from 3101 BC. 755 years have passed so 3101-755 = 2346 BC is the year when 3030 years had passed from the Bharat War. So 2346+3030 = 5376 BC appears to be the date of Bharat War. <hr width="100%"> <center>HISSE BORALA INSCRIPTION OF DEVA SENA </center> This inscription is of 5th century AD and scholars hold that it throws light on the time of Mahabharat War. It states. that Saptarshis were in Uttara at the time of this inscription. Scholars hold that Saptarshis were in Magha at the time of Yudhishthira because Varahmihira has stated so in Brihat-Samhita. Scholars also hold that Yudhishthira's time is 3137 BC. Saptarshis stay in one Nakshtra for 100 years, and there are 27 Nakshatras. Hence Saptarshis would be again in Magha 2700 years later during 4th century BC. From here if we count upto 5th century AD there fall eight Nakshatras. Hence in the 5th century AD, Saptarshis should be in Anuradha and not Uttara. From Anuradha to Uttara Ashadha there is adifference of five Naksha- tras, while from Anuradha to Uttara Phalguni there is a difference of six Nakshatras. So it is quite evident that at the time of Yudhisthira Saptarshis were not in Magha as held by the scholars. Here I have shown a mistake of five to six hundreds of years. More- over, there are three 'Uttaras' and the inscription has not stated specifically which Uttara it denotes. Thus this source is unreliable and should be rejected. I have considered Saptarshi Reckoning in details at a later stage on page 11. While going to examine the sources scientifically, I shall give the honour of the first place to Astronomy. One may question that how far Astronomy was advanced in those olden days? I say affir- matively that Astronomy was far advanced in the ancient times, and the ancient Indian sages had perfected the science of time measure- ment relying on Astronomy. <hr width="100%"> <center>GREEK RECORDS </center> 1. "The Greek Ambassodor Magasthenis has recorded that 138 generations have passed between Krishna and Chandragupta Maurya. Many scholars have taken this evidence, but taking only 20 years per generation they fixed the date of Krishna as 2760 years before Chandragupta. But this is wrong because the record is not of ordinary people to take 20 years per generation. In the matter of general public, one says that when a son is born a new generation starts. But in the case of kings, the name is included in the list of Royal Dynasty only after his corona- tion to the throne. Hence, one cannot allot 20 years to one king. We have to find out the average per king by calculating on various Indian Dynasties. I have considered 60 kings from various dynasties and calculated the average of each king as 35 years. Here is a list of some of important kings with the no. of years ruling. Chandragupta Mourya 330-298 B.C. 32 years. Bindusar 298-273 B.C. 25 years. Ashok 273-232 B.C. 41 years. Pushyamitra Shunga 190-149 B.C. 41 years. Chandragupta Gupta 308-330 A.D. 22 years. Samudragupta 330-375 A.D. 45 years. Vikramaditya 375-414 A.D. 39 years. Kumargupta 414-455 A.D. 41 years. Harsha 606-647 A.D. 41 years. --------- 327 years. The average is 327/9 = 36.3 years. Multiplying 138 generations by 35 years we get 4830 years before Chan- dragupta Mourya. Adding Chandrgupta's date 320 B.C. to 4830 we get 5150 B.C. as the date of Lord Krishna. 2. Megasthenis, according to Arian, has written that between Sandro- cotus to Dianisaum 153 generations and 6042 years passed. From this data, we get the average of 39.5 years per king. From this we can cal- culate 5451 years for 138 generations. So Krishna must have been around 5771 B.C. 3. Pliny gives 154 generations and 6451 years between Bacchus and Alexander. This Bacchus may be the famous Bakasura who was killed by Bhimasena. This period comes to about 6771 years B.C. Thus Mahabharat period ranges from 5000 B.C. to 6000 B.C. <hr width="100%"> <center>SHRIMAD BHAGWAT </center> a) Bhagwat gives 28 Kaurava kings from Parikshit to Kshemaka. "From Kshemaka, the Pandava Dynasty will end in Kaliyug, and Magadha Dynasty will start." [bhagwad 9-22-45]. This implies that the Pandava kings ruled before the advent of Kaliyug, i.e., before 3101 B.C and Magadha dynasty will not super-impose the Pandava Dynasty. b) Further it is stated in Bhagwat that after 28 Kaurava kings, Magadha Dynasty would rule and 22 Magadha kings would govern for 1000 years. Here it is given a average of 1000 years for 22 kings. It can be found that the 28 Kaurava kings would have ruled for 1273 years and then Magadha Dynasty started with King Sahadeva, whose son was Somapi. On the other hand, Maghasandhi was the son of Sahadeva and the grand- son of Jarasandha [Ashwamedh-82]. many scholars have neglected this fact and have assumed that this Sahadeva fought in the Mahabharat War and was the son of Jarasandha. c) Ripunjaya is the last king in the list of 22 Magadhas. But Bhagwat 12.1.2-4 mentions that Puranjaya will be the last king who will be killed by his minister Shunak. It is to be noted that there is no men- tion of the kings between Ripunjaya and Puranjaya. People have wrongly taken the two names as that of one and the same person, without any evidence. d) Bhagwat 12.1.2-4 state that Shunak would coronate his son Pradyota as the King and later five Kings would rule for 138 years. After this Pradotya Dynasty, Shishunga Kings, 10 in number, would rule for 360 years. Thereafter 9 Nandas would rule for 100 years. Nanda would be destroyed by a Brahmin and Chandragupta would be enthroned. We know that Chandragupta Maurya ascended the throne in 324 B.C. So we can thus calculate backwards: 9 Nandas 100 years 10 Shishungas 360 years 5 Pradotyas 138 years 22 Magadhas 1000 years 28 Kauravas 1273 years ----------- ---------- 74 Kings 2871 years We find here only 74 kings, but Megasthenes tells us about 138 kings. So 138-74=64 kings are missing. These may be from the period between Ripunjaya and Puranjaya. Thus calculating from the data of 74 kings who ruled for 2871 years, we get a period of 2496 years for 64 kings. Adding the two we get 5367 years for 138 kings. This is preceding Chandragupta's time, who came to throne in 324 B.C. Hence, 324+5367 = 5691 B.C. is the approximate date of Parikshit. <hr width="100%"> <center>YUDHISHTIRA ERA AND KALIYUG </center> Scholars accept the date of the Mahabharat War to be 3100 B.C. which also happens to the initiation of the Yudhisthira Era. But this Era, is mentioned nowhere in the Mahabharat text itself! At the time of Aswamedha of Yudhisthira, Vyas has given descriptions in minute detail like collection of "Sruva", formation of wells and lakes, but never has written even a word about, such an important event, as the begin- ning of the Yudhisthira Era. Mahabharat also never mentions anything about the beginning of the Kaliyug, even at the time of Krishna's death. Mahabharat Adiparva 2.13 states that the War took place in the interphase ("Antare") of the Dwapaar and Kali Eras. Thus it makes it clear that the evening of the Dwapaar has not yet ended and the Kaliyug had not started when the War took place. <hr width="100%"> <center>SAPTARISHIS </center> Bhagwat states at 12.2.27-32 that Saptarishis stay 100 years in one Nakshatra. At the time of King Parikshit, the Saptarishis were in Magha. When they proceeded to Purvashadha, Kali would start. There are 11 Nakshatras from Magha to Purvashadha. Hence it is seen that Shukacharya tells Parikshit that after 1100 years Kaliyug will start. Kaliyug started at 3101 B.C. Hence 3101 + 1100 = 4201 B.C. is the date of Parikshit. Other references from Shrimad Bhagwat points quite closely to the same year as above. But who is this Parikshit ? Is he the son of Abhimanyu ? No. A minute observation of this reveals that the above is not Abhimanyu's son because Bhagwat is told to this Parikshit. On the other hand, Mahabharat is told to Janamejaya. In the Mahabharat, Parikshit's death has been recorded. Hence it is evident that Mahabharat was written and published after the death of Parikshit, the son of Abhimanyu. Bhagwat is written after Mahabharat according to the Bhagawat itself. This Bhagwat is told to some Parikshit. How can this Parikshit be the son of Abhimanyu who died before the Mahabharat writing ? So this Parikshit appears to be somebody else than Abhimanyu's son. <hr width="100%"> <center>EQUINOX </center> Mahabharat mentions the ancient tradition as 'Shravanadini Nakshatrani',i.e., Shravan Nakshatra was given the first place in the Nakshatra- cycle (Adi-71/34 and Ashvamedh 44/2) Vishwamitra started counting the Nakshatras from Shravan when.he created 'Prati Srushti'. He was angry with the old customs. So he started some new customs. Before Vishvamitra's time Nakshatras were counted from the one which was occupied by the sun on the Vernal Equinox. Vishvamitra changed this fashion and used diagonally opposite point i.e. Autumnal Equinox to list the Nakshtras. He gave first place to Shravan which was at the Autumnal Equinox then. The period of Shravan Nakshatra on autumnal equinox is from 6920 to 7880 years B.C. This was Vishvamitra's period at the end of Treta yuga. Mahabharat War took place at the end of Dwapar yuga. Subtracting the span of Dwapar Yuga of 2400 years we get 7880 - 2400 = 5480 B.C. as the date of Mahabharat War. <hr width="100%"> <center>ASTROLOGY </center> Some scholars rely on the horoscope of Lord Krishna to calculate his birth-date so as to establish the period of Mahabharat. But they do not realise that the horoscope is a forged one, prepared many thousand years after Krishna's death. Mahabharat Bhagvat and Vishnu purana have not given the planet positions at the time of Krishna's birth. It is well-known and is recorded in many scriptures that Krishna was born in a jail, then who could have casted his horoscope? Moreover Krishna was not a prince so nobody would have casted his horoscope. Hence it is not wise to rely on the horoscope. It is prepared recently by consid- ering the charateristics of Krishna and so is useless to fix the birth-date. Mr. G.S. Sampath Iyengar and Mr. G.S. Sheshagiri have fixed the birth-date of Krishna as 27th July 3112 BC. 'The horoscope shows Lagna and Moon 52 deg. 15' Rohini, Jupiter 91 deg. 16' Punarvasu, Sun 148 deg. 15' Uttara Phalguni, Mercury 172 deg. 35' Hasta, Venus 180 deg. 15' Chitra, Saturn 209 deg. .57' Vishakha, Mars 270 deg. 1' Uttara Ashadha Rahu, 160 deg. 1'. At present on 27th July 1979 the Sun was at 99 deg. 57', while at Krishna's birth, according to their opinion, the sun was at 148 deg. 15'. The difference is 48 deg. 18'. This shows that the Sun has receded back by 48 deg. 18' due to the precession at the rate of 72 years per degree. multiplying 48 deg. 18' by 72 we get 3456 years. This shows that Krishna was born 3456 years ago or substracting 1979 from it we can say that Krishna was born during 1477 BC. Thus 3112 BC is found to be wrong. We cannot accept such a wrong date derived from a manipulated borscope. (This horoscope is printed in "The Age of Bharat War" on page 241-Publisher, Motilal Banarasidas 1979). <hr width="100%"> <center>ARCHEAOLOGY </center> In 1971, when I hinted at the date of Mahabharat war as 5500 years BC, Archeaologists frowned at me saying it as impossible because no cul- ture was found in India dating so much back. But now evidences are pouring in Archeaology itself showing cultures in India upto 30000 to 40000 years BC. Padmashri Late Mr. V.S. Wakankar has dated the paint- ings in the caves of Bhimbetaka of Madhya Pradesh to about 40000 BC. Recently Dr. S.B. Rao, Emeritus Scientist of the National Institute of Oceanography, Dona Paula, Goa, 403004, has discovered under the sea, Dwaraka and dated it as between 5000 to 6000 BC. This news has been published by all the leading newspapers on 22th October 1988. Motilal Banarasidas News Letter October 1988 gives a news on page 6 under the heading "50,000 year old Relics" as follows: Spectacular culture and physical relics dating back to 50,000 years BC have been excavated from the Central Narmada Valley in Madhya Pradesh. A team of Anthropological survey of India recently con- ducted the excavation. It explored sites in two districts Sebore and Hoshangabad. In my book "Vastava Ramayan" I have shown the presence of culture in India as far back as 72000 years B.C. This recent news points to that ancient period. I am sure after some time Arecheaology may get evi- dence to show the presence of culture in India 72000 BC. In Vastava Ramayan I have shown that Bali, the demon king went to south America during 17000 BC when the vernal equinox was at Moola Nakshatra. MLBD News letter Oct. 1988 gives a news thus :-"Dravidians in America" - According to a press report the Brazillian nuclear phy- sicist and researcher Arysio Nunes dos santos holds that the Dravi- dians of South India reached America much before Christopher Columbus. Mr. Nunes dos Santos, of the' Federal University of Minas Gerais maintains that the Dravidians colonised a vast South American region 11000 years before the Europians reached the new world. Vestiges of the Dravidian presence in America, he says, include the strange phonetics of Gourani, Paraguay's national language. Moreover Bananas, Pine Apple, Cocunut and Cotton, all grown in India could have been taken to America by those navigators. <hr width="100%"> <center>THE EXACT DATE OF MAHABHARAT WAR 16TH OCTOBER 5561 YEAR B.C. </center> Harivansh (Vishnu Purana A. 5) states that when Nanda carried Krishna to Gokul on Shravan Vadya Navami day, there was dry cow-dung spread all over the ground and trees were cut down. The presence of Dry Cowdung all over in Gokul indicates the presence of Summer in the month of Shravan. Trees are usually cut down in Summer to be used as fuel in the rainy season. The seasons move one month backwards in two thousand years. Today the rainy season starts in Jeshtha but two thousand years ago, at the time of KaIidas, rainy season used to start in Ashadha. At the time of Krishna's birth the Summer was in the month of Shravan while today it is in Vaishakha. Thus the summer is shifted by four months, hence Krishna's period comes to 4x2000 = 8000 years ago approximately. This means about 6000 years B.C., the same period we have seen above. At the time of Mahabharat, the Vernal Equinox was at Punarvasu. Next to Punarvasu is Pushya Nakshtra. Vyas used "Pushyadi Ganana" for his Sayan method, and called Nirayan Pushya as Sayan Ashvini. He shifted the names of further Sayan Nakshtras accordingly. At that time Winter Solstice was on Revati, so Vyas gave the next Nakshatra Ashvini the first palee in the Nirayan list of Nakshatras. Thus he used Ashvinyadi Ganana for the Nirayan method. Using at times Sayan names and at times Nirayan names of the Nakshatras, Vyas prepared the riddles. By the clue that Nirayan Pushya means Sayan Ashvini, it is seen that Nirayan names of Nakshatras are eight Nakshatras ahead of the Sayan names Thus the Saturn in Nirayan Purva, and Sayan Rohini, Jupiter was in Nirayan Shravan, and Sayan Swati (near Vishakha), while the Mars was in Nirayan Anuradha, and Sayan Magha, Rahu was between Chitra and Swati, by Sayan way means it was in Nirayana. Uttara Ashadha (8 Nakshtras ahead). From these positions of the major planets we can calculated the exact date. My procedure is as follows: I found out that on 5th May 1950, the Saturn was in Purva Phalguni. From 1950 I deducted 29.45 years to get the year 1920 when the Saturn was again in Purva. In this way I prepared a vertical column of the years when the Saturn was in Purva. Similarly, I prepared vertical columns of the years when the Jupiter was in Shravan and Rahu in Uttara Ashadha. Then I searched in horizontally to find out the year common in all the three columns. It was 5561-62 B.C. when all the three great planets were at the required places. Then I proceded for the detailed calculations. Bhisma expired at the onset of Uttarayan i.e. on 22nd December. This is a fixed point according to the modern Scientific Calendar. He was on the arrow-bed for 58 nights and he had fought for ten days. Hence 68 days earlier than 22nd December the War had started. This shows that the War started on 16th October. We have to calculate the plane- tary positions of 16th October 5561 B.C. <hr width="100%"> SATURN Encyclopedia of Astronomy by Larousse states that one rotation of Saturn takes 26 years and 166 days. One year means 365.25 days. So the Saturn's round takes 29.4544832 years. 5th May 1950, Saturn conjugated with Purva. We have to see its posi- tion in 5561 years B.C. 5561+1950 = 7511 years. 7511 divided by 29.4544832 gives 255.00362 rounds. This means that Saturn completed 255 rounds and has gone ahead by 0.00362 or 1.3 degrees. Hence Saturn was in conjugation with Purva on 5th May 5561 B.C. On 16th October' 5562nd B.C. i.e. 164 days later it must have travelled (0.0334597 degrees (daily pace) multiplied by 164 days =) 5.487 degrees. So Saturn was at 141 degrees or in Purva Nakshatra. In October 1962, Saturn was at 281 dgrs. 1962 + 5561 = 7523 years. 7523 devided by 29.4544832 gives 255.41103 turns. After completing 255 full turns, Saturn has gone back by 0.411003 turn i.e. 148 dgrs. 281-148= 133 degrs. This was the position of Saturn in Purva. Calculating from 1931 or 1989 also Saturn appears at 141 dgrs. in Purva. Thus on 16th of October 5562nd B.C. Saturn was in Purva as told by Vyas in Mahabharat. RAHU Rahu takes 18.5992 years per rotation. It was at 132 dgrs. on 16th Oct. 1979. 1979 + 5561 = 7540, divided by 18.5992 gives 405.39378 turns. 0.39378 turns means 141.7 dgrs. Rahu always goes in reverse direction. We have to go in the past, so adding 141.7 to orginal 132 we get 273 dgrs. This is Uttarashadha where Rahu was situated (by Nirayan method). Calculations from 1989, 1962 and 1893 confirm Rahu in Uttara Ashadha. JUPITER Jupiter takes 11.863013 years per rotation. On 16th October 1979, it was at 129 dgrs. 1979+5561 = 7540. 7540 divided by 1.863013 gives 635.58892 turns. 0.58892 turn means 212 dgrs. So Jupiter was 212 dgrs behind the orginal position. 129 - 212 = -83. -83 means 360 - 83 = 277 degree 277 dgrs is the position of the star of Shravan. So Jupiter was in conjugation with Shravan. The span of Shravan is 280 deg. to 293 deg. Calculations from 1989, 1932 and 1977 show Jupiter in 285 and 281 degrees or in the zone of Shravan. This confirms the position told by Vyas. MARS Mars takes 1.88089 years per rotation. On 16th October 1979, Mars was at 108 dgrs. 1979 + 5561 = 7540 yrs. 7540 divided by 1.88089 gives 4008.7405 turns. 0.7405 turns means 266 dgrs., Mars was 266 dgrs behind the original position of 108 deg. 108 - 266 = 158. 360 - 158 = 202 deg. This is just beyond the star of Vishakha which is at 200 dgrs. Though in Vishakha-zone Mars has crossed the Star of Vishakha and intends to go in Anuradha, so the description of Vyas as "Anurad- ham Prarthayate" that it requests or appeals Anuradha, appears to be correct. Calculations from 1962 and 1900 show Mars at 206 and' 208 dgrs and therefore though in Vishakha, it can be called as appealing Anuradha "Anuradham Prarthayate". Thus it is seen that Vyas has used tricky but correct terms. He has not written any false statement because he was the Truth-abiding Sage. HELIOCENTRIC AND GEOCENTRIC Here an expert may raise a question whether I have used Heliocentric method or Geocentric method. I make it clear here that I have used the Heliocentric method that means I have considered the rotations of planets around the Sun. But after fixing the position of the planet around the Sun I have also seen where that planet will be seen from the earth. I would like the scholars to consider one more point here. When I say that an insect is sitting near one o' clock position on your watch or clock, one may think that the insect is between 12 and 1 while other may think that it is between 1 and 2. So the span to find that insect is from 12 to 2. Similarly Vyas has mentioned the Nakshatra in the vicinity of the planet and therefore we have a scope of one Nakshatra on either side to find out the planet. Thus if our answer is between +13 deg. and -13 deg. from the given position we are successful. In my calculations I have achieved the perfect positions, but by chance, somebody gets a different position he is requested to consider a span of -,+ 13 degrees. The positions given by other scholars are far away than the positions recorded by Vyas, so they are not acceptable. I request the scholars, to be careful while doing calculations not to take a retrograde position of the present planet, because that may give a false position. Please note that all the planets become retro- grade only apparently when our earth is approaching them. We need not consider their retrograde motion each year because their rotational periods around the Sun are fixed and in that they are seen retrograde from the earth apparently. We have to see if the last position of the planet is retrograde. This can be done easily by considering the position of the Sun and planet. Any external planet becomes retrograde when it is in the house from 5th to 9th from the Sun. LEAP YEAR Please note that i have taken 365.25 days for a solar year. It covers the general leap years, but it does not take into account the leap years abandoned at centuries. At the interval of 400 years leap years are taken according to the modern scientific calendar. If these cen- tury years are considered, there may be an error of 50 days in 7500 years duration. As for dates these 50 days are automatically accounted for because we have taken the winter solstice as fixed on 22nd December, and it is referred by Vyas, while describing Bhishma's death. As far as the planets like Saturn, Rahu and Jupiter are con- cerned 50 days are immaterial because in 50 days the Saturn will move only 1.6 deg. while Jupiter 4.1 deg. as an average. Hence their error is negligible. Now, we have seen that all the four important planets satisfy their positions as told by Vyas on 16th October 5562nd B.C. Hence we have no other way but to accept this date as the exact date of Mahabharat War. Please note that, so far, not a single Scholar has shown a date with the planetary positions satisfying the description by Vyas in Mahabharat. Late Mr. C. V. Vaidya and Prof. Apte show 3102 B.C., but their Mars is in Ashadha, Jupiter is in Revati, Saturn in Shatataraka and Rahu in Jeshtha. Prof. K. Shrinivasraghavan, Mr. Sam- pat Ayangar and Sheshagiri show 3067 B.C. but they put Jupiter and Saturn in Rohini and Sun, Rahu, Mars in Jeshtha. Garga, Varahmihir and Tarangini show 2526 Before Shaka i.e. 2449 B.C. But their Mars comes in Dhanishtha, Jupiter and Saturn in Bharani and Rahu in Hasta. P.C. Sengupta gives 2448 with Saturn 356 deg., Jupiter 8 deg., Mars 157 deg., Venus 200 deg., Sun 200 deg., (Ancient Indian chronology" Calcutta University). The Western scholars as well as Romeshchandra Datta and S. B. Roy show 1424 B.C. but their Saturn is in Shata- taraka, Jupiter in Chitra, Rahu in Purva and Sun in Anuradha with no eclipse. Billandi Ayer shows 1193 years B.C. but his Mars comes in Mula, Jupiter in Purva Bhadrapada, Saturn in Purva Ashadha and Rahu in Punarvasu. At 900 B.C. as is proposed by many other scholars, Jupiter comes in Mula, Rahu in Vishakha and Saturn in Jeshtha. Thus not a single scholar could coroborate his date with the facts written by Vyas.Hence, their dates have to be dismissed. (C. V. Vaidya's Upasamhar page 94." Age of Mahabharat War"). I have shown all the planetary positions correct to the description of Mahabharat. In addition I have shown that the seasons tally with my date, and the seasons never tally with other dates. I have solved all the planetary riddles from Mahabharat which nobody could dare. So 16th October 5562nd BC. is the exact date of the first day of the Mahabharat War. At the beginning of the War, Vyas promised Dhrutarashtra that he will write history of the Kauravas; so most probably Vyas must have written the Astronomical data immediately. URANUS (known to Vyas in 5561 B.C) All the planets, viz., Sun, Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn and Rahu show correct positions mentioned in the Mahabharat on 16th December 5561 B.C. This must be the exact date of the Mahabharat War. After pin-pointing the exact date, it struck to me that the three additional planets mentioned with positions by Vyas, may be Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. Vyas has named them as Shveta, Shyama and Teevra. Let us see if the conjecture is correct. We have to prove this with the help of Mathematics, because we have to go scientifically. Vishesheena hi Vaarshneya Chitraam Pidayate Grahah....[10-Udyog.143] Shevtograhastatha Chitraam Samitikryamya Tishthati....[12-Bheeshma.3] In these two stanzas, Vyas states that some greenish white (Shveta) planet has crossed Chitra. This means that the planet was in Swati (or Vishakha, because Chitra and Swati are close together). This is the Sayan position hence Nirayan position is eight Nakshatras ahead in Shravan (or Dhanishtha). Neelakantha calls this "Mahapata" which means having greater orbit. Greater orbit indicates a planet beyond Saturn. Hence I assumed Shveta to be Uranus. Let us calculate and see if this true. In October 1979, Uranus was at 206 degrees. Uranus takes 84.01 years per rotation. 1979 + 5561 = 7540. 7540/84.01 = 89.75122 turns. 0.75122 rotation means 270.4392 degrees. 206-270 = -64 = 296 degrees. This comes in the zone of Dhanishtha, but the star of Dhanishtha is at 297 degrees, so the position given by Vyas is confirmed. Hence Shveta must be Uranus. In October 1883, Uranus was at 151 degrees. 1883 + 5561 = 7444 years. 7444/84.01 = 86.608498 rotations. 0.608498 turn means 219 degrees. 151-219 = 292 degrees. This is Shravan Nakshatra. So Uranus was in Shravan during Mahabharat War as stated by Vyas under the name of "Shveta". 1930 calculations show Uranus to be at 292.54 degrees or Shravan. Thus our mathematics proves that Vyas has given correct position of Uranus under the name of Shveta. This proves that Vyas had the knowledge of Uranus under the name of Shveta, supposed to have recently discovered by Herschel in 1781. Shveta means greenish white. Uranus is actually greenish white in colour. So Vyas must have seen Uranus with this own eyes. Uranus is of 6th magnitude and is visible to the naked eye according to the modern science. Neelakantha of 17th century also had the knowledge of Uranus or Shveta. He writes in his commentary on Mahabharat (Udyog 143) that Shveta, or Mahapata was a famous planet in the Astronomical science of India. Neelakantha was about 100 years before Herschel, who sup- posedly discovered Uranus. So we can conclude that one hundred before Herschel, Uranus was known to the Indian Astronomers and Vyas had discovered it at or before 5561 year B.C. NEPTUNE (was known to Vyas in 5561 B.C.) In 1781 A.D., Herschel discovered Uranus; but its calculated positions never corroborated with the actual positions. So the experts thought of another planet beyond Uranus. They fixed its position by mathemat- ics, and at that site, it was discovered by German Astronomers in 1846 A.D. I have found that Neptune is also mentioned by Vyas in Mahabharat, under the name of "Shyama". Shukrahah Prosthapade Poorve Samaruhya Virochate Uttare tu Parikramya Sahitah Samudikshyate....[15-Bheeshma.3] Shyamograhah Prajwalitah Sadhooma iva Pavakah Aaindram Tejaswi Naksha- tram Jyesthaam Aakramya Tishthati...[16-Bheeshma.3] Here Vyas says that there was some luminary with Venus in Poorva Bha- drapada. He adds further that a bluish white (Shyama) planet was in Jyeshtha and it was smoky (Sadhoom). Saayan Jyeshta means Nirayan Poorva Bhadrapada, so this is the description of one and the same planet named by Vyas as Shyama. Neelkantha calls it "Parigha" in his commentary on Mahabharat. Parigha means circumference, so this planet may be at the circumference of our solar system.; and so may be Nep- tune. Let us see by Mathematics is this statement is true. We will determine the position of Neptune on 16th December 5561 B.C. Neptune takes 164.78 years per rotation. It was at 234 degrees in 1979. 1979 + 5561 = 7540 years. 7540 divided by 164.78 gives 45.75798 rotations. 0.75798 turn means 272.87 degrees. 234 - 272.87 = -38.87 = 321.13 degrees. This is the site of Poorva Bhadrapada. So Neptune was in Poorva-Bhadrapada during 5561 B.C. In 1948, Neptune was at 172 degres. 1948 + 5561 = 7509. 7509/164.78 gives 45.56985 turns. 0.56985 turn means 205 degrees. 172-205 = -33 =360-33 = 327 deg. This is the zone of Poorva Bhadrapada. In 1879, Neptune was at 20 degrees. 1879 + 5561 = 7440 years. 7440 divided by 164.78 gives 45.15111 turns. 0.15111 turn means 54.39 deg. 20 - 54.39 = -34.39 = 360 - 34.39 = 325.61 degrees. This is Poorva- Bhadrapada. Thus the position of Shyama or Parigha is factually proved in the case of Neptune. Thus, we conclude that Vyas did know Neptune too. Vyas might have got his knowledge by Yogic Power or by Mathematics or by using telescopic lenses. Mathematics was far advanced then, that is why ancient Indian sages fixed the rate of precession of Equinoxes accurately. Even the world famous scientist Gamov praised the sages for their remarkable work in Mathematics. So could have mathematically calculated the position of Shyama or Neptune. Mirrors are mentioned in the Mahabharat. So lenses too might have been present at that time. They had Microscopic Vision (Shanti A. 15,308). As microscopic vision was present, there might be telescopes too. Planets can be seen with mirrors as well as lenses. Vyas must have "seen" Neptune; its proof lies in the fact that he says that it is bluish white (Shyama). Neptune is, in fact, bluish white in colour. Hence we conclude that Neptune was known to Vyas in 5561 B.C. PLUTO (was also known to Vyas in 5561 B.C) Krittikaam Peedayan Teekshnaihi Nakshatram......[30-Bheeshma.3] Vyas states that there was one Nakshatra, i.e, some immobile liminary troubling Krittika (Pleides) with its sharp rays. This "star" in Krit- tika must have been some "planet". It must have been stationary for many years, that is why Vyas called it Nakshatra which means a thing that does not move according to Mahabharat itself [Na Ksharati Iti Makshatram]. Hence the Nakshatra was a planet moving very slowly like pluto which takes nine years to cross one Nakshatra of 13 degrees. My assumption that this Nakshatra was Pluto gets confirmed by B.O.R.I (Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute?) Edition which states thus : Krittikasu Grahasteevro Nakshatre Prathame Jvalan...... [26- Bhishma.3] Some editions mention 'Grahasteekshnah'. Thus Teevra, Teekshana and Nakshatra are the names of one and the same planet (graha) which was in Krittlka in 5561 B.C. Let us see if Vyas has given these names to Pluto and if Pluto was in Krittika. It is stated that Krittika was troubled with sharp rays by that planet - this indicates that it was Nirayan Krittika. Pluto was at 175 degrees in 1979. It takes 248 years per rotation. 1979+5561=7540 years. 7540 divided by 248 gives 30.403223 turns. 0.403223 turn means 145 degrees. 175 - 145 = 30 degrees. This is the site of Krittika. Thus it is proved beyond doubt that Vyas bas men- tioned the position of Pluto, which was discovered to the modern world in 1930. Vyas could have used his Yogic Vision or mathematical brain or a lens or some other device to discover Teevra, Teekshna' or Nakshatra or Pluto. Thus all the three so-called 'New' planets are discovered from Mahabharat. It is usually held that before the discovery of Herschel in 1781 AD, only five planets were known to the world. This belief is wrong because Vyas has mentioned 'seven Great planets', three times in Mahabharat. Deepyamanascha Sampetuhu Divi Sapta Mahagrahah....[2-Bhishma.17] This stanza states that the seven great planets were brilliant and shining; so Rahu and Ketu are out of question. Rahu and Ketu are described as Graha' 23 meaning Nodal points. (Parus means a node). Evidently Rahu and Ketu are not included in these seven great planets. The Moon also is not included, because it was not visible on that day of Amavasya with Solar Eclipse. From the positions discovered by me and given by Vyas it is seen that Mars, Sun, Mercury, Jupiter, Uranus, Venus and Neptune were the seven great planets accumulated in a small field extending from Anuradha to Purva Bhadrapada. So they appeared to Ved-Vyas as colliding with each other, during total solar eclipse. Nissaranto Vyadrushanta Suryaat Sapta Mahagrahah....[4-Karna 37]. This stanza clearly states that these seven great planets were 'seen' moving away from the Sun. As these are 'seen', Rahu and Ketu are out of question. This is the statement of sixteenth day of the War, naturally the Moon has moved away from the Sun. Hence, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Uranus, Venus and Neptune are the seven great planets mentioned by Vyas. Praja Samharane Rajan Somam Sapta grahah Iva......[22-Drona 37]. Here again seven planets are mentioned, excluding the Moon. Even if we do not consider the planetary positions, from the above three stanzas, it is clear that seven planets are mentioned which do not include the Sun, Moon, Rahu and Ketu. Naturally the conclusion is inevitable that Vyas did know Uranus (Shveta) and Neptune (Shyama) as planets. If they were known from 5561 years B.C. then why they got forgotten ? The answer is simple, that these two planets, Uranus and Neptune were not useful in predicting the future of a person. So they lost impor- tance and in the course of time they were totally forgotten. But, in any case, Neelakantha from 17th century knew these two planets very weIl. Neelakantha is about a hundered years ancient than Her- schel, and he writes that Mahapata (Uranus) is a famous planet in the Astronomical science of India. He also mentions the planet 'Parigha' i.e. Neptune. 22 So both were known in India, at least one Hundered years before Herschel. Vyas is 7343 years ancient than Herschel, but still he knew all the three planets Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. <center> <hr width="100%"></center> <center>ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE </center> Kshaya or Vishvaghasra Paksha A fortnight of only thirteen days is told by Vyasa which occured just before the great War. Such a fortnight comes at the interval of 22 years. Calculations show that at 5562nd B.C. Kshaya Paksha did occur. It had occured 1962 and 1940. 1962+5562 = 7524 is completely divisi- ble by 22. Amavasya confirmed Krishna and Karna fixed the day of War on Amavasya (Udyog 142). Vyas also indicates in Bhishma 2 & 3 that the War started on the day second Amayasya, because two successive Amavasyas appeared then. Bhishma died on the day after 67 (58+9) nights from the onset of the War, on the occasion Uttarayan i.e. 22nd December. So the War must have commenced on 16th October. Let us see if Amavasya comes on this day. In 1979, Amavasya was on 21st of October. Amavasyas repeat after the intervals of 29.53058 days. The Lunar year is of 354.367 days while the Solar year is 365.25 days. 1979+5561 = 7540 multiplied by 365.25 and divided by 354.367 gives 7771.5616 Lunar years. 0.5616 Lunar year means 199.0125 days. 199.0125 divided by 29.53058 gives 6.7392005. This indicates that 6 Amavasyas are completed and 0.7392005 lunar month or 22 days are left. These 22 days are left for 21st October and we have to go behind upto 16th October. So adding these 6 days to 22 we get 28 days. After 28 days Amavasya can occur. After 29 days it always occurs. Thus on 15th and 16th October 5562nd year B.C, there were two successive amavasyas as mentioned by Vyas. Another method gives the same conclusion. At the interval of 19 years the Amavasya falls on the same date. 19x365.25 divided by 29.53058 gives 235.00215. So in 19 years 235 Amavasya are completed. I found that on 17th October 1963, there was an Amavasya. 1963+5561 = 7524 divided by 19 gives 396. This division is complete, so there was an Amavasya. Thus it is established that Vyas has reported Amavasya correctly. Eclipses Vyas has mentioned that there was Solar as well as Lunar eclipses in one month at the time of Mahabharat War. Calculations confirm that in October 5561 year B.C, both the Solar and Lunar eclipses did occur. Rahu and Ketu were in Uttara Ashadha at 273 deg. & 279 deg. so total eclipse of the Sun took place on the Margashirsha Amavasya day Only 13 days earlier, according to Vyasa, there was Pournirma with lunar eclipse, causing pallor of the Moon. Thirteen days earlier the sun would have been 13 deg. behind at (279 - 13 =) 266 in Purva Ashadha. It was Pournima so the Moon was diagonally opposite at (266-180=) 86 deg. in Punarvasu, just beyond Mruga, so it was Margashirsha Pournima though it is wrongly or enigmatically told to be Kartika Pournima. Rahu was at 273 deg., so Ketu was diagonally opposite in Punarvasu, so the ellipse of the moon was possible which was not total. A Big comet Vyas has mentioned that at the time of Mahabharat War a big comet was seen just beyond Pushya Nakshtra. There are many comets. Indian Astro- nomical works refer to more than 500 comets, but big comets are very few. Haley's comet is one of the big comets which comes at the regu- lar intervals of 77 years. It was seen in 1910 and 1987. If we add 1910+5561 = 7271. 7271 is divisible completely by 77. Evidently it seems that it was Haley's comet was seen at the Mahabharat War. <hr width="100%"> <center>Conclusion </center> All the twelve planets confirm their said positions on 16th October 5561 years B.C. along with two Amavasyas, two eclipses, Kshaya Paksha and a Comet. Thus, in all 18 mathematical positions fix the same date. Therefore, we have to accept this date of the Mahabharat War, if we want to be scientific. Please note that all the twelve planets will come in the same positions again only after 2229 crores of years. That means it will never happen again in the life of our earth, because life of the earth is only 400 crores of years. So the date of the Mahabharat War is pin-pointed as 16th October 5561 B.C. <hr width="100%"> <center>APPENDIX </center> Hereunder is provided a short table dates of important Mahabharat events in years. (Dates and Tithis in years in Rama Samvat assuming Shri Rama Samvat 1st January. 1 equivalent to 1st Jan 7323 B.C. Rama's birth date has been conclusively proved to be 4th Dec. 7323 B.C.( "Vastav Ramayan"). EVENT DATE Going to forest 4th Sept. 5574 BC Kitmeet Killed 7th Sept. 5574 BC Going underground 19th May 5562 BC Keechak killed 1st April 5561 BC Anukeechak-Massacre 2nd April 5561 BC End of secret life 9th April 5561 BC Cows stolen 15th April 5561 BC Arjuna exposed 16th April 5561 BC All pandavas exposed 19th April 5561 BC Marriage of Uttara 4th May. & Abhimanyu. Krishna set out for a treaty. 27th Sept. Stay at Upaplavya 27th Sept. Stay at Vrukshthala 28th Sept. Dinner to Brahmins 29th Sept. Entry into Hastinapur 30th Sept. Krishna meets Kunti etc. 1st Oct. Invited for meeting 2nd Oct. First meeting 3rd Oct. Second meeting and an attempt 4th Oct. to arrest Krishna. Third meeting Vishvaroopa 7th Oct. Stay at Kunti 8th Oct. Krishna meets Karna. War 9th Oct. fixed. Krishna returns 9th Oct. Pandavas preparation 11th Oct. Balaram's visit. Mahabharat war started 16th Oct. Abhimanyu killed 28th Oct. 5561 BC. End of War 2nd November 5561 B.C. Yudhishthira crowned 16th Nov. 5551 BC. Bhishma expired 22nd Dec. 5561 BC Pandava campaign 15th Jan. 5560 BC for wealth Parikshita born 28th Jan. 5560 BC Pandavas return 25th Feb. 5560 BC Ashvamedh Deeksha. 1st March 5560 BC Return of Arjuna Horse 15th Jan. 5560 BC Ashvamedh yajna 22nd Feb. 5559 BC Dhrutarashtra went to forest 18th Aug. 5545 BC Pandavas visited Kunti 18th Aug. 5543 BC Vidura expired Death of Kunti, Dhrutarashtra, Sept./Oct. 5541 BC and Gandhari Yadava Massacre 5525 B.C. Parikshit Dead 5499 B.C. <hr width="100%"> <center>References </center> P.V.Vartak, Swayambhu (in Marathi), Ved Vidnyana Mandal, Pune Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yegan Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 Dwarka dating by Dr Rao's team however gives something around 1800-1700 yrs BC therefore Dwarka is estimated to be 3700-3800 yrs old. Some 1500 yrs is still missing to finally say with scientifically conviction that Mahabharat took place some 5000 yrs from now. Below is a summary of S.R.Rao's paper Dr. S. R. Rao (Bangalore) Summary of the paper: The archaeological evidence for the existence of Dwaraka of Mahabharata has been obtained from onshore and offshore excavations conducted in Dwarka and Bet Dwarka sea. It can be said, on this evidence, that the first city named by Sri Krishna as Dwaraka was built at Kusasthali in the island now known as Bet Dwarka-Shankhodhara. A few years later a port town was built by him on the mainland at the mouth of the river Gomati after reclaiming land as cited in Harivamsa. Both were submerged by sea as corroborated by Mahabharata as well as archaeological evidence. The date for the events ranging from the first construction of Kusasthali by the Yadava ruler Kakudmin Revata upto the end of Dwaraka built by Krishna, is 18th-17th century BCE. This date is based on TL date for the middle terrace wall and Late Harappan pottery, stone mould and the evidence of a seal and two inscriptions written in evolved Indus script. The possibility of finding some earlier evidence in Bet Dwaraka, though remote, cannot be ruled out, if Balapur Bay mud flats are excavated. Bet Dwaraka, with a hill on one side and sea on other sides, is identified with Kusasthali-Shankhodhara and Autardvipa of Mahabharata. We must also consider the archaeological evidence from the excavations conducted in the Kurukshetra region at Bhagwanpura, Mirzapur and Daulatpur. The late Harappa culture at Bhagwanpura IA is dated 1900-1700 BCE, and it continues in Period IB for sometime when the plain Gray Ware also starts appearing and precedes the Painted Gray Ware. As a result of the discussions held in 1971, it emerged that the OCP of Rajasthan, UP and Haryana show greater affinity with late Harappan ware than with any other. It may be recalled here that BB Lal who found OCP in ther pre-PGW levels of Hastinapur ignored the presence of OCP and took only PGW date into account for dating Mahabharata to 1000-1100 BCE. The date 1900-1700 BCE may be archaeologically acceptable for Mahabharata events. So far as weapons of war used in Kurukshetra battle are concerned, an idea can be had from the spears and harpoons of Bethur, an OCP-LHP sit near Kanpur. For such sturdy weapons of copper/bronze to be produced in 1900-1700 BCE, metallurgy must have developed well. Iron technology had just been introduced in Dwaraka where iron on stakes referred to in Mahabharata (Mausala Parva) has been found along with iron nails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.