Date of Mahabharata War Using Planetarium Software

Date of the Mah@bh@rata War
using planetarium software

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

August 29, 2014
Authored by: Narahari Achar
Achar / Date of Mahabharata war / 1

B. N. Narahari Achar about 24000 words
Professor Emeritus
University of Memphis
Memphis, TN 38119
nachar@memphis.edu
THE DATE OF THE MAHABHARATA WAR USING PLANETARIUM SOFTWARE

by
B. N. Narahari Achar


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ma<galaM 4
Chapter 1. Prologue. 5
Chapter 2. Astronomical Knowledge of Ancient India 6
2.1 The Celestial Sphere 6
2.2 Dh=va 8
2.3 The Ecliptic.. 11
2.4 Nak&atra-s.... 11
2.5 Nak&atra Praj@pati ..................................................................... 13
2.6 Tithi..... 14
2.7 Seasons.... 15
Chapter 3. Background 18
Chapter 4. Planetarium Software.. 23
Chapter 5. Astronomical References in the Epic 25
5.1 Astronomical References in the Udyoga Parvan.. 25
5.2 Astronomical References in Bh&!aparvan.. 28
5.2a First segment. 30
5.2b The second segment.. 33
5.2c The third segment.. 34
5.2d The fourth segment 37
Chapter 6. Methodology of determining the date of the war.. 40
6.1 Planetary positions for determining the date of the war... 40
6.2 Applications of Planetarium Software ....... 41
6.3 Simulations using Planetarium software and star maps.. 41
6.4 The uniqueness of the date of 3067 BCE 49
Chapter 7. Adverse opinions. 54
7.1 Comments about planetary positions 55
7.1a "ani at rohi#........................................................ .. 55
7.1b Lunar eclipse on $@rtika pa%r#i!@ and solar eclipse at jye&&h@ 56
7.1c Retrograde motion of Mars near 'ye&&h@ 57
7.2 Observability of eclipses at $%r%k&etra. 59
7.2a Solar eclipse of October 14, 3067 BCE.. 59
7.2b Lunar eclipse of September 29, 3067 BCE (k@rtika pa%r#i!@) 61
7.2c Lunar eclipse of October 28, 3067 BCE. 62
Chapter 8. Consistency with tradition.. 66
8. Consistency of the date of 3067 BCE with tradition. 66
8.1 The *ryabha&a, +ar@ha!ihira, ,aptar&i traditions 66
8.1a $aliy%ga and the *ryabha&a tradition..66
8.1b Saptar&i era and the alleged Var@hamihira tradition.. 68
8.1c -aptar&i era and Genealogy lists from p%r@#a-.................. 69
8.2 Internal consistency in the epic of the date of 3067 BCE. 70
8.2a The question of adhi!@.a................................................. 71
8.2b How many sleepless nights did Bh&!a spend? 71
8.2c Did the war begin on an a!@v@.ya ? . 71
8.2d The supposed conjunction of "ani and B=ha.pati. 72
8.2e The alleged retrograde motion of Mars and Jupiter. 72

8.2f Pair of eclipses within thirteen days .. 73
8.3 Date of $=&#a 75
8.4 Conjunction of "ani with rohi#................................................ 76
Chapter 9. Various dates for the War and Simulations with Planetarium software. 77
Chapter 10. Epilogue.. 85
Acknowledgements 87
Bibliography.. 89

MANGALAM

4F *

9 I44 F|94 #
4 T4
4 5 |
| T| | 4
|4 #
44 *
F94 4F94 *
| (4 *4 | #


CHAPTER 1 PROLOGUE

The first presentation of determining the Date of the Mahabharata War using Planetarium
software was made thirteen years ago in 2001 at the International Conference in Montreal. The
software could project the view of the sky at any time at any place. At that time the software did
not have search capabilities. Yet the software could be used to discriminate and select from a
plethora of dates from about 4700 BCE to 400 CE for a possible date of the war. A set of
astronomical data from Udyoga Parvan were chosen as benchmark data and if they could be
reproduced on a given date proposed by a scholar, that date could be considered a candidate and
rejected if the data were not reproduced. Four works by the following scholars, with the dates
proposed by them in parentheses were chosen for this purpose: Kochhar (955 BCE), Sidharth
(1131 BCE), Sengupta (2449 BCE) and Raghavan (3067 BCE). It was shown that the benchmark
data could be reproduced only for Raghavans date and no other. A few more random checks
with dates other than the four chosen also yielded negative results. It was proposed that 3067
BCE could be considered as the date of the war.
Subsequent work has shown that the astronomical information in Bh&!aparvan (which has
been severely criticized by all scholars) can be interpreted in a consistent manner provided most
of the astronomical references corresponded to comets and not planets and that a unique date of
3067 BCE for the war results. These results were presented at the seminar on the date of the
Mahabharata war held at the Mythic Society in Bangalore in 2003.
This work is based on the astronomical information found in the epic itself and does not depend
on any other outside information. It uses the concepts of abhidh@/ lak&a#@ and vya0jana to
properly understand the meanings of words such as graha and in so doing it is shown that the
astronomical references are consistent and not contradictory as was alleged previously. A unique
date is derived as the date of the war and there are given copious illustrations of star maps
generated by the planetarium software. Many criticisms that have been hurled at this work have
been shown to be of not much significance.


CHAPTER 2 ASTRONOMICAL KNOWLEDGE OF ANCIENT INDIA
The purpose of this chapter is to introduce some basic concepts of astronomy used in India from
the Vedic times and relate them to modern notions in using the planetarium software.
2.1 The Celestial Sphere
Our experience of Time arises from three fundamental motions in Nature: the rotation of the
Earth on its axis, the revolution of the Moon around the Earth and the revolution of the Earth
around the Sun. These motions give us the units of Time, the Day, the Month and the Year,
respectively. Moreover, the axis of rotation of the Earth is inclined at an angle of 23and
degrees with respect to the perpendicular to the plane of the Earths orbit around the Sun. As a
result of this inclination, as the Earth goes around the Sun, there is a variation of the length of
day time during the year resulting in Seasons. Special mention may be made of the two
Equinoxes, the Spring and Autumnal equinoxes, when the day and night are of exactly equal
duration and the Summer and the Winter solstices when the duration of day time is the longest
and the shortest respectively. Furthermore, the Sun rises exactly in the East on the Spring
equinox. The point of sunrise continuously shifts towards North until the Summer solstice and
then begins to shift southwards. The length of day time continuously increases and on the
Summer solstice, it is the longest day. The point of sunrise begins to move southwards, with the
concomitant decrease in the length of day time. When it is Autumnal equinox, the Sun rises
exactly in the East again and the day and night are of equal duration. The point of sunrise
continues to move southwards, the length of day time continues to decrease until it is Winter
solstice. It is the shortest day and the Sun The ancient =&is had observed all these and their
observations were based on the Earth. So the Earth appeared to be stationary, all the heavenly
objects executed a daily or Diurnal motion, i.e., they rose in the East, moved across the sky and
set in the West. In addition, the Sun appears to go round the Earth completing the path in one
year. So does the Moon, completing its path around the Earth in a month. These astronomical
phenomena are best understood in terms of the Celestial Sphere
1
representation.

1
Standard textbooks on Astronomy deal with this material. See for example
E. Chaisson and S. McMillan, Astronomy Today,Prentice Hall, Engle wood NJ, 1993
M. A. Seeds, Foundations of Astronomy, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. 1992


In this picture the Earth is considered to be stationary (i.e., it does not move), The Sun, the Moon
and the Planets go around the Earth. The stars are very far away from the Earth and are
considered to be fixed to definite positions on the inside surface of a very large sphere centered
on the Earth. This large sphere is the Sky we see and is referred to as the Celestial Sphere. The
size of the sphere is unspecified, except that it is very large. All the stars are assumed to be at the
same distance from the Earth and at fixed locations on the inside surface. As the Sun, the Moon
and the planets move around the Earth they also appear to be moving in the Sky in the
background of the stars. A number of lines, circles and points drawn on the Celestial Sphere are
helpful in locating and observing the motions of various heavenly objects.
Imagine a single observer on Earth standing all alone and observing unhindered by earthly
objects such as trees, hills etc. Draw a large circle on the ground with a radius equal to the
distance as far as one could see (Figure 2.1). This horizontal circle is called the Horizon. The
observer O is at the center of this circle. Imagine a large sphere with the Horizon cutting into two
halves. The sphere is the Celestial Sphere. The upper half is the Sky we see, the Horizon
separating the part of the Sky we see from the part we dont. The stars are fixed on this Sphere
and hence their positions can be known by coordinates similar to the Latitude and Longitude we
use on Earth to locate cities, but these coordinates are fixed on the Celestial Sphere and not on
Earth and will be discussed later. When the observer looks above, the point directly overhead is
called the Zenith and the point directly below is called the Nadir. Note that the Earth is very
small compared to the size of the Celestial Sphere and is essentially a point at the center of the
Sphere.
The Earth rotates on its axis from west to east, but for the observer in Figure 1, the entire
Celestial Sphere with all the stars rotates from east to west. The axis of rotation of the Earth
when extended meets the Celestial Sphere at the points P (North Celestial Pole) and S (the South
Celetial Pole). A circle on the Celestial Sphere drawn so as to pass through the points Zenith, P,
Nadir, and S is called the Meridian Circle and it intersects the Horizon at the points N and S. The
Celestial Equator intersects the Horizon at the points E and W. These points indicate the cardinal
directions North, South, East and West.


Figure 2.1. The Celestial Sphere, Horizon, Meridian Circle, Celestial Equator and the
Cardinal points indicating the directions North, East, South and West

The view of the Celestial Sphere above is called the Local view and its appearance changes from
location to location. In particular the North Celestial pole appears at an altitude (i.e., the angle
<NOP ) equal to the Latitude of the place. The figure at the right shows the view of the Celestial
Sphere for a place on Earth at a latitude of 65N.

2.2 Dh=va

As the Earth rotates from West to East on its axis, for the Observer O, the stars on the Celestial
Sphere appear to move from East to West, i.e., they rise and set. However, not all stars do this.
Those near the North Celestial Pole simply appear to go around in circles in an anti-clock
direction, not rising or setting as they do not go below the Horizon. In addition, the star which is
located on the Celestial Pole does not move at all. It is called the Pole Star or the North Star. The
pole star is referred to as Dh=va nak&atra. Currently, Polaris is the Dh=va1 The axis of rotation of
the Earth itself undergoes a slow rotation completing a circle in a period of about 26000 years.
As a result, the pole star changes with time. This change is referred to as Precession and is
illustrated in Figure 2.2. Currently, Polaris is the pole star, but in 3000 BCE, Thuban was the
pole star, i.e., in 3000 BCE, Thuban was the Dh=va1


Figure2. 2. Precession Currently Polaris is on the North Celestial Pole, in 3000 BCE, it was
Thuban.

2.3 The Ecliptic
As the earth moves around the Sun, from the Earth the Sun appears to move among the stars.
This is seen in the next picture.

Figure 2. 3. Motion of the earth around the Sun and the apparent motion of the Sun from the
Earth.

When projected on to the Celestial Sphere, the Orbit of the Earth is known as the Ecliptic and is
inclined to the Celestial Equator at an angle of 23and degrees. The Ecliptic intersects the
Celestial Equator at two points, the Vernal Equinox (VE) and the Autumnal Equinox (AE). The
Sun moves along the Ecliptic approximately at the rate of 1 degree per day, completing the circle
(360) in one year. It is important to note that while the Sun is far from the Earth, the stars are
much farther. The Ecliptic is the projection of the Earths orbit whose size is much less than the
radius of the Celestial Sphere.

Figure 2. 4. The Ecliptic in relation to the Celestial Equator.

When the Sun is at VE, the day and night are equal and the Sun rises exactly at East. As the Sun
moves along the Ecliptic, the point of Sunrise moves towards the North this is the continuation
of northerly movement, Uttar@ya#a), reaching the Northern most point when the Sun is at the
Summer Solstice (SS). The Sun appears to be stationary and as he moves along the Ecliptic, the
point of Sunrise begins to move towards the South (Dak&i#@yana). The duration of day time
increases from VE to SS, SS being the longest day. Thereafter, the days become shorter, until the
Sun reaches Autumnal Equinox(AE), when the day and night are again of equal duration, The

Sun continues to move further South, the days become shorter until he reaches Winter
Solstice(WS), when the Sun is as far South as possible. The Day is the shortest. Then the Sun
turns Northward again. That is the beginning of Uttar@ya#a1 The seasons and the variation of
day time are illustrated in the next figure showing the position of the Sun at noon on various
dates. At noon the Sun is on the Meridian Circle, the notation of am and pm for the morning and
afternoon arising from the fact that the Sun is before reaching the meridian, ante meridian , in the
morning. It is post meridian or pm after having crossed the meridian. (Figure 2.5).

Figure 2. 5. Local view of the Sun at various positions along the Ecliptic.

213 Nak&atras
The Moon also appears to move among the stars as it revolves around the Earth, the path of the
Moon being another circle on the Celestial Sphere, inclined at an angle of 5 degrees to the
Ecliptic. The Moon completes the orbit on the average in 27.3 days. Thus the Moon travels at
the rate of 13and 1/3 degrees per day. In order to track the motion of the Moon and the Sun on
the Celestial Sphere, the ancient sages chose 27 bright stars along the path as markers and these
are the nak&atras
2
. Later on at the time of ved@<ga jyoti&a, the earliest available text on ancient
astronomy of India, the Ecliptic was divided into 27 equal parts and each arc segment was called
a nak&atra , the name being the same as the bright star close to the segment. In this work, we use
the bright stars rather than the arc segments as they are the best guides for observation. The

2
Dikshit (1969)

Moon spends about a day at each nak&atra1 Incidentally, when one talks about ones
jan!ank&atra/ one is referring to the fact that on the day of birth, Moon was at that nak&atra1
Each nak&atra is also associated with an adhidevata. A table of the list of 27 nak&atra./ together
with the associated adhidevata and an identification with the modern name
3
of the bright star
developed by the author
4
is given in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Identification of Vedic nak&atras
Nak&atra-s # of
stars
de!tificatio! of "ri!ci"a# star $residi!g
Deity %&%& $rese!t
$=ttik@ 6 '()au '()au 4gni
5ohi# 1 *()au *()au Praj@pati
M=ga"ir@ + ,(-ri .()au
/
-o!a
*rdr@ 1 *(-ri 0(1e2
/
5%dra
P%narva.6 2 .(1e2 .(1e2 4diti
P%&ya 1 3(&!c 3(&!c B=ha.pati
*.le&@ 6 4(5ya 4(5ya -arpa
Makh@ 6 *(6eo *(6eo Pit=
p-ph@lg%# 2 3(6eo 3(6eo 4rya!@
%-ph@lg%# 2 .(6eo .(6eo Bhaga
7a.ta 7 3(&r8 0(9ir
/
-avit@
8itr@ 1 *(9ir *(9ir 9ndra
-v@t 1 *(:oo ;(9ir
/
+@y%
+i"@kh@ 2 *(6ib *(6ib 9ndr@#
4n6r@dh@ 4 3(<co 3(<co Mitra
'ye&&h@ 1 *(<co *(<co 9ndra
M6la = ,(<co ,(<co Pit=
P6rv@&@:ha 4 3(<gr 3(<gr *pa;
Uttar@&@:ha 4 >(<gr >(<gr +i"vedev@;
"rava#a + *(A?# .(&a"
/
+i&#%
Dhani&&ha 7 .(De# 3(&a"
7/
+a.%
"atabhi&a 1 ,(A?r ,(A?r 9ndra
P6rvabh@dra 2 .($eg .($eg 4jaekap@t
Uttar@bh@dra 2 0($eg 0($eg 4hirb%dhnya
5evat 1 @($is @($is P6&@
4"vin 2 .(Ari .(Ari 4"vin
Bhara# + 41(Ari 41(Ari <a!a

+
<aha a!d 6ahiri (1977)
4
Achar (200+)
7
)he #ist of ide!tificatio!s is take! fro2 Achar (200+)A )he ide!tificatio!s 2arked Bith / differ fro2 the usua#
#ist for eCa2"#e fro2 the &a#e!dar %efor2 &o22ittee %e"ortA Detai#s are gi8e! i! Achar (200+)A )he !eB
ide!tificatio! for .v@ti given here fits the nak&atriya praj@pati better.

As can be seen from Table 2.1, the present identifications for six nak&atra-. are different from
those given in the RCRC. That there is misidentification of some of the nak&atra-. has been
pointed out before
6
. In the RCRC list the identifications for .v@ti/ "rava#a/ and dhani&&ha are
30 or more away from the Ecliptic, the identifications in the present work are closer to the
Ecliptic. The present identifications for three others, !=ga"ir@/ @rdr@ and ha.ta are brighter and
nearer to the Ecliptic than the RCRC list.

2.5 Nak&atriya praj@pati

The passage in =aittirya Br@h!a#a (1.5.2.2) depicts the figure of Praj@pati constituting
certain nak&atras :
<o vai nak&atriya> veda| %bhayorena> lokayorvid%;| ha.ta ev@.ya ha.ta;| ?itr@ "ira;
ni&&y@ h=daya>| 6r6 vi"@khe | prati&&h@n6r@dh@;| e&a vai nak&atriya; praj@pati; |

The figure of Praj@pati is to be seen in the background of stars as described in the above
passage, The nak&atra ha.ta represents the hand, ?itr@ the head, and ni&&y@ (.v@ti) the
heart; the dual vi&@kh@s represent his thighs and an6r@dh@ represents his feet. A free-hand
sketch of this figure is shown in the figure 2.6

6
Abhya!kar (1991)

Figure 2.6 Nak&atriya praj@pati

The figure is a classic yoga posture with the folded hands above the head, the nak&atras as
identified in Table 2.1 match the description very well. It also shows that the commonly accepted
identification of Arcturus (alpha Bootes) for .v@ti is to be rejected as it is too far from the
Ecliptic to represent the heart.
2.6 =ithi
As indicated earlier, the Sun moves along the Ecliptic at the rate of 1 per day and the Moon
moves at the rate of 13 and 1/3 per day. On the a!@v@.ya (New Moon day), the Sun and the
moon are together, i.e., they rise and set at the same time. The next day the Moon is ahead by a
little over 12. The Moon rises about 48 minutes later than the Sun and sets later by the same 48
minutes. The twelve degree separation between the Sun and the Moon is termed a tithi1 The first
day it is pratipad/ the next day it is dvitya etc., each day the separation between the Sun and the
Moon is increasing by 12. After 15 days, it is Pa%r#i!@/ (The Full Moon), the separation is
180. That is the Sun and the Moon are on opposite sides of the sky, the Moon is rising as the
Sun sets. Figure 2.7 shows the view of the sky on April 29, 2014 which happens to be an
a!@v@.ya1 The Sun and the Moon are together at a.hvini1

Figure 2. 7. Sun and the Moon are together on an a!@v@.ya

The nak&atra of the day gives the position of the Moon, tithi gives the position of the Sun
relative to the Moon. Together the tithi and nak&atra (these are two of the five elements of
pa0?@<ga) determine the positions of the Sun and the Moon in the sky.
The an%v@ka @1@3/ taittirya ara#yaka, describes these elementary aspects of Time, namely,
sunrise and sunset, day and night, half-month, month, seasons and the year, together with the
three regions, bh6;/ bh%va; and .va;1 The an%v@ka can now be read in conjunction with the
description in terms of the Celestial Sphere, with bh6; /the Earth being essentially the center of
the Celestial Sphere and .va; as the surface of the Celestial Sphere and bh%va; the intermediate
region.

2.7 The Seas!s
The an%v@ka @1A of taittirya ara#yaka describes seven suns, who illumine the entire heaven
and earth, and the eighth sun, ka&yapa/ who never stays away from the !ah@!er%1 The seven
suns get the light from ka&yapa. Although the seven suns have been seen by several sages, -

ka&yapa has not been seen by any except, the sage Pr@#atr@ta/ son of Barga/ who advises the
other sages to go to !ah@!er% from where ka&yapa does not move. Who are the seven suns?
Who is ka&yapa? How can we understand it as the basis for the model of seasons?
There are two motions involved in the phenomenon of seasons. The rotation of the Earth about
its axis, results in the appearance of the sun rising and setting and the phenomena of day and
night. This is described as the motion of the sun around the !er%/ corresponding to the motion
about the pole of the Celestial Equator. The second motion is the revolution of the Earth around
the sun, approximated as a circle, which appears for the observer on earth, as the sun moving
around the Earth. This is described as the sun moving around the !ah@!er%/ the pole of the
Ecliptic. The picture of eight suns is woven in an ingenious way to explain the phenomena of
seasons.
There are six =t%s (seasons) and correspond to different segments of the Ecliptic as the sun
travels along the Ecliptic. Each of the segments of the Ecliptic has a presiding deity, an adhipati/
who is dormant until the sun (the seventh sun who moves along the Ecliptic) is actually in the
segment. The seventh sun then assumes the identity of the lord of the segment and thus
activating him causes the phenomena pertinent to that =t% and then moves to the next segment.
The current adhipati becomes dormant again while the next adhipati is activated.
Referring to figure 4, it can be seen that during half the year, the sun moves along the Ecliptic
from VE through SS to AE, the sun is to the north of the Celestial Equator, and during the other
half of the year, the sun stays to the south of the Celestial Equator. From AE to VE we have three
=t%s, each =t% is assigned a segment of the semicircle, the three segments have Bhr@ja/ Pa&ara
and Pata<ga as the adhipatis. They are on the lower side of !er%1 The other three suns are the
adhipatis of the three similar segments of the Ecliptic, from VE to AE which are above the
!er%. The =t%s corresponding to these segments are ruled by .var#ara;/ jyoti&!@n and vibh@.a;
respectively. These six suns do not leave their quarters. Only one sun, @roga; moves along the
Ecliptic and while in any segment of the Ecliptic, assumes the identity of the adhipati of that
particular segment and causes the phenomena of the corresponding =t%1
te a.!ai .arve ka&yap@t |jyoti& labhante t@n .o!a; ka&yap@t |adhinirdha!ati
bhra.t@kar!ak=dhidaiva! |(TA 1.7.4)

The source of power of this moving sun, @roga;/ and hence of all the other six suns, is ka&yapa/
the eighth sun. The seven suns
7
get the light from ka&yapa1 -o!a makes these suns free of
darkness and pure like a goldsmith making gold shine better with the help of bellows.
The eighth sun ka&yapa is at the intersection of the axes of the Equator as well as the Ecliptic
(both !er% and !ah@!er%), i.e., inside the Earth! This may be basis for the p%r@#i? story of
.agara and his sons being reduced to ashes by ka&yapa1

=
)here is !o reaso! to take these Dse8e! su!sE as D.apta grah@(sE, as so2e scho#ars see2 to doA )he se8e!
su!s are used o!#y to 2ode# the seaso!sA )here is o!#y o!e true su!A As the su! 2o8es a#o!g the ec#i"tic, he
assu2es the ide!tity of o!e of the other siC su!s Bho are the rege!ts of the seg2e!ts of the ec#i"ticA

CHAPTER 3 BACKGROUND

In the opinion of Pusalker
8
, the Mah@bh@rata war is the central landmark in Indian traditional
history and fixing the date of the event will give a starting point for settling dates of events
occurring before and after it. According to tradition, as declared in the epic itself, the war
between the $a%ravas and Pandavas took place at the junction of Dv@para and $ali y%gas
9
,
around 3000 BCE. Bh@ratya-s never had any doubt about the historicity of the event and have
been celebrating the anniversaries of certain events connected with the epic such as Bt@jayanti
and Bh&!@&&a!i for centuries. However, when Western scholars began to study the epics with
interest from a rationalist historic point of view, doubts were expressed about the war ever
having been a historic event. Some granted that the event was historic, but it was only a family
feud, which was exaggerated to epic proportions and doubted the remoteness of its date.
Western Scholars
10
, while acknowledging that unlike other ancient civilizations, the ancient
traditions in Bh@rat have been preserved without a break down to the present day, have generally
argued that Bh@ratya- s lack a sense of history and that there is a dearth of historical texts in
Bh@rata, that contain records of dates and events. These scholars have discounted the fact that
two of the greatest epics of the world, 5@!@y@#a and Mah@bh@rata are traditionally regarded as
itih@.a s, i.e., historic texts and that there are in addition, a host of supporting texts in the form of
P%r@#a- s. Ignoring the fact that Bh@rata has its own sense of history and its purpose
11
, the
scholars have systematically misrepresented the chronology of Bh@rata so as to fit some
misguided theory
12
. A plethora of dates for the war derived on the basis of a number of diverse
methodologies and with no consensus, have been proposed. Thus began a cottage industry for
discovering the date of the Mahabharata war. Dozens of conferences have been held and nearly
two hundred research papers and books have been published on the topic of the date of the
Mah@bh@rata war.

F
$usa#ker (1996)
9
antare ?aiva .a>pr@pte kali dv@parayorabh6t
.a!antapa0?ake y%ddha> k%r%p@#:ava .enayo; GGH:hA A2A9GG
10
:asha2, AA#A, (197+), The Wonder that was India, 1ro8e $ress !cA, NeB Iork
11
dhar!@rtha k@!a !ok&@#@> %pade"a .a!anvita> G
p6rvav=tta> kath@y%kta> itih@.a> pra?ak&ate GG
12
the so ca##ed Arya! !8asio! )heory or A), !oB thorough#y discreditedA

A number of methodologies based on linguistics, archaeology, astronomy, puranic genealogies
etc., have been employed to determine the date of the Mah@bh@rata war, but the results have
been extremely disappointing. A range of dates ranging from about 5500 BCE to 600 BCE have
been proposed for the Mah@bh@rata war, most of the Indian scholars prefer the date around 3000
BCE, while most of the Western scholars show a preference for much later dates between 1500
BCE to 1000 BCE. Figure 1 displays the distribution of the number of authors
13
and the dates
proposed by them.

Figure 1. Distribution of the Number of authors (vertical axis) and the Dates proposed
(horizontal axis, in BCE years, with +/- 250 BCE years range) based on all
methodologies

Nearly 40% of all the authors base their results on the astronomical references
14,15
. However, it
has not been possible to arrive at a definite date on the basis of astronomical references either.
Figure 2 shows the distribution of dates from more than forty scholars who have made use of the
astronomical data. It is clear that there is as much variation in the dates based on astronomical
references alone as the dates based on diverse methodologies. Practically every scholar has

1+
<athe (19F+)
14
Dikshit (1969)
17
Ja!e (197F)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
<5000 3000 2000 1000

criticized the astronomical references in the epic as conflicting and self-contradictory, so that no
satisfactory and acceptable result can be obtained from these data
16
.
A new research tool in the form of Planetarium Software
17
became commercially available about
fifteen years ago. These software products can project the view of the sky at any time and place
on the world from about 10000 BCE to about 10000 CE and the research using astronomical
methods was reduced from tedious calculations to just clicking the mouse of a personal
computer. However, the new tool has not brought the results any closer. Three of the most recent
publications, all based on astronomical methods and all using planetarium software have
proposed dates of 5500 BCE
18
, 1798 BCE
19
and 1198 BCE
20
respectively.

Figure 2. Distribution of Number of authors (vertical axis) and the Dates proposed
(along the horizontal axis, in BCE years, range +/- 250 BCE)on the basis of astronomical
references

The author pioneered successfully the use of the planetarium software products to study the
astronomical references in the Vedic texts and in the epic Mah@bh@rata1 The purpose of this

16
$usa#ker (1996)
1=
<ky a!d )e#esco"e (2001)
1F
-ak (2010)
19
:hat!agar (2014)
20
Joch (2014)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
<5000 3000 2000 1000

monograph is to present the results of a research program undertaken to determine the date of the
Mah@bh@rata war on the basis of the astronomical references in the epic and their simulation
using the planetarium software. The reason for the wild variation for the date of the war is to be
found in the source statements about the astronomical references and their interpretation. It has
been recognized that the Critical Edition of Mah@bh@rata which was compiled from a variety of
sources painstakingly by a host of scholars under the leadership of Dr. Suktankar should be taken
as the framework for identifying the astronomical references in the text. The proper
interpretation of the word graha depends on the context and it may refer to a planet or a comet.
The planetarium software provides a powerful tool for the exploration. With these points in mind
the monograph sets out to demonstrate that a unique date for the Mah@bh@rata war can be
obtained. It will be shown that contrary to the general belief, the astronomical references in the
Bh&!aparvan and Udyogaparvan which constitute the astronomical references most pertinent
to the war, form a very consistent set and in the context of omens as indicating impending
calamities, agree closely with the tradition of omens in 4tharvaveda and its ari"i&&ha-s. The
astronomical references lead to a unique date for the war, 3067 BCE and all other astronomical
references in the epic are consistent with this date. This date had also been proposed earlier by
Professor Raghavan
21
and his collaborators. This date forms the sheet-anchor for the chronology
of Bh@rata1
The plan of the monograph is as follows. A brief description of the salient features of the
planetarium software products commercially available will be given in the next chapter. The
limitations of the simulations are also discussed. The following chapter discusses the set of
astronomical references in the Udyoga and the Bh&!aparvan-s. The consistency of the
references within the Bh&!aparvan is discussed. It is shown that most of the astronomical
references in this set pertain to comets and that the few truly planetary references are identical to
the ones in Udyogaparvan and that these common references lead to the unique date of the war.
The consistency of the other astronomical references in the epic is illustrated by star maps
generated by the planetarium software. In the final sections there is a consolidation of the

21
%agha8a! (1969)

traditions of Bh@gavata p%r@#a/ .aptar&i Era, and beginning of $aliy%ga/ and response to
criticisms that have been directed towards this work.


CHAPTER 4 THE PLANETARIUM SOFTWARE

The term Planetarium Software refers to a collection of computer programs which can
generate and display on the screen of a computer monitor thousands of stars and other heavenly
objects as seen in the sky at any given location and at any given date and time (between 9999
BCE and 9999 CE), all at the touch of a mouse. These software programs draw from the most up
to date star catalogues and are based on the current theories of planetary and stellar phenomena.
They are routinely used for telescopic applications both in manual and computer controlled
modes of operation, for they can project at which part of the sky and what time a desired object
becomes visible in the sky and direct the telescope accordingly. They are also used for satellite
tracking and space exploration applications routinely. Details of such applications are available
in the instruction manuals. Literally hundreds of such programs are available in the market to suit
any need for astronomical applications. There are several popular products commercially
available
22
: The Sky, SkyMap Pro, Red Shift, Cybersky, Starry Night etc., for PC applications
and Voyager for Apple McIntosh applications. These software products can also be used as tools
of research in exploring ancient astronomy as has been shown by the author in several
publications
23
. The author has found SkyMap Pro to be most suited for current applications, but
has used Red Shift, Cybersky and occasionally, The Sky as supplementary tools. The author
gratefully acknowledges that many figures that are given in this essay would not have been
possible without the help of these software products. He has also found useful another computer
program
24
, Pancang2, which can calculate tithi and nak&atra for any day on the Gregorian
(Julian calendar, for dates between 3000 BCE and 1580 BCE) calendar. This program has been
used only as a check and has not been used for any calculations other than for just verification
purposes.
The simulations provided by the planetarium software are extremely reliable and they are
based on the most recent star catalogues and planetary information. However, some caution has

22
)here are 2a!y "#a!etariu2 softBare "roducts !oB co22ercia##y a8ai#ab#eA )hey are "eriodica##y re8ieBed
i! the 2agaKi!e <ky a!d )e#esco"e
2+
Achar (1999, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c)
24
Yano and Fushumi. The internet link is provided in the references.


to be exercised in using these programs to compute eclipses at dates going back several
thousands of years in time. Let us assume that the periods of planets and the moon are known
accurately to six decimal places, say for example. The sixth place is somewhat uncertain. When
the data is extrapolated to 3000 BCE, a time span of 5000 years, some 60000 revolutions of the
Moon would have been considered, but only 200 revolutions of Saturn. The accuracy of the last
decimal place is very important for the Moon, but not for Saturn. Thus in a simulation
corresponding to 3000 BCE, the extrapolated position of Saturn is very reliable, but that of the
Moon is somewhat uncertain. This becomes evident in simulating the exact moment of new
moon, for example. There is a spread of about 12 hours among the times for the New Moon
given by the SkyMap Pro, Redshift and Cybersky. The time given by another software product
The Sky is off by seven days! There are other factors to be considered. This has to do with the
slowing off of Earths rotation. This is small, but results in a correction known as T, but there is
an uncertainty in the estimation of T itself. This introduces an uncertainty of about 12 hours
25

in the occurrence of an eclipse when extrapolated to 3000 BCE. This means one cannot calculate
the occurrence of a solar eclipse within an accuracy of several hours. This would in turn cause
the location of a total solar eclipse also uncertain. It should be emphasized here that the
occurrence of the solar eclipse itself is quite certain, but what is uncertain is the exact location
where it occurs. In view of this, it would be difficult to choose a date based solely on the
occurrence of an eclipse at a given location. In the present work therefore, planetary positions
such as that of Saturn are considered most reliable. When it comes to eclipses, it is considered
sufficient if an eclipse occurred, and not much weight is given to the exact location of visibility
as per the simulation. Conversely, those works, which determine the date of the war solely on the
basis of occurrence of a solar eclipse at $%r%k&etra should be accepted with caution. The
maximum duration of a solar eclipse is only about 7 minutes and the uncertainty runs to several
hours. The extrapolated planetary positions on the other hand, are highly reliable.

27
Host rece!t esti2atio!s are so2e Bhat s2a##er, about 2A=7 hours i! +000 :&LA

CHAPTER 5 ASTRONOMICAL REFERENCES IN THE EPIC

It is well known that there are a large number of references to astronomical events, totaling to
more than one hundred and fifty, scattered throughout the epic and have been catalogued
26
.
Figure 3 shows the distribution of the number of astronomical references (along the vertical axis)
among the eighteen parvan-s of the Epic (along the horizontal axis). Admittedly most of the
references are astrological in nature and the possibility that some of them may be later
interpolations cannot be overruled. However, there must be a few genuine events that were
observed and noted in view of the importance of the war. In fact, the majority of the
astronomical references occur in Udyoga and Bh&!a parvan-s, pertaining to events just before
or at the start of the war and will be examined in detail.

Figure 3. Distribution of the Number of astronomical references among the
Eighteen Parvan. of the Epic. Udyoga (#5) and Bh&!a (#6) contain the largest
number of astronomical references pertaining to the war.

5.1 Astronomical References in Udyoga Parvan
There is a coherent chronology of astronomical events starting with $=&#as departure for his
diplomatic mission for peace to 7a.tin@p%ra before the war and this mission must have been
considered very important for the astronomical references for this event have been recorded in

26
<athe, Desh2ukh a!d Moshi (19F7)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17

great detail. The references quoted here are numbered with (i), (ii),with the appropriate
reference to the verses in the Epic.
(i) $=&#a leaves for 7a.tin@p%ra on the diplomatic mission
27
for peace in the !aitr !%h6rta in
the month of k@rtka on the day of revat nak&atraC
tato vyapete ta!a.i .6rye vi!ala %dgate
!aitre !%h6rte .a>pr@pte !=dva?i&i div@kare//
ka%!%de!@.i revaty@> "aradante hi!@ga!e
.phta.a.ya.%khe k@le kalya; .atvavat@> vara;// MB(V. 81. 6-7)
Then, when the "arad=t% had ended and he!anta=t% was just beginning, in the month of
k%!%da (k@rtika), on the day of revati nak&atra and in the !aitr !%h6rta/ that ever-ready hero
of heroes (set off) in the tender rays of the sun (for 7a.tin@p%ra).
It is to be noted that $=&#a leaves Upaplavya nagara for 7a.tin@p%ra on the day of
revati nak&atra in the month of k@rtika1 It means that it is only a couple of days before the full
moon of k@rtika/ which should happen when the moon is near k=ttik@ nak&atra1
(ii) On the way he halts at a place called +=ka.thala and reaches 7a.tin@p%ra on the day of
Bhara# nak&atra1 That night happens to be the full moon and also a lunar eclipse takes place on
this k@rtika full moon, which is referred to below by $ar#a in this parvan and again by +y@.a in
his conversation with Dh=tar@&tra in the next Bh&!aparvan1
(iii) $=&#a meets with various people to discuss the conditions of averting the war. On the day of
p%&ya/ D%ryodhana rejects all offers of peace.
(iv) $=&#a leaves 7a.tin@p%ra, $ar#a accompanies him in his chariot and has a lengthy
conversation with him. At the end of the conversation $=&#a sends a message through $ar#a to
Bh&!a and others that a!@v@.ya falls on the seventh day hence ($=&#a leaves 7a.tin@pura four
days after the peace talks fail on the day of p%&ya1 Professor Raghavan infers that it is on the day
of %ttaraph@lg%#1 The tithi must correspond to k=&#a pak&a a&&a!/ the third quarter moon, as
the new moon is to follow in seven days) and that war rituals be started on that day:
.apta!@??@pi diva.@d a!@v@.y@ bhavi&yati
.angr@!a> yojayettatra t@>hy@h%; "akradevat@>// MB(V. 140. 18)

2=
)he <a!skrit origi!a# "loka-s are take! fro2 the &ritica# Lditio! of Hahabharata, <ukta!kar (19=2)

Seven days from now falls the New Moon day, with 9ndra as the Deity for the nak&atra of the
day. (i.e., 'ye&&h@ nak&atra). Let the war rituals be started on that day.
This is a very important piece of astronomical reference. $ar#a says there is going to be
a solar eclipse on that day. Thus, there is a sequence of eclipses referred to here, first a lunar
eclipse on the full moon of k@rtika followed by a solar eclipse at 'ye&&h@ nak&atra1 During this
conversation $a=#a describes the positions of the planets at that time in the following verses
while talking about the omens foretelling an impending disaster to the k%r% family:
(v) pr@j@patya> hi nak&atra> graha. tk&#o !ah@dy%ti;/
"anai"?ara; p:ayati p:ayan pr@#inodhika>// MB(V.141. 7)
The noxious and much lustrous graha Saturn, which always afflicts people severely, is
afflicting the nak&atra presided by praj@pati.
(vi) k=tv@ ?@<g@rako vakra> jye&&h@y@> !adh%.6dana/
an6r@dh@> pr@rthayate !aitra> .a>"a!ayanniva// MB(V.141. 8)
Mars has performed a retrograde near Antares, oh, !adh%.6dana/ and appears
to be praying for an6r@dh@D s friendship, as if to pacify it.
(vii)n6na> !ahadbhaya> k=&#a k%r6n@> .a!%pa.thita>/
vi"e&e#a v@r&#eya ?itr@> p:ayate graha;// MB(V. 141. 9)
Indeed a great danger awaits the k%r% family and is indicated by the graha afflicting Spica.
(viii) .o!a.ya lak&!a vy@v=tta> r@h%rarka !%pe&yati/ MB(V. 141. 10)
The moon lost its luster and r@h% is approaching the Sun.
Here $ar#a draws attention to the lunar eclipse that had already occurred and a solar
eclipse yet to happen, but makes no reference to the number of days in the interval between the
two eclipses. Apparently there is nothing special about this pair of eclipses. Furthermore, special
attention should be paid to the message of $=&#a/ which is sent to Bh&!a, Dro#a, and $=pa/ but
not to D%ryodhana1 It is not a declaration of war, which can only be made either by D%rydhana
or <%dhi&&hira to each other, and certainly not by $=&#a1 Thus there is no reason to assume that
the war started on the a!@v@.ya day. Hence, E.a<gr@!a> yojayetF can only refer to the
beginning of war rituals and not the war itself. This will be more discussions on this aspect later.


5.2 Astronomical References in the Bh&!aparvan
As is well known, +y@.a meets with Dh=tar@&tra on the eve of the war and describes to
him a whole set of ill omens he has seen. These descriptions of ill omens run over two chapters
in the Bh&!aparvan/ and the astronomical references occur in four separate segments: "loka.
(20-23) and "loka (32) in chapter 2, and "loka. (11-17) and "loka. (24-29) in chapter 3. On the
face of it these refer to planetary positions which are obviously contradictory and inconsistent
among themselves and astronomically impossible. This is best illustrated by a table given by
Sengupta
28
which shows the positions of the planets as inferred from the references in both
Udyoga and Bh&h!a parvan. based on the translation of the word graha as planet. Glaring are
the inconsistencies in Bh&!a parvan when the same planet appears at two different positions in
the same night!

Table 1. Planetary positions near nak&atra. as inferred from the two references

Planet Udyoga parvan Bh&!a parvan
Saturn 5ohi# P6rvaph@lg%# or +i"@kh@
Mars 4n6r@dh@ !akh@ or rohi#
Sun 'ye&&h@ or k=ittik@ 5ohi# or dhani&&@
Moon $=ttik@ 'ye&&h@
Venus p%rvabh@drapada or ?itr@
Jupiter "rava#a or vi"@kh@
5@h% 'ye&&h@
Unnamed planet ?itr@ Between ?itr@ and .v@t

The scholars who have studied these astronomical references have tried to explain the
apparent contradictions by regarding them as interpolations. Because the descriptions appear in
four different segments, some
29
have suggested that they belong to interpolations done at

2F
<e!gu"ta (194=) "A 2F
29
<har2a (19F6, 2004)

different times. Some scholars
30
have even suggested that some of the "loka-s belong to
.abh@parvan and not to Bh&!aparvan perhaps due to mix-up in later editing operations.
Sengupta, exasperated by these inconsistencies declared them as hopelessly inconsistent
astrological effusions of evil omens fit for Mother Gooses tales only and hence no faith
can be put in any of these statements. So he completely ignores the planetary positions or
eclipses.
However, the author was in for a pleasant surprise by a simulation of the statement
Edh6!aket%r !ah@ghora; p%&ya! @kra!ya ti&&atiF1 Kane
31
had suggested that
dh%!aket%F here may refer to Halleys Comet. When the author looked for the position of
Halleys Comet, in 3067 BCE, it was in fact near p%&ya/ -cancri. However, this could not be
taken as proof that it was the same Comet that was observed and recorded in the epic. Soon the
author
32
realized that the astronomical references in the Bh&!a parvan are in fact very
consistent and that +y@.a is very systematic in his treatment of these omens and the difficulties
are due to the translation of the word graha always as a planet. It is not so, because it can mean a
planet, a comet or an asteroid, any heavenly object that can grasp (=grah) a nak&atra1 The
correct meaning can be assigned by following the intricate rules of abhidh@/ lak&a#@ and
vya<jana1
abhidh@ is the power of the words to signify the primary meaning (a.!@t "abd@t
aya!artha boddhavya iti "vara .a>keto abhidh@). It is abhidh@ through which we understand
the meaning which belongs to the word by common consent. This meaning is the principal
meaning. Sometimes the direct use of the primary meaning leads to a contradiction or absurdity.
Then it becomes b@dhit@, and a secondary or alternative meaning or an indirect significance of
the word is to be used. This is indicated by lak&a#@1 (!%khy@rthabadhe r6:hitotha prayojan@t
anyortho lak&yate yat .@ lak&a#@ropit@ kriy@) Thus when the primary meaning, graha=planet
leads to an absurdity, the alternate meaning graha= Comet is to be used. However, Comets are
denoted as grahap%tra-s in astronomical texts. Thus the interpretation becomes graha
grahap%tra Comet. Thus "ani C omet, son of "ani1 The use will be further explained later.

+0
ye!gar (2004)
+1
Ja!e (197F)
+2
Achar(2004)

The astronomical references can be grouped into four different segments because they
pertain to four different aspects of the ill omens as will be shown below. The tradition of
recognizing astronomical ill omens can be traced to 4tharvaveda
GG
and its Pari"i&&a.
G3
and the ill
omens described in the epic are consistent with the tradition.

5.2a The First segment
"loka s (20-23) of chapter 2 constitute the first segment. Here +y@.a describes the omens
foretelling the imminent war. Before describing the ill omens, he makes it clear that a great
disaster is bound to occur just as indicated by the ill omens:
iha y%ddhe !ah@r@ja bhavi&yati !ah@<k&aya;
yathe!@ni ni!itt@ni bhay@yadyopalak&yate// MB (VI. 2. 16)
Oh King, a great destruction will occur in this war just as it is indicated by these omens,
which are harbingers of great calamity.
The sequence reference numbers to ill omens are continued with (ix) with the appropriate
references to the verses from the Epic.
The ill omens
(ix) %bhe p6rv@pare .andhye nitya> pa"y@!i bh@rata/
%day@.ta!ane .6rya> kabandhai; pariv@rita>// MB(VI. 2. 20)
Oh Bh@rata/ I observe the sun every day both morning at sunrise and in the evening at
sunset and have seen him as if encircled by long arms (i.e., encircled by a comet).
(x) "vetalohita paryant@; k=&#agrv@; .avidy%ta;/
trivar#@; parigh@; .andha% bh@n% !@v@rayanty%ta// MB(VI. 2. 21)
I see the sun surrounded by halos on all sides, halos which are tri-colored, dark in the
middle and white and red towards the edges and accompanied by lightning.
(xi) jvalit@rkend% nak&atra> nirvi"e&a dinak&apa>/
ahor@tra> !ay@ d=&&a> tatk&ay@ya bhavi&yati// MB(VI. 2. 22)

++
<arasBati (1992)
+4
%ai (19=6)

I have been watching days and nights the fierce sun, the moon and the stars shining
incessantly and have been unable to distinguish between day and night. This surely
forebodes utter destruction.
(xii) alak&ya; prabhay@hna; pa%r#a!@.0?a k@rtik>/
?androbh6dagnivar#a"?a .a!avar#e nabha.thale// MB(VI. 2. 23)
On the full moon night of k@rtika, the moon with fiery tinge was hardly visible, devoid
of glory, and the horizons were also of the same hue.
It is clear that the intent of +y@.a is to impress upon Dh=tar@&tra that there is an
imminent war, the armies are standing facing each other ready to fight and that war will bring
about utter destruction. This has also been indicated by the ill omens.
+y@.a begins by saying that he observes the Sun every day both in the morning at sunrise
and in the evening at sunset. He has noted the appearance of halos and some comets, which
appear to enclose the Sun as if with long arms. The moon had become lusterless on the lunar
eclipse day of k@rtika p6r#i!a1 The class of omens thought to indicate an imminent war is quite
consistent with the tradition going back to 4tharva veda Pari"i&&a1
Consistency with tradition
The verses quoted above can be compared with similar verses (given below with a free
flowing translation) from the chapter 64 of atharvaveda pari"i&&a . According to the editor Rai
35
,
the material presented in this chapter follows the teachings of 4<gira. and %"an@1 It follows
therefore that this is a Vedic tradition. There are specific verses describing the omens indicative
of war
36
.

+7
%ai (19=6)
+6
ye!gar (201+) i! his criticis2 of authorEs Bork had co22e!ted o! the use of the teCt of 4tharvaveda
pari"i&&a A 5e dec#ared that this teCt is decided#y a chro!o#ogica##y #ater teCt, Bhich has !o cha"ter, sectio! or
8erses desig!ati!g y%ddha .6?aka lak&a#a a!d that the o!#y refere!ce to Bar i! that teCt is a fight betBee! cats
a!d oB#sA As such it is Borth#ess as a! authe!ticati!g refere!ceA <o it Bas !ecessary to re"roduce a sca!!ed co"y
of the teCt, to shoB that the teCt i!deed has a sectio! ca##ed y%ddha .6?aka lak&a#a Bhich i!c#udes a teachi!g
accordi!g to a<gira. a!d %"@naA 5e!ce the teCt carries a 9edic traditio!, !othi!g to do Bith the #ate!ess or
otherBise of the teCtA )he traditio! i!dicates that parive&a(s (ha#os) are a#so co!sidered as i!dicators of BarA

Given below are some verses extracted from this chapter %tp@ta lak&a#a/ verses
describing y%ddha.6?akalak&a#a/ omens indicative of war, and verses from other chapters
which are pertinent to this issue:
(a) arkebhra parigh@dn@> parive&orka ?andrayo;
(b) l@k&@lohita var#atva> .arve&@0?a vi?@ra#a>// AP (64. 5. 7)
One should always consider the line of clouds and halos around the sun and the moon
and observe whether they appear red or not in color.
(c) nlalohita paryanta> k=&#agrva> .avidy%ta>/ AP (61. 1. 4)
which are blue and red towards the edges and dark in the middle and accompanied by
lightning
(d) trivar#e parighev@pi trivar#airv@ bal@hakai;
%day@.ta!aya!iy@dyad .6rya; kad@?anai // AP (61. 1. 15)
(e) p=thivy@> r@java>"y@n@> !ahad bhaya! %pa.thita>// AP (61. 1. 15)
Whenever the sun is surrounded at sunrise or sunset by tri-colored clouds,
(the balahaka clouds), it indicates great calamity to the earth and royal families.
(f) ta!ro bhavati "a.tr@yaHHH11

dh6!ravar#o gnivar#o v@ gr@!e&% nagare&% v@// AP (53. 5. 1-2)
the color of the moon (at the time of eclipse) indicates a battle if it is red and disaster to
cities and villages if it is smoky or fiery. Here only the relevant words have been quoted
the words left out are indicated by the dots and not that the remaining text is missing.
The omens described by +y@.a are entirely consistent with the description in
atharvaveda pari"i&&a. It may be noted that except for the Sun and the Moon, no other
planets have been mentioned in this segment.
5.2b The second segment
In the second segment, consisting of two "loka s, +y@.a considers the ill omens
foretelling the great harm to the k%r% dynasty and refers to the lunar eclipse, which occurred on
the Full moon day at k=ttika, followed by a solar eclipse. The earth experiences constant tremors.
He also refers to Saturn afflicting rohi#i (Aldeberan) and "vetagraha transgressing ?itr@/ which
indicates the selective destruction of the k%r% clan.
"vetagraha is usually translated as the planet Venus.
(xiii) roho#> p:ayanne&a .titho r@jan "anai"?ara;/
vy@v=tta> lak&!a .o!a.ya bhavi&yati !ahadbhaya>// MB(VI. 2. 32)
Oh King, Saturn is harassing Aldebaran and the spot on the Moon has shifted from its
position. Something terrible will happen.
(xiv) abhk&#a> ka!pate bh6!irarka> r@h%.tath@gra.at/
"veto graha.tath@ ?itr@> .a!atikra!ya ti&&ati// MB(VI. 3. 11)
The Earth is experiencing tremors intermittently and Rahu has seized the Sun.
"vetagraha has transgressed Spica.
Consistency with the references in %dyogaparvan
These are almost identical to the omens described by $ar#a earlier in
Udyogaparvan ($a=#a includes in addition the retrograde motion of Mars) at the time of his
riding with $=&#a in MB (V.141. 7)- MB (V. 141. 10) quoted earlier. This clearly shows that the
second segment in +y@.aD. description to Dh=tar@&tra in Bh&!aparvan/ of ill omens pertaining
to the danger to the k%r%-s is consistent with the astronomical references in %dyogaparvan1 It
may be noted that there is a reference to a graha afflicting ?itr@ in both cases, except here it is
referred to specifically as "vetagraha1

5.2c The third segment
+y@.a describes in the third segment further indicators of the calamity to the entire army
(.enayora"iva> ghora>11F). It is this segment that has caused much difficulty to the scholars in
that the planets appear to have been described as being at two or more locations at the same time.
It is possible that the apparent ambiguity and confusion in the stated planetary positions arise
because of the implicit interpretation that the word graha means a planet. When the intricacies of
assigning meaning to a word in Sanskrit are fully realized it will be seen that there are no
inconsistencies in the astronomical references in this parvan1
The word graha (from the root grah=to grasp or to seize) refers to any heavenly object,
which can move and hence can grasp or seize a star. Thus, the word refers to a planet or a comet,
although in much later times in Indian Astronomy, during the early years of CE, it came to be
associated with only a planet.
But, +y@.a leaves no doubt to the fact that here the word graha refers to a comet:
Egraha% t@!r@r%#a"ikha% prajvalita%F MB (VI. 3. 24)
the two grah@. blazing with coppery and red hair.
It may be noted that the word comet itself derives from the Greek word for hair. The
word graha with red hair in the context here can only refer to a comet. Thus the astronomical
references can be understood as references to comets.
Furthermore, as noted by +ar@ha!ihira
GA
, the ancient astronomers Par@"ara and Barga
had studied and classified comets which were all thought to indicate mainly impending
calamities. They referred to comets as grahap%tra-s, specifically as sons of Sun, sons of
Moon, sons of Mercury, sons of Venus, sons of Mars, Children of Jupiter and Children of Saturn.
This practice of considering a comet as grahap%tra can be found in atharvaveda pari"i&&a
GI

also. Moreover, this can be compared to the practice followed even in modern astronomy.
According to this practice, the one hundred or so short period comets are classified as belonging
to Saturn-family, Jupiter-family etc., depending on whether their aphelia (farthest points from the
Sun in their elliptic orbits) lie within the orbit of Saturn or within the orbit of Jupiter etc.

+=
:hat (19F1)
+F
%ai (19=6)

Sometimes in Bh&!a parvan/ the word "ani is used to indicate "anip%tra1 There is
authority from =gveda for such usage. For example, !ar%dga#a-s are referred to as r%dr@s
instead of r%drap%tr@;, because of jananjanakayorabhed@t-non difference of the parent from
the son. So the question arises, how should one interpret the word say, "ani? A planet? Or a
comet? The guidelines are provided through abhidh@/ lak&a#@ and vya<jana rules of
interpretation. Generally, the principal meaning of a word is used-abhidh@1 For example, graha
= planet and "ani = planet Saturn. However, if there is a conflict with the principal meaning, i.e.,
it leads to an absurdity, !%khy@rthab@dha/ then the meaning should be obtained by lak&a#@1
Thus, graha whose principal meaning is planet, should be interpreted as comet, if the principal
meaning leads to an absurdity and comet should be considered as its meaning. Similarly, "ani
should be interpreted as "anip%tra/ referring to a comet, if there is !%khy@rthab@dha
GJ
1
It has been established that the planetary references in the second segment of
Bh&!aparvan are identical to those in %dyogaparvan/ and these are to be taken as the principal
meanings. Thus "ani in the second segment, near rohi# refers to planet Saturn near Aldebaran.
4<g@raka in %dyogaparvan bears its principal meaning Mars and it has gone past an6r@dh@1 But
when "ani is referred to as being near vi"@kh@ or a<g@raka is referred to as being vakra near
!agh@/ a little later, it causes !%khy@rthab@dha/ and hence must be interpreted using lak&a#@/
as referring to a comet, "anip%tra or a<g@rakap%tra as the case may be. The astronomical
references in the third segment can now be examined in this light and the words [son of] have
been added with the abhidh@ and lak&a#@ in view to make the translation clearer. The words
!ah@graha/ "vetagraha/ etc., are retained as proper names of comets.

(xv) dh6!aket%r !ah@ghora; p%&ya !@kra!ya ti&&ati// MB(VI. 3. 12)
Deadly comet dh6!aket% has overcome p%&ya.
(Kvi) .enayo ra"iva> ghora> kari&yati !ah@graha;N
!agh@.va<g@rako vakra; "rava#e?a b=ha.pati;// MB(VI. 3. 13)
The !ah@graha appears to bring about an awful destruction in both armies.
[Son of] Mars is retrograde in !agh@/ and [son of] Jupiter in "rava#a.

+9
A si2i#ar assig!2e!t of the 2ea!i!gs has a#so bee! 2ade by Hoha! 1u"ta (2004)

Some scholars have interpreted this to mean that the planet Mars and the planet Jupiter
are the ones executing retrograde motion, (some interpret that only Mars is retrograde)
implying total confusion and contradiction with other "lokas in this section.
(xvii) bh@gya> nak&atra !@kra!ya .6ryap%tre#a p:yate
"%kra; pro&&apade p6rve .a!@r%hya vi"@> pate
%ttaret% parikra!ya .ahita; praty%dk&ate// MB(VI. 3. 14)
The son of Surya has crossed the asterism p%rva-phalg%#/ and is vexing. Oh King, [son
of] "%kra has entered p%rva-pro&&apada/ going around %ttara-pro&&apada and is rising in
both.
(xviii) "y@!o graha; prajvalita; .adh6!a; .ahap@vaka;
aindra> teja.vi nak"atra> jye&&@!@kra!ya ti&&ati// MB(VI. 3. 15)
"y@!agraha is luminous and together with dh6!a and p@vaka has crossed over to
jye&&@, the bright asterism ruled by 9ndra.
"y@!agraha has been interpreted as planet Mercury, leading to confusion. All the three ,
"y@!agraha/ dh6!a and p@vaka refer to comets.
(xix) dhr%va; prajvalito ghora> apa.avya> pravartate/
?itr@.v@tyantare ?aiva dhi&&ita; par%&o graha;// MB(VI. 3. 16)
The luminous dhr%va has moved to the right of ghora. The par%&a graha
has established itself between ?itr@ and .v@ti.
It is obvious that dhr%va here cannot refer to the polestar.
(xx) vakr@n%vakra> k=tv@?a "rava#e p@vaka prabha;/
brah!ar@"i> .a!@v=tya lohit@<go vyava.thita;// MB(VI. 3. 17)
p@vakaprabha has gone circumventing "rava#a, and lohit@<ga has become steady
after enclosing b=h!ar@"i.
lohit@<ga has been interpreted as referring to planet Mars. Both p@vakaprabha and lohit@nga
refer to comets.
(xxi) .a>vat.ara .th@yina% ?a graha% prajvalit@v%bha%/
vi"@kh@yo; .a!pa.tha% b=ha.pati "anai"?ara%// MB(VI. 3. 25)
[sons of] Jupiter and Saturn, which stay around for a year, are both luminous and are
near the two vi"@kha stars.

(xxii) k=ttik@.% graha.tvro nak&atre pratha!e jvalan/
vap6>&yapaharan bh@.@ dh6!aket%riva .thita;// MB(VI. 3. 26)
The comet tvra blazing in the first constellation k=ttika, and concealing forms with
luster resembles dh6!aket%.
(xxiii) tri&% p6rve&% .arve&% nak&atre&% vi"@>pate/
b%dha; .a!patate bhk&#a> janayan .%!ahadbhaya>// MB(VI. 3.27)
[son of] Mercury is falling under all the three earlier constellations and
causing a great terror.
+y@.a names specifically twelve comets, "veta/ dh6!aket%/ !ah@graha/ par%&a/
p@vaka/ dh6!a/ lohit@<ga/ tvra/ p@vakaprabha/ "y@!a/ ghora/ and dhr%vaket%1 All these
names can be found in the list given by +ar@ha!ihira
3L
. Earlier scholars had translated some of
these names as planets, for example, "vetagraha as white planet (to refer to Venus), "y@!agraha
as dark planet (to refer to Mercury), and par%&agraha as cruel planet (to refer to Rahu).
Furthermore, +y@.a refers to son of Sun, .6ryap%tra, explicitly, but he also refers to some of the
comets by the name of the parent planets. While this is quite according to the rules of
interpretation in Sanskrit grammar, it is this notation that has caused so much confusion. The
scholars have interpreted these references literally as referring to planets themselves. The net
result is the confusion of conflicting planetary positions. As noted earlier that it is also the
practice in modern astronomy of naming comets. For example, there are twenty four comets
whose aphelia (point farthest from the sun in the elliptical orbit around the sun) lie within the
orbit of Jupiter. These are referred to as belonging to the Jupiter family. When it is realized that
comets are to be considered, there is no ambiguity or confusion of any kind in the astronomical
references in this parvan. Moreover, comets have been considered to be harbingers of calamity
since atharvaveda
3@
.
5.2d. The fourth segment
In the final segment, +y@.a describes the omens which indicate destruction of the entire
population; these include a pair of eclipses, a lunar and a solar eclipse occurring in the same

40
:hat (19F1)
41
<arasBati (1992)

month and within an interval of thirteen days, and at an aparva#iD moment (i.e., not at the
moment of exact conjunction or opposition of the sun and the moon).
(xxiv) ?at%rda"> pa0?ada"> bh6tap%rv@> ?a &o:a">/
i!@>t% n@bhij@n@!i a!@v@.y@> trayoda">// MB(VI. 3. 28)
(xxv) ?andra.6ry@v%bha% gra.t@veka!@.e trayoda">N
aparva#i grah@veta% praj@; .a>k&apayi&yata;// MB(VI. 3. 29)
I know New Moon coinciding with fourteenth, fifteenth and also on the sixteenth day,
but I have never known it coinciding with the thirteenth day. In one and the same month,
both the Sun and the Moon are eclipsed on the thirteenth. These ill-timed eclipses
indicate destruction of the people. Here the word graha% refers to the two planets Sun
and the Moon.
This is the famous reference to two eclipses occurring within a month with an interval of thirteen
days. It may be remembered that there was already a reference to a lunar eclipse occurring on
k@rtika pa%r#i!@ with a solar eclipse on the following new moon at jye&&ha/ by $ar#a but
nothing had been said about the time interval between those two. The eclipse at thirteen day
interval must therefore refer to a third eclipse observed later by +y@.a in the same eclipse
season. This is borne out by the simulations with the planetarium software and will be discussed
later.
This can be compared with a description from atharvaveda pari"i&&aC
yadi t% r@h%r%bha% "a"ibh@.kara%
gra.ati pak&a!anantara!antata;/
p%r%&a"o#ita karda!a v@hin
bhavati bh6rna ?a var&ati !@dhava;// AP(53. 3.5)

It is clear that the omens described by +y@.a in four different segments refer to different
aspects: (i) an imminent war, (ii) calamity to the k%r% dynasty, (iii) destruction of the entire
army, and finally, (iv) danger to the entire population. As such they involve different
astronomical happenings. The truly planetary positions are indicated in the omens pertaining to
the calamity to the k%r% family and in this case the descriptions given by $ar#a in
%dyogaparvan are identical to the descriptions given by +y@.a in Bh&!aparvan1 The alleged

great confusion and ambiguity in planetary positions seen by scholars pertain to the third
segment, which describes omens of a great danger to the entire army. This segment does not
refer to planets, but to comets and has been made explicitly clear by +y@.a, but scholars have not
taken note of it. Explicit references by specific names to comets have been mistranslated as
planets, leading to confusion. Compounding the confusion is +y@.aDs reference to comets as off
springs of planets, but denoting them by the names of the parent planets. But, once it is
recognized that comets are implied here there is no confusion or ambiguity and everything falls
into place. There is no necessity for introducing adhoc hypotheses such as those advanced by
Sharma
42
, or Iyengar
43
to account for the ambiguity, because, it is non-existent. The description
of omens turns out to be a coherent account. It is evident that criticism directed against the
descriptions is unwarranted. It may be remarked in passing that other non-astronomical omens in
these two chapters can also be found in atharvaveda pari"i&&a

42
<har2a (19FF)
4+
ye!gar (2004)

CHAPTER 6. METHODOLOGY OF DETERMINING THE DATE OF THE WAR

6.1 Planetary positions for determining the date of the war

It is abundantly clear that the true planetary positions described are common to both %dyoga
parvan and Bh&!a parvan represent a great calamity to the k%r% family.
It is regarded that planetary positions are most reliable for determining the date of the war and
eclipses are not so reliable. Comets cannot be relied at all
44
. Thus "ani at rohi# (Saturn at
Aldeberan) is the most reliable configuration and has been stressed in both parvan-s. The next is
a<g@raka performing a retrograde motion just before reaching jye&&h@ ( retrograde motion of
Mars just before reaching Antares). A lunar eclipse with the moon at k=ttik@ (Pleiades) followed
by a solar eclipse at jye&&h@/ (Antares) are considered to be the next important events. For, the
lack of luster of the Moon on the lunar eclipse of k@rtika pa%r#i!@ has been mentioned by both
$ar#a and +y@.a1 The a!@v@.y@ at jye&&h@ ( New moon at Antares ) has been mentioned by
$=&#a as the day for formal war rituals, and the solar eclipse has been mentioned by both $ar#a
and +y@.a1 The rest of the astronomical references in Bh&!a parvan pertain to comets as has
been shown and are not helpful in determining a date
Thus the important references to planets for determining the date of the war consist of those that
are common to both Udyoga and Bh&!aparvan-s and include the following
(i) conjunction of "ani with rohi#
(ii) retrograde motion of a<g@raka just before reaching jye&&h@
(iii) a lunar eclipse on the k@rtika p6r#i!a ,followed by
(iv) a solar eclipse at jye&&ha.
These events lead to a unique year for the war as shown below. All other astronomical references
in the epic are consistent with this date.

44
In this connection, it should be noted that the primary configuration used by Koch at arrive at
the date of 1198 BCE for the war is based on ni..aranto vy@d="yanta .6ry@t .apta
!ah@grah@; MB (VIII.37.4) seven grahas flying away from the sun and dpya!@n@"?a
.a!pet%; divi .apta !ah@grah@; MB (VI. 17.2), shining seven grahas fly together (with
moon) in the skyMB(VI. 17.2) can only refer to comets and not to any super conjunction of
planets. There are only five shining planets beside the sun and the moon. This will be discussed
later.

6.2 Applications of Planetarium Software
A search is made for the years in which there is a conjunction of Saturn ("ani) with
Aldebaran (5ohi#) between 3500 BCE and 500 CE. As Saturn takes an average of 29.5 years to
go around the sun once, the event also repeats with the same period. There are 137 such
conjunctions during the interval specified above. A search is then made for those years from
among these 137 dates when Mars (a<g@raka) is retrograde before reaching Antares ('ye&&h@).
Since the retrograde motion of Mars repeats with the same time interval as its synodic period
(1.88 years), a spread of two years on either side of each of the dates was considered in the
search. The search reduced the set to just seventeen: 3271 BCE, 3067 BCE, 2830 BCE, 2625
BCE, 2388 BCE, 2183 BCE, 1946 BCE, 1741 BCE, 1503 BCE, 1299 BCE, 1061 BCE, 857
BCE, 620 BCE, 415 BCE, 28 CE, 233 CE and 470 CE, when Saturn was near Aldebaran and
Mars executed a retrograde motion before reaching Antares. A search is then made for those
years in which there is a lunar eclipse near Pleiades (i.e., on the $@rtikaP6r#i!a)1 This reduces
the set to just two, 3067 BCE and 2183 BCE. Changing the order of search, i.e., searching for
those years in which a solar eclipse at jye&&h@ first and then search for dates with a lunar eclipse
on k@rtika pa%r#9!@ did not alter the results. It turns out that in both of these years the lunar
eclipse is followed by a solar eclipse at jye&&ha1 A sequence of two eclipses within a period of
13 days also occur in the eclipse seasons in these years and will be discussed later. When one
considers the fact that Bh&!a passed away on the M@gha "%kla a&&a!, after the occurrence of
winter solstice, a unique date results, for the winter solstice in January 13, 3066 BCE occurred
on "%klapa0?a!/ whereas the winter solstice in 2182 BCE occurred on k=&na?at%rthi. An
alternative argument to arrive at a unique date for the war will be presented later.
Thus a unique date of 3067 BCE for the date of the war emerges.
6.3 Simulations using Planetarium software and star maps
Raghavans date is identical to the date given here and he gives a chronology of events
starting with $=&#aD. diplomatic mission given in Table 6.1. Illustrations of star maps generated
by Planetarium software for these events show that there is complete agreement with the
chronology given by Raghavan. These star maps bear compelling evidence that 3067 BCE is the
date of the war.


Table 6.1 . Chronology of events according to Raghavan
$=&#aD. departure from Upaplavya nagara on mission of peace Sept 26, 3067 BCE
$=&#a reaches 7a.tin@p%ra Sept 28, 3067 BCE
Lunar eclipse Sept 29, 3067 BCE
$=&#a rides with $ar#a Oct 8, 3067 BCE
Solar eclipse Oct 14, 3067 BCE
War begins Nov 22, 3067 BCE
Fourteenth day of War continued till wee hours of morning Dec 8, 3067 BCE
Balarama returns Dec 12, 3067 BCE
Winter Solstice Jan 13, 3066 BCE
Bh&!aD. expiry Jan 17, 3066 BCE

The star maps in figures 6.1-6.11 show that the astronomical events are reproduced. In
figure 6.1, the day $=&#a starts on his diplomatic mission, it is clearly seen that moon is near
revati/ and "ani is at rohi#1 Figure 6.2 shows the full moon in k@rtika, it also happens to be a
lunar eclipse day. For the next couple of days $=&#a is busy with the peace talks in 7a.tin@p%ra1


Figure 6.1. $=&#aD. Mission for Peace: Departure on September 26, 3067 BCE.

Figure 6.2. Full Moon of $@rtika1 Lunar eclipse Day September 29, 3067 BCE


Figure 6.3 Lunar eclipse of September 29, 3067 BCE (Redshift 7)
Figure 6.4 shows the star map for October 8, 3067 BCE, when $=&#a rides with $ar#a after the
failure of the peace mission, it is %ttaraph@lg%#. Seven days from that day, it will be a!@v@.ya
at jye&&ha. $=&#a sends the message to Bh&!a, Dro#a and $=pa to start the war rituals that day.

Figure 6.4. $ar#a ride. Mith $=&#a %ttara ph@lg%ni nak&atra October 8, 3067 BCE
(The thick diagonal line across is the ecliptic)

The retrograde loop of Mars in that year is shown superposed on the star map for October 8,
3067 BCE in figure 6.5. The track of Mars is shown from December 8, 3068 BCE to October 8,
3067 BCE. The retrograde motion of Mars before reaching 'ye&&ha had occurred several months
earlier in February. It lasted until May when the motion became pro-grade again. On October 8,
Mars is way past 'ye&&h@ near "rava#a1 When $=&#a refers to the coming a!@v@.ya at 'ye&&h@/
$ar#a remembers this retrograde excursion of Mars which had taken place earlier. The reference
to an6r@dh@> pr@rthayate !aitra> .a!"a!ayanniva is perhaps a poetic pun on the failed
mission.

Figure 6.5 Starmap for October 8, 3067 BCE with track of Mars superposed.

Figure 6.6 shows the star map for October 14, 5067 BCE. The solar eclipse occurs at jye&&h@1


Figure 6.6 Starmap for October 14, 3067 BCE, solar eclipse at jye&&h@
Figure 6.7 shows the star map for November 22, 3067 BCE, the day the war starts: moon is at
bhara#1 Figure 6.8 shows the star map for December 8, 3067 BCE, the fourteenth day, when the
war continues until the wee hours of the morning and stops when the moon rises.

Figure 6.7 Starmap for November 22, 3067 BCE. The war begins

Figure 6.8 Starmap for December 8, 3067 BCE at the time of Moon rise.
Figure 6.9 shows the star map for December 12, 3067 BCE, the last day of the war, it is "rava#a
nak&atra and Balar@!a returns.

Figure 6.9 Star map for December 12, 3067 BCE. Last day of War

Figure 6.10 shows the star map for January 13, 3066 BCE, the day of winter solstice and figure
6.11 shows the star map for January 16, 3067 BCE, the day of Bh&!as expiry: "%kla a&&a!/
rohi# nak&atra1

Figure 6.10 Starmap for January 13, 3066 BCE, winter solstice day

Figure 6.11 Star Map for January 17, 3066 BCE

6.4 The uniqueness of the date 3067 BCE
It should be noted that the date of 3067 BCE has been derived entirely on the basis of
astronomical information found in the epic alone. All the four planetary configurations set out as
important for the date of the war, namely, "ani at rohi#/ retrograde motion of a<g@raka before
jye&&h@/ lunar eclipse on k@rtika pa%r#i!@ followed by a solar eclipse at jye&&h@ have all been
met. No information from any other outside source has been used, including the date of kali
y%ga1 The date of 3067 BCE is identical to the date proposed by four other scholars, including
Raghavan. The chronology of the events given by him has been reproduced as shown by the star
maps in figures 6.1-6.11. However, more than forty scholars have proposed a date for the
Mah@bh@rata war around 3000 BCE. Of these seventeen have proposed 3102 BCE, ten other
authors have proposed 3101 BCE, seven authors have proposed 3139 BCE, while some others
have proposed 3138 BCE, and 3137 BCE respectively. All these dates other than 3067 BCE
have been based one way or the other on the beginning of kaliy%ga and could be considered to
follow the tradition that the war marked the end of dv@para y%ga1 Some have identified the date

of the war with the beginning of kaliy%ga in 3102 BCE which the astronomers who make the
pa0?@<ga-s use, while others have identified the beginning of kaliy%ga with the passing away of
Lord $=&#a from this earth which happened 36 years after the war. Hence they identify the date
of the war as 3138 BCE, the variation of +/- one year is due to the difference in counting the
year. The question naturally arises which should be accepted and which should be rejected, if
any. It is very easy to demonstrate that none of these dates other than 3067 BCE can reproduce
the astronomical events as described in the epic. For example, Figure 6.12 shows the star map for
October 19, 3138 BCE, it is jye&&ha a!@v@.ya, and according to Dr. Vedavyas
45
, war began on
that day. However, the day of jye&&ha a!@v@.ya is required to be a solar eclipse day, as per the
conversation between $=&#a and $ar#aC r@h%rarka!%pe&yatiHand...apta!a??h@pi diva.@d
a!@v@.y@ bhavi&yatiH1ta!@h%; "akradevat@>, but October 19, 3138 BCE is not a solar eclipse
day. The solar eclipse in that year had occurred on August 21 near ha.t@ and not near jye&&ha.
Furthermore, "ani is at !6la and not rohi#/ and a<g@raka is at @rdr@ (where he becomes
retrograde later in the year) and does not become retrograde before reaching jye&&h@ as described
in the epic. In short, none of the astronomical events described in the epic are satisfied for this
date.

Figure 6.12 Star map for October 19, 3138 BCE. New Moon at 'ye&&ha nak&atra,
but there is no eclipse; Saturn is at !6la

47
9eda8yas (19F6)

Figure 6. 13 shows the star map for October 8, 3137 BCE. It is a New Moon day, but it occurs
near an6r@:h@ and not jye&&h@/ it is not an eclipse day. Mars is near jye&&h@, but is never
retrograde that year and Saturn is at p6rv@&@:ha1 The solar eclipse had occurred near !akh@ in
July 3137 BCE. The lunar eclipses occurred near Uttara ph@lg%# and p6rv@bh@dra and not near
k=ttik@1 In other words, the astronomical events of 3137 BCE do not correspond to those
described in the epic.

Figure 6.13 Star map for October 8, 3137 BCE. New Moon at an6r@:h@

Figure 6.14 shows the star map for September 1, 3139 BCE . The solar eclipse takes place at
?itr@1 The lunar eclipse on August 16, 3139 BCE takes place at %ttar@bh@dra and the one on
September 15 takes place at a"vin1 Saturn is near !6la and Mars is near ?itr@1 Moreover, Mars
never goes retrograde that year. It is obvious that the date of 3139 BCE does not satisfy the
astronomical events described in the epic.


Figure 6.14 Star Map for September 1, 3139 BCE
Figure 6.15 shows the star map for September 12, 3102 BCE. The solar eclipse takes place at
.v@ti ad not jye&&h@1 Saturn is at p6rv@bh@dra and not rohi#1 Mars is near !akh@ and does not
go retrograde the whole year. In short, 3102 BCE is not the date of the war.

Figure 6.15 Starmap for September 12, 3102 BCE


Thus these dates, 3102 BCE, or 3138 BCE, with the +/- 1 variation, even though they appear to
follow the tradition, are not the dates for the war. These authors peg the date to the astronomers
kaliy%ga a topic discussed in greater detail later. It has thus been demonstrated that there is
serious noncompliance with the astronomical data of the epic for all dates other than 3067 BCE
that have been proposed as the date of the war. Additional details can be obtained from several
publications of the author.
46

From a historic point of view, any date around 3000 BCE can be accepted as the date of the
war. It will be argued later that, it appears from an astronomical point of view, the war could not
have taken place much earlier than 3000 BCE, nor could it have taken place much later than
2000 BCE. These two dates form sort of upper and lower limts for the date of the war.

46
Achar (2004a, 2004b, 2007)

CHAPTER 7 ADVERSE OPINIONS
Ever since the presentation was made by the author in Bangalore in 2003, there have been
several criticisms of this date for the war, 3067 BCE. The first vicious attack was made by
Chandrahari
47
. His comments and the authors response to it were published in the same
publication referred to earlier. Another attack was made by Kaul
48
both on the internet and in a
personal communication. Iyengar
49
wrote a scathing review and both the review and the authors
response have been published. Other criticisms voiced both on the internet and by personal
communication are those of Koch
50
, Vartak
51
, and Bhattacharjya
52
, which have all been
responded to. It was thought that it was important to present at one place all these adverse
opinions and the authors response as these opinions are not based on unbiased critical analysis.
It may be noted that all of these authors have their own dates to promote for the Mahabharata
war, except Chandrahari. Chandrahari does not believe in the historicity of the Mahabharata war
and has declared on the internet that perhaps the war took place in the sky and not on land.
Iyengar advocates a date, 1478 BCE for the war. Koch who supports the AIT theory promotes a
date of 1198 BCE. Kaul does not advocate any particular date. Vartak proposes a date of 5500
BCE and Bhattacharjya, 3139 BCE. It is worth discussing the validity of these criticisms in the
context of the dates proposed by these scholars. The main points are discussed below.
The first concern is the veracity of the primary planetary positions which form the basis for
determining the date of 3067 BCE, namely, "ani at rohi#/ a<g@raka going retrograde before
jye&&h@/ lunar eclipse on k@rtika pa%r#i!@ followed by solar eclipse at jye&&h@1 It is to be
emphasized again that determination of positions of "ani and a<g@raka using the planetarium
software are extremely reliable, but there are uncertainties associated with determining the
visibility of eclipses.
It is a well-known fact that there are nearly one hundred and fifty astronomical references
scattered throughout the epic and on the face of it they are contradictory and confusing as has

4=
&ha!drahari(2004)
4F
Jau# (2010) "erso!a# co22u!icatio! a!d o! the i!ter!etA
49
ye!gar(201+)
70
Joch(201+) "erso!a# co22u!icatio! a!d o! the i!ter!et
71
9artak (2009) "erso!a# co22u!icatio!
72
:hattacharOya(2010) "erso!a# co22u!icatio!A

been pronounced by every scholar from Dikshit, Kane and Vaidya onwards and as stressed by
the exasperation of Sengupta:
All this is hopelessly inconsistent astrological effusion of evil omens fit for
Mother Gooses Tales only
and
We cannot put any faith in any statement of this chapter.
However, scholars have attempted to make sense of the astronomical references and arrive at
some possible date as has been done in the present work also. The approach taken in this work is
based on the well-known rules of interpretation in Sanskrit. If there is a conflict in the meaning
between two statements, the one to be accepted is determined by the relative strength, bala/ of
the statements and the second statement should be interpreted according to rules of abhidh@/
lak&a#@ and vya0jan@v=tti . Some statements could be rejected altogether if they are totally
irrelevant.
7.1 C""e!ts a#$t pla!etar% psiti!s
7.1a "ani at rohi#
When there are several statements containing the same word, which statement should be
considered to refer to the principal meaning of the word? This is decided by the bala or
strength of the statement.
A statement by a main character of the epic such as $=&#a/ $ar#a or +y@.a is considered to be
intrinsically of more bala than a statement made by a secondary character such as M@rka#deya
or B@lava1
.apta!@??@pi diva.@d a!@v@.y@ bhavi&yati
.angr@!a> yojayet tatra t@>hy@h%; "akradevat@>// MB(V. 140. 18)
Seven days from now falls the New Moon day, with 9ndra as the Deity for the nak&atra of the
day. (i.e., 'ye&&h@ nak&atra). Let the war rituals be started on that day.
This statement made by $=&#a to $ar#a in %dyogaparvan is of very high importance, and is so
recognized by all, including Sengupta. However, the point that needs further discussion is
whether the statement refers to starting of the war itself on that a!@v@.ya or only to the war
rituals. In any case it is clear that the war took place on or after the a!@v@.ya at jye&&h@
nak&atra, which follows the pa%r#i!@ of k@rtik@.

The statement in %dyogaparvan uttered by $ar#a:
pr@j@patya> hi nak&atra> graha. tk&#o !ah@dy%ti;/
"anai"?ara; p:ayati p:ayan pr@#inodhika>// MB(V.141. 7)
is very strong in terms of bala. Almost identical statement by +y@.a in Bh&!aparvan:
roho#> p:ayanne&a .titho r@jan "anai"?ara;/ MB (VI. 2. 32) is equally strong. We have
interpreted it to mean a conjunction of "ani with rohi#1 The fact that these two statements are
identical, makes the statement of the position of "ani at rohi# a doubly strong statement. Hence,
the primary meaning the planet "ani is at rohi# applies here. Furthermore, it follows that if there
is any reference to position of "ani which is in conflict with this position near rohi#, then the
word "ani in the second context should be interpreted differently.
Iyengar also accepts this position of "ani at rohi#1 But his own date for the war, 1498 BCE, does
not satisfy this condition. But some of the other scholars
53
do not accept this configuration for
Saturn, even though it is doubly strong.
7.1b Lunar eclipse on k@rtika pa%r#i!@ and solar eclipse at jye&&h@
During the conversation with $=&#a/ $ar#a makes the following statement:
.o!a.ya lak&!a vy@v=tta> r@h%rarka !%pe&yati/ MB(V. 141. 10)
The moon lost its luster and r@h% is approaching the Sun.
He is referring to the lunar eclipse that has already occurred on k@rtika pa%r#i!@ and the solar
eclipse at jye&&h@ nak&atra is yet to occur.
Almost identical statements are made by +y@.a in Bh&!aparvan/
vy@v=tta> lak&!a .o!a.ya bhavi&yati !ahadbhaya>// MB(VI. 2. 32)
the spot on the Moon has shifted from its position. Something terrible will happen.
and by the statement
H1arka> r@h%.tath@gra.at// MB(VI.3.11) ,
+y@.a refers to the solar eclipse at jye&&h@ which has already taken place by the time he meets
Dh=tar@&tra.

7+
)he "hrase N"anai"?ara; p:ayatiD has bee! i!ter"reted o! the basis of astro#ogy as referri!g to Dvedh@E of
"ani1 <atur! ca! aff#ict rohi# fro2 o!e of four "ositio!s: co!Ou!ctio! Bith it, or as"ect it fro2 +
rd
, =
th
or 10
th

housesA t is !ot c#ear Bhether it is a""ro"riate to use the idea of DhousesE as bei!g "re8a#e!t at the ti2e of the
BarA


+y@.a leaves no doubt that he referred to the lunar eclipse on k@rtika pa%r#i!@:
alak&ya; prabhay@hna; pa%r#a!@.0?a k@rtik>// MB (VI. 2. 23).
These statements clearly indicate that first there was a lunar eclipse on k@rtika pa%r#i!@
followed by a solar eclipse at jye&&h@ nak&atra and that the solar eclipse had already taken place
by the time +y@.a makes these statements. Since +y@.a meets Dhr=tar@&tra before the war, and
the solar eclipse has already taken place/ this is another reason why the war could not have
started on the a!@v@.ya at jye&&h@1
Some interpret the statements to mean that the +y@.a met Dh=tar@&tra on the eve of k@rtika
pa%r#i!@/ but this cannot be taken seriously as the k@rtika pa%r#i!@ event had already
happened even before $=&#a rides with $ar#a1
In criticizing my paper, Iyengar denies that there is a reference is to a lunar eclipse on k@rtika
pa%r#i!@1 He also expresses a doubt that $ar#a could predict a solar eclipse. He asserts that
there is no mention of a solar eclipse in jye&&h@1 He further claims that the occurrence of a lunar
eclipse on k@rtika pa%r#i!@ followed by a solar eclipse in jye&&h@ is an extrapolation in the
realm of possibility but not attested by the Mahabharata text, in spite of the source statements
just quoted. Yet, in his own paper, he counts the $ar#as statement as the second reference
among the eight references to solar eclipses in the epic he mentions in his paper. He thinks that
these statements about k@rtika pa%r#i!@ refer to some unspecified optical anomaly. While he
accepts a solar eclipse in the year of war, he does not say when this occurs. In his date 1498
BCE, the solar eclipse occurs in p%narva.6/ and not at jye&&h@1 He accuses the author of ignoring
the solar eclipse referred to in .abh@parvan/ at the time of the r@ja.6ya y@ga (one of the three
solar eclipses ranging an interval of nearly fifty years that he bases his calculations on, the other
two being the one in the year of the war and the one 36 years later). He forgets that the eclipse at
r@ja.6ya time happened a long time ago before the war and is not immediately relevant as an
omen for the war. Naturally, the eclipse he determines in 1498 BCE is irrelevant to the epic as it
occurs in p%narva.6/ at a time far removed from the month of k@rtika/ the time of conversation
between $=&#a and Kar#a. Koch does accept the lunar and solar eclipses as described in the text,
but in his date 1198 BCE, the solar eclipse occurs first and is followed by the lunar eclipse.
Kochs solution? After a long discussion, he concludes that +y@.a was probably confused! He

lists three different eclipses which occurred in several different years that could have been
incorporated into the epic.
7.1c Retrograde motion of Mars near jye&&h@
Finally, $ar#a tells $=&#a about the retrograde motion of Mars:
k=tv@ ?@<g@rako vakra> jye&&h@y@> !adh%.6dana/
an6r@dh@> pr@rthayate !aitra> .a>"a!ayanniva// MB(V.141. 8)
Mars has performed a retrograde near Antares, oh, !adh%.6dana/ and appears
to be praying for an6r@dh@D s friendship, as if to pacify it.
Motion of Mars described in 3067 BCE in the paper has been criticized by Chandrahari, Iyengar
and Koch as not according to the description given in the epic. Furthermore, Iyengar adds that
the position of Mars on 8
th
of October 3067 BCE, near "rava#a as shown in figure 6.5, was not
visible to $ar#a1
This criticism is based on the following interpretation of the verse MB(V.141.8) quoted
above:
(a) Hars beco2es retrograde i! Pjye&&h@F a!d 2o8es toBard Pan6r@dh@Q i! retrograde 2otio!
(b) )his e8e!t ha""e!s at the ti2e of the co!8ersatio! betBee! $=&#a a!d $ar#a a!d the "ositio!
of Hars shou#d be betBee! jye&&h@ a!d an6r@dh@A
(c) )his e8e!t takes "#ace at the ti2e of the ec#i"ses a!d is obser8ed by $ar#a as suchA )hese are
eC"#icit#y stated by &ha!drahari a!d i2"#ied by ye!garA
A moments reflection will show that this interpretation and hence the criticism based on it are
beset with a number of astronomical impossibilities. First of all the conversation between $=&#a
and $ar#a takes place seven days before the new moon in jye&&h@. Hence the Sun must be near
an6r@dh@ and moving towards jye&&h@ so as to reach it in seven days. If Mars also were to be
moving from jye&&h@ to an6r@dh@ at the same time, Mars would be near the Sun, in conjunction
and hence invisible; how could $ar#a tell that Mars is moving from jye&&h@ to an6r@dh@ ?
Furthermore, for retrograde motion Mars would have to be in opposition to the Sun and not in
conjunction. So the retrograde motion of near jye&&h@ cannot take place at the same time when
the Sun is near jye&&h@, but only when the Sun is near k=ttik@ or rohi#1 So the retrograde motion
must have taken place sometime earlier and Mars must have moved past an6r@dh@1 This is
exactly what figure 6.5 shows. Only Koch understands correctly the astronomy involved.

Chandrahari and Iyengar do not appear to appreciate the astronomical difficulty in interpreting
that Mars was retrograde near jye&&h@ at the time of $=&#a-$ar#a dialogue. Furthermore,
Iyengars comment about Mars as shown in figure 6.5 was invisible to $ar#a is plainly wrong,
as the Sun set at 6:34 pm that evening and Mars set at 9:46 pm and was visible for nearly three
hours as an evening star.
The proper interpretation would recognize that the reference to jye&&h@ nak&atra by $=&#a
reminds $ar#a of the retrograde motion of Mars which had taken place some months earlier and
the reference to prayer to an6r@dh@ for friendship is a poetic pun based on !itra/ its adhipati
and the failed mission for peace of $=&#a1
Thus the criticisms of the basic planetary positions on which the date of 3067 BCE is derived are
not valid and the basis of the derivation is on firm ground.
7.2 Observability of the eclipses at $%r%k&etra
7.2a Solar eclipse of October 14, 3067 BCE
Iyengar completely discounts the calculated solar eclipse on October 14, 3067 BCE (figure 6.6).
Chandrahari and Kaul say the solar eclipse is possible but not observable at k%r%k&etra1
Koch says that his calculations show that the solar eclipse begins at a latitude of 18.7 N and
ends at a latitude of 17.8 S and it takes place far too west of India and would not be visible and
is in the not possible category.
Iyengar, in echoing Chandraharis comment adds that it is the authors wishful thinking that this
eclipse was the one referred to in the epic.
The response to this criticism is that there is a lot of uncertainty in eclipse calculations and this
has already been alluded to in Chapter 4. As already discussed, because of the great uncertainty
in eclipse calculations it was decided to accept the occurrence of an eclipse as sufficient without
worrying about the visibility or not at a particular place. As against this statement, Chandrahari
and Kaul declare that the calculated eclipse was invisible at $%r%k&etra and hence inadmissible
as evidence for the validity of 3067 BCE as the date. Iyengar joins them in this argument, even
though he does not even accept the solar eclipse at jye&&h@ as a fact. Kochs argument is better
than the three others. He at least shows that according to his calculations, the solar eclipse of
October 14, 3067 BCE occurs, but does not pass the test for observably possible category.

When eclipse calculations for times long gone by are made, the positions of the Sun, the Moon
and the earth are determined by solving certain equations with codes extrapolating over long
periods of time. For visibility calculations accurate knowledge of a certain quantity called Delta
T(= difference between what is called Terrestrial Time ,TT, and Universal Time, UT) is
essential. However, when calculations are extrapolated to BCE years, there is an uncertainty in
Delta T itself. According to estimates, when extrapolated to 3000 BCE, the values of Delta T
range from 18.3 hours to 27.3 hours, with a variation of about 9 hours
54
in the estimates of Delta
T. Table 7.1 lists the actual values of Delta T used in the calculation of the solar eclipse on
October 14, 3067 BCE by two software products and by Kaul. The difference between the
largest and the smallest values is seen to be 13000 seconds (3.6 hours). As a consequence, the
location of the eclipse becomes uncertain. This uncertainty is inherent in any calculation and
cannot be avoided. There is no way one can definitely answer is this eclipse visible? without
pointing to the uncertainty. The implications are obvious when the maximum duration of a total
solar eclipse is only little over 7 minutes at any location but the uncertainty is several hours. All
that the calculations can do is to show that an eclipse occurred, which will be certain, but leave
the question of visibility somewhat uncertain. Different software products could yield differing
results. For example, the New Moon on October 14, 3067 BCE occurs at 8:32 (UT) according to
SkyMap Pro, but at 11:33 (UT) according to Cybersky, a difference of three hours.
The eclipse map in figure 7.1 shows the regions of totality and partial eclipse visibility as
computed by Redshift 7. As shown in figure 7.1, the central line shows that the eclipse begins at
a latitude of 2103N and longitude 7333W and ends at a latitude of 1554S and longitude 24
17E., differing from Kochs results. According to this map also, the eclipse would not be visible
in India as indicated by the upper and lower limiting visibility lines. However, a rotation of the
earth by an angle of 75 (5 hours in time)
55
would bring the eclipse to a partial eclipse in the
likely visible category in India. The eclipse is likely to have been visible at k%r%k&etra1 It is
not authors wishful thinking as mentioned by one of the critics, but an acceptable piece of
evidence within the uncertainty of calculations. Uncertainties of this nature are inherent in any

74
Joch argues that the u!certai!ty is s2a##er a!d is about 2A=7 hours i! +000 :&L, but see )ab#e =A2
77
)his is #ess tha! 2 C (u!certai!ty i! De#ta )) e8e! taki!g the s2a##er 8a#ue of Joch of 2A=7 hrsA

eclipse calculation extrapolated to thousands of years ago. It is incredulous to demand an exact
answer. The author rejects the criticisms of Kaul and Koch as being not valid.
Table 7.1 Values of Delta T for the solar eclipse calculation of October 14, 3067 BCE
Calculation using SkyMap Pro Cybersky Kauls software
Delta T 87874 seconds 77032 seconds 74836 seconds

Figure 7.1. Eclipse map for the solar eclipse of 14 October, 3067 BCE. (Redshift 7)

7.2b Lunar eclipse of Sept 29, 3067 BCE (k@rtika pa%r#i!@)
Chandrahari claims that there was no lunar eclipse on September 29
th
at all and Iyengar simply
quotes Chandrahari in criticizing this date. Koch and Kaul accept the possibility of lunar eclipse,
but they calculate a magnitude of 0.14 and hence declare that to be beyond human capacity to
observe it as it is less than the required magnitude 0.6. Again the uncertainties in eclipse
calculations on dates so long ago cannot be stressed more. Here Chandraharis calculation gives
no eclipse at all, but Kauls and Kochs calculations yield a possible eclipse of magnitude 0.14,
which they say is beyond the visibility limit. My own calculations yield a magnitude of 0.246 for
the eclipse. Figure 7.2 shows the eclipse of September 29, 3067 BCE as obtained from Redshift
7.

Figure 7.2 Lunar eclipse of September 29, 3067 BCE (Redshift 7)

7.2c Lunar eclipse of October 28, 3067 BCE
The lunar eclipse of October 28, 3067 BCE was actually first seen by the author by simulation
and the star map for this date is shown in figure 7.3. The eclipse is shown in figure 7.4. This
formed the third eclipse in the eclipse season and the author proposed it as a solution to the
problem of two eclipses occurring within 14 days
56
. When in 3031 BCE, 36 years after the war,
the same sequence of eclipses was repeated, it was considered a validation of the interpretation.
Unfortunately some scholars (Upadhyaya
57
) have misunderstood the sequence lunar-solar-lunar
eclipses all belonging to a single eclipse season and occurring in a period of about a month
described in my paper and confused it with the sequence of three solar eclipses, SE1, SE2, and
SE3 used by Iyengar (one occurring at r@ja.6ya y@ga time in .abh@parvan/ one occurring at the
time of the war, and the third one occurring at the time of mutual destruction of the y@dav@ clan,
respectively, spread over a period of about fifty years). Upadhyayas criticism is that Achar

76
)he so#ar ec#i"se e!ded at 16:22 (R)) a!d the 2aCi2u2 of #u!ar ec#i"se of -ctober 2F reached at 17:2F(R)),
a differe!ce of 1+d 2+h742A )his is strict#y by ca#cu#atio! a!d of course, it is arguab#e as to hoB the a!cie!ts cou#d
ha8e arri8ed at this resu#tA
7=
R"adhyaya (200=) "erso!a# co22u!icatio!A

propsoses three solar eclipses one after another and it is impossible. The confusion that is the
basis of this criticism is obvious. Hence this criticism is rejected.

Figure 7.3 Starmap for October 28, 3067 BCE.

Figure 7.4 Lunar eclipse of October 28, 3067 BCE (Redshift 7)


Chandrahari, and Iyengar, criticize that there is no textual evidence of a second lunar eclipse at
the time of the war. Kaul and Koch opine that this eclipse could not have been seen as it had a
magnitude of 0.25 only.
There are no records of ancient observations of penumbral lunar eclipses. But, it should be
pointed out that an ancient eclipse documented by the Chinese in 493 CE had an observed
magnitude of 0.29, but the computations by Stephenson and Fatoohi
58
, gave a magnitude of only
0.15. Their study included both low magnitude and high magnitude lunar eclipses recorded in
history by the Greek, Chinese and Arabic astronomers. Their conclusion was that for the
unaided eye estimates of low magnitude lunar eclipses, recorded in history, the computations
gave consistently lower values than the observed ones, the obscurations were overestimated by
the ancients. For high magnitude lunar eclipses, the opposite was true. In other words, the
ancients observed and recorded what would be considered difficult to observe by modern
computations. If this was the case in 493 CE, the same conclusion could be extrapolated to 3000
BCE. It is also possible that Kochs values of the magnitudes are underestimates. This would
lead to the possibility that the lunar eclipses of September 29, 3067 BCE and of October 28,
3067 BCE were observed.
It is not beyond all human capability, also considering that the ancients probably had better
eyesight and did not have to contend with light pollution. Therefore the criticisms of
Chandrahari, Iyengar, Kaul and Koch regarding the occurrence and visibility of the eclipses as
presented in this work are not valid.
Further, Koch derives the date of 1198 BCE on the basis of an alleged super conjunction of
planets based on the evidence of two statements from the epic:
!agh@vi&yaga; .o!a.taddina> pratyapadyata
dpya!@n@"?a .a!pet%; divi .apta !ah@grah@; || MB(VI. 17.2)
ni..aranto vyad="yanta .6ry@t .apta !ah@grah@; || MB(VIII.37.4)
Koch interprets this as a super-junction of all seven planets (Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars,
Jupiter and Saturn) that he found in 1198 BCE. However, the text clearly states .apta
!ah@grah@;D seven great grahas, either flying together with Moon or away from the Sun, and

7F
<te"he!so!, SA %A a!d Satoohi, 6A MA,(1994) , PAccuracy of Lar#y Lsti2ates of 6u!ar Lc#i"se Hag!itudesQ, TA MA
%A astrA <ocA +7, "" F1(94A

the count of seven does not include the Sun and the Moon. There are no seven shining
(dpya!@n@;) planets if the Sun and the Moon are excluded. As the author has discussed, this
can only refer to comets. Furthermore, Koch interprets .apar&i. as also seven planets. He
interprets the super conjunction as indicating an end of a yuga, y%g@nta. This is the basis for
declaring 1198 BCE as marking the end of Dv@para y%ga1 There is no textual evidence for a
super conjunction of planets indicating the end of a yuga as has been categorically rejected after
a detailed discussion by Dikshit
59
. Kochs date is for the war is to be rejected.

79
Dikshit (1969) "A 141

CHAPTER 8 CONSISTENCY WITH TRADITION
8. Consistency of the Date of 3067 BCE with tradition
The traditions regarding the date of the Mah@bh@rata war are all linked to the beginning of
$aliy%ga in one way or another. It must be remembered that the epic itself does not speak of
when Dv@para ended or $ali began, but only the war happened during the transition between the
two. The transition itself may last for a hundred years. In any case, the tradition implies a change
of world order after the war.
8 1. The *ryabha&a/ +ar@ha!ihira/ ,aptar&i traditions and the Genealogy lists of P%r@#a-s

According to Sengupta,
60
there are three traditions regarding the date of the Mah@bh@rata
war, namely
aA the so called Aryabhata tradition
61
, according to which P@#:ava. lived at the beginning of the
astronomical Kali age, 3102 BCE;
bA 2449 BCE, based on the .aptar&i tradition as allegedly recorded by +ar@ha!ihira
62
;
cA the tradition of the P%r@#a-.
63
, according to which from the birth of Park&it to the accession
of Mah@pad!ananda, there was a time interval of one thousand and five hundred years.
Based on the P%r@#a tradition, modern historians who have identified Candragupta Maurya
(who followed the Nanda s) to have lived in 324 BCE, assign a date of about 1900 BCE for
the war. All these three will be examined for consistency. It is to be reemphasized that the
date of 3067 BCE has been derived independent of any of these traditions and is truly based
on the internal evidence based on astronomical references found in the epic alone.
8.1a kaliy%ga and the *ryabha&a Tradition
*ryabha&a declares
64
that when he was 23 years old, 3600 years of $aliy%ga had elapsed.
This identifies the beginning of $aliy%ga with 3102 BCE. It is generally accepted that this

60
<e!gu"ta (194=)
61
k@ho !anavo :ha !an%y%g@; "kha gat@.te!an%y%g@;?hn@?a G
kalp@dery%gap@d@ga?a g%r%diva.@??a bh@rat@tp6rva> GG AAA7 GG
62
@.an!agh@.% !%naya; "@.ati p=thv> y%dhi&&ire n=pata% G
&a:vika pa0?adviy%ta; "akak@la; ta.yar@j0a.y@t GG:r<
6+
y@vat park&ito jan!a y@vat nand@bhi&e?ana> G
eva> var&a .aha.ra<t% j0eya> pa0?a"atottara> GG
64
&a&&yabd@n@> &a&&iryad@ vyatt@.traya"?a y%gap@d@; G
tryadhik@ vi>"atirabd@.tadeha !a!a jan!anott@; GG AA A 10GG


astronomical beginning of $aliy%ga coincides with 17/18 February, 3102 BCE, a super
conjunction for the mean positions of all planets and this was chosen by astronomers as the zero
position for computation of planetary configurations in subsequent years. There is an
approximate conjunction of true positions of all planets near 5evat on the mid night of February
17/18 which happens to be an a!@v@.y@1 There has been a lot of discussion as to whether this
conjunction was an actual observed one or one obtained by back calculations. There is a tacit
assumption that such super conjunctions happen at the beginning of every y%ga. A large number
of scholars who have proposed the date of about 3000 BCE for the war all rely on the
information regarding the beginning of $aliy%ga in one-way or the other. The date of the war is
then tied to the beginning of $aliy%ga (which according to some authors coincided with the end
of the war and thus giving the date as 3102 BCE for the war). But there are others who take their
clues from the P%rr@#a-s, according to which $aliy%ga began with the departure of Lord $=&#a
from this world, an event occurring after 36 years after the war. This results in the proposed date
of 3138 BCE for the war. The spread of +/- 1 year on either side of these dates arises from
slightly different modes of counting. Of course, the date 3067 BCE is posterior to 3102 BCE. Is
there a conflict? Should not the war precede the beginning of $aliy%ga? Not really. All that the
epic says
65
is that the war occurred during the transitional interval between Dv@para and $ali
y%gas, and as already noted, nowhere it says exactly when the Dv@para ended or $ali began.
The antara or the interval between the y%ga. is quite extensive. According to +i&#% P%r@#a, the
.andhy@ for Dv@para lasts for 200 (divine?) years and for kali/ it is 100 years. Thus there is a
period of some 100 years or so, which can be legitimately referred to as .andhy@ and 3067 BCE
falls within this interval of 3102 BCE. In fact, there is some indication that the $aliy%ga had
already started by the time of the war
66
. Even Bh@gavata P%r@#a acknowledges
67
that although
$aliy%ga had already started, because of the presence of $=&#a/ $aliD. effect had been
controlled. The full power of $ali became effective only with the departure of $=&#a/ according

67
see foot !ote # F i! &hA +
66
etad kaliy%ga> n@!a a?ir@dyatpravartate GG H:A A14FA+=GG
)he fo##oBi!g re2ark is 2ade Bhe! duri!g the gad@y%ddha, Bh!a hits D%ryodhanaEs thigh, the adhar!a act
bei!g the resu#t of $ali ha8i!g a#ready e!teredA
pr@pta> kaliy%ga> viddhi pratij0@> p@#:ava.ya?a GG H: UA79A21GG
6=
yad@ !%k%ndo bhagav@ni!@> !ah> jaha% .vatanv@ "rava#ya .atkatha;G
tad@harev@ pratib%ddha?eta.@>abhadrahet%; kaliranvavartata GG:$ A17A+6GG

to $ali r@ja v=tt@<ta
OI
Thus there is no conflict with the war occurring in 3067 BCE and the
reckoning of $aliy%ga from 3102 BCE. Furthermore, the idea of a super conjunction of planets
at the beginning of $aliy%ga is not attested either in the epic Mah@bh@rata/ or in Man%.!=ti/ or
any of the texts which give describe in detail the well-established <%ga concept. On the contrary,
there is a condition for the beginning of $=tay%ga/ the coming together of sun, Jupiter, the moon
and the star ti&ya1 The condition of a super conjunction of all planets coming together at the
beginning of $aliy%ga is not found
69
. The beginning of $aliy%ga on the 17/18 February 3102
BCE, which was taken as the zero for the mean positions of all planets was devised by the
astronomers for computational purposes of the future positions of the planets on the basis of
aharga#a/ the number of days elapsed from that date. This is comparable to the practice in
modern astronomy to use the Julian day count for computations and there is no support for a
super conjunction of planets at the beginning of $aliy%ga1 It is a coincidence that this beginning
also agrees with the traditional belief that the war occurred during the transitional period of the
y%ga-s. From this point of view Kochs determination of the date of the Mah@bh@rata war on
the basis of a supposed super conjunction of seven planets is cannot be taken seriously.
8.1b. -aptar&i era and the alleged +ar@ha!ihira Tradition
+ar@ha!ihira states in his B=hat.a>hita that the .aptar&i-s were in !agh@ when
<%dhi&&hira was ruling and the epoch of "aka k@la commenced 2526 years after the period of
<%dhi&&hira1 Historians have assumed that the "aka k@la or "aka n=pati k@la refers to the
,@liv@hana "aka of 78 CE. Thus arriving at the date -2448 (= 78-2526) or 2449 BCE for the
<%dhi&&hira Era, the scholars declare that +ar@ha!ihira gives this as the date of the
Mah@bh@rata war. $alha#a also assumes that the position of .aptr&i Ps has been given by
+ar@ha!ihira/ and makes the same mistake regarding the "aka k@la in his 5@jatara<gi#i1 In
addition, he assumes that $aliy%ga began in 3102 BCE, hence declares that P@#:ava s lived
3102-2449= 653 years after the start of the $aliy%ga/ disregarding the explicit statement from
the epic that the war took place during the transitional interval, which may last a hundred years.
But it cannot be as long as 653 years. This has only contributed to the confusion.

6F
y@vat .a bhagav@n vi&#%; pa.par"e!@> va.%ndhar@> G
t@vat p=thv> par@kr@nt%> .a!artho n@bhavat kali; GG bhaga , aA GG
69
This has been discussed in great detail by Dikshit (1969), p 141

+ar@ha!ihira simply quotes v=ddha BargaDs opinion regarding when <%dhi&&hira lived
in terms of the .aptar&i k@la and how to get that period from "aka k@la1 This is not
+ar@ha!ihiraD. opinion as perhaps he cannot find an astronomical significance to .aptar&i
k@la1 Barga by all accounts lived about 200 BCE and the word "aka k@la of Barga cannot refer
to ,@liv@hana "aka of 78 CE. The "aka k@la or "aka n=pati k@la in Bargas words refers to
the era of the "aka king, Cyrus, beginning with 550 BCE. All this has been noted by many
scholars
70
, and discussed in great detail by Kota Venkatachelam
71
, whose work may be consulted
for further details. With the correct identification of "aka k@la/ the date given by +ar@ha!ihira
is also consistent with the date of the war given here. It may be noted in passing that it was based
on the wrong identification of "aka k@la that Professor Sengupta felt justified in his date of 2449
BCE for the war. Thus the so called +ar@ha!ihira tradition and the 5@jatara<gi#i tradition of
assigning a date of 2449 BCE to the war is based on the assumption that a mere paraphrasing of
v=ddha BargaD. opinion regarding the (astronomically nonexistent) motion of the Big Dipper by
+ar@ha!ihira reflects the latters own opinion. This has been compounded by a mistaken
identity for the "aka k@la1 The date derived here is consistent with *ryabha&a tradition and the
+ar@ha!ihira tradition with the correct "aka k@la beginning in 550 BCE.
8.1c. -aptar&i era and Genealogy lists from P%r@#a-s
The -apta =&i-cycle is named after the seven sages and is allegorically associated with the
Big Dipper, the eastern most star of which is marked by !ar?i followed by va.i&&ha/ @<gra.a/
atri/ p%la.tya/ p%laha and krat%, respectively, in that order. The seven sages are thought to
move through the twenty-seven nak&atra-s along the Ecliptic at the rate of one nak&atra per 100
years and to complete one cycle in 2700 years. This forms a convenient cycle for reference, but
as already been alluded to, no astronomical significance
72
for the movement and the association
of the stars of the Big Dipper can be ascribed. Koch identifies the .aptar&i. with a super
conjunction of seven planets and then proceeds to determine a super conjunction of planets in

=0
Vaidya, C. V.,(1983) The Mahabharata A criticism, Cosmo Publications, New Delhi, p. 80.
71
Venkatachelam (1954).
72
This is the reason why +ar@ha!ihira simply quotes Barga regarding the position of .apta =&i Vs and does not
express his own opinion of it. It may also be noted that the two stars, krat% and p%laha, the so called pointer stars,
point towards Polaris, which is the polestar now, but not in 3000 BCE. Then the pole star was Thuban (dh=va) and
the entire .aptar&i !a#:ala was circumpolar. So was PolarisA

1198 BCE which he declares as the date of the war after identifying it as the super conjunction at
the end of Dv@para y%ga1 According to p%r@#a-s, it is accepted
73
that .aptar&i-s were in !agh@
when <%dhi&&hira ascended the throne and that the time interval from parik&it to the accession of
the Nanda kings was 1500 years. Between Parik&it and the Nandas, there were three royal
dynasties, B=hadratha/ Pradyota and "i"%n@ga families. The Nandas were followed by
Ma%ryas, -%nga./ $a#va. and 4ndhra.1 The .aptar&i-s returned to !agh@ during the reign of
the 24
th
king of the 4ndhras. It was the 25
th
king, Ba%ta!p%tra ,@takarni who performed the
a"va!edha y@ga and r@ja.6ya y@ga1 It is simply being recalled that the .aptar&i . had returned to
the position they had occupied during the time when these rituals had been performed earlier at
the time of the P@#:ava-s. The reason for this remembrance is that during this interval of 1500
years, there had been a decline of Vedic performances due to the ascendancy of Buddhism
especially during the reign of the king 4"oka Ma%rya1 Since 1500 years had passed till the time
of Nanda./ 4"oka Ma%ryaD. time must have been about a hundred years later, i.e., 1500 BCE.
The 4ndhra-s were followed by the B%pta. and the Pra!aras. In the accounts given by
historians there is a mix up of the B%pta king, -a!%dra B%pta, who was also known as
4"ok@ditya Priyadar"in and lived around 320 BCE, with 4"oka of the Ma%rya Dynasty, which
dynasty had ruled Magadha from 1535 BCE -1219 BCE.. The celebrated inscriptions of
Priyadar"in Rock Edicts III and XIII-mention Antiochus and Ptolemy as contemporaries of
Priyadar"in/ who is -a!%dra B%pta of the B%pta Dynasty.The B%pta Dynasty ruled Magadha
from 328 BCE- 83 BCE and not the Ma%rya.1 This confusion is the reason for assigning the
wrong date for the Mah@bh@rata war based on the P%r@#i? genealogy lists. The confusion in the
chronology of Bh@rata is compounded by the historians, who misidentify King +ikra!@ditya of
the Pra!ara Dynasty, who established the +ikra! Era in 57 BCE. The +ikra!a Era and its
connection with the .aptar&i tradition opens up another problem which is beyond the scope of
the present work.
With the proper identification of "aka k@la at least *ryabha&a tradition and the so called
+ar@ha!ihira tradition are consistent with each other and with the date 3067 BCE for the war

73
A detailed discussion of these points are given by Kota Venkatachelam and summarized by VedavyasA

which is derived independently of any of these traditions, purely on the basis of planetary
configurations described in the epic.
8. 2. Internal consistency in the Epic of the Date of 3067 BCE.
It is necessary to resolve some accounts that have been floating around the various events
in the epic, accounts which are often contradictory and sometimes confusing such as (i) the war
started on an a!@v@.ya day, (ii) there was a conjunction of "ani and B=ha.pati near vi"@kha and
(iii) there were retrograde motions of Mars near !agh@ and that of Jupiter near "rava#a1 It is
also necessary to assure the consistency of the chronology for various events as simulated in the
year 3067 BCE (which is identical to the chronology given earlier by Raghavan) with those
described in the epic. It turns out that this consistency requires an adhi!@.a in that year and
further brings up a question about the actual number of days between the fall of Bh&!a and his
final departure. According to the simulation, the interval appears to be 48 days (same as the
number of days given by Raghavan) whereas all scholars proclaim that he spent 58 sleepless
nights. All these issues have to be satisfactorily resolved.
8.2.a The question of adhi!@.a
The fact that for the months and dates to be consistent, the year 3067 BCE requires an
adhi!@.a, and according to some, this is not possible for the year 3067 BCE. However, this
objection is based on the use of the methodology based on the current -6rya.iddh@nta and is not
applicable to the date in question. At the time of Mah@bh@rata, the methods followed were
based on ved@<ga jyoti&a (pre- Qagadha/ in fact), and the method of determining the adhi!@.a
was based on observations and was called the "%na"&epha method.
74
The author has shown that
there was indeed an adhi!@.a that year just as required.
8.2.b How many sleepless nights did Bh&!a spend?
Following the chronology given by Professor Raghavan, which is identical to the chronology
given in this article, then there are only 48 nights after the fall of Bh&!a on the tenth day to his
final departure after the arrival of winter solstice. Professor Raghavan explains that the count of
58, (which is generally accepted as the number of sleepless nights that Bh&!a suffers), includes
the ten days during which he led the ka%rava army and that he could not sleep because of the

74
Holay (2004)

stresses involved. His argument is based on a somewhat different translation of the "loka in the
epic than the one generally followed. This appears to be a reasonable explanation of this apparent
discrepancy.
8.2.c Did the war begin on an a!@v@.yaR
Scholars who insist that the war began on a!@v@.ya/ base their conclusion on the message
sent by $=&#a through $ar#a:
.apta!@??@pi diva.@d a!@v@.y@ bhavi&yati/
.angr@!a> yojayettatra ta.y@> t@!@h%; "akradevat@>// MB(V.140.18)
Some scholars have interpreted this to mean that $=&#a declared the war to start on the a!@v@.ya
day. According to the norms, the war could declared either by <%dhi&&hira or by D%ryodhana
only and not by anybody else. $=&#a sends the message to Bh&!a and Dro#a/ and not to
D%ryodhana. Neither Bh&!a nor Dro#a could start the war on their own. It is clear therefore,
that this cannot be a declaration of war. The actual declaration of the war is made when
D%ryodhana sends br@h!a#a-s to <%dhi&&hira1 The proper translation of the above sloka is that
war rituals or preparations for the war be started on that day and not the war itself. Another piece
of evidence comes from the meeting between +y@.a and Dh=tar@&tra on the eve of the War.
+y@.a declares that the solar eclipse has already taken place (..arka> r@h%.tath@gra.at
MB(VI.3.11) ). By all accounts this solar eclipse was the one to take place on the a!@v@.ya at
'ye&&h@ nak&atra1 Furthermore, there is the graphic description of the war on the fourteenth day,
when 'ayadratha is killed at sunset, but the battle continues into the night, breaking all rules;
Bhatotka?a is killed and the battle stops only in the wee hours of the morning just as the moon
rises. If the war had started on an a!@v@.ya, it would be "%klapak&a on the fourteenth night and
the moon would not rise early in the morning.
8.2.d The supposed conjunction of "ani and B=ha.pati
This configuration has been considered to be an important planetary configuration by some
scholars on the basis of the following:
.a>vat.ara .th@yina% ?a graha% prajvalit@v%bha%/
vi"@kh@yo; .a!pa.tha% b=ha.pati "anai"?ara%// MB(VI. 3. 25)
This is part of the third segment of the omens predicting the destruction of the two armies
described by +y@.a to Dh=tar@&tra. As explained earlier, the "loka previous to this declares

Egraha% t@!r@r%#a"ikha% prajvalit@v%bha%F MB (VI. 3. 24)
These two grahas with blazing coppery red hair,
which can only refer to comets. Thus this is not a planetary configuration

8.2.e The alleged retrograde motions of Mars and Jupiter

!agh@.% a<g@rako vakra; "rava#e?a b=ha.pati; || (MB IV. 3. 13)
This verse in Bh&!aparvan has been interpreted by many a scholar to indicate the retrograde
motion of Mars at !akh@ nak&atra and that of Jupiter at "rava#a. In order for the stated
retrograde motion of Mars, the Sun has to be near "atabhi&a and for Jupiter to be retrograde at
"rava#a/ the Sun has to be near p%&ya1 Of course, such configurations cannot occur at the same
time and certainly not at the time of the conversation between $=&#a and $ar#a (when the Sun
was near an6r@dh@) nor at the time when +y@.a visits Dh=tar@&tra (when the Sun is near
%ttar@&@:ha) hence this verse has been considered a prime example of the inconsistency of
astronomical references in the Epic. As explained earlier, this verse is also part of the third
segment of omens and this refers to comets, which belong to the families of Mars and Jupiter
respectively, and not to planetary positions of Mars and Jupiter.

8.2 f Pair of Eclipses within Thirteen days
?at%rda"> pa0?ada"> bh6tap%rv@> ?a &o:a">/
i!@>t% n@bhij@n@!i a!@v@.y@> trayoda">// MB(VI. 3. 28)
?andra.6ry@v%bha% gra.t@veka!@.e trayoda">/
aparva#i grah@veta% praj@; .a>k&apayi&yata;// MB(VI. 3. 29)
I know New Moon coinciding with fourteenth, fifteenth and also on the sixteenth day, but I
have never known it coinciding with the thirteenth day. In one and the same month, both the Sun
and the Moon are eclipsed on the thirteenth. These ill-timed eclipses indicate destruction of the
people.
This is the famous reference to two eclipses occurring within a month with an interval of thirteen
days. Everybody has interpreted this reference to mean that there was a lunar eclipse followed by

a solar eclipse within thirteen days. Much effort has been devoted to this reference including the
more recent work of Balakrishna.
Dikshit had examined this problem in detail about a hundred years ago. He had argued that the
occurrence of two eclipses within an interval of thirteen days as a possibility is noticeable only
by calculation and not by observation. Since one cannot get this occurrence through calculations
adopting the mean motions of the luminaries, he concluded that Indians knew how to calculate
the true positions of the Sun and the Moon as early as the date of Mah@bh@rata1 There was
already a reference to a lunar eclipse occurring on k@rtika pa%r#i!@ with a solar eclipse on the
following new moon at jye&&ha1 Dikshit also argued that since in modern times it has not been
possible to observe a 13-day pak&a in which a lunar eclipse occurs first and is followed by a solar
eclipse, the calculations of +y@.a must have been inaccurate.
The Epic refers to a lunar eclipse at k=ttika pa%r#i!a/ a solar eclipse at jye&&ha, and a
pair of eclipses within thirteen days. $=&#a was already in 7a.tin@p%ra at the time of the lunar
eclipse, and he leaves seven days before the jye&&ha a!@v@.ya1 But, nowhere is mentioned that
the interval between the k@rtika lunar eclipse and the jye&&ha solar eclipse is thirteen days. Only
the scholars have assumed that the interval between these two eclipses is thirteen days. That
there is another possibility which has escaped the scholars became evident while carrying out the
simulations. It is based on the idea of eclipse season, well known in astronomy, that when the
Sun is near a node of the Moons orbit (say 5@h%) there is a period of about a month when
eclipses can occur, and when conditions are right, three eclipses can occur in an eclipse season.
There was such a situation before the war. The simulations show that the lunar eclipse on
September 29 (figure 6.2, figure 6.3), is followed by a solar eclipse at jye&&ha on October 14
(figure 6.6). There occurred a third eclipse, a penumbral lunar eclipse on the following full moon
on October 28 (figure 8.1). According to Redshift, the lunar eclipse occurred within an interval
of less than fourteen days after the solar eclipse, as the lunar eclipse occurred before the moment
of full moon. Such an Naparva#iD occurrence (i.e., the eclipse occurring at a moment other than
the moment of full moon) is possible only in the case of a penumbral eclipse. This is also in
accordance with the point raised by Dixit about the sequence of eclipses. It must be the last pair
of eclipses that +y@.a was referring to, for he was the one who was observing the Sun both
morning and evening daily:

%bhe p6rv@pare .andhye nitya> pa"y@!i bh@rata/
Thus, there is really a sequence of three eclipses that scholars should have been looking for, and
not just two.

Figure 8.1 Penumbral Lunar Eclipse on Oct 28, 3067 BCE.
This is the third eclipse in the eclipse season.

8.3 Date of $=&#a.
According to the Epic Mah@bh@rata/ the character of $=&#a first appears at the time of
Dra%pads wedding and his departure is exactly 36 years after the war. No information about
his birth is available in the Epic itself, although there is information about his departure. $=&#a
observes omens
75
similar to the ones seen at the time of the Mah@bh@rata war, now indicating
the total destruction of the <@dava.1 Simulations show that in the year 3031 BCE, thirty-six
years later than 3067 BCE, there was an eclipse season with three eclipses. In that year lunar
eclipse on October 20 was followed by an annular solar eclipse on November 5, followed by a
penumbral lunar eclipse on November 19, within an interval of 14 days and at an aparva#i
time. Thus the date of departure of $=&#a is consistent with the popular tradition that he passed
away after 36 years after the war. The information about his birth can be gathered from

=7
8at%rda" pa0?ada" k=teya> r@h%#@ p%na; G
tad@?a bh@rate y%ddhe pr@pta?@dya k&ay@ya na; GG H: U9A +A 1= GG

7ariva>"a and Bh@gavata P%r@#a, according to which he was born in k=&#a pak&a a&&a! with
rohi# nak&atra/ but there is an uncertainty about how long he actually lived. Some believe that
he lived for 125 years, while others take his life span to be only 105 years. Raghavan assigns
only 81 years. The date of birth of $=&#a is calculated, apparently by extrapolation from the date
of departure and so also are the several horoscopes of $=&#a1 Simulations based on the dates
yield results which only go to show whether the calculations had been done accurately and
correctly by those who give such horoscopes. As there is no clearly independent piece of
information, which can be used for distinguishing the dates, one has to accept that date which
suits ones particular tradition. It should be understood, however, that the date of his departure
from this world is established on the information in the Epic and on the basis of simulations and
it turns out to be 3031 BCE.
A further confirmation of this fact arises, for after thirty six years later, $=&#a sees the signs of
destruction of the <@dava-s and the sequence of three eclipses occurs with the last two within
thirteen days as already mentioned earlier:
8at%rda" pa0?ada" k=teya> r@h%#@ p%na; |
tad@?a bh@rate y%ddhe pr@pta ?@dya k&ay@ya na; || MB XIV. 3. 17 ||
.
8.4 Conjunction of "ani with rohi#i
The conjunction of "ani with rohi#i which forms the major planetary configuration in
deducing the date of the war is of course the prime indicator of disaster. It is well known in
astrological works that conjunction known as rohi#i "aka&a bheda where Saturn or Mars
appears to pierce the cart of rohi#i indicates disaster in the world.
It is possible that the conjunction of Saturn with rohi#i probably had the same astrological
significance at the time of Mah@bh@rata1


CHAPTER 9 VARIOUS DATES FOR THE WAR AND SIMULATIONS WITH
PLANETARIUM SOFTWARE

As discussed earlier there have been a plethora of dates that have been proposed for the war. A
dozen or so works have been chosen and it is shown by simulation with planetarium software
that the basic astronomical events are not reproduced for any of these dates except for 3067
BCE. It is to be remembered that the basic astronomical facts at the time of the war, namely,
(i) "ani Bas at rohi#
(ii) 4<g@raka had u!dergo!e a retrograde 2otio! before reachi!g jye&&h@ a!d !oB had go!e
"ast it
(iii) there Bas a #u!ar ec#i"se o! k@rtika pa%r#i!@
(i8) this Bas fo##oBed by a so#ar ec#i"se at jye&&h@/
must be satisfied for any date proposed for the war. Table 9.1 gives the list of authors and the
dates proposed by them for the war.

Table 9.1. Authors and projected dates selected for simulation.
Author Work Date of War
Kochhar The Vedic People (1997) 955 BCE
Sidharth The Celestial Key to the Vedas (1999) 1311 BCE
Sengupta Ancient Indian Chronology (1947) 2449 BCE
Raghavan The Date of the Mahabharata War (1969) 3067 BCE
Balakrishna Simulations Planetarium Software (2004) 2559 BCE
Iyengar Simulations Planetarium Software (2004) 1478 BCE
Sharma Simulations Planetarium Software (2004) 3022 BCE
Achar Simulations Planetarium Software (2000-2004) 3067 BCE
Bhatnagar Simulations Planetarium software (2014) 1793 BCE
Koch Simulations Planetarium Software 1198 BCE


The first four are by eminent astrophysicists and mathematicians, and all of their calculations
were made manually. The remaining ones in the table are more recent and also use planetarium
software. Some of them are also works of prominent scientists at NASA and astrophysicists. On
the whole these works cover the entire range of dates that have been proposed for the war on the
basis of astronomical references.
Kochhar mentions that there are more than one hundred and fifty astronomical references in the
epic including Saturn vexing rohi#i, but ignores all of them as nothing more than poetic
imagery and regards that only a total solar eclipse seen in the northwest of India as significant.
He gives two dates, 4
th
July 857 BCE and 4
th
October 955 BCE as the possible dates of the
eclipse and hence the year of the War. The 857 BCE date can be ruled out as the eclipse takes
place in the month of *&@:ha and quite far removed from the required month of k@rtika as per
the epic. Figure 9.1 shows the simulation for 4
th
October 955 BCE. It is a total solar eclipse, but
occurs at vi"@kha and not at jye&&ha1 Saturn is near "rava#a and not rohi#i as required. In fact,
this date cannot match a single astronomical reference in the epic and has to be rejected.

Figure 9.1. Star Map for 4
th
October 955 BCE (Kochhars Date)


Figure 9.2. Star Map for June 14, 1311 BCE (Sidharths Date)
Sidharth also considers a single solar eclipse to be important and gives the date of June
1311 BCE. Figure 9.2 shows the star map for 14
th
June 1311 BCE. The eclipse occurs at
p%narva.%/ and the summer solstice is yet to occur. This cannot be the day specified in the epic,
namely the a!@v@.ya following the k@rtika pa%r#i!@1 This date also fails to match any
astronomical reference in the epic and is to be rejected.
Sengupta made extensive calculations all remarkably accurate, but the basic set of
astronomical data he considered consist of (i) a!@v@.ya at jye&&ha/ (ii) Sun turned north in
eighty days and (iii) the war began when the moon was 13 days old and in k=ttika, and ended
when moon was in "rava#a. He does not believe in any of the references given by $ar#a or
+y@.a. He vents out the harshest criticism of the astronomical references:
All this is hopelessly inconsistent astrological effusion of evil omens fit for
Mother Gooses Tales only.
As to the occurrence of two eclipses one after another within thirteen days, he says:
We cannot put any faith in any statement of this chapter.
Figure 9.3 shows the star map for October 21, 2449 BCE, the date given by Sengupta.


Figure 9.3. Star map for October 21, 2449 BCE (Senguptas Date)

There is indeed a new moon at 'ye&&ha/ but there is no solar eclipse on that day. Saturn is at
k=ttika, and again there are no matches with the astronomical references in the epic. Like many
scholars, Sengupta takes the view that the astronomical references in the epic is fiction and that
he has made accurate calculations. His justification for the date is its alleged agreement with the
so called +ar@ha!ihira tradition. This agreement is of no significance as will be shown later and
Senguptas date has to be rejected as not being in agreement with the basic astronomical
references of the epic. Of the remaining authors, Raghavans date has already been discussed
together with the authors work. Balakrishna and Iyengar both use Planetarium software, but
concentrate mainly on eclipses.
Balakrishna searched through some 7000 solar eclipses and 4000 lunar eclipses to find
possible pairs of eclipses occurring within 14 days and observable at $%r%k&etra/and identified
the pairs of eclipses from 3088 BCE, 2950 BCE, 2907 BCE, 2559 BCE, 1966 BCE, 1876 BCE,
1666 BCE, 1211 BCE and 1084 BCE as clearly meeting the thirteen day eclipse pair
requirement. He declared the 2559 BCE eclipse pair as the best and perhaps the nearest to the
text in the epic and hence the year of the war. This is illustrated in Figure 9.4. As seen the eclipse
occurs at Makh@ and not at 'ye&&h@ and Saturn is at Makh@ and not 5ohi#1

Figure 9.4. Star map for July 11, 2559 BCE.
Iyengar was a little more general in his approach. He also considered the position of
Saturn to be important and felt that there should be correlation with two solar eclipses observed
at k%r%k&etra (SE1 at the time of r@ja.6ya y@ga/ SE2 observed at the time of the war) and one
observed at Dv@rak@ , thirty six years after the war(SE3). He has given a list of some thirty five
dates, in which pairs of eclipses occur at $%r%k&etra while Saturn is near rohi#i and found
eleven pairs of these to be compatible with possible eclipse pairs observable at Dv@raka thirty
six years later. He chose 1478 BCE as the best candidate for the date of the war. Figure 9.5
shows the star map for June 1, 1478 BCE. The eclipse occurs at P%narva.6 and Saturn is at
4"vin not at 5ohi#1 There occurs another lunar eclipse that year, on November 10, 1478 BCE
followed by a solar eclipse on November 25, 1478 BCE. The lunar eclipse occurs at M=ga"ir@,
not k=ttik@ and the solar eclipse occurs at p6rv@&@:ha and not jye&&h@1


Figure 9.5. Star Map for June 1, 1478 BCE.
Both of the dates 2559 BCE, given by Balakrishna and 1478 BCE given by Iyengar have
to be rejected, because the lunar eclipse does not occur on k@rtika pa%r#i!a and the solar
eclipse does not occur at jye&&ha1 In fact, none of the dates given by Balakrishna or Iyengar
satisfies these requirements. Balakrishna has not paid much attention to planetary positions,
which he regards as confusing and contradictory and perhaps later interpolations. Iyengar, taking
inspiration from Sharmas earlier work explains the apparent discrepancy in planetary positions
by positing that some "loka. in Bh&!aparvan should belong to .abh@parvan Sharma advances
his own hypothesis as to how many times +y@.a meets with Dh=tar@&tra and comes up with a
date 3022 BCE. Figure 9.6 shows the star map for Sharmas date.

Figure 9.6 Star map for May 31, 3022 BCE.

Sharma is confused by the fact that rohi#i could refer to either Antares or Aldebaran, and
in 3022 BCE, Saturn is near Antares. Sharma does not appear to realize that while rohi#i may
denote either one of those asterisms, there is a presiding deity for each nak&atra1 It is praj@pati
for Aldebaran and "akra for Antares. It is perfectly clear where Saturn is by the statement:
pr@j@patya> hi nak&atra> "anai"?ara; p:ayati Unfortunately, the extensive calculations made
by these scholars using the planetarium software has been of little use as the basic premise of the
true planetary positions is not considered. Moreover, the over emphasis on eclipses in order to
determine the date is questionable.
Bhatnagars date of 1793 BCE also has to be rejected, for in that year "ani is at
%ttaraph@lg%n and a<g@raka is never retrograde in the whole year. The lunar eclipse does occur
on k@rtika pa%r#i!@ and the solar eclipse does occur at jye&&h@1 However, Bhatnagar assumes
that the war begins on an a!@v@.ya and hence cannot account for the battle description on the
14th night of war. Figure 9.7 shows the star map for October 28, 1793 BCE.

Figure 9.7 Star Map for October 28, 1793 BCE. Solar eclipse at jye&&h@


Kochs date of 1198 BCE also has to be rejected. This is the same date as was given by
Daftari and that date had been amply criticized. Specifically in 1198 BCE, "ani is in vi"@kha. So
is also a<g@raka at the time of the solar eclipse on October 21, 1198 BCE, which takes place
near an6r@dh@1 This is shown in figure 9.8. Furthermore, a<g@raka is never retrograde that year
and in fact at the time of the solar eclipse, it is close to being in conjunction with the sun. The
lunar eclipse occurs later on November 4, 1198 BCE between rohi# and !=ga"ir@1 The order of
the eclipses is reversed compared to the description given in the epic and Koch says that +y@.a
might have been confused about the order of the eclipses.

Figure 9.8 Star Map for October 21, 1198 BCE Solar eclipse at an6r@dh@
Thus none of the dates other than 3067 BCE can account for the basic planetary configurations.
Hence they all have to be rejected as possible candidates for the date of the Mah@bh@rata war.
It is perhaps not out of place to point out another feature. In this work, the four primary planetary
configurations in the epic already listed are taken as inviolate. If in a year proposed as the date
for the war, the planetary configurations do not agree with the ones in this list as given in the
epic, then it is the proposed date that is to be rejected. Not the astronomical data from the epic.
But some of the scholars use a different approach. They decide on a date and then try to adjust
the data to fit that year by proposing hypothetical settings as to how the configuration given in
the epic might have arisen. For example, in 1198 BCE, the year proposed by Koch, the solar
eclipse occurs first and is then followed by a lunar eclipse, contrary to what the epic says.

Clearly the description given in the epic does not agree with the year 1198 BCE. According to
Koch, it is the description in the epic that must be wrong. He posits that there were eclipses in
the years 1132 BCE, 1187 BCE, and 1132 BCE and they were all combined into one description
that is given in the present epic. So the year 1198 BCE must be correct. Sengupta had also
proposed a similar solution. In his proposed date, 2449 BCE, there was no eclipse on the
a!@v@.ya of 'ye.&h@1 So he had proposed that eclipses that had been observed two years prior
to 2449 BCE were incorporated into the epic. It is difficult to see how such solutions can be
accepted.


CHAPTER 10 EPILOGUE
The debate on the date of the Mah@bh@rata war continues. More and more papers and books
continue to be published on the date of the war. Although there are more than one hundred and
fifty astronomical references, there is apparent contradiction among these references. There is no
consensus among scholars either on the primary set of astronomical data or the relative
importance and reliability of the extrapolated calculations. This work promotes the idea that
there is a set of primary planetary positions and proposes a logical way of arriving at that set.
The set of primary planetary positions leads to a unique date for the war which is consistent with
tradition.
It is stressed in this work that the astronomical events recorded in the epic are astrological omens
and the most important for the war are those from Udyogaparvan and Bh&!aparvan. An
empirical kind of value system was used in deciding the relative importance of the various
references. A statement made by a primary character such as $=&#a or $ar#a is considered more
important than a statement made by a secondary character such as M@rkandeya or B@lava1
Assigning one unit of strength to such a statement, identical statements made at more than one
place by different primary characters are assigned correspondingly higher values. On this basis,
the position of "ani at rohi# turns out to be a very strong planetary position. Similarly strong
configuration is the retrograde motion of a<g@raka near 'ye&&h@1 Seemingly conflicting
astronomical references were interpreted using the rules of abhidh@ and lak&a#@1
The initial attempt by the author in 2000 CE considered the references from Udyogaparvan only
and included the planetary positions of "ani at rohi# and the retrograde motion of a<g@raka
near jye&&h@1 There was a lunar eclipse on k@rtika pa%r#i!@ followed by a solar eclipse at je&&h@
nak&atra1 There was no search capability and it was already evident that 3067 BCE stood the
best chance of accounting for the astronomical data in the epic. Later efforts showed that the
astronomical references in Bh&!aparvan could be understood (with the help of astronomical
omens pertaining to wars mentioned in atharvaveda pari"i&&a) as being coherent account of
omens pertaining to different aspects, namely an imminent war, harm to the k%r% family, harm to
both armies, and harm to the entire population and that most of the references are to comets on

the basis of rules of abhid@ and lak&a#@1 The position of "ani at rohi# and the two eclipses also
are again mentioned in Bh&!aparvan/ and hence they are very strong.
In the simulations using the planetarium software, calculations of planetary positions are
considered more reliable than eclipse calculations. It was shown that these four astronomical
events, "ani at rohi#/ a<g@raka becoming retrograde before jye&&h@/ a lunar eclipse on k@rtika
pa%r#i!@ followed by a solar eclipse at jye&&h@ were possible only in 3067 BCE and 2183 BCE.
Considering the description of the war on the 14th day in the epic, it was shown that only 3067
BCE was the possible date for the war. This date been previously proposed by Raghavan, as well
as three other scholars. The various adverse comments about this work that have been made
regarding the planetary positions and observability of eclipses have all been answered.
There are references in the epic to two astronomical events, one takes place at jye&&h@
nak&atra and the other at rohi#1 These two nak&atra-s are very important
76
in Mah@bh@rata1
The first event is the occurrence of a!@v@.ya at jye&&h@ in seven days mentioned by $=&#a and
the expected solar eclipse on that day mentioned by $ar#a during their conversation. This
happens in "arad=t% and the war is yet to take place. The second event at rohi# when Bh&!a
expires happens after the winter solstice. The war is of course over long before then. Thus the
event of the war must occur between these two nak&atra days. Now the interval between a
jye&&h@ nak&atra day and a rohi# nak&atra day can be (i) 13 days, (ii) 40 days (13+27), (iii) 67
days (13+27+27), (iv) 94 days (13+27+27+27) and larger intervals such as 121 days and so on.
The first two possibilities can be rejected for the war itself lasts 18 days, and Balar@!a who
went on a pilgrimage for 42 days returns on the last day of the war (Balar@!a starts on his
pilgrimage on p%&ya after $=&#a returns from 7a.tin@p%ra after the jye&&h@ event). The
possibilities of separation by larger than 94 days such as 121 days have to be rejected because
the jye&&h@ event takes place in "arad=t% and the Bh&!aD expiry in rohi# takes place after the
winter solstice and the interval cannot be that large. Thus on the basis of astronomy, the two
major events in the epic, one at jye&&h@ involving $=&#aDs mission of peace and Bh&!aDs expiry

=6
It may be noted that $=&#a was born under rohi#/ Bh&!aDs expiry was on rohi#, <%dhi&&hira was born
under 'ye&&h@1

at rohi# can be at best separated by 67 days to 94 days only
77
. The year 2183 BCE corresponds
to 67 days and 3067 BCE corresponds to 94 days.
Now to satisfy the date of 2183 BCE, the war must have started on an a!@v@.ya, but for
the date of 3067 BCE, it must end on an a!@v@.ya1 The account of the battle on the 14
th
day
shows that 3067 BCE is the only possible date. This date is arrived at based on the astronomical
data from the epic alone and no external information such as the beginning of kaliy%ga is used.
Around 3200 BCE, the vernal equinox occurred near rohi# and the autumnal equinox
near jye&&h@1 It appears that the importance of these two nak&atra-s may be related to this fact.
By about 2300 BCE, the vernal equinox shifts to $=ttik@ and the autumnal equinox occurs near
an6r@dh@1 Around 4000 BCE, the vernal equinox was near !=ga"ir@ and the autumnal equinox
near !6la1 From these considerations, it may be suggested that the war could not have taken
place much earlier than about 3000 BCE nor much later than 2000 BCE. Beyond these two dates,
the nak&atra-s rohi# and jye&&h@ would lose their astronomical significance. Thus the dates for
the war such as 1478 BCE, 1198 BCE, or 5500 BCE are not likely to be the dates for the war.
From a historical point of view, any date around 3000 BCE should be acceptable for the date
of the war and this includes the traditional dates based on the beginning of $aliy%ga/ such as
3139 BCE, although strictly they cannot account for the astronomical configurations. Although it
is not the primary focus of this work, it is interesting to note that the dates around 3000 BCE are
also supported by the archaeological findings discussed by Rajaram
78
. Regarding the other
archaeological evidence based on excavations at 7a.tin@p%ra/ associating the Painted Gray
Ware culture with Mah@bh@rata/ one should also keep in mind the observations of Das
79
.
Perhaps future archaeological explorations might bring resolution to this issue and the evidence
from the information up in the sky matches with the evidence from digging deep into the earth.

==
t 2ight be i!teresti!g to !ote that <e!gu"ta (194=), Bhi#e he discou!ted the ec#i"ses a#together a!d did !ot
care for the "#a!etary "ositio!s of %dyoga or bh&!aparvan./ chose a! i!ter8a# of F0 days as the i!ter8a# betBee!
jye&&h@ e8e!t a!d the Bi!ter so#stice a!d arri8ed at 2449 :&L as the date for the BarA )he restrictio! to 21F+ :&L
or +06= :&L i! the "rese!t Bork arises fro2 the restrictio!s i2"osed by the "#a!etary co!figuratio!s of "ani /
a<g@raka a!d the ec#i"sesA
=F
%aOara2 (2006)
=9
Das (1969)

Ac&!'le()e"e!ts

)he author gratefu##y ack!oB#edges the co!ti!ued su""ort a!d e!courage2e!t of DrA Ja#ya!ara2a!
Bho origi!a##y suggested this "rob#e2 !ear#y fiftee! years ago a!d 2ade 8ery he#"fu# co22e!ts o! the
"rese!t 2a!uscri"tA
)he star 2a"s a!d ec#i"se figures Bere "roduced by usi!g the fo##oBi!g "#a!etariu2 softBare "roducts:
<kyHa" $ro (BBBAsky2a"Aco2) a!d %edshift = (BBBA redshift(#i8eAco2Ne!)


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Achar, B. N. N., (1999) On Exploring the Vedic Sky with Modern Computer Software,
Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, 5-2
Achar, B. N. N., (2000a) On the Astronomical Basis of the date of Satapatha Brahmana: A Re-
examination of Dikshits theory. Indian Journal of History of Science, 35, 1-10.
Achar, B. N. N., (2000b) Case for Revising the Date of Vedanga Jyotisa. Indian Journal of
History of Science, 35, 173-183.
Achar, B. N. N., (2000c) Comments on The Pleiades and the Bearsviewed from inside the
Vedic Texts, Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, 6-2
Achar, B. N. N., (2003) On the Identification of Vedic Nak&atra.D in Contemporary Views on
Indian Civilization, Edited by Bhu Dev Sharma, World Association for Vedic Studies, New Delhi,
371-387.
Achar, B. N. N., (2004) On Astronomical References in +y@.a-Dh=tar@&&ra .a>v@da in the
Bh&!aparvan of Mah@bh@rata Annals of BORI, LXXXIV for the year 2003, 14-22.
Achar, B. N. N., (2004a) Date of the Mahabharata War Based on Simulations Using
Planetarium Software in The Date of the Mahabharata War Based on Astronomical Data,
Edited by Suryanath U. Kamath, Mythic Society, Bangalore, India pp. 65-115.
Achar, B. N. N., (2004b) Planetary Configurations in the Epic Mahabharata: Revising an
Exercise in Archaeoastronomy Paper presented at the 7
th
Oxford International Conference on
Archaeoastronomy, Flagstaff, Arizona
Achar, B. N. N.,(2005) Planetarium Software and the Date of the Mahabharata War in The
Mahabharata: What is not here is nowhere else, Edited by T. S. Rukmani, Munshiram
Manoharlal Publishers, PVt Ltd, New Delhi India pp. 247-263.
Achar, B. N. N.,(2013) Response to Discussion of B. N. Achars paper Chronology of Vedic
=&i.H in Vedic Venues, Vol 1. By Iyengar R. N., Vedic Venues, Vol 2, pp.92-109
Basham, A.l., (1953), The Wonder that was India, Grove Press Inc., New York
Balakrishna, S., (2004) Two Eclipses in Thirteen Days Prior to Mahabharata War in The Date
of the Mahabharata War Based on Astronomical Data, Edited by Suryanath U. Kamath, Mythic
Society, Bangalore, India pp. 1-23.
Bhat, M. R., (1981) +ar@ha!ihiraD. B=hat.a>hit@, Part I. Edited with English translation.,
Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi.
Chandrahari, K., (2004) Date of the Mahabharata War: A review of some recent studies in
The Date of the Mahabharata War Based on Astronomical Data, Edited by Suryanath U.
Kamath, Mythic Society, Bangalore, India pp. 116-143
Das, S. R., (1969) The Mah@bh@rata and Indian Archaelogy in The Bharata War and the
Puranic Geneologies, Edited by D. C. Sircar, University of Calcutta, Calcutta
Dixit, S. B., (1969) Bh@ratya 'yoti&"@.tra, Government of India Press, Calcutta
Holay, P. V., (2004) Year of the Kaurava Pandava War in The Date of the Mahabharata War
Based on Astronomical Data, Edited by Suryanath U. Kamath, Mythic Society, Bangalore, India
pp. 24-54.
Iyengar, R. N., (2003) Internal Consistency of Eclipses and Planetary Positions in
Mahabharata, Indian Journal of History of Science:77-115

Iyengar, R. N., (2004) Historicity of Celestial observations of Mahabharata in The Date of the
Mahabharata War Based on Astronomical Data, Edited by Suryanath U. Kamath, Mythic
Society, Bangalore, India pp. 150-186
Iyengar, R. N., (2013) Discussion of B. N. Achars paper, Chronology of Vedic =&i. in Vedic
Venues,Vol 1, (2012), pp 28-75, Vedic Venues, Vol 2, pp. 78-91
Kane, P. V., (1958) History of Dharmasastra, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona.
Koch, D., (2014) Astronomical Dating of the Mah@bh@rata War, Erlenbach, Switzerland.
Kochhar, R., (1997) The Vedic People, Orient Longman, Hyderabad
Lal, B. B. (1952) Excavations at 7a.tin@p%ra and other explorations, Ancient India, 10 and 11:
4-151
Lal, B. B., (2004) This is how an Archaeologist looks at the historicity of Mah@bh@rata in
Mah@bh@rata The end of an Era, Edited by Ajay Mitra Shastri, Aryan Books International, New
Delhi, India ,pp 1-25.
Oak, N (2014) When did the Mah@bh@rata War happen?, United States
Pusalker, A. D., (1996) Traditional History from the Earliest Time to the Accession of
Parikshit, in The Vedic Age, Majumdar, R. C., Pusalker, A. D., and Majumdar, A. K., (Ed),
Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai.
Raghavan, K. S., (1969) The Date of the Mahabharata War, Srirangam Printers, Srinivasanagar.
Rai, R. K., (1976) The Pari"i&&a. of 4tharvaveda edited with notes in Hindi of the original 1909
Edition, ed. Bolling, George M. and Von Negelein, J. Varanasi : Chowkambha Orientalia.
Rajaram, N. S., (2004) Mahabharata Date: a word of Caution in The Date of the Mahabharata
War Based on Astronomical Data, Edited by Suryanath U. Kamath, Mythic Society, Bangalore,
India, pp 55-64.
Rajaram, N. S., (2006) Sarasvati River and the Vedic Civilization, Aditya Prakashan, New
Delhi.
Rao, S. R., (1985) Marine Archaeological Investigations in Indian Waters and Discovery of
Submerged Dv@rak@ Manj6&@/ Dr. S. R. Rao 60
th
Birthday Felicitation Volume, Bangalore,
1985, pp 25-27.
Saha, M. N., and Lahiri, A. C., (1955) Report of the Calendar Reform Committee,.
Saraswati, Svami Satya Prakash, (1992) 4tharvaveda -a>hita with English translation Veda
Pratishthana, New Delhi.
Sarma, I. K. (2004) , The Mah@bh@rata: A critical study of Archaeological Data in
Mah@bh@rata The end of an Era, Edited by Ajay Mitra Shastri, Aryan Books International, New
Delhi, India pp 31-40.
Sathe, S.,(1983) Search for thr Year of the Bharata War, Navabharati Publications, Hyderabad
Sathe, S., Deshmukh, V., and Joshi, P., (1985) Bh@ratya <%ddha: Astronomical References,
Shri Babasaheb Apte Smarak Samiti, Pune
Sharma, V. N., (1986) Model of Planetary Configurations in the Mah@bh@rata: an Exercise in
Archaeoastronomy . Archaeoastronomy 9, pp 88-98.
Sharma, V. N.,(2004) On Astronomical References in the Mah@bh@rata-an Exercise in
Archaeoastronomy. P%r@#a 46, pp 82-112.
Sidharth, B. G., (1999)The Celestial Key to the Vedas, Inner Traditions, Rochester
Sky and Telescope Magazine (2001) Other Resources for Amateur Astronomers Vol 101, Sky
Publishing Company.

Sukthankar, V. S.,(1972) (Chair of the Editorial Board) Mah@bh@rata, Text as constituted in its
Critical Edition. Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune.
Vaidya, C. V.,(1983) The Mahabharata A criticism, Cosmo Publications, New Delhi, p. 80.
Vedavyas, E., (1986), Astronomical Dating of the Mahabharata War, Agam Kala Prakashan,
Delhi.
Kota Venkatachelam, (1954)The Plot in Indian Chronology, Arya vijnana, Vijayavada
Yano, M., and Fushumi, M., Panchang3, a program based on the .6rya .iddh@nta/ the link can
be obtained by search on the internet. The old link used by the author is not valid now.

Date of Mahabharata War Using Planetarium Software

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Date of Mahabharata War Using Planetarium Software

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Date of the Mah@bh@rata War

using planetarium software

Potrebbero piacerti anche