|
|
History
The Date of the Mahabharata
War
by
Pradip Bhattacharya
[In "Vyasa and Valmiki"
Sri Aurobindo refers to a “recent article of the Indian Review”
on the date of the Mahabharata war praising it as “an unusually able and
searching (or almost conclusive) paper”. It was Velandai Gopala
Aiyer’s “The Date of the Mahabharata War” published in Vol. II,
January-December 1901 of this monthly journal (Indian Review)
edited by G.A.Natesan. Sri Aurobindo was obviously fully convinced by
Aiyer’s arguments, because elsewhere he writes, “It is now known beyond
reasonable doubt that the Mahabharata war was fought out in or about
1190 B.C.”
Aiyer had published a previous paper in the same journal fixing the date
of the beginning of the Kaliyuga from four different sources:
- Vedanga Jyotisha —
1173 B.C.
- Gargacharya — a few
years prior to 1165 B.C.
- Classical historians
— 851 years before Alexander’s stay in India, viz. 1177-76 B.C.
- which is confirmed by
the Malabar Kollam Andu commencing in August/September 1176 B.C.
Aiyer concluded that the
Kaliyuga began with the winter solstice immediately preceding the
commencement of the Kollam Andu, or at the end of 1177 B.C. The
Mahabharata War, he proposes, was fought a few years before the
beginning of the Kaliyuga.
One would like to know if any reactions to Aiyar’s research were
published in the "Indian Review". Libraries in Chennai might yield the
information. An abridgement is presented in Aiyer's own words as far as
possible.] – Pradip Bhattacharya
~*~
According to the Mahaprasthanika Parva and the Vishnu Purana, the Kali
age would not affect the earth so long as it was touched by Sri
Krishna’s holy feet. When the Pandavas abdicated, Parikshit must have
been about 16 years old (the age of majority according to Hindu
lawyers). If Kali began in 1177 B.C., Parikshit would have probably been
born in 1193 B.C. and the war should have occurred towards the end of
1194 B.C.
Again, the Mausala Parva says that the Yadava race was destroyed 36
years after the war and the Pandavas left soon thereafter at the
beginning of Kaliyuga. On the other hand, the Bhagavatayana Parva states
that Kali began at the time of the war itself. The Ashramavasika Parva
states that when 15 years had expired after the war, Dhritarashtra,
Gandhari and Kunti left for the forest. In the 16th year after the war,
the Pandavas visited them along with Uttara who had recently become a
mother and had her child in her lap. Now, Parikshit was in the womb
during the war (Sauptika Parva), hence he could not have been an infant
in the 16th year after the war. Therefore, this statement in the
Ashramavasika is incorrect. Rather, in the 16th year after the war the
Pandavas started not on a visit to the old people, but on their last
journey. There is no mention of Parikshit’s marriage, which would have
occurred later. If Parikshit were really 36 years of age when the
Pandavas left, why should he be placed under the tutelage of Kripacharya
as stated in Mausala Parva? It would be more consistent if Parikshit was
about 16 when he was crowned, and the war took place 16 years before the
beginning of the Kaliyuga. This conclusion is supported by other
evidence.
Kalhana Pandit’s Rajatarangini, the well-known history of Kashmir
written in 1148 A.D., is the only indigenous work in India that can pass
for history. Verses 48-49 of the first Taranga state:
“Misled by the tradition that the Bharata war took place at the end of
the Dwapara, some have considered as wrong the sum of years (contained
in the statement that) in the Kaliyuga the kings beginning with Gonanda
I (and ending with Andha Yudhishthira) ruled of the Kasmiras for 2268
years.”
This Gonanda I was, says Kalhana, the contemporary of the Pandavas. The
52nd in descent from him was Abhimanyu, son of Kanishka, whose successor
Gonanda III was the first of a new dynasty “which came to power 2330
years before Kalhana’s time” (1st Taranga, verses 52 and 49). In the
Rajatarangini the total for the reigns from the end of Andha
Yudhishthira—the last of Gonanda III’s dynasty—to Kalhana’s own time is
1329 years, 3 months, 28 days, say roughly 1330 years. Kalhana would
have presumed that the interval between the end of Abhimanyu’s reign and
that of Andha Yudhishthira was 2330-1330 = 1000 years.
Clearly, in Kalhana’s time it was believed that 2268 years had elapsed
from the time of Pandava Yudhishthira to that of Andha Yudhishthira.
Hence, Kalhana gives 2268-1000 or 1268 years for the reigns of the first
52 kings from Gonanda I to Abhimanyu and 1000 years for the 21 kings of
the dynasty of Gonanda III. This was the “tradition” Kalhana refers to
in the excerpt above. The latter portion may well be a later addition
because Kalhana himself says it is “thought” that the 52 kings down to
Abhimanyu reigned in all “for 1266 years” (verse 54, Taranga I—obviously
an error for 1268 years).
However, Kalhana accepts only part of the old “tradition”, namely that
2268 years elapsed from the time of Pandava Yudhishthira to that of
Andha Yudhishthira. He does not accept the part that Pandava
Yudhishthira lived at the end of the Dwapara Yuga because in Kalhana’s
time, as now, the Dwapara was supposed to have ended and the Kali to
have begun in 3102 B.C. Kalhana relied on Garga’s verse (quoted in
Varahamihira’s Brihatsamhita, XIII. 3-4) which he erroneously
interpreted as meaning that Yudhishthira commenced to reign 2526 years
before the era of Salivahana, in 2428 B.C. As Abhimanyu lived 1268 years
after Pandava Yudhishthira, Kalhana placed him in 2448-1268 = 1180 B.C.
Since Kanishka and his successor Abhimanyu lived in the 1st century
after Christ, the false figures given by Kalhana for Abhimanyu and all
the subsequent kings down to the 6th century A.D. can be traced to his
mistaken interpretation of Garga’s verse.
Almost all Sanskrit scholars agree that Kanishka lived in the 1st
century A.D., though Cunningham thought that the Vikrama era from 57
B.C. began with Kanishka, and the Saka era beginning on 3rd March 78
A.D. dates from him. Coins show that Kanishka reigned down to 40 A.D.
Irrespective of whether the era of Salivahana dates from Kanishka,
clearly Abhimanyu must have been reigning about the commencement of this
era in 78 A.D. If so, Yudhishthira, who lived 1268 years earlier, must
have begun to reign about 1268-78 = 1190 B.C. Since his coronation took
place soon after the war, it must also have been fought around 1190 B.C.
Aryabhatta — whose fame spread to Arabia as Arjabahr and
Constantinople’s vast empire as Andubarius or Ardubarius — was born in
476 A.D. and the first to promulgate the theory that the earth revolved
round the sun, calculate the circumference of the earth and explain the
eclipses. According to him, “the line of the Saptarshis intersected the
middle of Magha Nakshatra in the year of Kaliyuga 1910”, i.e. 1192 B.C.
According to Vishnu Purana, the Sapatarshis were in that very same
position at the birth of Parikshit who was, therefore, born about 1192
B.C. Since the war occurred at the most a few months earlier than his
birth, it might have taken place about 1193 B.C.
The same result is arrived at if we consider the number of kings who
occupied the throne of Magadha from the time of the war to the accession
of Chandragupta. According to the Vishnu Purana — which is mostly agreed
to by the other Puranas — the 9 Nandas reigned for 100 years; the 10
Saisunagas of the next previous dynasty for 362 years; the 5 kings of
the still previous Pradyota dynasty for 138 years succeeding the famous
Barhadratha dynasty whose 22 kings sat on the throne since the date of
the war. Thus, we get 100 years for the Nanda and 500 years for the 2
previous dynasties. Very probably the same number was reported to
Megasthenes. However, what strikes one most is the large average for
each reign. The same Vishnu Purana gives 137 years for the 10 kings of
the later Maurya dynasty, 112 years for the 10 kings of the Sunga
dynasty and 45 years for the 4 kings of the Kanwa line, i.e. an average
of about 12 years against 28 for the Pradyota dynasty and 36 for the
Saisunaga! For the Nandas, it is scarcely probable that a father and his
sons could have reigned for 100 years, especially when the last sons did
not die naturally but were extirpated by Chandragupta with the help of
Chanakya. The Puranas may have left out insignificant reigns, or these
ancient kings may have been longer-lived than those of the
post-Chandragupta period, but even then the averages are too large. It
would be unsafe to deduce therefrom the probable date of the war.
In England, from the Norman invasion to the 20th century, 35 monarchs
had ruled for 835 years, the average being about 23 years. From Hugh
Capet to the execution of Louis XVI, France was ruled by 33 kings for
1793-987 = 806 years, yielding an average of about 24 years. 8 kings
ruled Prussia from Ivan III @ 23 years. In Russia 22 monarchs up to the
present Emperor Nicholas II for 1894-1462 = 432 years giving an average
of about 19 years. In Japan, the present Emperor Musu Hito is the 123rd,
his ancestor Jimmu Tenno having established the dynasty lasting unbroken
for 2500 years, which gives an average of 21 years for this long-lived
dynasty. Thus, the averages for each of the 5 foremost powers of our
hemisphere are 23 for England, 24 for France, 23 for Germany, 19 for
Russia and 21 for Japan. The average of these, about 22 years, may be
taken as the probable duration of each reign of the pre-Chandragupta
dynasties. There were 22 Barhadrathas, 5 Pradyotas and 10 Saisunagas =
37 in all from the time of the war to the Nandas, and they might
therefore have reigned for 37 x 22 = 814 years.
Moreover, according to the Buddhist Mahavamso, composed by Mahanama
around 460 A.D., Mahapadma Nanda, called Kalasoka in the chronicle,
reigned for 20 years and had 10 sons who conjointly ruled for 22 years.
Then there were 9 brothers who reigned for 22 years. Thus, the Nandas
reigned in all for 20+22+22 = 64 years, a figure more likely to be
correct than the Puranic round figure of 100 years. Thus, the war must
have happened about 814+64 = 878 years before Chandragupta, at 878+315 =
1193 B.C.
Against our reckoning of 814 years between the war and Mahapadma Nanda’s
accession, the Vishnu Purana (IV.24) gives 1015 years. This seems based
on supposing a round period of 100 years from the start of the Kaliyuga
to the time of Nanda’s accession and presuming that the Kali began 15
years after the war. If so, the genuineness of an interval of a round
period of 1000 years between the beginning of the Kali and the
coronation of Nanda is suspect. The Purana period of 1015 years for the
37 kings between the war and the coronation of Nanda yields an
improbable average of over 27 years. The author of the Vishnu Purana
deals vaguely in round figures, giving 100 for the Nandas, 500 for the
Pradyotas and Saisunagas and 1000 years (IV.23) for the Barhadrathas,
the last figure directly conflicting with the statement about 1015 years
intervening between the war and the end of the Saisunaga dynasty.
This Purana also states that the Saptarshis, which are supposed to move
@ one Nakshatra for every 100 years (IV.24) had moved 10 Nakshatras from
Magha to Purvashada during this interval, which therefore comes to
10x100 = 1000 years. Obviously, this supposed movement was arrived at by
the author not by actual observation, for such a movement is
astronomically impossible, but by his deducing it from the other
statement in the preceding verse that 1015 years had elapsed during this
interval. The author seems first to have had in mind that the Kali began
15 years after the war and that 1000 year elapsed from the beginning of
the Kali era to the accession of Nanda, and then to havae deduced
therefrom the proposition that the Saptarshis which were in Magha at the
time of the war had moved on to Purvashada at the coronation of
Mahapadma Nanda.
In Chapter XIII of the Brihatsamhita, Varahamihira, born in 505 A.D.,
deals with the Saptarshi cycles and quotes Vriddha Garga: “When king
Yudhishthira ruled the earth, the seven seers were in Magha; the Saka
era is 2526 years after the commencement of his reign.” The translator,
Dr. Hultzsch (Indian Antiquary VIII, p.66) comments, “The coronation of
Yudhishthira took place 2526 years before the commencement of the Saka
era, or at the expiration of the Kaliyuga-Samvat 653 and in B.C. 2448.”
This agrees with Kalhana in thinking that the Yudhishthira era is
different from the Kali era.
On the other hand, Jyotirvidabharana, an astronomical work attributed to
Kalidasa, but which scholars place in the 16th century A.D., states that
in the Kaliyuga six different eras will flourish one after another: the
Yudhishthira to last 3044 years from the beginning of Kali; the Vikrama
to last for 135 years afterwards; the Salivahana for 1800 years
thereafter; and the Vijaya, Nagarjuna and Bali ears to be current in the
rest of the Kaliyuga. The three last are fictitious. This shows that
Hindus have all along thought that the Yudhishthira era commenced with
the Kali. So also Aryabhatta computes by the era of Yudhishthira, which
corresponds to the Kaliyuga. Therefore, it is not possible to concur
with Kalhana and Dr. Hultzsch in placing the beginning of the
Yudhishthira era “at the expiration of the Kaliyuga-samvat 653 and in
B.C. 2448.”
What does “Sakakala” really mean? It has been proved that Garga, the
author of the shloka, lived about 165 B.C. Even granting Dr.Kern’s
contention that Garga lived in the 1st century B.C., it is not possible
that Garga could have meant by “Sakakala” either the Vikrama samvat,
which began later in 57 B.C., or the Salivahana Sakabda, which commenced
still later in 78 A.D. It has not yet been proven that the Vikramasamvat
era had been in use ever since 57 B.C. Fergusson, Max Muller and Weber
opine otherwise. Besides the Kali or the Saptarshi era, there was in the
days of Garga only one other prominent era in existence, namely, the era
of Nirvana, “which,” says Fergusson (in History of Indian and Eastern
Architecture, p. 46), “was the only one that had existed previously in
India.” The era of Mahavira beginning in 527 B.C. might have been then
in existence, but the Jain religion was only confined comparatively to a
few and its era was not much in evidence before the public. The era of
Buddha’s Nirvana was, on the other hand, very widely known (being the
State Religion during Asoka’s time). A Tibetan work records a schism
having occurred under a “Thera Nagasena” 137 years after the Nirvana’
Chandragupta is recorded to have ascended the throne 162 years after the
Nirvana; the inauguration of Asoka is stated to have taken place 218
years after the Nirvana; and the Dipawanso, a history of Ceylon written
in Pali verse about the 4th century A.D., makes use of the era of
Nirvana in its computations. Therefore, the era of Buddha’s Nirvana,
which was in current use in the time of Garga, might have been probably
referred to by him.
Gautama Buddha was known by the name of “Sakya Muni” and his paternal
grandfather was also known by the name of “Sakya”. The race to which
Gautama belonged was often called by the name of Sakyas. R.C. Dutta
says, “A little to the east of the Kosala kingdom, two kindred clans,
the Sakyas and the Koliyans, lived on the opposite banks of the small
stream Rohini ...Kapilavastu was the capital of the Sakyas.” The
followers of Gautama Buddha were often spoken of as “Sakyaputriya
Sramanas” in contradistinction possibly to the Sramanas of other sects.
We may therefore infer that the era of Gautama Buddha was probably known
as “Sakya Kala” in those times. The era could not have been called
“Nirvana Kala” as the term might equally apply to the Nirvana of
Mahavira.
The shloka is written in the usual Arya metre. Similarly, the first 2
slokas of the chapter are in faultless rhythm, but the third shloka
under discussion satisfies the rhythmic requirements in only the first
three quarters. The last quarter, shakakalastasya… is short by one “matra”.
It is inexplicable how Kalhana and other scholars could overlook such a
glaring slip. As the Rajatarangini also makes this mistake, we may infer
that the error might have been in existence from a very long time. The
only way of correcting the error is by insertion of the letter “Y” which
has been somehow omitted, between the letter “K” and “A” in the word “Saka”,
correcting “Sakakala” to “Sakyakala” which makes the shloka perfect and
then we have the best of reasons to suppose that Garga refers to the era
of Nirvana, the epoch of the Sakyas, or of the Sakya prince Gautama, or
of the Buddha called Sakya Muni. Some early copyist, better acquainted
with “Sakakala” than with “Sakyakala” changed the latter into the
former, which he might have thought to be the corrector form. Even
without such a correction, “Sakakala” may be considered a corruption of
“Sakyakala”. Thus, in any case, the era of Buddha’s Nirvana is the one
most undoubtedly referred to.
The expression shadadvikpancadvi means “twenty-six times twenty-five” or
650 and not “six two five two” denoting 2526 as Dr. Hultzsch interprets.
The termination “ka” denotes “so many times”, and is not an expletive
that a precise mathematician like Garga may be expected to use
unnecessarily. Garga computed here by the Saptarshi cycle, which denoted
the lapse of every 100 years by a new Nakshatra and gave 25 years for
each Nakshatrapada, into four of which a Nakshatra was then usually
divided. If the Saptarshis had moved 6 ½ Nakshatras from the time of
Yudhishthira’s coronation to the Nirvana of Buddha, that would be more
appropriately expressed as the movement of the Rishis through 26 padas
and the period denoted thereby would be put down as twenty-six times
twenty-five years.
Though Max Muller offers very fair reasons for fixing the date of the
Nirvana in 477 B.C., yet as Bigandet points out in his life of Buddha,
both the chronicles of Ceylon and Further India unanimously agree that
Buddha attained Nirvana at the age of 80 in 543 B.C. The Dipawanso
computes by the era of Nirvana beginning in 544-3 B.C. Burma, Siam and
Ceylon are all unanimous in giving this date and such widespread
unanimity of opinion cannot be expected unless the era of 544-3 B.C. had
existed from a very long time.
Garga’s statement now indicates to us that the coronation of
Yudhishthira, and therefore the Mahabharata War, took place in the year
544 or 543 + 650 = 1194-3 B.C.
Almost in all parts of India the Brihaspati 60 year cycle prevails from
a very long time. In commenting on Taittiriya Brahmana, I.4.10, Sayana
says that this cycle comprised 12 of the ancient 5 cycles, which are so
often referred to in the Vedic works and in the Vedanga Jyotisha. The
sun and the moon take about 5 years to return to the same position at
the beginning of a year, which gave rise to the cycle of the 5 years
known as Samvatsara, Parivatsara, Idavatsara, Anuvatsara and Idvatsara
respectively. As Brihaspati makes a complete circuit of the heavens in
about 12 years, all the 3 heavenly bodies were expected to return to the
same celestial region on the expiry of every 60 years. Because of a
corrector knowledge of Brihaspati’s motions, Northern India has been
expunging 1 year of the cycle in every 85-and-65/211 years so that after
one such period the name of the next year is left out and the name of
the one following the next year is taken to be the next year’s name. As
no such practice prevails in Southern India, the current year (April
1901 to April 1902) which is the year “Pramadicha” in the North, is the
year “Plava” in the South.
When the names were invented, the year of the Mahabharata War, the only
famous epoch in the history of Ancient India, was named “Prabhava”, the
name of the 1st year of the cycle. But the dates given by the orthodox
for the war or for the beginning of the Kaliyuga do not correspond to
the 1st year of the cycle. But, if we adopt the date given by Garga for
the epoch of Yudhishthira, i.e. 1194-3 B.C., we find that the
corresponding year of the Brihaspati cycle for that date is “Prabhava”,
the name of its very 1st year.
We have suggested that the Kaliyuga began at the winter solstice of 1177
B.C. We have also seen that, barring the argument based on Rajatarangini,
which gives us about 1190 B.C. for the war, our other lines of
discussion point to 1194-3 B.C. as the probable date of the war. This
date is further confirmed by the application of the principles of the
Vedanga Jyotisha to certain statements contained in the Mahabharata
itself. We may here observe that these statements are not to be
explained by the astronomical calculations of modern times, for these
were unknown in the days of the War, but rather by the calculations of
the Vedanga Jyotisha, which, though cruder, are better applicable to
them, inasmuch as it is the oldest Hindu astronomical treatise known to
us and its astronomical details, as we have seen, relate to the
beginning of Kaliyuga.
In the Swargarohanika Parva of the Mahabharata, we are told that
Yudhishthira having observed “that the sun ceasing to go southwards had
begun to proceed in his northward course” set out to where Bhishma lay
on his bed of arrows. After telling Yudhishthira that the winter
solstice had set in, Bhishma said, “Yudhishthira, the lunar month of
Magha has come. This is again the lighted fortnight and a fourth part of
it ought by this be over.” Whatever historical weight may be attached to
these statements, they may be at least taken to mean that the winter
solstice then occurred on the expiry of the fourth part of the bright
fortnight in the month of Magha, that is, on the fourth or the fifth day
after new moon. Nilakantha, the commentator, thinks that the expression
tribhagashesha pakshah denotes ‘Magha Sukla Panchami’ or the fifth lunar
day in the month of Magha after Amavasya, the new moon.
As according to the Vedanga the winter solstice always occurred with the
sun in Dhanishtha the Amavasya referred to by the Mahabharata must have
occurred with the sun and the moon in Sravana Nakshatra; and as the
winter solstice occurred on the fifth day after this, the moon must have
been, on the solstitial day, in or near Revati Nakshatra. According to
the Jyotisha, this position could have occurred only at the beginning of
the fourth year of a five-year cycle, for it was then that the moon was
in Aswayuja, next to Revati Nakshatra. The difference of this one
Nakshatra is due to the imperfections of the elements of the Jyotisha.
Thus we may infer that the winter solstice following the Mahabharata
war, and just preceding Bhishma’s death, was the fourth of the five
winter solstices of a five-year cycle. The particular five-year cycle in
which the Mahabharata war took place appears to have been the fourth
cycle previous to the beginning of the Kaliyuga in 1177 inasmuch as we
have found that the Rajatarangini points to1190 B.C., and that all other
lines of discussion lead to 1194-3 B.C. as the probable date of the War.
Consequently, the winter solstice shortly following the War was the
fourth of the fourth five-year cycle preceding the commencement of the
Kaliyuga, which began, like the five-year cycle, with a winter solstice
and with the sun and the moon in Dhanishtha Nakshatra. In other words,
the Mahabharata war took place a little before the seventeenth winter
solstice preceding the commencement of the Kaliyuga or towards the end
of1194 B.C.
To summarize the arguments above set forth:
- We were first enabled
by the Vedanga Jyotisha to place the beginning the Kali era
approximately at about 1173 B.C.
- After enquiring into
the date of Garga and of the Yavana invasion he spoke of, we noted
that he fixed “the end of the Yuga” for the retirement of the Greeks
from Hindustan. From this statement we inferred that the Yuga, which
ended sometime before 165 B.C, must have begun a few years before
1165 B.C.
- In explaining the
figures given by the classical historians, we concluded that the
Kaliyuga must have begun in 1177-6 B.C.
- The Malabar era
furnished us with another authority for fixing the commencement of
the Kali era in1176 B.C.
- We found that if the
Kali commenced at the winter solstice immediately preceding the year
1176 B.C., the details of the Mahabharata would lead us to place the
war at the end of the year 1194 B.C.
- The Tradition
recorded in the Rajatarangini, enabled us to fix the date of the war
about 1190 B.C.
- From a statement made
by Aryabhatta that the Rishis were in Magha in 1192 B.C., we
inferred that the war might have taken place at about1195 B.C.
- The average duration
of the reigns of the monarchs of the five foremost powers of our
hemisphere served to assist us in fixing the date of the war at
about1198 B.C.
- From a shloka of
Garga quoted in the Brihatsamhita, we inferred that the war occurred
in1194-3 B.C.
- We also found that
the first year of the Brihaspati cycle of 60 years actually
corresponds, as might naturally be expected, to the date of the war
as given by Garga, i.e. 1194-3 B.C.
- We applied the
elements of the Vedanga Jyotisha to a shloka contained in the
Mahabharata, which fixes the day of the winter solstice occurring
soon after the war, and concluded that the war should have taken
place in the latter part of 1194 B.C.
Thus we find all this
cumulative evidence derived from different sources converging to the
result that the Kali era began at the winter solstice occurring at the
end of 1177 B.C., and that the Mahabharata war took place at about the
end of 1194 B.C. In arriving at these conclusions, we had the testimony
of the only historian that India can boast of who lived in the twelfth
century A.D., of the greatest of the astronomers of India who flourished
at the end of the fifth century A.D., of another brilliant astronomer
who shone in the second century B.C., and of a versatile Greek historian
who was also an ambassador at the court of the first great historic
Emperor of India who reigned in the fourth century B.C. We had also the
authority of the oldest astronomical work of India which claims to be a
supplement to the Vedas, of an ancient era which “forms such a “splendid
bridge from the old world to the new”, and of the famous sixty-year
cycle. We tested these conclusions by what we may call the common-sense
process based on the lists of kings contained in the Puranas. We have
met and disposed of the arguments of those that give an earlier date.
So far we have been treading on more or less firm ground. But if we
attempt to fix the actual days of the year 1194 B.C. when the War may be
supposed to have been fought, our authority will have to be the epic
itself, by itself an unsafe guide. The Mahabharata is unfortunately
neither the work of one author, nor of one age. It has been recently
proposed to start an Indian Epic Society mainly for sifting out the
older portions of our incomparable epic. But the labors of such a
Society, when brought to a successful termination, will not militate
against the authenticity of the texts we are presently to discuss. Most
of these belong to the war portion of the Mahabharata, which, according
to Weber, is recognizable as the original basis of the epic.
We have already referred to a shloka of the epic, which states that the
winter solstice, which took place soon after the war, happened on the
fifth day after new moon in the month of Magha. In the very next
preceding shloka, Bhishma tells Yudhishthira that he has been lying on
his ‘spiky’ bed for the previous fifty-eight nights. Among Hindus it has
for long been considered good for one’s future state, for death to occur
in the period between the winter and summer solstices. The grand old
Bhishma did not allow the arrows sticking into his body to be removed
lest he might die before the commencement of the auspicious period, but
rather preferred to suffer the excruciating pain, to which one with a
less magnificent physique would have speedily succumbed.
The war is expressly stated in the epic (Ashramavasika Parva X.30) to
have lasted for eighteen consecutive days. Moreover, in the
Dronabhisheka Parva (Sections II and V), Karna is said to have refrained
from taking part in the war for the ten days during which Bhishma was
the generalissimo of the Kaurava army. In the last chapter of Drona
Parva it is stated that Drona, who was the next Commander-in- chief, was
slain after having fought dreadfully for five days. Karna led the army
for the succeeding two days (Karna Parva I.15), and on the night of the
next day (Salya Parva I.10-13) after Karna’s death, the war was brought
to an end. When Yudhishthira was lamenting the death of Ghatotkacha on
the fourteenth night of the war, Vyasa told him that in five days the
earth would fall under his sway (Drona Parva CLXXXIV.65). From these
references also it is clear that the war continued for eighteen
consecutive days. As Bhishma was mortally wounded on the tenth day of
the war, as the war lasted for eight days more, and as Bhishma is
reported to have stated (Anusasana Parva CLXVII.26-27) on the day of the
winter solstice that he remained on his bed of arrows for fully
fifty-eight nights, the interval between the end of the war and the
solstitial day was fifty days. As a matter of fact, this very number of
days (ibid. 6) is stated as the period of the stay of the Pandavas in
the city of Hastinapura which they entered on the next day after the war
(Stri Parva XXVII, Shanti Parva XLI and XLV. Though the Pandavas desired
to pass the period of mourning which extended for a month outside
Hastinapura vide Shanti Parva I.2, their intention seems not to have
been carried out) until they set out on their last visit to Bhishma on
the day of the winter solstice. The epic says:
“The blessed monarch (Yudhishthira)
having passed fifty nights in Hastinapura recollected the time
indicated by his grandsire (Bhishma) as the hour of his departure
from this world. Accompanied by a number of priests, he then set out
of the city, having seen that the sun ceasing to go southwards had
begun to proceed in his northward course” (Anusasanika Parva CLXVII.
5-6).
After Yudhishthira reached
Bhishma, the latter addressed him in these words, “The thousand-rayed
maker of the day has begun his northward course. I have been lying on my
bed here for eight and fifty nights” (ibid. 26-27). We may therefore
conclude that the winter solstice took place on the fifty-first day from
the close of the war.
On the next day after the close of war, Sri Krishna and the Pandavas
paid a visit to the dying Bhishma, whom Sri Krishna addressed in the
following words: “Fifty-six days more, 0 Kuru Warrior, art thou going to
live” (Stri Parva XXVII; Shanti ParvaXLI, XLV and LII). One need not be
misled by the prophetic nature of this expression and declare it to be
of no historic value. It might well have been a fact and put in the form
of a prophecy by the compiler of the epic. But it may be asked how
Bhishma could have lived fifty-six days after the close of the war, if
only fifty days had elapsed from that time to the winter solstice when
Bhishma hoped to give up his life-breath. But the explanation appears to
me to be simple enough; though the winter solstice occurred fifty days
after the close of the war, Bhishma does not seem to have died on the
solstitial day, when the arrows were extracted from his body but appears
rather to have lingered on till the sixth day after the winter solstice.
We have seen that the solstice took place then on the fifth lunar day
after new moon in the month of Magha. It was on the sixth day from this,
that is, on Magha Sukla Ekadasi, that Bhishma, “that pillar of Bharata’s
race,” seems to have “united himself with eternity.” Tradition asserts
that Bhishma died on this very day, and our almanacs even now make note
of the fact and call the day by name of “Bhishma Ekadasi.” To this day,
death on the eleventh lunar day of the bright fortnight of the month of
Magha is held in great esteem, and next to that, death on such a day of
any other month. Possibly the supposed religious efficacy rests on the
memory of the day of the royal sage’s death.
As the fifty-ninth day after Bhishma’s fall corresponded to Magha Sukla
Panchami, Revati or Aswini Nakshatra, the day of Bhishma’s overthrow,
which took place on the tenth day of the war, happened, in accordance
with the 84 principles of the Vedanga, on Margasirsha Sukla Panchami, in
Dhanishtha Nakshatra; and the Amavasya preceding it happened on the
fifth day of the war in Jyeshtha Nakshatra. As a matter of fact, Dr. G.
Thibaut gives this very Nakshatra for the last Amavasya but two of the
third year of a five-year cycle, which particular new moon our Amavasya
actually is. We may therefore conclude that the war began on the fourth
Nakshatra preceding Jyeshtha or in Chitra of the month of Kartica and
ended in Rohini Nakshatra in Margasirsa-month.
The Pandavas tried many milder means before they at last resorted to the
arbitratement of war; they even proposed to sacrifice their interests to
some extent, if war could thereby be averted. Shri Krishna was the last
to be sent on a mission of mediation and he started for Hastinapura (Udyoga
Parva, LXXXIII.7) “in the month of Kaumuda, under the constellation
Revati at the end of the Sarad (autumn) season and at the approach of
the Hemanta (dewy season).” According to the commentator and also to the
translator, Kaumuda is the Kartica month. As the latter half of autumn
corresponds to the month of Kartica, we may be certain that the
statement means that Sri Krishna left for Hastinapura in the Revati
Nakshatra of the month of Kartica. His efforts at reconciliation having
been of no avail, he seems to have returned to the Pandava camp in
Pushya Nakshatra for, as soon as he left Hastinapura, Duryodhana asked
his warriors immediately to march the army to Kurukshetra (Udyoga Parva
CXLII.18), “For to-day the moon is in the constellation of Pushya”. A
little before Sri Krishna’s departure from Hastinapura, he proposed to
Karna, “In seven days will there be new moon; let the war be begun on
that day which, they say, is presided over by Indra.” As the commentator
says, “Sakradevatam” denotes the Jyeshtha Nakshatra, which is presided
over by Indra. The verse, therefore, indicates that the approaching
Amavasya was to happen in Jyeshtha Nakshatra. This serves to confirm our
inference drawn from other texts that the Amavasya, which occurred on
the fifth day of the war, took place in Jyeshtha Nakshatra. But, to say
that the new moon would occur on the seventh day seems to be certainly
wrong, for Krishna was speaking to Karna in Pushya Nakshatra and the
Amavasya was said to occur in Jyeshtha, the tenth Nakshatra from Pushya.
Probably saptamat is an error for dashamat.
The war, however, did not begin in Amavasya as suggested by Sri Krishna
for, Duryodhana moved out his army to Kurukshetra on Pushya Nakshatra.
The Pandavas too seem to have marched out of Upaplavya on the very same
Pushya. Both the contending parties were in such a hurry to march their
armies to the battlefield, because Pushya Nakshatra was considered
auspicious for such purposes. Yet, it was not possible to begin the
actual fighting on the very same day. Much remained to be done before
the armies could meet each other in battle array. If Sri Krishna
returned from Hastinapura with the answer of Duryodhana on Pushya
Nakshatra it is reasonable to allow some time for the marching of
troops, for the ground to be cleared, for the pitching of tents, for the
divisions of the armies to be properly effected, and most of all, for
the allied princes to bring on their respective divisions to the field
of battle. It appears to me that all these preliminary arrangements were
gone through during the interval of the five days between Pushya and
Chitra, in which Nakshatra the fighting actually began. But our epic
says that both the parties were prepared for battle on the day when the
moon had gone to the region of Magha (Bhishma Parva XVII). The natural
interpretation of the expression is that on that day the moon was in
Magha Nakshatra. In that case we have to suppose that though the armies
were almost ready for war in Magha Nakshatra, the first shot was not
fired till after the lapse of three more days. The armies began their
march to Kurukshetra in Pusha, were organized in effective divisions in
Magha, and actually engaged in battle in Chitra. Or, it may be that
‘Magha’ is an error for ‘Maghava’. The expression then would mean that
the moon had entered the region of Indra, that is the star Chitra
presided over by Indra. If the emendation proves to be correct we have
here another testimony to the correctness of our conclusion that the war
began in Chitra Nakshatra.
It must be borne in mind that the epic was cast into its present form
more than a thousand years after the date of the war. There are many
statements in the epic which conflict with one another, a circumstance
which can be accounted for only on this historic basis. One such
conflicting statement occurs in the Gadayudha Parva. On the last day of
the war Balarama returned to Kurukshetra from his pilgrimage to the
banks of the Sarasvati, whither he had gone on the eve of the war in
utter disgust with this horrible fratricidal war. He said (Salya Parva
XXXIV.6), “Forty-two days have elapsed since I proceeded forth; I left
on Pushya, I have returned in Sravana.” The Epic states expressly that
the Pushya Nakshatra on which Balarama went away on pilgrimage was the
one (Salya Parva XXXV.10-15; Udyoga Parva CLVII.16-35) on which the
Pandavas set out of Upaplavya to the field of battle. It also certainly
implies that the Sravana Nakshatra on which Balarama returned happened
on the last day of the war (Salya Parva LIV.32). If these statements are
to be taken as authentic, the obvious inference is that the war, which
began with the marching of armies to Kurukshetra on Pushya, came to an
end in Sravana forty-two days later.
This conflicts directly with the natural inferences we have drawn from
the other statements,namely, that the winter solstice occurred on Magha
Sukla Panchami fifty days after the close of the war, that the war
lasted for eighteen consecutive days, that the Amavasya which occurred
on the fifth day of the war took place in Jyeshtha Nakshatra, and that
Sri Krishna left for Hastinapura on his errand of peace on Revati
Nakshatra of Kartica month and returned to Upaplavya on the next
following Pushya. To avoid such a contingency two explanations of this
manifestly corrupt text are possible. We have either to suppose that the
statements about Balarama’s departure on the eve of the war and about
his return on the last day thereof are spurious as being opposed to the
united testimony of other texts, or that the verse under discussion
requires a little emendation. In the former case the inference to be
drawn from the shloka is that Balarama left for the Sarasvati in Pushya
Nakshatra twenty-seven days before the march of troops on the next
Pushya Nakshatra to the battle field and that he returned to Kurukshetra
in Sravana some days before the close of the war. If, however, the
shloka is incorrect, we may best correct it by changing ‘forty-two’ into
‘twenty-four’. If Balarama had left on pilgrimage in Pushya and returned
on the last day of the war, that being the twenty-fourth from the day of
his departure, the last day of the war would happen in Rohini, a result
which is identical with the one we have already deduced from other
texts.
There is one other conflicting verse which we shall briefly discuss. On
the fourteenth night of the war there was a tremendous battle between
the contending parties. It is hinted in the epic (Salya Parva LIV.32)
that the moon rose up on that night after three-fourths part of it had
expired. This is certainly a mistake; for the new moon having taken
place on the fifth day of the war, the moon should have disappeared
below the western horizon about an hour and a half before three-fourths
of the night was over. On the evening of the fourteenth day of the war,
Arjuna’s vow to kill Jayadratha having been fulfilled, the Kurus,
burning with revengeful thoughts, continued the strife far into the
night. The epic would have us believe that during the first half of the
night a tremendous battle raged in total darkness resulting in the death
of Ghatotkacha, that both the armies therefore lay down to sleep for
some time, and that on the rise of the moon at about three o’clock in
the morning, both the sides recommenced their fighting. It is more
probable that the war continued for as long as the moon was shining and
that the armies rested when the moon had set. The poet was perhaps led
to make this mistake by his anxiety to render the night sufficiently
horrible for Rakshasa heroes to fight with their powers of illusion.
But, barring these two conflicting statements which too may be explained
away, all other texts serve to support our conclusion. We are told that
- the winter solstice
happened on Magha Sukla Panchami;
- the tenth day battle
happened fifty-eight days before it;
- Bhishma, who died on
Magha Sukla Ekadasi, gave up the ghost fifty-six days after the
close of the war;
- a period of fifty
days intervened between the end of the war and the winter solstice;
- the war lasted for
eighteen consecutive days;
- the Amavasya, which
occurred soon after the commencement of the war, happened in
Jyeshtha Nakshatra;
- the armies began
their departure to the field of battle in Pushya Nakshatra; and
- Krishna had proceeded
to Hastinapura on his mission of mediation on the preceding Revati
Nakshatra in the month of Kartica.
All these point but to one
conclusion, namely, that the war, which lasted for eighteen consecutive
days, concluded on the fifty-first night before the winter solstice.
At present the winter solstice falls on the 21st of December. The
Gregorian system, which is the basis of the calendars of all Europe
except Russia, Greece and Turkey, involves an error of less than a day
in 3524 years. As the war took place in 1194 B.C., or 3094 years ago or
2776 years before the calendar was last corrected by Pope Gregory XIII,
we may be certain that the winter solstice which occurred on the
fifty-first day after the close of the war, would have happened, as now
on the 21st of December (New Style). We may, therefore, conclude that
the War commenced on the 14th of October, and was brought to a close on
the night of the 31st of October, 1194 B.C. Whether or not this precise
date, based as it is on data furnished by the Mahabharata alone, proves
to be acceptable to the critical eye of a historian, we may at least be
sure that the war took place in the latter part of the year 1194 B.C.
May 5,
2007
Related
Article:
Dating Mahabharata – 2 Eclipses in Thirteen Days
by Dr. S. Balakrishna
Top
|
History
|
|
