--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "kishore patnaik"
<kishorepatnaik09@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Many of us are tempted to go for the 1504 bce for Mbh war for the
following
> > (probably obvious, yet let me recount) reasons:
>
> 1. Some people believe that Betdwaraka pertains to around 1500 bce
(which
> is a wrong position- it pertains to much ealier times and I think
we are yet
> to correctly date Betdwaraka.<
Could still be true, and is the opinion of leading archaeologists.
>
> 3. The PGW of Hastinapur is dated to 1500 bce which many want to
believe as
> excavations of Kauravas and Pandavas ' Hastinapur(which they are
not)<
That remains to be seen. Again, I note that independently, some
archaeologists put this MBh-related dat at ca. 1500 BC. On indirect
astronomical grounds, I am inclined tio the same date for MBh, and
Talageri's text-based chronology goes in the same sense. There is a
convergence of evidence on that time-bracket. By contrast, Achar's
astro-dating of the MBh to 3067 BC is a freak, unsupported by any
other evidence so far.
At any rate, I am now sure that the astronomical dating to >3000 BC
on the basis of the astro-omen-reading by Vyasa to Dhratarashtra as
described in the MBh is definitely wrong. Any astronomer should see
it at once (I only saw it at second sight), something is impossible
in the configuration you and Kalyanaraman (faithfully quoting the
MBh, I trust) give for the eve of the MBh battle:
You say:
>
> Astrologically, the dating of Veda Vyasa - Dhritarashtra argument >
has occured at a time when Saturn was in Taurus, Sun(with Rahu) in
Libra,
> Moon (with Ketu) in Aries and Mars in Scorpio.
>
And Kalyanraman says:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivilization/message/52526
>
> Krishna's departure on Revati Sept. 26, 3067 BCE
> Krishna's arrival in Hastinapura on Bharani Sept. 28, 3067 BCE
> Solar eclipse on Jyeshtha amavasya Oct. 14, 3067 BCE
> Krittika full moon (lunar eclipse) September 29, 3067 BCE
> War starts on November 22, 3067 BCE (Saturn in Rohini, Jupiter in
> Revati)
> Winter solstice, January 13, 3066 BCE
> Bhishma's expiry, January 17, 3066 BCE Magha shukla ashtami
All this while of that year, the Sun was at less than 90° from
Antares/Jyeshthha in Scorpio. Mars is said to come retrograde near
Antares, so it is at less than 90° from the sun. But Mars can only
become retrograde when it is at more than 120° from the sun. So, sun
in Libra, or indeed anywhere in the autumnal belt Leo-Virgo-Libra-
Scorpio-Sagitarrius-Capricorn-Aquarius, precludes Mars turning
retrograde in Libra or Scorpio, i.e. when approaching
Antares/Jyeshtha. Your configuration is impossible. Therefore, in
3066 or 3067, no such configuration took place.
For something non-astronomical, you say:
> Mbh describes Saraswati, which has totally dried up by
> 1900 bce. Hence, Mabh must have occured prior to 1900 bce
>
Maybe the Saraswati dried up to its present modest condition in 1900
BC, but it didn't disappear, indeed it still exists today. But it
was no longer the mighty sea-going river and instead dried up halfway
in the desert. As you yourself quote K.:
>
> Balarama sets off on pilgrimage on Sarasvati on Pushya day Nov. 1,
> 3067 BCE
>
To be more precise, he went to Vibhishana, "disappearance", the place
in Rajasthan where the Saraswati, post-1900 BC, dried up. So, if at
all the Saraswati data provide evidence, it would be *against* anu
pre-1900 C dating for the MBh.
Dear Kishore, by now I'm afraid we've lost the attention of all those
linguists on this list. Many of them don't realize that this
astronomical data may have consequences for the whole reconstruction
of the PIE homeland and early IE dispersion. In this case, however,
the astro-data's implications aren't very revolutionary: they support
a somewhat higher chronology than compatible with the current AIT,
but not as high as >3000 BC for the Mahabharata.
Kind regards,
KE