History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.753
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.753
- Language
- English
v4.c63.t2.753.1
The number of works and papers in which the dates of the Bhārata war and of Kaliyuga are discussed is very large. A few of them only are noted here. The late Shankar Balkrishna Dikshit in his exhaustive volume on 'the History of Indian Astronomy' (in Marathi, 2nd ed. of 1931) deals with this subject at pp. 107–127. Mr. C. V. Vaidya in 'Mahābhārata, a criticism, 1904' devotes one chapter (pp. 55–78) and appendix note V (pp. 180–190) to the date of the Mahābhārata war. He holds fast to the traditional view that the Mahābhārata war was fought in 3101 B. C. Mr. N. Jagannatha Rao writes a book on ‘the Age of the Mahābhārata war’ (Bezwada, 1931), in which he disputes the identity of Candragupta Maurya with Sandracottus mentioned by Megasthenes, holds that Sandracottus is the Gupta Emperor Candragupta, that the date of Candragupta Maurya would be about 1535 B. C., that the word ‘Śakakāla’ in the Bṛhatsaṁhitā refers really to the era of the Persian Emperor Cyrus about 550 B. C. and that the Great War was fought in 3139 B. C. The work does not go deeply into anything and is rather superficial. There is a lengthy and interesting article by Mr. K. G. Sankar on ‘some problems of Indian Chronology’ in Annals of the B. O. R. Institute, Poona, vol. XII pp. 301-361 in which he seems to favour 1198 B. C. as the date of the Mahābhārata war. Mr. J. S.
v4.c63.t2.753.2
Karandikar, editor of the ‘Kesari’ (Poona), contributed certain articles (in Marathi) which are now issued as a booklet (1939), in which he examines many of the astronomical references in the Mahābhārata and the Paurāṇic lists about the dynasties of ancient Indian kings and arrives at the conclusion that the Mahābhārata war was fought in 1931 B. C. Though I differ from him in important details, I think that the date arrived at by him appears to be one of the two probable or best authenticated dates among the several dates proposed by various scholars. Prof. P. C. Sen-Gupta contributed a paper to the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society in 1937, vol. III pp. 101-119, in which he discusses the date of the Mahābhārata war and arrives at the conclusion that the Bhārata war was fought about 2449 B. C. This also is a very probable date and has the authority of the tradition mentioned in the Bṛhatsaṁhitā that the śaka era is 2526 years after the era of Yuddhiṣṭhira. In J. A. S. B. for 1938, vol. IV pp. 393-413 Prof. Sen-Gupta again examines ‘Bhārata battle traditions’ and confirms the date 2449 B. C. already arrived at by him. Dr. K. L. Daftari delivered some lectures in the University of Nagpur on ‘the astronomical method and its application to the chronology of Ancient India’ which are published in book form (Nagpur, 1942).
v4.c63.t2.753.3
This work exhaustively deals with almost all the passages of astronomical importance contained in the Mahābhārata and is characterized by great industry, patient calculations and ingenious explanations of conflicting passages. His conclusion is that the Bhārata war was fought in 1197 B. C. Although one feels nothing but admiration for the author’s great learning and acumen, it is not possible to agree with the date arrived at by him or with the method and theories adopted by him. Apart from details one cannot accede to the following theories propounded by him viz. his division of the astronomical references into two groups, his assumption that a passage in the Droṇaparva (chap. 184) about the rising of the moon at about 2 A. M. is an interpolation (because it does not square with his explanations of the other passages), his bold expedient of changing 'citrām' to 'caitām' in Bhīṣma 3. 12 and his transposition of Śravaṇa and Puṣya in Śalyaparva 34. 6, his taking 'aṅgāraka' to mean Venus (and not Mars). Dr. Daftari's work was reviewed by Prof. Sen-Gupta in JASB for 1943, vol. IX pp. 221-228 and after submitting it to a searching analysis and calculations, the learned Professor arrives at the conclusion that he cannot accept Dr. Daftari's method, which is useless for all practical purposes. Prof. K. V. Abhyankar contributes an article to the Annals of B. O. R. I. for 1944, vol. XXV. pp.
v4.c63.t2.753.4
116-136 on 'the date and time of the Bhārata war', in which he takes into account only the material available in the Epic itself and bases his conclusions on the principle of following the voice of the majority. He furnishes a useful table in an appendix that shows at a glance some of the important astronomical passages of the Mahābhārata with their interpretations given by the commentators Arjunamiśra and Nīlakaṇṭha and by Mr. Karandikar and himself and finally gives his opinion that the traditional view of the date (3101 B. C.) is approximately correct. It appears that he had not, when he wrote the article, the work of Dr. Daftari before him nor Prof. Sen-Gupta's devastating criticism of it. It will be apparent from the above that the attempts to settle the exact date of the Mahābhārata war on the strength of the astronomical materials contained therein are dismal failures. Hardly any two scholars agree on the exact dates so arrived at, which range from 1193 B. C. to 3101 B. C. and even beyond. There are many reasons for this disappointing result. In the first place, several of the criteria mentioned in the epic are hopelessly inconsistent, as will be made clear a little below by a few examples. Further, several scholars assume that the epic was composed within a short time (about three years according to Ādiparva, 62, 52, cr. ed. chap. 56. 32) after the war. Many (including my humble self) cannot subscribe to this view.
v4.c63.t2.753.5
Besides, we are totally in the dark about the details of the system of the calendar generally adopted at the period of the war. Many suppose that it largely resembled the rules contained in the Vedāṅga Jyotiṣa (of the Ṛgveda). There is no unanimity on the question whether the months ended with *amāvāsyā* (i. e. whether they were *amānta*) or whether they ended with Full Moon (i. e. whether they were *pūrṇimānta*).¹⁷⁶⁶ That a pūrṇimānta month was in vogue in Vedic times is beyond dispute. For example, Tai. S. states that Pūrvā Phalgunī is the last night of the year and Uttarā Phalgunī is the mouth (i. e. beginning). Similarly Tai. S. VII. 4. 8. 2 declares that the citrāpūrṇamāsa is the mouth of the year; while Śāṅ. Br. IV. 4 declares that the Phālgunī Paurṇamāsī is the *mukha* of the year. The author or authors of the Mahābhārata, in describing the evil portents of an impending tragic or catastrophic event, often assemble together (as in Udyoga 143.5-29, Bhīṣma 2. 16-33) all of them irrespective of the fact whether some of them are possible in the very order of nature. For example, it is stated that Arundhatī went before Vasiṣṭha (Bhīṣma 2. 31), that a mare gave birth to a cow calf and that a bitch gave birth to a jackal (Bhīṣma 3. 6) and that images of gods trembled, laughed and vomited blood (Bhīṣma 2. 26, which may be compared with Bṛhatsaṁhitā 45. 8 and the verses of Garga quoted by Utpala thereon); it is several times said that the Moon and the Sun are seized (i. e.
v4.c63.t2.753.6
eclipsed) at an unusual season (*aparvaṇi*) or simultaneously by Rāhu (vide Bhīṣmaparva 3. 28 and 32–33 and Aśvamedhikaparva 77. 15 ).¹⁷⁶⁷ Further, these very verses state that the eclipses of the Sun and the Moon took place on the *same day* and on the 13th and in the same month. Dr. Daftari interprets 'ekāhnā' as meaning on the same week-day and 'on the 13th tithi' (pp. 5-6 of his work) calculated according to the wrong method of those days. It is extremely doubtful whether week-days had been known or named at the time of the Bhārata war or even at the time of the composition of the Epic. It is too much to assume that the astronomers of the Mahābhārata war days, while they could predict eclipses and state accurately the position of the planets, were so clumsy as to allow a mistake of two *tithis* to occur in their calendar with respect to the occurrence of a solar eclipse. The words in Bhīṣmaparva 3. 28 and 32–33 appear to be a mere exaggerated statement of portents. If real observed eclipses are meant they would have to be taken in the order of the words in the text, viz. first an eclipse of the Moon (on Kārtika paurṇimā) and then an eclipse of the Sun (on Kārtika amāvāsyā) and further it must be assumed that the dark half of Kārtika contained only 13 days. Dr. Daftari (pp. 44–46 of his work) holds that first there was a solar eclipse on Āśvina amāvāsyā, then a lunar eclipse and then again a solar eclipse.
v4.c63.t2.753.7
In that case we should expect the order to be 'sūrya-candrau' and not 'candrasūryau'. Besides, hardly any other scholar holds that there were three eclipses one after another. Therefore, it is hardly possible to say with certainty that the author accurately states astronomical facts observed by him or even traditionally handed down as definite facts and does not draw on his own imagination about the portents or does not exaggerate as a rhetorical device. In Bṛhatsaṁhitā 5. 26, 97-98 Varāhamihira states the evil consequences if a moon eclipse precedes or follows a sun eclipse in the period of one fortnight.