History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.766
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.766
- Language
- English
v4.c63.t2.766.1
he remarks, 'it is 42 days since I left (on a pilgrimage); I started when the moon was in Puṣya and I have come here again on Śravaṇa'¹⁷⁷⁵. In Śalya 35. 13-14 it is stated that Balarāma went to the river Sarasvatī on pilgrimage on 'maitra-nakṣatra-yoga' (i. e. when the moon was in Anurādhā). This conflict may be resolved by holding, as Nīlakaṇṭha does, that Balarāma left the Pāṇḍavas on Puṣya, reached the Sarasvatī on Anurādhā and returned on Śravaṇa. If we follow Śalya 34.6 the war commenced when the moon was in or near Mṛgaśīrṣa (18 nakṣatras before Śravaṇa). This would be in direct conflict with a passage in Bhīṣmaparva 17.2 that¹⁷⁷⁶ 'on the day of battle the moon was in the province of Maghā' and also other passages that will be indicated later on. This last passage should ordinarily mean that the moon was near Maghā. Mr. Karandikar looks upon Śalya 34.6 as an interpolation and takes Bhīṣma 17.2 to mean that the moon was in an inauspicious nakṣatra of the category of Maghā. This would suit Bharaṇī but not Rohiṇī or Mṛgaśīrṣa. His meaning is farfetched and he does not explain why Bharaṇī was not directly mentioned in the Epic, when in several other places the epic does mention directly the nakṣatra concerned. His explanation gives the go-by to the 13th *tithi*. Dr. Daftari boldly asserts that we must transpose the nakṣatras (in Śalya 34. 6) and read 'śravaṇe samprayātosmi puṣyeṇa punarāgataḥ'.
v4.c63.t2.766.2
If we once resort to these methods followed by these two learned writers, there is no knowing where one should stop. There are scholars who might with equal or greater plausibility claim that most of these astronomical references are either of very late date or are interpolations (vide Vaidya's 'Mahābhārata' p. 71). Similarly, if we once concede that we are at liberty to change readings to suit our theories even in the total absence of all manuscript evidence, then there is no sure foundation on which we can build. The Mahābhārata passages have a tradition of centuries behind them. We must, in the absence of good mss. evidence to the contrary, either accept them *all* and try to explain them or we must give up the job of reconciling them as a hopeless tangle and rely on other evidence to arrive at the date of the Bhārata war as best as we can. We saw above that Jyeṣṭhā was the nakṣatra on Kārtika amāvāsyā and, if the war began then, the nakṣatra on the 18th day from then would be Puṣya. Nīlakaṇṭha, following the Mīmāṁsā rules of interpretation, holds that the concluding passage (*upasaṁhāravākya*) is superior in strength to passages that occur at the beginning of a work, that the passage in Śalya 34. 6 is the dominant one and other conflicting passages must be either brushed aside or explained away in conformity with Śalya 34. 6 and gives an explanation of ‘Maghāviṣayagaḥ somaḥ’ which is quite unsatisfactory. Dr.
v4.c63.t2.766.3
Daftari also holds, relying on Atharva Jyotiṣa, that the passage means ‘the moon was in Mūla’ (p. 27 para. 62–65 of his work ‘Astronomical method’ &c.). The explanation is ingenious but one fails to see why this round-about way was resorted to and why the text did not simply say ‘mūlanakṣatragaḥ somaḥ’, which violates no metrical requirements. In Anuśāsana parva (167. 26–28) Bhīṣma, while on the bed of darts, states:¹⁷⁷⁷ ‘the sun has turned (towards the north); 58 days have passed by since I laid myself down on this (arrow bed). This is the mild month of Māgha that is now current, three parts of it remain and this fortnight should be *śukla*’. Bhīṣma was struck down on the 10th day of the war; so 67 nights had passed from the day when the war began to the day in Māgha on which this was uttered. The difficulty is how to connect ‘tribhāgaśeṣaḥ’, whether as an adjective of ‘māsa’ or of ‘pakṣa’. If we take it in the first way, these words were uttered on 8th of Māgha śukla: if we take it as an adjective of ‘pakṣa’, then they will have to be taken as uttered on the 4th of the bright half or on the 4th of the dark half which may be regarded in its astrological effects as equal to *śuklapakṣa* (though the tithi itself is in the dark half). If the words were uttered on the 8th of Māgha śukla, the Bhārata war began on Kārtika amāvāsyā (which will be in consonance with Udyoga 142. 18 quoted in n. 1770). The passage in Anuśāsana (167. 26–28) is supported by two other passages.
v4.c63.t2.766.4
After the war was over, Yudhiṣṭhira went to the capital and stayed there for 50 nights and when he found that the Sun had started on its apparent northward path (*uttarāyaṇa*) he came to Bhīṣma (Anuśāsana 167. 5). In Śāntiparva 51. 14 Kṛṣṇa says to Bhīṣma: ‘You have yet to live 56 days.’ Nīlakaṇṭha, who takes Śalya 34. 6 as the dominant passage, puts a most far-fetched construction on the word 'aṣṭapañcāśatam', which he takes to mean 'one hundred minus 58' i. e. 42 nights and explains 'pañcāśataṁ ṣaṭ ca' as equal to 30. This shows to what straits commentators are reduced when conflicting passages have got to be explained away. One more indication about the *tithi* on which the war commenced is afforded by Droṇaparva chap. 184, where it is stated that a grim fight went on till midnight when Ghaṭotkaca was killed, that the fatigued armies then snatched some sleep, that then the moon rose at about 2 A. M. (verse 46) and that the fight was then resumed¹⁷⁷⁸ (chap. 186. 1 'tribhāgamātraśeṣāyāṁ rātryāṁ yuddham-avartata). This description of moonrise shows that Ghaṭotkaca was killed on or about the 11th of the dark half. We know from the Mahābhārata itself that Ghaṭotkaca was killed on the night of the 4th day of Droṇa's command or on the 14th day after the war began. This would establish that the war began on the 12th or 13th of the bright half and ended on the 14th of the dark half or on amāvāsyā of Mārgaśīrṣa. Dr. Daftari holds that this description is an interpolation.