9. Ref 18 Exp 15. Here again is a timing mismatch. Venus was between Shravan and Dhanishtha on first day of war. Its motion described in Ref 18 right upto Shatataraka is thus subsequent. Over how many days is not stated but could be well beyond end of war. How Vyasa is describing it in present tense before beginning of the war? ‘प्रत्युदीक्षते’ clearly signifies present tense. It would actually be appropriate if the start of war was some weeks later than proposed date.
10. Ref. 21 Exp.16. The reference talks about a planet at Krittika. (कृत्तिकासु ग्रहः तीव्रः) Dr. vartak and Shri. Oak claim it to be Pluto. Shri. Oak actually finds Pluto ‘rather closer to Rohini’, not near or at Krittika. I presume Pluto is very slow-moving. It would have been at Rohini only,for some more years and them move forward to Mrug. It could have been at krittika several years back! I also do not find the same object called ‘a nakshatra’ anywhere in the quotation! नक्षत्रे प्रथमे ज्वलन् does not mean that at all! I am not sure of the meaning but it seems to say ‘having burned in the nakshatra earlier’. No translation or interpretation of the second line is given. I am also not sure about what it says. Use of word धूमकेतुरिवस्थितः has some significance. All this rigmarole is supposed to prove it to be Pluto and Shri. Oak calls it ‘sufficient corroboration’! No comment is needed.
11. Ref. 8 and 9 Exp. 19. Both references are about Saturn troubling Rohini. Shri. Oak finds that as Rohini was setting, Saturn was the only planet, ‘somewhere in the eastern sky’, i. e. quite away from Rohini. Being the only available planet, the duty seems to have fallen to Saturn! Saturn also is a slow moving planet and the relative position would be unaffected over a large time span on both sides of the proposed war date. As the position of Saturn vis-à-vis Rohini is so vague, similar situation could occur even one year prior to or after the proposed war year. So the references have no positive worth for validating the war year and/or date.
Ref 8 says ‘(प्राजापत्यं) ग्रहः तीक्ष्णः महाद्युतिः शनैश्चरः (पीडयति)’. second and third word are clearly adjectives of शनैश्चरः. It appears therefore, that ‘tikshna’ is not another planet but refers to Saturn only!
Shri. Oak's contention that Saturn from 'somewhere in the western sky' was troubling Rohini is quite lame! It can be compared with a timid college student making a pass at the college queen, but from a Safe Distance! One would expect that Saturn should be AT or very close to Rohini to trouble her! At this rate, any Planet can be considered troubling any nakshatra from anywhere! These references must be considered as against the claim of year 5561 BCE.
12. Ref. 16 Exp 20. There are two questions on the explanation given by Shri. Oak. Mercury has 88 days’cycle of going around Sun. If it was ‘due East’of Sun on 1st day,agreed that it could have become visible that day, some time after sunset. During 17 days of war the separation increased (rapidly?). Did Mercury still remain ‘Due east of Sun’?. If it did, then it would become visible, after sunset, at a somewhat higher elevation. If it moved around the Sun, it may not be at higher elevation. Shri. Oak describes this ‘becoming visible at a higher point’ as ‘as if rising from the west’. Fanciful but could be allowed. It still does not clarify what is ‘tiryak’ about it. Perhaps, Shri. Oak can provide a graph of daily observed position of Mercury wrt to a horizon line.
If the start of war was, say, 2 months later than 16th Oct. where was mercury w.r.t. Sun on 16th Dec.? Still due East? What separation angle? 17 days thereafter, what was the position? I invite Shri. Oak to check this. It may well be, that for 16th Dec., Mercury’s position vis-à-vis Sun would be similar as for 16th Oct.
The second line of the quote needs further study, especially ‘ज्वलितार्कवर्णः which is an adjective of Graha. It seems to describe Mercury as ज्वलित अर्क वर्णः, ‘of the colour of Burnt Sun’ ! I found the translation of this reference by Ganguli as -- When Karna fell, the rivers stood still.
The Sun set with a pale hue. The planet Mercury, the son of Soma, assuming the hue of fire or the Sun,
appeared to course through the firmament in a slanting direction.
This is a translation of the alternative rendering 16b of the quote from GP edition. The rendering in GP is hackneyed to say the least, with break in meter, consecutive use of two names of Sun (Savita and Divakar), and repetition of word ‘tiryak’. The first rendering from CE is free from such blemishes and is obviously the correct one.
13. Ref. 17 Exp.21 Without exact translation of the second line of the reference in full, it is not possible to say whether Shri. Oak’s interpretation that Mars, Venus and Mercury were protecting Pandavas from behind is correct or not. Does पुरस्तात् mean ‘behind’? I doubt. (Refer अव पुरस्तात् from Atharvasheersha where it means ‘protect me from East’). It actually means ‘From East’. If Pandavas were facing east, purastat seems to mean ‘from the front’. Actually the plantes were in the western sky! The three planets could be seen only some time after Sunset as mercury is also mentioned. Venus is also never far away from Sun. So if pandavas were still facing East, they would be behind Pandavas but then how could they protect them from the front? Further, at the end of 18th day, all Kourava army was already destroyed and what little of Pandava (essentially Panchala), army remained was also no longer in any particular formation. Pandavas and their supporters were wandering in search of Duryodhana. They were not formally facing eastwards as on first few days.
What remains is that there were three planets in the western sky on evening of 18th day. Of them, Mars is slow moving and Mercury and Venus are always close to Sun. After two months, position could be same or similar. The quote does not prove or disprove 16th Oct. in my view.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment