आपणास माझे लेखन आवडते आहे असे ब्लॉगला भेट देणारांच्या वाढत्या संख्येवरून वाटते. विषेशकरून कर्णकथेला वाचक पुष्कळ मिळाले. आपल्या प्रतिक्रिया जरूर मिळावयास हव्यात! त्याशिवाय लिहीत राहण्याचा उत्साह कसा टिकून रहाणार?
I changed over from Marathi to English for my comments on Shri. Oak's book recently. I continue to get readers but there are no comments! Wonder whether I am boring!
Friday, September 11, 2015
KrishnaShishtai Timeline Contd.
I deliberately omitted all astronomical references in the narration so far. The story without them, as you can see, is complete, consistent and logical. I mentioned that Krishna took Karna with him when he left Hastinapur. The event is described in the Text in an indirect manner, Sanjaya telling the Kurus, what he heard. It is quite likely that Krishna never told Karna that he was Kunti’s son! If he did and Sanjaya somehow came to know of it and told the Kauravas, it was no longer a secret. In that case everybody except the Pandavas came to know the secret! Would Krishna betray Kunti’s trust in this manner even if Kunti had told him the secret? As stated in the text, Yudhishthira came to know of the secret from Kunti herself, after the war was over! And he blamed her for not telling this earlier. Nobody blames Krishna for keeping it secret.
Maybe, Kunti had never told the secret to Krishna or if she did,he kept it to himself. Kunti alone had tried to persuade Karna but failed. Maybe, the whole dialogue between Krishna and Karna on this subject never took place and is interpolated later to whitewash the image of Karna as a true friend of Duryodhan! May be, the interpolator inserted it in a clumsy manner in the mouth of Sanjaya! Quite likely, Krishna did talk to Karna but only about the evils of the war between brothers and tried to persuade him to convince his friend Duryodhana to be reasonable but when Karna did not budge, sent the message to meet on Kurukshetra for war! All this of course has nothing to do with tithis and Nakshatras except for the last part of the dialogue.
Enter the researchers! They start analyzing the astronomical references. It is mentioned in the text that Krishna left Upaplavya on Revati nakshatra. Then, after the talk with Karna, before departing, Krishna says, ‘After seven days, there is Jyeshthaa amavasya. Jyeshthaa’s Diety is Shakra so it is Shakra amavasya, let us start the war on that day’.
Is Shakra amavasya same as Kartik amavasya? The researchers assume so. If the month was Kartik, moon would have been in Krittika on the full moon day. So on the coming amavasya, moon and sun will be in Jyeshtha. (Devata for Jyeshtha is Shakra so it is Shakra Amavasya). So on the day of Krishna Karna dialogue, moon must be seven nakshatra back i. e. in Purva Falguni. If Krishna started on Revati and on third day the Shishtai took place it was on Bharani. From Bharani to Purva F., for 8-9 days, where was Krishna?There is no explanation of the gap. So the researchers claim that Krishna must have been in Hastinapur only for all those un-accounted days! Doing what and staying where? No trace what-so-ever in the text.
I have a basic question here. Is the story as told in detail more important that the astronomical mentions? Which must fit which? Should the story be twisted to match the Nakshatras etc.? Why?
Consider the many problems and possibilities.
1. All those mentions of Nakshatras may have been interpolated much later for all we know.
2. Was the month really Kartik? On what grounds? Was the system of naming month as we name them now, established at that time? Not possible. How a month got a name at that time? Our current system of naming a lunar month is based on ‘movement of Sun through the Rashis. A transit of sun fixes the name.’ This system is obviously a very much later adaptation, only after Rashis arrived on the scene in India. There were no Rashis at Mahabharat times. What then, was the system for naming a month at Mahabharata time? It is not known.
3. Only other system for naming a lunar month that I know of, is that of naming the month by the name of the nakshatra where the full moon of that month was. (Twelve month names now in use link with twelve specific Nakshatra names). Was this the system in use in Mahabharat times? There is no such mention in Mahabharat itself. With introduction of Adhika Masa (Or masas) this method is really not fool proof. With 27 nakshatras and twelve months to name, more often than not, full moon will be in other than ‘one of the chosen 12!’ Also it will work satisfactorily with Purnimaadi month as the Nakshatra will then be noted on first day and name of the month decided. My main point is there is no certainty about the method in vogue in Mahabharata Time.
4. Adhika Masas further complicates the matter. In the whole of Mahabharata there is only one place where system of Adhika Masa then prevailing is explained. Bhishma says that ‘to match lunar months and the year, two (unnamed) extra months are required to be taken after every 58 lunar months’. This was a simple but effective method. It is also logical that this simple method must have ruled for long, until some elaborate method, for deciding when to take a single extra month, (after 29 lunar months, generally), was established. When did some such a system come in use and what was the system? Not known. The current method of naming a month, based on Sun’s transit from one Rashi to next, and when no transit takes place in any particular lunar month, call it an Adhika masa, obviously came very much later, only after Rashis came in the picture in India. What is the guarantee then that the month of Krishna Shishtai was Kartik as we understand months now?
5. Krishna says the coming amavasya is a Shakra amavasya. Now Shakra is the Devata of no less than five Nakshatras! Chitra, Vishakha, Jyeshtha, Dhanishtha (Vasava also means Indra) and Shatataraka. So out of these five, which was the Nakshatra on the next amavasya day? Can we claim Jyeshtha with certainty?
6. It is to be noted that with the system of taking two Extra months, without name, after every 58 normal months, prevailing in Mahabharata time, causes automatic naming of all normal months in a specific prevalent sequence, without needing any reference to any specific Nakshatra on Purnima or Amavasya day.7. Mahabharat text very rarely mentions month names. (Chaitra, Vaishakh etc.) What are mentioned are ऋतु. When Pandavas lost the dyuta and went for vanavas or when Arjun appeared on the field to fight with Kauravas at end of Adnyatvas, what is mentioned is ग्रीष्म. It is probable that the current month names were not even in vogue then. The Text says Krishna started from Upaplavya शरदान्ते, हिमागमे. The mention of Rutu is clear and reliable.
With all these problems of month names, Nakshatras and tithis, speculation about Krishna idling in Hastinapur for 6-7 days to match the tithis is meaningless and un-called-for.
What can be concluded from the Krishna Shishtai story is only that, a)Krishna started from Upaplavya after Autumnal Equinox, (शरदान्ते, हिमागमे), i. e. after the rains were over, b)In a few days thereafter, (some 20-25 days after Autumnal Equinox ), the war broke out and c)The land had dried up and season was suitable for a war in every way according to what Krishna said to Karna in the end