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, February 12, 2016
There is no question that there is a relation between names of 12 Lunar months and 27 Nakshatras. But which follows from which? There is a little question in my mind.
In all probability, the 27 Nakshatras were identified first, as milestones along the Ecliptic, the path in the sky on which the Sun Moon and Planets move. They also must have been given names at that time.
Month names like Chaitra, Vaishakh appear clearly derived from Nakshatra names Chitraa and Vishakhaa. The Sanskrit grammar rules of Vruddhi are seen to be followed in forming the names. Do we then conclude that the names of months are derived from names of Nakshatras?
Out of twelve month names the question arises about Ashadh, Bhadrapad and Falgun. The corresponding Nakshatra names are Poorvaashadhaa-Uttaraashaadhaa, Poorva-UttaraaBhadrapada and Purvaa-UttaraFalguni. In all three cases, there are double Nakshatra Names involved. Also, the month names are ‘short’ and do not appear to be derived from Nakshatra name by Guna or Vruddhi rule. On the other hand, Nakshatra name Ashadhaa appears to be derived from month name Ashadh by extending last vowel. Same with other two, Bhadrapad and Falgun. In these three cases, it cannot be said with certainty that the month name is derived from Nakshatra name!
What is the relation between Month and Nakshatra name? There is no clear answer.
Thursday, February 4, 2016
Year and date of Mahabharat War.
I have examined in this blog two proposed years of the Mahabharat war, one by Shri. Oak and another by Shri. Achar. I have stated my arguments why I find both unacceptable. In case of Shri. Oak many of the astronomical references from the text do not match, particularly for the DATE proposed. As a keen but ordinary reader of Mahabharat, what are the minimum considerations which must be satisfied in my view, to accept a proposed year and Date of the great war? I will state my views on this point.
1. Shri. Oak has identified an Epoch when Arundhati was ahead of Vasishtha. Unless any researcher finds any factual error in the finding and modifies the period or concludes that there was no such period, I believe the proposed year should lie within the ‘Epoch’.
2. As soon as any particular year is proposed as the year of war, the Julian date of the Winter solstice gets automatically fixed. That becomes the date when Bhishma died. There is no choice!
3. I consider the statement by Bhishma, that he spent 58 painful nights on the bed of arrows as binding. There is no other mention of this period in the entire text and Vyasa has written nothing to discredit Bhishma, directly or indirectly. What Krishna has said actually supports Bhishma, if correctly interpreted. The Julian date when the war started thus gets automatically fixed, 67 days before the date of winter solstice already fixed.
4. The entire sequence between Krishna’s starting from Upaplavya for Shishtai and commencement of war, will have to fit between Autumnal Equinox and the first day determined as above. Commencement of war before end of rains as proposed by Shri. Oak is unnatural.
5. Among the many astronomical observations of Karna and Vyasa, there are some which must be corroborated. Others are not decisive.
6. Vyasa has described a lunar eclipse in un-ambiguous terms, to have taken place on the Purnima prior to Shishtai day. It should be corroborated.
7. Vyasa has very emphatically described an unusually short lunar fortnight, ending on Amavasya. He has stated that it was of only 13 days, not the normal 14 or 15 days or even 16 days. Therefore there should be only 12 days between the lunar eclipse and the following Amavasya.
8. Should the first day of war coincide with Amavasya? Not necessary. It could be one or more days after Amavasya.
9. Need there be a Solar Eclipse on this Amavasya? Not necessary. Description of events is vague.
10. Need there be another lunar eclipse on the next Purnima? Nothing is mentioned in the text so has no relevance.
11. About the positions of various planets, mentioned by Karna and Vyasa, I believe Saturn at Rohini should be met as it is a very bad omen for the ruler and mentioned by both Karna and Vyasa.
12. About other planets, or the movement of Mars through various Nakshatras, we can keep an open mind. More of the positions matching, the better! It is clear that multiple positions for Saturn or Jupiter cannot be met. Also Mars cannot go Vakri or Vakra at three places, one after another. However the researcher should verify all these positions and record his findings.
13. About Darkness on 14th night, Balaram Tirthyatra and other unresolved issues, whatever any researcher proposes will need to be examined. It will not affect the acceptability of the year or date of war.
I had kept an open mind about year of war proposed by Shri. Oak. It does not meet the conditions I have stated above. Saturn was not at Rohini. Short Fortnight ending on Amavasya is not seen. I am therefore not able to accept his year. His date is of course not at all acceptable as it is earlier than Autumnal Equinox. Lunar eclipse is also not Near Total or Total so does not match Vyasa's description. I have already rejected his claim of Bhishma spending 95 days on death bed.
I admit that my ideas and understanding of some of the above points were not so un-ambiguous to begin with. As i have exchanged a lot of points and arguments with Shri. Oak on this blog, on his blog and e-mails, I have come to conclusions stated above.