Who was Senior? Bhishma or Vyasa?

Who was Senior? Bhishma or Vyasa? Bhishma and Vyasa are two prominent personalities in Mahabharata. Both are reputed as highly learned. Who was senior in age? First impression may be that Vyasa was senior. A little thinking will get us the answer.

Bhishma was a young man, maybe around 20 years, but had no interest in marrying and settling down. He was spending his time in hunting. His father was not much hopeful that he would be instrumental in continuing his Vansha. He saw Satyavati and wanted to marry her to get sons to continue his Vansha. Satyavati had earlier fallen in love with Parashara and had given birth to Vyasa. Parashara had however left her to follow his life of a seeker of divine knowledge. How many years had elapsed after that? Mahabharat does not state this clearly. One has to make a conjecture. After Parashara left and Vyasa also went with him, Satyavati must have spent a few years in greif. She was however a very young girl and her whole life was there for her to live!

We can presume that 7-8 years after Vyasa's birth she overcame her grief. When Shantanu saw her and asked her father for her hand Vyasa may have been at most 10 years old. Bhishma was 20 years old, give and take a year or two! That makes Bhishma senior to Vyasa by around 10 years!

Names of Lunar months and Nakshatras.

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.

Year and date of Mahabharat War.

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.

Two more comments

I had written summery of all my comments and objections and had closed the subject. I will add only two more points. 1. Shri. Oak produced an excellent video of 'Vakra' motion of Mars. It did not support his interpretation because the video showed Mars going Vakra near Rohini and not 'मघासु'. I was waiting for a similar video for 'Vakra' motion of Jupiter near Shravan. I have not seen any such video published by Shri. Oak. Maybe, Jupiter also did not go vakra near Shravan (श्रवणे च बृहस्पतिः?)

2. About Bhishma spending 95+ days on deathbed, Shri. Oak repeatedly mentions that a large no. of observations in Mahabharata support it. Readers may get an impression that at many places there is a specific mention of the days spent by Bhishma on deathbed, by Vyasa or others. It is not so. The many references merely help in building a time-line from fall of Bhishma till the first visit by Pandavas and Krishna to Bhishma well after end of war. Only single mention of days spent by Bhishma other than what Bhishma himself said on the last day is what Krishna said at the time of this visit. He mentions 56 days as against 57 days (58 nights) mentioned by Bhishma himself. Shri. Oak considers Krishna's 56 days as 'from that day onwards'. I consider them to be total days he expected Bhishma to spend from fall to Uttarayana.

Summary of my comments.- 2

7. About the eclipses, the first lunar, prior to Shishtai, is clearly mentioned by Vyasa. The next solar is doubtful. What is far more important is that the specific lunar fortnight between these two should be of 13 days. Vyasa clearly mentions it, that too ending on Amavasya. The war started next day or perhaps later. The third eclipse is not mentioned by Vyasa. No need to have three eclipses in any proposed year of war. The fortnight between solar and the second lunar (if it occur) is NOT what Vyasa is referring to as abnormally short.

8. About the year 5561 BCE I have no views. In spite of several doubts, it could be correct.

9. Start of war cannot be in rainy season. It has to be 18-20 days after Autumnal equinox. No king would have agreed to start the war before end of rains. Krishna was also no fool to propose a war with rathas and elephants before end of rains.

10. Did the war start on an Amavasya? 7th 8th 10th and 14th day descriptions raise doubt. Pitch Darkness after sunset on 7th and 8th day, and description of moon by Drona to his son on 10th day raise questions. Total darkness throughout the night on 14th day is a big puzzle. Darkness due to dust is a ridiculous explanation. Moonrise just before daybreak, in crescent shape and ‘in the East’ clearly indicate Krishnapaksha. It cannot be wished away.

11. Balaram returning on 18th day is an unsolved puzzle. All play on words, ‘श्रवणे पुनरागतः’ etc. is just that, play on words.

12. Bhishma spent 58 nights on bed of arrows and nothing more. Build-up of time-line up to visit of Pandavas and Krishna to Bhishma is just that, time till that event. Minor variations in that are insignificant. Krishna’s statement of 56 days on that day has to be taken as ‘from Bhishma’s fall’, and not from that day onwards. There is a clear internal consistency between war starting after rains, i. e. some days after Autumnal equinox, and Bhishma spending 57 days on deathbed ending his life on Winter Solstice.

I will end with a general remark that the story in the text must override any astronomical references which clash. One cannot twist and hang the story on Astronomy reference pegs.

I will not write any more on the book. I have enjoyed reading the book in any case. It has taught me many new things for which I am grateful to Shri. Oak.

Summary of my comments on Shri. Oak’s book. - 1

I have written extensively on the book in this blog. I will now summarize my views on some main points of disagreement. But first some points of agreement.

1. I wholeheartedly agree with the finding about Epoch of Arundhati. Whether any proposed year, based on other branches of science should be automatically disqualified if outside the epoch is a moot point.

2. I am happy to learn about ‘धनिष्ठादि तदा कालो ब्रह्मणा परिनिर्मितः’

3. I appreciate the enormous effort of Shri. Oak in examining so many references and proposing explanations etc. and some new concepts like ‘वक्र’ motion of planets.

Now the disagreements.

1. All three positions of Saturn remain un-reconciled. All three of course cannot be met in any year. Which one is more important and must be met correctly? I cant say.

2. Same is true about Jupiter.

3. About Mars, the videos of Shri. Oak are excellent. If Mars was to go Vakra anywhere near Maghaa, the references would have been vindicated. Unfortunately, it goes vakra in Rohini, 5 nakshatra earlier. Will any other year fully meet the descriptions? I cant say. Does going Vakra mean ‘changing direction – left to right or right to left’ – and not ‘crossing of Ecliptic?’ I invite Shri. Oak to check this possibility.

4. A large numbers of references are just Upamas and whether met or not in any proposed year is immaterial.

5. Krishnashishtai timeline is not acceptable. One cannot ‘assume’ events not mentioned in the text, directly or even indirectly, to suit one’s theory. Krishna spent only 2 or max. 3 days in Hastinapur and not 7 or 8.

6. The period of Krishna Shishtai cannot be pulled back into the rainy season. It was clearly ‘शरदान्ते हिमागमे’.

Sequence of motion of Mars - 2

It is however not possible that three retrograde, as normally understood, motions of Mars, at Magha, Chitra-Swati and Jyeshtha, one after the other, could occur in any single year. Interpretation of Apasavya as Retrograde and Vakra meaning maybe, change of direction, veering to left or right, (not necessarily crossing the ecliptic), can be considered as an acceptable solution. If the Vakra motion i. e. crossing of ecliptic, had been seen at Magha and at Jyeshtha, one could accept Shri. Oak’s definition but it occurs at Rohini and before Anuradha.

Use of present tense in all statements of Karna and Vyasa creates problems which appear irreconcilable. At the start of war, Mars can be only 1)at Magha – मघासु (or 2) at Anuradha , - प्रार्थयते मैत्रम् 3) at Chitra, - पीड्यते or )at Shravan, -श्रवणे not at all four places, obviously. The text however uses present tense for all four! Also Mars would be at first three locations long time before start of war, if it had reached Shravan-Dhanishtha by start of war. So why Karna and Vyasa use present tense for earlier three positions is a puzzle. One could treat it as poetic liberty if the Vakra motion did take place at Magha and Jyeshtha, but it does not!

I wonder whether any better fit could be found in some other year. I have no means to check it.

I look forward to seeing similar video of Jupiter going Vakra at Shravan, when and where.