[Prev][Next][Index]
Ancient History (1/2) [Re: Contribution of Backward Classes..]
mani@srirangam.esd.sgi.com (Mani Varadarajan) writes:
[ Just to summarize, I stated earlier that Mahabharat War *occured* around
3100 B.C (5561 B.C according to Dr. Vartak) and that Ramayan occured even
earlier (7300 B.C according to Dr. Vartak). Mani Varadarajan seems to
disagree with me on some points, which I attempt to clarify.]
> What critical scholar of the Mahabharata has convincingly proven
> the veracity of your above statement? There is really no way of
> knowing how true the stories in the Mahabharata are.
The Indian line of thought has always maintained Mahabharat to be a
historical fact, unlike the western scholars, who rather prefered to
consider the great text as a wonderful poem, exagerrated story, etc., all
of which is fine. One scholar, Dr. Sathe, by evaluating the opinions of
120 scholars on the dating of the Mahabharat, states that about 60 sixty
of them take the date to be around 3100 B.C. Study of the recently found
city of Dwaraka, that is mentioned numerously in the Mahabharat text, is
indicated to have submerged under the sea around 2500 B.C. The excavation
of the so-called mythical city thus confirms the authenticity of the
contents of the Mahabharat. Same is true with River Saraswati, which
supposedly dried out somewhere around 2000 B.C, that has been depicted as
a "rivulet" in the Mahabharat manuscripts. If these (atleast) things were
imaginary, then how is that they were found to have been extant? Please
refer to the following post for some points on why Mahabharat may be
construed as a reality and not a myth. Hope that helps you in forming an
opinion.
Even assuming and acknowledging that the Mahabharat (and also the
Puranas) has been added to and embellished by various persons reciting it
orally, the facts recorded therein can always be validated with other
sources (inscriptional, etc.) and later, accepted. That the Pauranic
dates of Indian antiquity are too fabulous to be a reality, and that
civilization in India was that of a cave-man until recently are simply
facetious arguments. Moreover, the value of tradition and hearsay as a
source of ancient history is immense especially in the absence (or
unavailability?) of alternative evidence. Is not the history written by
Greek Herodotus, which is a collection of accounts based on hearsay,
approved and accepted as genuine historical annals? Then why not accept
the accounts of the Ramayan, Mahabharat and Puranas, even if they are
considered to have been transmitted orally? It is funny to see
indologists mustering evidence from the RgVed (a mere collection of poems
and with no historical character) to justify the theory of Aryan Invasion
and rejecting records (astronomical) which provide ancient dates (for
example, some compositions date as early as 23000 B.C) found inconvenient
and even awkward to fit into their version of historical chronology! The
political impressions (and subsequent repurcussions) that have stained
the writing of history (atleast, Indian) are too numerous and repetitive
to mention and therefore, I would leave them aside.
> raised with without having any critical or historical backing.
> As far as we know, Veda Vyasa was *not* a singly historical figure;
> even if he was, the epic he composed was far different from the
I hope to have provided convincing "historical backing" to my claims,
atleast sufficient to create a doubt on the historicity of the
Mahabharat, Ramayan and ancient Indian history in general [see below]. Also,
I am aware of the opinion that Vedvyas is a title, similar to an Editor.
The Vedvyas, author of the Mahabharat, is described in the Mahabharat as
the grandfather of Arjun(a), the Pandava. There is no need for any confusion
regarding this. Atleast I am not aware of any literature mentioning the
existence of yet another Vedvyas after the Mahabharat.
> Can I tell you how these individuals who have pretensions to
> scholarship arrive at such an astoundingly accurate date [.. of the
> Mahabharat] ?
There are various evidences, mainly literary, to determine the dating of
the Mahabharat. The fact that not too many archaeological artifacts are
available does in no way undermine the authenticity and importance of the
literary texts. The contents of the Puranas, which have been so
incorrectly branded as "concoctions" of the Brahmanas, are increasingly
being accepted as proper records of history. Infact, in the last few
decades, some historians had deciphered the Pauranic chronology to arrive
at dates of historical events, for example, like the Mahabharat. However,
since their dates were not in agreement with established chronology, were
set aside conveniently by historical societies.
The dating of the Mahabharat has been based on various literary sources,
archaeological evidences (Dwaraka, River Saraswati), inscriptions found
at various places (Aihole, Belgaum, Nidhanpur), Greek records
(Megasthenes), etc. On one of the excavations obtained from the Egyptian
Pyramid, dated to 3000 B.C, is found engraved a verse from the Bhagavad
Geeta "vasanvsi jeernani yatha vihaya, navani ghrunati naro parani". A
tablet found in the Mohenjodaro sites depicts Lord Krishna and is dated
to be 2600 B.C. Mahabharat must have defintely occured before that date.
Also, according to B.B. Lal, horse bones, vestiges of the Ashwamedh, have
been discovered at Hastinapur. There is further stratigraphical evidence
at Hastinapur showing the flood level at the times of Nichakshu, sixth in
line from Parikshit which has been mentioned in the Puranas. Thus
calculating backwards, the date of Yudhisthira/Mahabahrat can be
determined. However, the limitations of C-14 dating to deliver precise
dates should be accepted. Encoding of the astronomical recordings can
only provide time precision upto a day, or even less. Such calculations
have been performed by numerous mathematicians in the past, and is an
established methodology. Also, that Indians were knowlegeable of planetary
movements and their mathematical relations even during the Mahabharat
(and Ramayanic) era can be well judged from the correctness of the
textual recordings.
> first assume that Kali Yuga is an actuality (a fact which itself
> is dependent on the Mahabharata and subsequent works), and then,
> working backward from the tradition that King Y lived in the
> XXXX'th year of Kali Yuga, they date the death of Krishna to
> 3102 B.C.
The advent of the Kaliyug (3102 B.C) has been reckoned based not just on
references from the Mahabharat, but also from some of the inscriptions
noted as well as literature provided by Varahamihira, Kalhana (
Rajatarangini), Arya Bhatta, Vruddha Garga and also the Puranic annals.
Count Bijornstierna in his "The Theogony of Hindus", has aptly summarized
on the calculation of Kaliyug Thus, "According to the astronomical
calculations of the Hindus, the present period of the world, Kaliyuga,
commenced 3102 years before the birth of Christ, on 20th February, at 2
hours, 27 minutes and 30 seconds -- the time thus calculated to minutes
and seconds. They say that the conjunction of planets that took place and
their tables show this time. Bailey also stated that Jupiter and Mercury
were then in the same degrees of the ecliptic, Mars at a distance of only
eight and Saturn of seven degrees. The calculations of the Brahmins is so
exactly confirmed by our own historical 'Takes' (data) that nothing but
an actual observation could have given to correspondent a result." And
last but not least is the calculation of the Kaliyuga from the "Sankalpa"
recited by the Brahmanas during any rituals! Surprisingly, this date
from the "sankalpa" so piously chanted by the "fraudulent" Brahmanas
matches to the one obtained otherwise! What more is required to say on
the date of Kali? The calculation of the Mahabharat chronology based on
the beginning of the Kaliyug stands corroborated.
[ ... to be continued ...]
