Monday, July 13, 2020

Mahabharata date is intertwined with the inviolable Kali Yuga date.

Kali Yuga date forms the basis for determining the time line of events in Mahabharata. Kali yuga date forms the boundary condition for Mahabharata date by which it is meant that if this is not fulfilled, there is no point in claiming that other references in Mahabharata have been 'successfully' corroborated. Without the knowledge of this basic requirement, or without fulfilling this requirement we find people blabbering around and forcing some date as Mahabharata date. It is a pity these researchers have never ventured into history, but only dabbled with their astronomy simulators - for,  if they have, they would have come across thousands of inscriptions giving the date to the Kali Shaka year, thereby realizing how foolish their claims have been. 

The absence of knowledge of the inviolability of Kali date is the shocking proof of presence of non-practising Hindus all around us – by non- practicing I mean the minimal requirement of doing monthly Amavasya tarpan by those to whom it applies to or who have elders at home doing this. The one who does pitru tarpan is supposed to keep track of time by using Pancanga – the traditional one and not the ‘modern’ Pancanga promoted by these new age 'researchers' which does not have five angas - by which he comes to know when  the Kali Yuga started. By 2020, we have completed 5121 years in Kali Yuga. 

The connection between Kali Yuga date and the Mahabharata war date is such that the war happened exactly 35 years before the start of Kali Yuga.

The date of Kali Yuga:  22nd January 3101 BCE, Year Pramathi, Caitra, Amawasya, Aswini, Thursday with all the planets except Rahu near the beginning of Aries when the tropical vernal equinox coincided with the beginning of sidereal Aries. 

The date of the Mahabharata War: 3136 BCE corresponding to the year Krodhi. Further details can be read in my book Myth of 'The Epoch of Arundhati' of Nilesh Nilkanth Oak

The following is excerpted from my book:


The entry of Kali Yuga upon the exit of Krishna is repeated in the first and the last chapter of Bhagavata Purana. The entry of Kali is also revealed in the context of how Parikshit received Kali Yuga.[1] Parikshit being the immediate successor of Yudhishthira, after the latter relinquished the throne on hearing the exit of Krishna, it goes without saying that the entry of Kali Yuga coincided with the exit of Krishna.

Does Mahabharata give inconsistent views on Yugas?

Mahabharata gives enough clues on two kinds of Yugas, one, the 5-year Yuga that was in vogue for all practical purposes and the other, the Chatur Maha Yuga for judging the scale of Dharma. The 5-year Yuga is well revealed in the context of Bhishma justifying the completion of incognito period of the Pandavas. The dates of Mahabharata war and Bhishma Nirvana can be proven only on the basis of the 5-year system.

Many characters of Mahabharata also speak about the Chatur Maha Yugas, for determining Brahma’s duration of life in terms of solar years and also on how the Yuga is decided by the Dharma of the King / ruler. There are instances found in Mahabharata of a fusion of Yugas and one Yuga dharma appearing in another Yuga. An analysis of all these references reveals that the 4 yugas from Krita to Kali were measured by the scale of Dharma.[2] Dharma was on the decline at the time of Mahabharata giving the semblance of Kali Yuga, but it was not completely perceived as Kali Yuga due to the presence of Krishna.

Vyasa was the first one to have grasped the change of Time in terms of Yuga Dharma and expressed it explicitly. When Arjuna informed Vyasa of Krishna’s exit, Vyasa spoke about the change of time and that time has come for the Pandava brothers to leave the earth.[3] It was only after meeting Vyasa, Arjuna went on to meet his brothers to convey the news of Krishna’s exit.

From Mahabharata to Bhagavata Purana we find a continuity of events following the exit of Krishna. In the very beginning of Bhagavata Purana, Vyasa repeats the bad omens seen by Yudhishtira at the exit of Krishna as was described in Mahabharata. When Arjuna brings the bad news about Krishna’s departure, Vyasa says (in Suta’s narration) the Kali has manifest fully at the exit of Krishna.

yadā mukundo bhagavān imāṁ mahīṁ
 jahau sva-tanvā śravaṇīya-sat-kathaḥ
tadāhar evāpratibuddha-cetasām
 abhadra-hetuḥ kalir anvavartata

Meaning: “When the Personality of Godhead, Lord Kṛṣṇa, left this earthly planet in His selfsame form, from that very day Kali, who had already partially appeared, became fully manifest to create inauspicious conditions for those who are endowed with a poor fund of knowledge.”[5]

In the very next verse Vyasa says that Yudhishthira having understood the arrival of Adharma (adharma-cakraṁ) prepared to exit the world.[6] Vyasa again repeats the arrival of Kali Yuga (kalinādharma), perceived by the younger Pandavas prompting them to leave the earth.[7]

Thus there is consistency in the narration on the change of the Yugas and the birth of a new Yuga, and the narration continuing from Mahabharata and taken over to Bhagavata Purana by the same author Vyasa. Vyasa had said without mincing words in the beginning of Bhagavata Purana that Kali which was partially manifest until then became fully manifest on the day Krishna left the earthly plane.[8]

Evidence for Yudhishthira Shaka.

Let me reproduce the evidence[9] from ‘Ain I Akbari authored by Abul Fazl Allami, a contemporary of Akbar. He mentions King Yudhishthira as having started his own era which was followed by the eras of Vikrama and Shalivahana. He continues to name the future Shaka eras as those of Vijayabhinanda, Nagarjuna and Kalki – giving the total number as six eras in the Kali Yuga. This includes the era of Yudhishthira. 

The above narration continues further by stating the arrival of Shalivahana and how he usurped Vikrama. For the gap of 135 years between the two, it is unrealistic to assume that Shalivahana defeated Vikrama. May be it was a metaphoric way of expression of replacement of an old Shaka with a new one, which I am not delving into, due to its irrelevance in this context. What needs to be understood is the fact that a new Shaka year was started; this is corroborated by numerous inscriptions that have recorded the date from Shalivahana Shaka.

Abu Fazl continues to write that Shalivahana didn’t interfere with the observance of Vikrama Era. So simultaneously both Eras had existed, but inscriptional evidence shows that Shalivahana Shaka was in widespread usage. Abul fazl’s narration cannot rejected as invalid or ‘traditional belief’, for, it shows how time was recorded by calculating right from the beginning of Kali Yuga.

Abul Fazl has given valuable inputs for cross reference. At first he gives the Kali Yuga year as 4700 and later 4696 as the elapsed years of Yudhishthira Shaka at the 40th year of Akbar’s rule. The difference of only 4 years between the two Kali dates (Kali 4700 and Yudhishthira 4696) goes to show that the first was the year of writing the book and the second, the 40th year of Akbar’s rule. He also mentions the gap of 3044 years between Yudhishtira Shaka and Vikrama Shaka.

For the 40th year of Akbar he has given the corresponding years in Yudhishthira, Vikrama and Shalivahana Shaka.

Akbar’s 40thyear = 4696 of Yudhishthira Shaka.
Akbar’s 40th year = 1652 of Vikrama Shaka.
Akbar’s 40th year = 1517 of Shalivahana Shaka.

The 40th year of Akbar was Hijri 1003-1004 corresponding to 1595 CE in Gregorian calendar.
Checking for the recent two eras (Shaka) for which the date is not disputed we get
(1) Shalivahana 1517 + Shalivahana 78 CE = 1595 CE
(2) Vikarama 1652 – Vikrama 57 BCE = 1595 CE

Since the year tallies correctly, the year derived from the Yudhishthira date must be the true Kali Yuga date. Let me deduct 1595 (CE) from Yudhishthira Shaka date of Akbar’s 40th year. 
Yudhishthira 4696 – 1595 = 3101 (BCE)

This being the Yudhishthira Shaka, and also the Kali Yuga start year, it becomes clear that the Shaka computation started after Krishna left and Yudhishthira stepped down (which happened closely within a span of few months). The computation must have been initiated by Vyasa himself by stipulating the start of the Kali Yuga as the date of exit of Krishna. The clear statement of Kali Yuga start date in the first chapter of Bhagavata Purana[10] explained earlier goes to show that VYASA was the originator of the Kali Yuga date. Time computation must have been a far easier task for him as a knower of three times (past, present and future) compared to other stupendous tasks for which is known – compilation of the Vedas and authoring the Puranas and Mahabharata.

Concept of Shaka is old.

The word Shaka comes from the root ‘Shak’ meaning “be able”. The name Shakra for Indra comes from this root. With the decadence of the concept of Indra expected in the Kali Yuga, the sages had mooted the idea of Shaka in the place of Indra. The Shaka ruler is one who has defeated the enemies of Bharata varsha or Vedic culture or in other words, non-Vedic people, according to a Telugu text “Vijnana Sarvaswamu[11] and Kalidasa’s “Jyothirvidabharana”.[12] Mahabharata war was won by Yudhishthira by subduing many tribes of North West India who were not followers of Vedic culture. He continued to be the Shaka Karta until Vikrama repeated the same feat. Vikrama was replaced by Shalivahana either because he defeated some non-Vedic, foreign ruler or he defeated the previous Shaka ruler, in this case Vikrama. Though Abul Fazl refers to the second probability, the gap of 135 years between Vikrama and Shalivahana makes it improbable.

Quoting Tilak, it is said that there is no inscription in the name of Yudhishthira Shaka. The reasons are not hard to find. Engraving on the stones was a later development with most of the stone inscriptions appearing in the Common Era only. In olden days writing in burja patra was in vogue.[13] Engraving in metals such as copper was also widely prevalent and it is anybody’s guess why they were lost. The bottom-line is that absence of inscriptions does not mean absence of the Era!

Janamejaya’s grant refers to Yudhishthira Shaka                                     

However, an inscription of King Janamejaya, the son of Parikshit was quoted by Kota Venkatachela Paakayaaji in his book[14] from Indian Antiquary P.P. 383 334.The inscription states

Svasti Shree Jayabhyudaye Yudhsihtrashake

The donation mentioned in that inscription was made in the 89th year of Yudhishthira Shaka during the reign of Janamejaya. The year concurs with Janamejaya’s rule as he succeeded his father Parikshit who ruled for 60 years as per Mahabharata. This grant was made in the 29th regnal year of Janamejaya, to Lord Sitarama temple on the banks of Tungabhadra River, in today’s Hampi.
The inscription gives important Panchanga[15] details such as Plavanga year, Amawasya, solar eclipse, Saumya Vara and Sahasya month referring to Pushya month. Only the star of the day is not given.  These four out of five features of the Panchanga were checked in astrology software.[16]

The horoscopy chart generated for these details show that the day was Shukla Vara indicating a scribal or transmission error. The four features had co-existed on 2nd November 3013 BCE. (Figure 2)

Here I want to give a word of caution. Like astronomy software, the astrology software also has limitations when we are picking out dates thousands of years ago. Both software are accurate for the current stellar and planetary positions. However when we regress, the astronomy software becomes redundant for sidereal positions of Vedic astronomy noting. The redundancy is not too great in astrology software as sidereal positions are noted, but this is done for the current ayanamsa (precession degree). The following simulated version is done for the current ayanamsa position (Lahiri / chitra Paksha). Let us first see the degree of concurrence with Panchanga details of the Janamejaya grant.

Figure 1: Simulated to current (Chitra-paksha) ayanamsa

Though all the features are present, the month is Margashira, not Pushya. Amavasya ended by sunrise. 

Now let me give another simulated version for the same Panchanga features corrected to the precession date calculated from Surya Siddhanta based on Makarandacharya’s Tables made in 1478 CE. In this, the precession is taken as zero with vernal equinox coinciding with zero degree Aries which was the case at the time of Kali Yuga according to tradition and reiterated by Indic astronomers of the past. The simulation done with this correction based on Surya Siddhanta for the Panchanga features of Janamejaya grant is as follows:

Figure 2: Simulated to Sri Surya Siddhanta ayanamsa

Note two major changes: (1) the month is Pushya as given in the inscription, (2) the planetary positons are not the same as those for Chitra Paksha / Lahiri ayanamsa. Nearly a month-long difference is there between for the changed ayanamsa for the same Panchanga features.

This must be an eye opener for all the researchers working on dating the past from astronomy simulators having no ayanamsa correction for the Vedic sidereal positions and no scope for knowing the Panchanga features.The one using astronomy simulator hoping to date a past Indic event will be in reality just groping in the dark with no idea of whether he /she had landed up with the correct weekday, tithi and year name for a given star or solstice or equinox position. Only Panchanga features coupled with the correct ayanamsa offer the reality check of a date which the Gregorian or the Julian calendar dates of the astronomy software do not give.

With the Panchanga features of the date of Janamejaya-grant synchronising with each other in the above simulation set to Sri Surya Siddhanta (SSS) ayanamsa, we can rest assured of the authenticity of the grant that was given on the last day of Plavanga year.

Aryabhata on Yuga and Kali Yuga

In his first chapter on 10 Gitika verses that he proclaims to be capable of making the knower (of those verses) reach the Supreme Brahman, Aryabhata had given two clues on Yuga.

In the 3rd and 4th verses, he has given the number of revolutions of the planets that “commenced at the beginning of the sign Aries on Wednesday at sunrise at Lanka[17]

This is variously interpreted by commentators, but the number of revolutions given for the Sun in that verse is 43, 20,000and this is valid only for the Chatur Maha Yuga that started with Krita Yuga. Therefore this verse implies that Krita Yuga started on a Wednesday with all the planets at the beginning of Aries. In the next verse (no 5) he refers to the elapsed Yugas at “Bharatāt Purvam”!

The above is the translator’s version, but the verse refers to the lapse of 6 Manus, 27 Yugas and 3 quarter Yugas on a Thursday at “Bharatāt Purvam.”

The three quarter padas refer to the first three yugas of the Chatur Maha Yuga. Coming after the verse on Chatur Maha Yuga, one can expect this to be about the beginning of the 4th Yuga, i.e. Kali Yuga. But then why did he use the term Bharatāt Purvam instead of Kaliyugāt Purvam? Let me give two explanations.

(1) ‘Bhāratāt Purvam’ has been interpreted by ancient commentators such as Bhaskara I and Suryadeva, as refering to before the time when Yudhishthira of Bharata dynasty relinquished the throne. This is a reference to the traditional Kali Yuga date given the fact that Yudhishthira came to know of the exit of Krishna only after seven months. 

The sequence of events given in Mahabharata shows that on the seventh day after Krishna’s exit, Arjuna left Dwaraka along with the remaining population and settled them down in different places. Then he went to the hermitage of Vyasa to convey the exit of Krishna. Taking the advice of Vyasa that the time had come for him and his brothers to leave the earth, Arjuna returned to the Kuru kingdom to meet his brothers. This happened seven months after he left, says Srimad Bhagavatam.[18]  Therefore the reference to ‘Bhāratāt Purvam’ is a date from before the Bhārata (Pandavas) renounced their throne. Krishna’s exit was the only important event before the renouncement of the throne – an event that prompted them to renounce.

Aryabhata had succinctly conveyed that event (the day of exit of Krishna) while giving the time-lapse at that time as the marker for the start of Kali Yuga. The mention of Thursday in that context as the weekday when the new Yuga started is further proof of meticulous calculation of Time and the record and remembrance of the same.

(2) According to another ancient commentator Somesvara, ‘Bhāratāt Purvam’ refers to the first day of the Bharata war! Kali almost started on the day of the war that was unjustifiably fought by refusing to honour the agreement to give back the kingdom to the Pandavas at the end of their exile. However this is not acceptable given the time lapse mentioned in the verse that fits with the beginning of Kali Yuga.

This chapter being designed to give basic aphorisms, one can expect Aryabhata to give the universal view on the basics, such as the beginning of Kali Yuga.

Kali Yuga Date derived from Aryabhatiya.

The third reference to Yuga comes in the 3rd chapter on Kalakriya Pada that exclusively deals with time.

He has given the name of the month and the phase (Shukla) but left out the Yuga name. It is not difficult to assume that it is Kali Yuga (the entire chapter is on computations pertaining to Kali Yuga) and the year was Pramathi. Most of the inscriptions found in North India refer to Pramathi as the start of the counting of years in Kali Yuga. In South India it is Prabhava, the reason being, the year clock was set back to the first year of the 60-year cycle for counting the years from Kali Yuga start date. This difference in North – South traditions has no justification except that North India retained continuity, while Southern tradition went back to the first year of the cycle. That is, when Pramathi was running, it was Prabhava in the South and this continues till date. The switch over happening in Pramathi signals that some event had happened in Pramathi that caused a new cycle. And that event was the exit of Krishna. The 36th year before that was the year name of Mahabharata War. That happens to be Year Krodhi. The year name Krodhi must concur with the other Panchanga details for deducing the time of Mahabharata war. 

In the present context the week day and the star of the day are not given. The week day seems to have been taken for granted in the verse and this makes me think that it must be Thursday based on the verse in the 1st chapter discussed earlier. When these four Panchanga details (Pramathi, Chaitra, Shukla paksha beginning / Pratipat and Thursday) were checked in the astrology software, it gave a remarkable concurrence for the date 22nd January, 3101 BCE! That is the day from which Kali Yuga is calculated!

Figure 3: Kali Yuga date simulated to (current) Chitra-paksha ayanamsa

The same Panchanga details simulated for Sri Surya Siddhanta ayanamsa (SSS) gives the same date but Sun was at 2nd degree of Aries!

Figure 4: Kali Yuga date simulated to Sri Surya Siddhanta ayanamsa (zero degree Aries).

The date in modern calendar is remarkably the same in figures 3 and 4 for current and SSS ayanamsa. However in Figure 4, all the planets are at close degrees behind the Sun with Mars alone within 5 degrees in front of the Sun. This is a remarkable concurrence with the traditional version and the marker for the start of a Yuga when all planets would be together near the beginning of Aries while vernal equinox would be at zero degree Aries.  

The Surya Siddhanta based Ayanamsa (used in simulating the above chart) is close to the ayanamsa of Kali Yuga date and therefore highly reliable for dating Mahabharata events.
In Figure 3 for Chitra Paksha Ayanamsa (current) the Panchanga details were the same, but planetary positions were different, particularly that of the Sun. The ayanamsa was at 313 degrees in the zodiac (in precession). This is 45 degrees short of 360 degrees thereby placing Kali Yuga at Taurus 15 degrees. Now readers can know the havoc of not using the exact ayanamsa for dating. When the correct ayanamsa and Panchanga details match, all the planetary positions automatically match. That it is not possible to get all the planetary positions right without the correct ayanamsa is what the people engaged in this kind of dating research using astronomy software, have not yet realised.

The difference of nearly a month in Janamejaya grant issued at 89th year after the above Kali Yuga date in the two simulations, one on chitra Paksha ayanamsa and another on Surya Siddhanta ayanamsa, can be better understood now. On Kali yuga date (January 22, 3101 BCE) the ayanamsa was at zero degree Aries in SSS settings. After Kali Yuga began, the ayanamsa moved forward in SSS whereas it was always in backward motion in the Chitra Paksha settings. As such the ayanamsa was 1-20 degree (at Aries) in SSS settings at the time of Janamejaya whereas it was 314-37 degree (in Pisces) in the settings of Chitra Paksha. This is so in the western astronomy software too. Between SSS (Surya Siddhanta) and Chitra Paksha the difference was 313 degrees of the zodiac in presessional direction. The same can be re-phrased as a gap of 45 degrees between 314- 37 (Chitra Paksha) and 1-20 degrees (SSS). This gap in ayanamsa accounted for a month and a change in the position of the planets. Now one can imagine the havoc of vast difference that the changed ayanamsa can cause in dating an event. 

It cannot be denied that the Panchanga features synchronise for the date January 22nd, 3101 BCE. This combination repeats along with the same planetary positions only once in a Yuga. The next time the ayanamsa was at zero degree Aries was on 21st March 499 CE during Aryabhata’s times. But then the planetary combinations were different, so also some of the Panchanga features. Though the year was Pramathi, as in Kali start date, other Panchanga features were different. Fig 5 shows Aryabhata’s time in Pramathi with zero ayanamsa as was at the time of start of Kali Yuga, but the planets had not congregated at Aries. I am constrained to state that I have not yet come across any one research on dating Mahabharata done with this realisation.

Figure 5: Zero ayanamsa in 499 CE (SSS based)

Kali Yuga did start on a Thursday

The same verse on Bhāratāt Purvam states that Kali Yuga started on a Thursday. Today all the available calculations given in astrology texts to derive a day in Kali Yuga finally ends up with dividing the derived number by 7, and the weekday enumerated from the remainder starting from Friday.  If the remainder is zero, the week day is Friday, if it is one; the day is Saturday and so on. This deduction is possible only if Kali Yuga started on a Thursday. The unstated fact of this deduction is that Kali Yuga started on a specific day that is neither fictitious nor changeable.

Yet another inviolable feature connects the weekday with solar ingress in Aries. The weekday advances at the rate of one day per year – where the year is calculated in terms of days, Ghatis, vighatis and vipalas taken by the sun to come back to the same position at zero degree Aries. For instance, if the solar ingress in Aries occurs on a Monday in a year, it will occur on Tuesday the next year, on Wednesday the year after, and so on. However, with extra hours piling up, the weekday will progress by two every fifth year.  That is, if Monday is the weekday in the first year, it will progress by a day for the next four years, with Thursday becoming the weekday on the first day of the 4th year. On the fifth year the weekday will not be next in succession (Friday) but it will be Saturday. 

This progression is based on another rationale that if the solar ingress occurs at day time, the weekday at sunrise is taken into account. If the ingress occurs at evening or night, the next day is taken as the first day of the year. The implication of this relationship between the weekday and the first day of the solar year (entry into Aries) is such that the first day of Kali Yuga is an established one. If Kali Yuga started on some other day or date, today cannot be what we see in the calendar. The solar ingress is a cosmic fact that none can change. That movement coinciding with specific weekday is proof of inviolability of Kali Yuga begin- date. This relationship between the year beginning and the running weekday at that time does not allow any tampering with the Kali Yuga date. The date is fixed and unalterable. By this the reader must understand that the year of Mahabharata war is also fixed and unalterable. 

Aryabhata again on Kali Yuga date.

A verse in the third chapter of Aryabhatiya, giving the age of Aryabhata fixes the year of Kali Yuga 3600 years before his date.  By using the term ‘Yuga pādā’ to refer to the lapse of the three previous yugas (Krita, Treta and Dvapara), Aryabhata has made a clear statement on the date of Kali Yuga.

Sixty times the sixty years are 3600 years that Aryabhata recognises as the time elapsed since the beginning of Kali Yuga when he was 23 years of age. Scholars had debated in the past on why Aryabhata mentioned his age from Kali Yuga beginning. The basic reason is that any Tantra Siddhanta[19] must refer to time starting from the nearest Yuga, which is Kali Yuga in the case of Aryabhata. The oft repeated justification by commentators is that at 3600 years after Kali Yuga date, the mean position of the planets given by Aryabhata in the first chapter required no correction with zero rate of precession running at that time! This means that the tropical vernal equinox coincided with the sidereal equinox at zero degree Aries at his time. This conjunction happens at the beginning of every Yuga which means similar conjunction or zero ayanamsa had happened 3600 years before Aryabhata’s date! This is a clinching evidence for the Vedic concept of equinoxes (explained earlier) that it does not go permanently in 3600 years.  

{The following illustration is excerpted from my upcoming publication on precession of equinoxes. Aryabhata’s 3600 years can be covered within abc (Indic) or ec (western astronomy). In the case of ec, Kali Yuga could not start at the beginning of Aries.}

Aryabhata’s 3600 years expressed in Indic and Western model

Let me reproduce the planetary and Pancanga details from the astrology simulator for 3600 years after Kali Yuga date. The year turned out to be Pramathi, the same year in which Kali Yuga started as per tradition.
Aryabhata’s age at 23 years.

The Sun’s entry into Aries happened on Chaitra Krishna Saptami in the year Pramathi, when the moon was at Purvashadha. The date was 499 CE in Gregorian calendar. The ayanamsa being zero degree, the tropical vernal equinox had coincided with sidereal Sun at zero degree Aries on this date. The mean positions of the planets given by Aryabhata are found to hold good for zero degree ayanamsa. Sensing the importance of this rare date Aryabhata had produced his Siddhanta. The reference to Kali Yuga exactly 3600 years prior to this date endorses the view of Surya Siddhanta on oscillating equinoxes

Evidence of Kali Yuga date in Saptarishi cycle.

The Saptarishi cycle comes into reckoning in the discussion on Kali Yuga date for two reasons. According to all available versions, the Sapta Rishi cycle started 25 years after the start of Kali Yuga. This offers excellent cross- reference to validate the Kali Yuga date. The second reason can be traced to a specific verse in Brihat Samhita on the location of the Saptarishis in the time scale of Yudhishtira Shaka. The verse says,[20] 

(Word for word translation of this verse)

आसन् मघासु मुनयः शासति पृथ्वीं युधिष्ठिरे नृपतौ।

षड्-द्विक-पञ्च-द्वि (२५२६) युतः शककालस्तस्य राज्ञस्य॥

आसन्= āsan = Halting, stopping, abiding, staying, sitting  (third person plural present imperfect class 2 parasmaipada √as )

मघासु = maghāsu = in the lunar mansion Maghā (feminine locative plural stem: magha)SB 12.2.31

मुनयः = munayas = the sages (masculine nominative, vocative plural stem: muni)

शासति = śāsati -= to command, to control  (third person plural present present class 2 parasmaipada √śās)

पृथ्वीं = pruthvim = earth (Accusative)

युधिष्ठिरे = in Yudhihsthira (singular masculine locative)

नृपतौ = king (singular masculine locative)

षड्-द्विक-पञ्च-द्वि = 2526

युतः = yutas = Binding, fastening, attaching, going (masculine nominative singular past passive participle stem: yuta)

शककालस्तस्य = shaka kālas tasya – his shaka kaala,

Tasya = about this (SB 10.89.2), at him (SB 11.23.9), by him (SB 1.9.17, SB 9.14.42, SB 10.70.24)

राज्ञस्य = by (of) the king (singular masculine Genitive)

Overall meaning:

The earth was controlled by the king Yudhishthira in his shaka kala of 2526 (years) (when) the Saptarṣis (muni) were in Maghā (star).

2526 years of the Yudhishthira Shaka is 575 BCE. (3101-2526) At this year the Saptarishis were in Magha.

Since the Saptarishis Era started 25 years after the start of Kali Yuga, it had started in 3076 BCE. From 3076 BCE to 575 BCE, the Saptarishis had travelled for 2501 years. We must see if we are able to get the beginning of the Saptarishis era from this.

There are two views given in the Puranas on the duration of this Era. One view is that that the Saptarishis stay for 100 years in a star, by which they complete one round around the zodiac of 27 stars in 2700 years. A second view found in Brahmanda Purana is that the Saptarishis take 3030 human years to complete one round.[21] In this context it gives the year of the Dhruva as 3 times this duration, i.e. 9090 human years.

Taking up the first view (2700 years), the Saptarishis were yet complete one Era by 199 years at the time they were in Magha in the year 575 BCE. (2700 – 2501) In the second case the Saptarishis were lagging by 529 years to complete an era at the time they were in Magha (3030-2501).

Since the Saptarishis travel in anti-clockwise direction in the northern sky, let me go backward in the reverse from Magha for 199 years (for 2700 year cycle) and 529 (for 3030 year cycle). Since the Saptarishis move an average of 100 years per star in the 2700 year cycle, they would have completed / started the Era in Pushya star, by moving through two stars in 199 years.  

In the second case of 3030 year cycle with an average of 112 years per star, they could have crossed 4.7 stars, i.e. would be in the 5th star in the reverse. This places the beginning of the Era in Mrigashirsha!

Saptarishi Era at Kali year 25.

Of the two probabilities (Pushya and Mrigashirsha) on the beginning of the Era, Mrigashirsha is backed up by cross evidences.

The star Mrigashirsha signifies ‘path’, the Mārga of the Universe. Conceptually this concurs well with the idea of Sapta Rishi that they lead mankind in the Universe. Among the months, Krishna identified himself with Mrigashirsha.[22]  Culturally celebration of Full Moon in Mrigashirsha in Kashmir where Saptarishi Era was followed in olden days adds credence to the beginning of this cycle at Mrigashirsha[23]in the solar month of Margashira.

This also solves the mystery around “Agrahāyana” which means “first movement” (Agra = first, ayana = movement) occurring at Mrigashirsha. The ‘first movement’ was about the beginning of the cycle of Saptarishi Yuga at Full Moon in Mrigashira. This puts at naught the view that Agrahāyana could refer to the equinox. The oscillating equinox cannot go beyond Krittika 1st pada. Agrahāyana being the other name for the month of Margashira, its importance as the first one is known from the Saptarishi Era. The yearly celebration of the Full Moon in Margashira in Kashmir marks the day as the New Year day and the month as the first month in the Saptarishi Calendar. 

The Era starting with the Saptarishis at the star Mrigashirsha in Kali year 25 offers yet another evidence of the inviolability of Kali Yuga date at 3101 BCE.

Epigraphic evidence for Kali Yuga date.

The evidence of Kali Yuga date in epigraphy is very less. The reason can be traced to the fact that engraving on stones came into vogue only after the beginning of the Common Era. The records of olden times inscribed on leaves and metals had suffered easy destruction. The inscriptions on metals were always in the custody of the private persons and were lost in due course. Only stone inscriptions have withstood the vagaries of time.

By the time stone-inscriptions were gaining popularity, the Shalivahana Shaka Era was started in the year 78 CE and it is continuing. Any year in the Shaka Era would be counted from the beginning of that Era. This Era having started 3179 years after Kali Yuga, it became easy to convert any year of the Shaka Era into Kali Year by adding 3179 to the Shaka year. Verses in Tamil attributed to Siddhas do refer to adding a constant, 3179, to the Shaka year to get “Kali-Yugābda”.[24]   This calculation came into existence only because the Kali Yuga date was well established beyond doubt. The Shaka year establishes the Kali Date at 3101 BCE (3179 – 78 CE = 3101 BCE).

With most inscriptions on stone made in the current Shaka, we get to see only few inscriptions with Kali date. For instance Polasara plates of Arkesvara Deva of Ganjam[25]   is dated at “Yugāvda 4248” that corresponds to 1147 CE (4248 – 3101). Pottesvara temple inscription of Bhanudeva III of Imperial Ganga Dynasty[26]  traces the date at Kali 4477 (1376 CE). The Parthivasekara puram inscription traces the date in Kali days since the Yuga began.[27]

One of the inscriptions of the early part of Kali Yuga recorded by Francis Buchanan[28] in his travelogue and delivered to the Bengal Government was originally found in Madugeswara temple at Banawasi, in North Canara district. It refers to a grant of land to God Maducanata by Simhunna Bupa of Yudhishthira’s family dated at Yudhishthira Shaka 168.

Yet another inscription mentioned in the same book refers to a record[29]  on palmyra leaves which was a copy of a copper plate inscription in possession of a sanyasi, dated at “Kaliyugam 600” in the reign of Raja Mulla, king of the South. A copy of that was delivered to the Bengal Government. It is not known how many more inscriptions of the old had gone into the possession of the government of the colonial period and continued to remain undetected. 

As of today only two inscriptions published in the Indian Antiquary[30]  offer scope to cross check the date deduced above (3101 BCE) or rather deduce the date of Kali Yuga. Other inscriptions only state the Kali year of the inscribed text. One is the Aihole inscription of the Chalukya king Pulikesin II and the other is the grant issued by king Janamejaya, son of Parikshit discussed earlier.

Evidence from Aihole inscription.

The Aihole inscription of the Chalukya king Pulikesin II has two components of time, one, pertaining to the years in Kali Yuga after the Mahabharata war and the other, the Shaka year of the grant. Confusion abounds in the former regarding a term mentioned therein. The term is Bhāratādāhāvāditah’ which is interpreted as ‘beginning from the Mahabharata war’. However the date derived from the numbers given in the inscription does not tally with the date of Mahabharata that started 35 years before Kali Yuga (3101 BCE). Kota Venkatachelam interpreted this term to mean ‘after the Mahabharata war’[31] by not connecting the counting of years from the date of war. He also corrected a minor scribal error in the inscription from ‘shateshu’ to ‘gateshu’. With this correction the inscription gives the date 3101 BCE that we established as the date of Kali Yuga.

Reading this inscription in the light of Aryabhatiya version of ‘Bhāratāt Purvam,’ we are pleasantly surprised to see the similarity between the two. ‘Bhārata’ in ‘Bhāratādāhāvāditah’ is much like ‘Bhāratāt Purvam’ that was interpreted by ancient commentators as referring to Bhāratā (Pandavas) relinquishing the throne. The Bhāratā renounced everything and cast off their sacred fires too. [32]Bhāratā dāha avādita could refer to the sacrifice of the Bharata clan after coming to know of Krishna’s demise (when Kali Yuga started). The time of Pulikesin II coming within 150 years of Aryabhata, this kind of reference to the start of Kali Yuga seems to be widespread in use. The other way of looking at it is that a powerful and prosperous king like Pulikesin II could have found it difficult to ascribe to the view that Kali was running in his country, much like Parikshit who detested the presence of Kali. Perhaps this made him pick out the alternate marker for the Yuga beginning, the sacrifice of the Bhāratā (Pandavas) on coming to know of Krishna’s exit.

The first part of the inscription reads as “Trimshatsu (30) trisahasreshu (3000) Bhāratā dāha avādita /  Sapta abda shatayukteshu (700) gateshu abdeshu panchasu (5)//
This adds up to 3735 years since the time the Bhāratā sacrificed everything.
The next part reads as “Panchāshatsu (50) Kalaukāle shattsu (6) panchashatāsu (500) cha / Samā su samatitāsu shakānāmapi bhubhujām”//

The number given here is 556 since the beginning of Shaka. The nearest Shaka being that of Shalivahana, the Gregorian date is derived by adding 78 (CE) giving the year 634 CE which is very much within the reign of Pulikesin II.

Combining the two parts of the inscription, in the Kalaukāle (Kali’s Time) 634 years had elapsed in 3735 years which works out to 3101 BCE. That was the time of Bhāratā dāha avādita and Bhāratāt Purvam.

Deriving the date of Mahabharata War from Kali Yuga.

Once having corroborated  the date of Kali Yuga at 3101 BCE, it is not difficult to derive the date of Mahabharata War. There was a gap of 35 years between the war and the exit of Krishna. On seeing the death of her children and all relatives in the war Gandhari vented out her frustration at Krishna that he (Krishna) after causing the slaughter of his kinsmen would perish in the wilderness on the 36th year.[33] On the 36th year a huge carnage did take place wiping out the Krishna-clan.

When the 36th year (after the war) arrived Yudhishthira noticed many unusual omens, says the first chapter of Mausala Parva.[34] In the next chapter it is said that a great calamity overtook the Vrishnis on the 36th year. [35] In the third chapter, Krishna on seeing the inauspicious omens understood that the thirty sixth year had arrived when Gandhari’s curse given out of grief of losing her children was about to happen.[36]

The year started in Uttarayana before that time. The 36th year happening to be Pramathi, we have to count backwards by 35 years. That leads us to the year Krodhi! That was the year of the Mahabharata War. The year corresponds to 3136 BCE in the Gregorian date. Thus we have two dates established without doubt of which the date of Kali Yuga continues to form the basis of time in all Vedic and traditional activities.

[1]Bhagavata Purana: 1-16
[2]“Yuga classification –how Yuga must be understood”
[4]Bhagavata Purana: 1-15-36
[6]Bhagavata Purana: 1-15-37
[7]Ibid. 1-15-45
[8]Bhagavata Purana: 1-15-36
[9] ‘The Ain I Akbari by Abul Fazl Allami” translated from the original Persian by Colonel H.S Jarrett, Vol II (1891)
[10]Bhagavata Purana: 1-15-36
[11] “Old Thoughts” by Satya Sarada Kandula
[12] Jyothirvidabharana: 10-109
[13]‘Indiya Kalvettugalum, ezhutthukkalum’ by T.S.Sreedhar, Tamilnadu Archaeological Department publication, page 25-29
[14]“Chronology of Ancient Hindu History” Part 1, by Pandit Kota Venkatachela Paakayaaji (1957) Page 13-17
[15] Today Panchanga refers to 5 features, week day, star, tithi, yoga and karana. These 5 are part of Ashtanga that include month, year name and Yuga also. Of the 8, year name, month, week day, tithi and star form indispensible synchronisation at any time, therefore these features are used here with the familiar name Panchanga.
[16]The horoscopy illustrations used in this book are generated from Jagannatha Hora software, version 7.4
[17]Aryabhatiya of Aryabhata” edited and translated by Kripa Shankar Shukla, Page 6
[18]Srimad Bhagavatam: 1-14-7
[19]Jyothisha Siddhanta is divided into three parts - Siddhanta, Tantra and Karana. The Siddhantic text presents calculations starting from Kalpa. The Tantra text deals with calculations starting from the nearest Yuga. The Karana text gives the calculations from the nearest Shaka year. Aryabhatiya is a Tantra text which is further authenticated by the title of the commentary “Aryabhata Tantra Bhashya” by Bhaskara I. 
[20] The Brihat Samhita’ Ch 13-3
[21] Brahmanda Purana: 1-2-29-17
[22]Bhagavad Gita: 10- 35
[23] Mrigashiras represents the eye of the “Nakshatra Purusha” – a concept of 27 stars of the zodiac making the body of Vishnu (Brihat Samhita: 105-4).
The month of Margashirsha represents the first name of Vishnu as Kesava among His 12 names. Krishna identified himself with this month in Bhagavad Gita. Such primacy to Margashirsha when Full Moon occurs in Mrigashiras can be traced to Saptarishi cycle!
[24]Jothida Graha Chinthamani: Pages 4, 5.
[25]Yugavda’ 4248 corresponding to 1147 CE (Source:
[26]Jagabade Kaliyuga gate 4477’ corresponding to 1376 CE (Source: Same as above)
[27]Travancore Archaeological Series, Volume I, page 30.
[28]“A journey from Madras through the countries of Mysore, Canara, and Malabar,....” by Hamilton, Francis, 1762-1829. Page 231
[29]Ibid. Page 411
[30]Pandit Kota Venkatachelam, (1991) “Age of the Mahabharata War” Page 46
[31]Pandit Kota Venkatachelam, (1991) “Age of the Mahabharata War” Page 51 to 54
[32]Mahabharata: 17-1-20
[33] Mahabharata: 11-25-41
[34] Mahabharata: 16-1-1
[35] Mahabharata: 16-2-2
[36] Mahabharata: 16 -3 –verses 18 & 19


Raghu said...

Does the arrival of the 7000 year cyclic period comet Neowise portend evil? Is there any reference to this comet in our scriptures?

Jayasree Saranathan said...


Neowise comet will be passing overhead the earth and cross Ursa Major (Sapta rishi mandala). This is not a good omen for countries of north and north India. Natural calamities are portended by this within a month of sighting this across Sapta rishi Mandala.

Indic society had witnessed many comets, but a comet of 7000 year cycle takes us to Rama's times. If you are following my blogs and videos, you will know what I mean by the following.

We are at a point is space of a turnaround as will be known from the changing direction of the equinox anytime in the next 2 to 3 centuries. The early signs have been sighted in the acceleration of rate of trepidation as though we are turning around a perigee. Actually the entire solar system is now close to or around a turn-around. The last time this location occurred around 7200 years ago. That time saw the Polaris as the pole star as we are seeing now. Polaris is the famous Dhruva nakshatra, the pole star of Rama's times too.

During Rama's times, a comet was sighted when he was proceeding towards Lanka. The night time stars described by Lakshmana is same as what we see now in the months of Maasi and Panguni. But Lakshmana sighted the comet at Moola which arises at south east. But Neowise is said to be sighted at north east in pre-dawn hours. This is one discrepancy. Anyway the authenticity of 7000 year cycle must be given clearly by scientific community. We will wait for more info.

Another information: there is said to be a periodicity of comets around the corner (as now) - every 7200 years, and also meteor showers from paleo records. We need more info on all these.

RV said...

KV: You have arrived at the date of MB war as 3136 BC. Recently Dr. Manish Pandit, after effectively countering Mr. Nilesh Oak's date, had advocated the date of 25th Nov 3067 BCE as the date for start of the war, 17th Jan 3066 BCE as the date of Bheeshma Nirvan and claimed to validate (a) Krishna's peace mission, (b) BalaRama's pilgrimage (c) Sighting of Dhooma Ketu during war period, a difference of about 70 years.Can we explain these observations for 3136 BCE as well?

Jayasree Saranathan said...

@ RV,

Haven't you read my book? I have "VALIDATED" the original date of Mahabharata war wherein ALL the astronomy features have fitted in.

To get a nutshell of the points covered in my book, read my blog:

My book is available for free for Kindle subscribers:

First know the basics in dating a distant past: 1. the Year name should be known, 2. the ayanamsa of that time should be known. None of these "researchers" know these two basics until I told. For Mahabharata these two are known from Kali Yuga date. That is how Kali Yuga becomes the boundary condition. For Ramayana, these two are not available, that is why no stalwarts in the past, say an Aryabhata or Bhaskara DARED to date Ramayana. But we have highly enlightened researchers today who can out-do those stalwarts with the aid of their tropical simulators.

A correction in your comment: I have not arrived at the date of MB war as 3136 BC ,as you say. That date exists, was known to everybody until recently, until these neo, simulator dependent researchers swarmed without knowing the basics, and spreading misinformation around.

Didn't you read the first paragraph of the above article? What is written there? Kali Yuga date is the boundary condition. If the MB date doesn't fit in with that, no use claiming that one has corroborated the planetary positions. That date is like your Independence date, 15th Aug 1947. If someone comes up with a research that Independence day was on 1950, would you agree. Same here.

Until recently no researcher had the audacity to change MB date. They tried but failed, and came up with some other date, because that is what their research showed. But enter the SIMULATOR era, the quality of research completely changed. These researchers are not even aware of the Indic wisdom of sidereal equinox but foolishly following tropical equinox. I have explained the differences in the above article. Seems you have not yet read.

Nilesh Oak's is 'Vartak Bharata'. Manish Pandit's is 'Achar Bharata.' Both are not 'Vyasa Bharata', know that. I raised the issue of Kali yuga with Manish Pandit and sent him my book. What use? They are all after promoting their name. But DHARMA will prevail, like how CORONA yuga had taken over this KALI yuga. The simulators that they are using are tropical zodiac based and not relevant for dating remote past of the Itihasas. Soon these simulators are going to become redundant. Current science had started recognizing that there is no axial precession of the earth and that the earth cannot be making gyroscopic movement - the two features that form the basis of the calculations that go into the making of these simulators. Research is happening in hectic pace. Soon these simulators have to be re-done. At that time these researches will go where they deserve to - dustbin.

If you are really serious to know about the precession issue, stay tuned to my uploads in this blog.
(1) My work on Indic wisdom of precesison offering insights to current phase of precesison researches in science is going to appear from August onwards when it is published in a renowned mainstream astrology magazine.
(2) My book on 'MB date only' with additional information on Harappan as post MB and some scientific research studies on floods at Dwaraka and comet fall on Pushya day during peace mission is going to be published before the year end.

PS: Read my book and check who exposed first the pitfalls in Nilesh Oak's date.

Jayasree Saranathan said...


The above article is the 10th chapter from my book, the contents of which can be read here

Starting from Atmospheric refraction in the 11th chapter till the end of 12th chapter the decipherment of the date of Mahabharata war is done systematically. From a cursory look at the side headings you can know what I have covered.

Vishwajeet Agrawal said...

ma'am, what are you saying about Axial precision? Can you elaborate. As far as i Know axial precision can be well calculated from n-body equations and that comes out to be 26000 years. Earth does both axial precision as well as nutation of 41000 years

Raghu said...

Thank you for the prompt response. Yes, I am following your articles and therefore understand your reasoning.

Jayasree Saranathan said...

@ Vishwajeet Agrawal,

Three anomalies are noticed recently by scientific community.

1. The thinking that earth's axis is precessing is jolted by the fact that the axial tilt is moving forward since 2005, from 80th Meridian West to Central Meridian. NASA scientists have been working on this and identified internal and intrinsic features of the earth causing this. Means there is no luni-solar influence on earth, that was believed all along. Look for Adhikari et al research papers.

2. Moon is drifting away from the earth but the rate of precession is found to be increasing recently. "The moon is slowly receding from the earth (thereby theoretically producing less torque) whereas the precession rate is slowly speeding up (an indication of a greater force at work)" How could this be possible in luni-solar model of precession? This + previous point mean that the earth is not at all influenced by the so-called pull by the moon or the sun. Added to this is fact demonstrated in space station that a gyrospcope in zero gravity does not change its orientation come whatever be the disturbance to it.
Means earth cannot behave like a rotating gyrospcope in zero gravity, which is contrary to the concept that is the basis for the 26000 year cycle of precession.

3. Importantly, it is proven by lunar data that there is no precession of the earth with reference to sun. Means the earth completes 360 degrees from one spring equinox to another spring equinox, and not 52 arc seconds less.
Another point is, if there is precession of an average of 52 arc seconds per year, by now the equinoctial date must have shifted by 5.9 days, counted from the time of Gregorian calendar change (420 years ago). But that has not happened. Spring equinox had occurred in March 20 /21 in all these years scientists had checked. Look at Fig 5 in the above article on Aryabhata's date when tropical spring equinox coincided with sidereal spring equinox. The date then also was March 20th!! So tropical like equinox to equinox has remained constant which should not be in current precession model.

So then what happened? The precession is with reference to the position of the sun in the backdrop of a star. The sun has moved in the backdrop of a star - taking along with it the solar system. Only in that case, there can be absence of precesion with reference to sun but presence of precession with reference to a distant star. This means the entire solar system is precessing. Since the rate is increasing now, the sun is moving in a path of curvature and around perigee now. Based on this the scientists are presently thinking whether there is a binary to the sun.


Jayasree Saranathan said...

It is here our Indic knowledge offers insights, which I am bringing out in my 6 part series. If you have been reading my articles, mybook on Oak's date and my vidoes you will know that I have been saying (based on Siddhantic knowledge) that the equinox has almost reached the end of the precesison path. Anytime it will turn forward. The increasing rate of precesison at present indicates that. The solar system is curving around a corner. In my analysis based on Indic wisdom, I have established that there is no binary companion to the sun. The Sun is moving in a wavy path. I tweeted this recently

Now coming to Milankovitch, the eccentricity cycle is found not supported by insolation theory. You may check 100,000 year problem on wiki.
On the other two, obliquity is based on precession, but in the event of precession not present, obliquity is the casualty. Oak's simulation on A-V is purely based on 2 degree obliquity incorporated in simulators. 41k cycle comes in obliquity concept and that date is found to match with paleo data in some research. But that matches with Indic concept of Yuga of Ayana for which we have an additional evidence on land in movement of tropic of cancer recorded at different places in our scriptures. Moreover the most recently established Dansgaard –Oeschger (DO) events remain unanswered by any current theory including Milankovitch, but it fits with Siddhantic version of to and fro equinoxes recongised in 4 parts of 1800 years each.

So the biggest contribution of Indic science on equinox is going to be proved soon.

For you reading you may check this site, click 'next' and read all pages. They keep updating regularly on recent developments.

There are videos and articles on net.

Jayasree Saranathan said...

Thanks Mr Raghu

Vishwajeet Agrawal said...

What you are saying that all modern calculations which on precision which have been verified are wrong? Can you provide a research paper in scientific community supporting it?
The website you quoted aims to prove that sun is a part of Binary system which you already say is not correct. Also it doesn't quote any research paper from the scientific community.
It will be really helpful if you can provide citation of some research in scientific community contesting 26000 years cycle.

Vishwajeet Agrawal said...

And whatever you are saying, it doesn't change the fact that Earth's axis is precessing relative to distant stars. The BRI site you quoted also says that their precision model averages around 24000 years. So its just a different model. It also says that equinox is also precessing. So the tropical year is not the same as sidereal year. Your third point is in contradiction to well known observed phenomenon of precision of equinox.
In any cases, whatever be the period of precision, the Arundhati Vashishtha observation of difference in right ascension (RA) of Alcor and Mizar still holds. Timeline may change only a little. So I clearly don't follow your rebuttal of Oak on this observation.
Regarding your point on the equinox on March 20, the Gregorian calendar makes adjustments so that it fits, a calendar system cannot dictate what Earth precess or not.

Vishwajeet Agrawal said...

And on your point about binary star, I think scientific community agrees that there is no binary star to our solar system. But it might had one very long time ago.
So I am not sure whether the site you quoted of Binary Research Institute holds any merit.

Jayasree Saranathan said...

@ Vishwajeet Agrawal

# They have just touched the tip of the ice berg. Only now the realisation had set in. On forward movement of axial tilt, research papers have been published.

# Since sun's movement is detected on a curved path, that website supposes a binary model. Such a model solves the issue of low angular momentum of the sun also. But there is another view that the path is wavy, postulated by other scientists. I have found that model concurring with Indic knowledge of precession.

# On sun's movement being the cause of precession: theoretically that site and others have agreed. None of them had thought about the impact on 24,000 year cycle. They have just mentioned it with no further study on it, whereas I have deduced the further implications of this finding. That you cannot and do not wish to think about the implications goes to show that you have some stakes sticking on to current model, whereas I have none. I am a firm believer in Indic wisdom and for propagating that wisdom - a Swadeshi to the core.

# On the 3rd point it seems you have not gone through the lunar data furnished in embedded links.

# Here I am talking about the tropical equinox. As per the Gregorian calendar system, the tropical spring equinox must have occurred 6 days away since the Gregorian calendar was introduced, so says the scientists who had taken grasp of this issue. "The equinox is stable in time after making leap adjustments" but it should have drifted by 5.9 days since the Gregorian calendar was introduced, say the scientists.

# Oak's A-V is absurd as RA cannot tell you that a star is ahead. It involves a calculation of RA, declination and the latitude of the observer to decide whether a star will be seen ahead of the other. I have given the theory and calculation done by a astro-dynamicist at the end of my book. He is still wondering how too many Indians can be easily taken for a ride due to their ignorance by one man's ignorance and craving.

Vishwajeet Agrawal said...

#Can you please some papers in the scientific community as you are claiming?

#I can think about the implications and I agree to you a wavy model will contribute to precision. How our solar system moves around the space is important for precision. Regarding Indic wisdom, I am not sure whether you should give that more weightage in comparison to observations of modern telescopes and Einstein general theory of relativity. Indic wisdom is based purely on observation and deriving rough models, and not derived from solving space time equations of either Newton's gravitation or Einstein's relativity. Many of the values known in Siddhantic texts are certainly not precise than modern values.

#AV is just that which star rises first in the sky. For that plotting RA over years is sufficient. Why should there be a role of latitude and declination for that ?

Jayasree Saranathan said...

@ Vishwajeet Agrawal

# If so interested why not you search for the papers? Or wait for my series to start in August.

# :)) That much only you know of Indic texts. What about the corroboratory evidences from different fields of Indic Thought?

# //AV is just that which star rises first in the sky//

So what? Did that cause A to go ahead of V?
Did Vyasa say so in his nimitta?
Does science say so?
Didn't you read my book for the comparison I showed of Cassiopeia?

//Why should there be a role of latitude and declination for that ?//

I understand your limitations, after reading your response to emerging trends in precession.

Please read my book or see my video.

Check out from 36-29 minutes in

Some basics: RA is projection of longitude. Declination is projection of latitude. Can any one locate a place on earth with just longitude or latitude? Can't.

Similarly one cant locate a star with only one of these, but what Oak had done that.

Now the latitude of the observer: why is it important? If the declination of the star is less than the latitude, the star will be circumpolar. In Oak's date the AV were circumpolar. You know how the circumpolar stars appear? Oak doesn't know obviously. I can vouchsafe he has never even watched Ursa Major from different latitudes. Binary in circumpolarity will keep appearing differently continuously. Check out the same video given above from the beginning.

Vishwajeet Agrawal said...

#I did not find one with quick search on google/wiki. Maybe not so mainstream. I was just hoping if you cite, that will add more credibility to what you say and write in your blog.

#I am not a practicing Hindu like in terms of following any customs and tradition because it has already died in most places, but I am a big admirer of Indic wisdom in all areas, and agree that we had the best science and technology in all of the ancient world. But that doesn't mean it has to be more accurate than modern science especially astronomy. In this subject of precession of axes it may be, I am not vouching for that, as I get the point that the observations from Earth alone won't tell much even if we have all the equations right.

#I don't buy the Oak's date. He rants about method of science and evidence but all his method of overall dating is flawed. I was just contesting to your attack on his AV observation. Because if your attack is right, then this is a big blow to his theory.
But you raise a very interesting point here, that Alcor and Mizar were circumpolar. And yes as I can see, Alcar and Mizar having declination of order of 50s the stars should indeed be circumpolar, and therefore there is no question of rising and setting from the latitude of Mahbharata places. And without them being rising, it has to be seen whether Arundahti is following Vashishtha which will depend on their relative declination. Yes let me check your video.

By the way I don't understand why latitude and longitude are not enough to tell a position on Earth. Surely each point of 'surface' of earth theoretically has a unique (latitude, longitude) pair.

Jayasree Saranathan said...

// I did not find one with quick search on google/wiki. Maybe not so mainstream. I was just hoping if you cite, that will add more credibility to what you say and write in your blog.//

Its there in mainstream. You have to use right search terms. Or wait for my series.

//I am not a practicing Hindu..... //

That is a problem when such persons start researching Indic past. See they can't even know Kali date.

//But that doesn't mean it has to be more accurate than modern science especially astronomy//

Contradicts your admiration for Indic wisdom.
Were the people who gave the world binary numbers, pi, decimal system, zero, heliocentric motion of the earth and the planets, calculation of eclipses, tracking the motion and time taken by the sun and the moon across the zodiac interfaced with the stars- to name a few- less accurate in their calculations?

//In this subject of precession of axes it may be, I am not vouching for that, as I get the point that the observations from Earth alone won't tell much even if we have all the equations right.//

There are supportive evidence in Indic system.

//By the way I don't understand why latitude and longitude are not enough to tell a position on Earth. Surely each point of 'surface' of earth theoretically has a unique (latitude, longitude) pair.//

Where did I say so? I wrote latitude "OR" longitude - any one of them. You cant locate a place on earth with just one of them.

Vishwajeet Agrawal said...

I saw your video that you quoted and put a comment. Your diagram in the video is grossly misleading.
A real objection to AV observation is actually this

Jayasree Saranathan said...

@ Vishwajeet Agrawal

Replied to your comment.

Koch's version: He proposes point 6 (in his article) which is nothing but what is observed in circumpoarity. What I had drawn in hand for a complete change within 24 hours everyday, he has shown only a part of it for the year -1197 when the binary was in circumpolarity.

What I have shown at 16-36 minutes in my video at pre-dawn is shown by him from simulator for -1197 saying that it was so for half a year. What he failed to realise was that within half an hour before and after that time, the alignment will change.

Similarly, in another simulation in the same chapter he is showing the opposite at sunset.
That happens in the same day is what I have been saying (24-31 minutes in my video). It is a pity that an astrodienst (Koch) is not able to visualise how the binary changes its appearance every few minutes within 24 hours when they happen to be in circumpolar motion. He needs a simulator to tell this, and then also he is not able to deduce the path. He picks out 12 hours later and says "wow this is how it appears". Certainly I am proud of the High school students guided by me in star watching. They know concepts much better than these "scholarly" people and of course persons like you who can never understand these simple ideas.

One more thing. Precession is important. They are all showing their simulator views based on tropical simulators of 26000 year cycle. Once the concept of precession changes, the views shown by Oak and Koch are no more valid.

Indic cycle is only 7200 year cycle. And the pole stars are specifically given. The pole star of Mahabharata times was Indra and Agni- a twin to understand which you need to see my other videos. Some thing too much to ask for from you I know.

There is one more I want to state. Any Indic researcher is supposed to know the basic traditions before venturing to date. Certain traditions are ingrained in the etymology of the names used. Name is very important as we are advised to meditate on names (Shiva in Panchakshara, Narayana in Ashtakshara etc)to attain them. Similarly Arundhati is an icon for not crossing the path of her husband. Read 1st chapter of my book. If she has violated she is Rundhati and would have been dropped from reckoning.

Perpetuating a momentary aberration caused by change in atmospheric refraction due to a natural calamity at that time, into a true and long lasting event, do you realise that it is no way different from denouncing Shiva or Narayana from their exalted significances? Do you know what retributive karma it invites?

Vishwajeet Agrawal said...

What is this 7200 cycles that you are talking about? Are you contesting against the precision cycle of 24-26K years in which sun recedes ~ 50'' per year, because that is well established.

Jayasree Saranathan said...

@ Vishwajeet Agrawal

That is Indic knowledge I have been talking about.

Search for it in my book, videos. No more spoon feeding to you.

Raghu said...

He doesn't even get the spelling right..

Vishwajeet Agrawal said...

But, if someone says 26000 years cycle is incorrect, then why should one have a look at it. Because noone has ever contested it. Indic science does not has to be 100 percent correct. They were not Gods who knew everything. So you have cite either a historical observation or modern science discovery that contests it.

Jayasree Saranathan said...

Why this guy - Vishwajeet Agrawal - is so tensed up at the thought of Oak's 'theory' going into shambles? Looks like one of the many fake IDs of Oak. Oak himself has told me that he has commented in my blog in fake IDs and I have a count of all those IDs. Watching this ID too.

A08 said...


Highly technical and commendable post.

I missed out two items here.

1. Kaliyuga assumed by Aryabhata is 1/4 of one Mahayuga, whereas Kaliyuga defined by SS is 1/10 of one Mahayuga. How should we reconcile this difference

2. Aryabhatiya takes reference from Bhāratāt Purvam, states that the revolutions commenced at the beginning of the sign Aries on Wednesday at sunrise at Lanka. No mention of the location of first point of Aries. This gives a hypothesis that all the planets together with the Moon's apogee and the Moon's ascending node were in conjunction at the first point of the asterism Asvini, Gitika-pada, vs. 4 (d).

As per SS all are same except (a) Chandra Paata which should align with beginning of Tula Rasi & (b) Chandrochcha align with beginning of Karka Rasi; reference from beginning of Yuga of your choice. First point of Aries becomes always aligned as in the beginning of any Yuga.

Please correct me if I made calculation error or in understanding.

How do we explain this difference for actual sighting or back calculations of planetary positions for beginning of Kali Yuga?

Best regards

kalyan97 said...

Thanks for citing this reference from Bhāgavata Purāṇa. Let me cite it in full with translation.

यदा मुकुन्दो भगवानिमां महीं
जहौ स्वतन्वा श्रवणीयसत्कथ: ।
मभद्रहेतु: कलिरन्ववर्तत ॥ ३६ ॥ Bhāgavata Purāṇa: 1-15-36

When the Personality of Bhagawan Kṛṣṇa, left this earthly planet in His selfsame form, from that very day Kali, who had already partially appeared, became fully manifest to create inauspicious conditions for those who are endowed with a poor fund of knowledge.

This is consistent with the occurrence of the Mahābhārata war events in कलिद्वापरयॊरअन्तरे;i.e., the conclusion of Śrī Kr̥ṣṇa avatārawell before Feb.17/18 February 3102 BCE the date of conclusion of Śrī Kr̥ṣṇa avatāra which begins Kaliyuga calendar reckoning.

Partial appearance of Kali before 3102 BCE explains the war events. It is for astronomy experts to determine when Kali 'partially appeared' based on the info. in the Mahābhārata text

So, why look for dates AFTER 3102 BCE to determine the war events?

Jayasree Saranathan said...

Dr.S.Kalyanaraman Sir,

Didn't you see this verse along with another verse (SB: 12-2-33) quoted in the 1st part of my series on Mbh dating?

Check foot-note 3 in that article

Also make sure you refer to the correct Kali Yuga date as 22nd January, 3101 BCE. 3102 is not correct as it misses the 0 year. Anytime soon this correction is going to be incorporated, thereby making the year 3102 invalid.

The date 22nd Jan 3101 BCE is accurately based on planetary conjunction. The year 3101 also matches with Aryabhata's reference.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear Jayasreej,

The year 3102 BCE is correct for the year of Lord Krishna's leaving the mortal frame. The year 3102 BCE means -3101 CE. You can try any sidereal astronomical software, with Lahiri Ayanamsha or any other ayanamsha of your choice, and you will see that 3102 BCE (-3101 CE) is correct.

Secondly I find it difficult to agree with your Adhika Maasa in the year of the Mahabharata war. May be you will like to recheck your calculations. I checked with Dr. Raja and he also found that there was no Adhika Maasa in the year of the Mahabharata war.

BTW, which is the date of the Winter Solstice, you could find, for Bhishma's death? Dr Narahari Achar and Dr Manish Pandit are claiming an abnormal date to suit their date and they are abslolutely wrong.

Sunil K. Bhattacarjya

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear Jayasreeji,

I requested you for an information, as to which is the date of the Winter Solstice day, you got for 3136 BCE. It should not be difficult. You have to use the Gregorian software (based on Tropical calendar (i.e., Sayana Panchanga). In the year 2020 we had the last Winter Solstice on Monday, 21st December, 2020.

BTW, there can be only one Winter-Solstice day in a year, when the day is the shortest in the year. On that day the Gregorian Sun was at Zero (0) degree of Capricorn. In sidereal calendar (i.e., Nirayana Panchanga) on that day the Sun was at 6 degree of Sagittarius.

In 3067 BCE the winter Solstice day was in 20th December, but Dr. Narhri Achar and Dr. Manish Pandit could not gather up enough of moral courage to speak out the truth. I have done the thankless job of telling them that their date of Winter Solstice in mid-January of 3066 BCE was wrong, but they are adamant. Their calculations are wrong as they have chosen a wrong year for the Mahabharata war.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

Jayasree Saranathan said...

Dear Sunil ji,

Please read the series starting from here
You will get the answer.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear Jayasreeji,

I was drawing your attention to the date claimed by Prof Achar / Dr. Manish Pandit. Initiallly they claimed the date of the start of the Mahabharata war to be November 22, 3067 BCE. Later on, they changed it to November 25, 3067 BCE. Then Bhishma should have fallen on the 10th day of war, i.e., on December 4, 3067 BCE. This means Bhishma should have been on the bed of arrows for 58 nights from December 4 to January 31, 3066 BCE and the Pandvas came from hastinapr, to meet him on February 1, 3066 BCE. On their way they said that the Winter Solstice just already occurred. This is just absurd, as the Winter Solstice should have occurred actually on December 20, 3067 BCE. One can very well check this with an astronomical software, and see the absurdity of the claim of Pro.f Achar and Dr. Manish Pandit.

That is why I don't want you to face such a situation. You have to determine the date of Winter Solstice on your year of the Mahabharata war (if not done so already) and then calculate back the date when Bhishma fell on the 10th day of the war.

Regards, Sunil KB

Jayasree Saranathan said...

Dear Sunil ji.

Don't worry. I won't and don't face 'such' situations. Because I am not using astronomy software that is absolutely unsuited for dating Indic past. Request you to read my series to know what I mean and how the calender of Mbh must be derived.