Showing posts with label Greek astrology vs Vedic astrology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Greek astrology vs Vedic astrology. Show all posts

Monday, November 6, 2023

Karikāl Chola who built Kallaṇai (Grand Anicut) was a contemporary of Adi Shankara

 The quest for establishing the date of Adi Shankara brings up an interesting information that a Chola king by name ‘Rājasena’ helped Adi Shankara in setting up three temples and in re-modelling Kanchipuram into two parts – as Shiva Kanchi and Vishnu Kanchi.  Even today these names exist with an additional identity as Big Kanchi for Shiva Kanchi and Small Kanchi for Vishnu Kanchi. Shiva temples are concentrated in Shiva Kanchi while Vishnu Kanchi is dominated by Vishnu temples, but the king’s name ending with ‘Sena’ is not heard of in the Chola genealogy.

The life history of Adi Shankara given in a text named, ‘Shankara Vijaya Vilāsa’ talks about the service of this Chola king in developing these towns and temples at the behest of Adi Shankara from verses 6 to 61 in chapter 25. Rājasena as the name of a Chola king doesn’t appear in any Tamil sources but this name appears with a variation in the Bhashya (commentary) to Chandogya Upanishad by Adi Shankara where he refers to ‘Rājavarman’ - a king who brings rewards equal to kingship. Rājasena being his contemporary, it makes us wonder whether Adi Shankara mentioned Rājasena as Rājavarman.

Checking the authenticity of this text, this book is indeed the lesser known among the many hagiographies of Adi Shankara. Only four manuscripts of this book were found in different parts of Bharat. The earliest to appear in print was published by Vāvillu Rāmasāmi Sāstri in 1876 at Madras. All the four manuscripts were compared and found to have less variations. The text is in the form of a narration of Adi Shankara’s life history by one Cidvilāsa Yati (who learned it from his Guru) to his disciple, Vijnānakanda. It is not possible to find out the date of this composition, but scholars are of the opinion that it follows Brihat Shankara Vijaya by Citsukha, the first disciple of Adi Shankara. There are however others who deny the very existence of Citsukha!

This text cannot be ignored because it talks about six kings from different parts of Bharat as contemporaneous to Adi Shankara of whom the Chola King at Kanchi appears traceable with Kanchi having more than 2000 years of history, recorded in literature (Tamil Sangam texts) and inscriptions. The other kings were Bhadrasena of Rudrākhya nagar near Prayāg, Vіrasena near the bank of Thungabhadra and Shringeri Mutt, Bhojasingh of Cidambar, Ratnasingh of Badarī and Rāmarāja of Anantasayana.

The information pertaining to Rājasena, the Chola king is related to developing Kanchi on the advice of Adi Shankara. Though I could get the exact date of Adi Shankara’s birth based on the Panchanga features given by many hagiographies, I wanted to find out the identity of this Chola king independently so that it would become a cross reference in support of the date of Adi Shankara which I will be sharing in another article.

About Rājasena in the text

The text says that Adi Shankara came to Kanchi from Shringeri after giving consent for setting up a Mutt in Shringeri. On coming to Kanchi, he worshiped Ekāmbranātha, Kāmākshi and Varadarāja. This shows that temples for these deities existed during his time.

Sometime during his stay, the Chola king, Rājasena came to meet him. Adi Shankara told him to develop Kanchi by making it two-told with Shiva and Vishnu, instead of the threefold division of Shiva, Shakti and Vishnu. Taking his advice, the king modelled the city as Shiva Kanchi and Vishnu Kanchi and built temples for Ekāmbranātha, Kāmākshi and Varadarāja. The building of these temples by Rājasena implies that these deities worshiped by Adi Shankara when he came to Kanchi were not housed in proper temples. Only Rājasena constructed these temples.

It is also written that when Adi Shankara came, Kāmākshi Devi was in Ugra form. She was residing in a bila (hole / cave) and often tormented the people. Adi Shankara pacified her by establishing a Sri Yanta. Adi Shankara asked the Chola king to make a golden image of Goddess Kāmākshi and install it in front of the hole. He also got the king to build a mutt for him. The King was asked by Sureshwara, the disciple of Adi Shankara to make a Sarvajna-pitha, (the throne of omniscience) made of gold and decorated with precious stones and adorned with steps. The king obliged and made the throne on which Adi Shankara ascended.

With only these details about this Chola king, we must find out who he was.

Rājasena was pre-Pallava.

In the opinion of many, Adi Shankara lived in the 7th or 8th century CE. The three main temples of Kanchi (Ekāmbranātha, Kāmākshi and Varadarāja) were already well developed by those centuries. Kanchi was under the control of the Pallava-s until the 9th century when Aditya-I, the son of Vijayālaya defeated the Pallava-s. Placing Rājasena and Adi Shankara at or after the 9th century in post-Vijayālaya period is not appropriate, because Kanchi was well developed by then.  

The only other time the Chola-s were in control of Kanchi was some time before the 3rd century CE. As per the Pallava chronicles given in Velurpālayam plates, Kumāravishnu captured Kanchi from the Chola-s. (Verse 8)

Earlier, his father, Skandasishya snatched the Ghatika of Kanchi from Satyasena! (verse 7). The name Satyasena in the inscription shows that having ‘Sena’ as suffix was not uncommon among the Chola kings. A search for the Chola suffixes shows that their names in Tamil mostly ended with Kiḷḷi and Senni as well. But ‘sena’ being a Sanskrit word, it could have been in use in the Sanskrit names of the Chola kings. Most Chola kings had a titular name in Sanskrit while they also had a Tamil name by which they were commonly known. For example, Rājarāja was the titular name in Sanskrit for Arulmozhivarman in Tamil.

Among the Chola suffixes, Senni sounds closer to Sena. As per Sendhan Divākara Nighantu (Tamil Thesaurus, Verse 14) the following are the titles of the Chola kings. The list begins with Senni.

“Senni, Vaḷavan, Kiḷḷi, Sembiyan, Ponni-thuṛaivan, Pulikkodi-puravalan, Nēriyan, Ārththārkōn, Nēriai, Abhayan, Nēri veṛpan, Kōzhi vēndhan, Sūriyan, Punal Nādan, Kōchōzhan peyarē”

“சென்னி, வளவன், கிள்ளி, செம்பியன்,

பொன்னித் துறைவன், புலிக்கொடிப் புரவலன்,

நேரியன், ஆர்த்தார்க்கோன், நேரிறை, அபயன்,

நேரிவெற்பன், கோழி வேந்தன்,

சூரியன், புனனாடன், கோச்சோழன் பெயரே”

Senni seems to be a variation of Senāni, the Sanskrit word for Chief or Commander of the army or leader of the army. Senāni might have become Sena in the Sanskrit title and Senni in the Tamil title. Karikāla was known as ‘Senni Karikāla’ in Kulottunga Cholan Ula penned by Ottakūththar.

There is a likelihood that his Sanskrit title could have had Sena as suffix. In fact, no one knows the original name of Karikāl Chola. The name Karikāla was not his original name as revealed by Tiruvalangadu plates which state that he was Kāla for Kali. Therefore, he was Karikāla or Kalikāla. Senni Karikāla was his titular name.  Karikāla’s father was also a Senni – Uruva pahrēr Iḷamsēt Senni (உருவப்பஃறேர் இளம்சேட் சென்னி). He was the younger brother of one Sēt Senni (சேட் சென்னி) who was also addressed as Nalam Kiḷḷi (நலங்கிள்ளி) who ruled from Pūmpukār as per Purananuru verse 225. So, Senni looks like a variation of Sena. With this title seen in early Chola names, there is scope to say that Rājasena was a pre common era king of the Chola kingdom who had a hold over Kanchi too.

Golden walled Kanchi

Even as early as 78 CE when the Śālivāhana Śaka started, the Chola-s were in control of Kanchi, for, we read about Iḷam Kii (இளம்கிள்ளி) ruling Kanchi when Manimekalai went over there. Perum Kiḷḷi (பெரும் கிள்ளி) was ruling from Uraiyūr during Kannagi’s period, as per Silappadhikaram.

We also read in Manimekalai that Kanchi was a walled city with the walls plated with gold and the city itself known as golden. In the 28th chapter of Manimekalai, Māsātthuvān, the father of Kovalan was found to be telling his granddaughter, Manimekalai that Kanchi had golden walls. (பொன் எயில் காஞ்சி நாடு – line 156). Once again it is said in the same chapter, ‘golden city’ (பொன் நகர்- line 168) and ‘the ancient walled city with golden flag’ (பொற்கொடி மூதூர் புரிசை-   line 170). The city was a ‘popular ancient city’ (மல்லல் மூதூர் – line 237).

The city already well made with golden walls in the 1st century CE (as known from the text Manimekalai) is proof of its development in the pre-common era. There is epigraphic evidence on who made it golden! It was Karikāl Chola!

The 42nd verse of the Tiruvalangadu copper plates states,

“In this (king’s) family was born he, the leader of all the lords of the earth, the foremost of the great on account of his virtues, the king who renovated (the town of) Kanchi with gold, who had established his glorious fame by constructing embankments of the Kaveri and whom (people) called Kalikāla because (he) was (the god of) death to the elephants (kari) (of his enemies) as also to the Kali (-age).”

The exact verse in Sanskrit stating that Karikāla modernized Kanchi with gold is as follows:

“Kānchīm yashva navīcakāra kanakais: sōbhudamushyān vaye”

There is no way to claim that someone before Karikāla could have made the changes in Kanchi because only one king appears in the genealogy before Karikāla in Kali Yuga, and he was Perunar Kiḷi (பெருநற்கிள்ளி). Tiruvalangadu inscriptions offer unique information on Yuga-s in minor scale which can be called Dharma Yuga. It says that after the end of Dwapara Yuga, Perunar Kiḷḷi ruled the Chola domains, followed by Karikāla. This doesn’t mean that there were not many kings before Karikāla. There is evidence of several Kiḷḷi-s during and before Karikāla in the Sangam text of Purananuru, but only Karikāla and Perunar Kiḷḷi seemed to have stood out as exceptions, when compared with others.

The reference to the end of Dwapara Yuga before Perunar Kiḷḷi shows that they referred to the ushering in of the Kali Dharma Yuga with the beginning of Nanda dynasty as told in Srimad Bhagavatam (12-2-32). The year was 575 BCE, calculated on the basis of the Kali year of 2526 given in a similar verse in Brihat Samhita (13-3). Following the beginning of Kali Dharma Yuga in 575 BCE Perunar Kiḷi, Karikāla and Koccheṇganān were mentioned in the Tiruvalangadu inscription before Vijayālaya.

The Laden plates recognize Karikāla as one of the earliest kings coming after the much olden Vyāghrakētu (verse11) thereby making him a notable early king. This inscription doesn’t mention Perunar Kiḷḷi.

The Anbil plates of Sundara Chola also place Karikāla after the first Chola who lent his name to the dynasty, thereby according Karikāla an important place in the lineage of the early period. The Anbil Plates specifically state that it was a family of “kings beginning with Senni, Kiḷḷi and (kings) likewise beginning with Karikāla.”

The Anbil Plates further mention the names of the descendants of Karikāla as Koccheganān, Nallaṭikkon, Vaḷabha and Srikāntha coming before Vijayālaya. None of them was linked with Kanchi, except Karikāla. Karikāla seems to be the only Chola King to have made the golden wall around the city that is found mentioned in Manimekalai of the latter part of the 1st century CE.

Karikāl Chola is associated with building the wall around Kanchi in Sekkilār’s Periya Puranam. Verse 85 of Tirukkuṛipputh thoṇdar Purāṇam states this. The verse is reproduced below:

என்று முள்ளவிந் நகர்கலி யுகத்தி

     லிலங்கு வேற் கரி காற்பெரு வளத்தோன்

வன்றி றற்புலி யிமயமால் வரைமேல்

     வைக்க வேகுவோன் றனக்கிதன் வளமை

சென்று வேடன்முன் கண்டுரை செய்யத்

     திருந்து காதநான் குட்பட வகுத்துக்

குன்று போலுமா மதில்புடை போக்கிக்

     குடியி ருத்தின கொள்கையின் விளங்கும்.

It says that Karikāl Chola who engraved his tiger emblem on the Himalayas was a king of the Kali yuga who created mountain like walls around the city of Kanchi for a circumference of 4 Khādam (yojana) and brought people to settle there. It also says that he was asked to do this by a ‘hunter’ (வேடன்) who went before him! The reference to a hunter leading the way and showing the spot was common in olden days when a king was on an expedition or moving through forested areas. A group of people used to visit the route taken by the king to clear the path. In this case, a hunter who was familiar with the region helped the royal team to identify habitable regions of Kanchi.

The initial demarcation of the city of Kanchi was done by Karikāl Chola by building a wall around Kanchi, as per the verse of Periya Puranam. Further re-modeling with gold was done on the advice of Adi Shankara. The specific title of Senni to Karikāla raises a doubt on whether he was Rājasena of Adi Shankara period.  

Karikāla’s connection with Kanchi.

Karikāla is remembered in Silappadhikaram for quite a few things of historical importance. He visited the ‘Kāmakkottam - the original and olden name for Kanchi owing to Kāmākshi, the presiding deity. There is a reference to Kanchi as Kāmakoṣṇī in Srimad Bhagavatam, visited by Balarāma, the brother of Krishna (kāma-koṣṇīṁ purīṁ kāñcīṁ - 10-79-14). Kāmakoṣṇī changed into Kāmakoi. The seat of Goddess is referred to as ‘Kāmakoshṭha’ in Shilpa texts such as Mānasāra and in Saiva- āgama-s. The Goddess is referred to as ‘Kāmakoṭikā’ in Lalitā Sahasranama, as ‘Kāmeswari Kāmakoṭinilayā’ in Lalitā Trishatī and ‘Kāmakoṭi Mahāpadma pītasthā’ in Lalitā Ashtotthara. What is Kāmakoṭi in Sanskrit is known as Kāmakkottam in Tamil.

Of the seven Moksha-Puri-s, Kanchi is one, the others being Ayodhya, Haridwar, Vāraṇāsī, Ujjain, Mathura and Dwaraka. This classification must have come up only after Krishna’s time going by the two places (Mathura and Dwaraka) identified with Krishna’s birth and life. Kanchi was already recognized as an important religious center by appearing in the pilgrimage plan of Balarama. It is noteworthy that Kanchi was known as Kāmakoṣṇī even at that time, which can be attributed to the presence of Kāmākshi Devi only. Koṇī or Koṣṭha is Tamilised into Kottam – a word for temple often appearing in Silappadhikaram and Manimekalai. 

Karikāla went to Kāmakkottam of the bangled Kāmākshi to get a weapon called ‘Chendu’ from Sāsta in that temple for the purpose of engraving (his symbol) on the golden Himalayas. This is written by Adiyārkku Nallār, the olden commentator of Silappadhikaram, by quoting an ancient Tamil verse whose authorship is not known.

கச்சி வளைக் கச்சி காமக்கோட்டம் காவல்

மெச்சி இனிது இருக்கும் மெய்ச் சாத்தன் – கைச் செண்டு

கம்பக் களிற்றுக் கரிகால் பெருவளத்தான்

செம்பொற் கிரி திரித்த செண்டு.

Kachchi vaik kachchi Kāmakkottam kāval

Mechchi inithu irukkum meych chāththan – kaich cheṇdu

Kambak kaḷṛṛiuk Karikāl peruvaḷaththān

sempon giri thiriththa cheṇdu.

Thre is a shrine of Sāsta even today in the first Prākāra of the Kāmākshi temple of Kanchipuram, thereby establishing the fact that the same temple of Kāmākshi with Sāsta existed in Karikāla’s time.


    Sāsta with Purna and Pushkala in Kāmākshi temple of Kanchi

The ‘Cheṇḍu’ is held by Sāsta in His hand. It is also noteworthy that Adi Shankara offers salutations to Sāsta in his composition, Sivapādādikeṣānta stotra. This reinforces Adi Shankara’s association with Kāmākshi temple of Kanchi, says VA Devasenapati in his book, ‘Kamakottam and Nayanmars’.

A definite town planning is seen in the position of both Shiva and Vishnu temples in Kanchi. Kāmākshi temple occupies the center while the entrances and Gopuram-s of all the other temples including the Varadaraja temple are facing the Kāmākshi temple. It is as though the entire city is centered around Kāmākshi Devi. All the deities of the other temples go round the Kāmākshi temple during Brahmotsava. This is followed in the case of Vishnu deities of Kanchi too which cannot happen unless it was an ancient practice sanctioned right from the time of building those temples in alignment with the Kāmākshi temple.

Another notable feature is the absence of separate shrine of Devi (Shakti or Ambāl) in any of the Shiva temples of Kanchi while the Shiva temples outside Kanchi have separate shrines for Shakti. Kāmākshi is the overpowering deity of Kanchi who makes her presence in the Shiva temples of Kanchi without a separate shrine for her individually in those temples.

A special feature of Kāmākshi Devi is her bangle. The bangles of Kāmākshi as mentioned in ‘Kachchi vaḷik kachchi’ (கச்சி வளைக் கச்சி) are something special as they are found as impressions in the body of Shiva according to Kanchi Puranam and Mūkapancashatī. The description of Kāmākshi Devi with bangles during the visit of Karikāla to the Kāmākshi temple to acquire Cheṇḍu could have happened after the temple was established from being a ‘bila’ or a hole into a full-fledged temple with the vigraha of Kāmākshi consecrated. It must be recalled that as per Shankara Vijaya Vilāsa, the golden image of Goddess Kāmākshi was made by the Chola king Rājasena on the advice of Adi Shankara. The Golden vigraha was taken to Thanjavur during Muslim invasion.

The city of Kanchi was renovated with gold by Karikāl Chola according to Tiruvālangādu copper plates. The city had golden walls as per Manimekalai of the 1st century CE. This gives scope to link Karikāl Chola with the making of Golden vigraha for Kāmākshi Devi.

The arrangement of the temples in a specific fashion could not have been conceived by a king. Certainly, a religious leader of tall order must have been behind the planning of Kanchi into Vishnu and Shiva Kanchi with Kāmākshi as the central deity. Adi Shankara is identified as one who got the remodeling of the town with the help of Rājasena, who appears to be Karikāla.

At the same time, we do find another name “Iḷam Thirayan” (இளம் திரையன்) as the king of Kanchi in the Sangam Age text called “Perum Pānāṛṛu Padai”. Both Karikāla and Iḷam Thirayan seem to be contemporaries because both had been praised by the same poet, Kadiyalūr Urutthiram Kannanār (கடியலூர் உருத்திரங்கண்ணனார்). Since Iḷam Thirayan was also known as “Tondamān” Iḷam Thirayan, Kanchi was known as Toṇdai nādu or Toṇdai Maṇḍalam. The poet praised Iḷam Thirayan positioned at Kanchi whereas his poem (Pattina-p-Pālai பட்டினப்பாலை) on Karikāl Chola was about Pūmpukār. This raises a question on linking Karikāl Chola with Kanchi as Rājasena. Couldn’t Iḷam Thirayan be Rājasena?

(to be continued) 

Thursday, August 24, 2023

Mahabharata Quiz - 39

 Click here for the previous question

 

Question - 39

Is it possible to re-construct the 5-year yuga of the Mahabharata period? If yes, how? What was it?

Answer:

Yes.

·       The 5-year yuga is based on the Uttarāyaṇa of that time. The true position of the sun turning towards north was taken into reckoning in the 1st year. However, the Uttarāyaṇa was not observed on the exact day of the sun turning north in this scheme. It was observed only on the day after the moon joined this sun in the 1st year. This is because of the concept of the sun and the moon yoking the year together (Yugya). Conjunction with the other planets is not considered in this Yuga (as in the beginning of Kali Yuga).

·       Every 7th tithi and the 19th star at the time of the Uttarāyaṇa in a year will become the tithi and the star of the next ayana of the year. That will be the Dakṣiṇāyana of the 1st year.  When this is computed for every succeeding ayana, it is found that the initial tithi-star combination (of the 1st year) repeats only in the 6th year. That is why five years are clubbed together as one Yuga. When the next conjunction of the sun and the moon takes place at the point of Uttarāyaṇa in the 6th year, that is taken as the 1st year of the new 5-year Yuga.

·       Since the beginning of subsequent years of the 5-year period will begin in a different tithi which is determined by the location of the moon, the Uttarāyaṇa of those years will not be in the true location of the sun. The astronomy simulators are practically inadequate to locate the time of the Uttarāyaṇa in the 5-year Yuga.   

Using this formula, we can construct the tithi- nakṣatra of the first day of all the 10 ayana-s in the 5 years of the Mahabharata time. As we know by now that the Mahabharata war occurred in the year Krodhi (3136 BCE), it is possible for us to find out the Uttarāyaṇa position of the year and construct the 5-year yuga from that. This is done using the astrology simulator Jhora.

This simulator provides two systems – Drik and Surya Siddhanta.

Drik is based on the current location of the equinox and the planetary positions as of today. This is extrapolated using a standard ayanamsa calculated by the Western scientists based on continuous precession of the equinox (the current model)

Surya Siddhanta calculation is based on Vedic concept of to and fro oscillating equinox (3600 +3600 years for to and fro) and uses the ayanamsa based on this. When we check the dates from both systems, it was found that Kali Yuga feature of super conjunction of all the planets can be simulated only in the Surya Siddhanta model. Since this is not simulated in the Drik model (same as the one used by NASA et al), the westerners are rejecting the very concept of super conjunction of Kali Yuga. This is supported and parroted by all Indologists except me!

Now coming to the decipherment of the 5-year Yuga, I noted the ayanamsa position in the Jhora and the corresponding date when the sun and the moon were conjunct. The conjunction occurred in the star Uttaraṣādha when the tithi was Shukla Pratipat! The ayanamsa was zero – implying that the sidereal equinox coincided with the tropical equinox at the beginning of Aries (Ashwini). Therefore, the Uttarāyaṇa (winter solstice) had occurred at the beginning of Capricorn where Uttaraṣādha was located.


(Click the image to enlarge)

The figure shows that a new Yuga started in the year Krodhi – the year of the Mahabharata war. In that year, the Pandava-s ended their exile.

The figure also shows that the Uttarāyaṇa date did not start on the same day every year, though the sun turned northward in the same star. For example, it started on Shukla Trayodasi with the moon in Rohini, in the next year.

A researcher in Mahabharata must bear in mind this anomaly in the calendar in vogue at that time. No modern simulator can detect this anomaly since this Yuga system is not incorporated in any astronomy simulator

           

 Click here for the next question




Monday, May 22, 2023

Free download of my book in Tamil on "When was the First Vedic Homa done?"

Proponents of the theory of 'Aryan migration' (also called Aryan invasion) suggest that homa was brought to India by Aryan Europeans. Since we do not know that the beginning of homa is mentioned in our scriptures, we have been unable to respond to it. To overcome that shortcoming, this booklet, first published in English is now brought to the readers in Tamil 

To reach all the people who know Tamil, I have given this Tamil version for free download.

Please read and share with your friends.

Key points of the book:

* Details of the period of Tamil Sangam

* History of Tamil and Sanskrit appearing and growing together

* The place where the first Vedic Homa was done, its period, and how it spread further

* The astronomy features prevalent at that time

* Period of Manu and the place where he lived

* Ramayana period

* History of  how Skanda started Vedic Homa

* Traces of Skanda's clan spread all over Europe


Download here முதல் வேத ஹோமம் எப்பொழுது யாரால் செய்யப்பட்டது?




Friday, May 14, 2021

Decipherment of Yavana and Kushana Śaka (Old Śaka-s) shows they are not Indic (Supplement to Mahabharata date series 15)

Previous

Next

Recap:

·         Śaka eras are subdivisions of Kali Maha Yuga devised and handed down by the sages, immediately after Krishna departed from this world.

·         There are six Śaka eras of which two were already over. We are now in the third Śaka era.

·         The king who eliminates the Śaka tribes (and Mleccha tribes such as Yavana, Parada, Pahlavas and such others) becomes the Śakakāraka.

·         Yudhishtira was the Śakakāraka of the first Śaka of Kali Yuga by virtue of having defeated the Śaka-s in the Mahabharata war. Computation of the Śaka named after him started only from the beginning of Kali Maha Yuga when he abdicated the throne. This Śaka started in 3101 BCE.

·         His Śaka went on for 3044 years after which it was replaced by King Vikrama by having subdued the Śaka tribes. His Śaka started in Kartika (Tula Sankramana of the sun) in the year 57 BCE. An alternate beginning also seems to have been followed from Caitra of 56 BCE

·         Vikrama’s Śaka went on for 135 years after which it was replaced by Shalivahana Śaka.

The identity of the Śakakāraka of Shalivahana will be discussed after sorting out the identity of the “Śaka’ eras found in some inscriptions that some scholars had linked with a Jyothisha Siddhanta intended for deciphering the Vedic time measures such as Kali Yuga.

We should first know that no Jyothisha Siddhanta would refer to the time scale other than the Vedic one (Kalpa – Catur Yuga – Kali Yuga) because Time is basically a measure of the Age of Brahma. The dates of these Siddhantas are related to some division of this Time of Kalpa or Yuga and not to an era of a Mleccha king. Depending on the type of the Siddhanta they compute the time of compositon either from the beginning of Kalpa or from Kali Yuga. In the latter case, the nearest Śaka is sometimes mentioned. This is the Śaka of Kali Maha Yuga but definitely not the Cyrus Śaka which I had shown to be non-existent. Nor it can be the Śaka of the Scythians or the Parthians or the Greeks suggested since the time of the colonial writers.

Did an “Old” Śaka exist?

Some inscriptions written in Brahmi or Kharoshthi are found to indicate an unspecified era. Scholars refer to it as the Old Śaka with some of them linking with it the Jyothisha Siddhanta of Bhaskara II. Since Siddhantic tradition adheres to the Śaka era of Kali Yuga, it is blatantly wrong to suggest that Bhaskara had given the date of Siddhanta Shiromani from the “Old Śaka”. To put at rest the mis-information of linking the Siddhanta with the Old Śaka, let me examine the list of inscriptions on the so-called ‘Old Śaka’ given in Epigraphia Indica, Volume 14.

Written in Brahmi or Kharoshthi these inscriptions carry the year number either as the regnal year of the king or the year number of an unspecified era that goes upto 399. I have boxed the year numbers in red.

Most of these inscriptions mention the month name, while some of them state the tithi and the day of the month. Notable is the fact that the month name is not always Vedic. In some inscriptions the Greek name of the corresponding Vedic month is given. Such names are underlined in blue.  

The 1st inscription from Taxila refers to the month as “Panemus” – the Greek equivalent of AshadhaSravana of the Vedic system. This name was never in use in India. The king was ‘Moga’ (Maues) of foreign origin who occupied Bactria and Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan where this inscription is found. There is no name of an era (Śaka) but the statement of 78 years could not be the regnal year of the king.

Another inscription is also found in the same region (Taxila) attributed to king Azes, again a foreign name, made in the year 136. He is identified as a Kushana King by the author in the Epigraphia Indica volume (no. 8 in the list)

 

This was issued on the same Ashadha month but on the 15th day, which could refer to the day of the Full Moon. The absence of any reference to the Full Moon - a tithi in the Vedic system - can have only two explanations, that the tithi system was absent in the time scale of this dynasty or there was no importance to the day of Full Moon as in the Vedic system. Only borrowed material can appear devoid of core elements. 


All the above inscriptions mention the Vedic months and some of them the tithis too. Most of these inscriptions were made in the times of the Kushana kings having their own era. “Gushanasa rajami” in Panjtar inscription (No 7) is an obvious reference to a Kushana king. The Kushanas were not of Indic origin but moved from north China to Greco-Bactria as per the Chinese Book of Later Han.[1] The Hellenistic influence on them is seen in the names of the months in the inscriptions. One-way transfer of the elements of Time from Vedic to Greek is inferred from the adaptation of the tithi- months that have their own cycles traceable from the beginning of Kali Yuga.


An era is obviously detected in inscription No 11 and 12 while the others refer to the regnal year of the king. The 13th inscription was made in the reign of Devaputra Kanishka of Kushana dynasty in the month Daisika, a Greek name. The appearance of the Greek month name in the inscription need not be construed as proof of presence of Greek language in the local vernacular.

Generally the text of the grant is dictated or given by an officer of the royal court at the order of the king. Greek names popping up here and there in the inscriptions show the mix of local and Greek language in the royal court. It is also probable that the issuing officer was of Greco- Bactrian origin. However the use of tithi-lunar month is proof of the absence of indigenously developed Time computation in the Kushana tradition but a liberal borrowing from the Vedic calendar. In this backdrop the year numbers running up to 399 and 384 could only refer to the beginning of their dynasty.  

The month name “Apelaios” in the 17th inscription is also alien to the Vedic calendar. But the tithi of that month appearing in the inscription goes to show that only the month name was altered, and nothing was done about the tithi “Dashahi” (Dasami).


The common features running through all these inscriptions are,

·         No name of the era is found in any of them. They have only recognized a certain beginning and counted the years from that.

·         The blend of Greek names suggests the origin of these kings as different from the Indo-Scythians or the ‘Sacae’ tribes. The location and the language suggest connections with the Yavana tribes, who however appear along with the Śaka-s in Indic references to Mleccha tribes.

·         The Kushana kings appearing in these inscriptions with Greek names indicate a high probability of Yavana- Kushana association in the past.

·         All these inscriptions similar in language (either Brahmi or Kharoshthi) and in the expression of the dates point to a same dynasty, i.e. Kushana.

The common features hint at the Yavana – Kushana connection and the assimilation of the features of the Vedic calendar tradition. Historically too, the Yavana –Kushana connection had existed. A brief historical analysis is done on their beginnings to pick out the relevant connections.

Kushana history

The Kushana origins are traced to the Yuezhi tribes from the valley of Gansu on the northern borders of China who migrated to the north of the Oxus River (Amu Darya). Bactria in this region was earlier lost to the Śaka tribes by the Greeks. The Śaka tribes present at the time of Yuezhi migration were driven out to the south by the Yuezhi. This happened sometime during the 2nd century BCE.

The Khalchayan archaeological complex in that region represents the transition of the Yuezhi into Kushana leadership.[2] The Khalchayan also reveals a “bridge between the Hellenistic art of Bactria and the Hellenized Kushan Art.”[3] After making Khalchayana their base, the Kushanas started moving out. They conquered the south of Oxus and then entered the Indian subcontinent through Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taxila inscription by Moga could perhaps be the earliest inscription by the Yuezhi-Kushanas.

There is an alternate opinion that Moga was a Śaka king. This is supported by the remaining part of the Taxila inscription stating, “of the Kshaharata and Kshatrapa of Chukhsa - Liaka Kusuluka by name - his son Patika - in the town of Takshasila..” This can also be read as the identity of the donor, Patika, and not the king. All these inscriptions in Kharoshthi and Brahmi indicating donations to Buddhist or Jain establishments, it is probable that the pilgrims of different ethnicities and different locations could have visited Taxila ruled by the Kushanas.

More details are available in the literary sources of the Chinese on Yuezhi migration. According to the Chinese book called “Shiji” (Book of History) authored by Sima Qian, the Yuezhi tribes (mentioned as Da Yuezhi) initially migrated westward from Gansu in China. The defeats they suffered on the way pushed them into Bactria in the north of Oxus in the year176 BCE. A Chinese Ambassador by name Zhang Qian had visited them in the year 129/128 BCE and found them well settled by then.[4] It is more likely that they founded the Kushana dynasty and an era as well sometime between 176 and 129 BCE. According to scholars they had their own language that resembled the Śaka language. The Bactrian influence had lent Greek words into their vocabulary. This is reflected in the inscriptions found in the Indian sub-continent.

There are diverse opinions among western scholars on the number of eras deduced from Yuezhi – Kushana coins and inscriptions. Upto three different eras are hypothesized by them, but all of them are unsubstantiated. This uncertainty added to the confusion of those working on the date of the Siddhantic works which can never refer to an era outside the Kali era format.

The unspecified “Old Śaka” seen in the above inscriptions can be resolved through another literary source – an astrological text of the Yavanas. This text written in Sanskrit and titled as “Yavana Jataka” refers to only one era of the Kushanas besides referring to an era of the Yavanas. It also gives a conversion formula between the Kushana and Yavana years. This greatly helps in solving the mystery of the so-called “Old Shaka” and also to prove that it has no connection with the Siddhantic references to the Śaka years.

The Era of the Yavanas

The Yavana Jataka is an astrological text of horoscopy written in Sanskrit. Two authors are recognized in the colophon of the text in its last chapter. The text was composed by Yavaneswara or Yavanacarya in his native tongue and was made into Sanskrit by the King Sphujidhwaja. An alternate version exists in Bhattotpala’s commentary to Brihat Jataka that both are the same.

In the last chapter of Yavana Jataka the author makes significant references to the Yuga of the Yavanas and the Śaka of the Kushanas .

The Yavanas had a great Solar Yuga and a Smaller Yuga for predicting eclipses.[5] The Yavanas had followed a Yuga of 165 years. While stating this it is also told that some Yavanas find it good to follow the opinion of sage Vasishtha, but according to the best of the Yavanas the Yuga consists of 165 years![6]

The reference to Vasishtha reminds us of the earlier occasions the Yavanas were saved from Sagara by Vasishtha and the Yavanas coming to fight on behalf of Vasishtha against Vishwamitra to restore the sacred cow. The Yavanas seemed to have enjoyed cordial relationship with the lineage of the Vasishtha-s and at some point of time received the knowledge of astrology from one of the Vasishtha-s. By the time of the composition of Yavana Jataka, parallel development of astrological theories seemed to have taken place. A major theory seems to be the idea of the Solar Yuga of 165 years. This is something unheard of anywhere in the world.

Yavana Jataka continues to describe the marker for this Yuga.

This solar Yuga begins on the first tithi in the Sukla paksa of Caitra in the Spring, when the Sun and the Moon in their course are in conjunction in the first degree of Aries and when Aries is in the ascendant (i.e., at dawn).”[7]

The conjunction of all the planets except Rahu at the beginning of Aries marked the beginning of Kali Yuga. In contrast the Yavana Yuga started at the conjunction of only the sun and the moon at the beginning of Aries with Shukla Pratipat running at sun rise.

This implies that the sun entered Aries on the day after Amawasya in Caitra. This close conjunction of the two luminaries at Caitra Shukla Pratipat in the beginning of Aries can happen in Nija masa, with the previous month being Adhika Caitra.  Adhika Caitra can recur once in 15 to 17 years on an average.  

There is another rider implied by the verse. The conjunction at the beginning of Aries means that the star Aswini was transited by both the sun and the moon.

Additionally one more feature is given in the same text (quoted below), pertaining to the week day. It was a Sunday when the Solar Yuga of 165 years began.

Thus there are four features:

1.      Caitra Shukla Pratipat

2.      Aswini

3.      Sunday

4.      165 year cycle.

Of these four, the conjunction of the first three can happen only once in 1890 years (LCM of 30 tithis, 27 stars and 7 week days).This number can be more if Adhika masa occurrence is included.

Each cycle starting every165 years, the probability of this conjunction is stretched to 20,790 years. (The LCM of 30, 27, 7, 165 = 20,790)

At best the subsequent cycles (of 165 years) could have started at Caitra Shukla Pratipat. This is the same as the Yugādi observed in South India every year. The unique date of the conjunction of the four factors was grabbed by the Yavanas to herald a new Yuga of their own.

Yavana Jataka further states the number of elapsed years of the Śaka when the Solar Yuga began.[8] Sunday as the first weekday of the Yuga is stipulated in this context. Let me reproduce the verse along with two translations. [9]

 

The verse clearly states the beginning of Ravir Yuga (the Yuga of the Sun) on a Sunday (Surya Dina). The confusion comes in the number of elapsed years, whether it is 66 or 56. Number 56 is more acceptable as half of hundred (50) and six.

The main issue is the “idam Śakānām” of the elapsed years.

Idam: this

Śakānām: of the Śaka (Plural, 6th case)

Fifty six years of “this Śaka” were gone when the Ravi Yuga started at the conjunction of the sun and the moon at the beginning of Aries on a Sunday when Shukla Pratipat was running – this is the import of the verse.

The first year of the Śaka – the first year of Ravi Yuga = 56 years. 

The identity of this Śaka is variously debated, with many writers referring to the Shalivahana Śaka of 78 CE. But in the absence of even a suggestive reference to an outside era such as Shalivahana or Vikrama anywhere in the text that is totally devoted to the astrology of the Yavanas, we are led to treat this as the Śaka of the Yavanas. If it is a Vedic Śaka, the author would have indicated as he did when he quoted Vasishtha’s name to clarify that the Yuga of the Yavana was different.

To decipher the date of the Yavana Śaka we have to find out the Ravi Yuga beginning. I checked Jhora astrological software to locate the date of Ravi Yuga when the sun and the moon joined at the beginning of Aries on a Sunday at the time of Shukla Pratipat. It threw up the biggest surprise. The date was close to Caitradi Vikrama Śaka! Since the Yavanas were located north-north west of India, I had taken up Srinagar for checking the date.

The starting date of Ravi Yuga of the Yavanas

All the features mentioned in Yavana Jataka are fulfilled in this date.

·         Aries lagna

·         Sun- Moon conjunction with the sun having just entered Aries

·         Caitra Shukla Pratipat

·         Sunday

As expected Nija Caitra began on that day. This date coincided with Vikrama Śaka at Kali 3045, a year later than the originally devised Vikrama Śaka date. This was discussed in the last part where I showed the rationale of Kartikadi Śaka of Vikrama in the year 57 BCE after the lapse of 3044 years of Kali Yuga. By Caitra of 56 BCE, a year was gone in Vikrama Śaka of 135 years. That year was taken as the first year of Ravi Yuga by the Yavanas considering the once-in-twenty thousand year plus conjunction.

The rarity of the date explains why the Yavanas had two time scales, a Śaka era and Ravi Yuga. They had originally conceived the Śaka era. Nearly half a century later they must have witnessed the Vedic people gearing up for the change of their Śaka from Yudhishthira to Vikrama. Unfortunately the Vedic people seemed to have been caught in a dilemma on the choice of the starting date between Caitra Shukla Pratipat on 57 BCE when Yudhishthira Śaka formally ended at Kali 3044 and the same tithi of the next year (56 BCE) with alignment of the Sun and the moon as they were at the beginning of Kali Yuga. They settled in between the two on the day of Tula Sankramana in 57 BCE having the conjunction of many features.

The 56 BCE date was available up for grabs by the Yavanas who in spite of having started a Śaka era by then, chose to make it part of their time scale by starting a new Yuga from then onwards.

Fifty six years of the Yavana Śaka were gone by then when this Yuga was started. This locates the beginning of the Yavana Śaka at 112 BCE (56 years before 56 BCE). Therefore “idam Śakānām” in the verse cannot be about Vikrama Śaka or Shalivahana Śaka but a Śaka of the Yavanas.

Further evidence for this Śaka of the Yavanas appears in the next verse. Before going over to that let me clarify two features, one about the simulation used for locating the Yavana Yuga and the other about Bhattotpala’s reference to a Śaka when Sphujidhwaja composed his work.

Jhora Surya Siddhanta works for dates closer to zero ayanamsa

The Ravi Yuga date could be derived only from the Surya Siddhanta astronomy and not from any other system.

No researcher could get this Ravi Yuga right mainly because they had used western astronomy based calculations which work on standard approximations for past dates. But the date of the Yuga coming closer to zero degree ayanamsa, I checked with the Surya Siddhanta model and it concurred perfectly.[10] For comparison, let me show the same date for Lahiri ayanamsa, based on current rate of precession approximated to 2000 years ago, almost in the same way the western astronomy calculations are made.

Simulated to Lahiri ayanamsa

The tithi had changed though it was a Sunday. But the sun was in Pisces, away from Aries by 4 degrees. It would take four days for the sun to reach Aries but by then the moon would have entered Taurus and the tithi would have advanced. No other year comes closer to the required parameters. This is a very clear proof of unworkability of Lahiri ayanamsa beyond a few centuries in the past.

Bhattotpala on Śaka of Sphujidhwaja.

Bhattotpala in his commentary to verse 7-9 of Brihat Jataka has referred to a “Śaka” when Sphujidhwaja made his compositon (Yavana Jataka). He has written,

 “evaṃ sphujidhvajakṛtaṃ śakakālasyārvāg jñāyate

Meaning:

evaṃ = thus, so, really

sphujidhvajakṛtaṃ = done by Sphuji Dhwaja

śakakālasya  = of saka kala

arvāk = near, within,

Jñāyate = is known, are understood

Let me reproduce the meaning of arvāk – the crucial word to understand the verse.

Sphujidhwaja had done a work (Yavana Jataka) close to a Śaka era, is the overall meaning.

The identity of the Śaka era mentioned here is a matter of debate.

If Bhattotpala had meant the Yavana Śaka, it means Yavana Jataka was composed close to the beginning of the Śaka, i.e. 112 BCE. The gap between Yavana Śaka and the Yavana Yuga is too huge to be treated as ‘arvāk’.

Considering the details of Ravi (Yavana) Yuga described in Yavana Jataka more or less on the lines of Vedanga Jyothisha, Yavana Jataka seemed to have served as the rule book for the Ravi Yuga. In all probability Yavana Jataka must have been composed close to the beginning of Ravi Yuga, i.e. just before that – outlining the details of that Yuga.

This notion is supported by the fact that the details of the Ravi Yuga appears only in the last chapter, as a kind of addendum. Any earlier Yavana writer, say, Yavanacarya recognized in the text could not have conceived the Yavana Yuga. This also rejects Bhattotpala’s version that Yavanacarya and Sphujidhwaja were the same. Sphujidhwaja had Sanskritized an earlier text of Yavanacarya and added a chapter on Ravi Yuga.

It must have been completed before the Ravi Yuga started in Caitra 56 BCE. At that time the nearest Śaka was Vikrama Śaka, not the Yavana Śaka which was 56 years away. With the Yavana Yuga starting too close to the Vikrama Śaka there is scope to interpret that Bhattotpala meant Vikrama Śaka only. It is logical to expect anyone to remember or relate the development of a new astrological system of an alien group in one’s own calendar date. Bhattotpala had recorded that memory handed over through generations.

The Kushana Era.         

After stating the start of the Ravi Yuga, Sphujidhwaja goes on to give a formula to derive the elapsed years in the Ravi Yuga for the corresponding Kushana years.[11] The existence of the Kushana Era is made known from this.

Take the number of years that have passed of the Kosanas, add 149, and subtract from this (sum) the time of the Sakas (i.e., the year in the Saka era); (the remainder) is the number of years in the yuga which have elapsed.”

The verse speaks about the Kushana (Śaka) years and a Śaka besides the Yuga of the Yavanas. Taken along with the previous verse, the Śaka is understood to be that of the Yavana (112 BCE).

The verse gives a conversion formula between the Kushana years and the Ravi Yuga years using the Śaka years.

The known factors are:

·         Yavana Śaka started in 112 BCE

·         Yavana Yuga started in 56 BCE

·         There is a gap of 56 years between Yavana Śaka and Yavana Yuga.

Deduction of Yavana Śaka years from a constant number 149 added to the Kushana years shows that the Kushana Era was older than the Yavana Śaka.

I attempted to write down the verse into a formula as follows:

Let us assume the elapsed Kushana years as X.

{X (number of Kushana years elapsed) + 149} – Years of Yavana Śaka = Years of the Yavana (Ravi) Yuga elapsed.

Taking up the known factors written above, I substituted 56 as the number of Yavana Śaka years when the Yavana Yuga was born. Yavana Yuga year is then taken as zero.

X + 149 – 56 = 0

X + 93 = 0

X = 0 – 93 = -93

This negative integer puts us in a spot, but this number being the elapsed years of the Kushana Śaka, when the Ravi Yuga of the Yavanas had just begun it can be taken as the number of Kushana years gone before the Yavana Yuga was started. 

In modern calendar years, Ravi Yuga = 56 BCE

By adding 93 years to that we get the first year of the Kushana Śaka = 149 BCE   (-56 (+) -93).

Kushana-Yavana Eras and Ravi Yuga

When I tested with different number of elapsed years the result was not consistent. With the verse conveying a relationship between the Kushana and the Yavana Śaka it appears that it was meant to be a formula for deriving the first year of the Kushana Śaka. Any other derivations and explanations from readers are welcome.

However we cannot miss out the fact that the derived date (149 BCE) remarkably matches with the beginning of Kushana dynasty.

On the basis of the Chinese book of Shiji, we earlier derived that the Kushana Dynasty was formed sometime between 176 and 129 BCE. The now derived date of Kushana Śaka at 149 BCE is well within this period. The literary, archaeological (Khalchayan) and astrological derivations are concurrent with each other on the date of the Kushana Śaka with the astrological input giving the exact date.

The Śaka dates derived so far are listed below:

Yudhishthira Śaka = 3101 BCE (Vedic)

Vikrama Śaka = 57 BCE (Vedic)

Yavana Yuga = 56 BCE

Yavana Śaka = 112 BCE

Kushana Śaka = 149 BCE

Our search for the Old Śaka ends at the last two which were not Vedic, but used by the people in the domains occupied by the Yavanas and Kushanas.

It is erroneous to term these two as Old Śaka-s. They were Mleccha Śaka-s as far as Vedic, particularly the Siddhantins were concerned. A Jyothisha Siddhanta can never declare the date of composition from a Mleccha Śaka. As such Bhaskara II could have never taken any of these Śaka-s of Mlecchas to specify the date of composition. We would discuss that in the course of debunking such claims by scholars. Meanwhile our next task is to establish the identity of the Śakakāraka of Shalivahana Śaka.

(To be continued)



[2] Hans Loeschner, “Notes on the Yuezhi – Kushan Relationship and Kushan Chronology” https://www.academia.edu/9062261/Notes_on_the_Yuezhi_Kushan_Relationship_and_Kushan_Chronology

[3] Kazim Abdullaev, “Nomad Migration in Central Asia” https://www.academia.edu/6864202/Nomad_Migration_in_Central_Asia

[4] Hans Loeschner, “Notes on the Yuezhi – Kushan Relationship and Kushan Chronology”

[5] Yavana Jataka: 79-2

[6] Yavana Jataka: 79 - 3

[7] Yavana Jataka: 79-4

[8] Yavana Jataka: 79-14

[9] Bill M.Mak,  “The Date and Nature of Sphujidhvaja’s Yavanajātaka Reconsidered in the Light of Some Newly Discovered Materials”

http://www.billmak.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/the-date-and-nature-of-sphujidhvaja.pdf

[10] Zero ayanamsa years in Surya Siddhanta Model: 3101 BCE, 499 CE

[11] Yavana Jataka: 79-15