If Rama was born 7000 years ago, how could that have been in Treta yuga? Listen to my talk.

 If Rama was born 7000 years ago, how could that have been in Treta yuga?

To get the answer, listen to my talk on "Time and Yugas" given as a ppt presentation on 25th July, 2025 to "Pride of Bharat" channel. Please share it widely.

My paper on critical analysis of the date of the Mahabharata and Ramayana published in the IKS book

 I'm delighted to share that my paper on the Mahabharata and Ramayana timelines has been peer-reviewed and published as a chapter in a book on the Indian Knowledge System (IKS). The book is edited by a certified Master's Trainer of UGC & IKS division, adding credibility to the publication. This chapter aims to set the record straight by providing accurate information and debunking misconceptions perpetuated by other researchers, including Nilesh Oak and Manish Pandit.

The chapter delves into the often-misinterpreted historical timelines of the Mahabharata and Ramayana, which have led to confusion and fragmented scholarship. By uncovering inherent chronological indicators within the epics, this research challenges existing dates and proposes a revised chronology backed by modern scientific evidence.

This groundbreaking research chapter not only sheds new light on the epic chronologies but also brings forth compelling evidence on Ram Setu, supported by recent ISRO-NASA research.

I'd be happy to help disseminate this chapter to a wider audience. If you're interested in obtaining a soft copy, please drop an email to jayasreebooks@gmail.com.

Mahabharata Quiz - 121

 

Question – 121

Mahabharata says that the Uttarayana was delayed; but is there any evidence in support of it other than what is stated in the Mahabharata?

Answer:

The delayed Uttarayana is remembered as ‘Ratha Saptami’. We do celebrate Ratha Saptami even today as the day the Sun turned north. Every year, the Sun turns north once. Why is that Saptami in Magha month alone remembered as Uttarayana?

The reply lies in the change of Time that occurred then. It was not the usual time of Uttarayana. Bheeshma decided to lay down expecting the Uttarayana to come within a few days. But an Adhika Masa occurred in Magha when it should not have been. Since the Uttarayana dates were decided on the basis of tithi-s in the 5- year yuga, they had to wait for Nija Masa. Even then the regular tithi could not be picked out as Uttarayana started on a different tithi which was Saptami. This was already discussed in Question 42

Mahabharata Quiz - 120

 

Question – 120

Did the disturbance caused by the comet-hit on the earth- moon system result in the late arrival of Uttarayana, making Bheeshma to wait on the arrow bed for a prolonged time?

Answer:

Yes. An important impact of the collision of cometary fragments on the earth and the moon was that the earth had taken longer path to reach the Uttarāyaṇa. This can be compared with the flight of a plane from A to B, when struck with wind currents. It would drift away from the regular path but would reach the destination B, a little later. The earth had taken longer time to come back to the ecliptic while the impacted moon had made faster revolutions. This caused the Adhika māsa to occur in the improbable month of Māgha when the earth seemed to have moved slowly due to the longer span of space to pass through. This explains why Uttarāyaṇa didn’t arrive at the expected time, causing Bhīṣma to wait on the arrow bed.

Mahabharata Quiz - 119

 

Question – 119

Did the earth-moon system suffer a terrible cosmic impact, given the fact that Vyāsa referred to Amāvāsyā (no-moon) on the 13th tithi and a change in the mark on the face of the waning moon?

Answer:

Scientifically speaking, simultaneous collision on the earth and the moon has a probability ratio of 23:1. The disturbance to the earth is noticed from the disturbance to the EOO (Earth Orbital Oscillation) boundary line, and the dates of the cyclic EOO amplitudes are compared with the temperature variations seen in GISP2 graphs. The variation in the GISP2 map was already shown in Question 115.

The temperature drop in the GISP2 graphs needs an impact push of the Earth-Moon system. That should match with EOO oscillation to know the disturbance in the earth’s orbital movement. In the recent past, the odd event of the shaking of the moon with fire columns seen on the path of observation in the recorded version of the five monks of Canterbury in England in the year 1178 CE was the focus of research of the international community.

Lemke et al. demonstrated the disturbance to the earth- moon system by the orbital stabilization of EOO boundary line. “Moon and Earth form a joint gravitational unit in its course around the Sun. Both, Moon and Earth have a common “Earth-Moon Barycenter” on the ecliptic orbital plane. Now the impact event occurred: The Moon was severely hit and was pushed into the 3-D space Z-dimension (to above - in spring - and to below - in autumn - of the ecliptic plane).  This Z-dimension is ruled by only small Sun and Earth gravitational forces. The impact event dragged both the barycenter and Earth out of the ecliptic plane, but only a certain distance into this Z-dimension at both ends of the minor axis, leaving the major axis - from Perihelion to Aphelion - unchanged. In order to regress to the initial position, the Earth-Moon barycenter carried out four shrinking spiral loops to approach and occupy again the regular barycenter orbit around the Sun.”

 

The earth- moon barycenter spiralled back to original position in 500 years

The above Figure shows the restoration of the original position of the earth-moon system in 500 odd years. Similar mechanism was observable in 3136 BCE event in which the moon took a month to gain the initial stability, but apsidal time differences were noticed in the extended tithi-s on the 19th day of the war and at the time of Krishna’s exit. The impossible-to-happen Adhika māsa in the month of Māgha was due to the longer path taken by the earth because of the disturbance. It caused Bheeshma to wait for the Uttarāyaṇa. These events recorded textually offer further authentication of the disturbance caused to the earth-moon system in the case of an impact.

Mahabharata Quiz - 118

 

Question – 118

What kind of impact was felt in the atmospheric region as described in the Mahabharata of the comet-fall?

Answer:

In any cosmic impact, the sun will appear dim and surrounded by an aura due to the presence of particulate matter in the atmosphere. This was explained in Question 12 in another context.

The verse runs as follows:

"kṛttikāsu grahastīvro nakṣatreprathame jvalan

vapūṃṣy apaharan bhāsā dhūmaketur iva sthita" (6-3-26)

Krittikasu Graha is the Sun.

The meaning of the verse:

"Krittikā’s graha, the sun at first blazing in Jyeṣṭha, the tīvro star, got sheared off and stayed appearing like a Dhūmaketu, a comet.”

The colour of the sky, of the twilights, of clouds and the celestial sphere is how it would appear in an intense meteor shower.

The clouds showered dust and flesh (Heavy air currents triggered by the crashing meteors carry smaller animals and fish and pour them as rains. Dust storms too occur)

Even though the sky is cloudless, a terrible roar is heard there. (Sonic boom even if the crash has taken miles away)

 In both twilights, the cardinal quarters seemed to be ablaze. (Heat increases for several days in the immediate aftermath of comet-hit, before the earth cools down due to obstruction of the sun rays by the atmospheric haze kicked off by the crash. When that happened the Sun appeared like a comet, mentioned in the beginning of this answer.)

Mahabharata Quiz - 117

 Click here for the previous question

Question – 117

In what ways the comic impact is expressed in the Mahabharata? Does it say anything about NOx?

Answer:

The cosmic impact and the release of NOx by the falling meteor showers are expressed by Vyasa by way of the effect on the terrestrial life, waterways and in atmospheric changes. He noted them as nimitta-s. In all 48 nimitta-s pertaining to terrestrial observations and 12 atmospheric nimitta-s were mentioned by him to Dhritarashtra. He referred to 20 planetary nimitta-s of which four were related to odd appearances when the earth had swung suddenly. They were discussed in the previous questions and listed in Question No 101.

The most common feature found in many of the nimitta-s pertain to the pollution caused by NOx, that include many oxides of Nitrogen, responsible for air pollution, acid rain and smog. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) produced abundantly by the object entering the earth’s stratosphere is reddish-brown in colour that it causes red clouds, bloody rains and makes the waters appear blood-red in colour. The pollution is equal to what happens when one is exposed to cigarette smoke, burning fossil fuels, butane, smoke from combustion engines etc., that cause lung diseases and asphyxiation. These features can be seen in many of the nimitta-s about animals and birds.

All these nimitta-s with the description of how they were the result of the comet impact is discussed in my book. To name a few of them:

Ø  The hue of the weapons and the water, as also of coats of mail and standards, is like that of fire.

Reason: Fire signifies reddishness. NOx contamination.

Ø  The waters of rivers have become bloody.

Reason: NOx contamination. A sure sign associated with meteor-impacts.

Ø  The wells, foaming up, are bellowing like bulls.

Reason: Seismicity induced by the crash of the meteor.

Ø  Meteors, effulgent like Indra's thunderbolt, fall with loud hisses. 

Reason: Explicit statement of a shower of meteors

Ø  People, for meeting together, coming out of their houses with lighted brands, have still to encounter a thick gloom all round.

Reason: The haze in the atmosphere continues for days and months in the case of meteor-impacts only.

Ø  From the mountains of Kailāsa and Mandara and Himavat thousands of explosions are heard, and thousands of summits are tumbling down.

Reason: Obvious reference to the fragments having landed on the Himalayan range. Also due to induced seismicity by the crash of the meteors. Langtang as the likely region of impact was already discussed in Question 96. 

And many more like this.

 

  

Mahabharata Quiz - 116

 

Question – 116

Were all the proxy features for identifying a cosmic impact mentioned in the Mahabharata?

Answer:

There are about 8 major proxy features for identifying a cosmic impact. Of them the three must-be-present proxies are,

1. the loss of iron oxide from the meteor (normally shrinks by 90%) and the rest only hits the floor.

2. the loss of titanium from the meteor. Both can be best identified in time series of peat moss (because of exact dating of horizons with 14-C)

3. abundant release of NO2 (nitrogen dioxide) in the atmosphere. The reddish-brown color of this gas causes the water bodies and the rainwater to turn red. This is recognized as ‘rain of blood’ or ‘rivers flowing with blood’ by the people.

All these are detected in the data available for the impact of 3136 BCE. Any object entering from space produces NOx. For example, a falling satellite back onto the earth produces 7 tons of NOx. The Hastinapura event also produced NOx, expressed in many ways as rain of blood, river of blood, vomit of blood, blood in the mouth, in the body etc., explained as nimitta-s.

Mahabharata Quiz - 115

 

Question – 115

What is the scientific proof for the comet-hit in 3136 BCE (before the Mahabharata war)?

Answer:

A cosmic impact must/will/is always FOLLOWED by a sharp decrease in global temperatures, and then the rebound to higher temperatures compared to the impact date. All meteor impacts have three common features. All these are present in the year 3136 BCE when an extra-terrestrial impact is indicated through several ways in the Mahabharata. If one of those major features is missing, then the impact is in doubt and needs further study. The must-be-present features are listed as follows:

·       To recognize a hint of the occurrence, there should be documentation; Hastinapura event is documented.

·       Next step is to check the proxy "rapid temperature drop in GISP2” There is the small peak and temperature drop at 3136 BC, after the Piora-Andaman event at 3210 BCE.

·       The age calibration known as IntCal13 must be checked. The meteor/fragments entering the Earth atmosphere, at 2000-3000 C, produce different radioactive substances, such as 10-B (radioactive Beryllium) and 14-C with the longest life for detection, in plant uptake of CO2 through trees. The increased 14-C-content in the air is demonstrated in IntCal13, by sharp descent from peaks. IntCal13 covers tree trunk 14-C on a global scale.

The IntCal13 shows four Piora 14-C peaks, all with a sharp drop. The sharp drop indicates that the 14-C from the impact event still lingers on. Of the four peaks of Piora Oscillation, only 3136 BCE event has not been historically identified so far. The Hastinapura event fills the unidentified location in the year 3136 BCE. The four dates and the locations are,

1.         Andaman Sea 3210 BC

2.         Hastinapura 3136 BC

3.         Morasko 3040 BC

4.         Burckle 2920 BC

As far as the Hastinapura events is concerned,

1. The historical narrative clearly shows typical impact features.

2. The temperature drop in the GISP2 graph starts with the exact date 3,136 BC.

3. The IntCal13 has the typical 14-C peak with a calibration drop steeper than the regular diagonal.

Concerning 3136 BCE event identified in the GISP2 graph, no alternate theory is convincing. For example, the solar blast event as the cause for high 14-C at 3136 BC cannot explain why there was a temperature drop. A solar event increases the temperature and does not reduce the temperature. Only meteor showers produce both high 14-C and a temperature drop together.

Rapid temperature-drop in 3136 BCE

This event written in the Mahabharata is going become the focus of attention of climate and meteor scientists of the world. The 13^th tithi Amavasya and the delayed Uttarayaṇa offer fresh insights on orbital disturbance of the moon and the earth besides the change in the appearance of the sky. Mahabharata is the only documented evidence of a meteor-hit in a remote past. 

Mahabharata Quiz - 114

 

Question – 114

Two planets rising with coppery red crust is also an abnormal feature because the rising planets will appear with bluish tint on top. How could this be scientifically explained?

Answer:

Vyasa mentions two grahas (planets) appearing with blazing top that obscured the luster of the rising Saptarishi-s. (MB: 6.3.24)

The two planets mentioned by him were Venus and Mars on the western horizon. In the same part of the sky (west), Karṇa had seen Mars make a retrograde movement as though it was going towards the star Anurādha.

The reddish hue on the two planets appearing simultaneously along with haze descending on the northern direction where he was watching the seven sages resolves the issue of rightward movement of Mars, Dhruva and Arundhati. That moment was exactly when a fragment had fallen somewhere in his vicinity. Perhaps Vyasa was on the outside facing the north to offer oblations to the seven sages at the evening twilight.

It is also likely he rushed out on hearing the thunderous noise in cloudless sky (sonic boom), to see what was happening. He had looked up at Dhruva and Arundhati and they appeared tilted from normal. The two planets on his left (west) caught his attention.  In the enveloping darkness at that time, a reddish hue was palpable on the two shining objects - Venus and Mars - on his left. The crash kicked off atmospheric turbulence immediately which blurred the Saptarishi constellation right in front of his eyes.

The abundant production of NO2 by the burning object gives rise to the reddish hue around. This was seen by Vyasa as the reddish śikha of the two planets. Around the same time, three movements - Dhruva, Arundhati and Mars - must have been detected.

Mahabharata Quiz - 113

 Click here for the previous question

Question – 113

Mars positioned in Scorpio along with the Sun was seen to have made retrograde movement which is impossible to happen. Was that appearance also the result of the sway of the earth caused by the comet-hit?

Answer:

Yes. Mars was present in Scorpio in the month of Karthika says the text. This means the Sun was in Scorpio. Mars, the outer planet, cannot retrograde while seen on the side of the sun. It will regress only when it is on the opposite side of the sun.

The exact verse spoken by Karna can be translated as follows:

“The planet Angaāraka (Mars), wheeling, O slayer of Madhu, towards the constellation Jyeṣṭha, approacheth towards Anurādha, indicating a great slaughter of friends.” (MB: 5.141.8).

Scorpio appears as follows. Venus and Mars were also present close to that constellation at that time in Karthika.

After sunset, the constellation was on the western horizon, about to disappear soon. Mars was near Jyeshtha, but it appeared to move backwards towards Anuradha which cannot happen in real terms in the month of Karthika with the Sun present close by.

But Karna reporting this to Krishna before Krishna departed Hastinapur after the failed peace mission shows that this was witnessed because of the sudden sway in the earth.

Such sway was not physically felt but palpable by the way the closely placed celestial entities appeared tilted. Scorpio in the western sky must have been visible for more than a month in a particular fashion. On that day it appeared tilted giving an impression the Mars descended lower than normal by which it was said to have moved towards Anuradha.

Indeed, these observations are unique indicating how the sky with its stars and planets will appear differently when the earth is rattled by a heavy impact.

Thus, all the three changed appearances of stars and planets were abut closely placed ones –Arundhati and Vasishtha, Dhruva aligned to the Saptarishi Mandala and Mars near Jyeshtha, the red star which is quite bright to be visible clearly.

 

Mahabharata Quiz - 112

 Click here for the previous question

Question – 112

It was possible to observe the change in the appearance of Arundhati – Vasishtha due to their proximity to each other. But how did Vyasa detect the change in Dhruva by stating that it made apasavyaṃ movement?

Answer

Vyasa did say that Dhruva made apasavyaṃ (clockwise) movement in the same context of nimitta-s. There are two issues involved: (1) whether he meant the pole star of his time (2) was there another star in proximity of Dhruva (as a marker for comparison) that enabled him to detect that Dhruva moved in wrong direction.

Taking up the second point first, detection of change in the alignment of Arundhati and Vasishtha shows that it was possible with stars close to each other – when one acted as a marker for the other. So, the change in the direction of Dhruva could be possible if it was aligned to another star.

Dhruva was the name of a star and not just a pole star. The Saptarishi Mandala in which Arundhati- Vasishtha are located point towards Polaris which is known as Dhruva. Texts speak of only three pole stars – Dhruva, Agni and Kashyapa of which Dhruva is the brightest. All the three are in a constellation called Shishumara which is nothing but the Ursa Minor (Little Dipper). In the 3600 years long to or fro oscillation of the equinox, only three stars of the small constellation of Ursa Minor become northern pole stars. In the Mahabharata period which occurred close to zero-degree ayanamsa at the middle of the path, Dhruva was not the pole star, but Agni was.

Since Dhruva is always aligned to the first two stars of the Sapta rishi Mandala (Ursa Major), a tilted appearance of the Saptarishi Mandala due to the swinging of the earth by comet-hit, would have caused the Dhruva (Polaris) also appear to have moved. The shift can be shown as follows. This was similar to the hand drawn shift shown in the previous question.

The major impact having taken place in the twilight hour, Vyasa must have been in the river side to offer his evening prayers. He must have worshiped Sapta rishis. As he looked towards the Saptarishi Mandala, he would have noticed the change in the appearance of Arundhati and Vasishtha and also Dhruva.

Mahabharata Quiz - 111

 Click here for the previous question

Question – 111

What caused the variation in Arundhati- Vasishtha alignment for a short time as reported by Vyasa?

Answer:

The comet-hit on the earth over several days, with the major hit felt on Pushya day caused the variation in the appearance. The impact coming from Southwest – west which caused the east flowing rivers to turn towards west - gives the planet earth a spin push forward and sideward, depending on the impact angle. The forward push towards the east moves the earth where it is colder as in the North, swings back where it is warmer, moister in the South, and moves back to the North. One up – down and up movement. As a result, the latitudes move to newer highs before they come back to their regular position.

Similar impacts were seen in the Burckle impact which went on for two weeks. In the Kaali impact 1490 BC, observations described the swing into North, causing to experience sudden cold by which the ducks were frozen in the water.

Suppose a person is standing in a specific latitude, he will suddenly find himself in a different latitude (without his knowledge) because of the earth swinging up as happened in the Mahabharata event.

The shift in latitudes gives a different appearance of the celestial stars – particularly those which are close to each other.  This can be best explained by the observation of Venus and Moon a few years ago when they were seen side by side from Chennai (13-degree latitude N). At the same time, the two were seen in a different alignment from Malaysia (4-degree latitude N)

In the figure in the left, the smaller looking Venus and the bigger crescent moon were seen side by side at 13-degree N. In the figure in the right, the same was seen at the same time, at 4-degree N as though the Moon was behind Venus.

A similar change in the appearance of Arundhati is caused by the observation from a different latitude with the sudden swing of the earth northward. As a result, the pair seemed upside down with Vasishtha behind Arundhati just like the above illustrated image of Moon looking behind Venus in a lower latitude.

In the above figure, O is the observer who sees V (Vasishtha) and A (Arundhati) in a particular alignment. When the earth had swung by the impact, the observer’s location is shifted. From the new location he will see A and V appearing tilted as the tilted Venus- Moon appearance from 4 degrees in the previous illustration.

Such appearance of A-V lasted until the swinging regained its original position. This happened within 2 days according to Mr. Seifert who is working on impact theories. That is why this appearance is a nimitta – a temporary phenomenon which foretold that something terrible happened.

Mahabharata Quiz - 110

 Click here for the previous question

Question – 110

Agreeing that the Arundhati -Vasishtha verse contains two conflicting natures of Arundhati, why can’t we take both as Shabda Pramana and accept that Arundhati could have gone in front of Vasishtha for many years?

Answer:

When two contradictory statements are given by no less a person than Vyasa in the context of an important observation of the surroundings around him, there is a way out to handle such paradoxical statements.

When two Pramanas with contradictory connotations are observed for the same frame of inference, the logical way to solve it is to apply Mimamsa axiom of Gunapradhana wherein Guna means subordinate and Pradhana means principal. This axiom has been used by the Indian judiciary in interpreting contentious clauses.

Gunapradhana axiom states that “if a word or sentence purporting to express a subordinate idea clashes with the principal idea, the former must be adjusted to the latter, or must be disregarded altogether.”

In the verse by Vyasa, Arundhati praised in all the three worlds by the righteous people is the Pradhana statement. The applause was for not obstructing the path of her husband by crossing his way or moving in front of him. The same Arundhati perceived as having put her husband at her back is Guna statement as that was reported only at that time or seen only at that time. Never before or never after anywhere in the text or by Vyasa himself, the second feature of Arundhati had ever been reported or recorded.

So, the second statement being Guna in nature has to be read as not disrupting the former (Pradhana)– meaning to say that Arundhati was not seen putting her husband at her prishṭha by others, but only by Vyasa – which is possible if it happened for a short period of time – not long enough to get to be noticed by others.

Secondly, when Guna does not match with Pradhana, such an observation (Guna) is fit to be discarded as an aberration. It can be said, that as per the logic of Purva Mimamsa, the reference to Arundhati keeping her husband at her Prishṭha is not factual.

That is why Vyasa qualified it as a ‘nimitta’!

Mahabharata Quiz - 109

 Click here for the previous question

Question – 109

It is claimed that everything told in the Mahabharata falls under Shabda Pramana and as such the deviation in Arundhati’s position must be treated as Shabda Pramana – as something that did take place. Then how can that be denied?

Answer:

It is already said in the previous answer that two views on Arundhati were given by Vyasa in the same verse. We must first know which of them is qualified as Shabda. To understand this, we must know what Shabda Pramana is.

The pramanas are three – Pratyaksha, Anumana and Shabda and all these three fundamental pramanas must be applied to get the right knowledge. To give an example,

I see smoke in a faraway place. This is Pratyaksha.

I guess that there is a fire there. This is Anumana. But I cannot know anything more than the fact that there is fire - whether it is accidental or deliberately made for disposing of junk. Only Shabda will let me know what kind of fire it is.

I read the news the next day that an accidental fire had happened. This news report is about the Shabda.

So, Pratyaksha may be dubious (the smoke may be from a kiln or a homa); Anumana can be many; but only Shabda is factual.

Only by referring to Shabda can we know the right status of knowledge even though the Pratyaksha may have been done by us.

In the case of Arundhati, Vyasa says, (MB: 6-9-9)

yā caiṣā viśrutā rājaṃs trailokye sādhu saṃmatā

     arundhatī tayāpy eṣa vasiṣṭhaḥ pṛṣṭhataḥ kṛtaḥ

This means,

“She, O king, who is celebrated over the three worlds and is applauded by the righteous, even that (constellation) Arundhati keepeth (her lord) Vasistha on her back.”(Ganguli’s translation)

The first line gives a Universal truth about Arundhati that she is praised by one and all for not obstructing the path of her husband. Had she changed her position, she would not have been praised by the sages of all the three worlds. So, this is the firm truth about her which qualifies as Shabda.

But the second line says that she had kept Vasishtha at her back – which is not what the very name Arundhati stands for. This revolts against the first line which is Shabda Pramana.

In the case of any doubt, we must refer to the Shabda Pramana only.

What Vyasa had seen as a change in her position is only Pratyaksha Pramana which must be compared with Shabda.

That is why he recalled her permanent position (Shabda) and made an Anumana that what he had seen could not have been universal but a temporary phenomenon. That is why he qualified it as a nimitta.

In his verse, on seeing some deviation (indeterminate perception) in the position of Arundhati, Vyasa inferred (Anumana) that Arundhati had kept her husband at her prishṭha.

This is followed by Upamana – comparing what he saw with her generic position which blends with Shabda that she is a praiseworthy person for never deviating from her path. The Upamana blended with Shabda was remembered by him in the first line followed by what he saw and inferred (Pratyaksha and Anumana). The sequence of the ideas in the verse – of Shabda coming ahead of his Pratyaksha -Anumana statement conveys that a quick analysis was done in his mind by thinking of Shabda vacana or else he would not have brought first, her unwavering position for which she is praised, before expressing what he inferred from seeing.

This can happen, i.e. cross checking with the Shabda vacana and invoking the same to clear his mind of what he perceived - if what he saw lasted for a short duration.

On the contrary if it is true that Arundhati had been going ahead of Vasishtha for thousands of years before Vyasa’s time, there is no logic in recalling her generic position which Vyasa had never seen in his lifetime. A configuration that had been in existence for more than 5000 years before Vyasa’s times would have come to be accepted as a regular position and there is no place for comparative (first) statement in that verse.

Therefore, this verse is a subtle expression of comparing what he had seen with Shabda Pramana on Arundhati and coming to a clarity that the deviation was temporary and a nimitta.

 

Mahabharata Quiz - 108

 

Question – 108

If Vyasa didn’t mean a permanent appearance of change in the position he could have written so, but he didn’t - why?

Answer:

Vyasa did indicate that it was not a permanent appearance by classifying it as a nimitta.

Moreover, the very etymology of Arundhati is – one who never obstructs.

She is A- rundhe – meaning, one who never obstructs.

Obstructs what?

Obstructs the path of her husband, i.e., not going in front of her husband as to obstruct his movement.  She behaved so in real life. That is why a close pair of stars with the companion star always towing the bigger star was chosen as Vasishtha – Arundhati pair.

Vyasa planted a ‘Ganesh moment’ while talking about their appearance.

He said, “Arundhati who is famous over the three worlds and is celebrated by the righteous people (seers), even that Arundhati (the star Alcor) moving towards Vasiṣṭha caused him to be at pṛṣṭha” (MB: 6.9.9).

He could not have meant that Arundhati went ahead of Vasishtha because then it violates the very meaning of her name.

The verse sounds like a riddle. In the first line of the verse, Vyasa describes the universal truth about Arundhati as one praised by all in all the three worlds, obviously for having never obstructed the path of Vasiṣṭha, by towing behind him.

But the second line says that she had kept Vasiṣṭha at her back – which is not what the very name Arundhati stands for.

Of these two statements, if we accept the first one as true then the second statement is absolutely false. Since Vyasa could not have mouthed something false, what he reported must have been a momentary appearance – a nimitta, and he characterized it so.

If we accept the second statement as true appearance, then the first statement must be false for, the one who had kept Vasiṣṭha at her back could not have been praised as Arundhati in all the three worlds by the righteous people.

By keeping the inherent incompatibility and contradiction between the two statements within the same verse and by relating one with the other, Vyasa had delivered the judgement at that time itself-on which of the two statements is eternally true.

If we fail to grasp this clever trick of Vyasa, we will be getting nowhere. The text of the Mahabharata gives no room for superficial understanding. It challenges our thinking power, our knowledge of the symbolisms and the tradition, to even grasp that a trap has been laid by Vyasa and the Ganesha moment he had thrown up at us.

 

Mahabharata Quiz - 107

 

Question – 107

An ‘Epoch of Arundhati’ has been suggested running for 6000 years within which period the Mahabharata was supposed to have taken place. How would you prove that it is wrong?

Answer:

Any historical research on dating has two components – primary and secondary sources of evidence.  Primary sources are contemporary to the period of the event. Secondaries are derived from the primary sources. The Epoch of Arundhati proposed by Mr. Nilesh Oak, running for 6000 years and forming the basis for the time of the Mahabharata is laden with issues of admissibility as a source of evidence. It is neither a primary evidence nor a secondary evidence.

1.     This Epoch is not primary evidence because nowhere it has been stated in the Mahabharata that such an Epoch existed and lasted for 6000 years.

2.     The Epoch is not secondary evidence because no literature composed at any time recognizes such an Epoch.

3.     It offers a range and choice of the year of Mahabharata that can only be arbitrary with no support from any evidence that can be qualified as primary.

4.     The Epoch of Arundhati suffers from lack of exactness for being the product of Hypothetico-deductive method of science having no relevance to the historical dating of the Mahabharata.

Based on these, this concept of the Epoch could never pass acceptance among historians. Why should it in the case of Itihāsa research? 

Mahabharata Quiz - 106

 Check the previous question here

Question – 106

Couldn’t there be a chance that Arundhati indeed appeared differently during the Mahabharata period under consideration?

Answer:

There is no chance for the change of position of Arundhati (Alcor) with reference to Vasishtha (Mizar) considering two observations found in the Mahabharata expressed by the contemporary characters.

1.     At the marriage of Draupadi with the Pandava-s Kunti blessed her to be like Draupadi. Here she means Draupadi following the Pandava-s like Arundhati following the footsteps of Vasishtha. If it was the other way round – of Vasishtha following Arundati, Kunti could not have said this, for, which mother – particularly of those times liked her sons to be behind their wife?

2.     Lying on the arrow bed after the war, Bheeshma narrates the life history of one Sāndli and says that since she followed her husband like Arundhati, she was elevated into a star like Arundhati.

If during the war period Arundhati had changed her position from being behind to Vasishtha into putting her husband behind her, this could not have been told by Bheeshma. So, what Vyasa observed was- as he said a nimitta - a temporary aberration in the way Arundhati appeared at a particular time. It is foolish to believe that it was a permanent appearance and  construct a theory on the assumption that Arundhati changed her position for a long period of time – say for 6000 years as Nilesh oak claims.

 

Mahabharata Quiz - 105

 Click here for the previous question

Question – 105

Has it ever been recorded in any Bharatheeya text that Arundhati (Alcor) was accompanied with a red dwarf star circulating it?

Answer:

There are Bharatheeya records for Arundhati looking dim or reddish on different occasions. These appearances can happen if the dwarf companion of Arundhati comes in front of it facing the earth.

The reference to red colour for Arundhati comes from the Tamil Sangam text, Paditru Patthu (31- lines 28, 29), wherein the star Arundhati is mentioned as ‘Red star’ – because it was red in colour! (Chemeen செம்மீன்). In normal times, it does not look red. The inference is that when this poem was composed, it appeared red. This must have happened before the Common Era when this poem was composed.

Whenever the dwarf star comes in front of Arundhati, it hinders the brightness of Arundhati, making her look smoky. This was once sighted by the sages who personified Arundhati getting rebuked by her husband. Such an event is told by the sage Mandapala in the Mahabharata. Even though Arundhati was good to her husband, she once insulted him. As a result, she has become a little star, like fire mixed with smoke, sometimes visible and sometimes invisible, like an omen portending bad things, say the Mahabharata (1-224- 27 to 29)

The exact verse is reproduced below:

suvratāpi hi kalyāṇī sarvalokapariśrutā

     arundhatī paryaśaṅkad vasiṣṭham ṛṣisattamam

 viśuddhabhāvam atyantaṃ sadā priyahite ratam

     saptarṣimadhyagaṃ vīram avamene ca taṃ munim

 apadhyānena sā tena dhūmāruṇa samaprabhā

     lakṣyālakṣyā nābhirūpā nimittam iva lakṣyate

The last verse describes the appearance of the star as ‘Nābhirūpā’ – looking like the navel! The navel is characterized by the depression at the centre. The star had looked smoky, thereby dim with its disc appearing like a concave depression. At times the star was visible and not visible. The sage Mandapala to whom this verse is attributed, had said that such appearances are treated as nimitta!

This verse that she was even invisible at times must not be construed as though she disappeared into nowhere. In reality she did not. There were scientific reasons for that invisibility - which was attributable to the companion dwarf star hiding her. Once the dwarf moved away she started becoming visible in her original brightness. So her invisibility or looking red and smoky is only temporary and well within scientific reasons. Therefore the differences in her appearance are always treated as a nimitta by the sages. 

In the similar way, she being sighted in front of Vasishta is not a real occurrence but a temporary aberration which must have a scientific explanation. 

 

Mahabharata Quiz - 104

 

Question – 104

Why couldn’t Arundhati change her position temporarily?

Answer:

Arundhati cannot change her position temporarily because she (the star Alcor) is in gravitational coupling with the Vasishtha (Mizar). As seen from the earth, the two stars appear as a binary. They are found to be in gravitational coupling with each other such that they move around each other once in 7,50,000 years. This gives no scope for seeing any change in their location with respect to each other for thousands of years.

In fact, there are not two, but six stars found in this so-called binary of Arundhati and Vashishta. Initially, it was thought that Mizar (Vasishtha) is a binary and Alcor is a companion at 0.5 to 1.5 light years away from it.

But recent studies in 2009 showed that Alcor (Arundhati) is also a binary. The companion star of Alocr is a red-dwarf.

This red dwarf is going round Alcor or both Alcor and the Dwarf may be moving around each other. Anyway, whenever the red dwarf comes in front of Alcor facing earthward, it will dim the light of Alcor as seen from the earth.

The ancestral Bharatheeyas have noticed this dimming of light and reddishness on those occasions. But those times do not last long because the dwarf keeps moving away making Alcor appear bright again.

In the background of this scientific information, it is certain that change in Arundhati’s position cannot be real. That it was not real was also known to Vyasa and that is why an appearance of a change caused fear in him that he characterized it as a nimitta.