Methodology of research for dating Mahābhārata
‘Dating’ of Mahābhārata simply refers to finding the year of the Mahābhārata war. This is similar to dating a past event in history, archaeology, geology, paleontology and so on using suitable methods as applicable to them. Except history, the other fields mentioned here use two methods known as absolute dating and relative dating. Relating dating method gives a date relative to other dates while absolute dating gives an approximate year that would agree with other dates relative to it.[1] History follows a different method aimed at arriving at the absolute or exact date of an event though at times it may have to fall back on the results from archaeology, geology and so on when absolute dating methods are not available.
Nowadays we hear about ‘Hypothetico- deductive model’ of science used for dating the Itihāsas (Rāmāyana and Mahābhārata) by which a hypothesis is formed and tested with experiments.[2] This method is applicable in science but not in dating the Itihāsa for the simple reason the date is neither a hypothesis, nor a theory which is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something. The event having already happened, the date is exact or absolute, calling for absolute dating methodology and techniques and not a product of one’s own hypothesis and deduction of a date from it.
In the backdrop of these different methods, the dating of Mahābhārata, the Itihāsa comes closer to historical dating in describing the past events of a particular people. However the Itihāsa is not the same as history for, history as derived from its Greek noun ‘Historia’ means ‘inquiry’ or ‘act of seeking knowledge’.[3] It is not even historiography that is defined as not a study of the past events but the changing interpretations of the events in the works of individual historians.[4] . It is not the same as biography that is likely to suffer from the limitations caused by the objectives of the biographer.
Itihāsa is distinguishable from all these, by its etymology — Iti-ha-āsam which means “this happened thus”.[5] Itihāsa is a narration of the events of a period with the objective of showing the path of Dharma for the people of all ages and diverse background. With this introduction let us look into the basics of how research in the dating Mahābhārata is expected to be done.
In any research there are two components, defining the purpose of the research and determining the methodology of research. Once these two are successfully done, the research is half-done. The purpose of the research is very clear — that of finding out the year of the Mahābhārata war or in other words, “dating” the Mahābhārata war. Herein we often get to hear the catchword “Scientific”. How scientifically we can establish the year of the war depends on what scientific means in this kind of study.
Scientific dating of Mahābhārata
Science is systematic study (observation & experiments) of the natural world.[6] The word ‘science’ is derived from the Latin word “Scientia” referring to “the results of logical demonstrations that revealed general and necessary truths. Scientia could be gained in various fields, but the kind of proof involved was what we would now mostly associate with mathematics and geometry.”[7]
The definition of Scientia shows that “being scientific” implies a process applicable to the chosen field where logical derivations are done in a methodical way. In the case of history which is close to the Itihāsas by having its domain in the past events, the opinion of the scholars that “History is a science in its method and manner in which it studies the evidence and ascertains the facts” is applicable to the study of Itihāsas as well.
The systematic study calls for the logical analysis of “the complex nuances, the people, meanings, events and even ideas of the past.”[8] Applicable to the dating study of Mahābhārata, the Itihāsa under discussion, this calls for taking into account not just the date related verses, but also the contradictions in what is being told and the contextual analysis of the same.
For example, it sounds intriguing to note that Bhishma failed to know at the time of his fall in the battle, the arrival of Uttarayana — that happens to be the first day of the New Year in the 5-year Yuga system of his time. It is a norm to calculate even now at the very beginning of every year, the important dates of the entire year culminating in the next New Year. The New Year date, i.e. the date (or rather the day in terms of month and tithi) of Uttarayana must have been known to a person like Bhishma who was projected as an authority in accurately calculating time. Only his pronouncement on whether the Pandavas revealed themselves earlier than the expected time was accepted by the Kauravas. He convinced them by the rationale of five Adhika Māsa-s and some extra days in the entire exile period. Such being his command over the subject of Time, how did he make this faux pas at the most crucial time of his life about the most crucial date?
This contradiction crops up again on reading about a gap of one full month between the end of the war and the day Yudhishthira had taken up the baton. This raises a doubt on whether an adhika Māsa had occurred at that time, forcing Bhishma to wait for Uttarayana. Here again there is a glitch due to the fact that Adhika māsa is impossible in the month of Māgha when the earth would be at perihelion, giving scope for Kshaya māsa, and not Adhik māsa. A systematic scrutiny of the logic behind the scenes throws up these challenges paving way for further methodical analysis that calls for knowledge of the subjects needed to even understand that something had gone wrong in the happenings reported. This being an Itihāsa we cannot doubt the version of the text but look further deep into it with detective zeal.
This kind of inquiry makes the research scientific, demanding the researcher to apply ‘mathematical approach’ that calls for understanding a problem unambiguously and describing its relation to other problems.[9] Applying this to Mahābhārata dating, Vyāsa stated that he had never known (na abhijānāmi) that Amāvāsyā could occur at Trayodaśī. The word ‘Trayodaśīm’ was translated to mean thirteen days by which the verse was interpreted to imply that Amāvāsyā occurred in thirteen days.
Here two ambiguities arise, one about the use of the term, and the other about what it refers. ‘Trayodaśīm’ is the word used in the verse and not ‘Trayodaśa’ that refers to the number thirteen or ‘thirteenth’. Trayodaśī explicitly refers to the thirteenth tithi of the moon’s phase. It is not the same as a day. The next ambiguity is the absence of reference to the day in the verse. That is where we start looking for similar applications. Wherever a day (solar day) is indicated, it is written as ‘dina’ or ‘divasa’. To say that the Pandavas revealed their identity three days later, it is written “tṛtīye divase”. No such reference in the Trayodaśīm verse where only the tithi is indicated.
Clearing the ambiguities is very important because Amāvāsyā in thirteen solar days is possible but not in thirteen tithis! The thirteenth tithi Amāvāsyā is impossible to happen in nature, since a tithi refers to a specific duration of twelve degrees traveled by the moon in a day. Only if something goes wrong with the moon’s speed and orbit, the Amāvāsyā can occur in Trayodaśī tithi. There lies the biggest catch, a game changer hinting at a change in time — that could perhaps have relevance in understanding the contradiction noticed in Bhishma’s action. To get perceptive of an anomaly like this, the researcher must have been armed with subject knowledge and linguistic capability besides acumen for logical reasoning and systematic analysis. All these make the dating of Mahābhārata scientific!
Where Itihāsa research differs from Science research
The regular process of research in a branch of science is not applicable to the research in Itihāsa. Such process in science research requires the collection of literature on the topic of research and a review of literature to formulate a hypothesis which would be tested with data to derive a result. In the case of dating research, Mahābhārata is the one and only source of literature giving all the inputs. Only Vyāsa Bhārata is the basis for research. As such there is absolutely no scope for review of literature in dating research.
But what do we see? We see almost every researcher in dating Mahābhārata doing a kind of review of literature of all the dating works done by other researchers! The focus must be on what Vyāsa had said and not what other researchers have said. If one had got the date right, there is no need to even think about the other dates, but then they do it only goes to show that their dates are on shaky grounds. Why they are shaky is because they had not followed proper methodology of research.
The scientific study of the Itihāsa demands that an apt methodology is followed. This does not mean the use of scientific gadgets such as the simulator, for gadgets come under methods, not methodology. A method is a technique, of the means to analyze whereas methodology is a process that evaluates different methods to choose the relevant ones besides continuously assessing the different data to arrive at the most logical one that concurs with the inputs (given in Mahābhārata). [10]
This kind of scientific methodology calls for honesty and sincerity in research. This demands shedding the present-mindedness and sticking to the factors used in Mahābhārata. For instance, the newly discovered planets beyond Saturn were never part of Mahābhārata astronomy. To claim that Vyāsa had meant them is tantamount to unscientific approach. All these can be avoided only when the researcher is equipped with the knowledge of the subjects required to understand and interpret the verses. One cannot do a thesis in a University without clearing the requisite subjects. In the absence of such qualifiers in the dating research, the researcher must be doubly careful at every step, from understanding a verse (e.g. Trayodaśī amāvāsyā) to choosing a particular setting in the simulator.
Methodology for dating.
The methodology used in historical studies is valid for Itihāsa studies, since both deals with the by-gone events. Evidences form the crux of any historical research, so too in Itihāsa research. Historical research recognizes only two sources as ‘vital witnesses’ or valid materials to substantiate history. They are primary and secondary sources of evidence.
“Primary sources are the raw materials of history — original documents and objects which were created at the time under study. They are different from secondary sources, accounts or interpretations of events created by someone without firsthand experience.”[11]
According to the Library Guides to History at University of Washington, even oral histories qualify as primary evidence. It is noteworthy that there is an oral tradition in Tamil on advanced Amāvāsyā before the war in tune with the Trayodaśī Amāvāsyā mentioned by Vyāsa. Adopting a clear methodology has many advantages like this in understanding and using the relevant evidences.
In the case of history the biographies written by the contemporaries of the time are treated as high valued primary sources though there are bound to be biases and writer’s limitations in expressing the events impartially. Fortunately any kind of bias or aberration is unlikely to be present in the case of Itihāsas since etymologically they are by themselves the primary sources of evidence (Iti- ha-āsam) written by sages of unimpeachable integrity with the objective of teaching Dharma to people and not to satisfy the rulers. The Itihāsa as a written document comes under the category of “Lekhya Pramāna” — the documentary evidence that is given prime importance in jurisprudence even today.
Interestingly the two Itihāsas were written by writers contemporaneous to those events who also presented themselves as part of the Itihāsa narration. Vyāsa appeared in Mahabharata several times and Vālmīki entered the scene before Sītā exited the world. The last time Vyāsa entered the storyline was during the Sarpa-yāga of Janamejaya when Mahābhārata was recited in his presence. This firmly establishes the text of Mahābhārata as the first rate primary evidence that needs no supportive evidence.
However when it comes to determining the date of these Itihāsas — for Mahābhārata for this write-up, — the date is not explicitly written but well indicated by Gandhāri’s curse to Krishna after the war. It is the clinching evidence for the date of the end of Krishna in his mortal form. Let us analyze this evidence from Mahābhārata.
Primary evidence for the date of Mahābhārata
Mahābhārata contains four verses on Gandhāri’s curse and the demise of Krishna and his Vrishni clan on the 36th year (ṣaṭ triṃśe) after the Mahābhārata war.
1. Gandhari cursed Krishna that “in the thirty-sixth year from this (war), O slayer of Madhu, thou shalt, after causing the slaughter of thy kinsmen and friends and sons, perish by disgusting means in the wilderness.”[12]
2. Vaisampāyana said, “When the thirty-sixth year (after the battle) was reached, the delighter of the Kurus, Yudhishthira, beheld many unusual portents.”[13]
3. Vaisampāyana continued, “When the thirty-sixth year was reached (after the great battle) a great calamity overtook the Vrishnis.”[14]
4. “The slayer of Keśi, Janārdana, thinking upon the omens that Time showed, understood that the thirty-sixth year had come, and that what Gandhāri, burning with grief on account of the death of her sons, and deprived of all her kinsmen, had said was about to transpire.”[15]
All the above four found within the text of Mahābhārata offer excellent primary evidences for the date of the departure of Krishna. The departure of Krishna was immediately followed by the beginning of Kali Maha Yuga, so says Vyāsa, in Harivaṁśa, the supplementary part of Mahābhārata.[16] Other Puranas (compiled by Vyāsa) such as Vishnu Purana,[17] Brahma Purana,[18] Matsya Purana [19] and Bhagavata Purana[20], [21], [22],[23],[24] express the same view, i.e. the Kali Yuga started at the time Krishna left his mortal coils.
On coming to know of Krishna’s exit from the world, the Pandavas abdicated the throne and passed on the crown to Parikshit, the grandson of Arjuna.[25] Yudhishthira, the eldest Bhārata renounced the world by doing Prājāpatyaṃ yajna by which he placed the Agni within himself.[26] His younger brothers followed suit and renounced all worldly connections.[27] Parikshit ruled the country for sixty years as per Krishna, told at the time of destruction caused by Aswattama.[28] All these are solid primary evidences that one cannot set aside while attempting to date the Mahābhārata.
A new time scale namely Kali Yuga started at the time Krishna left. Bhagavata Purana authored by Vyāsa had specifically stated that the experts of yore (purā-vidah) had said that Kali Yuga was obtained on the very day Krishna had left for his world.[29] This establishes that the first day of Kali Yuga was not an arbitrary date. It was decided by the sages of the day when Vyāsa was very much around. It is very much likely that Vyāsa, the compiler of the Vedas and a knower of the three types of time (tri-kāla), had presided over such a conference to decide on the new age, i.e. Kali Yuga. Even if not so, it cannot be denied that Vyāsa was a witness to the foundational time of Kali Yuga. Long after Kali Yuga had begun, Mahābhārata was narrated to the world for the first time.
Vyāsa did not release the Itihāsa in the world of mankind until after Dhritarashtra, Pandavas
and Vidura had departed the world.[30] Mahābhārata also states that three revisions were made by Vyāsa himself, each one as an addition over the other — initially of 24,000 verses, an addition of introduction and chapter of contents of 150 verses after the exit of the Pandavas and a final version of hundred thousand verses.[31]
This final version was made known to the world at the time of Sarpa-yāga conducted by the king Janamejaya, the son of Parikshit. He had ascended the throne after sixty years of rule by his father. In other words, he came to the throne on the 61st year of Kali Yuga!
When Vyāsa paid a visit to the Sarpa-yāga, Janamejaya requested him to narrate their history and the fight between them since he had directly witnessed the happenings in the life of his ancestors,[32] Vyasa then directed his disciple Vaisampāyana to deliver the entire script authored by him. [33], [34]
The direct delivery of the text in the presence of the author makes Mahābhārata a perfect primary source of evidence. The king Janamejaya who listened to it also becomes the prime evidence (witness –sākshi). Therefore any decree passed by him having relevance to the dating research becomes the primary evidence. We are fortunate to have some of the inscriptions issued by him.
Importance of inscriptions as primary evidence for dating
Inscriptions are accepted as the foremost primary evidences in historical studies. They are the royal decrees or the śasana which are written records with a stamp of authority. The date of the decree mentioned in the units of time is therefore reliable sources that one can depend upon. Even legal disputes have been solved on the authority of the inscriptions. Writing on this Dr. R. Nagaswamy highlights the importance of inscriptions as the Lekhya Pramāna approved by the Sāstras. Citing the copper plate inscriptions of Davalayapuram that states, “Tamra-patta-pramanam kalpayitva diyatam”, he emphasizes that they offer the final word.[35]
The great advantage of the inscriptions is that most of them contain various units of Time, such as the year name, month, paksha, tithi, star and even the week day. This in addition to the Śaka[36] or Kali year helps in cross checking the details to arrive at the dependability of the inscription and ultimately the correct date. The time units of the inscriptions serve as the best prime sources which however can be cross-checked to guard against any scribal error.
The dates of many kings and dynasties have been deciphered from the date of the Śaka or Kali year found in the inscriptions. In the same way the year of the Mahābhārata war can also be derived from the Kali date, due to the well attested evidence of the 35 year gap between the war and Krishna’s exit in Mahābhārata. Locating the year of the war is made easy in this time-honoured method.
So basically the primary evidences for the dating research of Mahābhārata are,
1. The text of Mahābhārata
2. Kali Yuga date
3. Janamejaya’s inscriptions
Of these three, doubts may be raised about the purity of the text of Mahābhārata available with us today. It is true that there are variations among different recensions, but they are mostly on the storylines. The factors related to dating could not have undergone changes unless there are transcription errors. Such errors are easier to locate by their inconsistency and can be sorted out.
Are there secondary sources of evidence to Mahābhārata?
Secondary sources are those created by non-contemporaneous people, not having firsthand experience of the event. The written works by later day people based on the primary sources become the secondary sources of evidence. They are admissible in support of the primary evidences and do not stand on their own. In the absence of primary evidences they only help in fueling up speculations and not serve as reliable sources of evidence in historical studies. More so in Itihāsa studies.
Popular example is the historiography on Alexander the Great. There are indeed some epigraphic evidences on Alexander to establish the fact of his existence and some of his conquests. But there is no contemporary written evidence of his life. Whatever is available now were adapted from the contemporary sources that are no longer available. This undermines the accuracy of the details of the currently available historiographies (secondary sources) on his military expeditions. Only when they are supported by the primary evidences from the places said to have been conquered by him, they can be of value. This lacuna exists in the narratives (secondary sources) of his military expedition to India. In the absence of any primary source of evidence from the Greek and the Indian side as well on Alexander’s expedition to India, his so-called victory over Porus stands disputed.
In the case of dating Mahābhārata, the marine evidence of submergence of Dvaraka and archaeological excavations at Mahābhārata sites are useful evidences. Some researchers talk about the change of course of the rivers Yamuna and Sutlej, the drying up of the river Saraswati and the genetic dip caused by the so-called massive loss of life in the war of Mahābhārata as evidences in support of their date. Let us examine these claims in the light of what constitutes the evidence secondary in nature.
· First of all in the absence of a date supported by the primary evidence, there is no value added by the secondary evidences. What date it is going to support is the biggest question when that date has no backing of the primary evidence.
· Suppose a date is located by using the primary sources, it is not mandatory to be supported by the secondary evidences. The secondary evidence may or may not exit, but doesn’t change the factuality of the date. At best such evidence is an additional source of corroboration.
· Any secondary evidence must be date specific. That is, it must indicate the exact date derived from primary evidence with less margin of deviation, but not refer to a wider span of time. More often than not they happen to be relative dates.
Is the Epoch of Arundhati a source of evidence?
In this regard, the status of the so-called Epoch of Arundhati running for 6000 years and forming the basis for the time of Mahābhārata is laden with issues of admissibility as a source of evidence.
· This Epoch is not primary evidence because nowhere it is being told in Mahābhārata that it did exist and lasted for 6000 years.
· The Epoch is not secondary evidence because no literature composed at any time recognizes such an Epoch.
· It offers a range and the choice of the year of Mahabharata can only be arbitrary with no support from any evidence that can be qualified as primary.
· 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 Mahābhārata.
Based on these, this concept of the Epoch could never pass acceptance among the historians. Why should it, in the case of Itihāsa research?
Status of Dvaraka submergence, a primary or secondary evidence?
The date of Dvaraka submergence deserves to be primary evidence mainly because it is part and parcel of Mahābhārata. To make this point clear, let me quote the description of a tsunami-like flood at Setu described in Valmiki Ramayana when Rama was waiting to cross the sea. The marine imprints left by the tsunami such as the ones found in Banda Aceh cave, if they match with the primary date, then it is accepted as good evidence. Here tsunami at Setu, with receding seawaters enabling the construction of the bridge is integral to the storyline and hence the evidence if available, is very important.
Similarly the Dvaraka submergence is part of the Itihāsa, with a specific date that was seven days after Krishna left or Kali Yuga began. The main drawback with this factor is that the exact location of Dvaraka is a mere speculation. The marine excavations show different locations of submergence in the Kutch and the Cambay region ranging from 9000 to 3500 years before present. The best course is to get the date of submergence deciphered from the Kali Yuga date (primary source), and locate the probable region of Dvaraka from the textual descriptions. Any marine excavation matching with this date with reasonable margin of deviation serves as the primary evidence.
Other evidences.
The drying up of the river Saraswati cannot even be secondary evidence simply because the drying up of the river is not year specific nor is it reported in Mahābhārata as having happened at the time of Mahābhārata. The same rationale holds good for the change of the course of rivers which are not mentioned in Mahābhārata as having happened at a particular time in the story. Moreover the change in the direction of a river can happen over a period of time through many centuries. Only when there is a sudden subsidence or tectonic movement can a river change its path all in a sudden. In the absence of any support for such events in Mahābhārata, these events are added to the corpus of geological events, but not in Mahābhārata dating research.
The so-called genetic dip cited as an evidence for heavy loss of life due to war is neither primary nor secondary evidence. It raises more questions than it seeks to answer, such as what populations were affected, where were they, how to deduce that they did belong to the Kuru and the Pandava clan and so on. More importantly such information is not date specific, but only a range.
In the final analysis, the secondary sources of evidence for Mahābhārata can be,
· Artifacts identifiable with the period
· Archaeological findings in support of the date already derived from primary evidences.
· Literature of the later period on the Mahābhārata period
As sample case for the last factor ‘The History of Nepal’ derived from ‘Parvatiya Vaṁśāvali’ can be cited for the references it contains on the Gopala and Kirata dynasty having their origins from the Mahābhārata period. However, due research is needed to admit them as secondary evidences.
Methods of dating research
Having picked out the methodology of the dating research of Mahābhārata, the focus shifts to the methods needed to date the war. A research method is a way of efficiently and effectively finding the information to answer the research question.[37] The research question pertains to deriving the date of Mahābhārata and justifying that it is indeed the date. This involves two steps only, the analysis of the verses related to date and the authentication of the same.
· The analysis part begins from locating the date from the primary evidence.
· The date of the war is derived from Kali Yuga in the same way inscriptions are dated, the only difference being, the date falls before Kali Yuga began.
The date so derived must be authenticated by the methods. The methods are picked out from the data available in the text of Mahābhārata. Two types of data are available, one in terms of Pancāṅga elements such as tithi, star, month etc. and the other, planetary positions. The use of simulators comes in this context.
A note on Pancāṅga elements
The Pancāṅga elements are the traditional and the continuing Bharatiya way of dating. This is more desirable considering the fact that the Indian time scale is not yet recognized in general leading to downscaling of the date as found in the Astronomical almanacs. While the Jewish and Byzantine are shown to have started thousands of years ago, the Indian time scale is restricted to 78 CE, beginning with the Śālivāhana Śaka, notwithstanding the fact that it is just a sub- period of Kali Yuga that is epigraphically proved to have started 5122 years ago (3101 BCE). The time-line of Mahābhārata 35 years before the start of Kali Yuga offers firm evidence for an early date of an advanced Bharatiya culture.
It is high time that people realize that a dating process done with a proper methodology of research and in conformance with the original time elements given in Mahābhārata lends authenticity to the date. For the purpose of reference this Bharatiya date can be converted into the corresponding modern calendar date, i.e. Gregorian followed in India and in most countries of the world today.
Compilation of the data
The Pancāṅga elements such as tithi and star related to the events must be compiled together. These features are found to serve the same purpose as they are today. For example the Trigartas seized the cattle of the Matsya country on a Krishna Saptami, says the text. The first part of the Krishna Saptami is Vishti Karana — a time preferred for stealing and even killing as per traditional astrology. This event establishes that karana based concepts were well entrenched into the society of that time. What we use today seems to be a continuation since (or even before) Mahābhārata times.
· The collection of data must be pruned with meticulous assessment of the feasibility of the hints. For example affliction by Rahu appears in quite a few verses of Mahābhārata. It is needed to be ascertained whether it is true or allegorical.
· Similarly analogies and similes have no place in dating.
The second set of data pertains to the planetary references found in Mahābhārata. They might appear along with Pancāṅga elements or some astrological element such as ‘nimitta’. These two sets must align with each other and with the relative chronology of events. The accumulated data set can be cross-checked in the simulators.
Verification of the data and the date through simulators.
In any science research, the derivation and computations done mathematically or by laboratory results are verified in the simulators. The simulators are the last step in the research process to test the hypothesis. The same applies to Mahābhārata dating. Instead of a hypothesis, the date of Mahābhārata derived from the primary evidences and the data sets compiled from the text must be checked in the simulator.
Unfortunately the current trend is to create the hypothesis by the astronomy simulators! The planetary combinations found here and there in the text are picked up to locate a date in the astronomy simulators. Such dates are flagged off as the date of the Mahābhārata war, with least thought about the date derivable from the primary evidence or the mismatch it creates with the epigraphically established date of Kali Yuga.
Any date cannot be derived by an assortment of planetary references because every point of time has a specific planetary combination of all the nine planets (Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Rahu and Ketu) that do not replicate again. This is best understood by the concept of horoscopy that needs the exact time and day to identify the location of all the nine planets. Even a change of few hours would make the combination different. Therefore it is highly unscientific to search for a date using the planetary combinations mentioned here and there in different times in Mahabharata.
Choice of simulators
Choice of simulators plays a big role in influencing the outcome of the research. Today there is heavy dependence on astronomy simulators working on principles of western astronomy. Kali Yuga date is a test of the reliability for any simulator. No astronomy simulator can reproduce the Kali Yuga time along with the stipulated planetary alignments. This at one stroke rules out the use of astronomy software for dating the Itihāsas.
The reasons for the mismatch are not hard to find.
· These simulators work on tropical zodiacal system which is not followed by the Bharatiya people from time immemorial.
· All planetary references found in the Itihāsas are computed in a model having Aries as the beginning point from which the distance of the tropical sun is deducted or added to get the planetary locations.
· The coordinates for calculating the location of the planets in western astronomy simulators is different from this.
· The Julian date used in these softwares is not the same as the sidereal day of the Indic system such that there is a lag of one Julian day every 115 to 116 Vedic years.
· There is no way to ascertain the Pancāṅga elements of any given day in these simulators.
· The western model of continuous precession cycle for 24,000 years is different from the Indic model of to and fro oscillation for 3600 years only.
The last point is not known to many Indians themselves but it is the cause for the inability to simulate the planetary positions of the beginning of Kali Yuga at the beginning of Aries. For the year 3067 BCE the vernal equinox is shown at Taurus; for 5561 BCE, it is seen at Gemini — both locations, never mentioned in any Indic text.
Due to these reasons, no planetary position referenced in the Itihasas can be simulated in the western astronomy software.
The only alternative lies with the astrology simulators set to the Indic system of to and fro oscillation of the equinoxes. Derived from the Surya Siddhanta concepts, this is found incorporated in Jhora astrology software. The Mahābhārata date coming close to the zero ayanamsa of Kali Yuga date, this is found to work well for that time. This passes the test of Kali Yuga date with perfection.[38]
The astrology software (Jhora) has the triple advantage of simulating the Pancāṅga features for any day along with the corresponding Gregorian date and the planetary combinations of that day.
The validation of the date by the data sets cross-checked with the astrology simulator must put at rest any controversy on the date of Mahābhārata.
The first level checking of the primary evidence by epigraphy is done in the next part to establish the year of Mahābhārata war.
[1] https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/anthropology-and-archaeology/archaeology-general/dating-techniques
[2] https://www.myindiamyglory.com/2018/07/06/mahabharata-war-7500-years-ago-what-astronomical-calculations-say/
[3] “This Is Where the Word History Comes From” https://time.com/4824551/history-word-origins/
[4] Furay, Conal, Salevouris, Michael J. (1988). The Methods and Skills of History: A Practical Guide. Harlan Davidson. p.223
[5] Paramācārya of Kānci in http://www.kamakoti.org/tamil/Kural121.htm
[6] “Science hypothesis theory” https://www.csus.edu/indiv/t/toofanj/jthome/students/chem-6a/ch6a-lecture/lecture_source/chapter-01/science_hypothesis_theory.pdf
[7] Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2009) Theory and Reality: An introduction to the Philosophy of Science, p.3
[8] Historical Research Method — LibGuides at Edith Cowan University. https://ecu.au.libguides.com/historical-reserch-method
[9] “Mathematical Approaches — University of Puget Sound” https://www.pugetsound.edu/academics/curriculum-courses/
[10] C.R.Kothari, (2011), “Research Methodology Methods and Techniques”, second revised edition, New Age International (P) Limited, Publishers, New Delhi, pp. 7–10
[11] Mark Newman (2014) “Vital Witnesses: Using Primary Sources in History and Social Studies”, Rowman & Littlefield
[12] Mahabharata: 11–25–41
[13] Mahabharata: 16–1–1
[14] Mahabharata: 16–2–2
[15] Mahabharata: 16–3–18,19
[16] Harivaṁśa: 1–53–59
[17] Vishnu Purana: 5–38–8
[18] Brahma Purana: 2–103–8
[19] Matsya Purana: 271–51,52
[20] Bhagavata Purana: 1–18–6
[21] Bhagavata Purana: 1–15–36
[22] Bhagavata Purana: 12–2- 29
[23] Bhagavata Purana: 12–2–30
[24] Bhagavata Purana: 12–2–33
[25] Mahabharata: 17–1 7
[26] Bhagavata Purana: 1–15 -39
[27] Bhagavata Purana: 1–15–45
[28] Mahabharata: 10–16–14
[29] Bhagavata Purana: 12–2–33
[30] Mahabharata: 1–1–55,56
[31] Mahabharata: 1–1- 61 to 63
[32] Mahabharata: 1–54–18
[33] Mahabharata: 1–1
[34] Mahabharata: 1–54
[35] http://tamilartsacademy.com/articles/article07.xml
[36] Śaka are sub-divisions of Kali Yuga.
[38] http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2021/03/kali-yuga-date-mathematically-proved.html The simulations of Kali Yuga for various settings of Jhora can be accessed here. Only the Surya Siddhanta simulation is found to give the results correctly.
