Analysis & Criticism: 3067 BCE as the Year of Mahabharata War (Part 5 of 10)

Prof. Achar and his testing of Raghavan’s date of 3067 BC for the year of MBH War – Part-5

In this part, I will describe the reasons why Achar mentions following observations in his work, but explains away (simply ignores) these observations.

Achar mentions these observations because Raghavan has mentioned them in his work that he wrote in 1969. While Raghavan interprets them …wrongly….Achar came up with a diffferent theory or theories (if at all these vague statements can be called theories) to explain away these observations.

Let’s begin…..

(8) Day of Bhishma Nirvana = Day of Winter Solstice

Achar/Ragahan propose 17 January 3066 BC as day of Bhishma Nirvana. This day is 4-5 days removed from the day of Winter Solstice in that year (13 January 3066 BC).

Why would Achar/Raghavan keep Bhishma waiting beyond the day of Winter solstice is an interesting question by itself.

Answer: The reason Achar/Raghavan keep Bhishma waiting for 4-5 days beyond the day of Winter Solstice is to match their proposal with another MBH observation.. the observation of Bhishma dying on the day when “moon was in Rohini’.

On 13 January 3066 BC , moon was between U. Bhadrapada and Revati. Thus Achar/Raghavan make Bhishma wait for 4-5 more days until moon reaches Rohini.

As a result, Achar is silent on why Bhishma did not pass away ….per his proposal… on either the day of Winter solstice or one day after winter solstice.

(11) Shweta graha near Chitra

Identification of ‘Shweta’ graha is itself an issue of debate/speculation. However Achar deals with it by explaining it away (this is a common theme that you would hear repeatedly). He claims this to be some comet..but then never bothers to show such comet near Chitra, or bother to tell us when such comet was seen near Chitra for his proposal – 3067 BC.

Since someone commented that ‘Shweta’ is referred to as Ketu (node of moon), I may briefly comment that this may be the case after MBH time… however in MBH time, node of moon is referred to by ONLY ‘Rahu’. Word ‘Ketu’ appears in MBH text, but either in the context of comet (dhuma-ketu) or in the context of Flag (of warriors). Not a single reference of ‘Ketu=node of moon (similar to Rahu) anywhere in MBH Text.

Back to Achar and Shweta graha near Chitra.

Achar takes the route of gobblygooo and says the following… all the fun….


abhŸkÿõaÐ kampate bh¨mi× arkam r˜hustath˜grasat/
þveto grahastath˜citr˜Ð samatikramya tiÿ÷hati// (VI.3.11)
In the first half of (VI.3.11), Vy˜sa refers to intermittent quivering of the earth
and the solar eclipse, which took place on October 14. In the second half of
the þloka, some scholars have translated þveta graha as Venus, but Venus is at
dhaniÿ÷ha and not citr˜, and thus find it inconsistent. A variant reading has
ÿy˜mo in the place of þveto, thus referring to budha. The planet budha, which
had been retrograde before reaching citra became prograde while passing that
nakÿatra. This can be seen in figure 19. According to Raghavan, citra nakÿatra
is associated with candra vaÐþa in a number of places in the epic and the
motion of budha in citra forebodes the destruction of the kurus. In view of
this, the reading variant from the critical edition gives better agreement with
the simulation. Karõa also refers to ‘citr˜Ð pŸýayate graha×’ in (V.141.9) cited
earlier. However, it is more likely that þveta× refers to one of the comets, as
indicated by the following discussion.

I would ask reader to get used to such gobbleygood explanation, since this wont’t be the last.. in fact we are just beginning…

(12) Terrible comet near Pushya

Here is gobblleeygood #2

In words of Achar..


The sky diary (figure 20) from the software RedShift showed that there was
indeed a copious fall of meteorites in October 3067 BCE, and that the parent
body of the meteorites was the Halley’s comet. It would be tempting to
identify the comet Vy˜sa refers to with the Halley’s comet. Figure 21 shows
that the position of Halley’s comet was near puÿya just as Vy˜sa describes it.
However, its brightness could not be confirmed as two software programs give
vastly different estimates of brightness, although the positions are given
correctly. It was not clear whether the Halley’s comet was visible at that time.

(13) Mars vakri near Magha and Jupiter vakri near Shravana

Around year 3067 BC, Jupiter is near Revati and did not go retrograde (Vakri= retrograde is interpretation of Achar) near Shravana. In fact Jupiter is nowhere near Shravana and is in fact 5 nakshatra away from Shravana. Mars did not go retrograde near Magha.

So, here is Achar’s solution…


These references are clearly astrological in nature and must be understood from
the point of ancient Indian astrology.

whatever that means…….. go figure…..

The references form MBH text below, none of them can be corroborated as stated for year 3067 BC.

(14) Saturn near Bhaga (P. Phalguni or U. Phalguni)

(15) Shukra making Parikrama near P. Bhadrapada

(16) Shyama graha near Jyeshtha

(17) Mars steady between Chitra and Swati

(18) Sun and Moon together afflicting Rohini

(19) Vakri -Anuvakri motions of Mars, followed by its arrival near Shravan/Abhijit

(20) Saturn-Jupiter stationary near Vishakha for a year

And here is Achar with his explanation…


Professor Raghavan explains that the
ancient Indian astrological concepts of Vedh˜ and pŸý˜ must be used in this
context. However, it appears that the list of astronomical entities here refers
not to planets, but to comets. According to Var˜hamihira, hundreds of comets
were known and classified by the astronomers Garga, Par˜þara and Asitadevala.
Garga is considered to be a purohit of the y˜dav˜s. It is known that
Asitadevala is the brother of Dhaumya, the chief purohit of the P˜nýav˜s. The
accounts given by the ancient sages about comets have been summarized by
Var˜hamihira in B®hatsaÐhita cited below. þveta, þy˜ma, dh¨ma, ghora, paruÿa,
etc are all names of ketus (comets) of different kinds according to Garga and
Par˜þara and their malefic effect depends on the nakÿatra which they are
afflicting. In addition, there are comets, which are labeled as the sons of Sun,
Moon, Jupiter, Saturn, Budha, Aðg˜raka, Agni. Unfortunately, these comets are
also referred to by the same names as the parent planets in the epic by Vy˜sa.
Thus, þaþi, bh˜skara, b®haspati, s¨ryaputra, etc in these þlokas refer to comets,
which are considered to be the sons of the moon, the sun, Jupiter and Saturn.
They do not refer to planets. Thus the positions described in the above þlokas
refer to the positions of comets and not those of the planets. Therefore, there
is no inconsistency at all.

Now comes the ringer……!!!


The planetarium simulations actually show a large
number of comets in all the positions described in the epic, as will be shown

This ‘later’ never came. Achar has published and republished his above work multiple times (papers, conference presentations, presentations to groups, papers as part of books) however nowhere he has dared to show these so called comets with names such as ‘Shashi’, ‘Bhaskara’, ‘Brihaspati’, ‘Angaraka’, ‘Somaputra’ etc to corroborate their positions as described in MBH text.

In next post, I will get back to analyzing his so called 12 observations and show that none of them individually or together lead to year 3067 BC. On the other hand each one of them (with exception of ‘Saturn near Rohini’) contradict proposal of 3067 BC.

To be continued….


One thought on “Analysis & Criticism: 3067 BCE as the Year of Mahabharata War (Part 5 of 10)

  1. Pingback: Heavy Bakwas & Bogus Astronomy | Nilesh Nilkanth Oak

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s