Prof. Achar and his testing of Raghavan’s date of 3067 BC for the year of MBH War – Part-10
In this final part, I analyze the final and last observation claimed critical by Achar.
All proposals for MBH War timing, specifically first day of MBH war can be split into two categories.
(A) First day of War = Amavasya
(B) First day of War = Shukla 11, 12, 13, 15 or Full moon day.
As far as phases of moon are concerned, (A) and (B) are at opposite spectrum of each other.. No moon to Full moon!
Achar/Raghavan’s proposal falls into (B) Shukla 11. And they use this last reference (last from Achar’s limited list of 12 MBH refernces from otherwise 200+ actual MBH astronomy references) to justify first day of War – Shukla 11.
Before going into the specific observation below, Let me repeat that any proposal that deviates from Amavasya (+/-1 day) as first day of MBH War (such as one by Prof. Raghavan and upheld by Prof. Achar), is FALSIFIED BY 30+ MBH refernces that I have discussed in Chapter 8 of my book. I will encourage readers/forum members to read them in original.
(12) 14th day of the war refers to later moonrise (~ 2 AM)
While Achar interprets ‘Chandramas udite punah:” as referring to ‘rising of the mooon from the horizon’, I have interpreted it as ‘When the moon reappeared (due to settlling of dust)’.
For details, I have no intention of reproducing full pages of my book.
Pages 125-131 and corresponding MBH refernces 91-106, i.e. 16 references (as opposed to 1 of Achar) corrborating this 14th day as day of Full moon, rather than a day close to Amavasya per Achar/Raghavan.
A brief point I want to make is while ‘legitimate alternate explanations exist for this specific verse (ref 12 of Achar) from MBH text, 30+ references from chapter 8 (all MBH text references.. all astronomy ref) + 16 references surrounding this very reference (#12) within MBH text) FALSIFY 14 day of MBH War as close to Amavasya.. and thus 18 day timeline proposed by Achar/Raghavan
In addition, I may emphasize that this reference (#12) by itself or when combined with other 11 references considered critical by Prof. Achar is/are not capable of leading one to year 3067 BC.
In effect, in case someone missed the obvious conclusion – even after reading 10 parts, I have shown that Prof. Achar’s claim that he derived the year of 3067 BCE based on 12 specific observations of Mahabharata text is FALSE. In fact, he or anyone else CAN NOT derive 3067 BCE, based on his 12 Mahabharata text references. Worse, each of those 12 references can be employed to FALSIFY 3067 BCE as the year of Mahabharata War.
And story is not over yet. In fact, it is only the beginning as it relates to utterly illogical and unscientific and non-empirical claim for 3067 BCE as the year of Mahabharata War.
I will, time permitting, discuss numerous other issues related to 3067 BCE and corresponding claims, in future…..
This concludes my analysis, criticism and FALSIFICATION of a claim for MBH War year = 3067 BC, purely based on the very observations considered critical by authors of this proposal -Prof. Achar and Prof. Raghavan.