Prof. Raghavan has made few wrong assertions in his introduction, which can be easily shown to be incorrect and without any support. However we will wait until they become relevant.
Prof. Raghavan writes….
1. In fixing the date of the Maha Bharata war, the first step is to determine the date of birth of Sri Krishna, as his horoscope is well known.
Prof. Raghavan does not tell us the source/origin/reference for the horoscope of Sri Krishna.
A reader will be tempted at this point to argue against the claim for horoscope of Sri Krishna as follows:
(1). The tradition of horoscope, in the style presented by Prof. Raghavan, is a much later tradition and no evidence whatsoever can be found for it in the Mahabharata text. Even later texts such as Harivamsha or Bhagavad Purana do not have any direct reference to Horoscope of Krishna.
(2). This is naturally a creation of some later person who created this horoscope and thus no authenticity can be attached to it.
(3). Creation of horoscope requires specific date, location and time of birth. If this was the case, why some 130+ researchers have burnt much oil trying to figure out when the Mahabharata War happen and why do there are various dates spanning from 7300 BCE through 500 BCE?
(4). While Prof. Raghavan refers to birth of Krishna occurring in the lunar month of Bhadrapada, many others (including traditions and corresponding celebrations) celebrate birth of Krishna during the lunar month of Shravana (same tithi). Is this due to assumption of Amanta vs. Purnimanta method of reckoning lunar months? If so, is Prof. Raghavan accepting Purnamanta method of reckoning and if in assertive, how is this method consistent with rest of his work on the dating of Mahabharata War?
Reader may ask many such questions and s/he would be justified on each and every count.
However, let’s give Prof. Raghavan’s work a benefit of doubt. Let’s assume (albeit tentative) that the horoscope is real. If this is the case, how would one begin looking for the date for birth of Sri Krishna?
Prof. Raghavan jumped to time of 3000 BCE and started searching for a combination of planets as described in this horoscope of Sri Krishna. (BTW, Prof. Raghavan does not tell us the original reference of this horoscope… other than telling us “his (Krishna) horoscope is well known” and “According to accepted traditions”.
This is not a bad start, but a bad science, illogical at its best, if one is going to build the whole castle of ‘dating of Mahabharata War’ on such loose footing. This is research with no foundations at all.
Let’s get back to Prof. Raghavan’s choice of the region – 3000 BCE- for the search of Sri Krishna’s birth.
He states that European scholars (no references provided as to who searched for the timing of Krishna-Janma based on this horoscope) searched for this combination of planetary positions from 1000 BCE to 500 CE. He is correct in pointing out the wrong conclusion of European scholars to treat Krishna as a mythical person. But then European scholars did not need evidence to reach such conclusion, for they had (majority of them anyway) had conclusion in mind a priori.
Prof. Raghavan states that “They should have searched for his (Krishna) date of birth near the beginning of the Kali Yuga Era, i.e. about 3100 BCE (to be specific 3102 BCE). Then they would have found out that he was born at 11:40 PM, on Friday 27 July 3112 BCE.”
We will analyze this claim of Prof. Raghavan in our next part of this series.
To be continued….