Krishna lived for ~116 years.

I assert that Krishna lived for ~116 years.

The uncertainty around this number (116) expressed with the help of ‘~’ is due to the lack of precise information about Krishna’s age at the time of his killing of Kamsa.

Let’s say Krishna’s age at the time of killing of Kamsa = X

Then Krishna’s total lifespan = X + (5622 BCE through 5525 BCE)

I have shown, elsewhere**, that Kamsa was killed sometime after 22 March 5622 BCE.

The Mahabharata War happened in 5561 BCE.

Destruction of Dwarka due to seawater rise occurred in 5525 BCE. In addition to the internal reference of Mahabharata, for the destruction of Dwarka, 36 years after the Mahabharata War, I have shown, elsewhere**, numerous corroborative evidences from around the world, for 5525 BCE as the year for the destruction of Dwarka.

Krishna died around the same time as that of destruction of Dwarka(~5525 BCE).

I have assumed X = 18, based on two (repeat) references from Harivamsha – Vishnuparva, Adhyaya 33:1-2 and Adhyaya 37:1-2 (GP Edition)

** ‘The Year of Mahabharata War: Additional evidence from Astronomy, Geology & Anthropology’ (book in works)


14 thoughts on “Krishna lived for ~116 years.

  1. I have estimated on my blog that Abhimanyu was abt. 25 years’ age at the Mahabharata war time. That should make Arjuna about 60 years, max, at that time. Krishna was between Bheem and Arjuna by age. So Krishna’s age was also about 60. Pandawas and Krishna outlived the war by about 36 years. That makes Krishna 96 -100 max, at his death.
    Difficult to reconcile 116 because that would make Krishna and Arjuna 80 at war and Arjuna 55 at Abhimanyu’s birth! People normally assume Abhimanyu to be much younger at the war, say 18. If one accepts that, the difference will be still more glaring!
    If Krishna, Bheem, Duryodhan and Arjuna were 80 at the time of war what becomes the age of, Balheeka, and Bheeshma?

  2. My estimate of Abhimanyu’s age is based on the fact that his five younger brothers, Droupadi’s five sons, all actively participated in the war and were rated as rathis by Bheeshma. If the youngest was at least 17, adding 7-8 years for the five intervening gaps, one reaches 25, give and take an year.

  3. There is a specific reference of Drona’s age at the time of the war as 85. That should make, Ashvatthama, Arjun, Krishna etc. all of about 60 years at the time of the war, agreeing with the calculation based on Abhimanyu’s likely age of 25.

    • This blog article was written by me before you (Shri Phadnis) ran into age of Drona (at the time of War) = 85 years.

      This puts Krishna/Arjuna at about 65 at the time of War and thus about 65 + 36 = 101 years for life of Krishna

  4. I am glad to note that you have finally accepted Krishna’s life at around 100 years. Your astronomical calculations about year of Kansa’s killing then need to be checked since you are firm about the the date of Mahabharata war and Krishna’s death year is linked with that. It also reiterates my main contention that details from the Story – the Text – must take precedence over astronomical calculations if the two are divergent. and story should not be twisted to suit astronomy.

    • Finally?

      This would mean I was stubbornly sticking to something else (e.g. 116) without reason for a long time. Not so.

      The way I estimated 116 for Krishna’s life also has a basis, albeit from Harivamsha astronomy reference, when combined it with chronology reference (Flooding of Dwarka and passing away of Krishna, 36 years after Mahabharata war). When that was combined with 5561 BCE as the year of Mahabharata War , that led to estimate of 116 years.

      When you quoted Mahabharata text reference of Drona’s age being 85 at the time of War, it made sense to assume (as stated by you) age of Krishna/Arjuna to be around 60 (as stated by you). In fact there is a reference for Arjuna to be at least the Mahabharata text, so that is better estimate (than 60). So I accepted it, as that makes sense.

      You are also correct that my astronomy calculations about the death of Kamsa’s death need to be checked. The issue is not specifically of ‘astronomy reference’…rather that is very clear and is being corroborated, but rather the ambiguous language of the TEXT (in this case – Harivamsha) that was the issue.. and that is precisely the reason I have never published my work on astronomy reference (of Harivamsha). In this case it is the text surrounding the astronomy reference (specifically…what is the timing of astronomy phenomena occurring, when it says ‘NOW’ (present tense) ) making interpretation of that phenomena for the timing of Kamsa , difficult.

      However this has nothing to do with your contention, namely…

      ” It also reiterates my main contention that details from the Story – the Text – must take precedence over astronomical calculations if the two are divergent. and story should not be twisted to suit astronomy.”

      While I (and anyone should) agree that ‘story should not be twisted to fit – ‘insert anything here’, your contention for the duration spent by Krishna in Hastinapur is wrong. In the absence of astronomy evidence (of Nakshatra) all we know is that Krishna went to Hastinapur, spent some time there and returned to Upaplavya. That is the story in the absence of astronomy evidence.

      With the astronomy evidence (Revati through 7 days before Shakra Amawasya), one can estimate the duration of Krishna in Hastinapur (which can not be done otherwise with any other evidence or per the story as claimed by you).

      That is not twisting the story with astronomy evidence. It is ‘building’ the story (filling the blanks) with astronomy evidence.

  5. What Krishna did in Hastinapur when he visited for Shishtai is very unambiguously written, in full detail, in Mahabharata. He did not spend more than 2 days there. He did not have any private person to person talks with anyone from Kourava side. The whole effort was a clear one-meeting affair. When Duryodhana rejected all peace proposals and it became clear that Bhishma or Dhritarashtra had no strength or will to make him change his decision, there was nothing more for Krishna to do.
    Pl. quote any evidence from the text to support anything else if you want to claim he spent several days in Hastinapur. This is what I call twisting the story to fit astronomy.

    • Few comments..

      (1) You are going in circles.

      (2) If you insist on Krishna’s stay of 2-3 days, how do plan to explain observations of nakshatras (Revati, Pushya and 7 days before Shakra Amawasya)?

      (3) There is no other evidence available in the text.

      (4) The observations (references of nakshatras) is what requires me to estimate Krishna’s stay in Hastinapur to be between 7-11 days. Otherwise it is immaterial to my proposal/timeline.. whether Krishna spent 2-3 days or 7-11 days in Hastinapur.

      (5) Anyone claiming duration of less than 7-11 days, has onus to explain how he/she would go about explaining nakshatra references (confusion? interpolation?, some other criteria? incorrect interpretation of nakshatra evidence?).

      (6) ‘Consistency of a theory’ is the basic requirement of a scientific argument. While this is true for me and my assertions, what problems does your claim (2-3 days) solve? or create?

      (7) If question in (4) can not be answered, then you are barking at the wrong tree.

  6. I am not going in circles. I am firm on ‘story is prime’. It is not my liability to solve problems of astronomical mismatches. For all I know they could be inserted later in a careless manner. I have always maintained that if astronomical references lead to conclusions contrary to clear facts as per the Text, the references or conclusions are wrong. I still stand by my views.

    • No one is asking you to change your views. You are entitled to them. What I am doing is pointing flaws in those views. This is for the benefit of general readers and also for the benefit of Mahabharata researchers who value consistency of a theory.

  7. Food for thought…

    Shri Phadnis writes..

    “For all I know they could be inserted later in a careless manner.”

    Could it be also possible that reference of “Krishna leaving at the end of Sharad season and before the beginning of Hemant season” be inserted later in a careless manner,

    especially, when it can be shown that such reference contradicts

    (1) Lower limit of 4508 BCE, for Mahabharata war, due to AV observation

    and when especially combined with numerous other observations..

    (2) Bhishma dying on Magha S 3/4/8/12 or K 3/4/8/12

    (3) Balarama Tirthayatra of 42 days with Pushya/Shravana as beginning and Shravan/Pushya as ending.

    (4) 20+ chronology (never mind astronomy) observations from Bhishma-Drona-Karna-Shalya-Sauptic-Stri-Shanti-Anushasan parvas that show Bhishma to be on the bed of arrows for >92 days.

    • (5) Not to forget war beginning on Shakra Amawasya, 7 days (or 7 days + one lunar month) after Krishna-karna dialogue

      (6) Not to forget numerous (30+) references to Sharad season, during the war itself.

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