Thoughts on the Date of the Mahabharata War

Achar’s Response to Oak’s commentary

Oak writes:
Prof. Achar writes in his commentary that all the Mahabharata text states is that the war took place
sometime during the transition from Dwarpa to Kali Yuga and that this information is not sufficient to
determine the exact date of the Mahabharata war, however, this lack of specific information need to not
affect traditional celebrations of Gita Jayanti. Achar also insists that any extraneous data such as the
beginning of Kaliyuga in 3102 BCE (the so-called Aryabhata tradition) or that Kaliyuga started with the
passing away of Krishna in 3102 BCE (the so-called Bhagavata tradition), lead to inconsistencies.

I wholeheartedly agree with the above points of Prof. Achar. He was among the first few individuals to
test the existing claims for the year of Mahabharata war using astronomy software and this attempt of his
ought to be recognized for what it is worth.
Achar’s Response: Agree. The faithful already have all the information they need for the
celebration of traditional festivals. It is those who enquire ‘scientifically’ who want a mapping of
the event of the war on to the Julian Calendar, an exercise which is labeled as the dating of the
Mahabharata War.

Oak writes:
1. Season when Krishna left on peace mission
Let’s begin by stating his critical claim, made in his commentary.

Prof. Achar asserts the upper limit of 3200 BCE and lower limit of 1800 BCE for the year of
Mahabharata war. He relies on the folowing reference of the Mahabharata text.

Udyoga Parva (CE 81:7)

कौमुदे मािस रे वां शरदे िहमागमे |

ीतससुखे काले कः सवतां वरः ||७||

Prof. Achar describes this reference as “an absolutely clear reference to seasons when kṛṣṇa sets out for
his peace mission”. It is then interesting to note the confusion that is generated in the rest of his
commentary.

Prof. Achar’s translation is as follows:

In the month of Kartika, on the day of Revati after the passing away of sharad ṛtu and in the dewy season,
and at a time when the earth had an abundance of crops on it that foremost of men of prowess (set forth
for Hastinapura).

i) Prof. Achar translates, incorrectly, ‘कौमुदे मािस’ as referring to the ‘lunar month of Kartika’, instead
of ‘the month of lotuses’. This is incorrect. However, we will let it pass. This is because we will show that
this faulty identification of ‘कौमुदे मािस’ with that of ‘lunar month of Kartika’ is of no consequence in
showing the falsity and inconsistency of claims made by Prof. Achar.

Achar’s response
Here is an extract from Monnier William’s Dictionary:
“कौमुद kaumuda as m patr. fr. Kumuda. ārṣ br. The month Kartika (October-November)
MBh Xiii Moon light. Moon shine from its causing the kumudas to bloom . Moon light
personified as the wife of Chandra.” Etc
The reader can see if this is correct or not.

ii)Oak continues: In explaining the implications of this reference, he writes….

Here Vyāsa provides the information for determining the limits for the date of the war which can be done
in the following way. kṛṣṇa reaches Hastinapura on kārtika paurṇimā and it is the end of sharad ṛtu. For
kārtika paurṇimā, the moon can be anywhere from bharaṇī to rohiṇī.
He(Achar) then writes…
For it to be in the autumn season (sharad ṛtu) the sun must be near or just beyond Autumnal Equinox
(AE).

Oak interprets to mean that Prof. Achar claims the season when Krishna left on peace mission was that of
Hemant ritu.

Achar’s response:
The purpose of determining the limits of the date of the war is for the benefit of the ‘scientifically
minded’ who want to map the date of the war on to the Julian Calendar. The seasons on the Julian
Calendar are only four, Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter. The mapping requires that Kartika
paurnima fall in the autumn season. (The faithful already know the Rtu, Sharat. They don’t need
any further information about the season.) That is the reason for requirement of Autumnal
Equinox to fall between Vishakha to Jyeshtha, which corresponds the position of the Sun, with the
Moon’s position ranging from Bharani to Rohini, corresponding to Kartika paurnima. This can
happen approximately between 1800 BCE to 3200 BCE. There is no claim anywhere that Krishna
went on the mission of peace in Hemanta ritu

Oak continues: 2. Claim (& confusion) of upper and lower limits [3200 BCE – 1800 BCE]
We speculate that these claims stem from his confusion of the season of Krishna’s visit on peace mission
(Hemant), confusing ‘month of lotuses’ with that of lunar month of Kartika and then again of aligning the
lunar month of Kartika with Sharad season (instead of Hemant season).

What Prof. Achar appears to have done, erroneously, is that after claiming lunar month of Kartika to be
part of Hemant season, he went to on align it with the point of equinox. The lunar month of Kartika
coincided with the Sharad season during ~2500 BCE + /- 2000 years [4500 BCE – 500 BCE].

Achar’s response:
The confusion is Oak’s own making. Kaumuda masa refers to Kartika. Kartika paurnima in
relation to Autumnal Equinox is a mapping requirement.

3. Eclipse evidence
Eclipses are dime a dozen and while the evidence is indeed useful in eliminating certain claims, it is never
decisive to determine the upper and lower limits on the chronology of specific events. Since Prof. Achar’s
emphasis is on upper limit of 3200 BCE and lower limit of 1800 BCE for the year of Mahabharata war,
the critique of his eclipse arguments is not made, here. Interested readers may read criticism of his
eclipse claims by likes of Prof. R N Iyengar or Shri K Chandra Hari.

Achar’s response:
The upper and the lower limits arise from the mapping of Kartika paurnima to the Julian Calendar
and not from any eclipse calculations. Oak’s reference to fifteen year old comments by
Chandrahari on eclipse calculations is odd indeed. Achar’s simulations showed a lunar eclipse at
Kartika paurnima in 3067 BCE. Chandrahari’s contention was that no lunar eclipse could have
occurred on that day as the required conditions for a lunar eclipse were not satisfied. Iyengar did
not make any calculations of that particular eclipse and he simply repeated Chandrahari’s
criticisms. Oak is perhaps not aware of the fact that two recent calculations, independently by Koch
and by Kaul did show that there was a lunar eclipse on that Kartika paurnima day, completely
contradicting Chandrahari. To be fair, there is however, disagreement on the magnitude of the
eclipse among Achar, Koch and Kaul. There has been a lot of discussion on the internet about the
eclipse season with three eclipses, a lunar (on Kartika paurnima), followed by a solar eclipse at
Jyeshtha and a third lunar eclipse which occurs ‘aparvani’ The discussions have centered around
the magnitudes and observability and not on the occurrence. But all that is a separate matter. The
allusion to Chandrahari’s comments is irrelevant. In any case, it has nothing to do with the limits
on the date of the war.

Oak continues:
Mistakes made by Prof. Achar in his research on chronology of Mahabharata war are quite a few. The
selective use of evidence, introduction of ad-hoc hypotheses for rest of Mahabharata descriptions of
planets as not planets but rather comets, lack of clear statement for his theory are some of these glaring
blunders, to name a few.

These comments are to be ignored. Vyasa himself says that he is recounting the omens he has
observed, and Achar has shown how these omens are in agreement with Atharvaveda Parishishtha.
Vyasa himself clarifies that by GRAHA he is also referring to comets. The reader can refer to the
paper by ACHAR in BORI:
Achar B N N(2004)”On astronomical references in Vyasa- Dhritarashtra samvada in
Bhishmaparvan of Mahabharata.” Annals of BORI, LXXXIV for the year 2003, pp14-22.

Now to Oak’s claims:

The claim of 3067 BCE as the year of Mahabharata war is falsified by the astronomy
observation of Mahabharata text, par excellence, Arundhati-Vasishtha (AV) observation
which assert upper limit of 11091 BCE and lower limit of 4508 BCE for the year of
Mahabharata war.

Achar’s response.
Oak’s whole thesis is based on a single shloka from the epic:
वा चैषािव ुता राजं ैलो ये साधुसंमता |
अ धती तया येष विस ः पृ तः कृ तः || MB (VI.2.31)
“My dear King, Arundhati (saintly wife of Vasistha) who is revered by the righteous all over the three
worlds, has left her husband Vasistha behind.” (Oak’s translation)

This shloka appears in the second chapter of Bhishma Parvan, when Vyasa visits Dhritarashtra
on the eve of the war.
Vyasa opens his conversation with the shloka:
इह यु े महाराज भिव यित महा यः |
यथेमािन िनिम ािन भयायोपल यते || MB(VI.2.16)
 “Oh king, there will be a great disaster from this battle, just as have been witnessed the
omens causing a great fear.”
Then follows a list of omens, omen after omen, running over two chapters. The reference to
Arundhati is also necessarily such an omen. Arundhati, is revered by all in three worlds as a great
pious woman, one who always follows her husband. Even such a person, (note the stress on तयािप)
instead of following him is now leading him. This extraordinary behavior of a pious woman
constitutes an omen indicative of a disaster that follows. However, Oak regards it differently.
According to Oak’s findings, before 11091 BCE, Arundhati was following Vasishtha. From 11091
BCE to 4508 BCE she is leading Vasishtha. After 4508 BCE she again follows Vasishtha. This is
depicted in the figure provided by Oak:

Now in 5561 BCE, Arundhati has been leading Vasishtha for 5500 years, how could she be revered
as “a pious woman who follows her husband” by all the righteous people in three worlds?
The change in her behavior occurs in 11091 BCE. She was following Vasishtha, but changes
into leading Vasishtha. That is when the change triggers an omen. Not in 4508 BCE, when the
change is in the opposite direction and certainly not in 5561 BCE. In 5501 BCE, she is still leading
Vasishtha, but the amount by which she leads is decreasing. For some five thousand and five
hundred years, Arundhati is leading Vasistha, not following! If Oak were to use this information,
then the War should have taken place in 11091 BCE and not in 5561 BCE.
Vyasa is giving a list of omens. An omen is a transient phenomenon, which was not there before,
happens and is no more after some time. An omen indicates an impending disaster. Oak’s finding
cannot qualify as an omen.

Oak takes liberty with finding meanings of words, making up his own explanations and associating
/inventing astronomical phenomena. For example, according to the epic,
a) Krishna leaves for his peace mission on Revati nakshatra in Kartika masa
But, according to Oak, the month is not Kartika,but ‘month of lotuses’, although he agrees with
Revati nakshatra.
b) It is Kartika Paurnima when Krishna is in Hastinapura, and there is a lunar eclipse.
Not according to Oak. He interprets Karna’s words, “सोम य ल म ावृ ”ं as not referring to a
lunar eclipse. According to him, the disappearance of the characteristic mark of chandra’
refers to the appearance of moon near a New Moon!
c) Krishna and Karna ride together on Uttara phalguni nakshatra, Oak agrees with this.
d) Seven days from that day is Amavasya and a solar eclipse is going to occur. As per Krishna,
स मा ािप दवसादमावा या भिव यित |
 सं ामं योजये तां ा ः श देवताम् || MB (V.140.18)
The nakshatra is specified by the adhipati Shakra (Indra), and hence jyeshtha. Oak
interprets this as vishakha whose adhipati is Indragni. It is dual devata and not separately
as Indra and Agni. But, Oak takes shakra as referring to Indra of Indragni and takes it as
referring to Vishakha. Shakra refers to Indra only and hence to Jyeshtha.
e) Karna’s words सोम य ल म ावृ ं रा रकमुपे यित |MB(V.141.10) refer to the lunar eclipse
on Kartika paurnima and the coming solar eclipse at Jyeshtha nakshatra. Krishna’s and
Karna’s statements establish the following sequence of events:
Revati nakshatra-> Kartika paurnima lunar eclipse->Uttara phalguni, Krishna and Karna
ride together->Amavasya in seven days at Jyeshtha, a solar eclipse day-> war.
But, the sequence of events made up by Oak is as follows:
Revati nakshatra -> Amavasya.at Vishakha ->Kartika paurnima -> Dhritarashtra -Vyasa
meeting -> war.
Oak declares that war began on Jyeshtha Amavasya, the day after Vyasa meets with
Dhritarashtra and the solar eclipse takes place on that day.
Oak’s sequence is contradicted by the explicit statements in Udyogaparvan
स मा ािप दवसादमावा या भिव यित.. तां ा ः श देवताम् | and सोम य ल म ावृ ं
रा रकमुपे यित | already quoted. These refer to the lunar eclipse already over and the solar
eclipse yet to take place. Furthermore, by the statement of Vyasa in Bhishma parvan:
अल यः भयाहीनः पौणमास च का तक म् । MB(VI.2.23) ावृ ं ल म सोम य.MB(VI.2.32),
referring to the lunar eclipse on Kartika paurnima and ..अक रा तथा सत्MB(VI.3.11)
referring to the solar eclipse on Jyeshtha Amavasya, both have already taken place by the
time Vyasa meets Dhritarashtra on the eve of War. The war could not have started on the
Jyeshtha amvasya solar eclipse day.

A clearer picture of the eclipses during and immediately after Krishna’s mission, can be
obtained by looking at the sky view simulations in 3067 BCE and 5561 BCE with the
appropriate dates after the Revati nakshatra. The events are summarized in the table:

Krishna’s peace mission starts on Revati Nakshatra

Moon at According to Achar According to Oak

Revati nakshatra Kartika masa Month of lotuses
Full Moon Sept 29, 3067 BCE Lunar Sept 1, 5561 BCE No lunar
eclipse eclipse Ashvini
Bharani
Uttara phalguni Krishna- Oct. 8, 3067 BCE Sept 9/10 5561 BCE
Karna ride together
New Moon Oct 14, 3067 Solar eclipse at Sept 17, 5561 BCE No solar
Jyeshtha eclipse. Sun at Vishakha
Full Moon Oct 28, 3067 BCE Lunar Oct 1, 5561 BCE Rohini
eclipse No lunar eclipse. Kartika
Paurnima
New Moon Oct 16/17, 5561 BCE solar
eclipse. Sun at Moola
It should be noted that there is no lunar eclipse on Kartika Paurnima nor a solar eclipse on
Jyeshtha nakshatra in 5561 BCE. The solar eclipse occurs on Moola nakshatra.
 Oak criticizes Achar for using the reference of Saturn afflicting Rohini.
ाजाप यं िह न ं ह ती णो महा ुितः
शनै रः पीडयित पीडय ािणनॊऽिधकम् ।MB(V.141.7)
Oak’s explanation? A truly unique one, which has no basis what so ever. In 5561 BCE,
Saturn is near Uttara phalguni and Hasta and no where near Rohini. He explains“when
Rohini is setting on the western horizon Saturn is the only other planet in the eastern part
of the sky. This observation is then described as Saturn afflicting Rohini”
He does not realize that this explanation of ‘affliction’ is not according to any Shastra.
Moreover, the total absurdity of this idea can be seen by examining the eastern view of the
sky at the time of the setting of Rohini. The relative position of Saturn and Rohini
practically remains the same for nearly a year, so essentially the same area of the eastern
sky is seen at the time Rohini sets in the west. However, the time at which Rohini sets
changes every day by about four minutes. Hence as time goes on different planets come into
view in the eastern sky, and sometimes Sun is also in that part and Saturn cannot be seen at
all. For example on 30 th sept/1st Oct 5561 BCE, (Which is Kartika Paurnima, according to
Oak), Rohini sets at 5:55 am and Saturn is clearly seen on the eastern sky just as Oak says.
However, on 10 Sept 5561 BCE, the day Karna and Krishna ride together, Rohini sets at
7:17 am. Mercury and Saturn are both in the eastern part of the sky. However, the Sun is
also up and neither of the planets can be seen. Are both Mercury and Saturn afflicting
Rohini? Or, neither can afflict it as they cannot be seen? That is the day when Karna is
describing the planetary positions to Krishna. Karna does not say that Mercury is afflicting
Rohini. Furthermore, during the course of the year, while Saturn stays practically in the
same position between Uttara phalguni and Hasta, many other planets pass through the
eastern part of the sky when Rohini is setting, but they are not said to afflict Rohini. Oak’s
interpretation is absurd.
f) Oak also criticizes Achar for using the retrograde motion of Mars in
कृ वाचा गारको व ं ये ायां मधुसूदन | MB(V.141.8)

Oak formulates his own explanation of ‘vakra’ motion. ‘Retrograde’ motion discussed in
the astronomical context is only an apparent effect produced by the relative motions of
Mars and Earth in their orbits. It is similar to how a car in the neighboring lane appears to
move backwards when when the car you are driving overtakes it, even though both are
moving in the same direction. It takes too long to go into Oak’s absurd explanation of
Vakra motion.

Oak writes:
And what could be his motivation to search for Saturn-Aldebaran conjunction all the way to 500 CE and
for the duration of 4000 years? Especially when he is convinced on the duration of 1400 years (3200
BCE-1800 BCE) for the year of Mahabharata war? Only Prof. Achar may able to shed additional light.
Achar responds:
There are three parts of the note “Thoughts on the date of the Mahabharata War”
a) The war takes place sometime during the transition from Dvapara to Kali
b) The information from the time specification of Krishna’s mission of peace can determine
the lower and upper bounds of the date of the war between 3200 BCE and 1800 BCE as this
involves a mapping of Kartika to Autumn season on the Julian Calendar.
c) This part shows how the date can be derived uniquely based on planetary configurations
only (as had been done some fifteen years ago) and independently of parts a) and b) and the
conclusions there of. It is gratifying to know that two solutions obtained in this part fall
within the limits established independently in part b)
 The note was to highlight Vyasa’s ingenuity to satisfy the needs of readers depending on their
‘scientific curiosity’.
To summarize:
Oak’s Arundhati-Vasishtha theory as forming the basis of dating the Mahabharata war is
untenable for
(i)that event as described by Oak does not qualify as an Omen.
(ii)Kaumudi masa refers to Kartika month and not Oak’s ‘month of lotuses’
(iii)The sequence of eclipses which occur around Krishna’s Peace mission (Lunar eclipse on
Kartika paurnima->Krishna Karna Ride->Solar eclipse on Jyeshtha nakshatra)are not
reproduced by Oak
(iv)war did not start on Jyeshtha amavasya
(iv)Oak has an absurd theory for Saturn afflicting Rohini and an equally absurd accounting for
the retrograde motion of Mars.
Oak’s comments on “Thoughts on the Date of the Mahabharata War” are rejected. I consider this
chapter closed. I do not have either the energy or the time to prolong this discussion further.

P.S. Oak shouts the loudest with Popper’s phraseology, ‘falsification’ ‘scientific validity’ etc. He
lists 27 pieces of data from the epic in his book, which he considers that only his theory can account
for. In the short list of half a dozen events around Krishna’s diplomatic mission, it has been shown
that Oak’s date of 5561 BCE cannot reproduce any of the events. The sequence of events, as per
Oak’s date, is
Krishna’s departure(Revati)-> Full Moon(Ashvina)->Krishna-Karna- ride(uttaraphalguni)-
>Amavasya(at Vishakha) -> Kartika paurnima full moon-> war on Amavasya(at Moola, Solar
eclipse).
This is completely contradicted by the data in the Epic, except for the nakshatra Revati.
Uttaraphalguni is inferred and not explicitly stated in the Epic. The sequence in the Epic is shown
below.
Krishna’s departure (Revati)->Full Moon(Kartika, Lunar eclipse)-> Krishna-Karna
ride(Uttaraphalguni)->Amavasya (at Jyeshtha, solar eclipse)-> war (does not begin on an
amavasya). Krishna and Karna ride together after Kartika paurnima, but in Oak’s case, they ride
together before Kartika paurnima.
Oak invents phenomena to suit his results. Calls the month, month of lotuses instead of Kartika.
When he cannot find lunar eclipse, he explains सोम य ल म ावृ ं as referring to the appearance of
moon near an Amavasya. When he finds an Amavasya at Vishakha, instead of Jyeshtha, he
interprets श देवताम् as referring to इ ाि , which would refer to Vishakha. When he cannot find
Saturn near Rohini, he interprets the पीडा as referring to the appearance of Saturn in the eastern
sky as Rohini sets in the west. He has his own interpretation of व motion of Mars. What he has
accomplished is ‘falsification of Data’
Thoughts on the Date of the Mahabharata War
Achar’s Response to Oak’s commentary (part II)

This is the second and final part of my response to Oak’s comments on my Date of the Mahabharata
war. In this part I will address the list of 27 “astronomical observations” that Mr. Oak presents in his book
and claims that only his theory can explain all of these. I will present a few star maps generated by the
software Cybersky 5 and compare the star map data and the claims of Mr. Oak. The readers can form
their own conclusions.
Mr. Oak had responded to the first part of my write up with an exposition on the art of referring to a
dictionary and a primer on Calendrics. While it was amusing to read his exposition, I prefer to stick with
Monnier William’s dictionary and translate Kaumudi masa as Kartika masa. As far as Calendrics go, I
will stick to the well-known rate of precession of the equinoxes of a day in about 71 years, instead of the
one given by Oak (of a day in about 128 years). Furthermore, the precession is backwards and into the
past and not into the future as per Mr Oak
It is amusing to see how many traditional astronomical conceptions Mr Oak throws out at every step.
A case in point is the expertise of Mr Oak in Calendrics illustrated by the following table in his work:

Table 2. Equinoxes, Solstices, seasons and Lunar months.

Lunar Months/Sampat/Ayana Bindu Year 5561 Seasons Seasons/Equinoxes/Solstice

s
Jyeshtha-Ashadha- Shravan 4 April – 3 June Vasanta
Shravana-Bhadrapada - (extra 3 June-4 August Grishma
Bhadrapada)Ashwin
(Extra Bhadra) Ashwin- Kartika-Adhik 4 August-3 October Varsha
Kartika
Adhik Kartika-Margashirhsa-Pausha 3 October – 2 December Sharad
Pausha-Magha-Phalguna 2 December -30 January Hemanta
Phalguna-Chaitra-Vaishakha 30 January- 4 April Shishir
Vasanta Sampat 3 May 5561 BCE Spring Equinox
Dakshinayan Bindu 4 August 5561 BCE Summer Solstice
Sharad Sampat 31 October 5561 BCE Fall Equinox
Uttarayan Bindu 30 January 5560 BCE Winter Sostice

Mr. Oak has two adhika masas , Adhika Bhadrapada and Adhika Kartika,in 5561 BCE and thus there are
14 lunar months in one year. His adhika masa follows the nija masa! i.e., the first month is the nija (true)
masa and the following is the adhika masa which also bears the same name. It is not clear how Mr. Oak
determined his adhika masas. Surely the rules of modern Surya Siddhanta would not be applicable so far
back in time. I may be excused for rejecting his exposition on Calendrics.
Mr. Oak gives a list of 27 astronomical observations culled from the epic and grouped them into
seven groups and claims that his theory is the only one that can explain all of these. Such listings are not
new nor unique and have been available since the times of Dihshit, Kane , Vaidya and others. Such a
listing is indiscriminate in the sense no attention is paid to the context in which these events are referred
to. They are mostly astrological in the sense of omens. The apparent inconsistencies and contradictions
have been presented in the form of tables by Sengupta, and Sharma for example. The words of the shlokas
have to be interpreted carefully. But Oak takes the words such as graha literally most of the time, but
interprets the referred to event according to his own fancy.
“A picture is better than a thousand words” proclaims Mr. Oak, but he is very stingy in providing
star maps. We shall examine these 27‘astronomical observations’ and Oak’s interpretations with the help
of star maps generated by using the Planetarium software, Cybersky 5. These include a star map for the
first day of the war according to Mr. Oak (16 October 5561 BCE) , and a couple of maps to exhibit the
paths of some prominent planets.
Figure 1 shows the star map at Delhi for 16/17th Oct 5561 BCE, the first day of the war, as per
Oak.

Figure 1. Starmap for Oct 16 5561 BCE, for Delhi

It is an Amavasya as Oak says, the Sun and the Moon are together at Mula/purvashadha nakshatra.
Saturn is near Hasta, Mercury is near purvashadha/uttarashadha, Jupiter is near uttarashadha/shravana,
Mars and Venus are near Dhanishtha, These planetary positions are also described in words by Oak.
We shall examine the astronomical references quoted by Oak and see how well they are
reproduced/satisfied in 5561 BCE. Furthermore, as some planets are said to have executed retrograde
motion, we will examine the paths of these planets starting from a date one year earlier, in 5562 BCE.
Astronomical references have been grouped by Oak and enumerated continuously as follows:
I Position of Saturn:
(1) Saturn (along with Jupiter) near Vishakha for a year
(2) Saturn near Uttara pahalguni
(3) Saturn afflicts Rohini.
From the starmap, it is seen that Saturn is near Hasta, and it is too obvious that Saturn is nowhere near
any of the three nakshatras, Vishakha, uttaraphalguni,or Rohini. How does Oak claim that his theory
accounts for these positions of Saturn? He does this by assertion and by interpreting ‘near’(samipasthau)
and ‘afflicts’(pidita) in his own way.
Oak says that he examined the positions of Jupiter and Saturn for the whole of the previous year
and found that Jupiter stayed in the region of mula-uttarashadha and Saturn in the region of
uttaraphalgini. These are indicated in figure2 and figure3, where the path followed in the previous year
culminating in the current position of Jupiter and Saturn respectively.
 Figure 2. Retrograde motion of Jupiter in 5562 BCE,superposed on the starmap of figure 1.The
retrograde loop is in the region of mula-uttarashadha.

Figure 3. Retrograde motion of Saturn in 5562 BCE superposed on the starmap of figure 1 The
retrograde loop is in the region of Uttara phalguni.

These regions lie more than 45 degrees away from Vishakha on either side. Oak asserts that this
satisfies the Mahabharata declaration “samipasthau” and is satisfied that the two planets stay “near
Vishakha” for a year. .Note that “Near” is generally interpreted as a separation of 10 degrees or less. Thus
neither Saturn nor Jupitert stay near Vishakha. But they are almost equidistant on either side of Vishakha.
Oak is satisfied that Saturn and Jupiter are ‘Vishakhayoh samipasthau’ “near to the Vishakhas. His
assertion is not acceptable. Hence, this violates configuration (1).
 While Saturn was near uttaraphalguni the previous year, currently it is near Hasta nearing Chitra
It is about 30 degrees from uttaraphalguni and nowhere near it. The present position of Saturn violates
configuration (2).
Regarding ‘Shani afflicting Rohini’, Oak has his own explanation. The actual reference is:
ाजाप यं िह न ं ह ती णो महा ुितः
शनै रः पीडयित पीडय ािणनॊऽिधकम् ।MB(V.141.7)
According to Varahamihira, (Brihat Samhita, XV.31-33), a nakshatra is said to be afflicted (pidita)
when it is
(a) tenanted by the Sun or Saturn
(b) spoilt by Mars by either cutting through or by retrograde motion
(c) when it is involved in an eclipse
(d) when it is struck by a meteor
(e) when it is manifestly crushed by the moon
(f) when something unnatural happens to it.
When a nakshatra is thus afflicted all the people and things coming under its jurisdiction will be
harmed.
In 5561 BCE, Saturn is near Uttara phalguni and Hasta and nowhere near Rohini. So Rohini cannot
be said to be afflicted by Saturn. As is clear from the star map, none of the six conditions (a)-(f) are
satisfied for Rohini on 16th Oct 5561 BCE. Therefore there is no affliction of Rohini.
But, Oak claims that ‘affliction’ refers to a totally different event. Oak offers an explanation, all his
own , and has no basis what so ever. Oak explains that “when Rohini is setting on the western horizon
Saturn is the only other planet in the eastern part of the sky. This observation is then described as Saturn
afflicting Rohini” The total absurdity of his idea can be seen by examining the eastern view of the sky at
the time of the setting of Rohini. The relative position of Saturn and Rohini practically remains the same
for nearly a year, so Saturn is seen at essentially the same relative separation in the eastern sky at the time
Rohini sets in the west. However, the time at which Rohini sets changes every day by about four minutes.
Hence as time goes on different planets come into view in the eastern sky, and sometimes Sun is also in
that part and Saturn cannot be seen at all. For example on 30th Sept/1st Oct 5561 BCE, (Which is Kartika
Paurnima, according to Oak), Rohini sets at 5:55 am and Saturn is clearly seen on the eastern sky just as
Oak says. However, on 10 Sept 5561 BCE, the day Karna and Krishna ride together, Rohini sets at 7:17
am. Mercury and Saturn are both in the eastern part of the sky. However, the Sun is also up and neither of
the planets can be seen. Are both Mercury and Saturn afflicting Rohini? Or, neither can afflict it as they
cannot be seen? That is the day when Karna is describing the planetary positions to Krishna. Karna does
not say that Mercury is afflicting Rohini. Furthermore, during the course of the year, while Saturn stays
practically in the same position between Uttara phalguni and Hasta, many other planets pass through the
eastern part of the sky when Rohini is setting, but they are not said to afflict Rohini. Oak’s interpretation
is absurd.
Thus none of the astronomical references to Saturn(1), (2), or (3) are satisfied in 5561 BCE.

II. References to Jupiter

(4) Jupiter near Vishakha(along with Saturn) for a year
(5) Jupiter goes ‘vakra’ near Shravana
(6) Jupiter afflicts Rohini
Number (4) reference is the same as (1) for Saturn. As already shown in figure 2, Jupiter stayed near
Mula/purvashadha for nearly a year with a separation of more than 45 degrees from Vishakha. Only the
assertion by Oak can make it ‘near’ Vishakha.
Regarding reference (5), Jupiter was retrograde near purvashadha from about 15 March 5561 BCE to
about 23 June 5561 BCE but it was near Purvashadha. Jupiter does go retrograde near Shravana, but that
is in the future! Jupiter is retrograde from about April 5560 BCE, to August 5560 BCE, long after the war
is over and Bhishma has attained his nirvana. This is also recorded by Oak in his figure 8 and Table 9, but
nowhere does he mention explicitly that this is after the fact and has no relevance to the war. Still he
claims it as one of the achievements of his theory that Jupiter was retrograde near shravana.
Oak’s interpretation of ‘vakra’ motion as the oblique crossing of the ecliptic is not supported by any book
on astronomy either. The path of Jupiter is inclined with respect to the ecliptic by about 1.35 degrees.
These two great circles intersect on the celestial sphere at the same angle. Hence Jupiter when crossing
over the ecliptic always appears ‘obliquely’ crossing it.
Thus the astronomical references to Jupiter, (4) (5) and (6) are not satisfied in 5561 BCE.
III. References to Mars
(7) Mars goes ‘vakra’ near Magha
(8) Mars goes ‘vakra’ near Jyeshtha/anuradha
(9) Mars traveling in ‘apasavya’ direction by becoming steady between chitra and swati while
shining brightly with fearful and cruel appearance.
(10) Mars afflicts chitra
(11) Mars heading straight to shravana/Abhijit region
Mars is retrograde between 11Feb 5561 BCE to about 1 April 5561 BCE near svati. So it can satisfy
reference (9), (10) and (11). References (7) and (8) are not satisfied.
Oak’s explanation of Vakra motion is absurd. The retrograde motion is an apparent motion which
arises because of relative motion between Earth and Mars and is apparent when Mars is in opposition.
Mars orbit and Ecliptic are two great circles on the celestial sphere and intersect at two points. Mars
crossing the ecliptic arises near these points and is independent of the “opposition” (for apparent
retrograde motion) which depends on the motion of Earth.
Thus two references to Mars (7) and (8) are not satisfied.
IV. References to Mercury
(12) Mercury traveling through all the nakshatras
(13) Mercury rising tryak on the seventeenth day of war
The path of Mercury from June to December 5561 BCE is shown in the figure 4

Figure 4. Path of Mercury superposed on star map of 16 Oct 5561 BCE

 Mercury has a retrograde motion near Hasta/ chitra in August but seems to travel through other
naksharas. This satisfies configuration (12)
When it comes to configuration (13), on the seventeenth day of the war, Mercury would not be seen
rising at all, as it is an evening star. The Sun would be up before Mercury rises. An evening star would
become visible after the Sun sets, and continue its westward motion to finally set. It can in no way
described as “rising obliquely” in the west. Oak’s explanation is awkward at best. So configuration (13)
will not be satisfied in 5561 BCE.

V. References to Venus
(14) Venus (Bhrigusoonu) Mercury(Shashijen) and Mars(Dharaputra) seen in the western part
of the sky at the end of the war
(15) Venus making a parikrama while turning north near purvabhadra
All four planets, Mercury, Venus, Mars and Jupiter are seen as evening stars throughout the war. So
configuration (14) is satisfied.
Venus is seen near Purvabhadra in January 5561 BCE, with no obvious peculiar behavior. So
configuration (15) is not satisfied. Oak agrees with this.
VI References to
(16) Sweta (Budha) settled near Chitra
Mercury exhibits retrograde motion near chitra in July and August 5561 BCE
(17) ‘Shyama’ (or Sweta) shining brightly and settled near Jyeshtha
(18) Tivra planet and or nakshatra in the vicinity of Krittika
(19) Great Comet settled near pushya
The configurations (16)-(19) call for discussion of comets, we refer to Achar’s Book for a detailed
discussion. Oak interprets Tivra as Pluto
VI. Seven planets
(20) Seen along with moon the evening of 14th day of war
(21) Seen near Sun first day of the war
(22) Seen going away from the Sun 17th day of war
The observations at the time of Mahabharata war are all naked eye observations. Oak says so
explicitly. Only five planets,Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn were visible to the naked eye.
Proclaimed ‘Observation of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto’ cannot be entertained. On the first day of the
war, at the time of sunset, Sun and Moon are close together, Mercury,Venus, Mars and Jupiter are in
the western sky, being evening stars, Saturn is quite far near Hasta, below the Horizon.
On the evening of 14th day, the moon is on the eastern Horizon, Sun and Mercury, Venus Mars and
Jupiter are all near the western Horizon, except Saturn. This is what Oak terms as attacking moon.
He further says that this makes a strong case for the knowledge of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.
VII. Eclipses etc.
(23) The Sun and the Moon together afflicts Rohini on the first day of the war
(24) Moon’s mark was covered and Rahu was approaching the Sun
(25) The full moon of Kartika was devoid of effulgence The moon appeared coppery red and
so did the rest of the sky
(26) Two eclipses (solar and lunar) within an interval of 13 days
(27) Up to 3 eclipses (2 Lunar and one Solar, based on reference to 14th day of Krishna
paksha.
Oak explains “afflicting’ Rohini in terms of planets visible in the eastern sky as Rohini sets in the west. It
has already been pointed out that ‘afflicting’ has a specific significance and has been explained by
Varahamihira. Varahamihira’s explanation contradicts Oak’s explanation of reference (23)
Regarding reference (24), Oak’s explanation is that ‘Moon with mark covered’ refers to the time and
phase of the moon close to the Amavasya day. Oak tries to explain Observations (25)-(27) as eclipses on
30th Sept 5561BCE, 15th Oct 5561 BCE (at Mula) and 30th Oct 5561 BCE(at ardra).
There are several problems with these eclipses in comparison with what is described in the epic. As per
Oak’s date, there is no eclipse on Kartika pornima, no solar eclipse at Jyeshtha; furthermore, the solar
eclipse is on the first day of war followed by a lunar eclipse. According to the epic, Vyasa talks to
Dhritarashtra on the eve of the war, about the two eclipses that have already taken place before the war
starts. So the eclipse events in Oak’s theory are at variance with those in the the epic.

We have verified all the 27 events that Oak lists against star maps (Cybersky) for the dates given by Oak.
The star maps themselves agree with what oak describes in words based on Voyager simulations.
However, as discussed above, most of the astronomical events in the list are at variance with the star map
data. Still Oak asserts that his theory accounts for all the astronomical observations ; he has invented his
own definitions of ‘nearness’ ‘affliction’, and ‘vakra’ motion. He asserts that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto
were known at that time and posits a calendar year with two adhika masas, with the leading month being
the true or nija masa, with the adhika masa following it. He has fourteen lunar months in his year.

As had already been stated in our first post, Oak’s Arundhati-Vasishtha theory as forming the basis of
dating the Mahabharata war is untenable for
(i)that event as described by Oak does not qualify as an Omen.
(ii)Kaumudi masa refers to Kartika month and not Oak’s ‘month of lotuses’
(iii)The sequence of eclipses which occur around Krishna’s Peace mission (Lunar eclipse on Kartika
paurnima->Krishna Karna Ride->Solar eclipse on Jyeshtha nakshatra)are not reproduced by Oak
(iv)war did not start on Jyeshtha amavasya
The actual sequence of events according to the epic is
Krishna’s departure (Revati)->Full Moon(Kartika, Lunar eclipse)-> Krishna-Karna
ride(Uttaraphalguni)->Amavasya (at Jyeshtha, solar eclipse)-> war (does not begin on an amavasya).
Krishna and Karna ride together after Kartika paurnima.
But in Oak’s case, they ride together before Kartika paurnima.
Now we have shown that practically all of the other astronomical observations (1)-(27), listed by Oak
himself, are at variance with the data of the star maps(Cybersky-5) in 5561 BCE. It is interesting to note
that almost identical verbal descriptions of data by Voyager simulations are given by Oak. Yet, he claims
agreement of Voyager simulations with the observations (1)-(27)
Readers can rate scientifically the validity of Oak’s theory using his own criteria.
Acknowledgements: The star maps were produced using the software Cybersky 5(www.cybersky.com)