Confusion of Yugas by dfsiopmhy6

VIEWS: 34 PAGES: 18

									                                 Confusion of Yugas
As mentioned in P.L. Bhargava’s books and also below in R Kochar’s ‘The Vedic People’, the
confusion over the dating of the Mahabharata all goes back to one terminological error by one
Indian Astronomer that led to misunderstanding by others and eventually to a false dogma
about the date of the Mahabharata War.

Below is some text from Kochar’s book:

“
The Rgveda uses yuga in the sense of a time-span, an age, or a generation. RV (1.158.6) uses the
expression dasame yuge (tenth yuga) to refer to the age of Dirghatamas; the yuga seems to mean a
period of 10 years of less, depending on how old an aged (jujurvan) person is expected to have been in
those days. Vedanga Jyotisa refers to a five-year yuga. Atharvaveda mentions in order 100 years, ayuta
(10,000 years) and then two, three or four yugas. This suggests that a yuga here means an ayuta. (The
annual celebration of Yugadi (Ugadi) in South India implies a one-year yuga.)

The terms Kali, Dvapara, Treta and Krta are mentioned in the Vedic literature as the designation of
throws of dice (aksa) marked 4, 3, 2 and 1. Aitareya Brahmana mentions these terms. It is however not
clear whether the dice were meant or the ages. Four ages Pusya, Dvapara, Khara and Krta are
mentioned in the later portions of Sadvimsa Brahmana, and the Dvapara in the Gopatha Brahmana.

Yaska’s Nirukta defines Brahma’s day as equal to 1,000 yugas, without saying what a yuga is. During
Brahma’s day, the creation, maintenance and destruction of the universe are said to take place.
Brahma’s day is followed by his night of the same duration, during which he sleeps. The period day
plus night is called Brahma’s ahoratra. To get an idea of the actual years involved in these units, we
must turn to Manusmrti (1.68-86) which describes the yuga system in detail. The system is based on
scaling the terrestrial phenomena to divine proportions by making suitable assumptions.

The Rgveda uses a year or (samvatsara) of 360 days. Taittriya Brahmana sets this year equal to a day of
the gods. A divine year of 360 days is used as a building block for the yuga system. Manusmrti defines
a unit of time called mahayuga or caturyuga, comprising four yugas – Krta, Treta, Dvapara and Kali,
with lengths in the ratio 4:3:2:1. The Kaliyuga, which is the shortest, consists of a core period of 1,000
divine years preceded and followed by a transition period of 100 divine years each, so that a Kaliyuga
has in all 1,200 divine years (or 1,200 x 360 = 432,000 human years). The mahayuga then contains
1,200 x (4+3+2+1) or 12,000 divine years which equal 4,320,000 human years.

Still bigger units are constructed. A Manvantara or Manu for short (“Manu’s interval”) is defined as
equal to 71 mahayugas. Next, a Brahma’s day is defined as the sum total of (i) an introductory dawn
equal to Krtayuga, and (ii) 14 Manvantaras, each one of which is followed by a twilight period also
equal to a Krtayuga. The purpose of this rigmarole is to arrive at the neat round figure of 1,000
mahayugas for the length of Brahma’s day. Expectedly, Brahma’s life runs parallel to the human. His
day and night are equal; 720 days or nights make a year of Brahma whose lifespan is 100 such years.
Brahma is said to have completed exactly 50 years of his life at the start of his current day.

This scheme is repeated in the Mahabharata and Puranas. It was later appropriated by the Siddhantic
astronomers for expressing the planetary orbital periods. Thus Surya Siddhanta would say that there
were 146,568 revolutions of Saturn in a mahayuga, implying an orbital period of 29.4743 years. In the
astronomical texts, Brahma’s day is given the non-denominational designation kalpa.
The yuga nomenclature was adopted by the Puranic historians also, who divided the historical period
into four ages. The Puranas thus generally say that the most sacred region in the Krtayuga was Naimisa
forest, in the Treta it was Puskara, in the Dvapara Kuruksetra, and in the Kaliyuga the Ganga.

The blame for mixing up the Puranic and the astronomical yugas rests squarely on the celebrated
astronomer-mathematician Aryabhata (b. AD 476). He introduced two changes in the traditional yuga
system. He defined a kalpa as a period of 1,008 mahayugas (instead of 1,000). Since 1,008 is divisible
by seven, each new kalpa would begin on the same week day. Secondly, he divided a mahayuga into
four equal rather than unequal parts so that each consisted of 108,000 years. Aryabhata started his
astronomical Kaliyuga at 6 A.M. on Friday, 18 February 3102 BC (Julian) at Lanka, which is
hypothetically placed at the intersection of the equator with the meridian of Ujjain. In astronomical
parlance, this choice of epoch defines the Aryapaksa, “the Arya school” of Siddhantic astronomy.

Aryabhata also propounded another system, in which the Kaliyuga began six hours earlier, that is on the
midnight of 17/18 February 3102 BC (Julian) at Ujjain. This is known as the ardha-ratri-ka-paksa “the
midnight school”. Since planets move, their configuration cannot be the same at midnight and at
sunrise. In particular, the sun and moon cannot remain aligned at two points in time, six hours apart. It
is thus clear that Aryabhata’s Kaliyuga is a theoretical artifact, and not the epoch of an actual
astronomical observation.

How did Aryabhata arrive at this particular date? It seems that his starting point was the observed
planetary positions at a known epoch. Since he knew the orbital periods, he could calculate backwards
the epoch when all the planets could be taken to have been aligned at the beginning of the zodiacal sign
Aries (Mesa). It is now known that planetary orbits are subject to various kinds of perturbations, and a
theory depending on the orbital period as the sole parameter cannot give accurate results. According to
modern numerical simulations, on 17/18 February 3102 BC the five geocentric planets were not aligned
but spread over two neighboring zodiacal signs. This again underlines the inference that the significance
of the date was hypothetical rather than real. Even if Aryabhata had chosen a slightly different epoch, it
would not have made much difference as far as the actual sky conditions are concerned.

The choice of 3102 BC, however, had a special significance for Aryabhata. Midday at Ujjain on the
equinoctial day 21 March AD 499 exactly corresponds to the beginning of the year 3600 of his
Kaliyuga. Since the ardharatrikapaksa starts its Kaliyuga six hours before the Aryapaksa, Aryabhata
artificially made the duration of the year slightly longer in the former case so that in both the schools the
3600th year starts at the same time. We may recall that AD 499 is the year of the composition of
Aryabhatiya.

Unfortunately, while talking of the passage of time, Aryabhata did not explicitly say “before the
Kailyuga”. Instead, he used the term Bharatat purvam, that is “before [the] Bharata [battle]”, obviously
alluding to the Puranic yuga system. This is what gave currency to 3102 BC as the date of the battle.
The use of Aryabhata’s epoch in the Puranic context is ironical in the light of the fact that he was
severely castigated by his student critic Brahmagupta (b. AD 598) for deviating from smrti (“tradition”)
while formulating his own yuga system.

The date 3102 BC for the Puranic Kaliyuga is not tenable. First, the Puranic and astronomical yugas are
widely different in length. The Puranas divide 94 generations from Manu to the Bharata battle into three
yugas, so that each yuga is approximately 31 generations or say 600 years. Aryabhata’s yugas, on the
other hand, run into hundreds of thousands of years.

Secondly, an astronomical epoch begins at a precise moment which is chosen by the astronomer. In
contrast to the astronomical Kaliyuga, the beginning of the Puranic Kaliyuga is not precise at all.
According to Mahabharata Adiparvan (2.13), the battle occurred at the junction of Kali and Dvapara.
The Bhagavata Purana, on the other hand, gives two versions of the epoch. In one version (1.15.36),
Kaliyuga started the day Krsna died, while the second version (12.2.33) starts Kaliyuga at the very
moment Krsna died. One can see the feeling of discomfort here. It did not look quite the right thing to
have Krsna live into the Kaliyuga. (According to the chronology of the Mahabharata, Krsna dies some
20 years after the battle. This was the time when Yudhisthira abdicated in favour of his grand-nephew
Parikshit.) We thus see that the Puranic Kaliyuga is a manner of speaking rather than a carefully chosen
point of time as in astronomy.

Finally, if the Bharata battle indeed took place in 3102 BC, how was the epoch recorded? (It could not
have been in terms of eras that began later.) How and by who was the date kept alive for 3,600 years?
How did Aryabhata come across this date? If Aryabhata’s predecessors had been asked about the
battle’s chronology, what date would they have mentioned in answer?

DATE OF THE BHARATA BATTLE

The Puranas do not recognize Aryabhata’s date at all. They provide their own information on the
subject. It is possible to calculate the Bharata battle’s date from statements within the Puranas.
Unfortunately, one can derive not one but many dates. The Puranas contain a bland statement that 1,015
(or 1,050) years elapsed between Pariksit’s birth (shortly after the battle) and the coronation of
Mahapadma Nanda. Nanda’s coronation was a singular event from the Puranic point of view because he
was a son of a Sudra mother, and exterminated all blue-blooded Ksatriyas.

The Jain Parisistaparvan calls Nanda the son of a courtesan by a barber. The Greek historian Quintas
Curtius also says that Nanda was a barber who being handsome gained the affection of the queen.
Through her influence he obtained a position of royal confidence which he treacherously used to murder
the king.

The Matsya Purana assigns 88 years to the reign of the first Nanda. The figure is unreasonably high; 88
(astasiti) appears to be a mistake for 28 (astavimsati), which the Vayu Purana quotes. The first Nanda
was succeeded by his eight sons who, all Puranas agree, ruled for 12 years, giving a total of 40 years for
the Nanda rule. (Ancient Sri Lankan chronicles reduce the figure to 22 years). A hoard of coins
discovered from the Bhir mound at Taxila in 1924 contains 1,059 punch-marked coins from Magadha.
These coins belong to three successive dynasties: Sisunaga, Nanda and the Maurya. Significantly, while
one can distinguish between coins issued by different kings in the case of the Sisunagas and the
Mauryas, the Nanda coins all belong to a single ruler. This is consistent with the brevity of the Nanda
rule.

The Nandas were dethroned by Candragupta Maurya whose date of coronation is known from
independent sources to be about 320 BC. Thus the Puranas themselves suggest about 1400 BC for the
Bharata battle.
“
                         Veda Vyasa Misunderstanding
                (Source: Internet [Yahoo Group-Kulam] posting by Satish Ishwa Mishra
                               and email exchanges with him, Feb. 2006)

Till now, as far as I am aware of, no one has tried to distinguishing and to mapping the relative position
of different Vyaasas. I believe that I was one of the very few or perhaps the only one to make
distinctions, and even pre-dating Veda Vyaasa before the Vyaasa of the Bhaarata Battle. When we try
to look for the relative position of Vyaasa Paaraasharya, based solely on Vedic literature. We can take
the following steps:

1st step
Saamavidhaana Braahman.a gives at III.9.3 the following short list:
Prajaapati-Brhaspati–Naarada–Vishvakshen.a–Vyaasa Paaraasharya–Jaimini–Paush.pinjaya–
Paaraasharyaayan.a–Baadaraayan.a–Taan.d.i-Shaat.yaayani.

Shatapatha BraahmaNa 14.5.5.21 gives the following information:
aagniveshyah saítavaatsaítavah paáraasharyaatpaáraasharyo jaátUkaarNyaajjaátUkarNyo
bhaáradvaajaadbhaáradvaajo bhaaradvaajaáccaasuraayaNaácca gautamaacca gaútamo
bhaáradvaajaadbhaáradvaajo vaijavaapaayanaádvaijavaapaayanáh kaushikaayanéh-
kaushikaayanírghRtakaushikaádghRtakaushikah-paáraasharyaayaNaatpaáraasharyaayaNah-
paáraasharyaatpaáraasharyo jaátUkarNyaajjaátUkarNyo bhaáradvaajaadbhaáradvaajo
bhaaradvaajaáccaasuraayaNaácca
yaaskaáccaasuraayaNastraívaNestraívaNiraúpajandhaneraúpajandhaniraásur
eraásurirbhaáradvaajaadbhaáradvaaja aatreyaát

2nd step
This list has two Paaraasharyas:
1. Paarasharya I(I) pupil of JaatukarNya I
2. Paaraasharya II(I) pupil of JaatukarNya II

(There is a last Paaraasharya III/IV as pupil of Saankrtya and Bhaaradvaaja)

But it also names a PaaraasharyaayaNa, pupil of Paaraasharya I(I)! Comparing this with the SvB
PaaraasharyaayaNa and BaadaraayaNa, the last is either Paaraasharya I(I) or II(I).

The key to identify KrShNa DvaipaayaNa in the ShB list, is provided by the Bhaaradvaaja GS and
Saty.HiraNyakeshinGS, which give also a list of teachers from Savitr upto KrShNa DvaipaayaNa pupil
of JaatukarNa (!). It also gives in-between a short list from VaishampaayaNa to Suutrakaaras related to
the resp. GS.

3rd step
KrShNa DvaipaayaNa is either Paaraasharya I(I) or II(I) of the Shatapatha list. As BaadaraayaNa comes
after PaaraasharyaayaNa, pupil of Paaraasharya I(I), it would be safe to conclude that:

Paaraasharya I (I) is krShNa Dvaipaayana and
Paaraasharya II (I) is Baadaraayana.
[Of course if Paaraasharya II (I) is KrShNa Dvaipaayana, Baadaraayana then must be the final
Paaraasharya = III/IV]
4th step
Shrii Vyaasa Paaraasharya, the pupil of VishvakSheNa, is the only one so far to having been named as
"Vyaasa" distinctly in Vedic literature, as being the first to having that name or title. He is Paaraasharya
I. He is a very real RShi and not a phantom as many Paaraasharya I(I) then must be Paaraasharya II, and
II(I) must be III, and the final must be IV.

The next one, the descendant of the first and being named as KrShNa DvaipaayaNa, and pupil of
JaatukarNya, must be either Paaraasharya II or perhaps III.

The final one, descendant of the second, being named as BaadaraayaNa, and certainly coming after
PaaraasharyaayaNa, then must be either Paaraasharya III or IV. [This BaadaraayaNa or rather his
descendant with the same Pravara name is the author of the BrahmaSuutra].

Now, let us look at the relative position of Vyaasa Paaraasharya I in reference to the RV RShis was
Most scholars agree that the X MaNDala RV as Samhitaa shaped around the time of the Kuru kings
ParikShit I Kauravya and Janamemejaya PaarikShita with the important Purohita of the last, named Tura
KaavaSheya, mentioned in the RV Khilaani.

Again, we take a look at the Shatapatha lists: ShB 10.6.5.9
átha vamsháh samaanamaa saánjiiviipútraatsaánjiiviipútro
maán.d.uukaayanermaán.d.uukaayanirmaán.d.avyaanmaán.d.avyah
kaútsaatkaútso
maáhitthermaáhitthirvaamakaksh.aayan.aádvaamakaksh.aayan.o
vaátsyaadvaátsyah shaán.d.ilyaachaán.d.ilyah kúshreh
kúshriryajñávacaso raajastambaáyanaadyajñávacaa
raajastambaáyanasturaatkaávash.eyaatturah- kaávash.eyah prajaápateh-
prajaápatirbráhman.o bráhma svayámbhu bráhman.e námah

The list gives three important names: Tura KaavaSheya, then ShaaNDilya and his pupil Vaatsya. Let us
give ShaaNDilya the number 1. and his pupil the number 2. This enables us to make a better comparison
with ShB 14.5.5.21 list of the previous posting. That list has exactly the same sequence of the two
persons. That we are dealing here with the same individuals becomes clear when the ShB 10.6.5.9 list
above is compared with the ShB 14.9.4.32-33 list of metronymics:

14.9.4.33
praáciinayogiipútraatpraáciinayogiipútrah-
saáMjiiviipútraatsaáMjiiviipútrah-
kaárshakeyiipútraatkaárshakeyiipútrah-

14.9.4.33
praáshniipútraat aásurivaásinah- praashniiputrá
aasuraayaNaádaasuraayaNá aasuréraasuríryaajñavalkyaádyaajñavalkyá
uddaálakaaduddaálakó'ruNaadáruNa úpavesherúpaveshih- kúshreh-
kúshrirvaajashrávaso vaajashrávaa jihvaávato baádhyogaajjihvaayaa
baádhyogó'sitaadvaárShagaNaadásito vaárShagaNo
háritaatkáshyapaaddháritah- káshyapah- shílpaatkáshyapaachílpah-
káshyapah- káshyapaannaídhruveh- káshyapo naídhruvirvaáco
vaágambhíNyaa ambhíNyaadityaádaadityaániimaáni shuklaáni yájUMSi
vaajasaneyéna yaajñavalkyenaákhyaayante
Sanjiviiputra in both parallel lists is 9/th10th from Kushri. This Kushri has as pupils 1. Upaveshi with 4.
Yaajnavalkya in the long list and 1. ShaaNDilya => 2. Vaatsya in the short list with -2. Tura preceding
Kushri through -1. Yajnavacas. Thus, all the ShB lists with both patronymics and metronymics agree
perfectly well.

The BhaarGS and HirGS minimum short lists at the end of those works mention Vaajashravas as
preceding JaatukarNa and KrShNa Dvaipaayana by at least 5 resp. 6 generations. HirGS even mentions
Vaajin coming after Vaajashravas. (This Vaajin can be no other than Vaajasani, father of Vaajasaneya
Yaajnavalkya, but that is another matter)

In the ShB 14.5.5.21 list we have as 13. JaatukarNya I and as 14. Paaraasharya II both preceding
PaaraasharyaayaNa (or 22. and 23. coming after him), important also in SvB. These are the most
probable candidates for being the JaatukarNa and KrShNa DvaipaayaNa of the GS. Anyway, Vyaasa
Paaraasharya then must be somewhere around the time of 1. ShaaNDilya, as most traditions mention
that Yaajnavalkya received YV some generations after Veda Vyaasa and VaishampaayaNa, and that he
received the RV after Paila. Further that he had a dispute with a Shaakalya. [Sumantu,
VaishampaayaNa, Paila, Jaimini, Shaakalya, Shaakala, BaaShkala, MaaNDukeya, etc. are all mentioned
in AashvGS 3.4.4]

Thus, Veda Vyaasa Paaraasharya I, may have been really relatively close to the time of the RV Khilaani
Tura KaavaSheya and Janamejaya PaarikShita (AV) and ParikShit I Kauravya (AV, RV-Kh). And thus
was really crucial in collecting the Vedic material in Samhitaas.

Quite some generations elapsed between Veda Vyaasa's time, the compiler of 5 Veda Samhitas (see AV
11.7.25 for PuraaNa besides rc, yajus saaman and chandas) and the Bhaarata battle times of his
descendant KrShNa DvaipaayaNa, who composed the KaarShNam Vedam (MBh 1.1.205) or core
Bhaaratam (absorbing ItihaasaPuraaNa Veda material edited by his ancestor, with fresh material), later
to be developed into the Mahaabhaarata by several editors, picking up the stories at different Sattra(like)
Yajna meetings.


                                   My Summary of Satish’s findings:

4 Parasharyas in Ancient Indian History:
1) [c. 1800 BCE] Rishi Vyasa Parasharya I (pupil of Vishvaksena); "Vyasa"; (lived close to time of RV
Kilaani Tura Kavasheya and Janamejaya Parikshit I (AV) and Parikshit I Kauravya (AV, RV-Kh). He
collected the Vedic material into 5 Samhitas (Rc, Yajus, Saman, Chandas, Purana). RV Mandala 10 was
the time of the Kuru kings ParikShit I Kauravya and Janamemejaya PaarikShita with the important
Purohita of the last, Tura KaavaSheya, mentioned in the RV Khilaani.
2) [c. 1400 BCE] Parasharya II (MBH-era Krishna Dvaipanaya; pupil of Jatukarnya I); he composed the
Karshnam Vedam
3) [c. 1200 BCE?] Parasharya III (Krishna Dvaipanaya "Parasharyayana"; pupil of Jatukarnya II)
4) [c. 1000 BCE?] Parasharya IV (Badarayana; pupil of Sankrtya and Bharadvaja); he or his descendant
is the author of the Brahmasutra

                                    Some dated Rishi/Purohit Lists:

Tura Kavasheya - c.1800 BCE
Shandilya - time of Vyasa Parasharya
Vatsya
Veda Vyasa - c.1800 BCE
Vaishampayana
(few generations)
Yajnavalkya (c.1700 BCE?) received YV (and he received RV after Paila) & he had a dispute with
Shakalya

Kushri [c.1800 BCE?]
Upaveshi
...
...
Yajnavalkya [c.1700 BCE?]
Sanjiviputra

Vajashravas - c.1600 BCE
Vajin (Vajasani - father of Vajasaneya Yajnavalkya)
(2-3 generations)
Jatukarna
Krishna Dvaipayana - c.1400 BCE
(7-8 generations)
Parasharyayana - c.1200 BCE



Mon, 06 Mar 2006 15:58:29 +0000

Dear Niraj,

In extracted form this is what I copied:
Veda Vyasa - c.1800 BCE
Vajashravas - c.1600 BCE
Vajin (Vajasani - father of Vajasaneya Yajnavalkya)
(2-3 generations)
Jatukarna
Krishna Dvaipayana - c.1400 BCE
(7-8 generations)
Parasharyayana - c.1200 BCE

Only Vajashravas must be around 1800 BCE as he is close to Tura Kavasheya and Kushri.
The rest seems pretty close and correct in relative terms. (Taking for instance ca. 1800 BCE for Vyasa,
15 x 20 yrs = 300 yrs , ca. 1500 BCE which gives approximately the date of Krshna Dvaipayana and of
the Bharata Battle and submerging of Dvaraka close to that date.)
After Parasharyayana must come Badarayana in Sutra Age.

These dates correspond well with a widely defendable chronology.

One note I must make of the "Yajnavalkya who received the Shukla YV and RV.
They are exactly the same person, and directly under Paila and Vaishampayana. This is not understood
clearly by most scholars. The anchor in this matter is the correct spelling of the different memebers of
the Yajnavalkyas and the account in the Puranas about "vomitting the Yajuses" issue.
step 1: Paila instructed a "Ya(a)jnavalkya" and gave him the RV Samhita, which should be Brahmaraati
Yajnavalka, son of Brahmaraata. (his identity is revealed in BhP, where he is stated to be Shuka himself,
son of Veda Vyasa!) Vaishampayana did instruct a "Ya(a)jnavalkya" and gave him the YV Samhita.
This must be the same Brahmaraati Yajnavalka, son of Shuka.

step 2. Vaajasaneya Yaajnavalkya, son of Vaajasani, is the one who must have concentrated only on the
Yajus and not including the prose sections as being included in the Krshna YV. It is stated in the
Puranas that he gave back or vomitted the YV and "created" his own solely based upon the Yajus. It is
also stated that he instructed the Tittiris or that the Tittiris reluctantly accepted the verses given by
Yaajnavalkya.

step 3. Brahmavaahi Yaajnavalkya had a discussion with Vidagdha Shaakalya.
[Vaajasaneyins of E versus Shaakalya Gaupaayanas of N/NW] as per
Puranas. Perhaps he was the (grand)son of Vaajasaneya. Yaajnavalkya being specialised in both RV and
YV must have had some advantage over Vidagdha who was specialised in RV.

It is clear that the Yaajnavalkyas were specialised in YV (Adhvaryu) and RV
(Hotr). They must have had knowledge of SV and Atharva too, as direct descendants of Veda Vyasa.

Itaraa (Kaatyaayani, a Vaishvaamitrii) was married to Yajnavalka (a Vasishtha). It was this one who had
two wifes. This information is given in
the Shadgurushishya in a Vrtti:
aasid vipro yajnavalko dvibhaaryas-tasya dvitiiyaam itareti caahuh
sa jyeshthaayaakrshtacittah priyam taam-uktvaa dvitiiyaam-itareti hoce.

This verse directly refers to Yajnavalka having two wives and the second of them was Itaraa (Itareti =
Itaraa-iti) As other data confirm that he was married to Maitreyii and Kaatyaayanii, it is but logical that
Itaraa is Kaatyaayanii. (Gotra Yaajnavalkya is included both with vasishthas and vishvamitras, but it
seems that the meaning of this not widely understood. It simply means that due to marital commitments
of the two family members these two Pravaras aren't allowed to marry anymore = a-vaivaahika, at least
not for some 7 generations.)

Thus, we have this sequence:
Yajnavalka-Yajnavalki-Yaajnavalka-Yaajnavalki-Yaajnavalkya-Yaajnavalkya, etc.]




Tue, 07 Mar 2006 17:07:53 +0000

Dear Niraj,

0) Veda Vyasa is roughly of the same generation of Tura.
1) Shuka Brahmaraata, Vaishampaayana, Paila, Jaimini are 1 down, 2) Yajnavalka Brahmaraati x Itaraa
2 down,
3) Yajnavalki, son of previous)
4) Yaajnavalka, son of previous,
5) Yaajnavalki, son of previous,
6) Vaajasani Yaajnavalkya,
7) Shukla Vaajasaneya Yaajnavalkya,
8) Brahmavaaha Yaajnavalkya,
9) Brahmavaahi Yaajnavalkya,
10) etc. any other Yaajnavalkyas

Vyasa Parasharya is some 15 generations before Krshna Dvaipayana Parasharya, this means that all the
generations mentioned above must predate the MBh War.

NOTE: Yaajnavalkya mentioned in ShB must be Vaajasaneya, as both the list members and
Vaajasaneya himself are connected with YV Shakha. Shaakalya of 7) generation must have been
Devamitra in the line of RV Samhita teachers. Our present Samhita (original SamhitapaaTha, thus
without some peculiar and minor Sandhi developments = SandhipaaTha) goes back to this teacher.
An ancient PadapaaTha (Shaakalyas) and KramapaaTha (Panchaalyas) were developed before the
Bharata Battle. These two developed further after the Battle into the present PaaThas, and all three
developed PaaThas are described in the Aitareya AaraNyaka.

Now, Brahmavaahi of the Puranas is the one who had a discussion with Vidagdha Shakalya. I have
placed him, out of convenience in the 8th generation, but I am not sure about this. He must have
preceded the MBh battle at least, as I am not sure at this moment that there were any Janakas after the
Battle. (Philosophies in the UpaniShads were developed while referring to the great names of the past:
Yaajnavalkya said this and that in the court of priest-king Janaka.....)

Bharata Battle date
Actually, I do not know when to place this Battle. My estimate is that it is at least before the Dvaraka
submerging as sheet anchor, as the post-Battle Yadava episodes are connected with this tragic event.
Kulapati Shaunaka and Sauti must have been involved in the re-telling of the stories after these tragic
events, as the previous editors do not mention this.

Sukthankar's Bhrguization process was started, Bhrguizing non-Bhrgu themes and introducing Bhrgu
themes in the Bhaaratam. I would call this the first Bhrguization, called Shaunaka Phase.

Hope this helps,
Satish




>From: Niraj Mohanka <newdharma2100@yahoo.com>
>To: isha shiva <adhin88@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: Ya(a)jnavalk(y)a(i)s :
>Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 11:04:37 -0800 (PST)
>
>Satish,
>
> Is this summary below correct?:
>
>Veda Vyasa - c.1850 BCE
>Vajashravas - c.1800 BCE (close to Tura Kavasheya, Kushri)
>Vajin c. 1700 BCE (Vajasani - father of Vajasaneya Yajnavalkya)
>(2-3 generations)
>Jatukarna - c.1500 BCE
>Krishna Dvaipayana - c.1400 BCE (Satish places this and MBH War at
approx.
>1500 BCE)
>(7-8 generations)
>Parasharyayana - c.1200 BCE (Sutra Age)
>Badarayana - c. 1100 BCE (Sutra Age)
>
>- Paila c. 1825 BCE (Paila instructed a "Ya(a)jnavalkya" and gave him
RV
>Samhita)
>- Vaishampayana c.1800 BCE (taught Yaajnavalkya the YV Samhita)
>- Brahmaraati Yaajnavalkya c. 1775 BCE (student of Paila and
>Vaishampayana); son of Brahmaraata/Shuka c.1800 BCE (who was the son
of
>Veda Vyasa c.1850 BCE)
>- Vaajasaneya Yaajnavalkya (son of Vaajasani); c.1650 BCE
>- Tittiris (students of V. Yaajnavalkya) c.1600 BCE
>- Brahmavaahi Yaajnavalkya c. 1550 BCE (discussion with Vidagdha
Shaakalya)
>[Vaajasaneyins of E versus Shaakalya Gaupaayanas of N/NW] as per
Puranas.
>Perhaps he was the (grand)son of Vaajasaneya. c. 1650 BCE
>
>- Yajnavalka (had 2 wives: Maitreyii and Kaatyaayanii ['Itaara']);
Itaraa
>(Kaatyaayani, a Vaishvaamitrii) was married to Yajnavalka (a
Vasishtha). It
>was this one who had two wifes. This information is given in the
>Shadgurushishya in a Vrtti:
> aasid vipro yajnavalko dvibhaaryas-tasya dvitiiyaam itareti caahuh
> sa jyeshthaayaakrshtacittah priyam taam-uktvaa dvitiiyaam-itareti
hoce.
>(Gotra Yaajnavalkya is included both with vasishthas and vishvamitras,
but
>it seems that the meaning of this not widely understood. It simply
means
>that due to marital commitments of the two family members these two
>Pravaras aren't allowed to marry anymore = a-vaivaahika, at least not
for some 7 generations.)
>
>The names of different Yajnavalkyas becomes clear when you look at the
>evolution/conjugation of their names:
>1) Yajnavalka - c.1900 BCE, had 2 wives
>2) Yajnavalki - c.1875 BCE (who is this?)
>3) Yaajnavalka - c.1850 BCE (who is this?)
>4) Yaajnavalki c.1800 BCE (who is this?)
>5) Brahmaraati Yaajnavalkya - c.1775 BCE (son of Shuka, grandson of
Veda
>Vyasa)
>6) Vaajasaneya Yaajnavalkya - c.1650 BCE
>7) Brahmavaahi Yaajnavalkya - c.1550 BCE
>8) etc. - any other Yaajnavalkyas recorded in Indian history AFTER MBH
>War??
>
Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:09:14 +0000

1) BB Lal's date is connected with PGW. Rao's date is rather making connections with the OCP from ca.
1900 BCE on. Archaeology is on the move, thus this matter is still not settled. remember that the MBh
is a stratified work. The older Kuru core area is rather in Drshadvati-Kurukshetra area than around
Indraprastha. Dvaraka being submerged is not the situation of the Bharata Battle, but is connected with
the downfall of the Yadavas. The oldest Sattra is rather in Drshadvati-Kurukshetra areas.
[It is remarkable that a VayuPurana description of Vaayupura in Kurukshetra really approaches the
Rakhigarhi settlement in number of habitants, etc.]

2) Siradhvaja is earlier. He is not mentioned in the RV, etc., because the easterners were outside the pale
of the Bharatas. The RV is mostly about western Ayava Vedic people. The janakas in the time of
Yaajnavalkya was a descendant of the previous Janakas. The AV, YV and Brahmanas, rather include
knowledge of the east, that is why Videha (cows, etc.) are mentioned in those works.

3) Bhrguization is the process of the dominance of Bhrgu family in preserving Vedic heritage, Shrikant
has also referred to this in his Rigveda:
Vedic Shakhas having been preserved by Bhrgu family, Anukramanis, Nirukta, etc.
Bhrgu themes are the Parashurama, Shaunaka-Ruru-Vitihotra themes, including many Bhrgu stories
unconnected with the main events of the Bharata Battle with that. Some non-Bhrgu stories are even
Bhrguized or made Bhrgu-like, see dr. Dange's studies of BORI.

4) perhaps not always confused, but designated in this way: all the Rshi Gotras, Kauravya, Rushama,
Parikshita while the dynasty is meant, etc. It is more like a style than a confusion. The confusion is
rather with the editors and careless interpreters not following the primary texts exactly.

kind regards,
Satish




>From: Niraj Mohanka <newdharma2100@yahoo.com>
>To: isha shiva <adhin88@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: Ya(a)jnavalk(y)a(i)s :
>Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 11:15:19 -0800 (PST)
>
>Satish,
>
> Once again, this is fantastic stuff.
>
> 1) I now have a clearer idea about relative chronologies, but I
still
>find a MBH War date of 1500 BCE to be a bit too early. What about all
the
>archaeo evidence of Hastinapura, Indraprashta, Ahicchatra, etc. that
point
>to a timeframe between 1000 and 1200 BCE (I think BB Lal may have even
>dated them sooner, between 850 and 1100 BCE)? I thought my 1350 to
1400
>BCE was a reasonable date considering the later evidence on the
eastern
>side, versus the older evidence on the western side (Dvaraka dating of
1200
>to 1800 BCE).
>
> 2) Are you saying this King Janaka is a much later one (than the
>Ramayanic King Siradhvaja Janaka, father of Sita)? and yet sometime
before
>the MBH War? Is this priest-king in the same Janaka/Mithila Dynasty
or in
>a different one?
>
> 3) What is this Bhrguization process you are referring to? what
are
>some examples of 'Bhrgu themes'?
>
> 4) Are there any other people in Indian history that are plural
that
>have been confused into singular (other than Visvamitra, Vasishta,
Vyasa,
>and Yajnavalkya)?
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Niraj




Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:46:18 +0000

Dear Niraj,

We may see some revolutionary developments in the future excavations.
Especially the eastern archaeologists (Tiwari et al) are doing wonderful work, and underlining Shrikant's
(and mine) proposed movements from east-to-west. There were not many scholars who did support this
movement before. Most were obsessed by the SSC as homeland.

1) I had posted some data on Vaayupura on the IndianArchaeology supporting the ones who argue for
Indians having knowledge of SSC cities and town planning. I haven't examined other cities in the same
way. B.t.w. it is possible that Vaayupura is the ancient capital of the pre-Pandava Kurus as centre in
Kuru-KShetra or Kuru land.(first Sattra was held in that area).

3) I believe so, in a relative sense. Imagine the dominance of the ritualistic PuurvaMiimaamsaa of
Jaimini which had hypnotised society: it mainly interpreted the Vedic heritage in terms of precise
ritualistic formulas and its execution, to which the UttaraMiimaamsaa scholars agitated, and also
relatively in the same sphere also Buddha.

I recently read a passage in the VaayuPuraana about the powerful Magadhan King Pramati son of
Candramas (can only be Xandrames, more on this later) that in the words of dr. D.R.Patil "he proceeded
to bring about the destruction of the Bhrgus" or bhrguunaam nidhanotthitah in the work.
This suggests that before the Mauryas, the political and cultural power was with the Bhrgus.

kind regards,
Satish



>From: Niraj Mohanka <newdharma2100@yahoo.com>
>To: isha shiva <adhin88@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: Ya(a)jnavalk(y)a(i)s :
>Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 20:22:15 -0800 (PST)
>
>Satish,
>
>I agree with your previous e-mail that most people have blinders on
and are
>not even open to new knowledge... very sad.
>
>Now onto these questions:
>
>1) Good point about PGW vs. OCP. Most people have a default equation
of
>MBH=PGW when in fact, the early layers of the epic may be closer to
OCP and
>later layers PGW (and perhaps beyond that). So therefore, the epic as
we
>have it today is a literary version compacted into a 50 year timespan
when
>the actual events may have occurred over 200-300 years? (i.e.,
1700-1400
>BCE...). Also, I like your observation about Rakhigarhi and
Vaayupura.
>Are there any other cities mentioned in our literature that we could
map to
>known archaeo sites? (such as Mohenjo Daro, Harappa, Kalibangan,
Kunal,
>Ropar, etc.)
>
>2) OK, makes sense. Siradhvaja during time of Rama is farther back (I
have
>him around 2100 BCE) which is a Vedic timeframe, but once again, being
an
>Easterner, he was living outside the main heartland (Madya-desh;
>Nabha-a-prithviya, ...). The later texts span a larger geographic
area as
>the North-Central Vedic people themselves (Puru-Bharata Dynasty)
spread
>out...
>
>3) So, is this essentially a reflection of the growing political power
of
>the Bhrgu priestly family that they were able to insert their opinion
and
>world-view everywhere? Did their power grow by latching onto the
growing
>military dynasties (Puru-Bharata, etc.)?
>
>4) Yes, makes sense that later interpolaters could get sloppy and
confuse
>family names with individual names. Any specifics that come to mind -
that
>I am missing in my timeline?
>
>Thanks,
>
>- Niraj




Subject: RE: Unravelling the real Bharatiya Itihaasa:

Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 16:20:56 +0000

Dear Niraj,

1) Please tell me where I can find more information about Tiwari and
any
other Eastern (UP and Bihar?) archaeologists?
You can contact Carlos Aramayo, who has contact with Dorian Fuller
working
with Tiwari. His e-mail address is: carlosaramayotigres@yahoo.com or
see the
IndiaArchaeology forum.

4) How do you know that the 'first [Kuru] sattra' ceremony was held in
that
region?
>Vaishampayana recited Veda Vyasa's work (it must be the Vedic Jaya
Samhita)
>during the Sarpa Sattra in Kurukshetra.
As Vyasa Parasharaya was confused with krshna Dvaipayana Vyasa,
auromatically the former's disciple became the one of the last. But
Vaishampayana is not connected with the Bharata Battle, but with the
Parikshit I versus Takshaka War for Kuru-land supremacy (both were
Kauravyas. The Nagas have the Kauravya Gotra).
akshaka is also mentioned in the Atharvaveda Samhita, thus he
definitely
precedes the Bharata Battle of the Pandavas.
I did want to write my PhD thesis on the two Parikshits and how the two
events of the two periods were pushed together, with the intermediate
period
becoming a loose, wavy matter.
As Shrikant is one of the few 9(ncluding me) who believes in an e-to-w
migration from Pracya, I am till now perhaps the only one who promotes
a
separation of events between the two Parikshits.

5) Please tell me more about Magadha King Pramati (son of Chandramas
[Greek:
'Xandrames'])?
>His name is also mentioned in the book of Patil, and also in the
Matsya
>Purana of dr. V.S. Agrawal.
Patil gives the important note that after this Pramati and his dynasty
there
came anarchy in the end.
This is exactly also the Yuga Purana reference made in the Vrddha
Gargiya
Samhita, which coincides with the rise of the Indo-Greeks in the NW,
just
around the time of senapati Pushyamitra Baimbika.

6) Where can I read more about Dr. DR Patil's works on the Bhrgus
[their
downfall]?
>Cultural History from the Vayu Purana, chapter IV by dr. D.R Patil.
Patil
>notes that the VaPur is the only work that makes reference to the
downfall
>of the Bhrgus.



3) From: "adhin88" <adhin88@hotmail.com> Message 2403 of 3188
Date: Fri Oct 21, 2005 8:10 pm
Subject: Re: More on Vastuvidya and ancient Indian town-planning

Rakhigarhi
Rakhigarhi in Haryana, about 150 kilometers from Delhi, dating
between 2800 BC and 3500 BC. The area is an expanse of 224 hectares,
the demographics of this ancient settlement could well exceed the
50,000 number.
Copper fishing hooks found at the site confirm the presence of a
river. A large number of steatite beads and jewellery, belonging to
the early Harappan period, have also been discovered.

The VayuPurana is one of the oldest Puranas. It has some interesting
information on cities or towns and town-building. It would be
interesting to investigate some similarities between the Vayupura
descriptions and Rakhigarhi (type centres).

(material below from: Cultural History from the Vayu Purana, chapter
IV by dr. D.R Patil):
Vayupurana 59.126-127 mentions the holy place Vayupura in
Brahmakshetra (same as Kurukshetra), where are many Dharmashalas
[note: link with the sacrificial spots?].
VaP 59.107 ff: This city was inhabited by 18.000 Dvijas of eleven
Gotras and 36.000 Shudras, total number 54.000. Rudra [note: hint to
eleven Gotras] dwells in the city and it has an image of Vadaditya
[note: most probably for a solar Vadavaditya]. The people of this
Kshetra were named Vadava.
It has 4 Kundas or tanks, named Suryakunda, Brahmakunda, Rudrakunda
and Harikunda. This Kshetra is situated on the banks of the river
Ratnavati [note: having jewels, gems, treasures, precious stones],
which was named Drshadvati in the Kaliyuga. The forest Sunandava is
nearby.
Anjaneya (Hanumant) was born here.
VaP 60.67 ff: Sage Yajnavalkya and his disciples visited Pavanapura
note: [synonym of Vayupura � here we see a link with Pavanakumara
Anjaneya, the Vayuputra] for a bath in the 4 Kundas. The sages merged
themselves in the Suryamandala, and since then the city is regarded
holy.

VaP 8.117-122: The roads in a town or village are given as Rajapatha
or royal street leading to the royal palace. The lanes and by-lanes
are called uparathya [note: verbal root *rath seems to be synonymous
to path = going to, moving to! ]. The lanes leading to the houses are
called grhapathya.
Important in the towns and villages are also the catushpathas or
where four roads meet [note: indicative of . This is the favorite
place of Shiva.
Drainage and gutters are referred to by the words avaskara and
parivaha.
VaP 48.27-29 refers to tall buildings lined in a row or harmya-
prasada-malini.
Va. 8.110-111: A Krtrima or artificial fort-like settlement has a
rampart that runs around it, and its main gate is called the Svastika.

VaP 8.100-107: this section gives the different units of measurements
of distances.
VaP 8.101 refers to experts on the knowledge of measurements.

The VayuPurana further mentions Shalas, Prasadas, Bhavanas, Goshthas,
Sutikagrhas, Shmashanayatana (--> in cremation ground), Sopana
(staircases), Shilatala (pavement?), Torana (gates), Valabhi (roof),
Kuta (projection), Nirvyuha (door, turret), Gavaksha (windows).

Vishvakarman, the son of Tvashtr was the divine (founder) architect
and the shilpi-prajapati, whose son is Maya in VaP 84.16-20. He is
called Tridashaanaam Vaastukrt. But also Shiva is credited with
architecture.

regards,
ishwa
==========
>From: Niraj Mohanka <newdharma2100@yahoo.com>
>To: isha shiva <adhin88@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Unravelling the real Bharatiya Itihaasa:
>Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 08:04:53 -0800 (PST)
>
>Satish,
>
> 1) Please tell me where I can find more information about Tiwari
and any
>other Eastern (UP and Bihar?) archaeologists?
>
> 2) Yes, I think that Shrikant's UP-origin of Vedic Arya seems
logical to
>me (since it is very clearly reflected in the literature) and I'm
surprised
>that more academics don't agree or at least seriously study that.
>
> 3) Please forward me that Vaayupura information (that you posted on
>IndiaArchaeo) - I'd love to read it.
>
> 4) How do you know that the 'first [Kuru] sattra' ceremony was held
in
>that region?
>
> 5) Please tell me more about Magadha King Pramati (son of
Chandramas
>[Greek: 'Xandrames'])?
>
> 6) Where can I read more about Dr. DR Patil's works on the Bhrgus
[their
>downfall]?
>
>Thanks,
>
> - Niraj




Subject: Re: Detailed chronology...
Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:48:23 +0530

Niraj,

The representation of chronology in the current form is user-friendly, no doubt on it. But, I can see a
problems when a new name pops in between. Let me give the case of Janamejaya PArikSita, who is an
ancestor of Kuru clan (as a matter of fact both Janamejaya and Parikshita are ancesotrs with Parikshita
the first as father of Janamejaya the first). I see Janamejaya I soon after Puru in the timeline (the
reference you have given is):
The Empire of Janamejaya and the Early Kurus

This is the region described in the Aitareya Brahmana (AB viii.14). It is of a Janamejaya long before the
Mahabharata War. Its central region is that of the Kurus, Panchalas, Vashas and Ushinaras or a region
from the Ganga in the east to Vitasta (Jhelum) in the west. This central region is somewhat west of that
of Sudas. Its western area probably extended not only to Gandhara but also to additional parts of
Afghanistan like Balkh, the Helmand or Harirud regions. Its northern area is that of the Uttara Kurus
and Uttara Madras, presumably Kashmir, Baltistan, Gilgit and Ladakh and probably beyond into
Western China. Its eastern areas extended into Videha and Anga or into Bihar, while regions of Andhra
Pradesh and Bengal were regarded as beyond its borders (AB vii.18). Its southern or southwestern area,
related to the Satvats or the northern Yadus, would probably extend to Kachchh and Gujarat or all the
Yadu regions, probably including Vidarbha (Maharashtra), which is known in the text.

This earlier Janamejaya is mentioned several times in the Mahabharata (MB Shanti Parva 146; 149).
Bhishma addresses Yudhishthira and mentions an earlier king Janamejaya and his teacher Indrota
Shaunaka.

… Janamejaya's capital is Asandivant, which is probably in the Sarasvati region, with no mention of
Indraprastha or Hastinapura on Yamuna and Ganga…

(Source: The Rig Veda and the History of India, David Frawley, 2000)

This Janamejaya in ABr is referred always as janamejaya pArikSita. His Priest is turah kAvaSeya. In the
chronology Janamejaya I (~3,700 BCE), Parikshita I (~1,825 BCE) and Tura Kavaseya (~1,325 BCE)
are not together (the ABr constraint is voileted). Our analysis may put these people somewhere ~2,100
BCE (about 6-8 generations before Rama) - this is again subjected to the validation with more data.
After such validation we can incorporate these people in the Royal chronology. Again - ABr 7.34
that refers turah kAvaSeya and janamejaya pArikSit; also remembers vasiSTha, sudAs paijvanAya,
somakAya sAhadevyaya san~jaryAy (RV IV.15) - that places somaka and his ancestors sudAs and
divodAs all before Janamejaya I (not later as shown by you).

Also, the proposed Ahilya myth need not be a myth as there are indeed many Gautama in the parampara
of gurus.

So the approach should be whenever a name is added such constraints should be checked; as names of
kings and priests can repeat the chronology may actually be longer than what it is now. With a
hierarchial database such excpetions can be found and removed.

The database should capture Name of the person, Name of Father, Name of Mother, Name of Spouse,
Gotra / Vamsha, Sourse for Gotra / Vamsha; other Details like Aliases, along with the list of
contemporaries preceeding and following generations; it could be fairly complex data and program;
again let us not forget GIGO so the data should be properly validated before entry - and the references
should be correctly entered.

Best regards,
Arvind.

								
To top