Fwd: Indology XI The Dasharajnya War : The War of Ten Kings

January 15, 2009

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Hindu Council UK <webmaster

Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 4:22 PM

Indology XI The Dasharajnya War : The War of Ten Kings

HCUK Network and Associates <members

Cc: For Your Information <fyi

Indology XI

The Dasharajnya War : The War of Ten Kings

[Time Line: Dasharajnya War c.3000bc, Ramayana c.2200bc, Mahabharata c.1500bc]

When asked about the ancient classics of India, most would quickly

reply with The Ramayana and The Mahabharata. Although this answer is

correct, there is an even more ancient story that has been forgotten

by the bulk of Indians and Hindus globally. That ancient story is

called the Dasharajnya or 'War of 10 Kings'. Long before the

Ramayana, there lived a descendent of India's eponymous king, Bharata,

named Sudas. King Sudas was the 16th generation descendant of Emperor

Bharata â€“ whom India is named after. Sudas was the grandson of the

powerful king Divodas Atithigva (who had his empire in the regions of

Punjab and was married to Madhavi) and he was the son of King

Pijavana.

In the Rig Veda, King Sudas is called " Paijavana " (VII.18.21-25), 'Son

of Pijavana'. Pijavana means also (like Yavana), 'one who speeds' or a

fast mover. Yavana is hence here, an adaptation of Javana, and a Vedic

term referring to any great monarch, or peoples that migrated fast

defeating others. Divodas earned fame as a warrior by waging a long

war with the powerful non-Arya King Sambara whom he ultimately

defeated and killed. According to the 8th book of the Rg Veda, " â€¦

King Divodasa destroyed the 99 towns of the Dasa Chief Sambara and

killed Sambara and Varci in the country of Udabraja. The Vedic Rsis

used to ascribe these heroic deeds to the Vedic God Indra by saying

that Indra rent the 99 cities of Sambara for Divodasa and " saved

Divodasa with wonderful means of safety " â€¦ " . Sudas inherited the

kingdom from his grandfather and greatly expanded it. In the process,

he alienated all the neighboring kingdoms surrounding him. After

years of subjugation, a group of roughly a dozen or " ten " ( " dasha " )

kings and chieftans ( " raja; rajnya " ) formed a confederacy to combine

their strength and defeat King Sudas once and for all. In a war that

would span many years with a number of key battles, Sudas was able to

defeat the entire confederacy of kings and emerge victorious. His

priests, Vishvamitra and Vasishtha eulogized him for his remarkable

victory and those words of praise along with details of the war can be

found in the Rg Veda.

Some historians from India have taken a negationist stance to ancient

Indian history and cling to outdated theories such as the AIT (Aryan

Invasion Theory) which highly influences their interpretation of the

Rg Veda â€“ especially as it relates to the Dasharajnya War. These

historians, whether Marxist or simply Western-biased have taken the

150-year old theory about a supposed 'invasion' of India by Aryans

around 1500 BCE as a hard fact and a milestone from which to define

the remainder of Indian history. As a result, the ample evidence of

royal and priestly chronologies in the Vedas that, when correlated

critically with the Puranas, clearly describe a few hundred

generations between the founder of India's recorded civilization,

Vivasvata and his son, Manu Vaivasanta and the generation living

today, must be completely ignored and converted into fantasy. These

historians therefore avoid any views that consider these ancient kings

to have been real and instead interpret them to be fictional. In other

words, according to them, India did not have a succession of kings as

Egypt did, but rather was an unknown mystery before the Buddha and any

mention of kings or priests' names must be considered as mythology

with no underlying historical basis. Given that position, it is

impossible for these 'eminent' historians to even consider that the

royal Indian chronologies when placed in order put Vivasvata at a

timeframe long before 3000 BCE and actually closer to 4000 BCE. It is

a documented historical occurrence that directly conflicts with the

colonial theories of 'White Aryans' conquering 'Black Dravidians' to

create an 'evil caste system' which is responsible for the poverty of

India and which can only be solved with external (read 'colonialist')

intervention. As an example, here is the interpretation of the 10

Kings War by historian Romila Thapar:

" If you read the hymns the plea to the gods Indra, Agni, whosoever it

is, is help us go and attack this 'dasa' village or this 'dasapura',

help us get the cattle of the 'dasa'. It is always the cattle that

they are wanting. There is no question of help us go into battle and

take over a whole territory. It is limited to small areas of attack.

They are mobile pastoralists and the cattle raids and the predatory

raids are surrogate for warfare. There are in fact no great battles or

campaigns. Even the famous battle of ten kings is over the change that

is taking place that is being brought into function over the river

waters of the Ravi. It is not as if there is huge encampment on a

plain and the two armies have got together and are fighting each

other. None of that. It is something i.e. very much localized and

controlled. " http://www.indoaryans.org/romila-thapar-aryans.html

In fact, many historians claim that this war can only be interpreted

as a skirmish over cows and not a kingdom!

It is important to note that the Sanskrit word 'Arya' (English:

'Aryan') has no racial connotation in the Vedas and is a term

originally used to identify the members of the Puru-Bharata Dynasty.

Over many centuries, this term gained a broader acceptance as a

description of any royal dynasty, then eventually came to be used to

describe anyone 'civilized' (in opposition to those still leading an

unrefined, non-Vedic or even anti-Vedic existence in mountains or

jungles who would be referred to as 'dasa', 'dasyu', 'mleccha' and/or

'rakshasa').

The interpretation of the significance of the Dasharajnya from the

late award-winning historian, P.L. Bhargava however is quite

different. Based on his research reading hundreds of texts in original

Sanskrit:

" Sudas is regarded by the Rigveda as a Bharata king of the Trtsu

dynasty. The Puranas elucidate the statements of the Rigveda. â€¦ As

Visvamitra himself informs us, under his guidance, Sudas won many

victories in the east, west and north of his kingdom. â€¦ The greatest

achievement of Sudas was his thumping victory of a confederacy of ten

kings. â€¦ is described â€¦ in hymn 18 of the seventh book of the Rigveda.

The information is supplemented by three other hymns, viz. nos. 19, 33

and 83. From these hymns it appears that the old hostility between

the Bhrgus and the Haihayas played an important part in deciding the

affiliations in this battle. The Bhrgus are clearly mentioned in verse

6 of hymn 18, as fighting on the side of the enemies of Sudas. On the

other hand, Vitahavya, the great-grandson of the Haihaya king

Sahasrabahu, is mentioned in verse 3 of hymn 19, as having been

protected by god Indra along with Sudas, which seems to imply that he

was an ally of Sudas. â€¦ Sudas was one of the greatest kings of the

Rigvedic age. â€¦ In recognition of this, he was, like Bharata,

consecrated by his priest Vasistha with the Aindra Mahabhiseka,

signifying universal sovereignty. "

http://www.amazon.com/Founders-Indias-Civilization-Lives-Pre-Buddha/dp/089581903\

1

The Dasharajnya War or " war of 10 kings " was a turning point in the

history of India because it firmly re-established the dominance of the

Puru-Bharata Dynasty over smaller royal dynasties and tribal chieftans

over the Sapta-Sindhu region going west towards present-day

Afghanistan/Persia and east towards Uttar Pradesh. This Puru-Bharata

Dynasty provided the continuity of leadership which is documented in

the ancient scriptures of Sanathana Dharma (Hinduism) â€“ particularly

the Rigveda. The fact that this great story, which I believe must be

raised to the standard of 'epic' in all fairness, is relatively

unknown and forgotten is surprising and raises questions. When did

this war occur? Where did this all happen? Why is it important and why

should it be raised to the level of India's two existing epics, namely

the Ramayana and the Mahabharata?

Dating the Dasharajnya War

Given that we have existing archaeological data to approximate the

timeframe of the Buddha and before him the Mahabharata War, it would

be helpful to determine a realistic timeframe for the Dasharajnya War

in order to provide yet another milestone in the long continuum of

Indian history. Since the Dasharajnya itself presupposes a lineage of

kings before Sudas going back approximately one thousand years to

Vivasvata, any milestone we agree upon for this war helps put Indian

history in a chronological framework.

In his excellent book, The Myth of the Aryan Invasion, Vamadeva

Shastra (David Frawley) dates the Dasharajnya War to 3700 BCE

(http://www.indiastar.com/ancient.htm) and comments on its historical

importance:

" Referring to the famous Battle of the Ten Kings in the Rig Veda, 3700

B.C., Frawley writes: " The Vedic war is a question of values, not

race. It is a conflict between spiritual values and materialistic

values, which occurs in all societies. Sometimes arya people become

un-arya by a change in values, as indicated in the battle of

Sudas....Even names of famous Vedic kings, such as Sudas and Devadasa

have the ending of das or dasa meaning 'servant'. " Sudas ruled the

land of Sapta Sindhu, centered around the mighty Sarasvati river,

which flowed from the Himalayas to the Rann of Kutch. After the Battle

of the Ten Kings, many Indians migrated westwards into Iran and

beyond. "

In the books by historian P.L. Bhargava however, he arrives at a

different date for this war. He takes the 3100 BCE date popularly

used as the beginning of this Kali Yuga (Dark Age) as the beginning of

the royal dynasties of India starting with Vivasvata. He uses a regnal

period of between 16 and 17 years from Vivasvata, who lived 40

generations before Sudas to arrive at approximately 2350 BCE as the

timeframe of the Dasharajnya War.

Based on my research however, I have found that a regnal period of 16

or 17 years is too brief. Given that kingship was generally

transferred from father to eldest son after the son has completed

education and perhaps some real martial experience (i.e., real war), a

regnal period would more likely be between 20 and 30 years â€“ with an

average at 25 years. A study of most ancient civilizations shows this

to be a very reasonable estimate. Therefore, I have estimated that

the Dasharajnya War most like occurred around 2900 BCE based on

aligning Puranic Kings' lists along with known archaeological evidence

(please refer to the Royal Chronology of India,

http://www.indiahistoryonline.com/chron.html). A dating of 2900 BCE

is not as distant as Vamadeva Shastra's estimate of 3700 BCE nor as

recent as P.L. Bhargava's estimate of 2350 BCE, and actually falls

about in between these two dates. In addition, my discussions with

historian and author Shrikant Talageri, confirm that this timeframe is

reasonably supported by the evidence within the Rigveda and other

literature.

Details of the Dasharajna War

The list of confederate kings and chieftans involved in this war is

actually slightly over ten, but was referred to roughly as 'dasha'

(ten) as a shorthand in the Rg Veda.

1. Puru

2. Yadu

3. Turvasa

4. Anu

5. Druhyu

6. Alina

7. Paktha ('Pathan'; 'Pashthun')

8. Bhalinas

9. Siva

10. Visanin

11. Simyu

12. Vaikarna

13. othersâ€¦

The war comprised AT LEAST two notable battles:

Parushni River Battle (western border of Bharata kingdom) first main

battle of war

Yamuna River Battle (eastern border of Bharata kingdom) after the war

was supposedly done, Sudas was attacked on the east by King Bheda (and

his Ajas, Sigrus and Yaksus) while Sudas was occupied on the Parusni.

Sudas defeated them too. 12,000 warriors were killed from the Druhyus

and Anu Kings alone (supposedly a total of 66,666 soldiers fought).

This group of 10 may have been led by King Chayamana (of Abhivarta -

present Iran). Sudas took over the main area on the Saraswati and

North, East and West of it. South of it was controlled by non-Arya

kingdoms of Krkata and Pramaganda.

Interesting notes about the Dasharajnya War:

Dasharajnya War mentioned in RV 7,18; 7, 83; and 1-8. This great

battle was fought on the Parushni River (Ravi River) with Bharata King

Sudas defeating a confederacy of 10+ kings (Anu & Druhyu Kings and

over 10 other tribal chieftans and kings). (Source: 'Ancient Indian

Historiography: Sources and Interpretations', G.P. Singh, 2003)

Rg Vedic hymn (III. 53.14) mentions Kikata and its King Pramaganda.

The reference is to Sudas's battle with the Kikatas and their King

Pramagandha (whose name is connected by many scholars with the word

Magadha = Pra-Magandha). Indian tradition is very unanimous in

identifying Kikata with Magadha (e.g. Bhagvata Purana I.3.24 and Vayu

Purana 108.73-74. Nirukta merely says 'anarya janapada' and the word

does not occur in the other Samhitas). This clinches the origin of

the Bharatas in Uttar Pradesh: the expansion of the Bharatas under

SudAs took place in two directions, eastwards into Bihar, and

westwards across the SarasvatI into the Punjab. Clearly, only a

homeland in the area between KASI and KurukSetra fits into this

picture.

Emperor Chayamana on the Sarasvati River: Even on the political and

administrative fronts, the Vedic people were highly organised. Not

only did they have sabhas and samitis which dealt with legislative and

perhaps judiciary matters, but they also had a well-established

hierarchy amongst the rulers, viz. samrat, rajan and rajaka. Thus, in

RV 6.27.8 Abhyavarti Chayamana is stated to be a Samrat. (Soverign),

while RV 8.21.8 states that, dwelling beside the Sarasvati river,

Chitra alone is the Rajan (king) while the rest are mere Rajakas

(kinglings or petty chieftains). That these gradations were absolutely

real is duly confirmed by the Satapatha Brahmana (V.1.1.12-13), which

says: 'By offering the Rajasuya he becomes Raja and by the Vajapeya he

becomes Samrat, and the office of the Rajan is lower and that of the

Samraj, the higher (raja vai rajasuyenestva bhavati, samrat vajapeyena

l avaram hi rajyam param samrajyam). (Source:

http://www.geocities.com/ifihhome/articles/bbl002.html)

AbhyAvartin CAyamAna is an Anu king, and he clearly appears as a hero

in VI.27. However, it is equally clear that this is only because he is

an ally of the Bharata king SRnjaya: his descendant Kavi CAyamAna who

appears (though not in Griffith's translation) in VII.18.9 as an enemy

of the Bharata king SudAs, is referred to in hostile terms. In RV

VII.18.8, he was killed while fleeing from battle. He was an enemy of

Sudas and son of Cayamana. He was probably brother of Abhyavartin

Cayamana who is mentioned as the conqueror of the Vrcicantas under the

leadership of Varasikha (RV VII.27.5,8). (Source: The Vishvamitras

and the Vasisthas, Umesh Chandra Sharma, Viveka Publications, 1975).

Sudas was well known for having two sage advisors, Vasishtha and

Visvamitra. He was an author of Hymn 133 of the 10th book of the Rg

Veda in addition to being a great warrior and king. He gave much to

his priest, Vashistha (200 cows, 2 chariots, 4 horses with gold

trappings,...).

Sudas and Bheda: King Sudas also fought with the non-Aryan King Bheda

who led 3 tribes (Ajas, Sigrus, Yaksus) against Sudas. King Sudas

beat them all at a battle on the Yamuna River.

All enemies of Sudas were defeated, thousands were killed, several

drowned and swept away by the mighty rivers and the remaining fled

away. Sudas' armies marched in all directions except the South. He

emerged victorious and several gifts were presented to him by the

defeated enemy. It was really a great historical event. (Source: The

Vishvamitras and the Vasisthas, Umesh Chandra Sharma, Viveka

Publications, 1975)

Location of the Dasharajnya War

Historian P.L. Bhargava created the following map in his book, 'India

in the Vedic Age' in order to show the areas described in the Rg Veda:

King Sudas, being the heir to the Puru-Bharata Dynasty, had his

kingdom centered in the southeastern region of the Sapta-Sindhu with

his capital most likely directly upon the Sarasvati River. Even

though this river dried up around 1900 BCE (due to tectonic activity:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6087426/Saraswati-in-Hindu-Civilizational-History-and-\

Culture),

many archaeological ruins of cities along this river-bed exist

(http://micheldanino.voiceofdharma.com/indus.html). It is very

possible that one of the larger archeological ruins may be the remains

of what was once his capital city. The correlation of ancient

scripture and literature with archaeology has been successfully

accomplished in the Middle East (Biblical Archaeology:

http://www.bib-arch.org), but much remains to be done as far as 'Vedic

Archaeology' goes

(http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/scientific-verif-vedas.html).

Some additional geographical detail can be gathered from the work of

historian, U.C. Sharma:

Vedic texts like Shatapatha and Aitareya Brahmanas list a group of ten

to sixteen kings, including a number of figures of the Rig Veda like

Sudas, as having conquered the region of India from " sea to sea. "

Lands of the Vedic people are mentioned in these texts from Gandhara

(Afghanistan) in the west to Videha (Bihar) in the east, and south to

Vidarbha (Maharashtra), as well as from the western to the eastern

oceans.

Sudas's capital city was on the Sarasvati River. His queen was named Sudevi.

The battle of the ten kings was led against the Turvashas (one of the

five vedic people of the RV), the Bhrigus (a family of Vedic seers

related to the Angirasas), the Druhyus (one of the five vedic

peoples), the Kavashas (a family of Rishis), the Anus (Vedic) (one of

the five Vedic peoples) and others (e.g. RV. 7.18.6; 5.13.14;

7.18.12). Rig Veda 7.83.1-6 tells that Sudas defeated both Aryas and

Dasyus.

Part of this battle is also fought on the Parusni river, which

according to Yaska (nirukta 9.26) refers to the Iravati river (Ravi

River) in the Punjab. When Sudas was conquering all around him (with

Vishvamitra as his purohit), he conquered to the east, west and north

(but not south). Apparently, there was not major kingdom to conquer

to the south and/or no land worthy of conquering south (present-day

Rajasthan).

The last battle was fought on the banks of the Parushni, where the

armies of 10+ kings were defeated. There seems to be an earlier

battle against Bheda, the Ajas, the Sigrus, and the Yaksus, where many

horses were offered as tribute to the conqueror. Indra made even the

vast flowing waters (of the Parusni) shallow and easily fordable to

Sudas; he who is fit to be lauded by our hymn, has made the arrogant

Simyu and his imprecations the floating dirt (on the surface) of the

rivers.

(Source: The Vishvamitras and the Vasisthas, Umesh Chandra Sharma,

Viveka Publications, 1975)

Why the Dasharajnya deserves to become India's Third Epic

The first of the three major Ithihaasas (historical Epics) of India

was the Dasharajnya War (War of 10 Kings). The other two were

obviously the Ramayana and the Mahabharata - which occurred later in

Indian history. The Dasarajnya War was a Vedic Epic, the Ramayana is

mentioned at the end of the Vedas and the Mahabharata Epic is

post-Vedic. Unfortunately, the Dasharajnya War was never eulogized

and remembered by bards and wandering poets in the manner that the

other two epics were and thus most Indians are not aware of this very

important historical event.

It is my strong opinion that the Dasharajnya War should be elevated to

its proper status â€“ that of the first Ithihaasa of India. When viewed

together, the three Ithihaasas show the transition of history in India

very clearly. The Dasharajnya shows the consolidation of power in

North-Central India with the Puru-Bharata Dynasty, its impact on India

and surrounding nations (notably Persia) and its consequent reflection

in the consolidation of religious knowledge in the Rg Veda. This in

turn would help bring about a new interest in the study of the Vedas

not only as scripture, but also as an encyclopedia of ancient, Vedic

India. The Ramayana shows the expansion of royal power beyond the

Ganga River region into the full breadth of the Indian Peninsula and

beyond into the island of Lanka â€“ at a time when most areas were still

tribal and not yet part of organized kingdoms. The Mahabharata shows

a Bharatiya civilization integrated from all four cardinal directions

with interdependencies among kingdoms strong enough to result in one

inter-kingdom conflict boiling over into the first major civil war of

India.

In the manner of the Ramayana and Mahabharata and to have all three of

these epics officially recognized as the 3 Ithihaasas of Sanathana

Dharma and India, a newly written Dasharajnya Epic can then become

part of the vast source material for a newer, more logical view of

Indian history and an important component in studying the historical

evolution of Sanathana Dharma (Hinduism).

Conclusion

The Dasharajnya War was a key event in India's history and its

protagonist, King Sudas, an exemplary figure. We do a great disservice

to India and Dharma by ignoring his legacy. By remembering this event

and by raising it up to the status of India's first epic in a trilogy

of epics, we not only pay respect to our ancestor, but we develop a

clearer understanding of India's history and the amazing twists and

turns of events that all tie together to create a civilization that

would continue many millennia after that epic war.

Niraj Mohanka

Indologist

Note : Hindu Council UK (HCUK) is the foremost and largest national

network of the Hindu temple bodies and cultural organisations

co-ordinating all different schools of Hindu theology within the UK.

HCUK is the representative umbrella body for the British Hindu issues

for which a UK wide mandate was received during a two year

consultation with the British Hindu public culminating in its launch

in November 1994.

HCUK Admin Office:Boardman House, 64 The Broadway, London E15 1NG.

T: 020 8432 0400 W: www.hinducounciluk.org F: 020 8432

0393

January 16, 2009

Unfortunately, no archaeological findings exist of any wars mentioned

in the Rig Veda, Ramayana, Mahabharata. This might well be because the

Rig Vedic wars occurred around rivers, whose courses have changed--and

even disappeared--drowning evidence. But for Kurukshetra it should even

now be possible if proper excavations are undertaken here and in the

Purana Quila area which is said to be ancient Indraprastha. Nothing has

been done after BB Lal's digs in the 1950s.

Regarding possible dates, we need to work back from the date of the MBH

war that V.Gopala Aiyer established quite conclusively in the opinion

of Sri Aurobindo, which can be seen at www.boloji.com/history/043.htm

In this effort, the outstanding research by K.D.Sethna should be

studied, " Ancient India in a New Light " (Aditya Prakashan)

and " Problems of Aryan Origins " (Aditya).

January 16, 2009

Not quite true. There may be evidences which we may consider as Myth (Mythological). Untangling myth from history and establishing may be the key. We ALL must carry on the search seriously. The damage done in the last 2 decades because of rapid urbanization without a thought is formidable. With the awakening of more people for the cause is welcome. Huge doses of humility is needed.

à¤—à¥à¤°à¥à¤¨à¤¥ Mantra: " Sri Ram Jaya Ram Jaya Jaya Ram " War was considered important because it ultimately ended all problems and restored peace.

January 17, 2009

Sri Aurovinda is a great thinker. However his agreeing to V.Gopala Aiyer's date of the Mahabharata war was definitely a mistake.

--- On Fri, 1/16/09, Pradip Bhattacharya <kanakpradip wrote:

Pradip Bhattacharya <kanakpradip Re: Fwd: Indology XI The Dasharajnya War : The War of Ten Kings Date: Friday, January 16, 2009, 12:42 AM

Unfortunately, no archaeological findings exist of any wars mentioned in the Rig Veda, Ramayana, Mahabharata. This might well be because the Rig Vedic wars occurred around rivers, whose courses have changed--and even disappeared- -drowning evidence. But for Kurukshetra it should even now be possible if proper excavations are undertaken here and in the Purana Quila area which is said to be ancient Indraprastha. Nothing has been done after BB Lal's digs in the 1950s.Regarding possible dates, we need to work back from the date of the MBH war that V.Gopala Aiyer established quite conclusively in the opinion of Sri Aurobindo, which can be seen at www.boloji.com/ history/043. htmIn this effort, the outstanding research by K.D.Sethna should be studied, "Ancient India in a New Light" (Aditya Prakashan) and "Problems of Aryan Origins" (Aditya).

January 18, 2009

Sunilji,Latest astronomical proof puts the time of Mahabharatha war much earlier to 3067 B.C. i.e. over 5000 year ago! Prof. Narahari Achar's painstaking study has these main features.

Krsna leaves for Hastinaapura on the day of the Revati naksatra in the month Kaumuda (=Kaartika, ie Oct-Nov) and arrives there on the day of Bharan-i (81, 6ff); on the day of Pusya

Duryodhana rejects all offers of peace; Krsna departs on the day of uttara phaalguni and says to Karn-a that the amaavaasyaa (day of the New Moon) will come after 7 days, then Karn-adescribes the positions of some planets at that time (141, 7-10).

All these data converge in agreement with Achar¢s sky formation only in the year 3067.

Whatever other data are contained in the MB and whatever other dates

are suggested thereby, the passages with the astronomical facts for the

year 3067 remain unaffected.

The ancient Indian tradition of the Puraan-as and astronomers was fairly correct in placing the onset of the Kali Yuga at 3102 and the Bharata war 35 years earlier: the disparity is only 70 years (Kazanas 2002).

The medieval Kashmiri historian Kalhana (and his tradition), of course, seems to have been quite right in setting the previous cycle at 3067 (Elst 1999:104).

Here however we must take into account that people begin to create

tales and poetic cycles in fixed forms 2 or 3 generations after the

event they celebrate when the actors have departed from the stage.

So 3067 is a good date for the origin of the core of the MBh.

It is the date when the sons and grandsons of the warriors began to

recite/sing in established forms the deeds of their ancestors.--- On Fri, 1/16/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjyaRe: Re: Fwd: Indology XI The Dasharajnya War : The War of Ten Kings Date: Friday, January 16, 2009, 10:46 PM

Sri Aurovinda is a great thinker. However his agreeing to V.Gopala Aiyer's date of the Mahabharata war was definitely a mistake.

--- On Fri, 1/16/09, Pradip Bhattacharya <kanakpradip@ > wrote:

Pradip Bhattacharya <kanakpradip@ > Re: Fwd: Indology XI The Dasharajnya War : The War of Ten KingsFriday, January 16, 2009, 12:42 AM

Unfortunately, no archaeological findings exist of any wars mentioned in the Rig Veda, Ramayana, Mahabharata. This might well be because the Rig Vedic wars occurred around rivers, whose courses have changed--and even disappeared- -drowning evidence. But for Kurukshetra it should even now be possible if proper excavations are undertaken here and in the Purana Quila area which is said to be ancient Indraprastha. Nothing has been done after BB Lal's digs in the 1950s.Regarding possible dates, we need to work back from the date of the MBH war that V.Gopala Aiyer established quite conclusively in the opinion of Sri Aurobindo, which can be seen at www.boloji.com/ history/043. htmIn this effort, the outstanding research by K.D.Sethna should be studied, "Ancient India in a New Light" (Aditya Prakashan) and "Problems of Aryan Origins"

(Aditya).

January 18, 2009

Dear Kanchi Kamakotiji,

I fully agree with the date of Kanishka and of Lord Buddha arrived at by Dr. Narahari Acharji through his astronomical studies. My studies based on the historical records such as the Dotted record, Rajatarangini, Alberuni's account and Megasthenes's account do support these dates.

However I cannot agree with the year of the Mahabharata war arrived at by him for several reasons. So let us agree to disagree.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Sat, 1/17/09, Kanchi Kamakoti <Hindu1010 wrote:

Kanchi Kamakoti <Hindu1010Re: Re: Fwd: Indology XI The Dasharajnya War : The War of Ten Kings Date: Saturday, January 17, 2009, 7:20 PM

Sunilji,Latest astronomical proof puts the time of Mahabharatha war much earlier to 3067 B.C. i.e. over 5000 year ago! Prof. Narahari Achar's painstaking study has these main features.

Krsna leaves for Hastinaapura on the day of the Revati naksatra in the month Kaumuda (=Kaartika, ie Oct-Nov) and arrives there on the day of Bharan-i (81, 6ff); on the day of Pusya

Duryodhana rejects all offers of peace; Krsna departs on the day of uttara phaalguni and says to Karn-a that the amaavaasyaa (day of the New Moon) will come after 7 days, then Karn-adescribes the positions of some planets at that time (141, 7-10).

All these data converge in agreement with Achar¢s sky formation only in the year 3067.

Whatever other data are contained in the MB and whatever other dates are suggested thereby, the passages with the astronomical facts for the year 3067 remain unaffected.

The ancient Indian tradition of the Puraan-as and astronomers was fairly correct in placing the onset of the Kali Yuga at 3102 and the Bharata war 35 years earlier: the disparity is only 70 years (Kazanas 2002).

The medieval Kashmiri historian Kalhana (and his tradition), of course, seems to have been quite right in setting the previous cycle at 3067 (Elst 1999:104).

Here however we must take into account that people begin to create tales and poetic cycles in fixed forms 2 or 3 generations after the event they celebrate when the actors have departed from the stage.

So 3067 is a good date for the origin of the core of the MBh.

It is the date when the sons and grandsons of the warriors began to recite/sing in established forms the deeds of their ancestors.--- On Fri, 1/16/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @> wrote:

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya @>Re: Re: Fwd: Indology XI The Dasharajnya War : The War of Ten KingsFriday, January 16, 2009, 10:46 PM

Sri Aurovinda is a great thinker. However his agreeing to V.Gopala Aiyer's date of the Mahabharata war was definitely a mistake.

--- On Fri, 1/16/09, Pradip Bhattacharya <kanakpradip@ > wrote:

Pradip Bhattacharya <kanakpradip@ > Re: Fwd: Indology XI The Dasharajnya War : The War of Ten KingsFriday, January 16, 2009, 12:42 AM

Unfortunately, no archaeological findings exist of any wars mentioned in the Rig Veda, Ramayana, Mahabharata. This might well be because the Rig Vedic wars occurred around rivers, whose courses have changed--and even disappeared- -drowning evidence. But for Kurukshetra it should even now be possible if proper excavations are undertaken here and in the Purana Quila area which is said to be ancient Indraprastha. Nothing has been done after BB Lal's digs in the 1950s.Regarding possible dates, we need to work back from the date of the MBH war that V.Gopala Aiyer established quite conclusively in the opinion of Sri Aurobindo, which can be seen at www.boloji.com/ history/043. htmIn this effort, the outstanding research by K.D.Sethna should be studied, "Ancient India in a New Light" (Aditya Prakashan) and "Problems of Aryan Origins"

(Aditya).

January 18, 2009

There is Marathi book " DASHARADNYA YUDDHA " published decades ago which I found very interesting. I do not remember the name of the very eruedite author. I will look up for the book in my collection and report later.

In brief the book describes the united front of the 10 Indian Kings united under VASHSHTHHA and their war against the Persian invader ZARATUSHTRA. The 10 Kings Front of the Indian kings defeated Zaratushtra on the banks of a river in the present Punjab, probably VITASTA and stopped occcupatipn of Indian lands by a foreigner.

According to the author this war is described in the Vedas.

The war is supposed to be the culmination of the enmity between Vashishthha and Zaratushtra.

Our friend Mr.Jespal Brar may be in a position to throw more light on this.

Bhalchandra G. Thattey

On 1/18/09, Kanchi Kamakoti <Hindu1010 wrote:

Sunilji,Latest astronomical proof puts the time of Mahabharatha war much earlier to 3067 B.C. i.e. over 5000 year ago! Prof. Narahari Achar's painstaking study has these main features.

Krsna leaves for Hastinaapura on the day of the Revati naksatra in the month Kaumuda (=Kaartika, ie Oct-Nov) and arrives there on the day of Bharan-i (81, 6ff); on the day of Pusya

Duryodhana rejects all offers of peace; Krsna departs on the day of uttara phaalguni and says to Karn-a that the amaavaasyaa (day of the New Moon) will come after 7 days, then Karn-adescribes the positions of some planets at that time (141, 7-10).

All these data converge in agreement with Achar's sky formation only in the year 3067.

Whatever other data are contained in the MB and whatever other dates are suggested thereby, the passages with the astronomical facts for the year 3067 remain unaffected.

The ancient Indian tradition of the Puraan-as and astronomers was fairly correct in placing the onset of the Kali Yuga at 3102 and the Bharata war 35 years earlier: the disparity is only 70 years (Kazanas 2002).

The medieval Kashmiri historian Kalhana (and his tradition), of course, seems to have been quite right in setting the previous cycle at 3067 (Elst 1999:104).

Here however we must take into account that people begin to create tales and poetic cycles in fixed forms 2 or 3 generations after the event they celebrate when the actors have departed from the stage.

So 3067 is a good date for the origin of the core of the MBh.

It is the date when the sons and grandsons of the warriors began to recite/sing in established forms the deeds of their ancestors.--- On Fri, 1/16/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya

Re: Re: Fwd: Indology XI The Dasharajnya War : The War of Ten Kings

Friday, January 16, 2009, 10:46 PM

Sri Aurovinda is a great thinker. However his agreeing to V.Gopala Aiyer's date of the Mahabharata war was definitely a mistake.

--- On Fri, 1/16/09, Pradip Bhattacharya <kanakpradip@ > wrote:

Pradip Bhattacharya <kanakpradip@ >

Re: Fwd: Indology XI The Dasharajnya War : The War of Ten KingsFriday, January 16, 2009, 12:42 AM

Unfortunately, no archaeological findings exist of any wars mentioned in the Rig Veda, Ramayana, Mahabharata. This might well be because the Rig Vedic wars occurred around rivers, whose courses have changed--and

even disappeared- -drowning evidence. But for Kurukshetra it should even now be possible if proper excavations are undertaken here and in the Purana Quila area which is said to be ancient Indraprastha. Nothing has

been done after BB Lal's digs in the 1950s.Regarding possible dates, we need to work back from the date of the MBH war that V.Gopala Aiyer established quite conclusively in the opinion of Sri Aurobindo, which can be seen at www.boloji.com/ history/043. htm

In this effort, the outstanding research by K.D.Sethna should be studied, " Ancient India in a New Light " (Aditya Prakashan) and " Problems of Aryan Origins " (Aditya).

-- Bhalchandra G. Thattey

Shubham BhavatuSvalpasya Yogasya Trayate Mahato Bhayat

January 18, 2009

Dear Sri Bhattacharjyaji,On Megasthanese you might want to read:http://janamejayan.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/defalsify-indias-history-as-a-first-step-in-national-renaissance/regards,--- On Sat, 1/17/09, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjyaRe: Re: Fwd: Indology XI The Dasharajnya War : The War of Ten Kings Date: Saturday, January 17, 2009, 9:01 PM

Dear Kanchi Kamakotiji,

I fully agree with the date of Kanishka and of Lord Buddha arrived at by Dr. Narahari Acharji through his astronomical studies. My studies based on the historical records such as the Dotted record, Rajatarangini, Alberuni's account and Megasthenes' s account do support these dates.

However I cannot agree with the year of the Mahabharata war arrived at by him for several reasons. So let us agree to disagree.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Sat, 1/17/09, Kanchi Kamakoti <Hindu1010 (AT) grouply (DOT) com> wrote:

Kanchi Kamakoti <Hindu1010 (AT) grouply (DOT) com>Re: Re: Fwd: Indology XI The Dasharajnya War : The War of Ten KingsSaturday, January 17, 2009, 7:20 PM