आचार्य चतुरसेन शास्त्री की पुस्तक "वैदिक संस्कृति पर आसुरी प्रभाव " से कुछ उद्धरण - --- ( खंड XII )
-- कृष्ण कौन हैं---
(प्र० सं ०176 - 181 ) कृष्ण : कृष्ण कौन हैं ,उनका कुल वंश ,जाति,देश, राज्य आज तक ठीक ठीक पता नहीं लग पाया है । साथ ही कंस के मथुरा राज्य का भी कोई ऐतिहासिक आधार प्राप्त नहीं है । कनिंघम ने जो मथुरा की खुदायी कराई थी , उसमें "कंस का टीला " नाम का विख्यात ढूह एक बौध विहार स्तूप प्रमाणित हुआ । पुराणों में मथुरा , इन्द्रप्रष्थ और हस्तिनापुर के तीन चक्रवर्ती राज्य वर्णित हैं । ……..इन्द्रप्रस्थ से हस्तिनापुर ६० मील और मथुरा ८० मील है । मथुरा से गोकुल और वृन्दावन ४-५ मील है ।ऐसी दशा में इन तीन प्रदेशों में तीन चक्रवर्ती महाराज्य कैसे ? और वे चक्रवर्ती भी कैसे ? " आसमुद्र क्षितीश " ?……कंस प्रेरित अक्रूर कृष्ण को गोकुल से मथुरा ले जाने को वायुवेगी (?) रथ पर चढ़कर मथुरा से चले तो प्रातः काल से चलकर संध्याकाळ में पहुंचे ?…….यह एक चमत्कारिक बात है की कृष्ण एक बार मथुरा आकर फिर गोकुल गए ही नहीं ? …… महाभारत से प्रतीत होता है की शिशुपाल ,दु:शासन आदि दस -दस सहस्री राजा हुए हैं ? पूर्वोक्त महाराज्यों की स्थापना स्पष्ट ही कोरी कल्पना प्रतीत होती है । इस बात का भी कोई ऐतिहासिक आधार प्राप्त नहीं है की कृष्ण पांडवों के समसामयिक थे ।महाभारत में ही एकमात्र उल्लेख है । फिर महाभारत में कंस और कौरवों का कोई सम्बन्ध नहीं दिखाया गया है

पौराणिक राजवंश और कृष्ण-यदुवंश की माथुर शाखा में , वैवश्वत मनु की पुत्री इला और पुरुवंश की संतानों मे ५२ वीं पीढ़ी में 'आहुक " नाम के एक राजा हुए हैं । उनके समसामयिक एक राजा देवमीढस कहीं थे ,जो पूर्वोक्त(यदुवंश की माथुर शाखा के ) वंश वृत्त के( ४६वीं पीढ़ी के) राजा वृष्णि से भिन्न किसी अन्य वृष्णि वंश के थे । उन्हीं के वंश में चौथी पीढ़ी में कंस का नाम है ।
शूरसेन जनपद:-मथुरा के चरों और का इलाका उन दिनों शूरसेन जनपद कहाता था ।{जिसमें पांच स्थल ,१२ वन, मथुरा और एक और पुर Kleisobra थे (टालमी का भारत-प्र १८ ) } {(यदुवंश ,माथुर शाखा की पूरी सूचि देखने पर वैवश्वत मनु से ५२ पीढ़ी में "अहूक" के पुत्र उग्रसेन ,उनके पुत्र कंस (५४वी पीढ़ी) तथा आहुक के दुसरे पुत्र देवक , पुत्री देवकी और उनके पुत्र कृष्ण का नाम आता है, जबकि ४४ वीं पीढ़ी में वृष्णि का नाम आता है , और वृष्णि की शाखा में कृष्ण ,कंस ,देवकी इत्यादि का नाम कहीं नहीं है ( देखिये पृष्ठ १७७ - १८0 ) } (प्र० सं ०180 - 181 ) राम के काल में ही शत्रुघ्न ने मथुरा के शासक लवणासुर को मारकर मथुरा पर अधिकार कर लिया था । बाद में भीम सात्वत ने शत्रुघ्न वंशियों से मथुरा छीन ली थी । भीम सात्वत ( यदुवंश , माथुर शाखा की ४३ वीं पीढ़ी ) राम से एक -दो पीढ़ी बाद के ही पुरुष हैं । तब से मथुरा पर सात्वत वंश का ही राज्य रहा । कंस उन्हीं के वंश का था ।…………. कृष्ण को गीता में वार्ष्णेय कहा गया है ।परन्तु आप देखते हैं कि यादवों के वृष्णि वंश में कृष्ण नहीं हैं । प्रधान सीतानाथ एक दुसरे वृष्णि वंश का पुश्तनामा देते हैं( जिसमें तीसरी पीढ़ी में वासुदेव और फिर उनके पुत्र कृष्ण कृष्ण का नाम देवमीढस पीढ़ी में आता है) किन्तु उनका कहना है की यह पूरा प्राप्त नहीं है ………अक्रूर का राज्य गुजरात में था ।…….पुराण कहीं कृष्ण के पिता का नाम वसुदेव और कहीं वासुदेव कहते हैं ।
(प्र० सं ०188-195 ) … पुरानों से प्रकट है की कृष्ण की बुआ कुंती पांडवों की माता थीं । परन्तु यहाँ हमें कुछ बातों पर विचार करना चाहिए । …कृष्ण पांडवों का सम्बन्ध केवल महाभारत में ही है । पांडवों का महत्त्व , पांडवों की विशेषताएं एकमात्र महाभारत में ही हैं , अन्यत्र कहीं नहीं ।ऐतिहासिक आधार सर्वप्रथम हम जन्मेजय और परीक्षित का पाते हैं ।……. वायु पुराण के अनुसार परीक्षित का जन्म महापद्म नन्द से १०५०वर्ष पूर्व हुआ ।महाभारत के समय वे गर्भ में थे । महाभारत उनका राज्यकाल ६० वर्ष बताता है और गद्दी पाने के समय वे ३६ वर्ष के थे । …… परीक्षित का नाम अथर्ववेद , ऐतरेय ब्रह्मण ,शतपथ ब्रह्मण और महाभारत में भी है ……..कृष्ण के मथुरा से द्वारिका चले जाने पर जरासंध ने मथुरा को अधिकृत कर लिया था । जब जरासंध की मृत्यु हो गयी तो मथुरा पर नागों ने अधिकार कर लिया था । भारत संग्राम में राज्य सब नष्ट -भ्रष्ट हो चुके थे ।अतः तक्ष शिला और मथुरा पर नागों ने अधिकार कर लिए तथा परीक्षित तक्षक नाग द्वारा मार डाले गए ।….प्रसिद्द है की जन्मेजय परीक्षित के पुत्र बहुत भारी सम्राट थे । ….. इन्होने नागों को हराकर तक्षशिला और मथुरा के राज्य नागों से छीन लिए थे तथा मथुरा पर कृष्ण के प्रपौत्र बज्रनाभ का अधिकार हो गया था । बज्रनाभ और जन्मेजय मित्र राज्य थे । …………ब्रह्मण ग्रन्थ जन्मेजय की प्रशंसा से भरे पड़े हैं ……….वाल्मीकि भी उन्हें प्राचीन भारी नरेश कहता है । शतपथ, पाणिनि और ऐतरेय उनकी राजधानी आसंदिवन बताता है । परन्तु महाभारत ,रामायण ,हस्तिनापुर बताते हैं । …….परन्तु यह बड़े आश्चर्य की बात है की जहां जन्मेजय और परीक्षित का ब्रह्मण ग्रंथों में इतनी धूम धाम से वर्णन है , वहां पांडवों का नाम ब्राह्मणों में क्यों नहीं आया । वहां पांडवों का कहीं भी नामो निशान नहीं है । पाजितर के अनुसार भारत युद्ध ९५० ई० पु० में हुआ और युद्ध के पश्चात ३६ वर्ष पांडवों ने राज्य करके महाप्रस्थान किया । इसके बाद ही परीक्षित रजा हुए । टूटे फूटे जो वर्णन हैं , वे बड़े विचित्र हैं । इसी से कुछ विद्वान् कहते हैं की पांडव कभी हुए ही नहीं । महाभारत संग्राम कुरु -संजयों का संग्राम है । इन दोनों वंशों के वैमनस्य का वर्णन शतपथ ब्रह्मण में है । पतंजलि नकुल सहदेव को कौरव कहते हैं ।…. इन्द्रप्रस्थ को कौरव्य कहा गया है ।… इस बात के भी प्रमाण हैं की यह परीक्षित और जन्मेजय , जिनका ब्रह्मण ग्रंथों में वर्णन है, पांडवों के उत्तराधिकारी नहीं हैं , पूर्व पुरुष हैं । ( महाभारत ही की आदि पर्व में दी गयी कुरु वंश की वंशावली में एक परीक्षित और दो जन्मेजय हैं किन्तु ये तीनों शांतनु महाभिश के पूर्व पुरुष हैं । ……….इन सब प्रमाणों से तो यह निश्चित होता है की ब्रह्मण ग्रंथों में वर्णित तथा पुराणों में भी वर्णित परीक्षित और जन्मेजय , सुभद्रा-अभिमन्यु पुत्र तथा महाभारत उत्तरकालीन पुरुष नहीं , महाभारत संग्राम से कोई १०० या इससे अधिक वर्ष पूर्व के पुरुष हैं । …..शांतनु के सम्बन्ध में फिर भी यास्कीय निरुक्त , वायु पुराण में, तथा मत्स्य में संकेत मिलते हैं परन्तु उससे आगे किसी कौरव , पांडव के नहीं । यदि महाभारत को प्रमाण न माना जाए तो पांडवों का कहीं कोई अस्तित्व प्रतीत ही नहीं होता अतः पांडवों की कृष्ण से मित्रता और फुफेरे भाई का रिश्ता एवं समसामयिकता में घोर संदेह है ।….{कुंती के भी विषय में महाभारत,वायु पुराण , मत्स्य पुराण — कुन्तिभोज और शूरसेन कि कड़ी मिलाने पर विश्लेषण करके यह पता चलता है कि कुंती कन्या तो वासुदेव के पिता शूर की थी लेकिन कुन्तिभोज (चेदी वंश के ) वासुदेव ने उसे गोद लिया था…..जो एक क्लिष्ट कल्पना प्रतीत होती है ) } महाभारत के अनुसार महाभारत काल में गंधार का राजा सुबल था । उसकी पुत्री गांधारी धृतराष्ट्र को ब्याही थी ।गांधारी का भाई शकुनी था ..इन सब नामों और रिश्तों का आधार भी एकमात्र महाभारत ही है । अन्यत्र हमें दुसरे आधार मिलते हैं । माहभारत काल में गांधार का रजा नग्नजित था ………नग्नजित का पुत्र सुबल को बताया गया है । नग्नजित की कन्या सत्यकृष्ण को ब्याही थी । यह विवाह यद्ध के द्वारा बलात हुआ था ।
(प्र० सं ०195-198 )ऋग्वेद और कृष्ण _ ऋग्वेद में कृष्ण से सम्बंधित हमें तीन ऋचाएं मिलती हैं , वे ये हैं —
अव द्रप्सो अंशुमती मतिष्ठिदियानाह कृष्णो दशभिः सहस्त्रैह‘।
आवतमिन्द्र : शच्या धमन्तमप स्तेहिती नृमणा अघंत ।।
द्रप्समपश्यम` विपुने चरन्त मुपह्वरे नद्यो अन्शुमत्या : ।
नभो न कृष्णमवत स्थिवांमिष्यामि यो वृषणो युध्यताजौ ।।
अघ द्रप्सो अन्शुमत्या उपस्थे$धार यत्तन्वम तित्विषाणः ।
विशो अदेवीरभ्या चरन्ती वृहस्पतिना युजेंद्र : ससाहे । ।
(ऋ ० ८/९६/१३-१५ )
इन ऋचाओं का सारांश यह है की शीघ्रगामी कृष्ण ने १० हजार सेना के साथ अंशुमती नदी के समीप छावनी डाली ।( चारों और महाकोलाहल से पूर्ण ) । ऋग्वेद में एक कथा और है जिसमें इस बात का उल्लेख है की अंशुमती तट पर कृष्ण को युद्ध में न जीत सकने के कारण इन्द्र ने कृष्ण के देश की कुछ स्त्रियों के गर्भ विदीर्ण कर डाले थे ।
उस काल में पंजाब और सिंध का संयुक्त नाम ’सप्त सिन्धु "था ।तथा उस पर वृत्र का अधिकार था । यह वृत्र असुर याजक भृगु के वंश का था तथा दासों का नेता था , जिनके गानों का सप्तसिंधु पर अधिकार था । इन्द्र ने जो देवरात था , तथा जिसकी राजधानी देवलोक (एलम ) थी , पञ्च सिन्धु पर चढ़ाई की थी । उन दिनों परसिया का पूर्वी और उत्तरी भाग एलम या इलावर्त कहाता था । इन्द्र ने यह अभियान संभवतः फारस की खाड़ी केकिनारे किनारे आ कर किया था ।तथा वह वर्तमानं कराची के आस पास सिंध में प्रविष्ट हुआ था । इसका स्पष्ट संकेत जातक अट्टकथा के इक्कीसवें जातक में एक गाथा में है । उसका अभिप्राय यह है की देवों और असुरों के दो अयोध्या नगर थे ।उनके बीच में इन्द्र ने उरंग , करोति, पयस्सहारी और मदन युत चार महंत रखे । ये दो अयोध्या नगर कौन से थे तथा उनके बीच में रक्षक ये विभिन्न जाती के चार दिगपाल कौन थे ? इस रहस्य का रूप तो तब स्पष्ट होगा जब मोहनजोदाड़ो और हरप्पा के अभिलेख पढ़े जा सकेंगे ।इस गाथा का इन्हीं नगरों से सम्बन्ध है, इस संदेह के बहुत से कारण हैं । कदाचित इन्द्र ने कलात की राह सिंध में प्रवेश किया और सिंध विजय कर वह कच्छ की और बढ़ा , जहां दृषद्वती के बीहड़ों में कृष्ण ने उसका अवरोध किया और इन्द्र को परास्त होकर पीछे लौटना पड़ा ।
ऋग्वेद के इस सन्दर्भ का समर्थन होता है श्री मद्भागवत से ।(अध्याय २४,२५ ) ……. इस बात के यथेष्ट प्रमाण हैं की इन्द्र ने सप्तसिंधु (सिंध) अधिकृत करके ही कृष्ण पर यह आक्रमण किया था । उसने इलाम (परसिया ) से आकर और दासों से विग्रह करके सिंध में अपना राज्य स्थापित किया था ।वह साहसी, पराक्रमी और खटपटी युवक अपनी मुठमर्दी से इलाम के देवों का नेता बन गया था।--उसने पूर्व की और प्रसार किया और पञ्च सिन्धु के नेता वृत्र को मार डाला ।दासों के नेता दिवोदास तथा उसके पुत्र सुदा: त्रसदस्यु , एवं पुरु से उसने संधि कर तुर्वश और यदु दासों को मिलाकर अपना साम्राज्य सिंध में जमाया । ………..परन्तु कृष्ण ने इन्द्र की दाल नहीं गलने दी और जंगली प्रदेशों का आश्रय लेकर उसने अपने अनुयायियों की रक्षा की । ऐसी दशा में अवैदिक भारतियों में उसकी पूजा प्रचलित हो गयी । -- जिस कृष्ण की ऋग्वेद में प्रतिष्ठा है और जो प्रतापी इन्द्र का प्रतिद्वंदी है , वह किसी भाँती महाभारत युद्ध का नेता नहीं हो सकता । हाँ यदि महाभारत युद्ध ही कल्पित हो और ऋग्वेद में वर्णित दाशराज्ञ युद्ध को या कुरु -संजय युद्ध को महाभारत कल्पित किया गया हो तो कृष्ण का वहां उपस्थित होकर इन्द्र की स्पर्धा करना संभव हो सकता है । तब कंस का मथुरा महाराज्य तथा कृष्ण की गोकुल लीलाओं का कोई भी ऐतिहासिक आधार नहीं दीख पड़ता । …………
(प्र० सं ०198-204 ) विदेशों में कृष्ण :-भारत से बाहर भी कृष्ण से सम्बंधित बहुत सी बातें हैं । कृष्ण की पूजा ग्रीस, रोम व मिश्र में अपोलो(Apolo) , कर्ण (Carna), या कान्ह नामों से होती है । हेरोदेट्स के सीथियन देव 'हरकुलस " और 'जेबेलाईज (Gebeleizes) ", बलदेव और गोपाल ही प्रतीत होते हैं । जेबेलाईज , गोपाल का और हर्कुलीज ,हरिकुलेश का अपभ्रंश प्रतीत होते हैं । ……….ईरान ही का एक इलाका -Media-Atropatene-Media,Magog या Media Agheana कहाता है ।…….इन प्रदेशों के निवासी "गोमाता " कहाते थे । अब हमें इस बात की कल्पना करने का आधार मिलता है की कृष्ण के इन्द्र से विग्रह होने के फलस्वरूप इन्हीं "गोमाता " लोगों की रक्षा कृष्ण ने इन्द्र से की है , क्योंकि वैदिक साहित्य में वर्णित इन्द्र का चरित्र एक धूर्त दुराचारी पुरुष के सामान प्रतीत होता है ।……………
कृष्ण की कुछ उपाधियाँ हैं — मुरारी, जगदाधार, मधुसुदन, केशव , गोविन्द , गोपाल , कुंजबिहारी , तथा वनमाली । अब इन नामों ही को विदेशी इतिहास की कसौटी पर कसिये
भागवत दशम स्कंध में नरकासुर और मुर के असुर को जीतकर इन्द्र की सहायता करने की कथा है ।….इन्द्र देव(Indabugash) एलiम (Elam) का राजा था ।……….वहीँ ,कलातनादारी के निकट पुराण वर्णित "अपवर्त "(बावर्द ) या (अबिवार्ड) दोज़ख देश है , जिसे पुरानों में नरक कहा गया है । ……….मुरु प्रदेश भी वहीँ एक बड़ा इलाका है जिसे अब "मर्गियाना " या 'मर्व्दस्त ' कहते हैं । इसी इलाके को छूता हुआ प्रदेश असुरों (खरो) का इश्त्खर है । इन इलाकों की सीमाएं परस्पर मिली हुयी हैं । यह स्वाभाविक था की मुरु के असुरों तथा नरकासुर एवं इश्त्खर के असुरों से इन्द्र का सीमा प्रदेशों से सम्बंधित विग्रह रहता हो । कृष्ण ने इन्द्र से संधि करने के बाद इन्द्र की सहायता कर इन्द्र के इन पडोसी असुरों का संहार किया हो और "मुरारी " उपाधि पाई हो i
ईरान में असुरों का एक राज्य असीरिया भी था । इस देश को "मधु" भी कहते थे । इसे विजय करके कृष्ण ने "मधुसुदन" नाम पाया हो । इसी असुर्वंश की एक शाखा सीरिया के असुर (Essur ) नगर में राज्य करती थी । सीरिया को ही "श्याम "(Shiam ) भी कहा है । कृष्ण ने संभवतः इस प्रदेश को जय करके "श्याम की उपाधि पाई हो । समरकंद के निकट एक देश "केश " है । यह देश विजय करके कृष्ण "केशव " कहाए हों । भागवत ( १० वां स्कंध ) में लिखा है की सत्यभामा के लिए कृष्ण इन्द्र को जीतकर कल्प वृक्ष नंदन वन से लाये थे तथा नंदनवन को अर्जुन ने दहा था ।यह महाभारत में संकेत है ।….. इन्द्र का यह नंदनवन ईरान का "पार्दिया " या "मीडिया " इलाका था ।इन इलाकों के निवासी 'नंदिनी गो " कहाते थे तथा "पार्दीय " नरेशों की उपाधि 'गोपाल " थी और वे "गदाधर (club bearers ) कहलाते थे । संभव है की ये गोपाल इन्द्र के सामंत हों । इन्हें विजय करके संभवतः कृष्ण ने 'गोपाल" "गदाधर " और "गोविन्द" ) की उपाधि पायी थी । कृष्ण को "कुञ्ज बिहारी " और "रसिक बिहारी " भी कहते हैं । "कुञ्ज " खुरासान का प्राचीन नाम है । इसी को "कुञ्ज रसिक " भी कहते हैं । इन प्रदेशों को विजय करने या यहाँ निवास करने से संभवतः कृष्ण की उपाधि "कुञ्ज बिहारी " या "रसिक बिहारी " पड़ी हो । कृष्ण का एक नाम वनमाली भी है । वन (Van) ईरान का महा प्राचीन नगर है । …………..यहीं अनिरुद्ध -उषा के विवाह सम्बन्धी युद्ध में कृष्ण व बलराम ने वाणासुर को पराजित किया था । तभी संभवतः उन्होंने "वनमाली "उपाधि पायी हो । ……..नृसिंह के बड़े भाई नृग को इन्द्र पद प्राप्त था । ये बड़े गोदानी थे \ अज्ञान से दान में दी हुयी गौ पुनः ब्राह्मण को दे देने से ये गिरगिट बनाकर द्वारिका के पास अंध कूप में दाल दिए गए ।जहां से कृष्ण ने उनका बाणासुर -युद्ध के अवसर पर उद्धार किया ।…….. कम्बोज गिरगिस (उत्तरी तुर्किस्तान में ) इलाके का नाम है और कृष्ण ने नरक और मुरु दैत्य राजाओं को जीतकर , न्रिग्वंशियों को इलाम -सुसियाना का अधिपति बनाया हो , जहाँ आज तक उनके वंशज रहते हैं । इन सारे प्रमाणों से हम कम से कम इस निष्कर्ष पर तो पहुंचाते ही हैं की कृष्ण का सम्बन्ध जितना फारस , तुर्किस्तान , कंधहयों से है , उतना भारत से नहीं , और कृष्णऋग्वेदकालीन इन्द्र के समसामयिक हैं , महाभारत काल के पुरुष नहीं ।
अब मिश्र के इतिहास की भी छानबीन होनी चाहिए ।हम देखते हैं की मिश्र के Kan और इन्द्रदीप (भारत ) के कान्ह में बहुत समता है । डियोडोरस और टाड कान को अपोलो का पर्याय मानते हैं i ( Apollo of Nile— Kan ,the Egyptian title of Apollo or The Sun-God ) | वे इसे वंशीवादक(Protector of Nine Musics ) भी मानते हैं । यदि आप ग्रीस के (Phythic Apollo) से काली मर्दन की घटना का मिलान करें तो बहुत समता पायेंगे ।Todd का तो यह भी मत है की ब्रिटनी के (Carnac ) में (Druid ) निर्मित जो Cetic (Apollo ) की मूर्ति है , वह कृष्ण ही की है । (Druid ) की बनायीं ऐसी ही कृष्ण की मूर्तियाँ सारे योरोप में थीं ।
प्रसिद्ध है की कृष्ण गुर्जर् प्रदेश में द्वारिका में जाकर रहे …….. 'गुर्ज " नाम गदा का है । ईरानी भाषा में इसे गोपाल कहते हैं । ईरान में जो पार्दिया प्रदेश है , वहां के पारद नरेश गदाधारी ( Club Bearers ) कहाते थे । दुसरे शब्दों में वे "गोपाल" भी उपनाम धारण करते थे । पार्दिया प्रदेश का नाम भी गुर्जर (Gurjar) था , जिसकी राजधानी टाक देश(Takka-Desa) थी ।………. इसी गुर्जर देश में कुशान प्रांत है । वहां के कुशनों की परंपरा संभवतः कृष्ण वन्ह से है अथवा कुशान कृष्ण वंशी ही हैं ।

Mahabharata contain more than 2000 chapters / adhyayas distributed in 18 books / volumes / parvas. Please locate your information with book number, chapter number and verse number to remove any other confusion you may have.

Any comments?

It goes without saying that like any other power, Yogic power too can be misused or could produce suffering to the world if it reaches wrong hands like Duryodhana and Ravana. That is why Yogis are even today advised to control their power and use it only to attain self-realization, not for worldly occult powers, that could turn dangerous if the person wielding those powers become corrupt.

Though we can not deny the possibility of some consciousness based weapons in ancient times. But I think that only very few people can have that power. In Mahabharata you can see every Tom, Dick and Harry using brahmastra. All the battles have been exaggerated using ornamental language in later times. Now every duel became equal to that of between Indra and Vritra.

Warriors like Drona, Ashwatthama, Karna, etc were ordinary humans. They were never known for their spirituality or ascetics. So I think these Brahmastra, Narayanastra etc were some rocket like fire weapons but not the Nuclear bombs or missiles of present time. It appears to me that these weapons were man made fire arms and warriors had named these weapon after the names of some devas and sages.

In my view, the technology was not at a very advanced stage in those days. Kurukshetra war seems to be a conventional war. For the first nine days, this war was like a showdown from both sides. No serious direct encounters between maharathis. Soldiers from both sides were fighting at the front. By the 10th day, both the armies reduced considerably. Now the generals from both sides engaged each other in direct encounters.

My general view is that poets have embellished and added a lot of their imagination and exageration in creating these myths found in Mahabharata (same with Ramayana and the Puranas). But undoubtadly they are based on some real experience or a historical core. Karna's armour, I have explained in one article as an armor made of new technology 'like the use of iron' for example, a little ahead of time probably, which made it to catch a lot of attention from other warriors and the bards, to the point that the bards and eulogists started singing that Karna had that armor right from his birth. In reality it could have specially designed by the iron smiths in Anga kingdom (ie central, south Bihar and Jharkhand, a place today is famous for its iron ores). I have written about it in murals-for-mahabharat and in more detail here episode7.

The celestial weapons are discussed here:-astras. Apart from what is discussed here, I am also now exploring the possibility of the ancient usage of consciousness based technologies. We generally tend to think that meditation techniques and concentrating on ones own conscsiousness is usually aimed at self-realization. That indeed is its primary and ultimate goal, but it seems it has many secondary usefulness and usage, known to the ancients but forgotten now. In this technique the practicionor is able to manipulate natural forces using thought power or using the power of meditation. A new research field is born in the last decade (2000-2010) which focus on the power of consciousness and its impact on the immediate surroundings and the cosmos at large. Stuart Hamerof and Roger Penrose are some of the leading scientists working on this issue. The conclusion of their theories is that 'consciousness' is not the result of brain-activity but it is an inherent property of the fine structure of the universe, like 'mass'. Brain simply act as an interface into this universal consciousness and the uniquness of data, information, knowledge and experience stored in each individual brain gives us individuality, ego, sense of separation and the illusion of many individuals. This new paradigm shift can explain what we know about celestial weapons, (Divya Astras) from the epics and Puranas. Thought power can generate tremendous energy fluctuations in the immediate natural surroundings. It can create force fields that can deter the harmful rays of a conventional nuclear radiation and it can as well produce a nuclear explotion by its own impact on nature. Remember that nuclear level is smaller than the atomic level and thus closer to the quantum level where consciousness is operating. Thus some of the weapons the warriors mentioned in the epics and puranas were simple ordinary weapons, some chemical like the fire weapon and some others were weapons made of conscious thought power. For more details see my articles:-

1. http://recentvoice.wikidot.com/notes:vedanta-and-quantum-consciousness
2. http://recentvoice.wikidot.com/search:site/q/consciousness

What do you think about the supernatural events given in Mahabharata ? Were these myths have been created later taking clue from some real events ? How can a person take birth with an armor ? In Mahabharata we can see a warrior absorbing hundreds of arrows and every prominent warrior having "celestial weapons" like brahmastra.

What these so called celestial weapons were ? Some people say that these weapons were like the nuclear bombs of present time. But I don't think so. When Ashwatthama fired narayanastra at Bhima, Bhima didn't die. And when Karna fired bhargavastra, no pandava maharathi got killed. It could kill only some foot soldiers fighting in open.

The 9th Century BC date for Kurukshetra war is arrived at based on the discredited Aryan Invasion Theory, which is inspired by the Biblical studies in 18th century, based on which the Biblical God created this world in around 4000 BC!

The calculations based on archeo-astronomy (ie based on planetary positions) is not vague and cannot be easily dismissed. It is having very high coherence with the various dates and corresponding planetary positions mentioned in Mahabharata epic. Inferences based on archeology are not conclusive as archeology is like an unfinished painting. New archeological discoveries can happen any time, new ancient sites can be unearthed any time and the data can swing in any direction.

The dates for Kurukshetra War arrived at using archeo-astronomy (3067 BCE) is close to the traditional date (3138 BCE) given to it by the Hindu tradition supported by ancient mathematicians like Aryabhata. This error of 71 years is reasonable, since it happened 5000 years ago.

We cannot under-estimate our own traditions and dismiss them so easily, especially since Indian mathematicians were the first to use decimal system, precise numerical measurements, geometry and algebra. The West came to know about Indian mathematics through Arab traders and till then they were using the crude Roman Numerals (I, II, III, IV …) which limited their ability to analyze large numbers or do basic mathematics like addition, subtraction, multiplication and division properly. This is why their world view was so crippled and childish, thinking that the world was created in 4000 BC. For them, 4000 BC was too huge a number and too distant into the past.

The points like 1) start of Iron age in India, assuming that it started in 10th century and that 2) place names found in Mahabharata matches with the place names found in Buddhist period of 6th century BC - are too crude to put any accurate date on Mahabharata. All it proves is that Mahabharata is older than Buddhist period of 6th century BC and Iron age start of 9th century BC, but it does not put any upper limit to the ancientness of the events described in Mahabharata.

However it is true that Mahabharata grew from its humble beginnings in 3000 BCE with additions from redactors who narrated it to various audience. This continued till the emergence of Buddhist era. We cannot find any reference to Buddha in Mahabharata. So Mahabharata reached a near frozen state before the birth of Buddha.

Plus, the 6th century BCE date of Buddha is disputed. There are evidences indicating that Buddha lived in 9th century BCE. Even though AIT is now discredited, even by its former supporters like Romilia Thapper, the dates arrived at using this erroneous theory is not yet corrected and all dates related to the ancient history of India is compressed into the time frame of 1600 BCE to 100 BCE. Similarly the Iron age start date for India at 10th century BCE is also questionable. We cannot say with any certainity that Indians did not knew about Iron before 10th century BCE. The whole division of human cultural evolution as stone-age, bronce-age and iron-age is now disputed and under revision.

Aryan invasion theory is flawed as our scriptures don't talk about any other home of aryans than India. Hence, I also don't accept this theory. I think that Indus-Saraswati civilization grew into vedic civilization. People of Indus- Saraswati civilization later invented things like chariots, iron weapon etc. But the time of Krishna can't be 3000 BC. Nothing significant related to Mahabharata period (remains of horses, chariots, iron weapons etc)is found in the remains of Indus civilization. So I think that 900 BC is a more authentic date of Mahabharata. Mahabharata seems to be the History of ancient India preceding the Buddha period as the names of most of the places and tribes and the socioeconomic environment are same as that of Buddha period.

It is us (living in 21st century) who give the name 'Indus Valley Civilization' to the civilization that existed in that area when Krishna was around there. This area (ie Indus Valley Cultural territory) was then the territory mentioned in Mahabharata as Dvaraka, Anarta, Sindhu (now Sindh, Pakistan) and Sauvira. All of them where trading / sea faring kingdoms. Sauvira is mentioned as 'Sophir' and its variant Abhira as 'Ophir', all referring to Indus Valley Civilization by texts of other civilizations that traded with IVC through land and sea. Thus, these names are found in many texts including Hebru Bible. This area is also mentioned as Suraabhira (the territory of the Suras and Abhiras and alternatively as the territory of the Sudras and Abhiras) where the once mighty river Sarasvati flowed in a partly dried up condition which is described vividly in Mahabharata. Current mapping of IVC settlement goes beyond the Sindh in Pakistan and extend to Gujarat, Rajastan, Punjab and Hariyana, which spans the kingdoms mentioned in Mahabharata such as Salva (where Krishna's enemy Salva ruled), Matsya (where Abhimanyu's father-in-law Virata ruled), Madra (where Pandava's uncle Shalya ruled) and Kurujangala (where Pandavas ruled). We thus have full mapping of the scenario depicted by Mahabharata in the civilization which is now known as Indus Valley civilization and more accurately as Indus Sarasvati civilization.

The article is very interesting
However there are conflicting dates

As you prescribe to Krisha's period to 3000 BC
How come Indus Valley Civilization is not mentioned as they also
were living along side during that time .

Second ; if a conservative date of 1000 BC is considered then too
the dead civilisation to have been mentioned in the scripture

Third if a much prior date before 3000 BC - say to 5000 BC
as suggested by an underwater discovery made that a lost city
Dwaraka found near Gulf of Cambay ; then too
How come IVC people was not aware of the city got swallowed by sea

Where as Tamil civilization at South India
is able to recollect about the Ocean devoring cities near costal line of Kanyakumari

All these contravercies has to have satisfactory explanation

I have not concluded as I leave for others and you to comment on my observation

Thanks and Regards
ANSabapathy

Pandit Kota Venkata Chelam has established that the Mahabharata War took place in 3138 BC and the Kaliyuga started in 3102 BC , when Krishna ended his life.
For his arguments please see the blog:
trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.com

Satyabhama became an ascetic. Rukmini ascended the funeral pyre. Some versions of Mahabharata say that both of them became ascetics and taught the philosophy of Krishna to the next generation of men and women.

My thoughts on the last paragraph of your mail.

I think the river of information found in Mahabharatha gives a number of leads to the past history of Bharath and Asia itself. Uttar kuru, Sthree rajya, Aila etc can be decoded as Siberia, Staraya maina (where 8th century Vishnu temple has been unearthed) and Ila river basin which lies between Airavatha varsha and Bharatha varsha. I am currently writing a series on all these in Tamil in http://thamizhan-thiravidana.blogspot.com
Both the Ithihasas give valuable leads to the past. For instance on identification of the area of uttarkuru, Shugreeva's directions to vanaras on the search of the Northern countries (Kishkindha khand - chapter 43) locates it at Siberia north of lake Baikal.

I find Tamil texts also providing corroboratory leads to some info found in Mahabharata. For instance there is a Northern Chedi closer to Manasa lake
which was once ruled by Uparicharavasu. (In Brihad samhita also, we come across a Vasu in the chapter on Indra's Flag) People from that place had traveled to Pumpukar to attend Indrotsava. You will find the route taken by them as explained in Silappadhikaaram in Tamil in my article in this link :-http://thamizhan-thiravidana.blogspot.com/2010/11/10.html

On varnas, I consider that it exists in nature. Any human being can be assessed of his mental faculties on the basis of the three gunas and the four varnas. Manu did a detailed study of it for the purpose of human resource management. If you read the 10th chapter of Manu smrithi, it has a discussion on how to find out the kind of mentality that an offspring will inherit from the parents of same varna (mental nature) and different vanrans. The result of this research is the now infamous Manu neeti!!

After every deluge, Manu comes into being. I consider the yuga classification of Markandeya as more relevant as it coincides with one precession of Equinoxes which coincides with a deluge due to melting of Ice age. Refinement of Markandeya's classification has been worked out by me in this link.

http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-yuga-classification-and-what-causes.html

In my opinion Mahabharatha is not about Manu neeti. It is about danda neeti and how it was being practiced and violated in the past. The story itself is about how humans behave and what kind of danda neeti is needed in a given situation. In Shanti parva, danda neeti is discussed under the caption Raj dharma ( as per the Tamil translation I have) and it comes after chapter 65 or so.

regards,
jayasree saranathan

Without Sutas we probably would not have known about Mahabharata. Sanjaya the Suta was its primary orator and Ugrasrava Sauti the Suta was its final orator in the current form by which Mahabharata is known to us.

I guess apart from tending horses, riding chariot, attending to king as ministers or otherwise, Sutas actively participated in propagating Vedic knowledge by embedding them through epic narrations. They became custodians of the fifth Veda viz. the Mahabharata.

I am also pondering an interesting question:- Information about Varnas (caste) is found in Mahabharata and in Manusmriti. Which originated first? Mahabharata can be considered as a river of information which flowed from 3000 BCE to 500 CE. Did a dis-tributary of Manusmriti merged with Mahabharata or a dis-tributary of Mahabharata (verses from book 12 and 13) merged with Manusmriti? Obviously Manusmriti seems to be more focused on the subject (varna and social structures) while Mahabharata talks about it amidst many other topics.

Just to bring to your notice on who a Suta is. Manu smrithi chapter 10 gives an account of the people born of cross marriages. The person born of a marriage between Kshatriya male and Brhamin female is called as Suta. The job allotted to him is tending horses and driving chariots.

From
Manu smrithi -10
11. From a Kshatriya by the daughter of a Brahmana is born (a son called) according to his caste (gati) a Suta;

47. To Sutas (belongs) the management of horses and of chariots;

From this chapter of Manu smrithi it is known the people from cross marriages were not considered as pure varnas. Pure varna was determined by the attitude that gave rise to a specific capability to do specific jobs (swabhava becoming the cause of the swa karma). Pure varnas are 4 in number (Brahmin, Kshathriya, vaisya and shudra). When varnas got mixed, the swa karma will vary. Depending on the kind of the attitude supposed to have been inherited from the crossed varnas, the off spring is given a new name and allotted jobs in tandem with the inherited attitude. The offsprings were settled outside the Saraswathy basin. Saraswathy basin was occupied by pure varnas only. You will make this out from Varahamihira's Brihad samhitha.

There is a chapter on the countries of Bharat given in the shape of a Kurma, called Kurma chakra. There you come across the names of places and their locations. You will be surprised to see that most names of Manu's crossed varnas are by themselves names of places in Bharat. Example:- Nishada, Vaideha, Dravida, Abhiras etc. Nishada is one who is born to Brahmin male and a Shudra female. Vaideha is born to Vaisya male and a Brahmin female. Dravida is the offspring in Kshtriya lineage who has deviated from kashatriya dharma. In Brihad samhita his place is in the present day North Karnataka along the western ghats.

Thus the roots of all these clans can be understood from Manu smrithi. Among them, Suta has a special role. In chapter 84 of Shanti parva he is included in the council of ministers that a king must have. Bheeshma says that a king must have 4 Brahmins, 18 kshathriyas, 21 vaisyas, 3 shudras and one Suta as his ministers. The translation that you have is not exact on this particular verse. The Tamil translation that I have ( written 80 years ago by sanskrit and Tamil scholars of Kumbakonam) adds the other attributes given in that verse to Suta only. They are the 8 cardinal virtues and a sense of dignity, free from envy, conversant with the Srutis and the Smritis, humble, impartial, competent to readily decide in the midst of disputants urging different courses of action, free from covetousness, and from the seven dreadful vices called Vyasanas. Thus a Suta is prized possession for a king. Suta has played a vital role. Examples :- Sumanthra to dasaratha, Matali to Rama, sanjaya to Dritharashtra and krishna (though not a Suta by birth but only by work) to Arjuna.

- jayasree saranathan

Your explanation about Divya Astras being a Yogic state effected by concentration of mind seems to be plausible, especially since the whole world is indeed constructed using concentrated thought. The fabric of the universe is pure "data" / "information" / "knowledge" and it is fabricated using concentrated though. Hence a person situated in the Yogic state, as mentioned by you and applying concentrated though can tap into the fabric of the universe. While thus engaged, the medium of interaction with the universe can be as trivial a thing like an arrow made of ordinary materials (like wood embellished by sharpened metals at its head and feathers at its tail), shot from a bow which again is made of trivial materials (like wood and copper).

I have experienced the effect of concentration you mentioned while playing caroms. The hitting of the target accurately is indeed the result of the player's concentrated state of mind, manifested in the physical world as the accuracy of the shot. In case of Divya Astras, it is not only hitting the target accurately but also producing physical effects like fire, rain, wind or explosion is also involved. So I guess a grater level of mind manipulation over matter is involved here.

My personal life too had experienced "astras" in the form of concentrated thought directed towards the cosmic mind, which in turn materialize the results in my life as I desire it. Many phases in my life and many surprising events and experiences I had so far in my life was the result of such "astras" or concentrated thought.

A very interesting blog, you have! My best wishes for your noble plan for starting an 'ashram' / organization for studying and experiencing this effect further.

Given a choice, I would prefer Mahabharata than Bhagavata Purana to know about Krishna and his teachings.

In the search for knowing the ultimate truth, one must first take shelter of one's own sense organs. Once whatever that can be known by the sense organs is known, one must take shelter of one's own mind. Once whatever that can be known by the mind is known, one must take shelter of one's own intellect. Once whatever that can be known by the intellect is known, ONLY then must one abandon the intellect and proceed to attain the ultimate. Krishna does not like people who loose their brains, and chant his name millions of times because somebody said so.

I guess you are not among those who do so. I guess you know about the true purpose and meaning when you chant his name.

Thanks for posting valuable comments on my articles. In fact, through this site what I want to achieve is to raise some thought on various topics of Mahabharata, thus enhancing further research on these topics. I will try to establish references and evidences as much as I can, and anticipate further studies by myself as well as by other interested researchers for taking these assumptions, which you consider as 'postulates' to the next level, may be into a solid theory.

Thanks for appreciating my art-works. Hope you also have seen the 3D models and the interactive visualizations developed by writing computer programs, along with the paintings.

I agree with your point about the pastoral roots of the Yadu tribe. May be they started as pastoral nomads rearing cattle and later developed royalty and kingship. This case is similar to the Matsya tribe which had their humble beginning as fishermen on the banks of Saraswati and later developed royalty and kingship. Krishna is mentioned as driving chariot of Arjuna not just during Kirukshetra war, but also during the burning of Khandava forest. However, the 'Suta' terminology is applied to Yadus not just because Krishna, a member of this tribe is found to be Arjuna's chariot-driver. It is also because Mahabharata mentions Yadu's tribe as inferior to his younger brother Puru's tribe. The reason for inferiority is explained away by using a myth of curse. Yayati, the father of Yadu and Puru and their brothers gave sovereignty only to Puru and cursed all others including Yadu for refusing to exchange his old age with their youth. One way of looking at this is to accept this myth-of-curse by face-value. However I am in favor of a more rational reason. Please see my article on de-mystifying-myths on various approaches to analyse myths.

In Santi Parva we find a passage defining Sutas as off-springs born to a Kshatriya man in a Brahmana woman. Yadu's father Yayati was a Kshatriya and his mother Devayani was a Brahmana. Thus technically Yadu was a Suta. But, during the days of Yadu, caste (varna) was not very rigid. We find no objection in Yayati marrying Devayani. So the perceived inferiority of Yadus in comparison to Purus emerged later. The definition in Santi Parva about Sutas and other mixed castes emerged later. Since Karna was perceived as a Suta and became the subject of humiliation, we can conclude that Sutas were considered inferior during the time of Pandavas. So during the time of Pandavas, caste was indeed a problem area in the society. Probably it was the people during this period that considered Yadu's tribe as inferior to Purus. The fable about the curse on Yadu was probably invented by them. I also believe that this view was entertained only by some section of the Purus, probably an orthodox / conservative minority among the Purus.

Thus the Yadus did what ever they were doing (rearing cattle, leading a pastoral life, later attaining kingships, royalty and permanent settlements) while some orthodox members of the Puru tribe considered them to be Sutas or otherwise cursed or inferior to the Purus. Thus the dictate that a Suta should ride chariots or become bards who compose songs in praise of kings and warriors, was just the opinion of some orthodox Purus (I include the Kuru king Duryodhana as one among these orthodox Puru group). What Krishna did by becoming driver of Arjuna's chariot, among many other things (like to enable him to form war-strategies and implement them quickly, as you said) was also for mocking the conservative / orthodox views of people like Duryodhana, who considered Yadus as inferior to them, equating them to Sutas who according to them are to drive chariots or sing songs in praise of kings.

Here is my doubt on your analysis about the Yadu tribe. You may agree that based on the references in Mahabharata and Bhagavata Purana that Yadus were leading a pastoral life moving from one place to other, rearing cattle. Rearing of cattle was their main occupation. So I find it difficult to consider them as Sutas, whose occupation was driving chariots and sometimes singing songs in praise of kings. Krishna’s choice to become chariot driver of Arjuna was just an exception case. You too consider Krishna to be a war-strategist, so I think becoming the driver of Arjuna is the best way he can communicate his strategies and implement them quickly in an ongoing battle.