Date of the Mahābhārata War – A Review of Some Recent Studies
K. Chandra Hari1
An International Colloquium on the determination of the date of the Mahābhārata war, based
on astronomical data was held in Bangalore on 5 and 6 January 2003, organized by Mythic
Society, Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts and Babasaheb Apte Smaraka Samiti Trust-
Akhila Bharatiya Itihasa Sankalana Yojana. Over 200 scholars and scientists participated in
the deliberations and a number of papers were presented by scholars from India and USA.
According to a news release available on the Internet, Dr. Raja Ramanna, noted nuclear
scientists inaugurated the colloquium and the consensus reached in the colloquium was that
there were over 150 astronomical references in the critical edition that could be classified by
types of celestial events observed and recorded. The sky inscriptions or celestial epigraphs
Planetary/constellation positions on dates of specific events related to the war
Starting naksatra and ending naksatra of the pilgrimage of Balarāma along the river
Sarasvati (described in the Śalya parva),
The injury to Bhīsmā and his passing away on the winter solstice day on suklastami
tithi in Rohinī.
Position of Sani in Rohinī,
Occurrence of a solar eclipse on Jyesthā and an eclipse season of three eclipses in
one month with a solar eclipse occurring between two lunar eclipses and the latter
sequence of solar eclipse-penumbral lunar eclipse occurring within 13 tithis (a rare
celestial event indeed),
Recorded events of meteor showers and
Occurrence of comets (possibly including the Haley's comet mahaaghoraa) during
the war that lasted 18 days.
The conference claims to have arrived at consensus in the matter of following vital
aspects of Indian antiquity and chronological research.
1. Māhābhārata is a historical document
2. The celestial inscriptions or sky epigraphs were events observed by
Krsnadvaipāyana Vyāsa from the banks of Sarasvati in the Kuruksetra region. This
has been validated by the references to the mighty river in the Mahābhārata. Recent
scientific researches have established that the river Sarasvati of Vedic times and of
the days of the epic was not a myth but a geo-physical reality as mentioned in the
3. The consensus was that the determination of the dates of the war should be based
on establishing the consistency of all the astronomical references contained in the
text to make it a useful reference date for chronologies in ancient Bhāratiya itihāsa.
4. Against this backdrop of consensus, scholars reached further consensus that the
Māhābhārata was a sheet anchor of the modern history of Bharat.
1 K. Chandra Hari, B-204, Parth Avenue, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad-5
Present paper is an attempt to examine the above points of consensus in relation to the
papers presented in the above colloquium.
Papers Presented In the Colloquium and Their Brief Contents
Important papers presented include:
1. Two Eclipses in thirteen days prior to Mahābhārata War, Dr. S. Balakrishna, NASA,
Paper by Dr. Balakrishna examines the truth of the epic statement about the lunar and
solar eclipses occurring on trayodasi in the same month with the conclusion that –
“Despite apparent contradictions in positions of major planets at the time of “ thirteen
day lunar-first” eclipse pairs, the 2559 BC eclipse pairs provide the best match with
texts of Mahabharata, because – a) It is a lunar-first pair, b) Time difference is 13d
20h, clearly less than 14 days, c) Brihaspati and Shani are exactly where (in one
passage) the Mahabharata text in Bhishma Parva says they were, d) Brihaspati is
clearly in retrograde motion as the text says, e) The eclipses occur in the sunrise
period, f) Transition through sunrise allows a simple day count so that the pair can be
declared “thirteen day” eclipse pair. In conclusion, this article has provide evidence to
the effect that ten “Thirteen day lunar-first” eclipse pairs of the type referred to in
Mahabharata text have certainly occurred in the period 3300BC to 700 BC. It has
suggested ten possible candidates, with the 2559 BC eclipse pair as perhaps the one
nearest to text in Mahabharata epic texts.”
2. The Date of Mahābhārata War based on Simulation Using Planetarium Software, Prof.
B.N. Narahari Achar, Dept. of Physics, University of Memphis, USA.
Abstract of the paper presents the following claims:
(a) A compelling demonstration of the consistency of the astronomical references in
the epic Mahābhārata is made on the basis of simulations using planetarium
(b) Planetary positions such as Śani at rohini, occurrences of eclipses, a lunar
eclipse on the Krttikā full moon followed by a solar eclipse on Jyestha amāvāsya,
two eclipses separated by only thirteen days, a comet at pusya, meteor showers,
and a host of other events are shown to occur exactly as depicted in the epic.
(c) The events cannot be dismissed as fiction in view of the simulations using
modern planetarium software.
(d) The complexity and the totality of the events are such that nobody could have
back calculated them and interpolated into the text at a later date, such as the 4th
(e) The date of 3067 BCE is proposed on the basis that the equinox occurred near
Jyesthā; and there occurred a solar eclipse at Jyesthā in the middle of an eclipse
season, the solar eclipse being bordered by two lunar eclipses. The earlier lunar
eclipse occurred on Krttikā full moon. The second lunar eclipse followed the solar
eclipse in less than fourteen days.
(f) It is demonstrated that the simulations of the events described in the epic satisfy
the stringent astronomical conditions surprisingly well. The simulations
persuasively point to a date ~3000 BCE for the events and hence for the
Mahābhārata war. The accuracy and the limitations of the simulations are also
3. The Date of Mahābhārata Based on Indian Astronomical Works, Sri K.V. Ramakrishna
Author makes no revolutionary claims –point towards the significance attached to the
3102 BC epoch in Indian Siddhāntic astronomy.
4. Archaeological Evidence for Dating Kuruksetra War, Dr. S.R. Rao, Bangalore.
Based on archaeological excavations at Dvaraka and elsewhere author places the
Mahābhārta epoch around 1700-1900 BC.
5. The Date of Mahābhārata War: Puranic and Astronomical Evidence, Prof. Mohan
Gupta (Ujjain University)
Conclusion of the author is:
"To conclude, 17th of October 1952 BCE, Thursday, Marga Krishna Amavasya, Kali
1151 of Shaka-purva (Before Shaka) 2029, Julian year 2762 is the date when
Mahabharata War began. In my detailed treatise on the subject, I have successfully
refuted all theories, which fix this date as 3138 BCE or 2448 BCE or 1400 BCE or
3102 BCE. Neither the planetary position as mentioned in Mahabharata nor the
phenomenon of Uttarayana on the date of passing away of Mahatma Bhishma do
obtain, on respective days in these dates."
6. Other contributors such as Sri P.V. Holay2 (Advocate and Astronomer, Nagpur), Dr.
N.S Rajaram, have not advocated any specific date on astronomical basis.
7. Prof. R.N. Iyengar of IISc, Bangalore in his abstract has claimed a date of 1493 BCE –
1443 BCE for Mahābhārata based on archaeo-astronomical study of the eclipse and
planetary observation data of the epic.
Implications of the Above Colloquium vis-à-vis the Above Papers for Indian
1. Some of the above papers overlooks the sound studies that have taken place in the
past like that of Prof. P.C. Sengupta and the difficulty in reconciling the various
astronomical references available in the epic as noted by such great scholars as
Sengupta and SB Dikshit.
2. The paper of Dr. Balakrishna presents the astronomical aspect of a particular
reference on eclipses with due admission of the irreconcilability of the other
astronomical references. It desists from spreading any wrong historic notions quoting
the Planetarium software that the author has used.
3. Papers by Dr. Narahari Achar and Prof. Mohan Gupta on the other hand have placed
precise dates and have claimed them as true.
4. Dr. Achar’s paper also makes many claims on supposedly astronomical grounds that
casts wrong notions in the filed of Indian chronological and historical research -
A compelling demonstration of the consistency of the astronomical references in the
epic Mahābhārata is made on the basis of simulations using planetarium software.
Planetary positions such as Śani at rohini, occurrences of eclipses, a lunar eclipse
on the Krttikā full moon followed by a solar eclipse on Jyestha amāvāsya, two
2 Year of Kaurava – Pandava War, Only abstract was available for the colloquium.
eclipses separated by only thirteen days, a comet at pusya, meteor showers, and a
host of other events are shown to occur exactly as depicted in the epic.
It is demonstrated that the simulations of the events described in the epic satisfy the
stringent astronomical conditions surprisingly well.
Nothing can be more far from truth than the above assertions of Prof. Achar based on the
original work of Prof. K. Sreenivasa Raghavan that gave the date of 3067 BC for the
Mahābhārata War. All the above assertions have as their basis incomplete examination of
the relevant astronomical data, a deliberate attempt to project the date of 3067 BC and to
claim historicity for Mahābhārata on the basis of astronomical references as is evident from
the body of the paper. Paper as such stands to pollute the research environment and the
minds of the public especially because of the use of names such as Dr. Rajaramanna, Dr.
Balakrishna of NASA and that of Prof. B.N. Narahari Achar himself, Professor of Physics,
University of Memphis, USA, by the colloquium and the publicity that the proceedings have
received across the media and through the Internet.
In the best interests of Indian chronological and historical research, the present author
consider it as necessary to refute the high claims seen above, on the basis of the relevant
A Critical Look at the Paper by Prof. Narahari Achar
1. Prof. Achar begins his paper with a reference to the Bhismāstami and Gītājayanti
celebrations and says that ‘no Bhāratīya ever doubted the historicity of the event’
which is evidently wrong as the above celebrations and the traditions may have their
genesis when the epic became popular. In no way the above traditions establish the
historicity of the event for all Indians.
2. Few other introductory remarks of the author also demands our attention:
(a) A new tool in the form of Planetarium Software has recently become available for
examining the astronomical references. It is the purpose of this paper to report the
results of using the Planetarium software to simulate the astronomical events in the
(b) These simulations compel one to agree that the astronomical references in the epic
Mahābhārata form a consistent set, the events must have been observed and not
put into the text by some later clever astronomer.
(c) These simulations also provide a basis for determining the date of the Mahābhārata
war. The date of the events, 3067 BCE, is proposed on the basis of very stringent
astronomical conditions that must be satisfied for the occurrence of the events
described in the epic.
(d) It is based on the following facts: there was an equinox near Jyesthā; a solar
eclipse occurred at Jyesthā in an eclipse season with two lunar eclipses on either
side; the final lunar eclipse occurred in less than fourteen days after the solar
eclipse. It is demonstrated conclusively by the simulations that the proposed date,
which is identical to the one proposed earlier by Raghavan, provides the best
agreement with the events described in the epic.
(e) For purposes of the simulations, a core set of the astronomical references in the
epic (such as those in Udyogaparva) before the beginning of the war till the death of
Bhīsmā is selected. The acceptability of any given date as a possible date of the
war will be judged on the basis of how faithfully this basic set of references is
(f) The problem of eclipse pairs occurring within an interval of thirteen days is
addressed next. It is shown that one must really consider an eclipse season with
three eclipses, with two lunar eclipses bordering a solar eclipse. The fact that there
was an equinox at Jyesthā renders the conditions to be very stringent and leads to
the proposed date of the event.
(g) This also turns out to be identical to the date, which had been proposed by
Raghavan3. The simulations show that the astronomical events must have occurred
around 3000 BCE, thus establishing the date of the war also as ~3000 BCE.
(h) Preliminary reports of this study have been presented at the International
Conference on Mahābhārata in Montreal, and at the WAVES conference in
Dartmouth. The earlier presentations had concentrated only on planetary positions
and had not considered the eclipse season of three eclipses and the equinox at
Jyesthā. This is the first time a full report is being presented.
3. Basic Set of Astronomical References
A review of the paper as described earlier must obviously discuss the particular astronomical
references and the criteria of choice vis-à-vis their merits, which is the foundation on which
the thesis is placed albeit for the errors possible in the astronomical computations. In the
words of B.N. Achar (extracted point by point):
(a) A set of about forty references has been selected out of more than one hundred
fifty for simulation by the planetarium software.
(b) The hundred and odd references not included in the basic set contain: (a)
repeated references to the events already selected, (b) references of a very
general nature such as time and its division into kalā, muhūrta, paksa, māsa
etc., (c) references that are not directly connected with the war, and finally, (d)
those that are purely astrological in nature.
(c) A further subset of the selected list of about a dozen astronomical references
gives a more or less coherent chronology of astronomical events starting with
Karna's departure for his diplomatic mission to Hastināpura before the war and
ending with Bhīshma's death after the war at the beginning of Uttarāyana.
1. Krsna leaves for Hastināpura on the diplomatic mission for peace in the month of
Kārttikā on the day of Revatī naksatra.
2. On the way he halts at a place called Vrkasthala and reaches Hastināpura on the
day of Bharanī.
3. On the day of Pusya Duryodhana rejects all offers of peace.
4. Krsna leaves Hastināpura on the day of Uttaraphālgunī accompanied by Karna
and has a lengthy conversation with him. At the end of the conversation Krsna
3 Prof. K. Sreenivasa Raghavan, The Date of the Mahabharata War, Srirangam Printers,
sends a message to Bhīsmā and Drona through Karna that the amāvāsya falls
on the seventh day and war rituals4 be done on that day:
5. During conversation Karna describes positions of the planets at that time in the
following verses; but these verses (V. 141. 7-10) are assumed to be of an
astrological nature by everyone, except Raghavan.
6. A lunar eclipse took place on the full moon day of Karttikā together with a solar
eclipse on the following new moon. There occurred two eclipses being separated
by only thirteen days (III. 6.32)
7. Bhīsmā expires soon after the sun turns northward (XIII. 153.28)
8. Tradition has it that Bhīsmā passed away on Māgha-śuklāstamī and the
anniversary is celebrated as such even today.
9. These constitute the basic set of astronomical facts –
Before the war broke out there was a new moon at Jyesthā
There was a lunar eclipse on the Kārttikā full moon followed by a solar eclipse. There
were two eclipses separated by only thirteen days.
The war broke out in the month of Mārgaśīrsa and lasted for eighteen days.
Bhīsmā passed away soon after the winter solstice in Māgha and he had not slept for
fifty-eight days before expiring.
Karna described the then existing planetary positions - Saturn was at Rohinī, Mars had
exhibited a retrograde motion earlier, but had become pro-grade again. Citrā is being
harassed by a Graha.
Author’s Demonstration of 3067 BC as the Year of Mahābhārata War
Work of Achar has proceeded in two stages:
1. Review of the past studies
Thesis under reference has examined the truth of the following works in the light of the
details provided by the Planetarium software.
(a) Work of Rajesh Kocchar5
Achar has rightly shown the superficiality of the dating of Mahābhārata by Kocchar notable
for its insufficient data of astronomical references and their validation.
(b) Work of B.G. Siddharth6
4 This is an interpretation that Prof. K.S. Raghavan has made to make the verse conform to
the war diary that he had. Prof. Sengupta, Prof. K.L. Daftari etc had the verse differently
5 Kochhar, R., The Vedic People, Orient Longman, (Hyderabad, 1997)
6 Sidharth, B. G., The Celestial Key to the Vedas, Inner Traditions, (Rochester, 1999)
Achar has demonstrated his unfamiliarity with the notation that is being used with his
statement that Siddharth was wrong in claiming a solar eclipse on 24th June 1311 BCE.
Siddharth was correct – actually 1311 BCE means 1312 BC and not as presumed by Achar
who has taken BCE and BC as the same chronological notation throughout his paper. 24th
June 1311 BCE [JD = 1242389.927778] coincided with new moon, as such the following
comments of Achar were quite unwarranted:
“The only event Sidharth also considers is a total solar eclipse for which he gives a date of
June 24, 1311 BCE. However, simulations using the planetarium program SkyMap Pro
(Figure 7) show that there was no possibility of an eclipse occurring on that date. For, the
new moon was on the 14th June 1311 BCE and the full moon was on the 29th June 1311
BCE. Assuming that the date is actually 14th, rather than the 24th, which might have been just
a typographical error, there does occur a solar eclipse but at 4:00 am, hardly the time for it to
be visible…” (emphasis by the present author)
Please note the underlined part – Achar has criticized Siddharth on the grounds that the time
04:00 hours of the eclipse (the date and eclipse that Achar wrongly presumed with his erratic
knowledge of notations) was unfit to be visible. As he has criticized Siddharth on such
grounds it was mandatory for him to avoid such omissions in his own work. But as we shall
see later the facts are otherwise.
(c) Criticism on Sengupta’s Work
Achar had his axe then directed towards Sengupta forgetting his own words made in the
context of astronomical references of the epic. Sengupta is criticized for the solar eclipse on
September 14, 2451 BC7 with the comments that the eclipse occurred just after midnight –
as shown by the Planetarium software. Achar then goes on to reject the date proposed by
Sengupta on the grounds that Sengupta has not achieved a complete validation of the
astronomical references of Mahābhārata and has termed a number of references are fiction
or inconsistent astrological effusion.
(d) Comments on the Work of Raghavan2
See the comments by B.N. Achar:
1. He alone takes seriously the descriptions given by Karna of the astronomical events in
2. He believes the sequence of two eclipses occurring within a period of thirteen days to
be genuine events actually observed.
3. He gives a chronology of events starting with the departure of Krsna on the diplomatic
mission to Hastināpura. According to him the war started on November 22, 3067 BCE.
4. Simulations of the views of the sky on the dates given by Raghavan show spectacular
agreement with the descriptions given in the epic and are as follow:
5. According to Raghavan, Krsna departs for Hastināpura on September 26, 3067 BCE
(Figure 10) and arrives at Hastināpura on September 28, 3067 BCE, on bharaõi day.
Figure 11 shows the view of the sky clearly showing the moon at Bharanī. It may be
noted that Saturn is at Rohinī.
6. Figure 12 shows the view of the sky on October 8, 3067 BCE, the day of
Uttaraphālgunī, when after the failure of his mission, Krsna rides out with Karna. It is
then that he says that there will be amāvāsya in seven days.
7 Achar has used the wrong notation of BCE for the date of Sengupta in BC reckoning.
7. Figure 13 shows the new moon on October 14, 3067 BCE occurring at Jyesthā….It
has been verified that there was a solar eclipse on that day. The figure clearly shows
Saturn at Rohinī. This is exactly as described in the epic. All other scholars regard this
to be astrological because their own calculations fail to reproduce it.
8. Figure 14 shows that there was a lunar eclipse on September 29, prior to the solar
eclipse on October 14.
9. Figure 15 shows the retrograde motion of Mars that had taken place a little earlier.
Mars goes retrograde before reaching Jyesthā and at the time of conversation with
Karna it is prograde again and past anurādha.
10. Figure 16 shows the view of the sky on November 22, 3067 BCE the starting day of
the war according to Raghavan.
11. Figure 17 shows that the winter solstice occurs on Jan 13, 3066 BCE, and figure 18
shows the view of the sky on the day of of Bhīsmā’s expiry. January 17, 3066 BCE is
the date of Bhīsma’s expiry and it is Māgha śuklāstamī.
On the above basis B.N. Achar has given the conclusion:
“As seen in the figures, the basic set of astronomical events described in the epic is shown
to agree with those occurring on the dates given by Raghavan. Starting from the day of
Krsna's departure on a peace mission to Hastināpura, to the day of Bhīsma’s death, the tithis
and naksatras on these dates agree with those given in the epic. The planetary positions on
the dates given by Raghavan also show remarkable agreement with those given in the epic.
The present work also proposes the same date on the basis of additional considerations to
be discussed later”
2. Merits of the Review Undertaken by B.N. Achar
Double standards employed in the review
Achar has criticized the past works of Siddharth and Sengupta on the grounds of
visibility of the eclipses but when it comes to Raghavan, he is silent on the issue.
He has blindly accepted all that Raghvan said without any cross check with his
favourite tool –Planetarium or by computation.
(b) Unscientific use of the Planetarium software
The most disheartening aspect of the paper is the unscientific use of Planetarium
software and the false and confusing claims made on such basis. See the use of
figures and my comments attached as appendix-1.
Events such as solstice, lunar eclipse etc do not meet with any more demonstration
than that is achievable through by giving the longitudes of sun and moon. In fact the
true longitudes of sun and moon should have been a far more precise demonstration
of the solstices and eclipses than the figures of events which are irrelevant.
The fallacy of the aforesaid planetarium figures may be understood from the fact that
there had been no lunar eclipse as claimed by Achar on the basis of figures.
Moon’s naksatra positions on days of Revatī, Pusya, U.Phalgunī etc have been
attached – a sheer waste of space.
All planetarium softwares give the relevant astronomical data of events, but Achar
has deliberately kept the data away to bank on the imprecise figures in making his
spurious claims. What better authority do the attached figures have over the
computable astronomical data?
See how he has presented the retrogression of Mars that took place six months
earlier and the keeping aside of the retrogression of Jupiter and Saturn to meet the
demands of his thesis.
With such ludicrous treatment Achar has scoffed at Sengupta that the solar eclipse
he has suggested is taking place at midnight without caring to give the details of the
eclipses Achar himself has supposedly demonstrated using planetarium figures.
3. Accuracy of the Data Presented as of Planetarium Software and False Claims of
Critical points of the War Diary that Achar has conveniently left out
(a) War beginning: Mahābhārata V.142.18:8
Saptamāccāpi divasādāmāvāsyair bhavisyati I
Samgrāmo yujjyatām tasyām tāmāhuh Śakra-devatām II
It is evident that the war beginning had to be on an amāvāsyā but to circumvent the
problems caused by this verse in the dating, this verse has been subjected to many
misinterpretations like the one we see in the works of Raghavan. Achar offers no explicit
comments on this verse – follows Raghavan in introducing war rituals without any authority.
(b) 10th day of the war ended with the fall of Bhīsma.
Mahābhārata Bhīsmaparva, Ch.119.96-97, speaks of his wait for Uttarāyana on the
Śaraśayya (bed of arrows).
Gańgā, described as the daughter of Himavat sends Maharsis in the form of Hamsa.
In verse 105, Bhīsma announces to the swans departing to the south that he will
return to his original abode only with the advent of Uttarāyana.
Bhīsma.s death, Śānti parvah:
Nivrttamātretvayane uttare vai Divākare I
Samāveśayadātmānamātmanyeva samāhitah II 47.3 II
Śuk apksasyacāstamyām māghamāsasya Pārthiva I
Prājāpatye ca naksatre madhyam prāpte Divākare II 47.64 II
Bhīsma.s death Anuśāsna parvah:
Āganthavyam ca bhavatā samaye mama Pārthiva I
8 Mahābhārata, published by Gita Press, Gorakhpur.
Vinivrtte Dinakare prvrttecottarāyane II 152.10 II
Astapaňcāśatam rātrayah śayānasyādya me gatāh I
Śaresu niśitāgresu yathā varsa śatam tathā II 153.27 II
Māghoƒyam samanuprāpto māsah punyo Yudhistirah I
Tribhāgaśesah pakso yam śuk obhavitumarhati II 153.28 II
These verses without any ambiguity convey3 the fact that Bhīsma.s death took place 58
nights after his fall on the 10th day of the war. The new moon referred to by Krsna and
the beginning of the war as such was 68 days before the winter solstice. All other details are
secondary and of less significance and are prone to errors, additions/omissions, having
passed through the imagination of innumerable people in describing a catastrophic war with
all possible exaggerations.
Achar has not discussed these verses in his paper. Under Section X, titled “Critical edition
and variant readings” Achar has made the following observations without discussing its
implications to the astronomical dating of the war advocated in his paper:
“During the simulations it was found that at several places, a reading variant from the critical
edition of the epic gave better agreement with astronomical phenomena. At some places the
critical edition reading was actually misleading. For example, Sangrāmo yujyatām tasyām in
(V.140.18) is better than Sangrāmao yojayet tatra found in the critical edition. A śloka, which
alone could have been sufficient to determine the date of the war, has been given by Sathe
etal, but is not given in the critical edition:
Śuk apksasyacāstamyām māghamāsasya Pārthiva I
Prājāpatye ca naksatre madhyam prāpte Divākare II (XII. 47. 64)”
Emphasize (underline) added by the present author may be noted. Observations find no
explanation or justifications in his paper and the contents had adverse implications for
the paper as the verse quoted went against the paper when taken in conjunction with
other verses dealing with the death of Bhīsmā quoted earlier.
With the above observations Achar could have naturally looked into the variants of
readings and extra verses available in other editions that could have given guidance in a
better astronomical dating of the war.
As observed above, the verses of the Gita Press edition of Mahābhārata clearly point out
68 days between the beginning of the war and the winter solstice and 58 days on the
bed of arrows - Astapaňcāśatam rātrayah śayānasyādya me gatāh I Śaresu
niśitāgresu yathā varsa śatam tathā II 153.27 II. To circumvent this problem,
Achar has given the following reply to Prof. Mohan Gupta, University of Ujjain:9
“Raghavan has argued that on the basis of very authoritative translation of the śloka in
question, it is true that Bhīsma spends 58 sleepless nights before his death, but these
include the 10 days of the war during which he was the Commander- in-chief of the Kuru
army. He could not sleep during those ten nights. That would bring the total to 58
sleepless nights as mentioned in the epic. This is quite consistent with the śloka. For
details, the readers are referred to the article by Raghavan”