Friday, January 12, 2018

Challenging Nilesh Oak's dates of Mahabharata and Ramayana.

Many have attempted to date the Mahabharata war and Ramayana taking inputs from the two Epics. Mr Nilesh Oak ( ) is one among them who has dated Mahabharata war at 5561 BCE and Rama- Ravana war at 12,209 BCE. In an exchange with him on Twitter for an open debate I sent to him the following transcripts in a series of tweets on January 8th and 9th of 2018. 

Till now he has not replied to my arguments.

- Jayasree

Date of MB is non-negotiable as it is connected with Kali yuga that started 36 yrs after MB war. Traditional date of K.Yuga is 3102 BC, so that of MB is 3138 BC. 3102 BC is the basis of time frame all these 5000 yrs used by rishis & ancestors in Sankalpa for yajnas, puja and lakhs of times everyday even today.

Tamil Siddha hymns also give a formula to deduce the day, star etc of any day, anytime of this time frame of K.Yuga which is perfectly working. To deny this date is Videshi Indology. Our attempt should be to locate this date matching with hints given by Vyasa in MB. If we don’t get this date, it means we haven’t understood the hints correctly.

Hints in MB: Planetary position, Upagrahas, Gara Karana (one of Pancha angas) and terrestrial sightings.

1.Planets:-The reference to planets and their motion at the start of MB war pertains to Nimittha (निमित्त ) and the results/ predictions connected with planetary motions pertain to astrology, and not exactly about the position of those planets as per astronomy. Therefore one must not take the reference to planets at face value.

2. Upagrahas:- Syama, Dhuma and Ketu mentioned are Upagrahas of planets and located in relation to the respective planet on a particular day. They must support planetary position.

 3. Panchanga factor:- Gara karana appearing in Chitra (5-141-9)
नूनं मह भयं कृष्ण कुरूणां समुपस्थितम
विशेषेण हि वार्ष्णेय चित्रां पीडयते गरहः

Based on all these I derived 3 water-tight  features - Mars in Sravana, Saturn in Purva phalguni and an eclipsed Amavasya in Jyeshta with no eclipses in the preceding and successive pakshas and asked Dr N.Achar in Aug 2013 to check for the date in his astronomy software. He got two dates 3178 BCE and 3030 BCE, of which 3178 BCE is within 40 yrs of traditional date of MB. Details of this decipherment here:

Anyone showing a date less than this is welcome.

Why another year also appeared for the given inputs? Because we took only 3 factors that we are so sure about and they had existed at another date also. But the date closer to traditional date is taken, as the traditional date forms the basis of this research.

4. Terrestrial sightings:- Fierce winds, colour of the sky & of sun, showers of dust, trembling of earth, roaring noises, high waves at the seas, strange behaviour of animals etc narrated by Vyasa as terrestrial happenings fit in with after-effects of a meteor or asteroid hit somewhere on earth. In this context he speaks about Arundhati ahead of Vasistha. Immediately after that he notes that the deer image on the moon had deviated from original position.

Movement of Arundhati and deer image on moon are reported (seen) at the same moment. This is possible due to some atmospheric refraction. (Today both are all right). A meteor/ comet hit somewhere in the globe can cause this making the above mentioned sightings possible.
Around the same time of these sightings, a comet had hit Austria. A Cuneiform tablet prepared in 700 BC explains a meteor-fall 5000 years ago in Austria. Read

The date is deciphered as 29th June, 3123 BC! This is 15 yrs after MB war. A dating error could have caused this deviation. But description including the deviation of Arundhati and deer image of the moon is possible due change in the refractive index of the atmosphere caused to particles thrown in the air by meteor-hit.

Next catastrophe happened 36 years after Mahabharata war when Krishna left the world. Massive waves that hit Dwaraka could have been caused by an asteroid hit off the coast of Madagascar 5000 yrs ago. The chevrons around Madagascar testify this. My article here

Now taking up Oak’s theory of shift in the position of Arundhati, it can happen only under 2 circumstances. 1. If the earth reverses its direction of rotation, the stars in the circumpolar constellation (Ursa Major) will reverse the direction in which Arundhati will move in front of Vasistha. This reversal is impossible.

2. When Arundhati (Alcor) comes in front of Vashishta (Mizar) which can happen only after 375,000 yrs!  Read This cannot happen in a measurable span of human civilization.

What Oak says is with reference to change in equinoctial position or change in poles over 26000 years. The change in equinox – showing a shift in poles can be in understood by this figure.

In the hour-glass like span, earth’s axis draws an arc to and fro. Points A,B,C,D are four pole stars seen aligned with earth’s axis once in 6500 years. Shown in the figure.

For a terrestrial observer on the earth, this to-and fro movement will be 2-dimentional.  See the figure below where points B & D will be noticed at the same point in space. After all within 6500 x 4 yrs shift, the background cosmos does not shift much for observer.

The same is what our ancients had noticed which I showed in another article in another thread. With axis falling in Aries- Libra, the motion goes upto 27 degrees to and fro.

Within this the poles shift. For the naked eye observer, Ursa Major does not undergo any change. Take a look at the figure. To and fro oscillation for poles and Ursa Major does not cause change in position of Arundhati for an observer. She will be seen following Vashishta due to the same directional rotation of the earth. 

Even across time of 1000s of years, Vashishtha- Arundhati orientation to each does not change due to the gravitational coupling between them. Ursa major may change its shape, but Mizar- Alcor orientation and location  as seen from the earth won’t change. See this video

So what Vyasa noticed was an optical illusion caused by change in the refractive index of the atmosphere, which in turn was caused by a catastrophic meteor hit which is what his observations are about.

That Arundhati would not change position was noticed as early as Skanda’s times. MB 3-229 is about how the wives of 6 out 7 sapta rishis were disowned by their respective husbands and allotted motherhood of Skanda. The import is Arundhati alone stayed put without changing position. That is why she is made an icon of chastity. Such an Arundhati could have never changed position in the past or future. That is why she is exceptional. To say she changed position in the near past was poor understanding of why and how our ancients created certain icons like Arundhati.

Talking on Skanda we move to Ramayana date as Skanda is worshiped in the Mantra of Indra dvaja by Manu (Brihad Samhita 43:54-55) Means Skanda aka Muruga existed before Manu’s times. He was born in Pandyan dynasty as ‘Ugra kumara’ or Muruga and hosted the 1st Sangam age. The dates of 3 sangams deduced after research:

9990 BCE is the date after which Manu must have given the Indradvaja mantra. Only after that the  Ikshvaku dynasty was formed in which Rama was born much later.  Southern Madurai was capital of 1st Sangam age (5550 BC – 9990 BC). After it submerged, Kavaatam became the capital of 2nd Sangam age (5550 BC – 1850 BC). This capital is mentioned in V.Ramayana.

Internal evidence of Ramayana is “Kavatam of Pandyas!” कवाटम् पाण्ड्यानाम् – Valmiki Ramayana, chapter 41 -19). Sugreeva asked vanaras to search there. Date is anywhere between 5550 BC – 1850 BC

That Pandyans were contemporaries of Ravana is known from  Sinnamanur copper plates 

In Sanskrit it is written "Dasaanan sandheepa rakshakaara". In Tamil the same is written as "dasavathanan saarbaaka sandhu seithum" Ravana bought peace with Pandyans – same thing told in Raghu Vamsam of Kalidasa 6-62

The location of Pandya is mentioned as “Aalavai” – another name for Kavaatam of the 2nd Sangam age. Read my article.  So Rama lived during 2nd Sangam age of Pandyas. Definitely not before 5550 BCE.
Another internal reference: From my ppt presentation in SI3 conference

Now coming to Oak’s date, his date of Ramayana even pre-dates the beginning of Holocene which started around 11,500 yrs before present (BP). It marked the end of Ice age when Himalayas was heavily snow clad. Warmth flowed from south to north starting from 11,000 yrs to 7000 yrs. Only gradually Himalayans glaciers started breaking. So Ganga was not yet born in the time period he has given.

The Indian monsoon had not started at that time – a fact confirmed in Hancock’s vegetation map of India at 10,600 BC. Look at interior Deccan – no Dandakaranya forest. Description of rainy season of V.Ramayana is invalid in this period.

In Oak’s scheme, Vedic civilization goes beyond 15,000 yrs ago. Look at Hancock’s map prepared based on climate, rainfall etc of those times. Only habitable place was west coast, extended beyond present limits and in SE Tamilnadu.

If Oak still thinks that is date is right, let him challenge Hancock who prepared these maps.
Now coming to sea level, a bridge (Setu) could be built only if there is water between India and Srilanka. In the beginning of Holocene Lanka was landlocked like a peninsula – similar to Kathiawar Peninsula. Check out these maps of Hancock based on sea-level maps of Glen Milne. There was no need to build Setu in Oak’s date of Rama!

Till 8,900 BP there was land connection between India and lanka

By 7000 BP sea level almost reached the current level. Between 7700 BP to 6900 BP, sea waters completely separated Lanka from India for the first time. Only in this period Setu could have been built.

Note this period concurs with Bhatnagar’s date, 2nd Sangam date, and science channel date of boulders and geological studies done there. My article

Nutshell: Absence of Ganga and presence of land-locked Lanka in Oak’s date demolish his date of Ramayana. Plus Indian monsoons not yet started and absence of forest formation in Deccan makes his date unrealistic. If he wants to challenge these, let him first disprove Hancock’s maps and the sea-level data. 


Srinivasan Kalyanaraman said...

Jayasree ji,

A brilliant monograph, well-argued and evidenced. Certainly advances the ongoing efforts to resolve varying interpretations of the astronomical references in the Mahābhārata text, the most accurately dated document of Itihāsa events, in the history of world literature. Ananda Coomaraswamy provides a remarkable insight: 'Myth embodies the nearest approach to absolute truth that can be stated in words.' Thanks again, the Kali yuga that started 36 yrs after MB war, is 3102 BCE, so that of MB is 3138 BCE. Kr̥ṣṇa Dvaipāyana Vyāsa (the dark, Ganga islander) records events around this date of 3138 BCE. Narahari Achar, Srinivasa Raghavan and you have demonstrated a date of November 22, 3067. Congratulations for an outstanding astronomical contribution to studies of Bhāratīya Itihāsa. जीवेम शरदः शतम् Mirrored the blogpost here:

Arun said...

Nilkanth ji talks only about motion of Arundhati whose interpretation is doubtful and motion over long periods is inaccurate. Calculation only on basis of eclipses is also not proper as they are repeated after 18 years 10.5 days which is joint motion of Rahu and Sun. Even half periods or 3339 Tithis is also symmetric which is indicated in Rigveda 3/3/9 and puranas. All our calendar calculations are from start of Kali on 17-2-3102 BC Ujjain midnight. Vakyakaran calculations and many dates of Kerala texts on jyotish are given on that basis. By trying to change many thousands of such calculations to show our wisdom, we are denying the whole knowledge structure of India. If Indian chronology traditions are inaccurate, then we should not calculate on its basis. There many other broad indicators of Rama period. It was long after glacial floods of 10000 BC, Matsya incarnation during this flood and Rama birth after that were in years when it was Prabhava year both as per Pitamaha and Surya Siddhartha. Rama was in 24th Parivarta Yuga and Vyasa was in 28th yuga-each of 360 years ending in 3102 BC. These are given in Brahmana, Vayu, Kurma puranas etc.

Arun said...

Nilkanth ji talks only about motion of Arundhati whose interpretation is doubtful and motion over long periods is inaccurate. Calculation only on basis of eclipses is also not proper as they are repeated after 18 years 10.5 days which is joint motion of Rahu and Sun. Even half periods or 3339 Tithis is also symmetric which is indicated in Rigveda 3/3/9 and puranas. All our calendar calculations are from start of Kali on 17-2-3102 BC Ujjain midnight. Vakyakaran calculations and many dates of Kerala texts on jyotish are given on that basis. By trying to change many thousands of such calculations to show our wisdom, we are denying the whole knowledge structure of India. If Indian chronology traditions are inaccurate, then we should not calculate on its basis. There many other broad indicators of Rama period. It was long after glacial floods of 10000 BC, Matsya incarnation during this flood and Rama birth after that were in years when it was Prabhava year both as per Pitamaha and Surya Siddhartha. Rama was in 24th Parivarta Yuga and Vyasa was in 28th yuga-each of 360 years ending in 3102 BC. These are given in Brahmana, Vayu, Kurma puranas etc.

jayasree said...

Thanks for yourinputs Kalyanji.

jayasree said...

Thanks for your valuable comments Arun ji. If Nilesh ji is taking change of Arundhati's position as a factor, he must also account for why the deer image seen in the moon looked deviated- as both appear in the same context. He hasn't done that. He has only picked out features without giving thought to the context. Second point is your concurrence of Ramavatara only after the glacial flood of 10000 BC. Geological time period is the substratum or canvas over which one builds the theory. Nilesh ji miserably failed in looking at the viability of the canvas he has chosen. This demolishes at one stroke the numerous references he has cited on seasons to support his date. On yuga, I am preparing my article now on how our ancients (acharyas) deduced yuga. I will be posting it shortly

sriramlion said...

Hi maam..if yu can, pl make a post on andal..Just wanted to know about tat..And how many years our tamilnadu will be facing problems like this..From religion,weather,politics everything

Navaratna Rajaram said...

I discuss these and related topics in my new website,
There is also a Youtube video on Krishna based on my book Search for the Historical Krishna, which has other evidence also. P.N. Oak is not a reliable source.
In my book I attributed the destruction to a possible Tsunami, but have given another rational explanation. The data you have supplied are excellent. Please keep up the good work: Navaratna Rajaram

Raghunathan K said...

On yuga, I am preparing my article now on how our ancients (acharyas) deduced yuga. I will be posting it shortly.

I look forward to this, madam.

A simple question I have been asking my friends but still have not got the answer yet.. in our daily sankalpa, we mention the manu, year, thithi, etc. How is, for example, today's sankalpa different from the same thithi of same year (say, Hevilambi) of the last cycle 60 years ago. I request you to enlighten me on this.

jayasree said...

Mr sriramlion,

This article might be of interest to you:

It is in Tamil and written in 2012 exposing the wicked designs and lies of Daniel Selvaraj in his 're-visit' of Andal's life history. The same appearing in the book /paper published by Indiana University makes me wonder whether his paper has found a place in that book / paper or was used as a reference by someone else in writing about Andal.

For historical and philosophical info on Andal and her compositions, you may click the category "Thiruppavai" in the side-bar.

On the other part of your question, its Time and Ruler that decide the Dharma which in turn decide the good or bad experienced by the people. It does not need any predictive tool to say that both are on the negative side at the moment.

jayasree said...

Thanks for your comment Rajaram ji. I think you are referring to Nilesh Oak, not P.N.Oak.
I will go through the links you have mentioned. I have read your articles on AIT / Indus issues and was greatly inspired by your works. My pranams to you.

jayasree said...

Dear Mr Raghunathan,

Good question. But in the sankalpa, apart from the year-name, the 5 angas of Panchanga, namely day, star, thithi, yoga and karana (though we just say shubha yoga, shubha karana) also take place. In addition to this the location of Sun and paksha of moon also matter. The LCM of all these only will show you the date / day exactly repeating again. I don't think anyone had worked on it, but the probability is very least in thousands of years.

(Stretching this further): The one who makes the sankalpa - his name and gotra put him in a specific point in space and time which does not replicate. So we can say, the repetition of all the sankalpa factors will not occur for the same person in his life time. When they occur, the sankalpa-maker will be a different person - where the reference to time and space pertains to some one else.

Raghunathan K said...

yoga and karana (though we just say shubha yoga, shubha karana) also take place

Thank you Madam, for the clarification. this perfectly answers my query. No one pinpointed this.

Pranams & Regards,


Krishna said...

Mam, Based on the regular date provided for dob of Lord and MB, the lord played the major role in the entire story and lives of pandavas and kauravas, could we check the dasas in his chart of a major catastrophical events of MB war? I personally came across few people who are sadhaks (not into mundane life) of high calibre, who claimed the sravana bahula astami of His birth was indeed wrong and there are many such things that are locked or kept as secret in kaliyuga. I personally believe kaliyuga started even before Lord's death or probably before or after MB war but Kali entered only after His demise. I did not see your comments on Dr Raghavan's date of MB war anywhere in the blog or I could not find. Btw, I missed very basic part - are the dates Julian or Gregorian?

jayasree said...

@ Mr Krishna,

// Based on the regular date provided for dob of Lord and MB, the lord played the major role in the entire story and lives of pandavas and kauravas, could we check the dasas in his chart of a major catastrophical events of MB war?//

Dr B.V.Raman had done an astrological analysis of Krishna's horoscope in his book "Notable Horoscopes" I have written the salient features covered by Dr BV Raman in this article :

It is not possible to relate the individual events of MB war from Krishna's horoscope. But entering into war, preaching of Gita and his unnatural death are all indicated.

Rama's horoscope constructed using the birth positions given by Valmiki also tally with Rama's life events. A part of it I had written here:

On the other parts of your comment:

# Dr BV Raman constructed the horoscope of Krishna based on textual hints on start of Kaliyuga at the time of his death. He has extensively covered those issues in his book.

# Kali Maha yuga of Devamana (Divya yuga scale of devas / celestials/ nakshatras) started on 3102 BCE. Lets not confuse it with what our ancients talked about Yuga scale of Dharma. Please wait for a couple of days, my article on Yuga will be ready by tomorrow, in which I have explained everything.

# I never commented on Raghavan's date or anyone's date. My work is to look at the original / source texts and decipher / interpret the meaning of the hints given. Gather inputs / data that are strong enough and/ or cross-checked well. That is all. I once gave such data to Dr Achar and he came up with the dates. If others concur with my date, leave it. If they don't I will first satisfy myself with my interpretation. Then I will look at their data and find out why and where they had gone wrong. Nilesh Oak's falls in this category.

# The dates are from Gregorian calendar.

My pick on reliability of softwares:

They can never give accurate dates as the speed of earth and the tilt of earth are not constant for all times. And we have never known what they were in different times in the past. What we get now from softwares is based on the values fed into making them - perhaps the present data.

I can give as evidence the strange things I noticed in the astrology software which was prepared from the same data used to make astronomy softwares.

(1) I can see Mercury jumping 3 degrees within a day and lagna jumping 10 degrees in 5 minutes for dates 5000 years before present. But strangely the date of Rama is so close / or same in both astronomy and astrology software whereas they are not so for MB. This makes me wonder whether the current speed of earth and precession were the same 7000 years ago (5114 BCE as Rama's date) and not so 5000 years ago.

(2) When I fed the birth date of Krishna, derived by going back 125 years before Kaliyuga date (19th July 3227 BCE - BV Raman's date) into the astrology software, it showed Krishna's year of birth as Sreemukha. 126th year from that is the first year of Kali yuga, which is Pramadhi. This is also the first year in the 60 year cycle in vogue in North India even today. But when I searched for the 126th year by feeding the year 3102 BCE (Gregorian calendar) it shows Plavanga and not Pramadhi!

Lesson: Better go by what texts say and rely on those that are supported by cross-refernces. Reliability of softwares is a big question.

Saranathan TG said...

According to your article, I understand that when Sri Rama entered Dandakaranya, sage Agastya had not moved South. According to various inputs, I understand that Agastya discovered Tamil or the First grammar Agattiyam was formed only after Agastya came to South to Podigai mountains. If my understanding is correct, then in one of your blogs you had mentioned that Tamil was spoken at the time of Sri Rama (Sri Sita spoke to Sri Hanuman in Tamil). How do we reconcile this? Please pardon me if I am impertinent!

jayasree said...

I agree there is discrepancy in the narration on Agastya. And I also believe that there were two different Agastyas appearing in two different sangam ages. Let me explain.

Agastya of Ramayana must have been from 2nd sangam age because internal evidence shows that 2nd sangam was in Rama's times. Agastya's presence in Rama's times has better consistency. Apart from the evidences I had shown here, there is one more evidence found in Uttara Khanda of Ramayana. When on the advice of Narada, Rama went about looking for Sambuka, he could not find him out easily. He mounted on the Pushpaka vimana and went to the South!! There in Saivala mountain he spotted Sambuka. After killing him Rama proceeded to meet Agastya who was doing a penance of standing in water for 12 years.

For our cross- checking, Saivala is the Saiya mountain which was the name for Western ghats that receive the first rains of south west monsoon according to verse 11 of Paripaadal (sangam text). That means this is the southern half of the western ghats of peninsular India where Kodagu is located. Kodagu was the first abode of Agastya after he shifted to south.

Further cross-reference comes from Kishkindha Khanda where Sugreeva narrates the regions of south to look for Sita (VR 4-41-16 &17) Sugreeva refers to river Kaveri and the Malaya mountain where Agastya was staying. Therefore Agastya was living in that part of Malaya when Rama went to destroy Sambuka. Prior to that he was living near Chitrakoota when Rama came to meet him for the first time - in the 1st year of Vanavasa.

This Agastya comes in the early part of 2nd sangam age. So who was the Agastya of 1st sangam age? There are no cross-references to check that. The only info we have is from "Irayanaar agapporul urai" by Nakkeerar. He says that "Agatthiyam" was the grammar book of the 1st sangam. The 1st assembly of this period was decorated by Shiva (ruler of Pandya land, husband of Meenakshi), his son Muruga (Ugra Kumara in sangam texts) and Agatthiyar (and two more names whose names do not appear in any other works).

Their location was deep south - now under water in Indian ocean. I have located it off Sundaland and north of Australia. Sugreeva also talks about 'Kunjara' mountain in that part of the globe having Agastya's abode. That is, in the same narration of southern route, Sugreeva identifies 2 places as Agastya's abode, one near Kavery and another in Kunjara mountain.

This Agastya must have been a the first Agastya of the 1st sangam age. But this name could have been a Tamil form like "agatti" or Agattiyar" - derived from 'agam' - inner or that which pertains to personal life. 1st sangam contained 'agam' verses only and not 'puram'. So it is possible to assume that the grammar of 1st sangam was on 'agam'- from this, the name could have come as 'agatthiyam' for the grammar book, and the composer was Agattiyar. This is like how composer of Tolkappiyam is known as Tolkappiyar.

There is a strong justification for interpreting like this. The name Agastya is not a generic name but a special name. The sage Agastya got this name due to 'staying the mountain' - agam sthyayathi ithi agasthyah. Therefore no body else other than him could have got this name. His descendants might have inherited this name, but certainly not those who lived before him. On this basis, I am saying that the Agattiya of 1st sangam was not agastya, the Rig vedic sage who was contemporary of Rama and who got that name for subduing Vindhyas. Somehow with degenerating times, we have identified both (Agattiyar and Agastya) as the same. But both have authored the grammar book of Tamil.


jayasree said...

On the question of Tamil spoken at Rama's times: The Agastya issue does not alter it. Tamil or proto-Tamil was in existence right from Vaivasvata Manu's times. One of the evidences I can say is that the only God (other than vedic deities) found in Indra dvaja mantra attributed to Manu was Subramanya! So Subramanya / Muruga had lived before Manu!

In this connection I request you to go through the ppt of my paper to SI3 conference:

In that, slides 57-59 are about the commonality between Tamil and Sanskrit by virtue of they being sister languages from a common proto language. I will expand them in a future article.

You may even read this article:
- particularly under the sub title 'Pali-Tamil connection to Proto Tamil' to know about my justification for such an olden existence for Tamil.

I hope I answered your questions.

jayasree said...

Tail piece: No one knows the real name of Rig Vedic Agastya, the one who appears in Ramayana.

Krishna said...

Mam, I was talking about those major events only apart from his birth in a prison. Another major event was Rasa leela which was a trans state of numerous gopikas at high pedestal spiritual awakening. I read your posts and also Sri Raman's writings. I am just curious to know if you do consider unwritten but orally passed on such info. Atleast you would agree that there are people even today who would love to witness of happenings of those times in their secluded, secretive meditative sessions willingly. In my case, I am fine with and consider such information as well. All your points noted and understood your view. Regarding the reliability of software, I trust what you say because I am not subject expert in astronomy(logy). The last time, I was in touch, you were using JH 7.3/7.4. However the Data derived from The full and new version using Pushya Paksha Ayanamsa differ a bit here or there (and I just do check the placements of Grahas based on the dates of studies).

kish said...

With due respect, ms Jayashree, ramayana took place in treta Yuga which lasted around 1296000 years... Dwapara Yuga is 864000 years.. so if dwapara Yuga ended on 3102 B.C, then timespan of dwapara Yuga is from 3102 b.c to 867102 B.C... and treta Yuga will be from 867102 B.C to 2163102 B.C. So Ramayan must have happened between 2163102 B.C to 867102 B.c and ramayan also mentions Rama ruled kingdom for 36000 years.. bcz in treta Yuga life span was between 1000 and 10000 +/- years ....

Saranathan TG said...

Thank you very much, Madam.Based on your elaborate reply and before studying your other references (I am a slow reader!), I have a very quick supplementary query.
If the Rig Vedic sage of Sri Rama's time got the name Agastya for having stalled a mountain, and I assume this happened after Sri Rama met him in His First year of Vanvas, how could Valmiki mention the name Agastya when Sri Rama met him? Because, after Sri Rama met him only, this sage migrated to South.

mythra81 said...

i feel the length of a yuga is denoted by the lunar tithis not years so 432,000 could be lunar months which works out to be around 35,000 years for kali yuga and corresponding lengths for the other yugas

jayasree said...

Posted a short series (3 part) on Yuga and addressing various issues such as life span of man in different yugas. 1st part here Other parts can be accessed from this link.

I think I have addressed all probable questions in this series. If any more questions are there, post them under the relevant articles.

Truth Seeker said...

Dear Madam

Can you check the note from Sivan Sir, brother of Kanchi paramacharya that age of Kali was 300000 years. He has numerous assertions that earth could change its direction of motion and inclination. As per him Kali Yuga started in the 12 th saptarishi cycle preceding the current cyle


Truth Seeker said...

Age of Kali was already 300000 years as per him in his book YPM an english translation of which is available on net

jayasree said...

@ Truth seeker,

Please read my 4 part article on Yugas where you will get my answer for your comment.
This is part 1 and the links to other 3 parts are given in this itself.

Truth Seeker said...

@Jayasree thanks for the reference. The theory is ingenious and fits well with the short time scale given to human origin on earth. You have tried to bridge two problems
1. The time scale given in purans is too immense
2. The time scale of yugas cannot be too short either due to the nature of activities on earth.

But I think it is worth going through what Sivan sir has written since he seems to be speaking from some spiritual level rather than proposing a theory for the sake of it.

He is talking of 300000 human years of advent since the start of Kali Yuga and the corruption of records kept by us, including Indians. Lets not dismiss this outright as he was not an ordinary seer.

jayasree said...

sriramlion said...

//Hi maam..if yu can, pl make a post on andal..Just wanted to know about tat..And how many years our tamilnadu will be facing problems like this..From religion,weather,politics everything//

Just now noticed your comment. I wrote 3 articles on Vairamuthu- Andal issue in Jan and Feb.

Please check them here:
வைரமுத்துவும், முடித்து வைக்கப்பட வேண்டிய ஆண்டாள் ஆராய்ச்சியும்.

'தமிழை ஆண்டாள்' கட்டுரையில் வைரமுத்து செய்த 18 சறுக்கல்கள்

வைரமுத்து போட்ட அவதூறு- கூட்டல் கணக்கும், தமிழறிவைக் கழித்த கணக்கும்.

One of the readers of these blogs, an old man, compiled these articles along with my old article on Devadasi issue raised by Daniel Selvaraj and brought out a book for free distribution. Any one interested to read it and distribute it to targeted readers may contact me.

karthi said...

Dear Madam, I across this explanation by Nilesk Oak of AV observation in youtube.
His explanation is very logical and also scientific.
You claim that Arundhati cannot walk ahead Vashistha but he has proven otherwise. His astronomical evidence is more reasonable than the optical illusion which you claim. Have you ever observed such optical illusion yourself?

jayasree said...

Have you observed Arundhati in naked eye? Have you gone through the scientific material on the two stars Vasishtha and Arundhti? Have have known why Arundhathi was chosen as a symbol of chastity? Have you gone through Dr Achar's reply to Mr Oak? Have you read the above article by me fully and the specific context where Arundhathi sighting is followed by the sighting on the moon? Have you known what factors make an astronomical observation differ from an astrological reference? Have you known that the present system of week day - month -sun's position will collapse if you change the Kaliyuga start date even by a day?

Sameer Barve said...

Dear Jayasree Madam,

I had studied Nilesh Oak's attempt of dating Mahabharata (5561 BCE) and Ramayana (12209 BCE) and also verified his claims using the software that he himself had used. I am giving my observations after I studied his theory as below:- (Due to restriction of 4096 html characters, I am dividing my comments into 3 parts)

Part 1/3

1) Scientifically speaking, Arundhati going ahead of Vasishtha HAD HAPPENED due to the combined effect of proper motions of Arundhati-Vasishtha and the precession of equinoxes. The angular separation between Arundhati and Vasishtha was near its MAXIMUM value around the year 5561 BCE. In those days, sky conditions were different (and possibly clearer than today) and hence an expert observer reporting to Maharshi Vyasa (or Maharshi Vyasa himself) could easily make out the separation between the two stars and it was recorded accordingly.

2) Effect of precession- Nilesh has considered the effect of precession of equinoxes on the seasons (which are based on the position of the Sun) and the Indian lunar months (based on the position of the moon). The correspondence between seasons and lunar months is temporary and it slowly changes on account of precession. The lunar months shift with respect to the seasons after about 2100 years on an average. The study of ancient Indian texts (eg. Rigveda) does highlight this fact. The date of Mahabharata proposed by Nilesh augurs well not only with the actual correspondence between seasons and Indian lunar months for the date he proposed but also with the internal evidence given in the Mahabharata text.

Sameer Barve said...

Part 2/3

3) Nilesh has tried to date Mahabharata and Ramayana based on astronomical evidence and he keeps exploring on evidences from other branches of science such as geology/archaeology/seismology/oceanography etc. The most important issue that needs to be addressed is that non astronomical evidences are susceptible to destruction compared to astronomical evidences which remain safe for thousands of years. The motions of stars, planets, comets, meteors etc. are predictable and hence a software simulator will help us to project the view of the sky once date is given. Moreover, we cannot equate "absence of evidence" with "evidence of absence". This is especially true with archaeology as there is a strong (mis)belief in scientific community that- "what could not be found (so far), can never be found".

4) Reliability of softwares- I had used two softwares quite extensively, viz, Stellarium and Voyager 4.5 (used by Nilesh). In my opinion, Voyager 4.5 is possibly the most accurate software tool that we have today for accurate sky projections of few thousand years in antiquity. You can verify all claims of Nilesh using Voyager by using proper settings of precession, proper motion nutation etc. Yo can try the trial version (freely available on internet to download) and verify all observations by yourself.

5) Ramayana and Sage Agastya- Nilesh has proposed 12209 BCE as the date of Ramayana and he also proposed 17000 BCE as the epoch of Agastya migration to the South India (in his book The Historic Rama). He has also proved how the K. D. Abhyankar's hypothesis is wrong who claims the star Agastya (Canopus) was not visible anywhere in India before 10000 BCE. I explored this subject in more details and found that the star Agastya is always visible from a few locations of South India (upto 12 deg north latitude) even though it is closest to celestial south pole. This happened during the epoch of ~12000 BCE which is roughly matching the epoch of Ramayana proposed by Nilesh.

Sameer Barve said...

Part 3/3

6) Kaliyuga- The traditional date of Kaliyuga is 3102 BCE but there is lack of substantial evidence that is given to support this claim. Moreover, Mahabharata mentions at numerous places that ending of Dwapar yuga is approaching and it mentions Kaliyuga only as an allegory/metaphor. Hence, we cannot assume the Mahabharata war took place some 36 years before the beginning of Kaliyuga. Even if someone claims 3102 BCE as the beginning of Kaliyuga and tries to date Mahabharata accordingly, the onus lies on them to prove how numerous observations of planets, stars, seasons and arundhati-vasishtha observation fits well with their own date.

I must say there are indeed a few discrepancies in some observations proposed by Nilesh but otherwise his theory is worth studying, exploring and researching further.

Awaiting your comments and criticism to the points I raised above.

Sameer Barve,

jayasree said...

Thanks Mr Sameer Barve for your defence of Mr Oak's theory. Hope you read the above article of mine where I have thrown 2 questions - whether the river Ganga was flowing at the time of his Ramanayana date and whether sea water was separating India and Lanka at Setu. If his dates are correct and if he has used lot of diverse evidences, let him give with proof the answers for them.

On astronomy software, check my recent article here
wherein I have produced 3 sky maps from astrology software to deduce the dates. Of them the first and 3rd are derived from inscriptions giving solar and lunar position, tithi and week day (Panchang features). They are 1071 from Chittamalli inscriptions and 1114 from Chidambaram inscription. The You can see the exact degrees of the planets and the signs on the specific dates. Now check the astronomy software for these two dates for the degree of Sun in particular and the signs of other planets along with the degrees. Are they same or different? If different Oak's astronomy based theories are all wrong. Same for anyone who is depending on astronomy software to date "Indian" past from clues given in "Indian" texts. The bottomline is none of the astronomy software reflects the Indian sense of time keeping and for your information planets were not time keepers. but sun and the moon are, which is reflected in Panchang features.

Coming to the 3 skymaps, among the three take a close look at the 2nd map having the date June 15, 1068. The first is the Rasi and the one diametrically opposite to it is Bhava /Chalit. Both are same - the only difference being each house (square) in the Rasi has exact span of 30 degrees that start from zero degree Aries, while they are also 30 degrees in the Bhava, but designed from the time of observation, with the sky map at that time forming the focus. In that chart you will see Mars having shifted to Virgo while it is Libra!!!! How did it happen??

Hope you get what I am saying. Observation astronomy done by our seers followed this Bhava chart! Because that is how they had seen the sky from their location, assigning the rasi position with the point of rise at eastern horizon as the centre with 15 degrees before and after forming the sign.

The terms used in Mahabharata are this kind of Jyothish related ones and not what Oak others think. Read my article written in 2013 on how those terms must be understood.

On relevance of planets to derive a date, I will show another article of mine here
If you scroll down you will see 3 rasi charts. Look at the 2nd and 3rd along with the explanation from Varahamihira. Then decide how reliable the planets-based dating. Read that article fully to know what is equinox in Indian reckoning.

Take it from me any dating can be perfect only when done with Panchanga features. In this link on Mahabharata date (, I have pointed out 'Gara Karana' one of the Panchanga features found in Mahabharata and used it in deriving the date. Without them for cross check, your date cannot be accurate. First know the traditional time keeping.

Same advice on Kaliyuga. You people are searching it in books, but it is here in everyday use. I am writing this comment in 5120th year of Kaliyuga. The base year started the day Krishna died. 36 years before that MB war happened. If you want to imagine another year for Kaliyuga start date, two time- keepers will go wrong, they are the week day today and the solar month which cannot alter due to perception of its position in the zodiac. Any other date of Kaliyuga start date, would not make today as Wednesday or Sun in Virgo.

jayasree said...

On Agastya, the date it started becoming visible to the north of Vindhyas matters for knowing when the sage Agastya crossed the Vindhyas. That date is unanimous in almost all the researches including that of Abhyankar.

On Arundhathi, written in the above article. It is an omen. Mr Oak has failed in his judgement of what features to take as assumptions for deciphering the date.

Sameer Barve said...

Thanks a lot for your comments.

I am currently going through the links of your articles that you had provided and will take some time to get familiar with your work.

I will try to simulate the view of the sky for the dates you have suggested and will report back to you with the screenshots from the software simulator.

I have a strong feeling that the software screenshots will give slightly different results compared to what you have got in your analysis but I will not blame software makers for now and would rather simply record the discrepancies for the in depth analysis at later stage.

The important task is to get familiar with your work and proceed for further analysis in this area.

Sameer Barve,

(Please remove the following paragraph beginning with Unfortunately...., while posting the comment to your blog. I would even prefer to send screenshots to your personal email address, if its okay with you to share the same. That will allow both of us to get an idea about each other's work in this area without disturbing other visitors of your blog. It will eventually lead to the growth of knowledge despite the differences of opinion that we might have as long as as there is a willingness to learn new things. A blog is a public domain and I feel we can keep some things in private without publishing on public domain.)

Unfortunately (or fortunately), Panchanga is my favourite topic in the positional astronomy and I love studying different panchangas used throughout India. I am also aware of the fact that the different panchanga makers in different states of India use different ways of making panchangas. for example- in many states of north India, the month begins and ends with full moon day and hence known as Pournimanta system. In my state Maharashtra (and possibly few other states in South India as well), the month begins and ends with new moon day and hence known as Amanta system. I would like to share panchangas that we use in Maharashtra with what you are using at your hometown so as to compare and contrast between the two methods. For now, let me go back to your work and generate the screenshots for more in depth analysis.

jayasree said...

Sorry, Couldn't comply with your request to remove the paragraph as it is not possible to edit.

Sameer Barve said...

Dear Jayasree Madam,

I have gone through the foolowing link that you had given-

After going through the planetary positions for the dates you have suggested- 9 May 1071, 15 June 1068 and 20 March 1114, I have few queries as given below-

1) First point of Aries- As far as I know (from the panchangas that we use in Maharashtra), the first point of Aries (sometimes called the zero point of zodiac) is defined in 2 different ways-
a) The star zeta piscium- known as Tilak panchanga
b) The point diametrically opposite to the star Spica (alpha virginis) (Chitra)-
known as Nirnaya sagar panchanga
In 2018 AD, most of the panchangas used in Maharashtra state were of Nirnaya sagar type using opposite to spica as the beginning of zodiac. In this method, the Sun enters nirayana zodiac (fixed point zodiac independent of precession of equinoxes) of Vrushabha (Taurus) on 15th May every year (with 1 day tolerance). However, the first inscription data for the date 9 May 1071 shows the position of the Sun in Taurus at 06 deg 47 min 09.59 sec corresponding to the 4th charana (paada) of Krittika (Karthiga) nakshatra.

According to what I have studied, the Sun cannot be in Taurus some 6 days before 15th May on any year if we use nirnaya sagar panchanga. Since the inscription says so, I concluded that the makes of this inscription must have used a different reference point as the beginning of zodiac.

If that is the case, then I will have to calculate the difference between the angular position of the reference points of inscription makers and modern day calculations before we can proceed to have a reliability check of softwares and sky simulators.

2) I did not understand horoscope layout that you have given. In my place, we use a slighlty different layout for kundali and horoscope and hence will have to get familiar with your layout first. Then, I will be in a position to go through your work on horoscope calculations.

I will also check other links that you have given and post my comments soon.

Sameer Barve,

jayasree said...

Sun, moon, tithi, week day and year name given in the inscriptions of 1000 years ago have tallied with the software I use now. Check with Jagannath Hora makers for sorting out the issues in astronomy software. The panchang details of the inscription are solar calendar-based in use in Tamilnadu. According it and according to our ancestors Sayana position of sun was followed. Lunar calendar cannot be used for dating.

Sameer Barve said...

Dear Jayasree Madam,

I have installed Jagannath hora software and explored its different settings. I could make out the following-

1) This software is basically for astrological purposes and not for astronomical purposes. There is no option for viewing the sky. However, it does give ecliptic longitudes for planets, sun, moon etc.

2)This software uses tropical calendar (having a length of year as 365.2425 days) and not the siderial calendar (having a length of 365.2564 days). Hence, due to the precession of equinoxes (at the rate of 50.2 arc seconds per year), the longitudes of planets shift towards west by about 13-14 degrees over a period of 1000 years. That was the reason for discrepancy why the Sun was shown in Taurus on 9th May 1071 although it enters Taurus around 15th May every year according to nirayana panchanga.

3) When I changed the date to 15th May 2018 for Mumbai location, I could see the Sun near the boundary of Aries and Taurus (as expected) but for every 1000 years (either in future or in antiquity), the difference of about 13-14 degrees was observed when compared against nirayana panchanga. It means that this software uses "opposite to spica" as the reference point for the current times in 2018 AD and considers precession effect for all future or past dates- for the settings that I had applied.

4) This approach "appeared" like the software is using sayana calendar but it does not use vernal equinox as the beginning of zodiac- (could be possible after changing settings but I did not try yet). The people who follow sayana panchanga make use of vernal equinox as the beginning of zodiac and start counting Aries from there even if vernal equino itself is not in "actual" Aries that we see in the sky.

5) It is to be noted that although the sayana calendar is in synchronisation with the cycle of seasons, it is not useful for sky observation as the predicted and observed shapes of zodiacs do not match. Similarly, nirayana calendar is useful for sky observation but shifts with respect to seasons which will disconect the relation between festivals and the seasons over a few hundred or thousand years from now.

6) For dating of historical events, we can use neither the "pure solar" calendar nor the "pure lunar" calendar, but we must use "Luni-solar" calendar. The Luni-solar calendar accounts for an intercalary month (adhika masa) after about every 2.5-3 years to minimise the shifting of lunar calendar (and hence the festivals) with respect to the solar calendar. This arrangement pushes the need for correction to a higher limit thereby reducing the frequency with which the correction has to be applied.

7) I have taken screenshot for the day 9 May 1071 for Tanjore location but unable to post it here. I can send it by email if you could share your email id. There is a slight difference in longitudes for all the planets as shown by software. This could be due to the different settings that each one of us had used.

I will go through other work of yours soon and post my comments for that.

Sameer Barve,

jayasree said...

Whatever you have written are theories but what I have shown is how our ancients had seen the sky and from that reckoned time. 9th May, 1071 was a Tuesday, Sukla Pratipat, with Moon in Rohini and Sun in Taurus in the year Virodhkrit. All these given in the inscription matched exactly. That is the point. The year name could be different in north India. But other features are the same throughput India. The week day and tithi could not have changed whatever be the panchang you used. Sukla pratipat is crucial as tithi is decided by the location / distance between the moon and the sun on that day. If whatever you had seen in your astronomy software had not matched with this, it means astronomy software cannot tell the time correctly.

I think you had not yet read the link I had given on how equinox was understood by our ancients. If you under stand that you will know that seasons never shifted.

Suggest to read this also on seasons.

Sameer Barve said...

Dear Jayasree Madam,

I just compared planetary positions shown by Jagannath hora astrology software with Voyager 4.5 astronomy software for 9th May 1071 AD at Tanjore location at 12 pm.

The longitudes of all planets including the Sun and the Moon matched pretty well and both softwares agreed on the positions of the planets in their respective zodiac signs. As I result, I concluded that the software settings I applied in both softwares are good enough to generate perfect results and we need not worry about software reliability. This was my first objective and I am glad that I could achieve it properly. I can send you the screenshot if you could share email id as I cannot attach files on this blog.

I have not yet read your article on seasons and equinox and will surely go through it. One final point on prediction of vedic day in jagannath hora software, though.

The jagannath software predicts vedic day based on the local sunrise timing. Hence, if you run software for a place located in far eastern India, such as Assam or Arunachal Pradesh, the sunrise timing is earlier than the most other locations of mainland India such as Chennai or Mumbai. Hence, for any given date, change of location could make a difference for the vedic day prediction. However, astronomy softwares such as Voyager or Stellarium follow western method of change of day at 12 AM midnight. So, while comparing the reliability check on softwares, this point must be kept in mind.

Sameer Barve,

kedar201227 said...

Madam there are various dates produced by enormous researchers i don't know how to lay my trust on them. In my opinion if Ramayan is from ancient times then the ayodhya which is in present UP state is not the ayodhya of ramayan . The same applies to the location of Lanka.

Rama Krishna said...

Mahabharata has hundreds of astronomical and other significant references. Leaving those innumerable references , just picking one Arundhati-Vasista reference in not at all a wholistic approach.

Even the sea level changes are cyclical i.e., repeating every 25,600 years . So why the anxiety to peg the date of Ramayana to sea level rise corresponding to the first cycle.

jayasree said...

@ Rama Krishna.

Please wait for a few days to read my rebuttal of Oak's Arundhati epoch that I am currently preparing.

On floods, it's cyclical nature is not in tune with 25,600 year cycle which I believe you refer to the cycle of NCP. It is dependant on ice age conditions. In Oak's Ramayana times, sea level was 120 mt lower than it is now. He is simply bluffing in his video that he is working with Hancock and Milne.Hancock is reachable through Twitter and is pretty sure about the maps he created.

I threw up 2 questions to test his hypothesis of Ramayana date, but he has no answers. He can't answer but has to wind up his per theories.

jayasree said...

* pet theories.

Sameer Barve said...

We will wait for your in depth analysis to refute Arundhati-Vasishtha observation proppsed by Nilesh Oak. However, I request you to also include the 2 questions that you had asked him earlier for the benefit of readers of this blog.

jayasree said...

@ Sameer Barve,

Not just 2 questions, but more. I raised these two questions in tweets, for him to show scientific proof for his date of Ramayana. But he can't and he can never for these two were impossible for his date of Ramayana. There are other internal cross references too, that his date has to satisfy. It is obvious he is not even aware of the presence of those internal cross references both in Ramayana and Mahabharata.

But my rebuttal is going to demolish the very foundation of his research - the AV Epoch.
As I complete collection of data and set to start the writing, I am completely surprised to see the Universe showing up a combination of Tuesday, Krittika star and Shashthi tithi. What a right combination to start a demolition work! This work is going to be big, not a blog post and beyond that.

Rama Krishna said...

I have not understood the geometry of Arundhati-Vasishta rising . Even if we agree that Arundhati is rising ahead of Vashistha from 11000 B.C to 5000 B.C , going by his own interprwtainte it was not a new phenomenon during the MB times. It was already a 6000 year old phenomena.

Why would Vyasa depict a 6000 year old phenomena as freshly happening bad omen ?

So the real import of Arundhati walking ahead of Vasishta is - "Even PathiVratas are disobeying their Husbands ". It must have been metaphorical not Astronomical allusion.

Rama Krishna said...

My Comments in Facebook --- I am not a Scholar though.

Johnson Thomas As per my understanding Ramayana was a much ancient history than this RamSetu. But the NASA evidence says that there are older Rocks sitting over later sand formation. If we follow logic , IT MUST HAVE BEEN MAN MADE BRIDGE. We also have to answer your point , that the sea-levels were 118 lower and hence there was no need for a bridge to cross Over to Simhala Dweepa.

I reconcile both { evidence for man-made structure & sea levels being low } this way. There was a time when Simhala was connected by land. At that time Tamil kings must have been ruling over parts of Simhala .{ Sinhalese came from Bihar during Ashoka's reign during 15th Century B.C. }. There must have been a Royal highway linking Simhala and India. When sea levels rose gradually , they could not abandon the Highway . So the Tamil kings must have built this Bridge between 7000 B.C. & 4000 B.C.

Now for the skeptics , my answer is -- If Chinese Could build a 21,000 km. Wall with 4 billion bricks = 1 billion Cft & 34 billion cft total volume , why should a 10 billion Cft of Wharf structure be impossible . It is very much possible.

Just go through this
video of Kailasa Temple

1. "Vettuvan Koil - Model Of
Kailasa Temple Found?"

2. "Model of Kailasa Temple
Found? Pancha Rathas at

3. "Kailasa Temple in Ellora
Caves - Built with Alien

These videos show that there was high technology available to the indians.

jayasree said...

@Rama Krishna,

//I have not understood the geometry of Arundhati-Vasishta rising .......//

Why post this comment here? Post it in Oak's blog. Saw one Rama Krishna posting there :)

jayasree said...

@ Rama Krishna,

//My Comments in Facebook --- I am not a Scholar though.

Johnson Thomas As per my understanding Ramayana was .....//

Ha ha

Sameer Barve said...

// Rama Krishna ji said:-
I have not understood the geometry of Arundhati-Vasishta rising . Even if we agree that Arundhati is rising ahead of Vashistha from 11000 B.C to 5000 B.C , going by his own interprwtainte it was not a new phenomenon during the MB times. It was already a 6000 year old phenomena.

Why would Vyasa depict a 6000 year old phenomena as freshly happening bad omen ?

So the real import of Arundhati walking ahead of Vasishta is - "Even PathiVratas are disobeying their Husbands ". It must have been metaphorical not Astronomical allusion.//

My response-

The combined effect of proper motion of Arundhati-Vasishtha and the precession of equinoxes was such that Arundhati appeared to walk ahead of Vasishtha. Oak has given graphical representation of this phenomenon from 11000 BC to 4500 BC, see below link for the image

This image shows that the angular separation between Arundhati and Vasishtha was MAXIMUM during the epoch of 5561 BC, which according to Oak is the year of Mahabharata War. Any other time during the 6000 year span did not have this maximum angular separation.

For an observer doing sky observation with naked eyes, having maximum angular separation between two closely spaced objects becomes important to identify who is leading whom. Since observers appointed by Maharshi Vyasa or Maharshi Vyasa himself could make out this angular separation easily, he recorded this as an "Astronomical" phenomenon alongwith hundreds of other sky observations of planets, stars, nakshatras, sun, moon etc. Hence, even if Arundhati "actually" began walking "ahead" of Vasishtha as early as 11000 BC, the separation became prominent only around ~5600 BC so that it was visible to naked eyes and could not be avoided anymore.

Maharshi Vyasa had never been selective while recording astronomical observations of Mahabharata epoch and as a result, he included this observation in his list.


jayasree said...

@Sameer Barve,

Yes, I will be challenging that graph. Anything else?

By the way, can you tell for how many days Oak has watched the stars directly. I can guess. I could even guess for how many days Koch had done naked eye observation of Ursa Major after reading his critique of Oak's AV.:)))

Rama Krishna said...

I believe , human civilization is much , much , much older than what it is made out to be by Biblical Historians and archeologists . From 1492 onwards our planet was conquered by biblical barbarians. They imposed 4004 B.C. as the starting point of Creation arbitrarily.Even after advanced in geology and Paleontology proved the hoary ancestry of Earth , the biblical bias continued regarding antiquity of Human civilization.

Why so ?
The reason is political. The imperialism of the Romans has spread through out the world. Christinity with it's cruel God with atrocious commands will not be acceptable to a rational mind. Bible was designed by Romans to Suppress rational thinking and make the slaves accept slavery as God given. Imposition of Christianity was meant to turn Indians pro British. That intention is actually working , with vast majority of Christians Supporting Congress, Communist and other anti-Hindu parties.

Even Rebirth is established as a scientific fact. But our Medical Science hides it. Our political discourse does not talk about it. Imperialists had a vested interest in not permitting Scientific thinking in 15th century. That very reason continues to hold good even now.

Christianisation of India is still the unfinished agenda being pursued by the global christian Imperialists , inorder to be able to mould india to favour their aspirations. Christianity was and is an imperial ideology.

There are ample evidences proving hoary ancestry of Human history. The present one on Garuda Bell is just one example. Ramayana , Mahabharata are what they claim to be .

I want you to unshackle yourself from the biblical imperialist limitations being imposed by these forces.

jayasree said...

Dear readers,
I found this blog post trending as a top-read on 28th April. That shows the anxiety level of too many people like me on reading Nilesh Oak's book. His book on Mystery Arundhati of Arundhati is a massive "ularal" from 1st page to last page. I am exposing every one of it in my upcoming project. My son a PhD from Purdue on Astro physics & aero space is proving mathematically why Oak's theory is nothing but bullshit. I, on my side initiated into visual astronomy right from my 8th year when man set foot on moon and into astrology from my 12th year by my maternal grand father who comes from a family of astrologers, will expose every absurdity in that book of Nilesh Oak. So rest assured that the sub standard work of this magalanomania & a schizophrenic, will be wiped out soon, to save veda Dharma.

Maverick108 said...

1. '' That shows the anxiety level of too many people like me on reading Nilesh Oak's book. ''

POINTLESS DRIVEL#1!!! Not a sign of scholarly discussion.

2. ''His book on Mystery Arundhati of Arundhati is a massive "ularal" from 1st page to last page. ''

POINTLESS DRIVEL #2!!! Unproved vitriolic assertions against an academic work of any nature(weak or strong) until SHOWN methodically to be ineffective is just making spurious accusations without ##skin in the game.

3. '' I am exposing every one of it in my upcoming project.''


4. ''My son a PhD from Purdue on Astro physics & aero space is proving mathematically why Oak's theory is nothing but bullshit.''

POINTLESS DRIVEL #3! Any high school student with above average Math and Physics abilities can come up with a reasonable argument for or against AV hypothesis if trained properly to workaround with Astronomical software implementation. LOL!!!,no one in the right mind needs to appeal to a PhD of any sorts. Appeal to authority is a FALLACY!!!

jayasree said...

Welcome Maverick108
Expecting you in some avatar weeks back and here you are!!
Running out of patience??:))
Is it just one or two pages?
212 pages of crap I have to dismantle.
So keep grinding your teeth till I finish :))
You said something on drivel 3. Nice idea, it will be incorporated to nix you.

Knox said...

There is this blog too: