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 (https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/ ) 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: http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2013/10/is-vedic-astrology-derived-from-greek_5.html

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 https://phys.org/news/2008-03-cuneiform-clay-tablet.html#jCp

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. http://discovermagazine.com/2007/nov/did-a-comet-cause-the-great-flood#.UT23fVfsgZI The chevrons around Madagascar testify this. My article here http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2013/03/meteor-hit-in-russia-some-thoughts.html


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 http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/mizar.html 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 http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/volume_3/copper_plates_at_tirukkalar.html 

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. http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2017/05/4-early-pandyan-history-found-in-raghu.html  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 http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2017/12/science-channel-on-ram-setu-as-man-made.html


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. 


117 comments:

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: http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2018/01/mahabharata-text-rovides-most.html

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, https://www.navaratnarajararam.com.
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 rajaramnavaratna@gmail.com

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: http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2012/06/blasphemous-story-on-andal-and.html

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,

Raghunathan

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 : http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2008/05/birth-date-of-krishna-astrologically.html

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: http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2009/05/ramas-coronation-was-it-failure-of.html

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.

(continued)

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: https://www.scribd.com/document/367786787/Problems-in-the-assumption-and-methodology-of-Mahadevan-s-Indus-decipherment

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: http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2017/06/6-pazhi-pali-magadha-shaka-dweepa.html
- 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 https://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2018/01/divya-and-dharma-two-sides-of-yuga.html 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

Regards

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.
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2018/01/divya-and-dharma-two-sides-of-yuga.html
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.
http://srisivansir.com/ypm/chapter-t2

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. http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2018/01/blog-post.html

'தமிழை ஆண்டாள்' கட்டுரையில் வைரமுத்து செய்த 18 சறுக்கல்கள் http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2018/01/blog-post_28.html

வைரமுத்து போட்ட அவதூறு- கூட்டல் கணக்கும், தமிழறிவைக் கழித்த கணக்கும்.
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2018/02/blog-post.html

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.
https://youtu.be/kOeMqhJG5rI
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.

Regards,
Sameer Barve,
Mumbai

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 http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2018/09/ramanuja-is-history-7-identity-of.html
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. http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2013/10/is-vedic-astrology-derived-from-greek_5.html


On relevance of planets to derive a date, I will show another article of mine here http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2013/05/is-vedic-astrology-derived-from-greek_10.html
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 (http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2013/10/is-vedic-astrology-derived-from-greek_5.html), 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.

Regards,
Sameer Barve,
Mumbai

(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-
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2018/09/ramanuja-is-history-7-identity-of.html

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.

Regards,
Sameer Barve,
Mumbai

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.

Regards,
Sameer Barve,
Mumbai

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. http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2013/09/is-vedic-astrology-derived-from-greek_19.html

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.

Regards,
Sameer Barve,
Mumbai

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?"
https://youtu.be/_ke5NE8gvcw

2. "Model of Kailasa Temple
Found? Pancha Rathas at
Mahabalipuram"
https://youtu.be/vKyb65oMTp0

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

https://youtu.be/B2Jl4HNDixc

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

https://i2.wp.com/i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t488/LeanJedi/fb57e044.jpg

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.

Regards,
Sameer

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...

https://youtu.be/3gmL3_aDLvY

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.''

ROFL!!!!!

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: http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2011/11/mahabharata-and-bhagawat-gita-4000-bc.html

http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2012/08/common-characters-of-ramayana-and.html

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear friends,

Nilesh Oak is utterly wrong. Arundhati is miilions of miles further than is the distance of Vashistha to us, That is why due to precessional movement of the Earth, there is a parallax and it appears to us that the Arundhait went ahead of Vashistha. In fact it is our relative position that changed the view and we see the apparent movement of Arundhati. I have said this long back to Nilesh Osk but Oak is adamant as he thinks that by admiltting his mistake he will erode his own prestige.

As regards the of 3138 BCE, Smt. Jayashreeji is slightly off the mark. Lord Krishna did not pass away exactly 36 years after the Mahabharata war. The Lord Passed away 36 years and a few months after the 18-day war was over.

Best
Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

jayasree said...

Thanks Mr Sunil K.Bhattacharjya for visiting this blog and placing your comment. Nilesh Oak's confidence on his A-V theory lies on smaller RA (Right Ascension) of Arundhati over Vasishtha in the said period. I am proving him wrong on this and scores of other ideas expressed by him in his book on Mahabharata date, his blogs and videos. I will notify here, once my work is available in public.

On 3138 BCE: it was 3178 BCE got from Dr Achar in his astronomy simulator for the planetary positions I derived as explained in the blog. I am proving the traditional date in my upcoming project. I will notify here once it is available in public.

Sameer Barve said...

You are partially right. The phenomenon of Arundhati walking ahead of Vasishtha as noted by Maharshi Vyasa or his team of observers took place due to the combined effect of-

1) proper motion of the stars Arundhati and Vasishtha
2) precession of equinoxes

Nilesh Oak has explained this in his book and also given the details of the software tools he used. Anyone can download those tools and take the pain of verifying his claims using those tools. The point is-

The angular separation that is visible to naked eyes was such that it was large enough for human observer to make out Arundhati rising and setting earlier than Vasishtha ONLY during the epoch of ~5600 BCE- even if Arundhati began rising and setting earlier than Vasishtha as early as 11000 BCE. However, the combined effect of proper motion and precession during 11000 BCE lead to a narrow angular separation due to which it was not possible for human eyes to make out who rose earlier.

Nilesh Oak has also given graph of angular separation of Arundhati and Vasishtha beginning from 11000 BCE to 4500 BCE- which would be challenged by Jayasree madam in her upcoming project.

Till then, I request readers of this blog to try out a few software tools freely available- Stellarium and Voyager, in particular, and test Nilesh Oak's hypothesis. This will ultimately help in growth of knowledge and also open a new chamber of secrets for us.

jayasree said...

@ Sameer Barve

Expected this reply and got it soon :)

I wish you come in your original name to write this comment.
There is a very big mistake in this comment, which I am keeping close to my chest until it is made public along with the exposition of other HUGE blunders in the book.

I also noticed a correction that Nilesh Oak promised to a reader of his blog to make in the reprint has not been corrected in this comment of yours.

For your information, only after downloading the software tools and checking Nilesh Oak's dates, I found where he went wrong:) Hope none else overtakes me in exposing Nilesh Oak's simulator based discovery:)

Sameer Barve said...

@ Jayasree

I do not hide from the reality nor do I run away from facing it. I am using my original/real/legal/authentic name to post comments for which I have substantial amount of documentary evidence with me. So, you can be assured that I am not using aliases/nicknames/acting as a proxy for anyone.

What I keep posting here/anywhere else is based on my understanding and I take full responsibility for the same. It is possible that my understanding is wrong. However, until proven so, one can't take the liberty of shooting in the dark based on pure guesswork.

Do enlighten me on the corrections that Nilesh Oak has promised which is not there in my comment.

And, if you could also point out the mistake in Nilesh Oak's simulator based discovery with objectively testable evidence, I would be gracious.

jayasree said...

@ Sameer Barve,

If you are using genuine name, its fine; the doubt comes because Nilesh Oak comments in many fake names. He told me to have commented in my blog in fake ID. He doesn't even use his original name in his blog.

For the last two paragraphs, wait till I make everything public. And there are many more. Challenging the Epoch comes only in the 11th chapter, after some 170+ pages. You can imagine how much I had to expose in the first 170 pages!

Sameer Barve said...

I am willing to wait because I hope that the wait will be worth. Nilesh or anyone else might have used fake/alias identity in your blog. It's their choice whether to come clean or use fake identity. They might have their own reasons to do so. I look forward to the growth of knowledge from all possible corners of the society and if it demands waiting period of few months, so be it.

jayasree said...

@ Sameer Barve,

Definitely growth of knowledge and the knowledge that traditional dates are true to the core are going to be brought out in this project. Dame Arundhati didn't smile one me in this venture, nor on Nilesh Oak (you will know what I mean if you are thorough with Nilesh Oak's book on Mahabharata), but Arjuna as Vrihhanala is guiding me at the moment. The tough part is not proving Nilesh Oak wrong, but proving tradition as right needs divine guidance. Of all the people I was surprised to get the divine guidance from Vrihannala picking me in the chariot and driving me to the destination in my dream just on the night before I started deciphering the last ayana date-wise since Arjuna as Vrihannala revealed himself to Uttara. I am listening to the inner voice, Vrihannala, as I am about to finish this chapter on Mahabharata date. There is an unprecedented revelation in this chapter offering real scope for scientific growth.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear Jayasreeji,

Some years ago, Nilesh Oak sent me a pdf of his book on dating of Mahabharata and he requested me to give him the feedback. I pointed out the great errors in his book. He thanked me for pointing out the glaring errors, but added that as unfortunately the book is already printed he cannot do anything about it. That much for his personality. That means he wants the book with serious mistakes get the publicity and he does not care at all in harming the Hindus. He had not understand the Mahabharata properly. Nilesh Oak did not understand that Bhishma was on the bed of arrows for 58 nights and passed away on Krishnashtami On the day Bhashma went back to his divine abode, the Moon was in Rohini. . I showed him how Balarama took 42 days for his pilgimage as Balarama was referring to the Shravana of the next cycle of Nakshatras. I also told him that the Ramayana mentioned about Arundhati going ahead of Vashistha. This means that it was during the times of the Ramayana events, that Arundhati went ahead of Vashistha and the Mahabharata only acknowledges this fact later on. .After writing the Mahabharata he went ahead to write a book on the Ramayana and it is a pity that the gullible Hindus have not cared to look at the mischiefs of Nilesh oak.

Regards,
Sunil K Bhattacharjya

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear Jayasreeji,

The star Vashistha is about 80 light-years away from us and the Arundhati is further away from us by another light-year or so. During the Mahabharata war in the 32nd century BCE the Polestar was Thuban. If you show Thuban on the precessional cycle and draw a line from it each to Vashsitha and Arundhati you will see that the line joining Thuban and Arundhati will appear in front of the line joining Thuvan and Vashistha, but was not so two or three milennium earlier. I feel Nilesh Oak slipped on this and he also dared to set aside all other proofs from the pauranic timelines and also from the Rajatarngini that the war took place in the 32nd century BCE. Further in the 35th year from Gandhari's curse there was a great conjunction of stars and Lord Krishna remembered that time was nearing for fruition of Gandhari's curse. Vedavyasa said that had he wanted the Lord could have annulled the curse but he let it be effective.

Regards,
Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

jayasree said...

Dear Sri Sunil K. Bhattacharjya,

Thanks for your inputs. I am taking care of all your ideas and concerns. All those parts are already finished. I am not exposing here any idea of mine to not give room for Nilesh Oak to make quick amends to his version.

I have known you and read your responses to Deiter Koch and others as part of the mailing list. I am also a silent reader of AIA yahoo group and Mahabharata study group for years. Just leave your mail ID in the comment to make sure I have the same ID with me. I will get in touch with you.

jayasree said...

Dear Sri Sunil K Bhattacharjyaji

I am not in a position to reveal anything now except a small part of the Introduction:

"Page after page as one comes across this kind of stuff promoted as scientific and empirical, a reader having exposure to astrology and visual astronomy for nearly four decades and conducting star gazing sessions for students, can either ignore the entire stuff or write a critique for each and every flaw found in this book. I decided to go for the second option mainly for the reason that the young resurgent youth of India should not be misled by his book and cling on to ideas that are against Vedic tradition. I could see the youth of today getting excited over the thought of long past for Vedic India and modern...."

Regards.

jayasree said...

Dear Sri Sunil K. Bhattacharjya,

Can you re-send your mail ID? It doesn't appear in the limited display of the dashborad in your recent comment. To know the ID, I have to publish your comment which I don't want to do without your permission. Hence this request.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear friends,

Does anybody knows if Mr. Nilesh Oak had given the distances of Arundhati and Vashsistha from the earth and if given what are those figures? It appears to me that if he had not given these figures of distances, Mr. Oak is afraid that the real figures of these distances will prove Mr. Oak to be wrong on the date of the Mahabharata war.

Best wishes,
SunilK Bhattacharjya

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear friends,

I asked the question

<<< "Does anybody know if Mr. Nilesh Oak had given the distances of Arundhati and Vashsistha from the earth and if given what are those figures?">>>

Some of you may wonder why at all I asked this question? I asked the question just because the parallaxes of these two stars are different and are opposite of what Mr. Nilesh Oak assumed. Mr. Oak had only made himself look silly or lacking in good judgment. In other words, in trying to fool others Mr. Oak had fooled himself.

From the actual distances of the two stars Arundhati and Vashistha it is clear that Vedavyasa's mention of the omen of the Arundhati-Vashsitha refers to an event, which took place only after 5000 BCE, and not before as Mr. Nilesh Oak wants others to believe.

Regards
Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

Sameer Barve said...

My comments are pertaining to that of Sunil Bhattacharjya ji posted on 24th July at different times-

1) Nilesh Oak in his book on Mahabharata discussed about "Angular Separation" between Arundhati (Alcor) and Vasishtha (Mizar) located in Saptarshi group (Ursa Major). The issue of actual/physical distances of these two stars from the Earth is not so relevant because we know distant starts/objects are likely to appear dim in the night sky unless they are highly luminous with negative absolute magnitude (For examle, star Deneb- Alpha Cygni).

For visual observational purpose, the angular separation plays important role than that of actual distance. The two stars that are located at different distances from the Earth but in the same line of sight form a couplet known as "Visual Binary". Arundhati Vasishtha system is one of many visual binaries in the sky where two stars forming the binary appear to have located very close to each other but just enough farther to notice the presence using naked eyes.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear friends,

I have written a mail to Mr. Nilesh oak in his blog today asking him to disclose the distances of Vashistha and Arundhati from the Earth, which he considered for his book, but Nilesh Oak chickened out and he did not allow the mail to appear in his blog. Anyway that is his blog and he can block any mail from anybody, if that does not suit his interest. In fact the Arundhati started appearing before Vashsitha right from 4508 BCE but it took more than one thousand years for the parallax-difference to be sufficient for the naked eye to see that. Arundhati going ahead of Vashistha is a sure proof that the Mahabharata war took place before 4508 BCE and more precisely in the 32nd century BCE.
Thanks for your patience in reading this.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

Sameer Barve said...

Regarding parallx values of two stars-

What Nilesh Oak has done is that he used a sky simulation software which can project the view of the sky if we go back into far antiquity- without much losing accuracy. Anyone can try this with a tool such as Voyager 4.5 by Carina Softwares or Stellarium. The parallax values keep changing over different epochs due to the precession of equinoxes and also due to the proper motion of the stars. Hence, one needs to use a tool which would accurately predict parallax values for the epochs such as 12000 BCE or 5561 BCE so as to test Nilesh Oak's hypothesis. Of course, Nilesh could very well be wrong. However, one needs to take the pain of tetsing his hypothesis objectively and come out with a counter evidence so that his claims can be questioned.

If you can produce evidence that will prove that Arundhati began walking ahead of Vasishtha only after 5000 BCE, that would set the tone for further course on this subject. Till then, Nilesh's claim will hold its position.

Regards,
Sameer Barve

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Sameer Barveji,

It seems you know Nilesh Oak well. Why don't you ask Nilesh Oak as to what is his problem in saying what are the distances from Arundhati and Vasihtha to the earth. If he says he does not know then we can further go ahead with the discussions noting that how because of his ignorance of an important factor Nilesh Oak ended up in wrong conclusions. Of course, if Jayasreeji agrees to publish a copy of my letter to Nilesh Oak's blog, then we can go ahead after that.

Best
Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

Sameer Barve said...

Sunil ji,

A quick correction.


According to Nilesh Oak, Arundhati began walking ahead of Vasishtha as far back as 11091 BCE and it remained ahead of Vasishtha as late as 4508 BCE. This epoch of about 6500 years when Arundhati apeared to have gone ahead of Vasishtha is known as "The Epoch of Arundhati" and Nilesh Oak deduces that the Mahabharata War must have happened during this epoch.

Out of this 6500 years, Nilesh calculated that for an observer using naked eyes without any telescope- these two stars can be seen as two closely spaced yet sufficiently away to notice the separation by naked eyes- the angular separation must be maximum so as to ensure that the observer will find it easy to notice their presence in the sky. This angular separation was maximum during the epoch of 6000 BCE to 5000 BCE. Hence, Nilesh proposed the date of Mahabharata in this epoch itself. Any other time interval in the epoch of Arundhati lasting 6500 years would not qualify this criteria for the fact that the Arundhati and Vasishtha would not appear as two separate stars to naked eyes- by virtue of lower angular separation and therefore more closely spaced.

On this background, it can be realised that why did Maharshi Vyasa chose to mention this observation as late as 5600 BCE even if Arundhati began walking ahead as early as 11091 BCeE- due to angular separation. The angular separation difference occured due to the combined effects of proper motion of Arundhati- Vasishtha and also due to the precession of equinoxes.

As a result, rather than actual distances of Arundhati-Vasishtha, the angular separation becomes crucial criteria for the Arundhati Vasishtha observation mentioned in Bhishma Parva of Mahabharata. For testing purpise, sky simulation software can be used.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear Mr. Sameer Barve,

What I wanted from Mr. Nilesh Oak was which are the distances he assumed for Arundhati and Vashistha from the Earth. Nilesh Oak had smelled disaster and that is why he is running away and he did not publish my mail in his blog and he did not reply to my mail. I thought that he would have the moral courage to reply. Why don't you ask that same question on the distances of Arundhati and Vashistha from the earth. He has to give the reply. What is your objection to my asking him that question? Do you want to protect him, by diverting the issue of the distance factor?

Best,
Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

Sameer Barve said...

Sunil ji,

I don't know what Nilesh Oak did or not did to your query. Moreover, I am not aware what makes you think that I am protecting him. However, without waiting for him to reply, I will try to answer your query based on my understanding of observational astronomy and also on my understanding of his book on Ramayana and Mahabharata.

The two stars Arundhati and Vasishtha are roughly at the same distance of aprox. 83 light years. They have similar coordinates too, namely right ascension and declination. What it means is that not only visually but even in actual distances these two stars are closely located.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Sammerji,

It is very important that Nilesh oak himself makes his stand clear, as we are discussing Nilesh Oak's hoax. Your approach can't be taken as that of Oak. It is surprising that you are ignoring Oak's diagram (is it willfully?), where the line projected from the two stars meets the CNP circle at two points. Does that not show that the two stars are quite apart? So it is incumbent on oak to tell the readers the distances of the two satrs from the earth. The truth-loving Indians will not allow him to escape with this big hoax on them.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Sorry Sameerji,

I misspelt your name. Further, there was also typos towards the end of the mail. So please read the end-portion of the mail as follows:

<<>>

Sameer Barve said...

I don't know if Nilesh will clarify his stand either through his own blog or by any other means. I want you to send that diagram which you feel I am ignoring to my email- sameer.9186@gmail.com

This is because there are many diagrams that Ibhave came across while communicating with Nilesh so I need to have clarity before I respond to your query. It is not possible to attach image on this blog so you can share it by email. Moreover, if there are any other unattended queries from Nilesh, that can be added to email too.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Are you feigning? I hope there are others who have seen the diagram in which Nilesh Oak extended the line joining A & V and shows that it touches the CNP circle at 11091 BCE and 4805 BCE, and they may help you see .

Sameer Barve said...

In case you don't want to take the pain of sending diagram to email, it's fine.Now coming to your query rekated to that diagram-

The two stars appearing in that diagram cutting NCP circle at two different points are purposely shown in the way they are shown. That's because, the objective of that diagram is to emphasize the fact that how difficult it is for two closely spaced stars ALONG THE SAME LINE OF SIGHT. Since, Arundhati and Vasishtha appear very cloSe to each other due to lesser angular separation proving the fact that they lie on the same line of sight as seen from the Earth. For about 6500 years from 11091 BCE to 4508 BCE, Arundhati appeared to walk ahead of Vasishtha WITHOUT DRIFTING AWAY FROM LINE OF SIGHT. Sometime around ~5500 BCE, the angular separation became maximum and that's why Nilesh proposed Mahabharata war epoch during ~5500 BCE. The diagram shows two stars apart for representational purpose. You can rather spend more time in using sky simulation tool and get all details of Arundhati Vasishtha star pair.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...



Dear friends,

Equally important is the interpretation. All historical and astronomical data support a date after 4508 BCE. Nilesh Oak just took the date proposed by Dr. Vartak and took the episode of the Arundhati going ahead of her husband (or keeping her husband behind) and manipulated this information blindly and marched with a victory flag only to land in a disaster for himself.

SKB

Sameer Barve said...

Dr. P. V. Vartak and Nilesh Oak have proposed same dates for 1st day of Mahabharata war, i.e., 16th October 5561 BCE. However, they differ on the date of death of Bhishma. Vartak says it is 22nd December 5561 BCE while Oak says it's 30th January 5560 BCE. Dr. Vartak did all calculations manually without using software and while he did say that Arundhati going ahead of Vasishtha is an astronomical observation by Vyasa, he couldn't test it using the tools available to him in the 1970s. He proposed his date based on backward calculation done manually using internal references from Mahabharata text. Nilesh Oak began testing Vartak's claim and despite repeated attempts, he couldn't falsify Vartak's claim. That's how he ended up accepting Varrak's claim.

Anyone who wishes to challenge this claim must have to put forward his/her own theory with clear list of assumptions made, objectives to achieve and also the methodology used to arrive at conclusions. Without producing any counter theory, it's not possible to evaluate it and hence making mere statements like something is wrong etc won't take you anywhere.

Moreover, any drawbacks that might have been present in Vartak's or Oak's claim can be pointed out by producing counter evidence and not by statements.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear friends,

Those who are good in sky simulation and have the time and interest for this, can please think of the exercise, to find out the time of the Mahabharata war, when the Saptarshis (of course, includes Vashistha and Arundhati)were in the Magha nakshatra (follow the pauranic method for this location). Details are given in the Mahabharata. I am sure Jayasreeji is aware of this.

Best

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear friends,

Mr. Sameer Barve wrote
<>

In fact it is the other way round.From 11091 BCE to 4508 BCE Arundhati was behind Vashistha, then She caught up with Vashstha in 4508 BCE and thereafter went ahead of Vashistha.It took more than one thousand years for the phenomenon to be noticeable to the naked eye.

Best
SKB

jayasree said...

@ Suni K Bahattacharjyaji wrote

//Those who are good in sky simulation and have the time and interest for this, can please think of the exercise, to find out the time of the Mahabharata war, when the Saptarshis (of course, includes Vashistha and Arundhati)were in the Magha nakshatra (follow the pauranic method for this location). Details are given in the Mahabharata. I am sure Jayasreeji is aware of this.//

I am more than aware of this. Deciphered this and the Sapta Rishi cycle. When we get the basics right, everything falls in place- with the traditional concepts and dates.

jayasree said...

@ Sameer Barve wrote

//Anyone who wishes to challenge this claim must have to put forward his/her own theory with clear list of assumptions made, objectives to achieve and also the methodology used to arrive at conclusions. Without producing any counter theory, it's not possible to evaluate it and hence making mere statements like something is wrong etc won't take you anywhere.

Moreover, any drawbacks that might have been present in Vartak's or Oak's claim can be pointed out by producing counter evidence and not by statements.//

Only counter evidence after demolishing assumptions, objectives, methodology, conclusions and much more of Nilesh Oak's stable. That is why it is taking time. If I have demolish only the Epoch, work would have been over long ago. I want to do a thorough cleaning. As of today two more chapters to go of the 14 chapter project.

Sameer Barve said...

Sunil ji,

Being ahead or behind are relative terms and can be different for different persons. Since Mahabharata mentions that Arundhati has left Vasishtha behind which is not given in other texts predating Mahabharata, this particular reference becomes important. When this is coupled with the results obtained from sky simulation tool, a clear epoch from 11091 BCE to 4508 BCE can be defined. Since this epoch has reversal of positions of Arundhati and Vasishtha which is not found in other texts, it must be treated along the lines mentioned in Mahabharata ,viz, Arundhati leading Vasishtha. The position gets changed once again after 4508 BCE due to the combined effects of proper motion and precession of equinoxes. Hence, what Vyasa observed was the case when Arundhati lead Vasishtha and not the other way round.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Sameerji,

You said
<<>>

It will not help to try to twist the language. You have not understood what the MBH says. MBH clearly says that Vedavyasa told Dhritarashtra (his biological son) that Arundhati left her husband behind and this means earlier this was not the case. Or in other words, earlier Arundhati was behind Vashistha. It did not happen abruptly as Arundhati caught up with Vashistha by speeding up and in 4508 BCE there was no separation. thereafter Arundhati started going ahead of Vashistha and around the time of the MBH war the angular separation was sufficient for this to be seen by the naked eye. Nilesh Oak may not understand this. Hope you may understand now.

Best

Sameer Barve said...

Sunilji,

You have rightly pointed out that prior to Mahabharata (some few thousands of years), Arundhati was behind Vasishtha and during Mahabharata times, the position got reversed. This change was unusual in the sense that no historical record in any text predating Mahabharata said that Arundhati was ahead of Vasishtha. Hence, when Vyasa was doing sky observation just prior to the great 18 day war, he went on to record many observations of the sky prevalent in those days. He didn't selectively mention a few observations while ignoring few others. As a result, when Vyasa met Dhritarashtra just before the war, he mentioned many sky observations in order to warn Dhritarshtra so as to seek his intervention to avoid war.

Against this background, the reason for Arundhati going ahead of Vasishtha can be traced to the combined effect of proper motion of Arundhati and Vasishtha and the precession of equinoxes. The change of positions was not at all abrupt but it was more of a gradual change and that's why it took about 5500 years (till 5561 BCE) time span although the actual overtaking of Vasishtha had alreday began by 11091 BCE. By ~6000 BCE, Arundhati leading Vasishtha had become noticeble to human eyes due to the maximum angular separation between two stars which wasn't the case from 11091 BCE to ~6000 BCE. Hence, it can be concluded that when the angular separation became maximum during the epoch of ~6000 BCE, that is the approximate epoch of Mahabharata. Moreover, by 4509 BCE, Arundhati was again behind Vasishtha which, in turn, puts the lower limit on Mahabharata epoch. As a result, any claim of dating of Mahabharata can be narrowed down to the range of epoch from 6000 BCE to 4508 BCE. Any claim which falls beyond this interval will have the onus of providing explanation about Arundhati-Vasishtha observation, unless there is enough counter evidence available to falsify the Arundhati Vasishtha observation as an astronomical or visual sky observation.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear friends,

I was not sure if Mr. Sameer Barve would understand and this why I wrote that he may understand (where there is equal chance that he may not understand). Now I am convinced that it is beyond his understanding. His cup is already full with Nilesh Oak's trash.

Best wishes,
SKB

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear friends,

Further to my mail, which I sent a few minutes ago, I wish to add the following:

I wrote
<>

The word "THEREAFTER" means "after 4508 BCE" and Mr. Sameer Barve, to his convenience, did not understand this. As a consequence he did not understand what I was telling in my last mail.

Best
SKB

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Sameerji,

Please look at my mail again. I was talking ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AFTER 4508 BCE. Why are you avoiding this?

Sincerely
SKB

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Sameerji,

You wrote as follows:
<<>

Saptarshis are fixed stars. What is the proper motion of Arundhati and Vashistha,that you are wmentioning? Are you blindly copying Nilesh Oak? Can you please elaborate.

Sincerely,
SKB

Sameer Barve said...

Dear Sunil ji,

There is no question of avoiding anything. Since the epoch during which Arundhati walked ahead of Vasistha spans from 11091 BCE to 4508 BCE, there is absolutely no need of worrying about what happened after 4508 BCE (like 3000 BCE, 2000 BCE and so on). This is because unless it is proven that Arundhati Vasishtha observation is an allegory/metaphor or something similar amd not an astronomical observation, IT MUST BE considered during Mahabharata dating attempt. This will ensure that we are not conveniently selecting few observations suitable to a date which we think is right rather than taking the pain of analysing all possible observations that may or may not corroborate our hypothesis.

Proper motion- Irrespective of what Puaranas or other ancient texts say, you must realise that every star has proper motion that is the annual change in its position in the sky. Usually, proper motion is not noticeable to human eyes as during human lifetime, stars apoear to move hardly or remain stationary due to their high distance from the Earth. I therefore urge you to avoid blindly following Puranas or other ancient texts because there are high chances that sky conditions have got changed since the se texts were last modified thousands of years ago.

Saptarshi visiting different nakshatras is well known fact to me and I even know (not sure if you know) that few strs of Saptarshi are moving in one direction while few others move in opposite direction. You cannot assume Saptarshi stars as stationary since that is false axiom.

If you think that I have aligned myself with Nilesh Oak's trash, it's wonderful. At least I have the satisfaction of choosing the right side (what I think right) based on a thorough analysis and evidences than blindly following old books that have lost relevance in modern times. Although these old texts do provide a treasure of knowledge prevalent in old times, we must be able to filter out irrelevant things not possible in this era. For example, many people still believe that Uttarayana begins with Makar Sankranti on 14th/15th January when the Sun enters Nirayana Makar rashi. What they fail to understand is that at one point of time around 300 CE, these two events used to happen simultaneously but now due to prrcession of equinoxes, they are occuring on different days.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear friends,

Vedavyasa's mention that ARUNDHATI APPEARED AHEAD of VASHISTHA, around the time of the Mahabharata war, was a fact. and not an allegory. The Mahabharata war did take place after 4508 BCE. From 11091 BCE to 4508 BCE Arundhati appeared behind Vashistha and once the 4508 BCE was over Arundhati started appearing before Vashistha.

I asked Nilesh Oak as to what are the distances of Arundhati and Vashsitha from the earth, he ran away. He does not know in which direction Arundhati and Vashsitha move. Sameer Barve claimed that he knows about the Saptarshis being in different nakshatras, but he does not know in which direction the Saptarshis move. Because of their ignorance, they are falsely claiming that from 11091 BCE to 4508 BCE, Arundhati appeared before Vashistha.

Sameer Barve is talking about the Makar Sankranti, but he does not know that the Makara Sankranti is always observed in the Uttarayana period, The Uttarayana period lasts for six months. Around 300 CE the Makar Sankranti was celebrated at the beginning the Uttarayana, as the beginning of Uttarayana and the Sun's entry to Makar rashi coincided at that time. but due to the precession of the earth, there is shift of one degree in every 72 years. These facts are known to the people who knows Hindu astronomy.

Best wishes
Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

Sameer Barve said...

Sunil ji writes-

<>

If Sunil ji has evidence to prove that this is false, I demand the evidence to be shown here on this blog. The conclusion that Arundhati appeared to have left Vasishtha behind is based on detailed analysis of proper motion of Arundhati and Vasishtha and also on precession of equinoxes. This detailed work is already available in public domain for everyone to test/verify/corroborate/falsify.

What Sunil ji has shown is his ignorance of proper motion of stars since he prefers to assume stars are fixed. This assumption is palpably wrong and can be falsified instantly by learning basic astronomy. Moreover, Sunil ji has also claimed that I (Sameer Barve) do not know that Makar Sankranti is always celebrated in Uttarayana period. This is yet another wrong assumption. The point to realise is that in the epoch of 300 CE, Makar Sankranti coincided with beginning of Uttarayana. But now in 2019 CE, Uttarayana happens on 22nd December while Makar Sankranti is celebrated on 15th January. This difference is not understood by many people and they continue to assume that day will start getting longer from 15th January. That is not correct as the longer duration day had already commenced on 22nd December.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear friends,
Sameer Barve wrote earlier as follows:

<>

This is not true. I have already stated that in 4508 BCE Vashistha and Arundhati were together and Arundhati was not ahead of Vashsthaa. I wanted him also to show what happens before 4508 BCE, Say in 3000 BCE, but he is running away.

I am not obliged to respond to the fugitive Sameer Baeve. Until and unless he shows with proper diagram what was the situation after 4508 BCE,say in 3000 BCE. I am not going to respond. If Jayasreeji does not write a book on this I Shall have to write a book on this showing that Arundhati appeared before Vashistha during the period after 4508 BCE for several Millennium.

Sameer Barve said...

Dear Sunil ji,

You proved my doubts right.You have some serious confusion in your mind while using the terms "after" and "before" especially for the epoch of BCE (before common era). So, I feel the need to clear this confusion before I can respond to your other comments.

When we say Arundhati was ahead of Vasishtha from 11091 BCE to 4508 BCE, it defines a range of epoch. But, more importantly, this epoch deals with an event that happened before the beginning of common era. Hence, we need to be careful while saying anything.

If you want to refer the eoch of 3000 BCE, 2000 BCE etc, the correct term that needs to be used with reference to 4508 BCE id "After". That's because compared to 4508 BCE, an event happening in 3000 BCE is a new event that is closer to the common era by about 1508 years. The event of Vasishtha overtaking Arundhati beyond the range of epoch 11091 BCE and 4508 BCE must be expressed as "Before 11091 BCE" (prior to/in old times with respect to 11091 BCE) and "After 4508 BCE" (later than/in future times with respect to 4508 BCE). When we say before 2019 CE, it indicates a number lower than 2019 in magnitude such as 1000 CE, 500 CE etc. and for term like after 2019 CE, the numbers will be 3000 CE, 4000 CE which are greater than 2019 in magnitude. However, the situation gets reversed for the epoch before common era where 4508 BCE is older to 3000 BCE (and hence also indiactes an event happened in the past with respect to 3000 BCE), although 4508 looks greater in magnitude than 3000. This point must be kept in mind while dealing with epochs before common era. I hope I made myself clear.

Sameer Barve said...

Dear Sunil ji,

You may think to avoid responding to my fugitive comments. There's nothing fugitive into it and I will prove it to you and others reading this blog that what was the situation in 3000 BCE, 2000 BCE etc (that fall "After" 4508 BCE epoch). The only problem is I cannot upload graph on this blog since there's no option to attach files. So if you are generous enough to share your email id, that would be easier for further discussion. You can begin writing your book without waiting for Jayasree madam so that you can provide detailed critique of Nilesh Oak's theory/my comments in your own words. However, please note that the graphical task can only be done using a sky simulator tool which has enough accuracy for the old epochs such as 6000 BCE. I will need some time to prepare the readings and the graph so all of you need to wait till I am ready.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear friends,
Sameer Barve is a fugitive and there is no doubt about it. He is running away from addressing the issue of what was the case after 4805 BCE, because he will be exposed. He does not know that even though the Sun has its also own movement, that is not taken into account in Hindu geocentric astronomy. So also the movements of the so-called fixed stars like Aundhati and Vashistha are not considered in the Hindu astronomy. The issue of Arundhati going ahead of Vashistha has to be addressed using the same diagram which Nilesh Oak is using, for falsely claiming that Arundhati was going ahead of Vashistha during 4805 BCE to 11091 BCE.

Furtherm it appears to me that Jayasreeji is right in finding that Sameer Barve is none other than Nilesh Oak himself,

Best
skb

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear Sameerji,

I don't think you need any other diagram other than the diagram giving the Precessional circle of NCP and the line from Vashistha-Arundhati intersecting the CNP circle at two points of 4508 BCE and 11091 BCE. So go ahead and prove it to me and others reading this blog what was the situation in 3000 BCE, 2000 BCE etc (that fall "After" 4508 BCE epoch).

As regards the movement of the Sun around the Galaxy and the movement other fixed stars like Arundhati should not matter in this case. However if you think you are using specific movement rate of Arundhati etc. Please do not hesitate to give the details.

Sincerely
Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

Sameer Barve said...

Dear SKB,

You have conveniently forgotten my request of sharing your email id with me so as to make it easy for me to share diagram. This comment box is not having any option to upload diagram so I cannot explain it here properly.

I have clarified time aand again that I am not acting proxy for anyone. You are free to assume that way, however doing so will be shooting in the dark. Since, I have no interest in providing more clarification on this, I am not going to respond to such queries that, in my opinion, are palpably wrong.

I am going to use the same diagram used by Nilesh Oak to explain what happens after 4508 BCE epoch (4000 BCE, 3000 BCE, 2000 BCE etc amd so on). I hope you are now clear with the "careful" usage of the terms "before and after" for the epochs before common era.

As far as your prediction about what I know and what I do not know is concerned, all I can say is that there is tremendous scope of improvement.

Since you seem to be not generous enough to share email id, I will have to take extra efforts to show the situations that fall after 4508 BCE epoch. Till then, you can enjoy your time. All the very best.

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear friends,

Sameer Barve is finding excuses after excuses. If he has the answer he can describe it well so that the members in the blog can visualize what the diagram would be like, till Sameer Barve can find the ways and means to send us the diagram. Jayasreeji has facilitated open discussions and we should maintain the openness. Let us not make any private correspondence, a part of the blog discussions.

Best wishes,
SKB

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear friends,

Jayasreeji has challenged Nilesh Oak's book and Sameer Barve is taking the onus on himself, instead of trying to find out what is Nilesh Oak's response. This is clearly a circumstantial evidence that Sameer Barve is none other than Nilesh Oak. After sometime the fake Sameer Barve will run away completely and Nilesh Oak will feign ignorance about any discussions in Jayasreeji's blog.

Best wishes,
SKB

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear friends,

It appears that Sameer Barve has disappeared, as we expected.

Anyway all astronomical studies as well as ancient historical sources including Rajatarangini and the Puranas clearly show that the Mahabharata war took place in the 32nd century BCE. Even the Arundhati-Vashistha episode in the Mahabharata supports the 32nd century BCE date of the Mahabharata war and not what Nilesh Oak or Sameer Barve claims. Nilesh Oak blindly believed late P.V.Vartak's date 5561 BCE to be right and he tried to defend that with a false interpretation of the Arundhati-Vashishtha episode. The arundhati Vashsistha episode actually supports the 32nd century BCE.

Thanks for your patience
SKB

Sameer Barve said...

Dear readers,

I believe SKB is extremely busy as he cannot afford to share his email id for allowing someone else to clarify their viewpoint, albeit due to technical limitations on blogspot.com portal. Nevertheless he leaves no stone behind while making false allegations on others without bothering to provide evidence. Hence, it is clear to me that he is wasting his own time in forcing others to belive in his proposal of 32nd century before christ for Mahabharata. I appeal to you all not to believe his forceful claims which are not substantiated by objectively testable evidences. SKB doesn't know the kind of efforts Dr. Vartak had put into proposing date of Mahabharata war during 5561 BCE. He rather prefers to make tall claims by going in tangential direction leaving the main objective of discussion unconnected. As a result, I have decided to take his criticism as juvenile remarks and treat accordingly.

Thanks a lot.

Regards,
Sameer Barve

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear friends,

The fugitive Sameer Barve is back. He thought that all of us in this blog have forgotten that he ran away when I asked him to show the situation in case of dates after 4805 BCE, such as in 3000 BCE. His excuse is that I have not given my email-id to him. Who prevented him from sending the text portion of his answer along with the diagram and if the diagram portion gets deleted one can reconstruct the diagram from the details in the text portion? He is wilfully evading, as in 3000 BCE the Arundhati was ahead of Vashishtha. It is a pity that Nilesh Oak, alias Sameer Barve, does not know the direction of the apparent motion of the Saptarshis in 3000 BCE

Further, let Sameer Barve show us the 13-day eclipse pair (mentioned in the Mahabharata) to have occurred in 5561 BCE. Nilesh Oak/Sameer Barve is fully exposed.

Friends, please be prepared to hear some more excuses from Nilesh Oak/Sameer Barve.

Best,
SKB




Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear friends,

You have seen that the fugitive has run away for he second time.

skb

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear Jayasreeji,

Nilesh Oak alias Sameer Barve is running away as he cannot explain what happened around 5200 BP or Before Present (which is around 3200 BCE), by giving the excuse that he cannot post a diagram in the blog. He conveniently forgot that in a similar case he had already told you to refer to a diagram in

https://i2.wp.com/i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t488/LeanJedi/fb57e044.jp

Why can't he use the same diagram now or send a link to any other diagram he thinks appropriate for the occasion, along with a written text explaining his stand?

Regards,
SunilK Bhattacharjya

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear friends,
Hope, by now some of you might have seen the diagram on the Arundhati-Vashistha episode, which was referred to by Sameer Barve (alias Nilesh Oak, in the following url:
https://i2.wp.com/i1062.photobucket.com/albums/t488/LeanJedi/fb57e044.jp
It seems you can no longer open the above url to see that diagram, as Nilesh Oak seem to have realized, at last, the fact that his diagram shows that Arundhati was following Vashistha in 5561 BCE and not going ahead of Vashistha. It was only in the 32nd century BCE that Arundhati was seen to be going ahead of Vashistha.

Best wishes,
SunilK Bhattacharjya




Sunil K. Bhattacharjya said...

Dear Jayasreeji,
I have asked Shri Nilesh Oak a question and he is yet to reply and most probably he will run away, The question is as below"

Dear Shri Nilesh oak,

It appears to me that, with the change of direction after 8000 BCE, Arundhati found herself behind Vashistha and she started chasing Vashistha, and finally caught up with him in 4805 BCE.

You can try this experiment yourself. Leave your home with your wife for an evening walk and let her be ahead of you (for safety consideration) and after walking for a distance you decide to return home and your wife will find herself behind you and she will try to chase you and then catch up with you. It will be interesting to receive your comments on what Arundhati did in such a situation, as mentioned above.

Eagerly looking forward to hearing from you and thanking you,
S.K.Bhattacharjya

Note
This question is very important. Nilesh Oak is claiming that in 5561 BCE Arundhati appeared to be leading Vashistha, whereas in reality Arundhati appeared as following Vashistha. Oak's claim of the 5561 BCE date of the Mahabharata war is completely debunked. The fact is that it was only in the 32nd century BCE Atundhati was seen as leading vashistha.

Regards,
SunilK BhattacharjyaI