Friday, November 15, 2019

Understanding seasons the Vedic way. (Part 3 critiquing Mr Nilesh Oak's date of Mahabharata)

The 3rd video in a series of videos based on my book "Myth of 'The Epoch of Arundhati' of Nilesh Nilkanth Oak" critiquing the so-called Epoch of Arundhati and the date of Mahabharata deduced by Mr Nilesh Oak is now released.

Tilted as "Understanding seasons the Vedic way", this video begins by stating our responsibility to not disregard the fundamentals of the Vedic culture of the past while dealing with past events. It also cautions against present-mindedness in a historical research which we find in the approach of Mr Nilesh Oak. His idea of looking at the past from the present particularly in understanding seasons from western astronomy perspective is taken as the main theme of the video.

Mr Nilesh Oak has depended on the western concept of the tropical zodiac for seasons to locate the sidereal positions in the Itihasas. The video exposes why it is wrong and how this had derailed his research. It also establishes why his interpretation of 'Nivrutta Akasha Sayana" verse in Ramayana does not indicate the start of Uttarayana near Pushya in the sign of Cancer. The video can be viewed here.




It is also established that seasons are not meant for dating events as they are for manifestation of Karma (experiences). This is proved from a verse in Purusha Sukta and how Purusha in the form of stars is a Time Keeper in helping us obtain the experiences. 

Related post:





Saturday, November 9, 2019

Ram Janma Bhoomi verdict: How Historic moments are defined by the Cosmos!


As we are passing through a rare Historical moment in Time and Space of restoring the Palace of Rama to Rama Himself, the celestial signatures in the sky must reflect the rarer of the rarest for this event to happen. This blog is written to record what it looks like when a rare event of Dharma re-establishing itself takes place.

We have for comparison two judgments separated by 9 years (half the cycle of the nodes) of which the second gave a decisive outcome paving the way for correcting a historical wrong. The first was given on 30th September 2010 at 3-30 PM. The plus and minus witnessed at the celestial sphere was discussed and recorded in this link.


For Dharma to manifest, the 9th and 10th lord in the Universal zodiac (starting from Aries) which are none other than Jupiter and Saturn and the 9th and 10th lords at the moment of the event must be associated with 9th and 10th houses and in auspicious connection. During 2010 verdict Jupiter and Saturn were in mutual aspect, but with Jupiter in retrogression in its own house. The 9th and 10th lords were in their own houses from the lagna of the event (judgement delivery begin time). In Navamsa though Sun exalted, Saturn was in inauspicious position in Navamsa. So what was achieved was a half way mark.

Momentous point of the judgement at that time was recognition of a temple below the Masjid. However the judgement sounded more ‘secular’ reflecting the mind of the government of the day by dividing the land among three instead of handing over the entire land to Rama, the rightful owner.
Now the final judgement has come out and one can see a huge leap in the way the heavens positioned themselves.


The Universal Dharma –Karmadhipati lords, namely Jupiter and Saturn have joined together in the universal 9th house owned by Jupiter. They are joined with Ketu, the signifactor of Dharma kind, a trigger planet for outcomes. The 9th and 10th planets of the lagna (judgement delivery start time) Sun and Mercury had joined together at 11th house, the outcome of the 10th house.
In Navamsa, the Sun (the 9th lord in event time and signifactor for Government) and Saturn (Universal 10th lord and signifactor for citizens) are exalted with Jupiter (Universal 9th lord) joining the Sun in friendly disposition. Mercury (10th lord in event time) is also well fortified by occupying its own house in Navamsa.

This gives a picture perfect combination for restoration of Dharma or manifestation of Dharma. It is indeed a combination that comes rarely. This kind of perfect combination didn’t exist on 2010 judgement day.

A curious question remains how the heavens looked when Adharma was reigning.

The Adharmic historical wrongs can happen when Saturn passes through Aries and Taurus or when it goes in retrogression in seven stars starting from Krittika. Saturn, the Universal Karmadhipati planet and the giver of fruits of action becomes weak in such transits. If we look at the time of destruction of Ram Janma Bhoomi, Saturn was transiting Aries in 1528 and entered Krittika in early 1529. When we look back at times of gory wars and destruction such as the destruction of World Trade Centre, Saturn was invariably transiting those signs and stars. When Mars also joins Saturn in those stars and signs, or transits alone, once again transgression of Dharma can be seen.

For an Adharmic act that destroyed Ram Janma Bhoomi, a strong combination of the Dharma- karma lords were needed to be positioned in right places to undo Adharma. Indeed this is vindication of the age-old concept of Dharma- Karmadhipati planets.



Friday, November 8, 2019

Thiruvalluvar was a Hindu who lived 7500 years ago (My video in Tamil)

In the midst of the raging controversy in the main stream and social media over the religious identity of Thiruvalluvar and Thirukkural, it is time to take a deep look at the available evidence to deduce the same. Though I have written many blogs in the past on this particular issue, this time I have brought out a video to analyse these issues in the light of the verses of Thiruvalluva Maalai, a compilation of verses of many Sangam poets on Thiruvalluvar and Thirukkural.

Thiruvalluva Maalai was released in the last Assembly of the last (3rd) Sangam headed by the Pandyan King Ugra Peruvazhuthi. Majority of the 53 verses of this compilation speak of Thirukkural as equal to Vedas, talking about the 4 Purusharthas (Dharma, Artha, Kaama and Moksha) and as an exposition of  the six 'samayam' which refer to Shaivam, Vaishnavam etc, but certainly not the Abrahamic religions. Some of the verses also give solid clues on the location of Thiruvalluvar and the king ruling at his time.

Those verses point out to Thiruvalluvar's time at the end of the 1st Sangam Age when Then- Madurai (southern Madurai) was lost to the seas. Subsequently he moved to Mayilai (Mylapore) in present day Chennai that was established by the Pandyan king. Thirukkural must have been completed at this place. But in the prevailing commotion caused by the deluge and the setting up of a new capital (Kavatam) Thirukkural could not find the light of the day at any Sangam Assembly. More details in my video which begin with revealing the Hindu identity of Thiruvalluvar.



The video contains an important denouncement of the faulty interpretation of Andal's verse "Thee-k-kuralai" (தீக்குறளைச் சென்றோதோம்) as referring to demeaning of Thirukkural by Andal.
What she referred to was "Kuralai" which by itself is an independent word meaning "talking ill of others".



I have presented my deductions based on solid and valid verses of Sangam poets to bring out the truth. Let Truth Alone prevail!


Related posts:

Thiruvalluvar wore sacred thread.

Was Thiruvalluvar a Christian? Karunanidhi in the fore again.

He is not IYAN Thiruvalluvan, he is ARYAN Thiruvalluvan

திருக்குறள் என்னும் அறிவன் நூல்

Friday, November 1, 2019

Abuse, bully, disrespect, discredit – know the true face of The Jaipur Dialogues 2019!


All that glitters is not gold – the latest sample case is the most un-civil and unprofessional way that The Jaipur Dialogues 2019 behaved with me yesterday. It all started with a tweet from Mr Sanjay Dixit for my 2nd video completely demolishing the so-called Epoch of Arundhati  based on my book Myth of the Epoch of Arundhati of Nilesh Nilkanth Oak. He asked me what was the point in releasing the videos and challenged  me to debate with Nilesh Oak.



The response I got for my polite answer to him shocked me, coming as it did from the official handle of The Jaipur Dialogues 2019 (JD), accusing me of running away from the debate and calling such debate as Indic tradition. What followed after that is reproduced below that demonstrated what kind of Indic tradition that Handle stands for – continuous bullying and disrespecting the one whom it is calling for debate, while at the same time protecting Nilesh Oak, who has not yet answered to me directly to my book and my videos.




I continued to reply politely but what I got back is shown in the tweet below.


Then further twisting happened accusing me that I asked for the debate but ran away. It is unbelievable that this organisation is proving in full public glare, its un-civil and unprofessional way of talk to one whom it called for debate. The entire idea seemed to belittle me and discredit me.



To my insistence on credentials of the panelists comes the same kind of bullying retorts. It was then I decided to take head on and reply in the same buck.



Since I was completely against each one of the contestants choosing their own referees, which is not the Indic way of settling an important issue of the date of Mahabharata, I suggested a panel of Indic scholars of repute known for their research in Mahabharata. Look at their reply. They can’t accept these scholars, because - I am presumed to think due to their illogical adamancy - that Nilesh Oak is rattled. The fact is no scholar of repute accepted Oak’s date of Mahabharata and his Epoch, for, it is not Indic. But the handle that is supposed to stand for Indic cause, oblivious of the damage Nilesh Oak has done to Indic Thought continued to abuse me, deride me and bully me.



When Mr Manish Pandit, one of the panelists I mentioned chose to opt out (see their response in the first tweet below) they could not go ahead with the rest of the panelists. I said that this panel would include Mr Oak’s referee too. Once again they resorted to same bullying tactic against me. Its just laughable that they are doing this without knowing what I have written of Oak’s book and how I have established the Mahabharata date. Clearly whoever is behind this handle is NOT aware of the gravity of the Mahabharata dating and NOT after Knowledge. For saying this, I am bullied as being self-certifying. Getting funnier to see the handle tow the familiar line that almost all Indic scholars have received from Mr Nilesh Nilkanth Oak.


I leave it to the readers to count the number of times this handle abused me as being scared or running away and demeaning my work – which you hardly expect from a professional organisation.



Repeating the same, makes me think that they are agenda driven, that there is something cosy between Nilesh Oak and Jaipur Dialogues that I have intruded. How to drive me out? Here is the trick which is nothing but the same old trick used by Mr Nilesh Oak umpteen times.


Disgusting display of low standard! 
But then a sudden U-turn. No panel. Let people be the judges! 
A solution Mr Nilesh Oak very much likes. Mr Nilesh Oak knows pretty well that he cannot refute my rebuttals. If he can he could have come out by now. He only produced a small video of mediocre idea and released through a third party. Nobody owned up that video. I did refute that video also. The game plan is very clear now after seeing the tweet. Let people decide.


My response is given below.



The ‘Dialogue’ has come to a full circle!  
Readers can now start reading from the first tweet again to see what I mean.

In the first tweet Mr Sanjay asked me what was the point in releasing the videos. I released it for everyone to see and judge. Now he (his official handle) has said the same thing. If this is what he / they had in mind, why did he shoot out that first tweet? Is it because he thought that I would run away and not trouble Mr Nilesh Oak? What has Mr Nilesh Oak got to do with him / JD, that he/ JD kept bullying me that I am scared and I would run away?

This kind of questions came up in my mind earlier too when for the first time I received a tweet from Mr Sanjay Dixit making a caustic remark to my interview in PGurus for my reply to the interviewer on whether I agree with Nilesh Oak’s date of Ramayana. To my question-specific reply, I was trolled by Oak’s followers – available in that link – in the usual way that they used to troll anyone who disagrees with Oak. 
Mr Sanjay Dixit and Jaipur Dialogues 2019 seem to be recent additions to that troll-roll.  


As usual and in my usual nature I gave a polite answer.


Mr Sanjay’s tweet itself is demonstrative of how less he knows of Mr Nilesh Oak’s work. It is absolute zero with reference to my book or videos. This is demonstrated by the last tweet I noticed before starting to write this blog. The Jaipur Dialogues 2019 re-tweeted a tweet that gloats as not having read my book or Oak’s book, but judged me as a PhD student who hasn’t produced much in 4 years but wanting her lab partner to be her defence counsel!



By this tweet can I conclude that JD / Mr Sanjay had not read my book and Mr Oak’s book? My first question to him was whether he had read my book. Without knowing what I have written and what Mr Oak has written and whether Mr Oak has really corroborated 550+ inferences, he was doing shoot and scoot – to use his language.

Having said in detail all the happenings so far, my thoughts are, 

1. If my works are not to their standard, why did they call me for a debate?

2. If they don’t consider me as a scholar, why did they call me for debate and kept bullying me throughout. Even if as they say, I called for a debate, why did they accept that?

3. If they decide to organise a debate and if they have etiquette, they should know how to invite a scholar for debate, and not hurl abuses and caustic remarks.

4. It clearly shows a hidden agenda that anyone challenging the work of Mr Oak should be trolled, driven out of the arena which many of us have experienced always.

5. The evidence for point 4 is in subsequent trolls in PGurus video on Ramayana Timeline discussion.

6. Finally this debate and the organisation arranging the debate are not dependable, they are biased and want to defend Mr Oak by hook and crook.

8. So I decided to put a full stop to this troll and keep releasing my videos in public and have displayed  my work in academia.edu for scholars and non scholars to read and deduce.

9. For writing this, again I expect trolls that I am running away, but I will be happy to add such tweets here that would strengthen public perception of the other side of Jaipur Dialogues 2019.


Update :


Newer descriptions. Seems I can write a paper on Troll culture!

1st response: "Whining scholar, more interested in authority than truth"



2nd Response: "I am not gracious" and make excuses!!


3rd response: I am "combative". That is I must not react to their abuses.


4th response: Toned down.


5th response: Polished way of saying I ran away. 


6th response: Certificate for my self certification!


Hitting from the sides: That is Nilesh Oak's style.  Mr Nilesh Oak re-tweeted many. Sample given.




*********

It is my sincere hope that a panel of experts from Mahabharata research community, astrology community and science community on spectral science, lunar planetary orbit and comet-science from IIT-s and ISRO – all of which are integral for understanding my book – to be constituted to discuss my defence of traditional Mahabharata date. If agreeable it would solve the greatest issue of Indic past – that of validating the traditional date of Mahabharata war and Kali Yuga as well.

May the redeemed Ma Arundhati bless us!


Read two crucial chapters of my book here:

Deduction of Mahabharata date: “Date of Mahabharata from Internal Evidences



Exposing the Mr Oak’s claim of corroborating 550+ evidences: “List of manipulations done by Nilesh Oak to 'corroborate' his Mahabahrata date




Wednesday, October 30, 2019

Mr Nilesh Oak's Arundhati Falsifier proved false. (Video: Part 2)

The 2nd video in a series of videos based on my book "Myth of the Epoch of Arundhati of Nilesh Nilkanth Oak" critiquing the Epoch of Arundhati and the Mahabharata date deduced by Mr Nilesh Oak is now released. Tilted as "Arundhati Vasishtha observation is not a falsifier" this video concentrates on why Mr Nilesh Oak had picked out Arundhati observation as a falsifier and whether he is right in having chosen that.

The video highlights how Mr Nilesh Oak wanted to infuse scientific acumen and logical reasoning into Indic minds by using the Arundhati observation as a 'falsifier'. Then it brings into fore that Arundhati observation was not the only odd and impossible observation but it was one among 4 similar impossible observations - all of them  nimittas - from which we get a clue on what caused them to appear so.

However Mr Nilesh Oak picked out Arundhati observation and treated it as a falsifier while in reality it fails to fulfill the definition of a falsifier, ultimately ending up doing nothing other than sullying the symbolism of Arundhati as a chaste woman.




This video is best viewed along with Part 1 titled "Did Arundhati walk in front of Vasishtha anytime in the past?" The link is here https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnDVE60okLzlNi7wfJLEEeA?view_as=subscriber

Subscribe to my YouTube Channel


Related post:




Wednesday, October 23, 2019

Mr Nilesh Nilkanth Oak's 'Epoch of Arundhati' debunked.

Following the release of my book, "Myth of The Epoch of Arundhati of Nilesh Nilkanth Oak", I am planning to release a series of videos on the salient features of the book. Here comes the first in that series, that is exclusively focused on calling out the bluff of the "Epoch".

Mr Nilesh Oak made the nimitta observation of  Veda Vyasa, on Arundhati seeming to have kept her husband Vasishtha at her back in the celestial sphere as central to his research and deduced a time period of 6500 years when he says, Arundhati walked in front of Vasishtha. He calls this as the Epoch of Arundhati. He has placed the Mahabharata war within this Epoch at 5561 BCE, which is clearly 2000 years earlier than the traditional date.

In this video I am exposing the absurdity of the so-called Epoch of Arundhati besides highlighting where My Nilesh Oak had gone wrong. The narration begins with putting in perspective the symbolism of Arundhati, of why she could not have transgressed her limits. Please watch and comment.


Subscribe to my YouTube Channel


Related post:



Wednesday, October 9, 2019

My book "Myth of The Epoch of Arundhati of Nilesh Nilkanth Oak" is published in Kindle

For long I didn't take seriously the book on Mahabharata dating by Nilesh Nilkanth Oak, precisely because I thought no one would take him seriously, particularly his proposition that Arundhati, the icon of pativratātva, transgressed her limits and went ahead of her husband Vasishtha in their celestially representative stardom in the constellation of Big Dipper. But times are such that not many know the value system epitomized by Arundhati and the various other concepts ingrained in our scriptures. It appears that not many don't even know that we do keep following a scientific calendar system that is computed right from the beginning of Kali Yuga that started 5120 years ago. Thirty five years before that Mahabharata war had happened. 

In an atmosphere of absence of knowledge of even the basic features of our culture, I find the youth of today getting excited over the thought of long past for Vedic India and modern software being put into use to establish the past. But they should not be fed with faulty understanding of texts and concepts and mindless use of simulation for establishing the meaning of even scriptural concepts. Motivated by this factor I ventured into exposing the numerous errors and mistakes in Nilesh Oak's understanding of Mahabharata and his notion of the NON-EXISTENT Epoch of Arundhati.  

This venture taken with the aim of transference from Tamas to Jyoti, seeks to achieve three-in-one over all - (1) busting the myth of Epoch of Arundhati, (2) establishing the traditional date of Mahabharata corroborated in a scientific and logical way and (3) establishing the fact that Skanda was the initiator of the first ever Vedic Homa heralding the Vedic culture thereby making irrelevant both the AIT and Tamil separatism. 

Of these the busting of the Epoch of Arundhati achieves twin objectives of demolishing both Mahabharata and Ramayana dates of Nilesh Oak. Oak has made this 'Epoch' fundamental to his 'research' saying that the 'Epoch' forms the limits of the dates of these two Epics. According to him this 'Epoch' had run for more than 6000 years, from 11091 BCE to 4508 BCE. He has placed the date of Mahabharata war within this period, in 5561 BCE and Ramayana before this period. He claims that Ramayana did not take place any time after 10,000 BCE and Mahabharata did not take place anytime after 4,500 BCE.

By demolishing the very concept of the "Epoch" which I have done in this book, both the dates of Nilesh Oak stands demolished. This is a must-read book for everyone, for I have shown why Oak is wrong for placing Mahabharata in this Epoch and thereby pulling the start of Kaliyuga also to 2000 years before the established date. 


This book titled "Myth of The Epoch of Arundhati of Nilesh Nilkanth Oak" can be read here:




The cover illustration and the date of Kali Yuga (Gregorian) by deriving the correct ayanamsa and by aligning the Year, month, tithi, star and week day are also given below. Following that, the complete list of contents of this book is furnished.



Book cover 



Kali Yuga start date. 


Contents
Introduction
  • The knotty issue of Arundhati observation
1.     No test of elimination of other descriptions of Arundhati
2.     Nimitta (Omen) nature of Arundhati observation
3.     Not testing traditional Nimitta concepts.
4.     Personal bias coming in the way of research
5.     Non-acceptance of astrology amounts to rejection of Vedanga.
  • Astronomy simulator, the only methodology of research
  • Circumpolarity of Arundhati-Vasishtha
  • Voyager- Simulation Nyaya
  • Analogies as astronomy positions
  • Analogy Nyaya
  • Manipulations and lack of fundamental knowledge
  • Plan of the critique

1.     Symbolism of Arundhati
  • Arundhati – an icon of third Purushartha.
1.     Marriage vow of firmness in the name of Arundhati
2.     The established position of Arundhati as follower of Vasishtha.
  • Meaning of the word Arundhati
1.     Earliest reference to unwavering Arundhati.
2.     Arundhati in marriage mantra.
  • Vyasa’s nuanced reference to Arundhati
  • Did Kunti wish her sons to tow behind Draupadi?
  • History of Arundhati within the history of Mahabharata.

Purva Paksha

2.     Nilesh Nilkanth Oak’s Theory of Arundhati Epoch
  • His assumptions.
  • His theory.
  • Astronomy Basics.
  • Mahabharata astronomy.
  • Methodology
  • Rejects traditional Kaliyuga date
  • The Epoch of Arundhati
  • On Omens.
  • Mystery of Arundhati explained.
  • Causes for Arundhati walking ahead of Vasishtha.

Uttara Paksha

3.     Evaluation of Assumptions of Nilesh Oak.
  • Mis-interpretation of the term ‘assumption’
1.     Accuracy of simulations. 
2.     Faulty ideas of Nakshatra system of time reckoning.
3.     Reliability of the Mahabharata text.
  • Contradictory theses.
  • Purpose of astronomy references.

4.     Flawed views on Mahabharata Astronomy.
  • Mahabharata calendar.
  • Funny concept of “Insertion” of Adhika Masa.
(1)  Why Adhika masa is calculated?
  • Oak clueless on year- beginning in Mahabharata times.
  • Astronomy observations not always visual.
  • Fundamental concept of Muhurta not understood.
  • Oak’s revolutionary discovery of the meaning of ‘Vakri’ motion
(1)  What is Vakri motion?
  • Faulty notion about Seasons.
  • Vyasa had knowledge of newly discovered outer-most planets?
  • Traditional view on the Sun’s journey in 8 directions in a solar day.
  • Nilesh Oak sees Pluto in Tivro nakshatra.

5.     Faulty concept of equinoxes and solstices.
  • Seasons never changed over millennia.
  • Understanding Precession of Equinoxes.
  • The Pendulum movement of the equinox.
  • Evidence of Precession concept of Surya Siddhanta in other texts.
  • Time factor deduced from Surya Siddhanta concept of equinoxes.
  • Deducing the equinoctial position during Mahabharata.

6.     Methodology: Flaws in application of Popper’s Falsification.
  • Nilesh Oak’s research justifies Kuhn’s criticism of Popper’s methodology that result is what one wants to see.
  • A-V observation is not a Basic Sentence in Popper’s criterion.
  • A-V observation is a subjective observation and not inter-subjective observation mandated by the theory of falsifiability.
  • Inappropriateness of Popper’s falsifiability as a methodology for proving A-V observation.
  • Criticism of adhocism leading to manipulation.
  • Falsification does not apply to astrological concepts.
  • The Mother of Ironies.

7.     Methodology: Faulty concept of Pramāna.
  • Is A-V observation a valid Shabda Pramāna?
  • Nilesh Nilkanth Oak Sutra of Pramānas.
  • A model jingled with jargons.
  • Pramāna is source of Knowledge.
  • Did Arundhati walk ahead of Vasishtha? - Mimamsa explanation
  • Did Arundhati walk ahead of Vasishtha? – Pramāna based interpretation.
  • Vyasa reports deviation in the Pole star too.

8.     Nilesh Oak’s Faulty Understanding of Prishṭha.
  • Meaning of “prishṭha” (पृष्ठ) in the A-V observation not established.

9.     Nimitta is non-falsifiable.
  • Nilesh Oak’s Nimitta concepts.
1.     The A-V observation is not a unique nimitta and it is just one among many.
2.     Nimitta is a non-regular, non-ordinary phenomenon, but scientifically explainable.
3.     Nimitta is a sign and must not be confused with ‘Bad omens’.
  • Evaluation of Nilesh Oak’s Nimitta concepts.
1.     Nilesh Nilkanth Oak is consistently inconsistent in his explanation for nimitta.
2.     Nilesh Oak has no respect for traditions and the “Indic minds” that stick to tradition.
3.     If omens are testable, why didn’t he test other omens?
4.     Why A-V observation was not at all mentioned by others as a nimitta if it was around for more than 6000 years?
5.     Can Nilesh Oak show any other omen that ran for 6000 years as A-V did?
  • What is a nimitta?
  • Mahabharata, peak time of Nimitta knowledge.
  • Nimitta is a concept of Astrology.
  • Non-regular appearance of Arundhati to be treated as nimitta – says Mahabharata.

10.  Nilesh Oak’s Kaliyuga-Dilemma.
  • The Vyasa factor.
  • Does Mahabharata give inconsistent views on Yugas?
  • Evidence for Yudhishthira Shaka.
  • Concept of Shaka is old.
  • Janamejaya’s grant refers to Yudhishthira Shaka
  • The Aryabhata-headache of Nilesh Oak.
  • Aryabhata on Yuga, Bharata and Kali Yuga
  • Kali Yuga Date derived from Aryabhatiya.
  • Kali Yuga did start on a Thursday
  • The Sapta Rishi Yuga puzzle.
  • Yudhishthira Shaka in Sapta Rishi cycle.
  • Deducing the beginning of Sapta Rishi Cycle.
  • Nilesh Oak’s faulty understanding of Siddhanta (Indian Astronomy)

11.  The Myth of the Epoch of Arundhati.
  • The strange scientific discoveries of Nilesh Oak.
1.     Did North Pole make peculiar orientation with A-V?
  • Not for 6000 years, but only for 16 hours a day – Arundhati walked in the front!
  • Simulator-Nyaya shows Arundhati lagging behind.
  • Right Ascension, not always a proof for movement ahead.
1.     Right Ascension not a valid test in non-circumpolarity too.
2.     Cassiopeia for comparison.
3.     Setting time decides the final forward position
  • Episodes of Arundhati matching with the A-V stars through the millennia.
1.     Arundhati stayed back when Sapta Rishis went away.
2.     Arundhati was part of a migration of Sapta Rishis.
3.     Arundhati insulted her husband and became smoke coloured.
  • The ‘Peculiar Orientation’ was due to change in ecliptic obliquity.
  • Scientific explanation for A-V verse of Vyasa.
  • Brief note on Atmospheric refraction.
  • Two nimittas on changed refractive index
  • Nimittas that suggest asteroid-hit.
  • Planetary nimittas in support of asteroid-hit:
1.     Saturn afflicting Prajapati’s star-planet
2.     Planet Mars wheeling backwards to Anuradha
3.     The star Chitra is afflicted by Gara.
4.     The sign on Moon’s disc had changed
5.     Rahu moved towards the Sun.
  • Planetary nimittas seen by Vyasa at the time of asteroid-hit.
1.     Shyama graha in Jyeshtha.
2.     Vyasa’s Pole star nimitta.
3.     Parusha planet pointing at middle of Citra and Swati.
4.     Two coppery red- topped planets at the time of rise of Saptarishi Mandala
5.     Arundhati had kept her husband at her Prishṭha
  • Vyasa’s nimittas in support of reversal of atmospheric density.
1.     At sun-rise flights of insects, by hundreds seen.
2.     At both twilights, the cardinal quarters seemed ablaze
3.     There was shower of blood and ash
4.     Frequent earthquakes and tectonic disturbances.
5.     Tsunamis reported
6.     The tectonic movement has caused the river to change direction.
7.     Release of rare gases from the surface fissures.
8.     Strange coloured halos around the Sun.
9.     Two 13-day phases (Paksha) of the Moon.
10.  Temporary phenomenon of Arundhati ‘walking ahead’ of Vasishtha.

12.  Date of Mahabharata from Internal Evidences.
  • The 5-year Yuga of Mahabharata times deciphered.
1.     The year of Mahabharata war in 5-year Yuga cycle.
2.     Accounting the extra six days in exile.
  • Reconstructing the start and end date of Pandava’s exile.
1.     Deciphering the month of the end of exile.
  • Ritu-calculation of Mahabharata Calendar.
  • Date of Krishna leaving Upaplavya on peace mission.
  • Proof against Varsha season proposed by Nilesh Oak for Krishna’s peace mission.
  • Sequence of Mahabharata events after the exile.
1.     Lunar Ashadha month: (Sun in Cancer)
2.     Lunar Shravana month: (Sun in Leo)
3.     Lunar Bhadrapada month: (Sun in Virgo)
4.     Lunar Ashvayuja month: (Sun in Libra)
5.     Lunar Kartika month: (Sun in Scorpio)
6.     Lunar Margashirsha month: (Sun in Scorpio / Sagittarius)
  • A brief on Balarama’s pilgrimage
1.     Lunar Margashirsha month Continued:
2.     Lunar Pushya Month (Sun in Sagittarius)
  • Lunar eclipse after the war began
  • Did Bhishma fail to judge the arrival of Uttarayana?
  • Nilesh Oak’s views on Bhishma Nirvana.
  • Three verses on Bhishma’s waiting period.
1.     Krishna assigned “remaining 56 days” for Bhishma.
2.     Yudhishthira found very ‘few days remaining’ for Bhishma.
3.     Bhishma declared that he waited for ‘58 nights’
  • Month- Tithi-Nakshatra alignment for 58 days.
1.     Points of synchronisation:
2.     Points of non-synchronisation.
  • Counting Tithi-star-month from lunar Kartika month.
1.     Krishna’s 56 days
2.     Bhishma’s 58 days
  • Sequencing the days since Bhishma started imparting knowledge to Pandavas.
1.     Day 1 of conversation with Bhishma.
2.     Day 2 of conversation with Bhishma (Bodhayana Amawasya?)
3.     Day 3 of conversation with Bhishma.
4.     Day 4 of conversation with Bhishma.
  • Did Bhishma live for 50 more nights after the conversation?
  • Sequencing the dates from end of conversation to Bhishma Nirvana.
  • Defects in Nilesh Oak’s Bhishma Nirvana research
  • Mahabharata Time-line.
  • Corroborating left-out planetary features given by Vyasa.
  • Of Sequence (Anukrama) and scientific acumen of Nilesh Oak.

13. The ‘Fall’ of Abhijit and the Rise of Vedic culture.
  • Nilesh Oak’s explanation in his book.
  • Problems with Nilesh Oak’s theory of Fall of Abhijit.
  • Contextual analysis of the Fall of Abhijit.
  • Birth of Vishakha
  • Abhijit, wives of six rishis and marriage of Svaha with Agni.
  • Catastrophe from the sky.
  • Decoding Markandeya’s narration.
  • Marriage of Svaha with Agni conducted by Skanda signals the start of Vedic Homa
  • Vedic Homa: Initiated by Skanda and carried over by Vivasvan and Manu
  • Date of Skanda from Tamil literature
  • Skanda’s location at Tiruchendur.
  • Fall of Abhijit noticed from Tiruchendur
  • Fall of Abhijit impossible for latitudes above 15 degree N until 9000 BCE
  • Early evidence of rice in Tiruchendur supports genesis of Vedic Homa around that region.
  • Abhijit was the younger sister of Rohini.
  • Dhanishtha and Rohini were foremost
  • Abhijit Muhurtha.
  • Ramayana references on Abhijit
  • 10,800 BCE witnessed ‘Fall’ of Abhijit and a comet-hit too.
1. Krittika in, Rohini away, Abhijit out and Vishakha split!
2. Krittika seemed to have fulfilled some important requirements.
3. Krittika offered new identity for the spouses of six of the sapta rishis.
4. Krittika ruled high in the Heavens when Abhijit ‘fell’ behind the forests.
5. Krittika’s inclusion to match with the shower of fire from comet-hit.
  • 10,800 BCE Comet-hit impacted India too.

Appendix I:  List of Manipulations done by Nilesh Oak to ‘corroborate’ his date of Mahabharata.

Appendix II: Mathematical calculation of relative rise and set time of stars with particular reference to Alcor (Arundhati) and Mizar (Vasishtha) in the period of Nilesh Oak’s ‘Epoch of Arundhati’ done by Harish Saranathan, PhD (Aerospace, Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering)