Thursday, November 28, 2019

Understanding equinoxes the Vedic way. (Part 4 critiquing Mr Nilesh Oak's date of Mahabharata)


The 4th 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.

Titled as “Understanding equinoxes the Vedic way” this video begins by stating the Western Astronomy concept of the equinoxes preceding through all the twelve signs of the zodiac in approximately 26,000 years. This is followed by the exposition of the version of Surya Siddhanta of the oscillating motion of the equinoxes in both forward and backward direction, each covering a distance of 54 degrees in 3600 years, totalling upto 7,200 years for one complete to and fro oscillation. As a result the vernal equinox can be located only within Pisces and Aries, with zero degree Aries becoming the central point of this oscillation.

This idea of oscillating equinox observed through ages by the Vedic sages has been handed down to the common folks in the form of Aryan dance, Thanjavur tilting doll and the story of Samudra Manthan. The to and fro movement of the churning done with the axis of the earth as the churning rod, with the giant turtle representing gigantism and control force as the base at the South Pole and the sloshing effect of the magma representing Vasuki, the serpent are deduced as the causes for the oscillating movement of the equinoxes, in addition of the gravitational impact of the Sun and the Moon.

Textual evidences are produced in support of the oscillating equinoxes and on how the winter solstice and the summer solstice cannot move beyond two signs. This concept has a phenomenal impact on the dating of ancient events of the Vedic society such as Mahabharata and Ramayana, if done using the softwares based on western astronomy. As such Mr Nilesh Oak’s work on the date of Mahabharata collapses due to non-adherence to the Vedic view of the equinoxes which is true and time-tested.

The video can be viewed here:



Related Posts:









Friday, November 22, 2019

Recent paper on Sarasvatī in nature.com demolishes Mr Nilesh Oak’s date of Mahabharata & Ramayana!

The research paper by Chatterjee, A., Ray, J.S., Shukla, A.D. et al tilted “On the existence of a perennial river in the Harappan heartland” in nature.com offers a new dimension to prove Mr Nilesh Oak’s date of Mahabharata as wrong. According to this research the river Sarasvatī was perennial between 9ka and 4.5ka and was receiving sediments from the Higher and Lesser Himalayas. This period “can be attributed to the reactivation of the river by the distributaries of the Sutlej.” It was within this period Mr Nilesh Oak has located his date of Mahabharata war!

His date, 5561 BCE falls at a time when the river Sarasvatī was well fed by stronger monsoonal waters whereas the river was missing at Udapana and Vinasana in its course downstream, according to Mahabharata. This means that at the time of Mahabharata the river was not flowing continuously in full strength until it reached its estuary.  

Taking exception to the findings of this research, Mr Nilesh Oak posted the following in twitter, which contrary to what he wanted to do - that is, reject the research findings - turned out to be an acceptance of the traditional date of Mahabharata!


The last point (within box) acceding to intensification of monsoon until 4500 BCE and abrupt drying by 3000-2000 BCE augurs well for the traditional date of Mahabharata (3136 BCE) and not for his date at 5561 BCE! Sarasvatī was brimming at his date of Mahabharata war.

Let me reproduce below the figure furnished by the authors linking the Harappan settlements with sediment provenance to prove that the settlements of Mahabharata characters such as Jayadratha and other Sindhu kings in the Indus region could not be dated earlier than 5.8 ka (=3800 BCE)

{Evolution of the Ghaggar from changes in sediment provenance and the Harappan settlement dynamics. (A) Stratigraphic changes in sediment Sr-Nd isotopic compositions in the Ghaggar alluvium during last 20 ka. Symbols and abbreviations are as in Fig. 1. (B) Evolution of the Harappan civilization in north-western India and eastern Pakistan as inferred from the settlement dynamics through ages (9.0-3.5 ka)7,10,47,48. Modern and inferred former courses (dashed lines) of the major Himalayan rivers are also shown. I: Indus; J: Jhelum; C: Chenab; B: Beas; S: Sutlej; SS: Saraswati (Ghaggar); Y: Yamuna; G: Ganga}.

The bottom figure at right (B) shows absence of settlements in Mr Oak’s date of Mahabharata. But there were settlements at the time of Mahabharata in the Indus region. The Indus region was occupied by Jayadratha and 10 other kingdoms stretching upto Afghanistan at the time of Mahabharata. It presupposes beginning of occupation in the Indus region sometime before Mahabharata times. It had started only from 5.8ka (3800 BCE) which goes well with the traditional date of Mahabharata and not Mr Oak’s date.

The Pandavas did not cross the river Sindhu at that time as known from Yudhishthira’s words during the dice game, when he referred to Parsana at the east of Sindhu as the western limit of his kingdom. The second figure from the bottom of B matches with this description. Most settlements were along Sarasvatī, but some were around the Sindhu and its tributaries, the regions of Sindhu kings. With early Harappan coinciding with the traditional Mahabharata date, this research is proof of traditional date and not Mr Nilesh Oak’s date.

The research findings are consistent with Valdiya’s paper published in Current Science highlighting the periods of heavy rainfall. The figure reproduced from his paper shows “heavy rains at 15,300, 14,700 and 11,500–10,800 yrs BP and very heavy rains between 9500 and 5500 yrs BP.” The rains must have occurred due to Western Disturbance (WD). The dynamics of WD is such that it was heavy following the end of Glacial Maxima.


The rains peaked between 9500 BP to 5500 BP and this matches with the results of the current research of testing the sediments for dating. It was only after this period Sarasvatī started drying up, that coincided with Mahabharata times. In contrast Mr Nilesh Oak’s date at 5561 BCE had seen heavy rains followed by a thousand year long very heavy rains that kept the lakes of Thar desert filled with water all the time. Would he call this also a ‘weak claim’ by Singhvi and Kale?

Mr Nilesh Oak’s date of Ramayana debunked by this research.

The above figure also unsettles his date of Ramayana located at 12K+ BCE. The period was dry at that time which is contrary to Ramayana description of Sarayū overflowing in rainy season (told by Rama. VR 4-28-56).

The name Sarayū like Sarasvatī is also traced to the root word, Saras, the pond. Valmiki Ramayana (1.24.10) says that Sarayū originated in Manasa Lake (near Mt Kailash). This means de-glaciation had started before that time which is impossible for Mr Oak’s date of Ramayana. His Ramayana date occurs at Pleistocene, when the Himalayas and most of north India were wrapped under extreme cold conditions giving no scope for formation of Manasa Lake near Mt Kailash. Under such conditions, from where did Sarayū originate?

Rig Veda has references to river Sarayū on par with Sarasvatī. “Let the great Streams come hither with their mighty help, Sindhu, Sarasvatī, and Sarayū with waves” says Rig Veda 10.64.  Another verse brings out the malevolence of Sarayū in causing hardship to Arya Citraratha. This verse is from 4th Mandala, verse number 30-18. The 4th Mandala is one of the oldest according to Mr Oak that he places it before 22k+ BP.


Per this, the mighty Sarayū that washed away Arya Citraratha can be dated at before 22ka! That was the time of Last Glacial Maxima with ice sheets spread all across the Himalayan region and Tibetan plateau. This wipes out any chance for the formation of Manasa Lake in the Himalayas in which Sarayū had originated. There is no scope for monsoonal rains either to feed Sarayū. The global sea level at that time was below 125 metres than it is now which means the Indian monsoons (South west and North east) had not yet started. From where did Sarayū get its furiously flowing waters at 22ka + at  the time this verse was composed in Mr Oak’s opinion?

Rig Vedic verses on Sarasvatī concur with Holocene rains.

The peak monsoon running for thousands of years after the start of Holocene matches well with Rig Vedic description of Sarasvatī.

The Rig Vedic description, “Pure in her course from mountains to the ocean” (Rig Veda 7.95.2), “Seven sistered-, sprung from threefold source” (Rig Veda 6.61.12) and “swelling with streams” (Rig Veda 7.96.6) on her way to the ocean match well with Sutlej and other tributaries in North West feeding into Sarasvatī.

The description of Vājasaneyi Samhita (Book 34- verse 11) on how Sarasvatī flowed in her early days (See Griffith 1899:281): “Five rivers flowing on their way speed onward to Sarasvatī, but then became Sarasvatī a fivefold river in the land” had happened at early Holocene when monsoon peaked. This verse implies that the five rivers of the Sindhu joined with Sarasvatī in the place of their origin. It was a fused water body of enormous size at that time – perhaps the ‘Saras’ (pond) from which Sarasvatī flowed down. The Rig Vedic hymns on Indra were aimed at getting relief from the destructive rains and subsequent floods.

Turning a Nelson’s eye to the excellent synchronisation of Rig Vedic verses to the incidence of rainfall found out in the research, Mr Nilesh Oak has pushed the date of Rig Veda to 22+ ka when LGM peaked. Only South East Asia was warm and Sundaland was kicking with life then.  

Genesis of Harappan Unicorn from Sarasvatī

The image of Unicorn (Varaha), the most widely found symbol of the Harappan settlements holds the key to tracing continuity from Rig Vedic Sarasvatī in the ‘lake’ from the rainy period around 9ka to the Harappan phase that coincides with post Mahabharata date.

The first ever reference in Rig Veda to Varāha comes in the context of battering by heavy rains. ‘Vṛtra’, the boar (Varaha) was lying in the water, put to sleep by the mighty thunder of Indra (Rig Veda 1.121.11). When water subsided in course of time and the land forms arose, it was a manifestation of Varāha. It was personified as though Varāha lifted up Mother Earth (Bhū Devī) and kept her on its lap. The first ever place that was lifted up, perhaps came to be identified as the root or origin of Varāha and hence came to be called as Varāhamūla (Baramulla). This place was on the ridges close to Jhelum River, the highest point of the huge body of water that was Kashmir. This was the first place that became visible when water receded.

Entire region was once under water extending upto Jhelum in the west.

The presence of Mānasarāwar lake (presently known as Manasbal Lake, an ox-bow of Jhelum) and Kailāś ranges[1] in this part of Himalayas in Kashmir (Drew 1875:312-313) and the reference to Sarasvatī as originating from Mānasa lake (Figure 13) in the hymn of Vasiṣṭha (MB 9.40) match well with the description of her origins in Saras.  

Lake Mānasa and Kailāś range in Kashmir

The once flooded Sarasvatī (and then gone dry) started getting dotted with land mass with a number of lakes forming in her upper course in Kashmir. The exposed or lifted lands rich with sedimentary soil gave good sustenance for vegetation and living. Glorification of Varāha  in this region must have started with this. The occupants of this region (Sindhu Kings) continued to hold Varaha in high esteem. Varaha was the royal emblem of the Sindhu King Jayadratha of Mahabharata fame.

The presence of Unicorn (Varāha) seal found only in this region, (Harappan) can be justified from the above account. Whoever later adapted Varāha can be said to have originated from the people of this region. But what remains in the final analysis is that the concept of Varaha that came up with the rising of land forms from the once battered- by- rains regions of Sindhu- Sarasvatī had continued to remain with Sindhu occupants before and after Mahabharata times (as Harappan) and as relics at our times, enabling us to trace back its history to the beginning of Holocene when Sarasvatī was a bountiful river – a feature established again by the recent research.









[1] Francis Drew quotes the location of Kailāś from Cunningham’s book ‘Ladakh’. It was a ridge behind Leh, between the Indus and Shayok and was called Kailāś  or Gangri range. The name Kailāś was taken from a peak near Mānasarāwar  lake, presently known as Manasbal lake in J&K.

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