Showing posts with label Nilesh Nilkanth Oak. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nilesh Nilkanth Oak. Show all posts

Sunday, August 27, 2023

Identity of the Śakakāraka of Shalivahana Śaka (Supplement to Mahabharata date series 16)

 Previous

Recap:

The knowledge of the beginning date of Kali Maha Yuga being vital in deciphering the date of the Mahabharata war, this supplementary series was made to clear the doubts and questions of Kali Yuga.

Kali Yuga has six sub-divisions, known as Śaka-s, already mentioned in the 13th Part. They are listed down here again.

1.         Yudhiṣṭhira Śaka

2.         Vikrama Śaka

3.         Śālivāhana Śaka

4.         Vijayābhinandana Śaka

5.         Nagārjuna Śaka

6.         Bali Śaka 

The duration of each of these Śaka is already fixed by the sages as shown in the table below:

The complete plan of Kali Yuga of 4,32,000 years already in existence implies that it was devised at the time Kali Yuga computation was handed down. This was done by ‘Purā-vidah’- the learned people of the past who declared that Kali Yuga started on the day Kṛṣṇa left for his higher realm, as per Śrīmad Bhāgavatam. 

We have already discussed in the previous parts the references from Jyotirvidābharaṇa by Kalidasa on how a Śakakāraka is decided, based on defeating the Śaka tribes. This text was written in 57 BCE, 24 years after the Vikrama Śaka began.

****

The first Śaka of Kali yuga was named after Yudhiṣṭhira, who annihilated many Śaka tribes in the Mahābhārata war. Yudhiṣṭhira Śaka did not include the 35 years of rule by Yudhiṣṭhira but it started only with the beginning of Kali Mahā Yuga, after Yudhiṣṭhira abdicated the throne and Parīkṣit was crowned. Even though Yudhiṣṭhira had left, his rule of the law was prevailing. Hence, the name Yudhiṣṭhira Śaka. This Śaka went on for 3044 years. 

(It is shocking to see several scholars of yester years, assigning the year of the Mahabharata war as the beginning of Yudhishthira Śaka. I noticed this particularly while going through the previous works on the date of Adi Shankara. Almost everyone who attempted to fix a date for Adi Shankara has taken Yudhishthira Śaka as starting from the Mahabharata war date, while it refers to the Kali Yuga date)

The next Śaka was that of king Vikramāditya who defeated the Śaka and the Ramatha tribes.  (14th Part) Seeing him subdue the Śaka tribes when the new Śaka era was due, the scholars of that time crowned him as the Śakakāraka. If the Śaka classification was arbitrarily made by Vikrama himself, he could have given more years to his own era and not just 135 years and a long duration of 18,000 years for the next Śaka! This goes to show that the Śaka divisions were made at the time of the start of the Kali Yuga and the kings abided by them.

In this article, let me focus on the 3rd subdivision namely, Śālivāhana Śaka.

****

The third sub-division of Kali Yuga was Śālivāhana Śaka, whose initiator is not exactly known. However, going by the requisites of a Śakakāraka, I have zeroed in on Gautamīputra Śatakarṇi of the Sātavāhana empire.

He defeated Nahapāna of the Śaka tribes in addition to the Yavana-s, Pahlava-s and Parthia-s. This information is written in the Nashik inscriptions of his mother Gautamī Bālaśri as “Śaka-yavana-pahlava-niṣudana”. His victory over the king Nahapāna of the Śaka tribes is authenticated by the discovery of a hoard of coins at Jogalthambi, numbering more than 13,000 originally issued by Nahapāna, but more than 9000 of them counterstruck with the legends and symbols of Gautamīputra Śatakarṇi.  

His name is associated with the Tamil Cera king Senkuttuvan, who made an expedition to the Himalayas to procure stones for making the image of Kannagi. According to the olden Tamil Epic, Silappadhikāram, the Cera king was assisted by a Śatakarṇi in his trip. The army of the Cera king and that of the Śatakarṇi had fought together against the Yavana-s settled in the environs of the Amarnāth cave, whose peak known as “Paruppadam” in Tamil, was the destination of the Cera King. Silappadhikāram mentions twice about the victory of the Cera King over the Yavana-s (van sol yavanar valanādu āndu / வன்சொல் யவனர் வளநாடு ஆண்டு).[i]

Gautamīputra Śatakarṇi being the only Śatakarṇi associated with a victory over the Yavana-s, it is deduced that he was the one mentioned in Silappadhikāram. This victory also made him the Śakakāraka of the third Śaka, namely Śālivāhana Śaka.

Nashik inscription about Gautamīputra Śatakarṇi

The Nashik inscription provides an important information that this king devised Time and place for the pursuit of three goals, perhaps referring to Dharma, Artha and Kāma. Written specifically as “suvibhatativaga desa kālasa”, this seems to indicate the initiation of Śālivāhana Śaka. Starting from this Śaka, many Karaṇa texts were written to prepare the tables for Pancānga-s for usage in religious, cultural, civil, and administrative works. The relevant parts of this inscription referring to the king’s Time and his victory over the Śaka tribes is produced above.[ii]

On the eastern walls of the veranda of Cave 3 where the inscription on devising Time and the victory over the Śaka-s are found, there is another inscription dictated by Gautamīputra Śatakarṇi from his military camp at the battlefield soon after winning the Śaka king ‘Usabadata’ (Rishabhadatta), the son-in-law of Nahapāna, transferring the villages previously under the control of the Western Kṣatrapa-s to the ascetics.[iii]

The deed declares that it was issued on the 18th year of the rule of the king, on the 1st day of the second fortnight of the rainy season. In Caitra, the next year, this king must have got established as the Śakakāraka. This was at the expiry of 3179 Kali year, corresponding to 78 CE.

The name Śālivāhana given by the Purā-Vidah at the time of Vyāsa was taken over to refer to this new era which we, the Bhāratīya-s continue to use till date.

 

(End of the series)

 



[i] Silappadhikāram, 28.141; 29.25

[ii] Epigraphia Indica, Vol VIII, p.60

[iii] Epigraphia Indica, Vol VIII, p.71


Friday, September 16, 2022

3 questions to Mr. Nilesh Oak on his work on the Mahabharata-date.

After having tried 3 times asking Mr. Oak to reply to my questions. I decided to ask for the last time, just 3 questions now, since he doesn’t seem to be interested in reading and replying to my Critique of his Epoch of Arundhati.

1st occasion was at our meeting at SI3 conference in Dec 2017 where I raised questions on his Mahabharata dating. He moved away when I kept insisting on 2 questions on his Ramayana.  

Twitter interactions

https://twitter.com/NileshOak/status/950305471340208128

2nd occasion: It continued through twitter in Jan, 2018. I wanted proof for R. Ganga and showed absence for a need to build Setu during his date of Ramayana. Unanswered till date, though he found a way out recently by proposing a different location for Setu and Lanka.

https://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2018/01/challenging-nilesh-oaks-dates-of.html



3rd occasion: In twitter arguments, he challenged me to critique his Mahabharata dating which I accepted. Published my critique of his entire book of Mahabharata on 7th Oct 2019 as an eBook.  https://www.amazon.in/MYTH-EPOCH-ARUNDHATI-NILESH-NILKANTH-ebook/dp/B07YVFNQLD/ref=sr_1_2?qid=1663341465&refinements=p_27%3AJayasree+Saranathan&s=digital-text&sr=1-2&text=Jayasree+Saranathan

No rebuttal to my critique till date but only abuses that I used his name in the title to earn money and fame.  I made the book free within a year. Further abuses recorded here as his Modus Operandi. https://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2020/10/modus-operandi-of-nilesh-nilkanth-oak.html

My assessment of him as the Oakian Onion https://twitter.com/jayasartn/status/1566319300469592064

https://www.academia.edu/44757153/Myth_of_The_Epoch_of_Arundhati_of_Nilesh_Nilkanth_Oak

With fresh abuses starting yesterday, he called me for a debate in which we will state our respective stances leaving others to make up their mind. This is his template all along where he will ‘end the debate’ with ‘we agree to disagree’ but debates are not fought that way.


The date of Mahabharata is a specific and exact one which exists as the 36th year before Kṛishna left this world. We have to establish that date without fail but not invent our own dates. I published my book validating that date in December 2021. https://www.amazon.in/dp/B09LS1WZ4X  He is welcome to critique it.

Since he is not willing to reply to several points in my critique, I decided to ask him just 3 questions.

Q 1: He uses the recently discovered outer planets namely, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto for ‘corroborating’ his date. They have never been part of Vedic Hindu astronomy till date. He even says that Mbh astronomers had knowledge of 9 planets of the solar system, least realizing that it includes the earth too which is not in the reckoning of the Vedic society as a planet

My question is to provide evidence for the knowledge of these planets in Mbh times. Merely saying that his simulation corroborates them won’t help because number doesn’t matter, but the planets in use matter. For example, suppose it is said that 3 items namely bricks, cement and water are needed to build a wall. And you pick out the number 3 alone and identify marbles, varnish and paint as the 3 items. Will the end product be the same? Similarly, the number of planets doesn’t matter here but what those planets are and whether they were known to the Mahabharata astronomers matter. Mr. Oak has to give evidence for the knowledge of these planets during Mahabharata. Or else his date corroborated with these planets crumbles.

Q 2: Initially while writing the book, he was not aware of the Kali yuga issue clashing up with his date. Only after publishing it in 2011 he came across lot of criticism for that. The result was a roller-coaster ride on Kali yuga from rejecting to accepting to rejecting.. and finally now fixing it on the last day of his war.



The issue is we have several inscriptions dated to Kali yuga begin date in 3101 BCE which is the year of Kṛishna’s exit. The date continues to be functional even today throughout India in all the temples and for religious purposes. In all the Panchangas anywhere in India and from any sampradaya in India, it is marked that we have completed 5123 years of Kali yuga as of Caitra / Chitra this year. This revolts with his date of ‘Kali Yuga’ and Mahabharata by more than 2000 years. If his Kali Yuga date is right, then all the 1000s of inscriptions and the Panchangas are wrong. He has to prove that they wrong, before proposing a different date.

Let me give just one sample from the inscriptions to make his work easy.

Thiruvidai Marudur inscription of Uttama Chola (Madhurantaka of Ponniyin Selvan fame) states the Kali year at his regnal year. Based on that epigraphers deduce that it was made on 982 CE. How? Deducing from the Kali era that started on 3101 BCE. Dates of all inscriptions are deciphered this way only. His date matches with others in his lineage such as Rajendra Chola. Suppose we deduce his date from Oak’s Kali Yuga date that pushes back his date in the 2nd millennium BCE when the Chola capital of Tanjore was not at all in existence.

The question is, he has to prove that the presently-in-use Kali yuga in inscriptions and in Panchanga are wrong. If he cannot, he should not claim his newly discovered Kali yuga date. Let him call it by some other name but not as Kali yuga and mislead the ignorant people. A researcher must be honest in his work.

Q 3: This is astronomy simulator based, which I have proven to be unreliable in my book “Mahabharata 3136 BCE”. Since it is obvious he has not read it, nor comprehended the material, I am going to show his own one and only animation of the Arundhati- Vasishtha (A-V) simulated in geogebra.org. The simulation is made on the basis of the current position of A-V and extrapolated to past in a circle that is not recognized in Vedic astronomy.

 


Now I am going to show a research article published in 2014 https://www.academia.edu/6907658/Evidence_of_Shifts_in_Earth_Axis_at_Tall_el_Hammam which shows different layers of foundation (archaeologically analysed) each showing slight shift towards north pole each time. The research concludes that the shift has happened because of earthquakes and meteor-hits too by which the angle of visibility of the pole star shifted.


The same was reported by Vyasa who saw the Dhruva star moving in opposite direction but Oak ignored it because it cannot be simulated in any astronomy simulator but on other areas, in the Mbh, mentioned in quite a few places (as I have established in my book). Oak ignored that observation of Vyasa because there is no north Pole star in Oak’s date. An honest researcher will realize that he is treading a wrong path and give up further articulation. Different inclination of  the north pole location affects the way we look at the Sapta rishis and the A-V stars in them.

The issue here is the simulation shown by Oak is based on the current position which as per this research is known to have changed 3 times in the last 4000 years. Each time the sighting of the A-V was different and no one knows how it was in his date of Mbh. In other words, his simulation shows what is valid for an assumption that the North pole was not sighted differently all in a sudden in the past. But the research shows it did change for a minimum of 3 times. So how can he claim his simulation to be reliable for 7000 years ago in his date. The question is how he is going to eliminate the aberration in the shifts in the recorded 3 events to arrive at the right sighting 4000 years ago? How would he assure that no more shifts occurred between then and his date?

To summarize,

Q1: Where is the proof for knowledge of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto in the Mahabharata?

Q2: Where is the proof that the currently functioning Kali yuga used in inscriptions and Panchangas are wrong?

Q3: Where is the proof that the currently simulated A-V is valid for 7000 years given that there is proof for the angle of sighting to have changed thrice in the last 4000 years.

If he is not getting even one of these right, his ‘Theory’ is worthy of a place in the dustbin.

But he will continue to conduct shows with the help of Layer 4 and Layer 3 of the Oakian Onion because that means business and gathering many ‘fans’ which he has written in his Ramayana book.

We cannot stop him. But innocent readers must remain vigilant not to fall a prey to the disinformation he spreads. At best, people can demand that he adds a disclaimer that his version doesn’t corroborate Vyasa Bharata.

******

 Update on 21st September 2022

Mr. Oak responded for the three questions as follows:

His response for the 1st question:


He produced the link to his video where he repeats the same material that Sapta Grahas include Uranus, Neptune or Pluto as the case may be depending on what the simulation shows. He thinks since because the simulation shows them, it should be accepted that Vyasa had known those planets, whereas such depiction shows that his date was wrong. Only a wrong date will show impossible corroboration of planets that are not part of Indic Graha system. Let me reproduce a screen shot from that link wherein he counts Neptune and Uranus among 7 planets and claims successful corroboration.

 


He doesn't seem to understand the basic requirement that he has to show evidence for knowledge of Uranus, Neptune etc. in the Mahabharata and not at the simulator. Next generation simulators will include planet X too. Will he add them also in his corroborations? 

So, he has clearly no answer for the first question. The common man who knows nothing of logic and science is just drooling at his videos believing he is true. One of the tweeples wrote that he answered. Is this an answer? So, I raised a counter question as follows:


His response to the 2nd question is as follows:



There is no direct answer, but the news about the upcoming book from Layer 3 of the Oakian onion which is a manipulatory work to create a Kali yuga date for his Mahabharata date. So, I asked him a counter question asking for evidence. 


Oak exhibited the same kind of non-comprehension and tweeted that I am terrified at the prospect of a blow to my 'dogmatic' claim in Kali Yuga. 


Here is a man who has disrespect for age old knowledge of Kali yuga and dares to call it a dogmatic claim. And believes that I am terrified like European folks who were terrified listening to Copernicus and Galileo and Kepler - the three people he often spoke about in his book to compare himself with. Is he really in normal sense - was the first thought that came in my mind. 

He doesn't know when Kali Yuga began. He didn't even think at the time of writing his book that the Kali Yuga date upsets his Mahabharata date. Now after 10 years he has realized that Kali Yuga indeed is an Achilles heel for his date. And so managed to get a book with a date in his Mahabharata year but claims that I am terrified by that date challenging the dogma of Kali Yuga. 

Really it gives an impression that we are dealing with someone whose work deserves no attention. The one who has no respect for tradition of kali yuga and who never abides by the rules of research to stand by the version and view of the society under research, need not be bothered about. But the kind of eco system he had built up forces us to put the counter to his lies. 

Now his response to the 3rd question which is very hilarious. 


The utility of the simulator is exactly this: it is meant for current probes. Even to track the past probes say, the Voyager probe, the current mathematics is not valid. Astronomers have to rework the minute changes to receive the signal from Voyager. My question was how can the simualtions extrapolated from the present be valid for 7000 years when we have definitive knowledge of deviations thrice in the last 4000 years. His answer was the above!!

So, I asked him the following for which there is no reply till now.
 

Nilesh Oak had not defended his stance in the 3 answers, but he keeps on calling for his funny 'uncut' and 'unedited' video debates. The exchange here is uncut and unedited and for everyone to see. Where are the answers?

He will never change but will keep spreading his false theory to poison Hindu Dharma. His blind fans must wake up atleast after seeing this. 

Wednesday, December 29, 2021

'Myth of “The Epoch of Arundhati” of Nilesh Nilkanth Oak' is brought out in print

 My book ‘Myth of The Epoch of Arundhati of Nilesh Nilkanth Oak’ critiquing Nilesh Oak’s book on the date of the Mahābhārata was originally published as an e-book in 2019. Upon request for print version, I am now bringing out a revised version of the e-book after dropping the chapters on validation of the date of Kali Yuga and Mahābhārata which however can be read with additional inputs in my recently published “Mahabharata 3136 BCE: Validation of the Traditional Date”. 

With no counters coming from Nilesh Oak to my critique till this date, I am adding additional questions in this book on his recently floated theory of Kali Yuga starting in 5561 BCE, from the last day of the war in his timeline. I have added more evidence on his ‘Analogy Nyāya’ too. I don’t expect him to refute my critique for, he never can, but this book is meant for the common man to not fall a prey to a work of untruth.

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 as Nilesh Oak has done. My book aims to spread awareness about the mediocre nature of the Mahābhārata research of Nilesh Oak.

The first copy of this book was presented to the Honorable Vice President of India, Sri. Venkaiah Naidu when I met him at the Raj Bhavan at Chennai to give my books on 27th December 2021. While briefing him the circumstances that led me to do the research on validating the Traditional date of the Mahabharata war and Kali Yuga, I spoke about my Dharmic Anger against maligning the status of Arundhati and the mis-interpretation of the verses of the Mahābhārata and the date of Kali Yuga. The second copy was given to the Honorable Governor of Tamil Nadu.

This book of 12 chapters in 202 pages is available for Rs. 230. Postal cost of Rs. 36 for anywhere in India is additional. Interested readers may write to jayasreebooks@gmail.com to get the book.

 







Wednesday, October 13, 2021

My Master Class lecture on “Mahabharata Astrology”

I am glad to share the link to my Master Class lecture on “Mahabharata Astrology” delivered on 9th October 2021, on the occasion of the 109th Jayanti of Dr. B.V. Raman, organized by Raman & Rajeswari Research Foundation chaired by Bangalore Niranjan Babu, the son of Dr. B.V. Raman.

Starting with the basic classification of Astrology, I showed how all the planetary references in the Mahabharata, tagged as nimitta-s are part of Phala Bhaga of Jyothisha, that rejects any reference to the newly discovered planets, namely, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. This clarifies that any work on dating the Itihāsa-s, done by using these planets can be rejected outright at the outset.

Then I went on to show how all the planetary and the calendar references in the Mahabharata are aligned with Vedic astronomy and the Ashtānga system of Time. Some salient points are as follows:

(1) Only 27 functional stars at any point of time, and not 28.

(2) The 13th tithi Amavasya was caused by a disturbance to the Z-axis of the Earth- Moon system by an extra-terrestrial impact making the moon to go on a shorter revolution, that is perpetuated into memory by the concept of Bodhāyana Amavasya.

(3) This disturbance had thrown off the earth from its X-Y axis temporarily, which caused it to take a longer path to reach the Uttarāyaṇa-point, making Bhishma to wait for his exit. This anomalous change in Time is remembered as Ratha Saptami.

(4) This also caused the earth to wobble more than normal before attaining its natural orientation that is detectable by unusual appearances of the sky reported by Vyāsa in the altered appearance of Arundhati-Vasishtha pair and the reverse movement of Dhruva and Mars.

My paper published on this cosmic impact in the Academia Letters (https://doi.org/10.20935/AL1385) brought me into contact with one of the reviewers of my paper, Prof. Joachim Seifert of Germany. He shared with me the graphs and the details of an extra-terrestrial impact already recorded in the Temperature chart of Holocene. The year was 3136 BCE, that I validated as the year of the Mahabharata war, that took place thirty-five years before the beginning of Kali Yuga, when Krishna left. 

The verses of the Mahabharata suggesting the impact that I shared with him convinced him further about the impact that he recognized it as the “Hastināpura Meteor Event”, the details of which are going to be published by him in his upcoming paper in a science journal. This event becoming the world’s first ever recorded eye-witness account – earlier than the Kaali impact of Sweden – the Mahabharata is set to come out of the tag of Mythology and as a true account that did take place in 3136 BCE, 35 years before Kali Yuga began.

From this I went on establishing the Vedic concept of the to-and-fro oscillation of the equinoxes -fundamental to understanding the lack of change in month-season combination - that is totally different from the ever-precessing equinoctial model of the west. This model rejects the axial precession of the earth – which is also revealed by the archaeo-astronomy of the ancient monuments of the world – and supports the precession of the entire solar system caused by the helical path of the sun as it surges ahead in the Universe. This path causes the sway of the sun for 27 degrees on either side of the sidereal Aries in lateral view from the earth. As a result, the seasons do not change much but oscillate around Caitra which we have retained as the standard configuration at all times in the past and even now.




In this limited movement of the equinoxes, there are only three pole stars identified by the Vedic sages. Abhijit that appears as a pole star in the western system of precession cycle has never been a pole star but only a zodiacal star. Similarly, Agastya can never be a pole star in the south as it lies outside the path of the limited oscillation. 

In this context I am explaining the crucial factor called the “Ayanāmśa”- the difference between the tropical position of the equinoctial sun from the sidereal position which is very much a part and parcel of horoscopy even today, but missing in western astronomy. The absence of this concept in the astronomy simulations shows absurd levels of addition of the ayanāmśa value, say, 35 to 45 degrees for 3067 BCE and 5561 BCE, 150 degrees for Bali’s time when the vernal equinox was said to be in Virgo and 180 degrees if one dates the Ramayana at 14,000 years ago. Were the Vedic sages so illogical in conceiving the ayanāmśa concept with such large deviations?

In a continuously precessing equinoctial system, there is no need for the ayanāmśa, but then the sages had proposed the use of ayanāmśa shows that the equinox was not continuously precessing. The ayanāmśa concept based on the oscillatory model of the equinoxes, ingrained in our more or less static state of month-seasons and incorporated in casting our horoscopes, must make us realize how irrelevant it is to use the western astronomy calculations that have no place for ayanāmśa correction.

In this context I have shown that it is not possible to extrapolate or approximate the rate of the ayanāmśa for the past. The only exception being the zero degree point of the sidereal Aries, which the sun crosses every 3600 years, where the super conjunction of all the planets (except Rahu) had taken place at the time of the departure of Krishna when Kali Maha Yuga began. That date (22nd January 3101 BCE) is reproduced from Jhora for Vedic / Surya Siddhanta ayanāmśa, Lahiri ayanāmśa and Pushya Paksha ayanāmśa along with the simulation from the Stellarium astronomy software. Only the Vedic / Siddhāntic ayanāmśa shows the congregation. All credit to Sri. Vinay Jha who computed this from the ancient works.

I further went on to demonstrate how the eclipses and the planetary data found in our inscriptions do not match with the astronomy catalogue computations used in the astronomy simulators and in the Jhora astrology simulator. By 400 years ago, the position of both the sun and the moon had deviated. This had increased more by 1000 years ago. Prof. Vahia’s research also establishes that the NASA data does not concur with the eclipse sightings in India.



The cause can be traced to the inability to solve the n-body equations. Any eclipse should solve 4-body equations, involving the moon, the sun, the star in the backdrop and the latitude and longitude of the observer.

Mr. Nilesh Oak claimed in his book on the date of the Mahabharata that the makers of his software vouchsafed for the Proper motion of the stars in his simulator. That pertains to the single-body equation with no scope to solve the other problems that must have been addressed to make them appear in a particular configuration in the observer’s sky.

Similarly, Prof. Achar also addressed the single-body equation when he wrote in his 2014 paper that the motion of the slow-moving planet such as Saturn is enough to date the Mahabharata war. His rationale was that Saturn with 200 revolutions in a period of 5000 years compared to 60,000 revolutions of the moon in the same period, had less margin of error, but simulations show that the location of Jupiter, another slow-moving planet could not be correctly identified in the simulation in a very recent past, say, in 1601 CE, due to problems in getting the precession rate of the day accurately.

Though he agreed that eclipses cannot be simulated correctly for periods 5000 years ago, he did not seem to realize the mismatch within the four bodies – the sun, the moon, the background star and the earth in the event of an eclipse not simulated correctly. At best he thought that the simulators concur with the astronomy catalogues, but of what use they have for Vedic astronomy calculations?

Compared to any combination, the Kali Yuga congregation is a 10-body problem which can be solved only in the limited equinoctial model at the point of the zero ayanāmśa, at the beginning of sidereal Aries.

Unable to reproduce the Kali Yuga date, the colonial writers rejected it as fabricated. Fleet even rejected the Janamejaya inscription that incorporates 8-body equation on the pretext that the date is impossible. As one coming from a background that believes that the earth was created only 5000 years ago, he could not accept the prospect of advanced dynasties in India at that time. Why should we inherit a colonial obsession and reject the history of Janamejaya, the second king of Kali Yuga?

Our time scale is such that we have 9-body equations concurring at every moment of Time. They are not reproduceable at a later date due to limitations in calculating the precession rate and the current limited knowledge of the equinoctial movement. The sages who handed down the knowledge of the limited equinoctial movement did not give us any formula for calculating precession at any point of time. They wanted us to watch the shadow of the sun regularly to calculate the deviation and adjust it as ayanāmśa. For now, it is Lahiri ayanāmśa but at the beginning of sidereal Aries, it was zero ayanāmśa. Fortunately, this point happened to see the Kali yuga conjunction on 3101 BCE. Thirty-five years before that, the Mahabharata war had taken place (3136 BCE).

 




Wednesday, July 21, 2021

My Peer-reviewed paper on the cosmic-impact during Krishna’s peace mission in the traditional year of Mahabharata war (3136 BCE) published: The date vindicated by Science.

 The date of the Mahabharata war is centred around three research questions:

                        I.           Why did Bhishma, an adept in calculation of Time that he exhibited in deriving the exact duration of Pandavas’ exile, fail to know the date of Uttarayana (winter solstice) at the time of his fall forcing him to wait for more than a month?

                      II.           The month of waiting appearing to be an Adhika Maasa from the textual description, how could an Adhika Maasa be possible at that time (Maagha month) when the earth was passing through the perihelion, faster than normal?

                   III.           Did the earth-moon system suffer a terrible cosmic impact, given the fact that Vyasa referred to Amavasya (no-moon) on the 13th tithi and a change in the mark on the face of the waning moon?

The key to all these three questions lying with the 3rd question – that can be cross-checked by scientific records - I sent a paper to Academia Letters fulfilling the requirement of adding a case study or an idea to a previously published research paper (word limit 1600). Since I already zeroed in on Piora Oscillation coming close to the traditional Mahabharata date (3136 BCE), I went through all the papers and zeroed in on Mr. Joachim Seifert’s paper on climatic pattern in Mid-Holocene and sent my paper to Academia Letters.

I am glad that it was approved by 19 scholars, including Mr. Seifert who did concur with a cosmic impact in the year 3136 BCE. His review is re-produced below. In my interactions with him I came across the graphs in support of this as also another impact in the year 3101 BCE, that finds mention in Mahabharata and Srimad Bhagavatam in the words of Yudhishthira seeing ‘nimittas’ seven months after Krishna left this world. This makes the traditional date of Mahabharata all the more water-tight.

He also opines that the presumed shift in the position of the binary Alcor- Mizar (Arundhati- Vasishtha) was due to the rattling of the earth by the impact. He cites a proxy for this in the records of Canterbury Monks in 1178 CE. 

  (Link here)

The year of Mahabharata, being pivotal to building up the chronology of the later history of India and inseparably intertwined with the start of Kali Yuga in 3101 BCE that is well established by thousands of inscriptions and continuing to be in use for all religious purposes and by scores of Hindus throughout India, I consider that I am humbly paying back my debt to the Rishis and the Itihasa of Mahabharata by validating the date and getting the date vindicated by science.

May the Paramaatman take this forward to a logical conclusion.

Click HERE  to read the paper. 

Given below the list of 19 scholars who approved my paper. 

I have also re-produced here the reviews by eight scholars who didn’t find merit in the paper. This is to maintain transparency to inform the public the two sides of opinion so that they can come to an informed conclusion on the validity of the traditional date of the Mahabharata war (3136 BCE) Wherever required I am incorporating their suggestions.                                                                                  

Approvals:

I express my sincere thanks to all the 19 scholars who have approved my paper. By their approval they have contributed immensely to the re-establishment of this ancient Itihasa of this land as a non-faltering and true account of the Rishi, Veda Vyasa who had given the world's first accurate eye-witness account of the cosmic impact. 

1.      Gonzalo Linares Matás, University of Oxford

2.      Trevor Palmer, Nottingham Trent University

3.      Aliyu Adamu, Author, NIPES Journal of Science and Technology Research

4.      Дмитрий Ключарев

5.      Erick Pajares G., CEO, Biosphere Group -Think Tank on Sustainable Futures Research

6.      D. S. J. Mylne

7.      Steven Gullberg, University of Oklahoma

8.      Julian West, mythsarehistory.com

9.      Mauro Cavalcanti

10.  Joachim Seifert (whose research is the basis of my paper)

11.  Nathalie Gontier, Universidade de LisboaCentro de Filosofia das CiênciasDirector AppEEL

12.  Paul Dunbavin, Author, www.third-millennium.co.uk

13.  Raj Bhat, Banaras Hindu University

14.  Prof. Dr. Emin Taner ELMAS, Igdir University

15.  Narayanan V Bhattathiri, Former Senior Research Fellow, International School of Dravidian Linguistics

16.  Vladan Celebonovic, University of Belgrade, Serbia

17.  Manish Pandit, University of Birmingham

18.  Thomas F.King, University of California Riverside

19.   Jhonny Casas, Universidad Central de Venezuela 


Review by Mr. Joachim Seifert

This paper of Mr. Saranathan is excellent and very important to clarify effects and aftermaths of meteor impacts on Earth. As papers of Seifert and Lemke, see refs., part 1 to 8, always outline, is that all meteor impacts on Earth were followed by a substantial descent in global temperatures. The cause of this, as quick hint, is that Earth or the Earth-Moon gravitational system moves, after a meteor hit, out of the x-y-ecliptic, where the gravitational pull is strongest, somewhat into the z-dimension, half above and half below the ecliptic in its orbit around the Sun - a skewed Earth orbit with reduced gravitational pull. This leads to an enlargement of the Earth orbit, longer distances to the Sun and a subsequent drop in global temperatures. We must therefore see a substantial temperature drop after this meteor impact in 3136 BC. Lets consult GISP2 in Greenland, the version of borehole temperatures: Starting out at 3,400 BC, with a borehole temp at -31.30 C, temps increase toward the Piora interval to 3210 BC, to the time of the Andaman meteor impact, to -30.0 C. This first Piora Andaman impact lowered the temp to -30.40 C at 3160 BC. From there on, temps recovered to -30.25 C, when this, now the second impact, at Hastinapura, struck at 3136 BC (excellent time research of the author). This event struck the Moon, with fragments reaching Earth, as described. There is no impact crater on Earth necessary, since the unit Earth-Moon-system went into the colder z-space dimension. The temperature drop starts exactly at impact year 3136 BC from -30.25 C down to -30.37 C in 3100 BC, about a third of the Andaman meteor temp drop. The Piora cold event did not stop here: After a warming 3100-3035 BC, the third meteor struck, the Morasko event in Poland, which lowered global temperatures again and the fourth, the largest impact, prolonged the cold in 2920 BC, the Burckle impact - the cold and dry period until the deepest point at 2800 BC. This Piora strikes and the drought Burckle event wiped out the Harrappan and Jemdet Nasr cultures. Historical observations of this Hastinapura impact event, the location and its exact dating now provides a face to this second Piora impact event, the other three already described in the literature. Very important is the following: The historical observation plus the necessarily commencing temperature drops are just 2 proxies for the impact. All impacts (about 25 in the Holocene) are characterized by a number of other proxies: Flood-drought history, iron oxide- hematite (the iron meteorite losing mass), titan, 15-N, NO2, 14-C, 10-Be, fire history, non-volcanic dust history in polar ice or bore cores, the IntCal13 tree ring calibration analysis and various others. As a rapid and easy glimpse onto IntCal13 for everyone: The meteor/fragments entering the Earth atmosphere, at 2000-3000 C, produce different radioactive substances, 14-C with the longest life for detection, in plant uptake of CO2 through trees. The increased 14-C-content in the air is demonstrated in IntCal13, by sharp descent from peaks. IntCal13 covers tree trunk 14-C on a global scale. Therefore: Print out the respective IntCal13 graph from 2050 -4050 BC and identify the sharp calibration drops, caused by meteor produced 14-C. Here you will observe the Hastinapura 14-C drop, as well as the the three others, the Andaman, Morasko and the ultra-large Burckle drop for the Piora time span. All other proxies for the more that 20 impact events will be demonstrated in future papers. This Hastinapura paper closes one more gap in meteor impact science and we should be grateful to the author having consulted the ancient literature for historical eyewitness reports and also for focussing onto the astronomical side of this important impact event.

 

****

Rejections:

Eight reviewers did not approve the paper for publication. Their names are not disclosed, but their comments were shown to me. I am posting them all here. I will be addressing relevant issues raised by them in the comment section of the paper soon, for the benefit of everybody. For instance, the 1st review questions the feasibility of the calendar date to pinpoint the date of the comet hit on Beta Cancri (Pushya). We maintain a calendar for too long, at least for a known period of 5122 years since Kali Yuga began. I will place on record the feasibility of deriving the exact dates.

Review 1:

“The core idea that the memory of cosmic impact events could have been contained in certain human records or traditions is viable. However, there is no way that the lunar mansions, the star Beta Cancri or specific calendar dates were possible around 3200 BC. The Mahabharata was written at a much later date. If such a cosmic impact had occurred, memories of it may have been preserved in oral tradition and contributed to the Mahabharata narrative at a much later time. Such details could not, however, have been recorded so accurately at the time of the events themselves.

Phrases like 'solar insolation' do not inspire much confidence in the scientific part of the argument.

In order to salvage this idea, it would be good to quote the pertinent passages from the Mahabharata, or at least some key passages, to address the issues identified above and to be much more cautious about the conclusion.”

Review 2:

“The idea that cosmic impacts cause changes in climate as well as in the human history is not a new one, but it has started to take more attention recently. The author does apply this idea, using hindu written sources as ancillary evidence.

However, the paper needs more work in its supporting references. Recent bibliography (e.g. Bobrowsky & Rickman (2007): Comet/Asteroid Impacts and Human Society) as well some of the older works by Masse, will help in the point.

The reference to the lunar meteorite "storm" is well chosen, but this event was dated 800 million years ago. Are there geological evidence of such events in the historical times?

A cross check with the impact database will show that there are no discovered impact craters for that particular period (of course, the relevant impact crater may still be undiscovered). Cross checking with other primary sources of the era, may come up with similar phenomena in other civilizations. These would be a major evidence for the author's hypothesis.

So, at the moment, I cannot recommend the paper for publication, but I would reconsider it if more evidence is provided.”

Review 3:

“This is pseudoscience, commingling religious text with factual history. This is another push by the current Indian government to miseducate the masses.”

Review 4:

“The concept that a swarm of comet debris may have hit the earth about 3200 BC is not new. See for instance:

Baillie, M. 2007. The case for significant numbers of extraterrestrial impacts through the late Holocene. Journal of Quaternary Science, v. 22, pp. 101–109. or other contributions from the Holocene Impact Working Group.

Mahabharata has been often misused by cherry-picking scattered verses in order to create the description of a single catastrophic event, such as an atomic explosion. This letter gives the impression of doing the same because it does not quote the verses precisely. Moreover it is hard to believe that the trajectory of the Moon could have been affected to the extent and in the way reported by the letter.

Moreover, the number of issues raised cannot be adequately argued and supported by references within the number of words allowed by academia letters”

Review 5:

“The paper is very speculative and does not give reference to the original text.

1. It claims dates for Mahabharata in 3100 BC which is too early by conventional standards.

2, It is not clear that a meteor shower that can create enough impact to change EOO would only have such a limited impact on weather - that too in Europe when the event is supposed to have happened in the Arabian sea.

3 The Arabian see itself is not visible from Kurukshetra where the war is said to have happened.

4. References to Harappa are wrong in that they are not from any accepted narrative of the Harappan Civilization and the reference to a website is not reliable.

5. The said descriptions in Mahabharata are vaguely referenced (in the 10th book) and there is not way of reliably verifying the claim.

All in all the paper is simply a speculation based on unreliable claims, and inconsistent with a lot of data and generally accepted timeline of events.”

Review 6:

“This article is almost ready for preprint publication. I would like to privately suggest to the author that they need to mention more Bibliographical references within the first two pages of this article. And cross compare as to why and how specifically may have caused a Cosmic impact described in the Hindu Epic Mahabharata cause the Piora Oscillation. First explaining how and why this applies in hypothetical terms an next how an why the bibliographical references support this a a preliminary theory as well. Once this is done I would recommend for publication in "Academia Letters".”

Review 7:

“I think this is a good and interesting paper, but I here are some little problems I saw:

If you have section headings in the middle it would be less jarring to have one at the beginning and end, too.

I would like to see more pictures, maybe a diagram of the orbits of the objects and changes in axis tilt.

"the ark of noah", not "the noah of ark"

"crater" not "carter"

Several other typos show a need for proofreading, and I recommend a look at the formatting in your bibliography, too.

Review 8:

“The Mahabharata comes (earliest) from Vedic times, which start (earliest) 1500 BC. How to explain the gap of at least 1500 years? This is too much. The idea of such impacts itself is very very speculative, not enough substance. In sum, it is pseudoscience.”