Appendix I of my book
Reproducing
here the Appendix I of my book critiquing the date of Mahabharata by Mr Nilesh
Oak. This is already available in academia (Here).
Since it requires sign up in academia, I am giving the entire version here with
additions wherever needed from a previous chapter of the book.
In
this era of all-round degradation, the Itihasas also are not spared. Treated on
par with Vedic rishis and given arghya in Upakarma
as ‘Itihasam tarpayami’ Itihasas are being held
sacred by many practicing Hindus. Unfortunately
in tune with the decadence of Time, they are now being rendered as ‘theory’ and
mutilated at will in the name of research.
The
biggest threat comes from the destabilising effect of Mr Nilesh Oak’s Ramayana
and Mahabharata dates on the reclamation of the Indic past from AIT-ians, for,
the moment his ‘theories’ gain wider acceptance among Indians, the pro-AIT-ians will axe us with scientific facts, on how Oak's Ramayana could not
have taken place when Ice Age was still running with most of North India under terrible cold and how Oak’s Mahabharata date cannot be
based on his A-V theory since science has established them to be on
gravitational coupling of a cycle of 7,50,000 years! Added to this are
the scientific rules and
calculation on how to deduce that a star went ahead of the other disproving Mr
Oak’s “A-V Theory”. (See Appendix II of my book). The pro-AIT-ians
are getting an easy tool in Oak’s ‘dates’ to denounce Indians as having no scientific
acumen, living in a mythical world and reject Rama and Krishna as myths.
Now with the
publication of my
research on Siddhantic version of precession in tune with the emerging trends
in science that would bring out a change in the simulator settings by which
Mr Nilesh Oak’s “Simulator
Nyaya” is going to be swept out, I see signs
of him coming up with manipulation aka mutilation of Siddhantas, though he cannot afford to touch
science which has started indicating that the earth doesn’t precess like a
spinning top or a gyroscope.
Already manipulation had started in "daily calendar" in which Oak had taken up the avatar of Sages in ushering in "Mahabharat Samvat". Funny part is the inclusion of Shalivahana year that is sub period of traditional Kali Yuga which he denounces!
In the coming days he
can be expected to manipulate Indic texts at
will in two areas:
1.
Changing the Siddhantic concept of 7200
year cycle of precession to align it with the current
version of 24,000 to 26,000 year cycle of precession of the western astronomy
simulators.
2.
Changing the Yuga concept so that Krishna
could be made to die 2000 years before his actual date of exit,
by which he can claim that Kali Yuga started 7000 years ago, i.e. 35 years
after his date of Mahabharata war.
Scary,
but Dharma Devata offers a ray of Hope. You know why?
So
what is pathologically
wrong with Nilesh Oak’s research?
People
who decide to do research would first acquire the domain knowledge of the
subject of research. Here the domain knowledge is the knowledge of stars and
planets and how they were studied by the ancient Indic society. What did Nilesh
Oak do? He kept checking A-V for years in simulator after simulator to somehow
get a glimpse of – however unscientific it may be – Arundhati ahead of
Vasishtha. He decided to know about stars and planets only after he gets his A-V obsession
somehow produced in the simulator. Read this in his own
words from his book.
The
now expected manipulations on precession and Yuga are also of the same category
of picking out what suits his ‘research’ and not the logical outcome of a research
with domain knowledge.
With
this introduction you may proceed to read how he had manipulated the verses and
astronomy features to suit his ‘Theory’.
From my book:-
Very often one
finds Nilesh Nilkanth Oak claiming in public platforms and social media that he
has successfully corroborated 300+ astronomy references of Mahabharata for his
date of Mahabharata War in the year 5561 BCE. Here I am giving the true picture
of the nature of his claim. Even before we venture to check his corroborations,
the reader must be informed that Nilesh Nilkanth Oak had not even corroborated
the major highlights of Mahabharata – despite claiming the text to be factual.
In the 9th chapter of his book, he has given “six specific observations of
Mahabharata and one traditional belief (Kali Yuga and the Mahabharata War)
conflicting” with his theory and / or proposed time line.[1]
Mahabharata
observation
|
Nilesh Oak
|
Jayasree
Saranathan
|
Balarama Tirtha Yatra starting on Pushya and
ending on Shravana after 42 days
|
Not corroborated
|
Corroborated
|
Late Moonrise on 14th day of War
|
Not corroborated
|
Corroborated
|
Bhishma passing away on Magha Shuddha Ashtami
after 58 days with pain of arrows
|
Not corroborated
|
Corroborated
|
Traditional date of Kali Yuga
|
Not corroborated
|
Corroborated
|
Bhishma compared with Full moon on 1st
day of war
|
Tried unsuccessfully to corroborate
|
Analogy, so didn’t attempt to corroborate
|
Analogy of solar eclipse on 18th day of
war
|
Tried unsuccessfully to corroborate
|
Analogy, so didn’t attempt to corroborate
|
Krishna left for peace mission at the end of
Sharad season.
|
Not corroborated
|
Corroborated
|
The above table
raises a question how Nilesh Oak can claim success in his research when five
major events of Mahabharata were not corroborated by him for his timeline.
While we appreciate his openness in accepting that he had not corroborated
these events, we are constrained to express our doubts about his integrity and
proficiency in the text for all the other ‘corroborations’ he had done in his
book. Let me first highlight the 7th chapter of his book titled “The planets were aligned.”
There are 18 planetary observations he has dealt with in this chapter by naming
them as experiments numbered form 10 to 27. Let me show that all of them are
manipulated to fit-in with his date.
(1)
Experiment No 10: “Jupiter and Saturn near Vishakha”.[2]
(Mahabharata reference No 6 in his book)
“grahau
tāmrāruṇa śikhau prajvalantāv iva sthitau
saptarṣīṇām udārāṇāṃ samavacchādya vai prabhām”
saṃvatsarasthāyinau ca grahau prajvalitāv ubhau
viśākhayoḥ samīpasthau bṛhaspatiśanaiścarau”[3]
He has taken the
last line of this verse and attempted to locate Jupiter and Saturn in the
Voyager Simulator by means of DVA (Direct Visual Astronomy which “involves
simulating movement of the object of interest, as seen from a specific location
on the earth”)[4] When he checked for the 1st day of
the war (when this observation was purported to be made) “Jupiter stayed in the region of Mula- UttraAshada,
Saturn stayed in the region of Chitra – Uttara Phalguni”. But he “treated this as a satisfactory corroboration of this
Mahabharata observation”. How?
He reasons out
that Jupiter and Saturn were equi-distant from Vishakha,
in nakshatra space, east and west of Vishakha respectively!! Jupiter was near Mula and Saturn was near
Hasta, each at a distance of more than 2 nakshatra space (>27˚) from Vishakha!
The questions
that arise are
·
What is the extent of ‘sameepa’
in Vyasa’s astronomy in this verse? Without defining this how could a
scientific researcher proceed to locate a planet in ‘sameepa’ (near) of some
star?
·
If Jupiter was in Mula, Vyasa
could have written that it was in Mula. Why should he write that it was nearing
Vishakha which is more than 2 nakshatras away?
·
Similarly why should Vyasa say
that Saturn was nearing Vishakha while it was 2 stars away from Vishakha?
But Nilesh
Nilkanth Oak finds the position of Jupiter and Saturn a corroboration of
Vyasa’s observation that they were near Vishakha!! Anyway he has safely written
earlier that the “Determination of the
Nakshatra of any given day based on visual observation can lead to an error of
+/-1day”[5]
This experiment shows more than 2 nakshatras in a given day. It doesn’t matter as it can be
added in the next edition of his book.
According to him
Experiment 10 is successful corroboration of planetary alignment on his date of
Mahabharata – notwithstanding
the fact that Jupiter can never come near Vishakha with Sun in Jyeshtha
(as it entails vakri motion) and it will take 11 to 12 years for Jupiter to
come near Vishakha. In the case of Saturn, it will take more than one and a
half years to come near Vishakha!
This being the
‘scientific’ nature of corroborating the verse, whom does he want to satisfy by
making this experiment? For him “this was merely a verification of Vartak’s explanation”. So the reader can rest assured he
had not proved Vyasa’s verse!
(2)
Experiment number 11: “Saturn near Bhaga” (Mahabharata reference No 10 in his
book).
The verse runs
as follows:
bhāgyaṃ
nakṣatram ākramya sūryaputreṇa pīḍyate[6]
Nilesh Oak
writes,
“Voyager
simulation shows that Saturn is near Bhaga (Uttara Phalguni)
for a period of more than two years leading to the first day of Mahabharata
War, when it began approaching Chitra.”[7]
What is wrong
with this?
The issues are:
·
Nilesh Oak does not define the
word ‘Pidyate’ in the verse. It is too essential to know the meaning as it
refers to Saturn in third case (Instrumental case - Surya putrena). The
dictionary meaning of ‘Pidyate’ is hurt or be pressed or afflicted. So ‘Surya
putrena Pidyate’ refers to an affliction or harm caused by Saturn (son of
Surya). How could
‘Pidyate’ be taken to mean “near”? Oak must explain why he interprets
‘Pidyate’ as ‘near’.
·
Nilesh Oak has aligned Bhaga
with Uttara Phalguni. But Bhaga is the presiding deity of Purva Phalguni. For
Uttara Phalguni the deity is Aryama. The Rig and Yajur Vedanga Jyothishas give
the list of the deities for stars in the sequence starting from Krittika. Per
that Bhaga was the presiding deity of Purva phalguni and Aryama was for Uttara
Phalguni. Earlier we proved in the context of the 5-year Yuga that the Vedanga
Jyothisha was in vogue in Mahabharata times. Therefore a reference to Bhaga
must align it with Purva Phalguni and not Uttara Phalguni.
·
Long after he published his
book, Oak makes a mention of the reversal of the two deities Bhaga and Aryama
for the two Phalguni stars in a different context in his blog written on
October 2016, quoting Taittriya Samhita and
Taittriya Brahmana. But there is no discussion in his book or anywhere else on
the exact stellar ruler ship followed at the time of Mahabharata war.
·
Without giving any
justification or explanation for which of the deities ruled the two stars, he had written Bhaga and Aryama
for both the phalguni stars in Table 3 on stars and nakshatra devatas for the
year 5561 BC. Since the text talks about “Bhagyam nakshatram”, the star
ruled by Bhaga assumes significance.
·
Nilesh Oak should have proved
which of the two Phalguni stars were ruled by Bhaga in Mahabharata astronomy.
In the absence of that he stands to be accused of picking up what suits him
with his Simulator Nyaya.
·
Nilesh Oak says that simulation
shows Saturn near Uttara Phalguni for 2 years (to justify the reference to
Bhagyam nakshatram) and continues to say that Saturn began approaching Chitra
on the first day of his date of Mahabharata war! This means Saturn was near or
at the star Chitra on his date which is a clear contradiction to Vyasa’s
observation of Bhagyam nakshatram.
·
Even if we assume that Saturn
was near Uttara Phalguni as he initially claims from the simulator, Saturn has to cross Hasta before
reaching Chitra. This means it will take nearly a year for Saturn to reach
Chitra – the position on the day of Oak’s date of Mahabharata war – from Uttara
Phalguni. Then how could he claim that he has successfully corroborated
Vyasa’s verse on Saturn’s position near Bhaga?
·
From Bhaga (lord of Purva
Phalguni in 5 year Yuga calendar) it will take not less than 2 years to reach
Chitra – on the first day of Mahabharata war (Oak’s date). This means from
Vyasa’s observation to Oak’s date of Mahabharata war, Saturn needs 2 full years
to fill the gap. But in
Nilesh Oak’s ‘scientific’ research this is possible!
(3)
Experiment number 12: “Mercury travelling through all nakshatras”.[9]
(Mahabharata reference No 15 in his book)
The verse says,
triṣu
pūrveṣu sarveṣu nakṣatreṣu viśāṃ pate
budhaḥ saṃpatate 'bhīkṣṇaṃ janayan sumahad bhayam[10]
Nilesh Oak
interprets this verse as a “trivially true observation” of Mercury travelling
through all the nakshatras over a period of one year and therefore “no
verification is required.” So “The observation certainly corroborates my
conjecture for the time interval over which astronomy observations were made
during and after the Mahabharata War,” says Nilesh Oak.
The issues are:
·
Why should Vyasa single out
Mercury as travelling through all stars when all planets travel through all
nakshatras?
·
There is another expression
“budhaḥ saṃpatate” describing a collision or intersection at the time of
Mahabharata war. Without deducing what ‘sampatate’ means how can a ‘scientific
researcher’ conduct his experiment and claim success?
·
The success claimed by Oak is
such that this verse corroborates his conjecture that the astronomy
observations given by Vyasa were actually made during, before and after the
war. This is based on the above verse on Mercury of travelling through all
nakshatras. If this can be
claimed as corroboration, anyone can quote a year XXXX and say the planets
travelled through all the nakshatras and therefore his / her conjecture is
corroborated well!
·
This corroboration is made in
violation of the obvious fact that Vyasa made this observation only before or on the first day of the war
and certainly not after the war. Perhaps Nilesh Oak thinks his readers
are dullards.
(4)
Experiment numbered 13: Vakri’ motion of Mars.[11]
(Mahabharata reference No: 11, 13, 14 in his book)
In the previous
instances quoted on the manipulations done by Nilesh Oak to prove his date, we
faulted him for neglecting to define the terms in the verses. Here in this
experiment he attempts to define the term ‘Vakri’ in the verses on Mars. It was
well established earlier how Nilesh Oak demonstrated his utter lack of
understanding of ‘Vakri’. In this
experiment he describes how he derived the meaning of the term Vakri through
DVA – Direct Visual Astronomy of the Simulator.
Nilesh Oak hopes to clinch something big in his discovery
of the meaning of Vakri, comparable with Kepler.
He says,[12]
“There is
indeed something intriguing about Mars. Small discrepancy (between prediction
and actual observation) in the measurement of Mars led Kepler to his marvellous
theory of elliptical orbits of planets. Intriguing descriptions of Mars in the
Mahabharata text and my explanation provide high degree of corroboration to the
proposed year of 5561 B.C.”
Oak has indeed made a break-through invention of Mars
spending nearly 6 months in retrogression in Chitra and Swati before it turned
forward.[13]
This is against the
current scientific knowledge of Mars in retrogression that is possible for only
80 days at a stretch. All glory to Voyager
simulator that enabled him to see this through DVA.
·
Nilesh Oak can notify the
developers of Voyager Simulator of this discovery to take his name forward for
recognition.
·
Oak can also notify them of his
innovative ways of deriving meaning for a Sanskrit word like ‘vakri’ and the
English word ‘retrogression’ by means of DVA so that they can use his name and
innovation as publicity material to promote their product.
·
But Nilesh Oak must be careful not to take his
discovery and innovation to the notice of an astronomer to avoid getting his
book tossed into a dustbin. No astronomer would accept his explanation
without first establishing them conceptually and mathematically.
Sadly Nilesh Oak’s book is a series of ideas never
established conceptually or mathematically but ‘seen’ and ‘proven’ in the DVA
of the Voyager Simulator.
(5)
Experiment No 14: “Jupiter going vakri near Shravana”[14]
(Mahabharata reference no 11 in his book)
Once having
convinced himself about the meaning of vakri in Mahabharata text through his
own derivation using the simulator, Nilesh Oak confidently describes the verse
“maghāsv aṅgārako vakraḥ śravaṇe ca bṛhaspatiḥ” as referring to the vakri
motion of Mars and Jupiter. Having ‘established’ the vakri motion of Mars in
the previous experiment, he is concentrating on Jupiter’s vakri motion in this
experiment. He says, “DVA simulation of Jupiter corroborated ‘vakri’ motion
of Jupiter as it travelled obliquely across the ecliptic near Shravana.”
Crossing the ecliptic obliquely is Oak’s definition for
‘vakri’ motion. He looked for such motion in the
simulator and created Figure 9 and Table 7 to give additional details to prove
this.
This figure is
fine but where is Sun’s position in this figure? Any
vakri motion is caused when the superior planet is away from the Sun.
For Jupiter, vakri motion starts when it reaches 245˚ from the Sun and ends
that motion on reaching 115˚ from the Sun.
Computing the
distance on the first day of the War, the gap between Jupiter in Shravana
(according to Nilesh Oak) and Sun in Jyeshtha (assuming it to be in the last
degree of Jyeshtha) was anywhere between 41˚to 54˚ only and not sufficient
enough to make Jupiter appear to be in vakri for an observer on the earth.
·
This means that Jupiter was not in Vakri motion
at Shravana when the Sun was in Jyeshtha in the 1st day of the War
in Nilesh Oak’s timeline.
·
If Vyasa had said that Jupiter was in vakri at Shravana on
that day, then it means that Nilesh Oak’s date of Mahabharata is wrong.
Any astronomy
simulator would show vakri movement of a planet. But in the absence of that for
Jupiter for his date, Nilesh Oak had simply manipulated the entire concept of
vakri which I exposed in the 4th chapter of this book.
[From 4th chapter of the
book:
‘Vakri’ is a
word that often troubles this Mahabharata researcher. Since
he never thought that learning astrology terms would help in understanding the
astronomy terms of Mahabharata, we are entertained with a new a discovery of
the definition of Vakri, through ‘Voyager- Simulation Nyaya’. He
gives the list of findings on Vakri he made through this Nyaya in the 4th
chapter on Mahabharata astronomy[15],
of which his discovery
that ‘all planets appear much brighter than their usual magnitude during
their retrograde motion” is the first of its kind that no scientist had
ever proposed or dared to propose.
Vakri
is generally translated as ‘retrograde’ motion.
But Oak found a difference
between Vakri and retrogression through the Voyager- Simulation Nyaya and
proposes that the Mahabharata uses the two terms in different meanings.
After working on the vakri of different
planets with the aid of this Nyaya, he came to the conclusion that “Mahabharata astronomers referred to
oblique crossing of the ecliptic by a planet as ‘vakri’ motion while the true
retrograde motion of a planet was described as being steady (dhruva or sthayi),
or travelling in reverse (apasavya) direction.”[16]
For a reader
confused with this distinction between vakri and retrograde motion, a solution
is available in his blog as follows: [17]
Anticipating
what the reader would ask on reading this, he continues to write as follows in
the same blog post.
He
differentiates the two movements – Vakri and retrograde - of which the
definition of the latter continues to elude him. As one who has confessed in the very beginning of his book
that his approach is ‘piecemeal’[18] he has
solved the problem of Vakri for now and postponed to a future research the
concept of ‘retrograde motion’ given in Mahabharata.
With
this piecemeal discovery Nilesh Oak goes on to locate the vakri planet and the
retrograde planet in the simulator and claims victory that he had correctly
found out the date of that observation.
Ends the quote
from the 4th chapter]
The best to way
to falsify Oak’s definition of vakri (that it refers to crossing the ecliptic)
is to present the declination graph of planets. The following figure is the
declination graph for April 2019[19]
that shows two planets Mercury and Venus crossing the ecliptic on 21st
and 23rd April respectively from south to north. But no vakri or
retrograde motion is detected along with or after this crossing.
Common
sense dictates that a researcher cross-checks these positions with testable
periods as done above. This is too much for the asking as far
as Nilesh Nilkanth Oak is concerned. He lives in his own world of ‘scientific
research’.
(6)
Experiment No 15: “Venus near Purva Bhadrapada.[20]
(Mahabharata reference No 18 in his book)
The next
experiment numbered 15 can be clubbed with Experiment No 21 as they are about
the location of Venus on the 1st and 18th day of the war
respectively. The two locations deduced by Nilesh Oak using DVA and Voyager
simulation stands out as a classic
example of misuse and manipulation of the so-called Falsification theory of
Popper besides getting stamped as the “Mother of all Manipulations”
Let us see the
first location given in experiment 15. In this, Oak attempts to corroborate the
location of Venus near Purva Bhadrapada in Voyager Simulator. The following
verse of Mahabharata is the basis for this derivation.[21]
śukraḥ
proṣṭhapade pūrve samāruhya viśāṃ pate
uttare tu parikramya sahitaḥ pratyudīkṣate
Nilesh Oak declares,
“There was no need to guess through, not when you
have DVA and Voyager 4.5.”
He simulated the journey of Venus beginning the 1st of the War
and found that Venus turned north and did a circular journey (parikrama) around
Neptune near Purva
Bhadrapada – Neptune, the
planet never even once recognised in any literature of India.
“The
simulator corroborated Venus turning north as if to do parikrama (around
Neptune) near Purva Bhadrapada.” Remember this is on the 1st day
of the War noticed in the simulator.
In 21st
experiment Nilesh Oak wants to corroborate another verse (Reference no 17
in his book) that says that Mars, Venus and Mercury appeared behind the
Pandavas on the 18th day.[22]
Oak finds that “Voyager simulation confirmed
positions of these planets in the western part of the sky after sunset.”
From the
simulator Oak gives the separation angle of Venus from
the Sun as 43.1˚.
Organising the
two positions at 1st and 18th day of the War:
1st
day position of Venus = Venus was near Purva
Bhadrapada. Purva Bhadrapada starts from 20 degrees of Aquarius. Sun was in
Jyeshtha in Scorpio on the first day of the War. Assuming that the Sun was at
the last degree of Jyeshtha on the 1st day of the War, Venus at
Purva Bhadrapada can be located at more than 81˚ from the Sun. This is an IMPOSSIBLE
location because Venus cannot be sighted 47 degrees away from the Sun – forward
or backward. Venus is an inner planet and can be seen only within 3 signs (at
the most) of the sun. When the Sun is in Scorpio, Venus cannot be in
Pisces or even Aquarius where Purva Bhadrapada is located.
Only a person who does not have any basic knowledge about planetary position from the sun in geo-centric view will be
able to go ahead ‘deducing’ the location as Oak has done.
18th
day position of Venus = Venus was sighted in
the western sky after sunset at a distance of 43.1˚ from the Sun. This was also
“confirmed” from Voyager simulator.
The issue is within a matter of 18 days Venus has travelled backwards from
Purva Bhadrapada at more than 81˚ away from the sun to its east to 43.1˚ to the
west of the Sun. This
means covering a distance of 124.1˚ in 18 days!!! This is also an IMPOSSIBLE
situation.
Who has gone
wrong?
·
Was Vyasa wrong?
·
Was Voyager wrong?
·
Was Nilesh Oak wrong?
Vyasa could not
have been wrong. He had given an observation using the tradition and
terminology of his times and may not have meant that Venus was near Purva
Bhadrapada on the 1st day of the War (also explained in the 12th
chapter of this book).
But Nilesh Oak
went ahead with that and even found it in the simulation! How could the
simulator give a wrong reading?
There can be
only one deduction from this: Nilesh Oak
had seen Venus in the simulator on some day when it was actually transiting
that location but linked it with the 1st day of the war! All for
corroborating his date of Mahabharata War!
The same
simulator gives the location of Venus on the 18th day at a distance
reasonably within limits. But between the two dates, the ‘corroboration’ done by Oak to align the
position of Venus with his date of Mahabharata smacks of all the following:
·
Hypocrisy
·
Lack of integrity in research
·
Lack of astronomy knowledge
·
Lack of understanding of how to
use the simulator
·
Lack of knowledge that
scientific research calls for exactness and not approximations and
manipulations.
All these put
together is the negative outcome of what Popper’s theory of Falsificationist
criteria does to scientific spirit. Nilesh Nilkanth Oak enters the pages of history as a classic example of
misuse of Falsificationist methodology.
(7)
Experiment No 16: “Tivra or Tikshna, Planet or nakshatra near Krittika” [23]
(Mahabharata reference No 21 in his book)
The reference
verse is from Bhishma parva.
kṛttikāsu
grahas tīvro nakṣatre prathame jvalan
vapūṃṣy apaharan bhāsā dhūmaketur iva sthitaḥ[24]
Nilesh Oak
doesn’t know what Tivro nakshatra means in this verse. He doesn’t care to
search for the true meaning from traditional texts. His “task was then simply to re-confirm what Vartak has already figured out.
Pluto is seen between Rohini and Krittika, rather closer to Rohini on the first
day of War. This is sufficient corroboration of this Mahabharata observation.”
The verse refers to Tivro Nakshatra, but Oak identifies
it as Pluto! It is because he is only re-confirming Vartak’s observation that
Nakshatra could mean ‘extremely slow moving planet’ (Pluto).
Pluto is not even a planet in
current standards, but Oak thinks Vyasa had meant that in his observation!
“This observation demands telescopic ability, i.e. access to such
instruments in Mahabharata times. This ability is also required to explain few
other Mahabharata observations.” By saying this Oak keeps the door open for
further manipulation – with the sole aim of corroborating his date of
Mahabharata War.
(8)
Experiment number 17: “The SUN and the Moon together afflicting Rohini”[25]
(Mahabharata reference no 26 and also 8, 9, 12 in his book)
In this
experiment Nilesh Oak claims to explain 4 Mahabharata references (numbered 8,
9, 12, 26) – all pointing to a term Pidayate. This terms means afflicting – a case of one planet afflicting
another or a planet afflicting a star. This term is
used in astrology but scientific minded Oak does not accept astrology as an
empirical science. With the simulator at hand he ‘discovers’ the meaning of pidayate as a situation of one
planet rising and another setting simultaneously by which the rays of one
afflicts the other. He uses this conjecture to describe the Sun and the
Moon on the Amawasya day setting on the west while Rohini was rising on the
east.
He extends this
rationale to three other Mahabharata references too (8, 9 and 12) and claims
that his conjecture allowed him to explain those references too. The fact is he
did not explain those verses with the meaning he deduced from the simulator.
Nor do those verses give any description of the entities mentioned in those
verses to be in opposite ends (180˚) as with Sun and Moon opposite to Rohini.
·
How then could one interpret
that those verses also refer to the rays of one fall on the other?
·
Does it sound logical that only
the entities at two ends of the sky afflict the other (or each other)?
·
Why not the planets at any
location send their rays on others in any other part of the sky?
·
Should a scientific minded Oak
propose this kind of theory of rays of one afflicting the other for a word
“Pidyate”?
·
By offering such an
explanation, is he not acceding to astrology?
(9)
Experiment No 18: “Jupiter, similar to the Sun and the Moon, afflicting Rohini
after the sunset on the 17th day of War”.[26]
(Mahabharata reference No 12 in his book)
This again
is a reference to ‘Pidayate’.
This experiment is aimed at explaining the verse “Brhaspati
rohinim samprapidaya”.[27]
The verse refers to Jupiter afflicting Rohini. The verse is being told on the
17th day of the war. The simulator based
meaning of ‘Pidyate’ deduced by Oak is such that the one afflicting must be on
one side of the horizon while the afflicted one must be in the opposite horizon.
That is, if one is in the western horizon, the other must be in the
eastern horizon. They must be at a distance of 180˚.
The previous
experiment showed that Rohini was in the eastern horizon when it was afflicted
by the Sun and the Moon that were setting in the western horizon. But on the 17th
day, Jupiter comes in the picture as one afflicting Rohini. Oak conjectures
that Jupiter must be in the western horizon to make this affliction on Rohini.
The Voyager simulator confirms the presence of Jupiter in the western sky in
the same position occupied by the Sun and the Moon in the 1st day.
So the ‘pidayate’ happens on Rohini.
Now the
questions in our mind are
·
We found the location of
Jupiter in experiment numbered 14 at Shravana on the 1st day of the war.
This was to the east of the Sun at a distance of 41˚ to 54˚. In 17 days, how far Jupiter had
moved to be at the same location of Sun on the 1st day?
·
Each day the point of horizon
rises early by 1˚ approximately (for 360˚ to be covered in a year) and so in 17
days the part of the sky where Jupiter is located rises 17˚ earlier. In the
same period the Sun had progressed by 17˚ resulting in reduction in the gap
between the Sun and Jupiter. On the 17th day Jupiter would be seen
at a distance of 24˚to 37 ˚ from the Sun. This is not the exact location of the
Sun on the 1st day of the war.
·
From Jupiter at 24˚to 37˚ range
from the Sun, Rohini will
be anywhere between 107˚ to 130˚ distance from Jupiter. This is not exact 180˚ gap or
anywhere close to it to enable Jupiter to afflict Rohini by its rays by
“pidayate.”
·
But Oak claims that the simulator shows Jupiter in the
western horizon. This is possible at more than 2 hours after sunset and
definitely not at the time of sun set when the Sun was afflicting Rohini
on the 1st day of the War.
·
At a distance of minimum 50˚
short of 180˚ Oak uses the description of Pidyate which he originally theorised
for 180˚ distance. He
wants us to accept such descriptions as scientific!
·
If affliction is what happens at 180˚, he cannot claim it
to happen at 130˚. If it happens so, then his explanation for pidayate is not
correct.
(10) Experiment No 19: “Saturn afflicts
Rohini”.[28]
(Mahabharata reference No 8, 9 in his book)
Affliction is
“Pīdana” and so there is no problem in explaining away this reference in the
same lines that Nilesh Oak explained for the Sun and the moon afflicting
Rohini, and Jupiter afflicting Rohini. Oak does concede that having explained
the observation of affliction of Rohini in previous experiments, “it is easy to
understand Mahabharata observation(s) of Saturn.”
Rohini was in the western horizon and “Saturn being the only other planet in
the eastern part of the sky”, “this observation is then described as Saturn afflicting
Rohini,” so concludes Nilesh Oak.[29]
However he is tempted to use other terms known to him such “Rohini Shakat
Bheda”. The underlying feature of his research is such that one must get
together the terms known to oneself and say that the observations are
corroborated.
(11)
Experiment No 20: “Unusual (Tiryak) rising of Mercury on the 17th
day of the War (after the sunset)[30]
(Mahabharata reference No 16 in his book)
Nilesh Oak has
picked out a verse expressed at the fall of Karna that
is analogous to mourning the death of Karna. In a bid to express that
all animate and inanimate, terrestrial and celestial beings were sad, the
appearance of Mercury was also quoted in that context. The rivers had stood
still. The sun had become pale and Mercury appeared to move in ‘tiryak’ way! Here Tiryak means
slanting or horizontal and not unusual that Oak thinks. As if to bow before the
fallen Karna, Mercury had moved obliquely or in slanting angle. This is what
the verse says.
This verse does not qualify to be a testable astronomy
observation, for Mercury is always seen close to the sun within 28 degrees on
either side of the sun for the observer on earth.
Take any year in the simulator; one can spot Mercury
crossing the sun from one side or another in horizontal or slanting angle or
just moving in the sky to the east or west of the Sun. This is not
unique to Nilesh Oak’s date of Mahabharata or any other date. Just to count his numbers corroborated, Nilesh Oak has taken
this regular feature of Mercury.
(12)
Experiment No 21: “Mars, Venus & Mercury in the western sky after sunset,
18th day of the war”[31]
(Mahabharata reference No 17 in his book)
After locating
Venus in Purva Bhadrapada (experiment 15) Nilesh Oak is able to see it 124
degrees backward within 18 days – an impossible situation. Mars located closely behind the Sun in this
reference was aligned with Abhijit on the first day of the war according to his
blog-entry. Abhijit is at Capricorn but in this experiment he sees Mars after
sunset on the 18th day of the war in the western sky at 46.6˚ from
the sun. This super-fast
movement by these planets have been objectively tested, claims Nilesh Oak, the
master manipulator.
From his
blog-post, dated 20th April 2019[32]
(13)
Experiment No 22: “Seven planets seen near the Sun”[33]
(Mahabharata reference No 24 in his book)
This phoney
nature of the corroboration done by Nilesh Oak was already explained in the 4th
chapter. To re-cap it, the verse doesn’t say that the planets were near. Nilesh
Oak ‘corroborates’ seven
planets by including Neptune
and Uranus. I have established the import of this verse in the 12th
chapter.
[From 4th chapter:-
The
next reference on Sapta Graha is Reference No 24. The verse says,[34]
maghā
viṣayagaḥ somas tad dinaṃ pratyapadyata
dīpyamānāś ca saṃpetur divi sapta mahāgrahāḥ
Nilesh
Oak interprets this verse as “seven planets were seen near the Sun”.[35] Where
does this verse say that seven
planets were “NEAR” the Sun? Ganguli does not say that seven planets
were ‘near’ the sun. Ganguli translates this verse as “On that day on which
the battle commenced Soma approached the region of Pitris. The seven large planets, as they appeared in the firmament,
all looked blazing like fire.”[36].
Without
establishing that the verse refers to seven planets near the Sun, Nilesh Oak
goes on to include outer planets in the list of seven that were seen from east
to west in the sky.
End
of the excerpt from 4th chapter]
(14)
Experiment No 23: “Seven planets attacking the moon”[37]
(Mahabharata reference No 23 in his book.
This is an analogy to “describe the war
scene of seven Kaurava brothers attacking Bhima”, admits Oak. Only Nilesh Oak has the temerity to
test analogies in astronomy simulator and claim that he has successfully
corroborated astronomy references of Mahabharata. And the seven planets include Uranus, Neptune and Pluto!!
(15)
Experiment No 24: “Seven planets going away from the Sun.”[38]
(Mahabharata reference No 25 in his book)
Already I
exposed the bogus nature of the explanation by Nilesh Oak for this verse in the
4th chapter. I am reproducing here to remind the readers the nature
of his “corroboration”.
“Without saying whether his simulator showed them in
retrograde motion,[39],[40]
Nilesh Oak simply states that the “Voyager
simulation showed that all planets were going away from (towards east) the Sun,
with the exception of Pluto. Pluto was retrograde.” This means
except Pluto none of the other planets (he mentions only five apart from Pluto
– viz. Neptune, Mars, Venus, Mercury and Jupiter) were retrograde at that time.
But Voyager shows them
moving towards east! And his planetary list of the seven planets includes Mars
which he locates at 46.6 ̊ behind the sun[41] on the very
next day– a distance at which Mars can never go retrograde. I leave it to the reader to judge
the merit of Nilesh Oak’s claim of these non-retrograde planets (except Pluto
which he treats as stationary due to its slow movement) moving towards east and
the inclusion of two outer most planets in this list.”
(16)
Experiment No 25: “Brightly shining comets (!) in the sky”
Nothing is
corroborated here as his Simulator does not show any comets in his time line.
So he rejects the comet theories of others and repeats the same manipulations
of planetary positions that I exposed above. That a comet or asteroid hit the earth at that time is
beyond his power of comprehension.
(17) Experiment No 26: “Shweta (near
Chitra) & Shyama (near Jyeshtha)” (Mahabharata reference No 19, 20)
Mere speculations and he himself does not claim any
corroboration by stating that he had ‘presented
multiple scenarios to emphasize the point that unless we have additional
information, we should consider the identification (and consequently
corroboration) of the planets described in these Mahabharata observations as
unresolved.”[42]
However the
names of these planets were resolved by me in the 4th chapter.
(18)
Experiment No 27: “Comet attacking Pushya” (Mahabharata references No 21, 22)
Nilesh Oak
conjectures that this was Haley’s
comet. It was not in the vicinity of
visibility. However
this was “corroborated” by him on the basis of the
assumption that Mahabharata people had the “ability to see objects far smaller and distant in
the sky, the ability as
such already assumed during the discussion of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.”[43]
So far we have seen all the ‘Corroborations” that Nilesh
Oak has given to ‘establish’ that the planets were aligned for his date of
Mahabharata war. These are
boasted off as 300+ references corroborated by him. In reality none of
what he had ‘corroborated’ stand scrutiny and can at best be branded as
manipulations.
Similar trend is
seen in the 8th chapter on corroborating the astronomy events on the
first day of the war in his timeline. As there is no substance in any of the features he explained,
I am producing them in a table with a remark alongside. Nilesh Oak believes
that there was a solar eclipse on the 1st day of the war and hence
collected all possible verses to corroborate his timeline. He completely disregards the late moon-rise on
the 14th day of the war which pre-supposes that the war
started in waxing phase and waning phase was running for most of the days of
the war.
Ex No
|
Mahabharata references in his
book
|
Feature
|
Nilesh Oak
|
Remarks
|
28
|
9,27,28,29,64
|
Lunar eclipses
|
Solar eclipse on 1st day of
war & Lunar eclipse on the 15th day of war
|
Wrong. War started in waxing phase.
Late Moonrise on 14th day of war indicates Amawasya nearing.
|
29
|
29
|
Two eclipses separated by 13 days
|
Two eclipses separated by 23 days
|
Wrong.
|
30
|
34,35
|
Solar eclipse on the
1st day of war
|
Solar eclipse on the
1st day of war
|
Wrong.
|
31
|
34
|
Sun appeared in split parts.
|
Proposes eclipse
|
Wrong.
|
32
|
34
|
Flames of the sun visible.
|
Proposes eclipse
|
Wrong.
|
33
|
35
|
Morning sun splendour lost.
|
Proposes eclipse
|
Wrong.
|
34
|
36
|
Disappearance of the sun in the middle
of battle.
|
Proposes eclipse
|
Wrong.
|
35
|
38
|
Sun and the moon seen on Amawasya
|
Proposes Amawasya
|
Analogy for Satyaki and Abhimanyu
joining together to fight.
|
36
|
40,41,43,47, 49,37,
|
Moon references in first 11 days of
war
|
Proposes waxing phase
|
All are analogies.
|
|
37, 40, 42, 45, 46
|
Warriors fighting late at night,
exhausted
|
Proof for Amawasya on 1st
day.
|
Can happen on any day of the war
|
37
|
48
|
Moon rising with pointed heads down
|
Supports Amawasya on 1st
day
|
Lunar eclipse.
|
38
|
51, 52, 53, 55,56, 60,61,62,63,65,
66,71, 72,67,68, 69, 70
|
Moon appears like Full Moon last 7
days of war
|
Supports Amawasya on 1st
day
|
All are analogies. Oak admits “rich in
full moon analogies”
|
39
|
50
|
Full Moon near Krittika
|
Full Moon on 12th day
|
Analogy of Bhagadatta described as
similar to full moon near Krittika
|
40
|
57
|
Moon between two Vishakhas.
|
16th day of war. Moon in
Punarvasu. But proof for Full Moon, thereby corroborating Amawasya on the 1st
day
|
Analogy of how Pandyaraj’s head was
split by Aswatthama’s weapon as though moon was split between 2 Vishakhas
|
41
|
58
|
Sons of Draupadi protecting
Dhrishtadyumna
|
5 stars protected the moon
(simulation)
|
Analogy
|
42
|
59
|
2 Panchal warriors behind Yudhishthir
|
2 Punarvasus behind Moon
|
Analogy
|
43
|
64
|
Yudhishthir free from misery
|
Moon free from Rahu
|
Analogy
|
44
|
-
|
Insertion of additional month
|
To complete Balarama’s Tirtha Yatra in
simulator
|
Ad hoc, arbitrary, manipulative
|
45
|
73
|
Meaning of Yojayet
|
Manipulates as ‘Yojante’
|
Ad hoc, arbitrary, manipulative
|
46
|
73
|
Jyeshtha Amawasya
|
Suits his modified timeline
|
Amawasya in Jyeshtha occurs every year
|
47
|
74
|
Krishna leaving on Revati nakshatra
|
Interprets Maitri as Anuradha
|
Maitri here refers to Muhurta
|
48
|
75
|
Balarama left Pandava camp on Anuradha
|
Nothing corroborated
|
-
|
49
|
76
|
Secret meeting of Yudhishthir near
Full Moon day
|
Proposes Full Moon nearing
|
Analogy
|
50
|
77, 78, 79
|
Both armies leaving for Kuruskhetra on
Pushya day
|
Fixes the date in simulator
|
Every month Pushya day comes.
|
51
|
80
|
Both armies arrive at Kurukshetra on
Magha day
|
Fixes the date in simulator
|
Every month Magha day comes.
|
52
|
81,82, 83
|
Krishna Nirvana
|
Cites 2 eclipses within 13 days
|
Mahabharata tells about only Amawasya
coming on the 13th day
|
The other
experiments such as those pertaining to Abhijit and
conflicting observations in Mahabharata were already discussed in previous
chapters. In all, only around 100 Mahabharata references are ‘corroborated’, nay ‘manipulated’ by Nilesh Nilkanth Oak.
None of the so-called corroborations are found valid. But what has Nilesh Oak
got to say? His recent tweet says that his book contains stuff worth 5+ award
winning Ph.D theses!
This ‘revolutionary’
discoverer waiting for recognition as a Kepler or Newton, when finding nothing
of that kind coming along knows how to ‘manipulate’ – a trait that he has well
demonstrated in his book. The Master Manipulator was seen at his Best
Form when he tweeted about “Hot
from the Press” of SC deciding to test his results on AV observation,
and scores of people
congratulating him thinking that the Supreme Court of India had sought to
validate his research!
In reality ‘SC’
turned out to be an abbreviation of a person who had commented in his blog.[44]
He deliberately created hype by this tweet and had no shame in
accepting the accolades pouring on him from unsuspecting readers. For once he revealed in a reply
that SC was the abbreviation of a person, but that was lost in the thread that
others did not expand and read. The result was excitement over ‘SC’
decision to test his A-V observation.
One of the readers even wondered why there aren’t more than 10,000
re-tweets for this revelation!!
A-V observation
or the so-called Epoch of Arundhati being central to both the date of
Mahabharata and Ramayana deduced by Nilesh Nilkanth Oak, he is found to be rigorously promoting his theme
hoping for claim and acclaim as a Newton or Galileo or Kepler. At best
these tricks can help him promote the sales of his books. But this theme being
a high risk one, a rebuttal of it destroys Oak’s date of Mahabharata and also
Ramayana. What he characterized as a Mystery in his book on dating Mahabharata
had turned out to be a myth!
We are in an age
when people easily fall prey to deceitful and manipulative works. This critique
is meant for them. People
must be on guard against attempts to distort established traditions in the name
of scientific research. Arundhati’s
continuing relevance as an icon of pativratā must stir-up the Dharmic
conscience in us in the current context. People of this great country
having a rich tradition must seek and also be fed with right knowledge. Let
them move from untruth to truth, from darkness to Light.
