Why Arundhati- Vasishtha observation by Vyasa was a nimitta

 Free download of the entire book  Myth of 'The Epoch of Arundhati' of Nilesh Nilkanth Oak

Kindle ebook  here: https://www.amazon.in/MYTH-EPOCH-ARUNDHATI-NILESH-NILKANTH-ebook/dp/B07YVFNQLD/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_pl_foot_top?ie=UTF8

The below article is the 9th chapter of this book.

 

Chapter 9

NIMITTA IS NON-FALSIFIABLE

 

The second problem with the Basic Sentence of Nilesh Oak is more serious than the first, and it disqualifies the entire research of Mahabharata dating, by taking it out of purview of empirical research. The problem here is that nimitta is not part of astronomy; it comes under the domain of astrology. Karl Popper straightaway rejects astrology as a pseudo-science and therefore cannot be falsified. It was already discussed in the 6^th chapter how Nilesh Oak had done selective reading of the A-V verse, by ignoring the fact that it is a nimitta.

Selective reading is further seen in the omission of Karna’s reference to astronomy features as nimitta in his book. Karna has used the word ‘Nimitta’ three times in his conversation with Krishna. In the first instance he uses the word nimitta to mean ‘cause’ – the cause being himself besides Shakuni, Dussasana, and Duryodhana for the destruction of the earth.[1]

In the second instance Karna refers to seeing terrible nimittas before listing them out (“nimittāni ca ghorāṇi tathotpātāḥ sudāruṇāḥ”) indicating defeat of Dhritarashtra’s sons and the victory of Yudhishthira.[2]These nimittas are of diverse kinds, all in the nature of signs emanating from animate and inanimate things in the earth, atmosphere and space. But such signs are treated as causes connected with certain effects.

In the next verse Karna starts mentioning the astronomy features such as the one on the ‘vakri’ motion of Mars^[3]; that was interpreted by Nilesh Oak in his own way. After listing out all the planetary and star based observations, Karna once again invokes the term nimitta to say that all those nimittas are indicating the approach of a terrible slaughter (“nimitteṣu mahābāho dāruṇaṃ prāṇināśanam”)[4]

Nimittas appear in other contexts too. Drona sees certain omens before the death of Bhishma on the 10^th day of the War[5] - of which some were also seen by Yudhishthira before the death of Krishna that took place on the 36^th year after Mahabharata War.[6] Some of the omens at that time were a repeat of the omens witnessed at the time of Mahabharata War, says Yudhishthira. But the A-V observation was not cited at any other time, anywhere in Mahabharata.

Nowhere in his book “When did the Mahabharata War happen? The Mystery of Arundhati” published in the year 2011 do we come across any reference to nimitta. This makes us think that

(1) Nilesh Oak was not at all aware of the presence of this term in the context, and this reiterates our stance that he had done only selective reading of Mahabharata. Even within a chapter he had searched for astronomy terms only and not bothered to read the entire chapter.

(2) Nilesh Oak was not aware that the word ‘nimitta’ is part of astrology! If he was aware, he could be expected to have given some explanation like he did for vakri and pīḍayate.

Contrary to his absolute silence on Nimitta in his book, he is found to give newer meanings to Nimitta in his characteristic way in his blogs in the year 2014. These explanations are mostly in response to criticisms. It is not difficult to deduce the reason for his sudden interest in Nimitta. He has become alive to the issue of nimitta after being challenged on the admissibility of a nimitta for scientific testing. Here again he can be seen developing a new idea of nimitta every time he speaks about it and predictably his explanations are not based on any theory but only on Voyager – Simulation Nyaya!

Nilesh Oak’s Nimitta concepts.

(i) The A-V observation is not a unique nimitta and it is just one among many.

In his blog written on February 2014, Nilesh Oak downplays the question on why suddenly Vyasa makes a mention of A-V as a nimitta if that phenomenon was happening for thousands of years before the War. He says there are numerous nimittas which Vyasa listed down with the intention of stopping the war. Among them he mentions A-V phenomenon too as it also happens to be a nimitta. He mentions about Karna too in this context while he is absolutely silent in his book about Karna speaking on nimittas. His blog entry is re-produced below.^[7]

(ii) Nimitta is a non-regular, non-ordinary phenomenon, but scientifically explainable.

On being told that a Nimitta is not a regular or ordinary phenomenon, and therefore the A-V observation running for more than 6000 years cannot be a nimitta – Nilesh Oak can be seen giving a justification in his blog in September 2014.

He proposes that a non-regular and a non-ordinary phenomenon could have happened in a distant past and documented or could have come in oral tradition or remembered as background knowledge. He writes as follows in his blog:[8]

Vyasa remembered such an old time when the non-regular, non- ordinary phenomenon (A-V observation) did not happen and therefore treats the observation as a nimitta.

According to him, he has found this non-regular, non-ordinary phenomenon in his simulator for a period of 6000 years! In a period of a million years, the A-V phenomenon running for 6000 years is non-regular, non-ordinary, according to his scientific acumen.

He is able to prove through his Simulator that an omen is a scientifically explainable phenomenon^[9]

(iii) Nimitta is a sign and must not be confused with ‘Bad omens’.

Taking a big leap from 2014, Nilesh Oak writes in response to a comment in his blog in March 2017 that nimittas are signs that are perceived depending on one’s mental and emotional state. The confusion is in the Indic minds that attempt to defend their prior conclusions. The idea of ‘Bad omen’ is not what Vyasa has conveyed. He has only conveyed the astronomy observations for the purpose of recording history. This view of Nilesh Oak is reproduced below.[10]

Evaluation of Nilesh Oak’s Nimitta concepts.

(i) Nilesh Nilkanth Oak is consistently inconsistent in his explanation for nimitta.

The causes are not difficult to find. He was caught off-guard on A-V observation being a nimitta and can be seen struggling to give a reply that occurs to him every time he is confronted. From not recognising a word ‘nimitta’ in his book, Nilesh Oak can be seen to make a meandering journey through an array of explanations in his blogs which, to use his own words on Vartak’s explanation for astrological words of Mahabharata, shows him “forced to employ numerous patchworks..”^[11]to justify and then reject the very concept of Nimitta as used in Mahabharata!

·         A cursory look at the three different explanations he has given shows that within a span of three years he has changed his opinion of Nimitta from being a bad omen that Vyasa expressed in a last minute effort to stop the War, to a declaration that Vyasa did not see through the lens of bad omen!

·         From Bad omens in February 2014, the nimitta had just become ‘signs’ in March 2017. May be if a re-print of this book happens, we can expect a new theory on Nimittas finding place in that.

·         Inconsistency is further evidenced in Oak’s rationale of why Vyasa expressed the nimittas. According to Nilesh Oak, Vyasa narrated them to make a record or to note down the time of War. (He says this without any proof in support of this claim).

·         If so, what then was the purpose of Karna to express the nimittas? Did he express them for record-purpose?

·         Then what about Drona whom Mahabharata hails as a great knower of nimittas? ( “nimittāni nimittajñaḥ sarvato vīkṣya vīryavān”)[12]

·         Even Arjuna and Yudhishthira had expressed the nimittas. What for they expressed them?

·         Any reader can see a common thread in all the narrations as indicative of some danger. But Nilesh Oak, habituated to selective reading, finds Vyasa doing the record work and leaves out others from the purview of his lens.

(ii) Nilesh Oak has no respect for traditions and the “Indic minds” that stick to tradition.

The very topic he has taken is to prove a violation of a tradition by one (Arundhati) who is hailed as an icon of a tradition. This by itself is an affront on the Indic culture. His contempt for tradition and Indic culture is further reiterated by his comment posted above that the “Indic minds” would go downhill in a minute on talking of nimitta. He has no qualms in expressing his contempt for traditions in his book where he says,

“I consider traditional belief worthless, as primary evidence, in support of any theory however I am willing to allow it as corroborative evidence for an established theory, i.e. established based on empirical evidence.”[13]

What do all these convey except that he is working on an agenda to derail the tradition, destabilise the Indic belief system and influence the young and unsuspecting minds by choicest words on empiricality, luring them away from deep rooted traditions? His contempt for traditional concepts is well evident from his utter lack of interest to learn the basics of Mahabharata astronomy in the traditional way but to replace them with his weird absurdities.

(iii) If omens are testable, why didn’t he test other omens?

Nilesh Oak claims to have proved by A-V observation that omens are testable and thus scientific. This raises a question whether he had tested other omens too. There is no indication that he had tested any other omen expressed by Vyasa except the astronomy observations. If an omen is scientific and therefore testable, then all the omens must obey testability. But Nilesh Oak makes a statement in his book,

“I claim that all astronomical statements are testable while all non-astronomical statements are not; at least not with our current knowledge of Mahabharata conventions, current interpretation of non- astronomical passages and current advances in technology at our disposal.” [14]

If omens of non-astronomical nature are not testable, is it right to claim that omens are testable and therefore scientific? An omen is an omen irrespective of whether it is an astronomy reference or non-astronomy reference. A common thread must run through all of them. Without identifying that common thread how can Nilesh Oak segregate the omens as testable and non-testable? A degree of objectivity will be achieved in his research, only if he tests other omens too. Such testing strengthens his version that omens are testable and scientific. And it also eliminates doubts on whether A-V observation was just an aberration.

If on the other hand it is not possible to test the other omens, then it would go without saying that A-V testing is also not possible and not true. For instance, can he test scientifically the 2^nd omen in Vyasa’s list that carnivorous animals and fierce herons were wheeling across the centre towards the southern region foreboding terror? He can’t. But it may be replied that movement of such animals anyway cause fear in the mind. If so, why is it specifically said they were moving to the south? Why not to the north or any other direction? Shouldn’t he test this also for different directions? Even if one omen is not testable, there is no logic in claiming that omens are testable.

(iv) Why A-V observation was not at all mentioned by others as a nimitta if it was around for more than 6000 years?

Vyasa was not alone in having spoken about nimittas around the time of Mahabharata War. Just before the start of the war Arjuna expressed to Krishna, the bad nimittas he was seeing. On the 10^th day of the War Drona reported the nimnittas around him. Karna had told about the nimittas during his meeting with Krishna and Yudhishthira sighted nimittas of the same kind on the 36^th year after the War. But strangely none of them mentioned the A-V observation while the nimittas mentioned by them were of similar nature.

The fall of the bow from his hand was reported by Arjuna as a nimitta before the start of the war. In the same way Drona found his arrows coming out of the quiver on their own and his bow seeming to yawn. He reported this on the 10^th day of the war. Most of the nimittas told by these two and others (Karna and Yudhishthira) were almost the same. Only Drona makes a strange sighting of Moon, rising with its horns (head) downward! A big astronomy fact is hidden behind this nimitta which solidly establishes that the war didn’t start on Amawasya day. Keeping that explanation for the 12^th chapter let me continue to concentrate on Nilesh Oak’s absurdities around nimitta.

No other Mahabharata character reported the sighting of Arundhati keeping her husband at her Prishṭha! According to Nilesh Oak this position was continuing for thousands of years. This must have become a kind of permanent nimitta! But why Vyasa alone mentioned it?

Suppose it is argued that others ignored it because it was a permanent nimitta, one cannot help asking what made Arjuna to ignore this nimitta (A-V) when he expressed in the worries about women being made to face hardships on account of the war. This discussion comes in the 1^st chapter of Bhagavad Gita. After expressing the bad nimittas seen by him Arjuna went on to express the kind of destruction the war was going to make. One among them was the state of ‘Kula-stree’ on losing her husband in the war.[15] The kind of changes in her life that she would be forced to undertake, leading to adharma, were narrated by him. There is ample scope to link it with the nimitta of change in the walk of the iconic Kula-stree, i.e. Arundhati that any ordinary person would be tempted to do. But Arjuna couldn’t think of the changed position of Arundhati as a nimitta for the expected change in the life of Kula-stree-s after the war.

Only if the A-V observation was a temporary aberration, seen only by Vyasa and not others, it could have gone missing in the narrations on nimittas by others.

(v) Can Nilesh Oak show any other omen that ran for 6000 years as A-V did?

The most common feature of all the other omens in the list of Vyasa, Karna, Drona and others is that they are all transient. At the most some of the nimittas could have lasted for a few days. The twilight sightings, appearance of stars and planets, the colour, the cries, the sounds all around – all these were temporary and did not last long. Only the A-V observation as tested by Nilesh Oak has lasted for more than 6000 years. In other words, the A-V stands out from the list of other omens, making it appear that it is not an omen. But it is an omen according to Vyasa. By way of its non-regular, non-ordinary nature like other omens, the A-V also must have been sighted and lost within a short period. That only sounds logical in the context of omens.

All talk of scientific testing of omen by Nilesh Oak therefore sounds like a desperate attempt to save his theory of Epoch of Arundhati. He has all the right to defend it but defend he should with objectivity in his research. Such objectivity demands that he proves other omens testable (point iii) besides proving at least one omen to have lasted for thousands of years as A-V did. If he cannot prove even one omen for that long, then there is no objectivity in either claiming A-V as an omen (for being an odd man in the list of omens) or assign thousands of years for this single omen while others are all transient.

A Popper-follower, claiming to have made a revolutionary discovery, had made his ‘discovery’ from a Basic Sentence on a Nimitta – of dubious nature! With no inkling of what a nimitta is and not even aware that he has taken a nimitta as his Basic Sentence, Nilesh Nilkanth Oak has done ‘scientific’ dating of Mahabharata War by proving that a nimitta lasted for more than 6000 years! The root cause for this claim is that he didn’t know what a nimitta is and those who believe his claims also do not know what a nimitta is! To clear the air of the mess he has created let us know what a nimitta is and why A-V observation is only a nimitta and not an astronomy event.

What is a nimitta?

The most common meanings of Nimitta found in Vedic literature such as Upanishads, Manu Smriti and Brihat Samihita are cause, motive, ground, reason etc..[16] A cause that gives rise to an effect is a nimitta - an example of it is seen in the dialogue of Karna (explained in the beginning of this chapter) quoting himself and his friends as the nimitta (cause) for the destruction of the earth.[17] This is visible cause where we know how the cause ‘worked.’  Sometimes the effect is visible and the cause also is visible but how the mechanism of the cause worked to fetch the effect remains invisible. In such cases the causes would be short lived.

Giving the Vyakharana meaning of the word Nimitta, Mr. Ramanathan, the Vedic scholar says that a nimitta is an unstable first cause from which a stable effect is formed[18]. The ‘adhruva’ (not fixed, non permanent) nature of the first cause makes nimitta a temporary occurrence! The unstable cause giving rise to a stable effect is a nimitta.

The A-V nimitta does not belong to the former category of ‘stable’ cause (eg: the continuing enmity of Karna and others resulting in destruction by war) but the second category of momentary ‘unstable’ cause where a feature just flashes for a moment – against its normal nature- signaling the arrival of unnatural effects.  This cause (nimitta) cannot go on for 6000 years; if it does, it is not a nimitta of Adhruva nature. A fixed appearance of A-V in a particular alignment for 6000 years is not a nimitta at all in any sense. It is just an appearance that Vyasa need not have talked about this appearance as a nimitta. The definition of ‘nimitta’ completely dismantles the notion of Nilesh Oak that A-V nimitta was running for more than 6000 years!

The description given by Varahamihira in his chapter on nimitta says that “Devas send down portents to indicate their displeasure” when “mankind, by their misdeeds offend the Devas.”[19] Such expression of displeasure cannot go on for thousands of years as Nilesh Oak claims for the A-V observation. The reason why Vyasa reported the nimittas to king Dhritarashtra is obtained from the same verse of Varahamihira that “the king shall perform expiatory rites for the redress of the miseries which otherwise are sure to befall mankind.” So it is not for record purpose, but to warn the king so that the king can undertake propitiatory measures.

The non-seasonal, non-regular nature of nimitta can be explained in the following way. The cows are said to look up at the sky or at the sun before the arrival of rainfall. Similarly ants are supposed to shift from place to place carrying their eggs just before the arrival of the rainfall. These actions are said to be nimittas for rainfall. In these two occasions, no rain clouds might have been sighted initially, but these animals were able to sense the arrival of rainfall hours before. The main feature of the nimitta is its immediate relevance. They appear at the moment to indicate an event that is going to appear shortly.

In the above examples on rainfall nimitta, there is no relevance for them in the rainy season. People would anyway be aware of impending rainfall from features such as wind and cloudiness in a rainy season. But in a non-seasonal time, the above two nimittas are of value to man to be prepared for a sudden and un-seasonal rainfall. Therefore a nimitta is one that is non-regular and non-seasonal. This is different from what Nilesh Oak mentions as non-regular, non-ordinary nature of A-V. Appearing in a particular configuration for 6000 years in a span of million years is not a nimitta. But appearing in that configuration anytime other than those 6000 years is a nimitta!

Mahabharata, peak time of Nimitta knowledge.

Looking at Indic past, it is seen that the knowledge of nimittas as a science reached its peak during Mahabharata times. Drona is described as nimittajñaḥ (निमित्तज्ञः) as one knowledgeable in nimittas. Another character namely Shakuni must be a knower of omens, for his name Shakuni is actually the name of a bird of omen. His son was known as Uluka – the owl which is also observed for omens. It sounds strange that these persons of Mahabharata times were named after ominous birds. The only probable explanation could be that they must have mastered the omens of Shakuni and Uluka birds respectively.

Giving credence to this idea is a reference to “Mahabharata Shuddhi Shakuna” found in a text called ‘Nimitta Choodamani’! This text is originally a palm leaf manuscript found in the Oriental Research Institute Manuscript Library, at Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati. The unique feature of this text is that it begins with the description of the ‘dice’ and how to make it. After describing the making of the dice and the markings on it, the text says that “Previously Lord Sri Krishna, Dharmaraja, Bheema, Arjuna, Nakula and Sahadeva were said to have used this to know Shakuna and gained a lot out of it. It is also called Mahabharata Shuddhi Shakuna”[20]

It is possible to link Shakuna with dice game, as the number on the dice decides whether one makes losses or gains. No wonder concepts of Nimitta or Shakuna had reached its peak in Mahabharata times as can be seen from many references to nimittas in the text.

The basis of Nimitta in the two instances discussed above is that all beings are sub-consciously linked with all the other sentient or non-sentient beings and are capable of knowing beforehand an impending event. The immediacy factor is inherent in this – both in the case of nimitta and the event indicated by the nimitta.

Summarising what a nimitta is,

·         It is an omen that appears at the moment

·         Is non-seasonal

·         Has immediate relevance, with the event appearing shortly thereafter

Nimitta is a concept of Astrology.

Nimitta as a consolidated and a systematic knowledge appears only in astrology. The classification of the branches of astrology is given below.[21]

Astrology is also classified in terms of angas. They are six in number, viz., Jataka, Gola, Nimitta, Prasna, Muhurta and Ganita.[22]

So anyone working on Nimitta is in reality dealing with a branch of astrology. Nimitta takes into consideration “tatkalika lakshana’ – like ants shifting places and cows looking at the sky, and not an event going on for 6000 years! Nimittas are known as ‘omens obtaining at a particular time.’[23]

Chapter 46 of Brihat Samhita gives a detailed account of the omens attributed to sages Garga and Atri. They are of three kinds, terrestrial, atmospheric and stellar. The description of nimittas by Vyasa, Karna and Drona covers all the three. Omens are indicated by idols of Gods too. Vyasa’s omens include them also.

But there is one kind that does not qualify as an omen. To quote Varahamihira, “if the phenomenon is one due to the particular season, the evils described for such phenomenon would not come to pass.”[24]

·         This means a recurring, seasonal or regular and an everlasting phenomenon does not qualify to be an omen.

·         In Nilesh Oak’s scheme the A-V observation did not last for just a few minutes or a day or two or a few months. It went on for more than 6000 years. That means it was a regular event. A regular event cannot be considered as an omen.

·         If it is to be an omen, it must have been sighted for a short duration only. Vyasa called the A-V observation as an omen only, which means its appearance was momentary.

·         Are omens scientific in nature? A verse by Varahamihira in this chapter states that omens are the words of Gods themselves (quoted earlier).[25]Is that scientific or non-scientific?  Nilesh Oak’s following illustration offers the answer for this.

Nimittas are metaphysical, though some of the terrestrial nimittas such as those related to cows and ants explained above have been noticed through generations and remembered as nimittas. Nilesh Oak has rightly marked the metaphysical assertions as preservation of tradition. May be for the first time so far, I am able to concur with Nilesh Oak on his view! But unfortunately he thinks that a nimitta (A-V) is testable and therefore scientific. The test of a nimitta is in the manifestation of its effect; it cannot be seen in the simulator!

It is upto Karl Popper- follower to decide whether he made a wise decision of making a nimitta falsifiable.

Non-regular appearance of Arundhati to be treated as nimitta – says Mahabharata.

Earlier in the 1st chapter it was quoted from Mahabharata that Arundhati’s unwavering position in relation to Vasishtha was observed at the time of Skanda. Since then Vedic society has been looking up at her as an icon of chastity. But there was a time she looked different. The appearance at that time was linked to an event in Arundhati’s life. Arundhati had once insulted her husband. In consequence of that act she became a little star, mixed with smoke, sometime visible and sometimes non-visible like an omen. The relevant verses from Mahabharata are reproduced below.[26]

suvratāpi hi kalyāṇī sarvalokapariśrutā
     arundhatī paryaśaṅkad vasiṣṭham ṛṣisattamam
 viśuddhabhāvam atyantaṃ sadā priyahite ratam
     saptarṣimadhyagaṃ vīram avamene ca taṃ munim
 apadhyānena sā tena dhūmāruṇa samaprabhā
     lakṣyālakṣyā nābhirūpā nimittam iva lakṣyate

Ganguli’s translation: “Even the auspicious and well-behaved Arundhati, celebrated amongst all creatures, had been jealous of the illustrious Vasishtha of great purity of mind and always devoted to the good of his wife. Arundhati insulted even the wise Muni amongst the (celestial) seven. In consequence of such insulting thoughts of hers, she has become a little star, like fire mixed with smoke, sometimes visible and sometimes invisible, like an omen portending no good (amongst a constellation of seven bright stars representing the seven Rishis).”[27]

The last verse describes the appearance of the star as ‘Nābhirūpā’ – looking like the navel! The navel is characterised by the depression at the centre. The star had looked smoky, thereby dim with its disc appearing like a concave depression. At times the star was visible and also not visible. The scientific causes for this appearance could be anything, but the sage Mandapāla to whom this verse is attributed, had said that such appearances are treated as nimitta!

By categorising it as a nimitta, it is conveyed that such an appearance was not long lasting. In her real life too, the incident of insult and the after effect could not have lasted long and not caused any dent to her image as an icon of chastity. 

The verse also conveys that whenever a change in her regular appearance was seen, it was treated as a nimitta. In the last chapter we found why Vyasa invoked the generic nature of Arundhati as a Shabda Pramāna, in our discussion on pramāna based interpretation of the A-V verse. Only if her generic state of appearance had been permanent, Vyasa could have treated the changed appearance as a nimitta. In the above narration too, the changed appearance runs counter to her generic appearance, warranting it to be treated as a nimitta. Therefore a nimitta is a temporary appearance. 

If this appearance had lasted for more than 6000 years as Nilesh Oak claims, the sages would have stopped viewing Alcor as Arundhati and started looking for some other binary that could fit-in the description of Arundhati not obstructing the path of Vasishtha. They did so for the changed position of the wives of the six rishis of the Sapta Rishi Mandala and picked up Krittika to denote the six wives. Similarly the Mizar- Alcor pair could have been abandoned and replaced by another binary. Moreover the long duration proposed by Nilesh Oak for the star to be in front of her companion runs against the very etymology of Arundhati.

So what Vyasa had seen was a momentary appearance which was not present when Karna, Drona and Yudhishthira watched the sky to take note of the omens.

 

---

[1]Mahabharata: 5-141-2 http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs05141.htm

yo 'yaṃ pṛthivyāḥ kārtsnyena vināśaḥ samupasthitaḥ
      nimittaṃ tatra śakunir ahaṃ duḥśāsanas tathā
      duryodhanaś ca nṛpatir dhṛtarāṣṭra suto 'bhavat

[2]Mahabharata: 5-141-5 & 6 http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs05141.htm

[3]Mahabharata: 5-141- 8 “kṛtvā cāṅgārako vakraṃ jyeṣṭhāyāṃ.....”

[4]Mahabharata: 5-141-12 http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs05141.htm

[5] Mahabharata: 6-108 -3 to 16 http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs06108.htm

[6]Mahabharata: 16-1 – 1 to 6 http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs16001.htm

[7]“Arundhati- Vasishtha (A-V) observation of Mahabharata” https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/02/03/arundhati-vasistha-av-observation-of-mahabharata/

[8]“Response to Shri Shrikant Talageri – Part 8 of 8” https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/response-to-shri-shrikant-talageri-part-8/

[9]Ibid

[10]“Response to Shri Shrikant Talageri – Part 8 of 8. https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/response-to-shri-shrikant-talageri-part-8/

[11]“When Did The Mahabharata War Happen?”  Page 187

[12] Mahabharata: 6-108-3 http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs06108.htm

[13] “When Did The Mahabharata War Happen?” Page 98.

[14] Ibid. Page 58.

[15]Mahabharata: 6-23-40 to 44 http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs06023.htm

[16] http://sanskritdictionary.com/?q=nimitta%22&lang=sans&iencoding=iast&action=Search

[17] Mahabharata: 5-141-2

[18] “yaḥ prekṣāpūrvakārī bhavati saḥ adhruveṇa nimittena dhruvaṃ nimittamupādatte vedikāṃ puṇḍarīkaṃ vā”. Maha Bhshya. on I.1.26 Vart.5.

[19]Brihat Samhita: 46-3

[20]Nimitta Choodamani. Translated by V.Raghavendra Rao www.saptarishisastrology.com

[21]Prasna Marga: 1-5 to 8

[22] Ibid.

[23] B.V.Raman in Prasna Marga I- 5 to 8. Page 4

[24]Brihat Samhita: 46 – 82.

[25]Brihat Samhita: 46 -3

[26]Mahabharata: 1-224- 27 to 29 http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs01224.htm

[27]Mahabharata: 1-235 http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01236.htm