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

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.

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.

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.

My assessment of him as the Oakian Onion

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.  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 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 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.