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.
******
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.
