My talk on Ravana's Lanka.
# critiquing the versions of Jijith Ravi, Nilesh Oak & othersRecap:
The knowledge of
the beginning date of Kali Maha Yuga being vital in deciphering the date of the
Mahabharata war, this supplementary series was made to clear the doubts and
questions of Kali Yuga.
Kali Yuga has six sub-divisions, known as Śaka-s, already mentioned
in the 13th
Part. They are listed down here again.
1. Yudhiṣṭhira Śaka
2. Vikrama Śaka
3. Śālivāhana Śaka
4. Vijayābhinandana Śaka
5. Nagārjuna Śaka
6. Bali Śaka
The duration of
each of these Śaka is already fixed by the sages as shown in the table below:
The complete plan
of Kali Yuga of 4,32,000 years already in existence implies that it was devised
at the time Kali Yuga computation was handed down. This was done by ‘Purā-vidah’- the learned people of the past who
declared that Kali Yuga started on the day Kṛṣṇa left for his higher realm, as
per Śrīmad Bhāgavatam.
We have already
discussed in the previous parts the references from Jyotirvidābharaṇa
by Kalidasa on how a Śakakāraka is decided, based
on defeating the Śaka tribes. This text was written in 57 BCE, 24 years after the
Vikrama Śaka began.
****
The first Śaka
of Kali yuga was named after Yudhiṣṭhira, who annihilated many Śaka
tribes in the Mahābhārata war. Yudhiṣṭhira Śaka did not include the 35 years of
rule by Yudhiṣṭhira but it started only with the beginning of Kali Mahā Yuga,
after Yudhiṣṭhira abdicated the throne and Parīkṣit was crowned. Even though
Yudhiṣṭhira had left, his rule of the law was prevailing. Hence, the name Yudhiṣṭhira
Śaka. This Śaka went on for 3044 years.
(It is
shocking to see several scholars of yester years, assigning the year of the Mahabharata
war as the beginning of Yudhishthira Śaka. I noticed this particularly while
going through the previous works on the date of Adi
Shankara. Almost everyone who attempted to fix a date for Adi Shankara
has taken Yudhishthira Śaka as starting from the Mahabharata war date, while it
refers to the Kali Yuga date)
The next Śaka was that of king Vikramāditya who defeated the Śaka and the Ramatha tribes. (14th Part) Seeing him subdue the Śaka tribes when the new Śaka era was due, the scholars of that time crowned him as the Śakakāraka. If the Śaka classification was arbitrarily made by Vikrama himself, he could have given more years to his own era and not just 135 years and a long duration of 18,000 years for the next Śaka! This goes to show that the Śaka divisions were made at the time of the start of the Kali Yuga and the kings abided by them.
In this article,
let me focus on the 3rd subdivision namely, Śālivāhana Śaka.
****
The third sub-division
of Kali Yuga was Śālivāhana Śaka, whose
initiator is not exactly known. However, going by the requisites of a
Śakakāraka, I have zeroed in on Gautamīputra Śatakarṇi of the Sātavāhana empire.
He defeated Nahapāna of the Śaka
tribes in addition to the Yavana-s, Pahlava-s and Parthia-s. This information
is written in the Nashik inscriptions of his mother Gautamī Bālaśri as “Śaka-yavana-pahlava-niṣudana”. His victory over the
king Nahapāna of the Śaka tribes is authenticated by the discovery of a hoard
of coins at Jogalthambi, numbering more than 13,000 originally issued by
Nahapāna, but more than 9000 of them counterstruck with the legends and symbols
of Gautamīputra Śatakarṇi.
His name is associated with the Tamil
Cera king Senkuttuvan,
who made an expedition to the Himalayas to procure stones for making the image
of Kannagi. According to the olden Tamil Epic, Silappadhikāram, the Cera king
was assisted by a Śatakarṇi in his trip. The army of the Cera king and that of
the Śatakarṇi had fought together against the Yavana-s settled in the environs
of the Amarnāth cave, whose peak known as “Paruppadam” in Tamil, was the
destination of the Cera King. Silappadhikāram
mentions twice about the victory of the Cera King over the Yavana-s (van sol yavanar valanādu āndu / வன்சொல் யவனர் வளநாடு ஆண்டு).[i]
Gautamīputra Śatakarṇi being the only
Śatakarṇi associated with a victory over the Yavana-s, it is deduced that he
was the one mentioned in Silappadhikāram. This
victory also made him the Śakakāraka of the third Śaka,
namely Śālivāhana Śaka.
Nashik inscription about Gautamīputra
Śatakarṇi
The Nashik inscription provides an
important information that this king devised Time and place for the pursuit of
three goals, perhaps referring to Dharma, Artha and Kāma. Written specifically
as “suvibhatativaga desa kālasa”,
this seems to indicate the initiation of Śālivāhana
Śaka. Starting from this Śaka, many Karaṇa texts were written to prepare the
tables for Pancānga-s for usage in religious, cultural, civil, and
administrative works. The relevant parts of this inscription referring to the
king’s Time and his victory over the Śaka tribes is produced above.[ii]
On the eastern walls of the veranda of
Cave 3 where the inscription on devising Time and the victory over the Śaka-s
are found, there is another inscription dictated by Gautamīputra Śatakarṇi from
his military camp at the battlefield soon after winning the Śaka king ‘Usabadata’
(Rishabhadatta), the son-in-law of Nahapāna, transferring the villages
previously under the control of the Western Kṣatrapa-s to the ascetics.[iii]
The deed declares that it was issued
on the 18th year of the rule of the king, on the 1st day
of the second fortnight of the rainy season. In Caitra, the next year, this
king must have got established as the Śakakāraka. This was at the expiry of 3179
Kali year, corresponding to 78 CE.
The name Śālivāhana
given by the Purā-Vidah at the time of Vyāsa was taken over to refer to this
new era which we, the Bhāratīya-s continue to use till date.
(End of the series)
[i] Silappadhikāram, 28.141; 29.25
[ii] Epigraphia Indica, Vol VIII, p.60
[iii] Epigraphia Indica, Vol VIII, p.71
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:
My book ‘Myth of The Epoch of Arundhati of Nilesh Nilkanth Oak’ critiquing Nilesh Oak’s book on the date of the Mahābhārata was originally published as an e-book in 2019. Upon request for print version, I am now bringing out a revised version of the e-book after dropping the chapters on validation of the date of Kali Yuga and Mahābhārata which however can be read with additional inputs in my recently published “Mahabharata 3136 BCE: Validation of the Traditional Date”.
With no counters coming from Nilesh Oak to my critique till this date, I am adding additional questions in this book on his recently floated theory of Kali Yuga starting in 5561 BCE, from the last day of the war in his timeline. I have added more evidence on his ‘Analogy Nyāya’ too. I don’t expect him to refute my critique for, he never can, but this book is meant for the common man to not fall a prey to a work of untruth.
In an atmosphere of absence of knowledge of even the
basic features of our culture, I find the youth of today getting excited over
the thought of long past for Vedic India and modern software being put into use
to establish the past. But they should not be fed with faulty understanding of
texts and concepts and mindless use of simulation for establishing the meaning
of even scriptural concepts as Nilesh Oak has done. My book aims to spread
awareness about the mediocre nature of the Mahābhārata research of Nilesh Oak.
The first copy of this book was presented to the Honorable
Vice President of India, Sri. Venkaiah Naidu when I met him at the Raj Bhavan
at Chennai to give my books on 27th December 2021. While briefing
him the circumstances that led me to do the research on validating the Traditional
date of the Mahabharata war and Kali Yuga, I spoke about my Dharmic Anger against
maligning the status of Arundhati and the mis-interpretation of the verses of the
Mahābhārata and the date of Kali Yuga. The second copy was given to the
Honorable Governor of Tamil Nadu.
This book of 12 chapters in 202 pages is available for
Rs. 230. Postal cost of Rs. 36 for anywhere in India is additional. Interested readers
may write to jayasreebooks@gmail.com
to get the book.
I am glad to share the link to my Master Class lecture on “Mahabharata Astrology” delivered on 9th October 2021, on the occasion of the 109th Jayanti of Dr. B.V. Raman, organized by Raman & Rajeswari Research Foundation chaired by Bangalore Niranjan Babu, the son of Dr. B.V. Raman.
Starting with the
basic classification of Astrology, I showed how all the planetary references in
the Mahabharata, tagged as nimitta-s are part of Phala Bhaga of Jyothisha, that
rejects any reference to the newly discovered planets, namely, Uranus, Neptune
and Pluto. This clarifies that any work on dating the Itihāsa-s, done by using
these planets can be rejected outright at the outset.
Then I went on to
show how all the planetary and the calendar references in the Mahabharata are aligned
with Vedic astronomy and the Ashtānga system of Time. Some salient points are
as follows:
(1) Only 27 functional
stars at any point of time, and not 28.
(2) The 13th
tithi Amavasya was caused by a disturbance to the Z-axis of the Earth- Moon system
by an extra-terrestrial impact making the moon to go on a shorter revolution, that
is perpetuated into memory by the concept of Bodhāyana Amavasya.
(3) This disturbance
had thrown off the earth from its X-Y axis temporarily, which caused it to take
a longer path to reach the Uttarāyaṇa-point, making Bhishma to wait for his
exit. This anomalous change in Time is remembered as Ratha Saptami.
(4) This also
caused the earth to wobble more than normal before attaining its natural
orientation that is detectable by unusual appearances of the sky reported by Vyāsa
in the altered appearance of Arundhati-Vasishtha pair and the reverse movement
of Dhruva and Mars.
My paper published on this cosmic impact in the Academia Letters (https://doi.org/10.20935/AL1385) brought me into contact with one of the reviewers of my paper, Prof. Joachim Seifert of Germany. He shared with me the graphs and the details of an extra-terrestrial impact already recorded in the Temperature chart of Holocene. The year was 3136 BCE, that I validated as the year of the Mahabharata war, that took place thirty-five years before the beginning of Kali Yuga, when Krishna left.
The verses of the Mahabharata suggesting the impact that I shared with
him convinced him further about the impact that he recognized it as the “Hastināpura Meteor Event”,
the details of which are going to be published by him in his upcoming paper in
a science journal. This event becoming the world’s first ever recorded eye-witness
account – earlier than the Kaali impact of Sweden – the Mahabharata is set to
come out of the tag of Mythology and as a true account that did take place in
3136 BCE, 35 years before Kali Yuga began.
From this I went on establishing the Vedic concept of the to-and-fro oscillation of the equinoxes -fundamental to understanding the lack of change in month-season combination - that is totally different from the ever-precessing equinoctial model of the west. This model rejects the axial precession of the earth – which is also revealed by the archaeo-astronomy of the ancient monuments of the world – and supports the precession of the entire solar system caused by the helical path of the sun as it surges ahead in the Universe. This path causes the sway of the sun for 27 degrees on either side of the sidereal Aries in lateral view from the earth. As a result, the seasons do not change much but oscillate around Caitra which we have retained as the standard configuration at all times in the past and even now.
In this context I
am explaining the crucial factor called the “Ayanāmśa”- the difference
between the tropical position of the equinoctial sun from the sidereal position
which is very much a part and parcel of horoscopy even today, but missing in
western astronomy. The absence of this concept in the astronomy simulations
shows absurd levels of addition of the ayanāmśa value, say, 35 to 45 degrees for
3067 BCE and 5561 BCE, 150 degrees for Bali’s time when the vernal equinox was
said to be in Virgo and 180 degrees if one dates the Ramayana at 14,000 years
ago. Were the Vedic sages so illogical in conceiving the ayanāmśa concept with
such large deviations?
In a continuously precessing
equinoctial system, there is no need for the ayanāmśa, but then the sages had
proposed the use of ayanāmśa shows that the equinox was not continuously precessing.
The ayanāmśa concept based on the oscillatory model of the equinoxes, ingrained
in our more or less static state of month-seasons and incorporated in casting
our horoscopes, must make us realize how irrelevant it is to use the western
astronomy calculations that have no place for ayanāmśa correction.
In this context I
have shown that it is not possible to extrapolate or approximate the rate of
the ayanāmśa for the past. The only exception being the zero degree point of
the sidereal Aries, which the sun crosses every 3600 years, where the super
conjunction of all the planets (except Rahu) had taken place at the time of the
departure of Krishna when Kali Maha Yuga began. That date (22nd January
3101 BCE) is reproduced from Jhora for Vedic / Surya Siddhanta ayanāmśa, Lahiri
ayanāmśa and Pushya Paksha ayanāmśa along with the simulation from the
Stellarium astronomy software. Only the Vedic / Siddhāntic ayanāmśa shows the
congregation. All credit to Sri. Vinay Jha who computed this from the ancient
works.
I further went on
to demonstrate how the eclipses and the planetary data found in our inscriptions
do not match with the astronomy catalogue computations used in the astronomy
simulators and in the Jhora astrology simulator. By 400 years ago, the position
of both the sun and the moon had deviated. This had increased more by 1000 years
ago. Prof. Vahia’s research also establishes that the NASA data does not concur
with the eclipse sightings in India.
The cause can be
traced to the inability to solve the n-body equations. Any eclipse should
solve 4-body equations, involving the moon, the sun, the star in the backdrop
and the latitude and longitude of the observer.
Mr. Nilesh
Oak claimed in his
book on the date of the Mahabharata that the makers of his software vouchsafed
for the Proper motion of the stars in his simulator. That pertains to the single-body
equation with no scope to solve the other problems that must have been
addressed to make them appear in a particular configuration in the observer’s
sky.
Similarly, Prof.
Achar also addressed the single-body equation when he wrote in his 2014 paper
that the motion of the slow-moving planet such as Saturn is enough to date the
Mahabharata war. His rationale was that Saturn with 200 revolutions in a period
of 5000 years compared to 60,000 revolutions of the moon in the same period,
had less margin of error, but simulations show that the location of Jupiter, another
slow-moving planet could not be correctly identified in the simulation in a
very recent past, say, in 1601 CE, due to problems in getting the precession
rate of the day accurately.
Though he agreed
that eclipses cannot be simulated correctly for periods 5000 years ago, he did
not seem to realize the mismatch within the four bodies – the sun, the moon, the background
star and the earth in the event of an eclipse not simulated correctly. At best
he thought that the simulators concur with the astronomy catalogues, but of
what use they have for Vedic astronomy calculations?
Compared to any combination,
the Kali Yuga congregation is a 10-body problem which can be solved only in the
limited equinoctial model at the point of the zero ayanāmśa, at the beginning
of sidereal Aries.
Unable to reproduce
the Kali Yuga date, the colonial writers rejected it as fabricated. Fleet even
rejected the Janamejaya inscription that incorporates 8-body equation on the
pretext that the date is impossible. As one coming from a background that believes
that the earth was created only 5000 years ago, he could not accept the prospect
of advanced dynasties in India at that time. Why should we inherit a colonial
obsession and reject the history of Janamejaya, the second king of Kali Yuga?
Our time scale is
such that we have 9-body equations concurring at every moment of Time. They are
not reproduceable at a later date due to limitations in calculating the precession
rate and the current limited knowledge of the equinoctial movement. The sages
who handed down the knowledge of the limited equinoctial movement did not give us
any formula for calculating precession at any point of time. They wanted us to
watch the shadow of the sun regularly to calculate the deviation and adjust it
as ayanāmśa. For now, it is Lahiri ayanāmśa but at the beginning of sidereal Aries,
it was zero ayanāmśa. Fortunately, this point happened to see the Kali yuga
conjunction on 3101 BCE. Thirty-five years before that, the Mahabharata war had
taken place (3136 BCE).
