A viewer of my video (Part 5 critiquing Nilesh Oak's date of Mahabharata) raised the following question.
" Nilesh says that according to ramayana sutlej had already diverged from saraswati river and it happened 13000 years ago which corroborate with his date
Is is true? "
" Nilesh says that according to ramayana sutlej had already diverged from saraswati river and it happened 13000 years ago which corroborate with his date
Is is true? "
My reply is given below:
Nilesh Oak's is not a proper research at all. Any
research in history must begin with primary sources and then backed up
secondary sources. The resource materials also should be relevant. If none of
them are satisfied you will fail at Qualifier level itself in any Indian
University as far as I know.
There is a difference between research method and
Research methodology. The primary sources come under research method. The
research techniques and materials such as use of software come under Research
methodology. The secondary sources are tests of hypothesis. They may or may not
be available. But you cannot quote them as evidence when you don't corroborate
a primary evidence. They only come in support of your hypothesis derived from
primary evidence.
In the example you have quoted, Sutlej divergence is
a test of hypothesis, much like Ram setu evidence for the date of Ramayana. The
primary source is Valmiki Ramayana (VR) and the date deduced by NIlesh Oak must
fulfill the verses in VR. The Abhijit reference in the above video and
'Nivritta akasha' verse in 3rd video are solid proofs of why Nilesh Oak's date
is wrong. When his date fails at the primary level, where does the test of
hypothesis come in the picture? Therefore the public should know some basics of
research and of the material (VR) as well to make an assessment about his work.
Coming to Nilesh Oak's Mahabharata date, the primary
source is Vyasa Mahabharata. Nilesh Oak could not get any of the major events
of Vyasa Mahabharata which I will be bringing out in the next video. His
research fails to qualify at that level itself. Only when you are able to get
the events right you can check it in the software as a means of establishing it
further. Ask any science scholar in US universities. They use the software only
to check whether the mathematical or conceptual derivation made by them is
true. In the case of Mr Nilesh Oak, he picks out the date of winter solstice in
the software and from then goes backward to dates of events in the software to
fix Bhishma's stay on arrow bed for 98 days! The above video was mainly to tell
the world the folly of this kind of research.
As far as Mr Nilesh Oak is concerned, his software
is the main method, methodology and test of hypothesis. He picks out the
meaning of the verses in the way he comprehends (which borders on manipulation)
and fixes it in the software which any high school student does to show results
to his / her teacher (Video 2 - Thomas Kuhn's criticism of Popper). According
to him his research is then scientifically tested and logically established.
And he even claims that Sanskrit words have many meanings and can be
interpreted in any way. Read my book to know extent of this fun that he has
promoted and continues to promote.
