Monday, December 23, 2019

Know the Vedic concept of Uttarayana (Winter solstice)


At a time more and more people start developing interest in Vedic knowledge we are also seeing similar growth in spurious interpretation of the wisdom of the seers. One such topic is about the start of Uttarayana or winter solstice. This blog is aimed at putting at rest the confusions about Uttarayana created by western educated minds and confused desi people. 

Sun is the basis of Time

First of all one must know that the Vedic seers had seen the play of the Divine in everything of Creation. The Sun being the Pratyaksha Brahman is the source of all life. It is known as Ravi because it illuminates and protects the all the three worlds. Brahmanda Purana (21-4) traces the root word of Ravi to 'av' which means illumination and protection. It is also known as Kāla or Time from whom every other computation of time flows. The Brahmanda Purana (Ch 23) verse is reproduced below.


Devas, Humans, animal and plant life are the four types of beings made to function or not function by the power of the Sun. The measurement of Time done on the basis of the Sun has the basic unit of 5 years only, which was in vogue until c.1500 BCE, as known from Lagadha Jyothisha. Almost every other day was important for worship of some divinity in that system. With decline of worship attributable to many reasons, we are no longer using the worship related 5-year Yuga system but retained the same years in the large cycle of 60 years (12 rounds).

Four-fold calculation of time.

The basis of this system is 4-fold in which one without the other meaningless. Quoting from Vayu Purana (Ch 50),
The four types of calculations are (Vayu Purana Ch 50)


Today people tend to treat all the four differently but the verse from Vayu Puarana (which was older than Mahabharata) and also from Brahmanda Purana and Siddhantas (Ganita / astronomy) state that all the four are collectively taken into account to determine time. In this backdrop we should reject the name ‘Luni-solar’ as suggested by western understanding but proudly call it as Vedic-māna or Chatur māna. The moment one starts understanding the interplay of all the four, most confusions disappear.

We are indeed following this Chatur-māna without realising it. The exclusion of Adhika Māsa from the calendar or time scale is to align the Saumya or Chandra-māna with time determined by the Sun. All the four, i.e. the sun, the moon, the star and the Sāvana (checking from sunrise) are reckoned together to know whether the time is fruitful for a religious activity and an auspicious activity.

Today the perfect alignment of the four is being followed only in the Tamil regions which people tend to think as the solar calendar. Functionally it is Chatur māna calendar. Confusion often arises when the calendars based only on lunar movement fail to align the time with the Sun. For example a few years ago Maha Shivaratri occurred in lunar Pushya month. The basic feature for identifying Maha Shivaratri was to have Phalguna as the following month. In this case the following month was Magha. That gave the valuable insight as to what our ancient seers had meant when they specified Phalguna as the following month. It must invariably be the solar month of Phalguna. This implies that Maha Shivaratri occurs at a time the Sun would be in Kumbha (Aquarius).

The insight gained from this is that any specific time identified by a lunar Tithi comes along with a relation to the position of the Sun, for, Time doesn’t exist without the Sun. Based on this we can deduce the exact time of Gitopadesa too.

Time of Gitopadesa.

The complete disconnect with the Chatur-māna scale of time of the Vedic society had resulted in the complete absence of thought about the solar month of Gitopadesa. Gitopadesa was rendered on Margashira Shukla Ekadasi. People tend to treat Margashira as the lunar Margashira. If it was lunar Margashira, where was the Sun at that time? As per lunar reckoning the Sun must have been at Kartika. The identification of time as “Margashira Shukla Ekadasi” with Sun in Kartika is not the proper way of identification of the Chatur- māna. The Sun being the major reckoner of Time, Margashira Shukla Ekadasi must have the Sun at Margashira and the Shukla Paksha must be of lunar Pushya month. (The time gap of one solar month between Kartika and Margashira makes huge impact on arriving at the correct date of Mahabharata war).

Margashira Shukla Ekadasi is the most the celebrated Vaikuntha Ekadasi that conceptually matches with Krishna rendering the knowledge of the means to Moksha. With the decline in knowledge of the 4-fold Time, Gitopadesa is assigned the day in lunar calendar which always falls in the solar Kartika. The month-wise analysis of the Mahabharata events done by me based on the internal evidences shows the date of Gitopadesa with the Sun still confined within the sign of Margashira.


Date of Gitopadesa.

The solar, lunar and savana (sun rise timing) match well, with the star (though not mentioned) that goes well with the war preparation (offerings to Vampire / Pishacha, an olden practice known from the “Bharani” literature in Tamil such as Kalingatthu Bharani, Daksha Yaaga Bharani) done on the previous day, in the star Bharani.

The planetary chart at the time of Gitopadesa

The above details must warm up the reader to the reality that the Sun was the major reckoner of time for any event. The Sun only carries along with it the Devas, the sages and other entities by whom the world and its beings are protected and are made to undergo the karma due to them. In this context we come across the dates of Uttarayana, Dakshinayana and Vishuva as ‘Punya kala’ – auspicious times for worshiping Pitrus and deities. Such times cannot occur at some point in space (of intersection the ecliptic and the celestial equator) but only when the four-fold time factors combine.

Equinox identified by the Sun and the Moon.

A specific verse on the date of equinox is found in both Vayu Purana and Brahmanda Purana.  It tells about the time when the vernal equinox was at 27 degree Aries – the maximum limit that the vernal equinox can travel – a gem of wisdom passed on by the Vedic society from its long past of having observed the celestial entities.  From Vayu Purana Ch 50:


The day of vernal equinox was identified by the location of the Sun in the 1st Pada of Krittika when the Moon was in the 4th Pada of Vishakha. We have to carefully look into the time denoted by this verse.

When the Sun is in Krittika 1st Pada (Aries), the moon at Vishakha would be Full Moon. This happens in solar Chitra month and most probably in lunar Vaishakha month. Full Moon in Vishikha star would happen every 3rd year. Here the verse carefully avoids a reference to Full moon or days before that, but only gives the position of the moon at 4th Pada of Vishakha which will be the last 6 hours of Moon’s transit in Vishakha! This means the Vishuva related worship and homa was done only at the last 6 hours of Moon’s transit in Vishakha in Scorpio when the Sun was in Krittika 1st Pada. Now let the readers ponder over the acceptability of western concept of Vernal equinox which does not take into consideration these intricate features laid out by the Vedic society.

Strangely the time of autumn equinox doesn’t follow the reverse of the vernal equinox. It only follows the position of the Sun at the last pada of Libra, in Vishakha while the moon must continue to be within the last Pada of Aries (1st Pada of Krittika). The Sun cannot be expected to go beyond 27 degrees to the left of zero degree Libra. In both the Vishuva, the sun was at its maximum limit at Aries and Libra respectively. But the identification of ‘Punya Kala’ of Vishuva was by means of Moon’s location in a particular Pada.

Now let me quote another verse from the same chapter of Vayu Purana that tells us why Equinox is important. The verses also say when the Uttrayana starts.


Verse 203 says that equinox is favourable for Devas and Pitrus! Those calling for ‘celebrating’ Uttarayana today (at the time of writing this on 22nd December, the winter solstice of the western astronomy) must tell us in what way they are going to celebrate. The Vedic society valued the four points (2 Vishuva and 2 Ayanarambha) as Punya Kala for paying obeisance to Pitrus and Devas. Even today those who meticulously follow the Vedic life do tarpan on these 4 dates. The Pitrus don’t come on any day that western astronomy declares as Vishuva or solstice. The days that attract them and the Devas as well must have a link with the sun and the moon and also the star – the Star in whose form the Purusha is seen!

For the maximum limit of 27 degree Aries, our Vedic seers had laid down the time for Vishu-Punya Kāla in the above verse. The solstices and the Vishuva are separated by 90 degrees between each other. When the Vishu at Mesha occurs at Krittika 1st Pada, the Uttarayana would be observed on the day when the Sun would be at 2nd Pada of Dhanishtha (27 degree Capricorn). The date of Uttarayana in that position of the Sun is given by Rig Jyothisha. The Moon will be at Dhanishtha and at first tithi. This means when Shukla Pratipat starts with the moon still traversing Dhanishtha, Uttarayana Punya Kala was observed and the Pitru tarpan was given.

Even within the 5-year period, the Uttarayana did not start on the same tithi-stars. The above combination appeared every 6th year only. For other years they followed the formula of shifting the moon (when the sun will be in the ordained position of Vishuva or ayana) to 6th consecutive tithi, in 19th consecutive star. The same formula was used by me to deduce the Vishuva and ayana dates of Mahabharata.

Let me quote the following verse from Brahmanda Purana (Ch 23) to show that Dhanishtha was the foremost star – implying it to be the upper limit of Uttarayana.


The same primacy to Dhanishtha is told by Markandeya in Mahabharata (3-219-10) that Dhanishtha was assigned the foremost position by Brahma. The following figure explained by me in my video Understanding Equinoxes the Vedic way gives the maximum oscillation of the vernal equinoxes with the median position falling at Aries zero degree with corresponding Uttarayana falling at zero degree Capricorn.


Once the equinox started backward movement, the Vedic society seemed to have revamped the Vishuva and Ayana dates. They had prescribed the median position of Uttarayana at the beginning of Capricorn and Vernal equinox at the beginning of Aries. Or why else we get to see the same, repeated again and again in every possible occasion in the Puranas and Siddhantas?

Siddhanta being the foremost literature on mathematical astronomy let me first quote Surya Siddhanta (Ch 14). Only heretics would reject Siddhantas as non-Vedic. All the Siddhantas (Jyothish) have been authored by Vedic sages and all the Siddhantas calculate Time of the life-span of the four-faced Brahma starting from Kalpa.  



The same is expressed in Brahmanda Purana (Ch 21)


The same is repeated in Vayu Purana (Ch 50)


Let anyone who wants to challenge this,  produce evidence from Vedic scriptures. We gloat over the fact that the Vedic society had existed for thousands of years. If precession was a continuous phenomenon the Vedic society must have seen different months for the ayanas.  Why is there no evidence like above on any other months as the duration of ayanas?

The 2nd most obvious reason (after the limited to and fro oscillation of the equinoxes) is that the Sun carries along with it the deities that are fixated in certain months of the ayana and season and do not keep travelling continuously like the western vernal equinox. Let me reproduce the forgotten deities of the Sun. Both Brahmanda Purana and Vayu Purana had given the same version. Here I am reproducing the Brahmanda Purana version (Ch 23) given in the context of the chariot of the Sun.

The months Madhu, Madhava etc refer to solar months whose equivalents are Mesha, Rishabha (Caitra, Vaishakha)


Note the seasons mentioned along with the solar months. The season is defined by the sun’s movement across five and a half stars, which is equal to two zodiacal signs.(Rig Jyothisha- 9)




Then comes the information on what they do to mankind.


Different sets of 14 divine entities residing in two specific months each, starting in sequence from Chaitra and spring season are responsible for nourishing Pitrus, devas and human beings. Can they shuffle their positions, say, those in vasanta season with sharad season which is what western concept of continuous precession of equinoxes would make them do? The Purana continues further:


The above is the fundamental belief of the Vedic society. The different entities residing in different months- seasons cause the rain, heat, happiness and despair. Their locations described above must dispel any doubts on the shifting zodiac, for they cannot discharge their duties in a shifting zodiac.

Equinoxes in backward movement is considered inauspicious.  Particularly when the Uttarayana moves in Ajaveethi (which is actually Dakshinayana in equilibrium position) i.e. in Sagittarius mankind suffers. History shows that Vedic religion started suffering only after Uttarayana started moving in Sagittarius (6th century onwards). So we are holding on to the median position of the Sun and its Devas for the propitiation of pitrus and deities. Vishuva is on the day of solar ingress into Aries and Uttarayana is when the sun enters Capricorn.

Once Uttarayana hits the 3rd degree mark of Sagittarius there will be a reversal in the movement of equinox and also in the fortunes of the Vedic society. Until then we will have heretics in the garb of supporters of Vedic system doing maximum damage to the cause of the Vedic Thought. Let us remain focused on what the texts say and continue with the age old custom of “Uttarayane, Hemanta ritau, Makara Māse....” in our oblations at the time of solar ingress in Capricorn.


Thursday, December 19, 2019

Mankind's oldest cave art at Sulawesi resembles the native tree- climbers of South India.


Live Science dot com recently carried an article on humanity’s oldest ever cave art discovered in a cave in the Indonesian island of Sulawesi. Older than the previously oldest art of hand stencils found in Sulawesi and also at Spain  dated around the same period of 40,000 years BP, the present art dated around 44,000 years before present depicts a ‘supernatural being’ according to the report.


This therianthrope, showing a human figure with a tail, is part of the hunting scene found in cave art in Leang Bulu' Sipong in Indonesia. (Image: © Ratno Sardi)

Among the hunting scenes by spear wielding humans in the 4.5 metre long art, this human like figure appears with a snort on its face! Treating this as the artist’s imagination of supernatural beings, the researchers are of the opinion that this being is climbing a tall tree.

The report says, “During a survey for rock art, study co-author Pak Hamrullah noticed "what appeared to be the entrance to a cave located high up in a limestone cliff face, and he climbed several meters up a fig tree vine to investigate it," study co-author Adam Brumm, an archaeologist at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, told Live Science.”

As one having seen the native tree-climbers in my region, this figure appears to me as that of a tree climber and not a super natural being. With thick and long ropes made of plant fibres hanging around the body which locks them firmly with the tree while climbing and the feet-of-the-frog like accessories for firm grip on the trunk of the tree, I don’t find much difference between them and this man in the cave art in the act of climbing. With Sulawesi being native to tall Eucalypt trees, the figure seems to be proof of tree- climbing as the oldest surviving activity or profession of mankind.
Here is a picture of the native tree climber of India that I could spot in the net, but this man is not actually fully equipped with his accessories.


Here is another I picked out from a blog.



The tree climber in the cave art is using more than one circular rope to climb the tree. The snort on his face could be some head gear, as the tree climbers use head gears. The man in the picture (below) is using the frog like feet accessory for climbing. This is somewhat similar to the feet gear of the man in the cave art.



The feet accessory ties up the two feet and helps the climber in moving the legs up simultaneously. In the cave art, the feet accessory looks like a semi circular base put around the tree on which the climber rested his feet. The feet are tied to the base which he drags up while climbing. Though the appearance is different, the concept is the same.

With tall trees dotting the tropical Indian Ocean islands starting from Madagascar to Polynesia in the Far East, tree climbing must have been an occupation by itself since long. Normally we are led to think that island countries must have been thriving in fishing and sea-faring activities. The tropical islands are also known for tall trees such as coconut and palm varieties, facilitating the growth of a class of people who specialise in tree-climbing and also of others making goods from tree-products. Connection through sea helps in easy transmission of specialists and also spread of the skill.

The land forms of the 2nd Sangam age reflect this kind of sea-based life style and occupation. During the times before c.1500 BCE, (when 2nd Sangam age was thriving) seven types of land forms had existed that can be matched with island based living. ‘Adiyārkku Nallār, the olden commentator for Silappadhikaram had given the names of these lands. There were forty nine countries categorised into seven on the basis of the nature of the land that had existed mostly off the southern shores of India and stretching towards east in South East Asia. I have given below their names along with the meanings.

7 Thenga naadu (
தெங்க நாடு) (coconut country)
7 Madurai naadu (
மதுரை நாடு), (Inland countries or cities with settled life)
7 Mun paalai naadu (
முன் பாலை நாடு), (desert country in early part (of the year))
7 pin paalai naadu (
பின் பாலை நாடு ) (desert county in later part (of the year))
7 kundra naadu (
குன்ற நாடு) (Mountainous country)
7 GuNakarai naadu (
குணகரை நாடு) (Eastern shore country)
7 kurumpanai naadu (
குறும்பனை நாடு) (Short palm country)

Of the seven types, two are identified by the presence of coconut and palm trees (7+7 = 14 countries were of these two types). Such regions are found as far as Polynesia. For example Tonga, one among 169 islands of the Polynesian Archipelago traces its name to the meaning “southwards” which is ‘thekku’ in colloquial Tamil and ‘therku’ in grammatical Tamil. The word Tonga resembles Thenga country of 2nd Sangam age. There are other similarities too, mainly the fire-walking ritual in this region to justify the spread of a people of the same culture between Indian shores and Polynesia that could have housed sea based countries among the 49 countries of the 2nd Sangam age.

The submerged western ghat-extension running upto Madagascar where Seychelles and Maldives are located fits the bill for the seven mountainous countries. One might recall the Valmiki Ramayana verse of Agastya once having made the end of Mahendra Mountain enter the ocean. (VR: 4.41.19). That was metaphorical of subduction of the extension of the Western Ghats south off Kerala into the Indian Ocean. (Wherever rise or subduciton of land forms are indicated, there Agastya’s name will also be present).

Of interest here for this article is the scope of commonality in this vast stretch among people of tree-climbing occupation. With the olden tree- climbing methods still continuing in parts of South India, the cave art of Sulawesi seems to be proof for the presence of the same occupation from long past in the regions connected by Indian Ocean.


Wednesday, December 18, 2019

Mahabharata events not corroborated by Mr Nilesh Oak. (Part 6 critiquing Mr Nilesh Oak's date of Mahabharata)


The 6th video in a series of videos based on my book "Myth of 'The Epoch of Arundhati' of Nilesh Nilkanth Oak" critiquing the date of Mahabharata deduced by Mr Nilesh Oak is now released. This video lists out the important astronomy related events of Mahabharata that Mr Nilesh Oak himself has admitted in his book as not having corroborated.


In chapter 9 of his book, titled as “Conflicting observations” Mr Oak had listed out 7 events that he could not corroborate.

They are
1. Balarama Tirthayatra
2. Late moon-rise on the 14th day of war
3. Duration of Bhishma’s stay on arrow bed
4. Traditional date of Kali Yuga and Mahabharata war
5. Analogy of Bhishma compared with Full moon on the first day of the war.
6. Analogy of solar eclipse on the last day of the war
7. Krishna leaving Upaplavya for peace mission in Sharad season.

Except the two analogies, the rest are of crucial importance for dating Mahabharata war. With Bhishma Nirvana offering the maximum limit of timing of events of Mahabharata, the late moon-rise on the 14th day gives a clear clue on the phase of the moon at the beginning of the war. Moreover one of the Mahabharata references used by Mr Oak to reject the analogy of solar eclipse on the last day turns out to be a valuable hint of an eclipse around that time.

By including two analogies in the list as non corroboratory, Mr Oak has revealed a shocking revelation of his choice of astronomy observations – that analogies also qualify as astronomy observations that he was able to test in his simulator! This implies that he has successfully corroborated all the other analogies having some reference to astronomy features. While that analysis is reserved for the next video, here it is being made out that Mr Nilesh Oak’s work can at best be characterised as “Oak Mahabharata”. In the absence of corroboration of major events of Mahabharata, he cannot claim that he has corroborated Vyasa Mahabharata!


Related Posts:




Monday, December 16, 2019

The level of 'research' in Nilesk Oak's Mahabharata dating.

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? "

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.




Friday, December 13, 2019

Refuting Arundhati observation of Nilesh Oak by Pramāna-based analysis.


Written with excerpts from my book Myth of 'The Epoch of Arundhati' of Nilesh Nilkanth Oak:

The Background

Nilesh Oak developed his version of dating the Mahabharata by looking at the astronomy references in Mahabharata. For this he picked up a huge canvass of time based on a reference to Arundhati in the words of sage Vyasa at the beginning of Mahabharata war.   

As the two warring sides assembled in the battle field, Vyasa talked in private to Dhritarashtra. In the course of this narration Vyasa says (in Nilesh Oak’s translation)

My dear King, Arundhati (saintly wife of Vasishtha) who is revered by the righteous all over the three worlds, has left her husband Vasishtha behind.” (P 53)

Oak was fascinated by this when he read this for the first time in the Rutherford library of University of Alberta. He treated this as an astronomy event and as “Shabda Pramāna”. Using the astronomy software he found that Arundhati was seen moving in front of Vasishtha at the meridian (perhaps at Hastinapur) for more than 6000 years, from 11091 BCE to 4508 BCE. He called this period as “The Arundhati Epoch”. By this he deduced that Mahabharata must have happened only within this period and not later than 4508 BCE.

Earlier I proved through the following video why he is wrong on treating the Vyasa’s verse as an astronomy observation based on the fact that the star couple were in circumpolar movement in his date of Mahabharata war.


In my 2nd video, I proved why the A-V observation fails to be a ‘falsifier’ by refuting his claim from Popper’s theory.



Since he used to quote (just quote not apply them in his research; he only mutilated the original quote of sage Patanjali and Gautama to suit his version, but that was done later in his blogs and social media, not in his book) Astika Darshanas, I am giving here my arguments based on the concepts of the Darshanas to establish that Arundhati did not walk in front of Vasishtha and that the observation by Vyasa was only about a temporary aberration in the position of the two stars with reference to each other.

Before proceeding further, let me briefly state why Arundhati could not have walked in front of Vasishtha anytime in the past. Arundhati symbolised Pativratātva, by following her husband always. In the celestial sphere the star Alcor follows Mizar and therefore was identified with Arundhati and Vasistha respectively.  If at all she has deviated from her path, the Vedic sages could have spotted some other star as Arundhati – like they picked out Krittika stars – for stability and unwavering position as a star signifying a rishi-patni. The fact that it did not happen goes to show that Arundhati was never found to have gone ahead of Vasishtha. Till date she is continued to be invoked in Vedic marriage mantras for taking the vow of pativratātva.

Vyasa’s nuanced reference to Arundhati

However for the first time we come across a reference to a revolting position of Arundhati by putting Vasishtha at her back in the words of sage Vyasa while describing the bad omens to King Dhritarashtra just before the Mahabharata War commenced.
Vyasa says (Mbh 6-9-9)
yā caiṣā viśrutā rājaṃs trailokye sādhu saṃmatā
     arundhatī tayāpy eṣa vasiṣṭhaḥ pṛṣṭhataḥ kṛtaḥ
This means,

She, O king, who is celebrated over the three worlds and is applauded by the righteous, even that (constellation) Arundhati  keepeth (her lord) Vasistha on her back.”(Ganguli’s translation)
This verse is the only source or the only reference that Nilesh Oak has taken as pivotal to ascertaining the date of Mahabharata war. This appearance of Arundhati has been mentioned by Vyasa as one among several nimittas (omens) seen all around at three levels, namely terrestrial, atmospheric and celestial.

One can find a definite plan in this particular verse on Arundhati. Vyasa has employed a clever trick (yukti) to help decipher what he is coming to say in this verse. This kind of trick is totally absent in his description of other omens.

In the first line of this verse he makes a statement that describes a universal truth about Arundhati accepted by one and all across all ages. It says that she is being praised in all the three worlds, obviously for not obstructing the path of Vasishtha by keeping him at her back.
But the second line says that she had kept Vasishtha at her back – which is not what the very name Arundhati stands for.

Of these two statements, if we take the first one as true then the second statement is absolutely false. That means the sighting of keeping Vasishtha at her back was a temporary phenomenon.
If we accept the second statement as true, then the first statement must be false for, the one who had kept Vasishtha at her back could not have been praised as Arundhati in all the three worlds by righteous people.

By keeping the inherent incompatibility and contradiction between the two statements within the same verse and by relating one with the other, Vyasa had delivered the judgement at that time itself – on which of the two statements is eternally true.

But unfortunately the second statement was picked up by Nilesh Oak as “Shabda Pramāna” (p 70) with utter disregard to what constitutes a Shabda Pramāna and how it cannot be a Shabda Pramāna. Treating the Arundhati observation as Shabda Pramāna, he seeks to falsify another Shabda Pramāna in the same verse on the symbolism of Arundhati!

Is A-V observation a valid Shabda Pramāna?

This question arises after reading the views of Nilesh Oak on Shabda Pramāna in different platforms between 2011 and 2019. In his book he treats A-V observation as a Shabda pramāna. Writing on A-V observation in the chapter on “The Epoch of Arundhati” he says,

This is an illustration of the validity of ‘Shabda Pramāna – Verbal Testimony’ corroborated by ‘Pratyaksha Pramāna – Empirical Proof.” (p 70)

Here he treats the sighting of Arundhati – Vasishtha by Vyasa as Shabda pramāna, and his own verification of the same in the simulator as Pratyaksha Pramāna!

Shabda pramana is accepted only if it is about A-V observation. Otherwise he scorns Shabda and Agama and has even dropped them from Patanjali’s Pramanas for he thinks that “anytime ‘Agama’ was misunderstood and was interpreted as ‘knowledge beyond doubt, scepticism or criticism’, humanity has landed in big trouble.” (His blog Tri-Murti of Scientific Method” https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/tri-murti-of-scientific-method/)


He accords prime importance to Pratyaksha (he continues to do this till date) and claims his viewing of the A-V in his simulator as Pratyaksha pramana. The whole lot of fun that follows this kind of claim is analysed in my book.

Here let me reproduce from my book the relevant parts of establishing the true import of A-V observation based on Pramāna literature.

Did Arundhati walk ahead of Vasishtha? - Mimamsa explanation


The A-V observation verse by Vyasa is a two-liner incorporating two ideas of conflicting nature. The first line praises Arundhati as one ‘who is celebrated over the three worlds and is applauded by the righteous’ (Ganguli translation). The cause for this reverence, though unstated in the verse is obviously for her status as one who never obstructed the path of her husband. Only when this is taken as the cause for this statement, the reference in the second line of keeping her husband in her prishṭha makes sense. 

Thus we have two contradictory statements given by no less a person than Vyasa in the context of an important observation of the surroundings around him. The entire verse can be taken as Shabda pramāna or Apta vacana, as the deliverer of the verse is a person of high stature. Of these two statements, Nilesh Oak has concentrated only on the second one and failed to consider the relevance of the Shabda nature of the first statement.

Among the different Darshanas, the Purva Mimamsa is known for advanced thought processes in solving paradoxical and contradictory passages. When two Pramānas with contradictory connotations are observed for the same frame of inference, the logical way to solve it is to apply Mimamsa axiom of Gunapradhana wherein Guna means subordinate and Pradhana means principal. This axiom has been used by the Indian judiciary in interpreting contentious clauses.

Gunapradhana axiom states that “if a word or sentence purporting to express a subordinate idea clashes with the principal idea, the former must be adjusted to the latter, or must be disregarded altogether.[1]

In the verse by Vyasa, Arundhati praised in all the three worlds by the righteous people is the Pradhana statement. The applause was for not obstructing the path of her husband by crossing his way or moving in front of him. The same Arundhati perceived as having put her husband at her back is Guna statement as that was reported only at that time or seen only at that time. Never before or never after anywhere in the text or by Vyasa himself, the second feature of Arundhati had ever been reported or recorded.

So the second statement being Guna in nature has to be read as not disrupting the former (Pradhana)– meaning to say that Arundhati was not seen putting her husband at her prishṭha by others, but only by Vyasa – which is possible if it happened for a short period of time – not long enough to get to be noticed by others.

Secondly, when Guna does not match with Pradhana, such an observation (Guna) is fit to be discarded as an aberration. It can be said, that as per the logic of Purva Mimamsa, the reference to Arundhati keeping her husband at her Prishṭha is not factual.

Did Arundhati walk ahead of Vasishtha? – Pramāna based interpretation.

The fundamental pramānas are three – Pratyaksha, Anumana and Shabda. Nilesh Oak’s contention that Shabda Pramāna has been internalised and Pratyaksha Pramāna is forgotten, is not correct because the state of inquiry is such that it is a three-some process starting from Pratyaksha, and passing through Anumana, finally getting ascertained by Shabda. To give an example,

I see smoke at a faraway place. This is Pratyaksha.

I guess that there is a fire there. This is Anumana. But I cannot know anything more than the fact that there is fire - whether it is accidental or deliberately made for disposing junk. Only Shabda will let me know what kind of fire it is.

I read the news next day that an accidental fire had happened. This news report is the Shabda.
So, Pratyaksha may be dubious (the smoke may be from a kiln or a homa); Anumana can be many; but only Shabda is factual.

Only by referring to Shabda can we know the right status of knowledge even though the Pratyaksha may have been done by us.

Therefore his criticism that the academics do not go beyond the Shabda Pramāna is ill-founded, for, no one can go against the Shabda Pramāna, not because someone said so but because the basis of Shabda is unassailable.

In the case of Arundhati, all the features of the symbolism of Arundhati given in the 1st chapter (of my book and in the 1st video) form the solid base for Shabda Pramāna for her stature. When a reference is made that Vyasa had sighted a deviation in her position, no academic in the know of ancient wisdom would take it as a permanent or a prolonged (certainly not for 6000 + years as Nilesh Oak claims) appearance, for, in such case the deviation would have been recorded in some text and a prolonged deviation would have dislocated the symbolism of Arundhati and dislodged her by now from the marriage ritual. When none of them have happened, the claim that the deviation was tested or corroborated by ‘Pratyaksha Pramāna’ by a present day researcher is ridiculous, for, the deviation was the Pratyaksha – or direct perception of Vyasa, not the present day researcher, in this case, Nilesh Nilkanth Oak.

A perception is a psychological interpretation of the rupa (form) and jati (structure or generic character) that could be determinate (nirvikalpa) or indeterminate (vikalpa). The three-some inquiry then demands the inquirer to go through the process after having perceived a form. Vyasa had done that and given his final understanding in that verse itself.

In his verse, Pratyaksha and Anumana are merged together – that is, on seeing some deviation (indeterminate perception) in the position of Arundhati, Vyasa inferred (Anumana) that Arundhati had kept her husband at her prishṭha. That is in the second line.

This is followed by Upamana – comparing what he saw with her generic position which blends with Shabda that she is a praiseworthy person for never deviating from her path. The Upamana blended with Shabda was remembered by him in the first line followed by what he saw and inferred (Pratyaksha and Anumana). The sequence of the ideas in the verse – of Shabda coming ahead of his Pratyaksha -Anumana statement conveys that a quick analysis was done in his mind by thinking of Shabda vacana or else he would not have brought first, her unwavering position for which she is praised, before expressing what he inferred from seeing.

This can happen, i.e. cross checking with the Shabda vacana and invoking the same to clear his mind of what he perceived - if what he saw lasted for a short duration.

On the contrary if it is true that Arundhati had been going ahead of Vasishtha for thousands of years before Vyasa’s times as claimed by Nilesh Oak, there is no in logic in recalling her generic position which Vyasa had never seen in his life time. A configuration that had been in existence for more than 5000 years before Vyasa’s times would have come to be accepted as a regular position and there is no place for comparative (first) statement in that verse. Vyasa should have just said that Arundhati in front position is bad.


NILESH OAK's take on ‘What if Arundhati is not an astronomy observation’

Since there is no response or refutation from him for any of my rebuttals of A-V as a falsifier – given in my book and in my videos, I am constrained to post here his words on what he would do if A-V observation is found not to be an astronomy event.

He declared at the beginning of the 6th chapter on ‘The Epoch of Arundhati’ (p53),

If ‘Arundhati’ does not qualify as the most unambiguous astronomical evidence in determining the date of Mahabharata War, let’s stop talking about astronomical evidence in Mahabharata.”


Arundhati does not qualify as astronomy evidence. And no response means accepting my rebuttal. Shall I ask,

Would Nilesh Oak stop talking about all the astronomy evidences  in Mahabharata and close shop?  








[1] “The Mimasa Principles of Interpretation” by Justice Markandey Katju  http://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/93v1a4.htm

Saturday, December 7, 2019

Identifying Dhruva (son of Uttanapada) in the constellation of Shishumara. (Part 5 critiquing Mr Nilesh Oak's date of Mahabharata)

The 5th video in a series of videos based on my book "Myth of 'The Epoch of Arundhati' of Nilesh Nilkanth Oak" critiquing the date of Mahabharata deduced by Mr Nilesh Oak is now released.



This video can be well understood after going through the previous one (Understanding the equinoxes the Vedic way) on the time-tested Vedic view of the to and fro oscillation of the equinoxes within 54 degree arc in the sky. An extension of that concept is that different pole stars can be sighted only within 54 degrees.

In the immediate time scale, the extent stretches between 1301 BCE and 2299 CE. Presently we are close to 2299 CE mark, where Polaris is the pole star. The video analyses different locations of the NCP for the three equinoctial positions (Pi 3, Ar 0 and Ar 27 deg) and comes up with the revelation that the polar oscillation happens within the expanse of Ursa Minor having Polaris at its tail. This matches with the description of Shishumara at whose tail Dhruva, the son of Uttanapada is located by the Vedic society.


Shishumara is named after the Gangetic porpoise due to close resemblance with it. The body parts of Shishumara named after exalted beings are found to match with Ursa Minor.

Shishumara (Ursa Minor) is hailed as the external form of Vishnu, as “viṣṇoḥ paramam padam” by Srimad Bhagavatam. It is circumambulated by Dhruva and also by other pole stars, Agni, Indra, Kasyapa and Prajapati. The video identifies their location using the description from other sources such as Taittriya Aranyaka, Brahmada purana, Vayu Purana and Vishnu Purana.


From the current knowledge of science it is known that the satellite galaxy of the Milky Way named ‘Ursa Minor Dwarf’ having its evolutionary history straight from Big Bang lies in the region behind the four stars of Ursa Minor. Shishumara lying in the front can be said to hold in its grip the Dhruva Mandala by which the earth, the sun and even the Sapta rishis along with all the worlds are rotating around it.

With the Shishumara concept reinforcing the location of northern Pole stars within 54 degree arc, the video goes on to derive inferences as follows:

1. ‘Dhruva’ always referred to Dhruva nakshatra (Polaris) and not to other pole stars. The Ramayana verse on ‘Dhruvam sarve Pradakshinam’ should therefore refer to Polaris as the pole star at Ramayana times. This places Ramayana at 7000 +/- 200 years before present.

2. Abhijit could have never been a Pole star.

3. Agastya was always visible in the southern sky for most of India at all times.

4. Seasons remained unchanged over the years due to limited equinoctial movement.

5. The ayanamsa variation falling within 27 degrees causes serious implications on dating research that are based on western astronomy software. The date of Janamejaya Grant is taken as case study to prove this.


Thursday, November 28, 2019

Understanding equinoxes the Vedic way. (Part 4 critiquing Mr Nilesh Oak's date of Mahabharata)


The 4th video in a series of videos based on my book "Myth of 'The Epoch of Arundhati' of Nilesh Nilkanth Oak" critiquing the so-called Epoch of Arundhati and the date of Mahabharata deduced by Mr Nilesh Oak is now released.

Titled as “Understanding equinoxes the Vedic way” this video begins by stating the Western Astronomy concept of the equinoxes preceding through all the twelve signs of the zodiac in approximately 26,000 years. This is followed by the exposition of the version of Surya Siddhanta of the oscillating motion of the equinoxes in both forward and backward direction, each covering a distance of 54 degrees in 3600 years, totalling upto 7,200 years for one complete to and fro oscillation. As a result the vernal equinox can be located only within Pisces and Aries, with zero degree Aries becoming the central point of this oscillation.

This idea of oscillating equinox observed through ages by the Vedic sages has been handed down to the common folks in the form of Aryan dance, Thanjavur tilting doll and the story of Samudra Manthan. The to and fro movement of the churning done with the axis of the earth as the churning rod, with the giant turtle representing gigantism and control force as the base at the South Pole and the sloshing effect of the magma representing Vasuki, the serpent are deduced as the causes for the oscillating movement of the equinoxes, in addition of the gravitational impact of the Sun and the Moon.

Textual evidences are produced in support of the oscillating equinoxes and on how the winter solstice and the summer solstice cannot move beyond two signs. This concept has a phenomenal impact on the dating of ancient events of the Vedic society such as Mahabharata and Ramayana, if done using the softwares based on western astronomy. As such Mr Nilesh Oak’s work on the date of Mahabharata collapses due to non-adherence to the Vedic view of the equinoxes which is true and time-tested.

The video can be viewed here:



Related Posts: