Free download of the entire book Myth of 'The Epoch of Arundhati' of Nilesh Nilkanth Oak
Kindle ebook here: https://www.amazon.in/MYTH-EPOCH-ARUNDHATI-NILESH-NILKANTH-ebook/dp/B07YVFNQLD/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_pl_foot_top?ie=UTF8
The below article is the 9th chapter of this book.
Chapter 9
NIMITTA IS NON-FALSIFIABLE
The second problem with the Basic Sentence of Nilesh Oak is
more serious than the first, and it disqualifies the entire research of
Mahabharata dating, by taking it out of purview of empirical research.
The problem here is that nimitta is not part of astronomy; it comes
under the domain of astrology. Karl Popper straightaway rejects astrology as a
pseudo-science and therefore cannot be falsified. It was already discussed in
the 6th chapter how Nilesh Oak had done selective reading of the A-V
verse, by ignoring the fact that it is a nimitta.
Selective reading is further seen in the omission of Karna’s
reference to astronomy features as nimitta in his book. Karna has
used the word ‘Nimitta’ three times in his conversation with Krishna. In
the first instance he uses the word nimitta to mean ‘cause’
– the cause being himself besides Shakuni, Dussasana, and Duryodhana for the
destruction of the earth.[1]
In the second instance Karna refers to seeing terrible nimittas
before listing them out (“nimittāni
ca ghorāṇi tathotpātāḥ sudāruṇāḥ”) indicating defeat
of Dhritarashtra’s sons and the victory of
Yudhishthira.[2]These
nimittas are of diverse kinds, all in the nature of signs emanating from
animate and inanimate things in the earth, atmosphere and space. But such signs
are treated as causes connected with certain effects.
In the next verse Karna starts mentioning the astronomy
features such as the one on the ‘vakri’ motion of Mars[3];
that was interpreted by Nilesh Oak in his own way. After listing out all the
planetary and star based observations, Karna once again invokes the term
nimitta to say that all those nimittas are indicating the approach of a
terrible slaughter (“nimitteṣu mahābāho dāruṇaṃ prāṇināśanam”)[4]
Nimittas appear in other contexts too. Drona sees certain
omens before the death of Bhishma on the 10th day of the War[5] -
of which some were also seen by Yudhishthira before the death of Krishna that took
place on the 36th year after Mahabharata War.[6]
Some of the omens at that time were a repeat of the omens witnessed at the time
of Mahabharata War, says Yudhishthira. But the A-V observation was not cited at
any other time, anywhere in Mahabharata.
Nowhere in his book “When
did the Mahabharata War happen? The Mystery of Arundhati”
published in the year 2011 do we come across any reference to nimitta. This
makes us think that
(1) Nilesh Oak was not at all aware of the presence of this
term in the context, and this reiterates our stance that he had done only
selective reading of Mahabharata. Even within a chapter he had searched for
astronomy terms only and not bothered to read the entire chapter.
(2) Nilesh Oak was not aware that the word ‘nimitta’ is part of astrology!
If he was aware, he could be expected to have given some explanation like he
did for vakri and pīḍayate.
Contrary to his absolute silence on Nimitta in his book, he
is found to give newer meanings to Nimitta in his characteristic way in his
blogs in the year 2014. These explanations are mostly in response to
criticisms. It is not difficult to deduce the reason for his sudden interest in
Nimitta. He has become alive to the issue of nimitta after being challenged on
the admissibility of a nimitta for scientific testing. Here again he can be
seen developing a new idea of nimitta every time he speaks about it and
predictably his explanations are not based on any theory but only on Voyager –
Simulation Nyaya!
Nilesh Oak’s Nimitta concepts.
(i) The A-V observation is not a unique nimitta and
it is just one among many.
In his blog written on February 2014, Nilesh Oak downplays
the question on why suddenly Vyasa makes a mention of A-V as a nimitta if that
phenomenon was happening for thousands of years before the War. He says there
are numerous nimittas which Vyasa listed down with the intention of stopping
the war. Among them he mentions A-V phenomenon too as it also happens to be a
nimitta. He mentions about Karna too in this context while he is absolutely
silent in his book about Karna speaking on nimittas. His blog entry is
re-produced below.[7]
(ii) Nimitta is a non-regular, non-ordinary
phenomenon, but scientifically explainable.
On being told that a Nimitta is not a regular or ordinary
phenomenon, and therefore the A-V observation running for more than 6000 years
cannot be a nimitta – Nilesh Oak can be seen giving a justification in his blog
in September 2014.
He proposes that a non-regular and a non-ordinary phenomenon
could have happened in a distant past and documented or could have come in oral
tradition or remembered as background knowledge. He writes as follows in his
blog:[8]
Vyasa remembered such an old time when the non-regular, non-
ordinary phenomenon (A-V observation) did not happen and therefore treats the
observation as a nimitta.
According to him, he has found this non-regular,
non-ordinary phenomenon in his simulator for a period of 6000 years! In a
period of a million years, the A-V phenomenon running for 6000 years is
non-regular, non-ordinary, according to his scientific acumen.
He is able to prove through his Simulator that an omen is a
scientifically explainable phenomenon[9]
(iii) Nimitta is a sign and must not be confused
with ‘Bad omens’.
Taking a big leap from 2014, Nilesh Oak writes in response
to a comment in his blog in March 2017 that nimittas are signs that are perceived
depending on one’s mental and emotional state.
The confusion is in the Indic minds that attempt to defend their prior
conclusions. The idea of ‘Bad omen’
is not what Vyasa has conveyed. He has only conveyed the astronomy observations
for the purpose of recording history. This view of Nilesh Oak is reproduced
below.[10]
Evaluation of Nilesh Oak’s Nimitta concepts.
(i) Nilesh Nilkanth Oak is consistently inconsistent
in his explanation for nimitta.
The causes are not difficult to find. He was caught
off-guard on A-V observation being a nimitta and can be seen struggling to give
a reply that occurs to him every time he is confronted. From
not recognising a word ‘nimitta’ in his book,
Nilesh Oak can be seen to make a meandering journey through an array of
explanations in his blogs which, to use his own words on Vartak’s explanation
for astrological words of Mahabharata, shows him “forced to employ
numerous patchworks..”[11]to
justify and then reject the very concept of Nimitta as used in Mahabharata!
·
A
cursory look at the three different explanations he has given shows that within
a span of three years he has changed his opinion of Nimitta from being a bad
omen that Vyasa expressed in a last minute effort to stop the War, to a
declaration that Vyasa did not see through the lens of bad omen!
·
From
Bad omens in February 2014, the nimitta had just become ‘signs’ in March 2017.
May be if a re-print of this book happens, we can expect a new theory on
Nimittas finding place in that.
·
Inconsistency
is further evidenced in Oak’s rationale of why Vyasa expressed the nimittas.
According to Nilesh Oak, Vyasa narrated them to make a record or to note down
the time of War. (He says this without any proof in support of this claim).
·
If
so, what then was the purpose of Karna to express the nimittas? Did he express
them for record-purpose?
·
Then
what about Drona whom Mahabharata hails as a great knower of nimittas? ( “nimittāni
nimittajñaḥ sarvato vīkṣya vīryavān”)[12]
·
Even
Arjuna and Yudhishthira had expressed the nimittas. What for they expressed
them?
·
Any
reader can see a common thread in all the narrations as indicative of some danger.
But Nilesh Oak, habituated to selective reading, finds Vyasa doing the record
work and leaves out others from the purview of his lens.
(ii) Nilesh Oak has no respect for traditions and
the “Indic minds” that stick to tradition.
The very topic he has taken is to prove a violation of a
tradition by one (Arundhati) who is hailed as an icon of a tradition. This by
itself is an affront on the Indic culture. His contempt for tradition and Indic
culture is further reiterated by his comment posted above that the “Indic
minds” would go downhill in a minute on talking of nimitta. He has no qualms in
expressing his contempt for traditions in his book where he says,
“I consider traditional belief worthless, as primary
evidence, in support of any theory however I am willing to allow it as
corroborative evidence for an established theory, i.e. established based on
empirical evidence.”[13]
What do all these convey except that he is working on an
agenda to derail the tradition, destabilise the Indic belief system and influence
the young and unsuspecting minds by choicest words on empiricality, luring them
away from deep rooted traditions? His contempt for traditional concepts is well
evident from his utter lack of interest to learn the basics of Mahabharata
astronomy in the traditional way but to replace them with his weird
absurdities.
(iii) If omens are testable, why didn’t he test
other omens?
Nilesh Oak claims to have proved by A-V observation that
omens are testable and thus scientific. This raises a question whether he had
tested other omens too. There is no indication that he had tested any other
omen expressed by Vyasa except the astronomy observations. If an omen is
scientific and therefore testable, then all the omens must obey testability.
But Nilesh Oak makes a statement in his book,
“I claim that
all astronomical statements are testable while all non-astronomical statements
are not; at least not with our current knowledge of Mahabharata conventions,
current interpretation of non- astronomical passages and current advances in
technology at our disposal.” [14]
If omens of non-astronomical nature are not testable, is it right
to claim that omens are testable and therefore scientific? An omen is an omen
irrespective of whether it is an astronomy reference or non-astronomy
reference. A common thread must run through all of them. Without identifying
that common thread how can Nilesh Oak segregate the omens as testable and
non-testable? A degree of objectivity will be achieved in his
research, only if he tests other omens too.
Such testing strengthens his version that omens are testable and scientific.
And it also eliminates doubts on whether A-V observation was just an
aberration.
If on the other hand it is
not possible to test the other omens, then it would go without saying that A-V
testing is also not possible and not true. For instance, can
he test scientifically the 2nd omen in Vyasa’s list that carnivorous
animals and fierce herons were wheeling across the centre towards the southern
region foreboding terror? He can’t. But it may be replied that movement of such
animals anyway cause fear in the mind. If so, why is it specifically said they
were moving to the south? Why not to the north or any other direction?
Shouldn’t he test this also for different directions? Even if one omen is not
testable, there is no logic in claiming that omens are testable.
(iv) Why A-V observation was not at all mentioned by
others as a nimitta if it was around for more than 6000 years?
Vyasa was not alone in having spoken about nimittas around
the time of Mahabharata War. Just before the start of the war Arjuna expressed
to Krishna, the bad nimittas he was seeing. On the 10th day of the
War Drona reported the
nimnittas around him. Karna had told about the nimittas during his meeting with
Krishna and Yudhishthira sighted nimittas of the same kind on the 36th
year after the War. But strangely none
of them mentioned the A-V observation while the nimittas mentioned by them were
of similar nature.
The fall of the bow from his hand
was reported by Arjuna as a nimitta before the start of the war. In the same
way Drona found his arrows coming out of the quiver on their own and his
bow seeming to yawn. He reported this on the 10th day of the war.
Most of the nimittas told by these two and others (Karna and Yudhishthira) were
almost the same. Only Drona makes a strange sighting of Moon,
rising with its horns (head) downward! A big astronomy fact is hidden behind this
nimitta which solidly establishes that the war didn’t start on Amawasya day.
Keeping that explanation for the 12th chapter let me continue to
concentrate on Nilesh Oak’s absurdities around nimitta.
No other Mahabharata character reported the sighting of
Arundhati keeping her husband at her Prishṭha! According to Nilesh Oak this
position was continuing for thousands of years. This must have become a kind of
permanent
nimitta! But why Vyasa alone mentioned it?
Suppose it is argued that others ignored it because it was a
permanent nimitta, one cannot help asking what
made Arjuna to ignore this nimitta (A-V) when he expressed in the worries about
women being made to face hardships on account of the war.
This discussion comes in the 1st chapter of Bhagavad
Gita. After expressing the bad nimittas seen by him Arjuna went
on to express the kind of destruction the war was going to make. One among them
was the state of ‘Kula-stree’ on losing
her husband in the war.[15]
The kind of changes in her life that she would be forced to undertake, leading
to adharma, were narrated by him. There
is ample scope to link it with the nimitta of change in the walk of the iconic
Kula-stree, i.e. Arundhati that any ordinary person would be
tempted to do. But Arjuna couldn’t think of the changed position of Arundhati
as a nimitta for the expected change in the life of Kula-stree-s after the war.
Only if the A-V observation was a temporary aberration, seen
only by Vyasa and not others, it could have gone missing in the narrations on
nimittas by others.
(v) Can Nilesh Oak show any other omen that ran for
6000 years as A-V did?
The most common feature of all the other omens in the list
of Vyasa, Karna, Drona and others is that they are all transient.
At the most some of the nimittas could have lasted for a few days. The twilight
sightings, appearance of stars and planets, the colour, the cries, the sounds
all around – all these were temporary and did not last long. Only the A-V observation as tested by Nilesh
Oak has lasted for more than 6000 years. In other words, the
A-V stands out from the list of other omens, making it appear that it is not an
omen. But it is an omen according to Vyasa. By way of its non-regular,
non-ordinary nature like other omens, the A-V also must have been sighted and
lost within a short period. That only sounds logical in the context of omens.
All talk of scientific
testing of omen by Nilesh Oak therefore sounds like a desperate attempt to save
his theory of Epoch of Arundhati. He has all the
right to defend it but defend he should with objectivity in his research. Such
objectivity demands that he proves other omens testable (point iii) besides proving at least one omen to have lasted for
thousands of years as A-V did. If he cannot prove even one omen for
that long, then there is no objectivity in either claiming A-V as an omen (for
being an odd man in the list of omens) or assign thousands of years for this
single omen while others are all transient.
A Popper-follower, claiming to have made a revolutionary
discovery, had made his ‘discovery’ from a Basic Sentence on a Nimitta – of
dubious nature! With no inkling of what a nimitta is and not even aware that he has taken a nimitta as
his Basic Sentence, Nilesh Nilkanth Oak has done
‘scientific’ dating of Mahabharata War by proving that a nimitta lasted for
more than 6000 years! The root cause for this claim is that he didn’t know what a nimitta is and those who
believe his claims also do not know what a nimitta is!
To clear the air of the mess he has created let us know what a nimitta is and
why A-V observation is only a nimitta and not an astronomy event.
What is a nimitta?
The most common meanings of Nimitta found in Vedic
literature such as Upanishads, Manu Smriti and Brihat Samihita are cause, motive, ground, reason etc..[16] A
cause that gives rise to an effect is a nimitta - an example of it is seen in
the dialogue of Karna (explained in the
beginning of this chapter) quoting himself and his friends as the nimitta
(cause) for the destruction of the earth.[17] This
is visible cause where we know how the cause ‘worked.’ Sometimes the effect is visible and the cause
also is visible but how the mechanism of the cause worked to fetch the effect
remains invisible. In such cases the causes would be short lived.
Giving the Vyakharana meaning
of the word Nimitta, Mr. Ramanathan, the Vedic scholar says
that a nimitta is an unstable
first cause from which a stable effect is formed[18]. The ‘adhruva’ (not
fixed, non permanent) nature of the first cause makes
nimitta a temporary occurrence! The unstable cause giving rise to a stable effect
is a nimitta.
The A-V nimitta does not belong to the former category of
‘stable’ cause (eg: the continuing enmity of Karna and others resulting in
destruction by war) but the second category of momentary ‘unstable’
cause where a feature just flashes for a moment – against its
normal nature- signaling the arrival of unnatural effects. This
cause (nimitta) cannot go on for 6000 years; if it does, it is not a nimitta of
Adhruva nature. A fixed appearance of A-V in a
particular alignment for 6000 years is not a nimitta at all in any sense. It is
just an appearance that Vyasa need not have talked about this appearance as a
nimitta. The definition of ‘nimitta’ completely dismantles the notion of Nilesh
Oak that A-V nimitta was running for more than 6000 years!
The description given by Varahamihira
in his chapter on nimitta says that “Devas send down portents to indicate
their displeasure” when “mankind, by their misdeeds offend the Devas.”[19]
Such expression of displeasure cannot go on for thousands of years as Nilesh
Oak claims for the A-V observation. The reason why Vyasa reported the nimittas
to king Dhritarashtra is obtained from the same verse of Varahamihira that “the
king shall perform expiatory rites for the redress of the miseries which
otherwise are sure to befall mankind.” So it is not for record purpose, but
to warn the king so that the king can undertake propitiatory measures.
The non-seasonal, non-regular nature of nimitta
can be explained in the following way. The cows
are said to look up at the sky or at the sun before the arrival of rainfall.
Similarly ants are supposed to shift
from place to place carrying their eggs just before the arrival of the
rainfall. These actions are said to be nimittas for rainfall. In these two
occasions, no rain clouds might have been sighted initially, but these animals
were able to sense the arrival of rainfall hours before. The main feature of
the nimitta is its immediate relevance. They appear at the moment to indicate
an event that is going to appear shortly.
In the above examples on rainfall nimitta, there is no
relevance for them in the rainy season. People would anyway be aware of
impending rainfall from features such as wind and cloudiness in a rainy season.
But in a non-seasonal time, the above two nimittas are of value to man to be
prepared for a sudden and un-seasonal rainfall. Therefore a nimitta is one that
is non-regular and non-seasonal. This is different from what Nilesh Oak
mentions as non-regular, non-ordinary nature of A-V. Appearing in a particular configuration for 6000
years in a span of million years is not a nimitta. But appearing in
that configuration anytime other than those 6000 years is a nimitta!
Mahabharata, peak time of Nimitta knowledge.
Looking at Indic past, it is seen that the knowledge of
nimittas as a science reached its peak during Mahabharata times. Drona is
described as nimittajñaḥ (निमित्तज्ञः) as one knowledgeable in nimittas. Another character
namely Shakuni must be a knower of omens, for his name Shakuni is actually the name of a bird of
omen. His son was known as Uluka – the owl which is also observed for omens. It sounds
strange that these persons of Mahabharata times were named
after ominous birds. The only
probable explanation could be that they
must have mastered the omens of Shakuni and Uluka birds respectively.
Giving credence to this idea is a
reference to “Mahabharata Shuddhi Shakuna” found in a text called ‘Nimitta
Choodamani’! This text is originally a palm leaf manuscript found in the
Oriental Research Institute Manuscript Library, at Sri Venkateswara University,
Tirupati. The unique feature of this text is that it begins with the
description of the ‘dice’ and how to make it. After describing the making of
the dice and the markings on it, the text says that “Previously Lord Sri
Krishna, Dharmaraja, Bheema, Arjuna, Nakula and Sahadeva were said to have used
this to know Shakuna and gained a lot out of it. It is also called Mahabharata
Shuddhi Shakuna”[20]
It is possible to link Shakuna with dice game, as the number
on the dice decides whether one makes losses or gains. No wonder concepts of
Nimitta or Shakuna had reached its peak in Mahabharata times as can be seen
from many references to nimittas in the text.
The basis of Nimitta in the two instances discussed above is
that all beings are sub-consciously linked with all the other sentient or
non-sentient beings and are capable of knowing beforehand an impending event.
The immediacy factor is inherent in this – both in the case of nimitta and the
event indicated by the nimitta.
Summarising what a nimitta is,
·
It is an omen that appears at the moment
·
Is non-seasonal
·
Has immediate relevance, with the event
appearing shortly thereafter
Nimitta is a concept of Astrology.
Nimitta as a consolidated and a systematic knowledge appears
only in astrology. The classification of the branches of astrology is given
below.[21]
Astrology is also classified in terms of angas. They are six
in number, viz., Jataka, Gola, Nimitta, Prasna, Muhurta and Ganita.[22]
So anyone working on Nimitta is in reality dealing with a
branch of astrology. Nimitta takes into consideration “tatkalika lakshana’
– like ants shifting places and cows looking at the sky, and not an event going
on for 6000 years! Nimittas are known as ‘omens obtaining at a particular time.’[23]
Chapter 46 of Brihat Samhita
gives a detailed account of the omens attributed to sages Garga and
Atri.
They are of three kinds, terrestrial, atmospheric and stellar. The description
of nimittas by Vyasa, Karna and Drona covers all the three. Omens are indicated
by idols of Gods too. Vyasa’s omens include them also.
But there is one kind that does not qualify as an omen. To
quote Varahamihira, “if the phenomenon
is one due to the particular season, the evils described for such phenomenon
would not come to pass.”[24]
·
This
means a recurring, seasonal or regular and an everlasting phenomenon does not
qualify to be an omen.
·
In
Nilesh Oak’s scheme the A-V observation did not last for just a few minutes or
a day or two or a few months. It went on for more than 6000 years. That means
it was a regular event. A regular event cannot be considered as an omen.
·
If
it is to be an omen, it must have been sighted for a short duration only. Vyasa
called the A-V observation as an omen only, which means its appearance was
momentary.
·
Are
omens scientific in nature? A verse by Varahamihira in this chapter states that
omens are the words of Gods themselves (quoted earlier).[25]Is
that scientific or non-scientific?
Nilesh Oak’s following illustration offers the answer for this.
Nimittas are metaphysical, though some of the terrestrial
nimittas such as those related to cows and ants explained above have been
noticed through generations and remembered as nimittas. Nilesh Oak has rightly
marked the metaphysical assertions as preservation of tradition. May be for the
first time so far, I am able to concur with Nilesh Oak on his view! But
unfortunately he thinks that a nimitta (A-V) is testable and therefore
scientific. The test of a nimitta is
in the manifestation of its effect; it cannot be seen in the simulator!
It is upto Karl Popper- follower to decide whether he made a
wise decision of making a nimitta falsifiable.
Non-regular appearance of Arundhati to be treated as nimitta –
says Mahabharata.
Earlier in the 1st chapter it was quoted from Mahabharata
that Arundhati’s unwavering position in relation to
Vasishtha was observed at the time of Skanda.
Since then Vedic society has been looking up at her as an icon of chastity. But there was a
time she looked different. The appearance at that time was linked to an event
in Arundhati’s life. Arundhati had once insulted her husband.
In consequence of that act she
became a little star, mixed with smoke, sometime visible and sometimes
non-visible like an omen. The relevant verses from Mahabharata
are reproduced below.[26]
suvratāpi hi kalyāṇī sarvalokapariśrutā
arundhatī paryaśaṅkad vasiṣṭham ṛṣisattamam
viśuddhabhāvam atyantaṃ sadā priyahite ratam
saptarṣimadhyagaṃ vīram avamene ca taṃ munim
apadhyānena sā tena dhūmāruṇa samaprabhā
lakṣyālakṣyā nābhirūpā nimittam iva lakṣyate
Ganguli’s translation:
“Even the auspicious and well-behaved Arundhati, celebrated amongst all
creatures, had been jealous of the illustrious Vasishtha of great purity of
mind and always devoted to the good of his wife. Arundhati insulted even the
wise Muni amongst the (celestial) seven. In consequence of
such insulting thoughts of hers, she has become a little star, like fire
mixed with smoke, sometimes visible and sometimes invisible, like an omen
portending no good (amongst a constellation of seven bright stars representing
the seven Rishis).”[27]
The last verse describes the appearance of the star as ‘Nābhirūpā’ – looking like the
navel! The navel is characterised by the depression at the centre. The star had
looked smoky, thereby dim with its disc appearing like a concave depression. At
times the star was visible and also not visible. The scientific causes for this
appearance could be anything, but the sage Mandapāla
to whom this verse is attributed, had said that such
appearances are treated as nimitta!
By categorising it as a nimitta, it is conveyed that such an
appearance was not long lasting.
In her real life too, the incident of insult and the after effect could not
have lasted long and not caused any dent to her image as an icon of
chastity.
The verse also conveys that whenever a change in her regular appearance was
seen, it was treated as a nimitta. In the last chapter
we found why Vyasa invoked the generic nature of Arundhati as a Shabda Pramāna,
in our discussion on pramāna based interpretation of the A-V verse. Only if her
generic state of appearance had been permanent, Vyasa could have treated the
changed appearance as a nimitta. In the above narration too, the changed appearance runs counter to her
generic appearance, warranting it to be treated as a nimitta.
Therefore a nimitta is a temporary appearance.
If this appearance had lasted for more than 6000 years as
Nilesh Oak claims, the sages would have stopped viewing Alcor as Arundhati and
started looking for some other binary that could fit-in the description of
Arundhati not obstructing the path of Vasishtha. They did so for the changed
position of the wives of the six rishis of the Sapta Rishi Mandala and picked
up Krittika to denote the six
wives. Similarly the Mizar- Alcor pair could have been abandoned and
replaced by another binary. Moreover the long duration proposed by Nilesh
Oak for the star to be in front of her companion runs against the very etymology
of Arundhati.
So what Vyasa had seen was a momentary appearance which was
not present when Karna, Drona and Yudhishthira watched the sky to take note of
the omens.
[1]Mahabharata:
5-141-2 http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs05141.htm
yo 'yaṃ pṛthivyāḥ kārtsnyena vināśaḥ samupasthitaḥ
nimittaṃ tatra śakunir ahaṃ duḥśāsanas
tathā
duryodhanaś ca nṛpatir dhṛtarāṣṭra suto 'bhavat
[2]Mahabharata:
5-141-5 & 6 http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs05141.htm
[3]Mahabharata:
5-141- 8 “kṛtvā cāṅgārako vakraṃ jyeṣṭhāyāṃ.....”
[4]Mahabharata:
5-141-12 http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs05141.htm
[5]
Mahabharata: 6-108 -3 to 16 http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs06108.htm
[6]Mahabharata:
16-1 – 1 to 6 http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs16001.htm
[7]“Arundhati-
Vasishtha (A-V) observation of Mahabharata” https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/02/03/arundhati-vasistha-av-observation-of-mahabharata/
[8]“Response
to Shri Shrikant Talageri – Part 8 of 8” https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/response-to-shri-shrikant-talageri-part-8/
[9]Ibid
[10]“Response
to Shri Shrikant Talageri – Part 8 of 8. https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/response-to-shri-shrikant-talageri-part-8/
[11]“When
Did The Mahabharata War Happen?” Page
187
[12]
Mahabharata: 6-108-3 http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs06108.htm
[13]
“When Did The Mahabharata War Happen?” Page 98.
[14]
Ibid. Page 58.
[15]Mahabharata:
6-23-40 to 44 http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs06023.htm
[17] Mahabharata:
5-141-2
[18] “yaḥ
prekṣāpūrvakārī bhavati saḥ adhruveṇa nimittena dhruvaṃ nimittamupādatte vedikāṃ
puṇḍarīkaṃ vā”. Maha Bhshya. on I.1.26 Vart.5.
[19]Brihat
Samhita: 46-3
[20]Nimitta
Choodamani. Translated by V.Raghavendra Rao www.saptarishisastrology.com
[21]Prasna
Marga: 1-5 to 8
[22]
Ibid.
[23]
B.V.Raman in Prasna Marga I- 5 to 8. Page 4
[24]Brihat
Samhita: 46 – 82.
[25]Brihat
Samhita: 46 -3
[26]Mahabharata:
1-224- 27 to 29 http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs01224.htm
[27]Mahabharata:
1-235 http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01236.htm
