................................................................................................
................................................................................................
When Did The Mahabharata War Happen?:
The Mystery of Arundhati;
by Nilesh Nilkanth Oak (Author).
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Oak’s thesis here involves use of astronomical phenomenon mentioned in Mahabharata to date the event, and he's certainly found a very plausible boundary of timeline post which it couldn't have been, using an observation about circumpolar stars that had been ignored until he didn't.
But, as is his usual overreach, he insists he's found a precise date, without explaining why previous cycles of 26,000 years are to be discarded as possibilities, or why his own discarding of various, traditionally established considerations is to be ignored without any rationale from him, except that of his own attitude.
So he ignores a most critical objection to his reasoning, presses on with his arguments, and as his usual, confuses poetic descriptions with astronomical observations, because it suits his convenience.
Worst of all, it's his habit to mix up the original text with his own, unproven, Assertions, to further claim support for his build-up of contentions, expecting a badgers reader to give up due to confusion. If this isn't deliberate dishonesty, it's a convoluted reasoning of a mind not yet clear about assertion, evidence, reasoning and proof, despite the long discourses he includes habitually battering a reader further.
Inexplicably, Oak refuses to even mention Jayadratha Vadha, the one definite indication of an exact visual observation of astronomical nature, while taking poetic allegories galore as astronomical observations instead, just because they suit his whimsical choice of date and an egotistical opposition to the Indian traditional understanding of the date that the war began, as per Indian calendar.
He continues this, even when research of his own shows a gap of almost a month in his calculations, so it becomes clear that the traditional Tithi is correct after all, as is the modern interpretation of Sun bring visible after having set on 14th day.
This makes the work, from the heights of a very promising beginning of the Arundhati and Abhijit observations, slip down to downright shoddy.
"• My theory proceeds from a simple, almost trivial, unifying idea that all astronomy observations around the time of Mahabharata War are visual observations of the sky.
"• My theory is independently testable. Anyone can access astronomy software such as Voyager 4.5™, follow through my book and test each Mahabharata observation.
"• I sought explanation for Arundhati observation, based on my theory, an observation otherwise considered absurd by entire research community (albeit with one exception), as visual observation at the time of Mahabharata War."
So far, true. But he still hasn't explained as to why he discarded all possible past timings modulo 26,000 years cycles, asserting that this interval he picked is the only possibility for Mahabharata having taken place.
Further, he has only tested more specific timelines proposed by previous researchers, and picked one that fitted more number of events as per his selection. But discarding the event of most vital importance by any criteria, and instead parading a basketful of poetic allegories as visual observations of astronomical nature, makes the whole effort by Oak not only worthless but supremely ridiculous.
This could be a minor point, or perhaps not so, but what Vartak, Oak and then Phadnis also, have overlooked, is that Gregorian and Julian calendars aren't impervious to precession of equinoxes; that as can be seen even on Wikipedia, 6,500 years ago, January 3rd was autumn equinox.
Shouldn't that be taken into account when discussing dates, as Oak is fond of doing so very assertively?
................................................................................................
"• My theory corroborates not only positions of the planets but also their movements as described in the Mahabharata text, specifically unique movements of Mars, Jupiter and Venus.
"• My theory corroborated descriptions of planets and rationale for them shining brightly at times, e.g. Jupiter and Saturn shining brightly or Mars turning in ‘apasavya’ direction while shining brightly with fearsome appearance.
"• My theory predicted ‘potential observations’ referring to the phases and the positions of the moon, which would corroborate or falsify a proposed timeline for the 18 days of War. I searched for these potential observations within the Mahabharata text, and by luck, found numerous observations.
"• My theory corroborated 100+ astronomical observations from the Mahabharata text. More importantly my theory passed numerous critical tests, which in turn provided consistent explanations for Mahabharata astronomical observations. ... "
Did he never realise he's failed, or was merely dishonest?
" ... Some of these critical tests are,
"1. Fall of Abhijit
"2. The Epoch of Arundhati ..."
These two were of importance in determining the possible intervals when Mahabharata could have taken place, modulo 26,000 years cycles before; he has still not explained, not only zeroing in on the very first possibility, but asserting there can be no other.
Rest of what he counts is of comparatively far less importance than the one event he has neither been able to fit nor explain, Jayadratha Vadha, and he chose instead to be dishonest by pretending that he hasn't noticed it.
Oak stuffs his work's bare skeleton with verbosity, expecting to exhaust his readers.
"It is always possible to introduce ad hoc hypothesis in any theory in order to save the theory from introducing contradictions. For this reason alone, a simple theory is preferred over a complicated one, where simplicity refers to testability. If ad hoc hypothesis leads to explaining away observations, rather than explain them, such a theory becomes inferior, especially when an alternate theory can corroborate ‘observations’ without an introduction of ad hoc hypothesis. Introduction of ad hoc hypothesis is a common phenomenon and is legitimate as long as ad hoc hypothesis does not turn the theory into a metaphysical program. In addition, introduction of ad hoc hypothesis should lead to growth of knowledge and at the same time should not introduce inconsistencies."
But he's done just that, and worse. He's ignored, or stuck with declaration of disdain, important parts of the works he's dated - Ramayana and Mahabharata - and avoided working to find better timeline in each case to fit what's known, and written in, the epics.
In case of Ramayana he's got entangled in a self made logical contraction by insisting that all details of celestial nature are visual observations, that he eouldnt get into astrological interpretations, and that exalted planets were merely those above horizon. This leads to absurdity about timeline of birth of Rama, which is at noon on a sunny day without an eclipse, do visual observation of five planets above horizon is absurd.
In case of Mahabharata he's merely ignored, after the insistence about all celestial descriptions bring visual observation of astronomical nature, the one key event that is undeniably such a description, and can only be explained as an eclipse very close to Sunset, getting over just before Sun actuslly set; the only other possibility is of declaration of acceptance of poet's version, a Divine Action of an intervention by Krishna using his Chakra to hide Sun.
Oak denies all of the latter by declaration of disdain for "traditional beliefs", not even giving a thought to possibility that there's traditional knowledge; former, he ignores, due to his laziness concerning finding a better timeline than one proposed by someone else.
Instead he spins a web out of the very thin material, not being content having found a good criterion or two to define possibilities of when Mahabharata did and could or could not have occurred, by testing other proposals and insisting he going the only possibility, claiming it fits a huge number of descriptions of astronomical observations. It's nothing of the sort.
And the one key, vital, visual observation that is of celestial, his timeline cannot fit, so he ignores it.
"I de-mystified Mahabharata observation of ‘Arundhati walking ahead of Vasistha’ and showed this to be a visual observation during the Mahabharata War. ... "
"This single observation defined higher and lower bounds for the timeline of Mahabharata War, ... "
It only defines a period of a few thousand years, closest to present presented by Oak as absolute single timeline, without justification of why he didn't check other timelines modulo 26,000 years cycles, why they are not viable, which he does state without any rationale thereof presented.
" ... and the observation had higher degree of improbability associated with it. The explanation of Arundhati observation and corresponding prediction of time interval for the plausible year of Mahabharata War falsified all existing proposals for the timing of Mahabharata War, with the exception of 4 proposals that fell within the ‘Epoch of Arundhati’. Arundhati observation acts as falsifying evidence for any year proposed after 4500 B.C."
He's only tested for timelines proposed by others before his work, but not admitted that the one he's termed successful is not so, that it fails the single greatest test of a visual description of an event of celestial nature.
" ... Set of observations describing the phases and the positions of Moon during the 18 days of War provide corroborative evidence for Amawasya as the first day of War and Kartika Amawasya as the first day of war, which also means month of Margashirsha as the month of Mahabharata War."
That's mostly a blatant lie, Oak having misinterpreted most of poetic allegories as visual observations to support his timeline, which actually does not fit the one celestial description of undeniably visual nature.
................................................................................................
With any honesty, works of Oak should have been titled something to the tune of "Oak’s Proof of ... " or "How I Solved ..." series, the actual words regarding subject of the particular work in a small, unobtrusive type.
As it is, one gets them expecting a little discourse about the subject itself; instead, there's a little about the problem of dating, but actual key words not explained for a long while, for a few chapters, until one's exhausted and given up; meanwhile he's gone one with his favorite theme of how he ..., what he ...., and so on.
"Once I started critically discussing work of others, I feared that my book would fill only with the criticism of others and my original work would get lost. I was also disappointed by the cocksure attitude of number of researchers, especially those who made their proposal based on only those Mahabharata observations that they presumed supported their timeline. Many of them did not bother to discuss numerous Mahabharata observations, which directly contradicted their timeline. ... "
As exemplified by Oak, who declares disdain for traditional position, due to his timeline of Mahabharata not being consistent with Gita Jayanti, or his date for birth of Rama showing not exalted planets, completely avoiding and not discussing the one indisputably visual astronomical observation in Mahabharata, Jayadratha Vadha? Because he'd have to either admit Divine Action, or admit complete failure of his choice of timeline?
" ... I began writing criticism, i.e. criticism of the theories and corresponding proposals for the year of Mahabharata War as propounded by 20+ researchers. They all had predicted the first day and the year of Mahabharata War. I realized that these researchers, with the exceptions of Vartak and Kane, have been selective in quoting Mahabharata astronomical observations. Many of them ignored vast number of Mahabharata astronomical observations. Still others claimed to have included certain observations in building their timeline they thought critical, and I could demonstrate how their theories were contradicted by these so called ‘critical’ observations. These researchers appeared to be blissfully unaware of this fact. I decided, only with great reluctance, to exclude the discussion of the works of other researchers, i.e. the criticisms of their theories and timelines for the Mahabharata War, with the exception of Vartak, from this book."
Oak wouldn't knowingly be writing there about himself, would he?
"What follows is summary of my theory and my proposed timeline of the Mahabharata war and why it should be considered a better theory, i.e. better than all existing theories (and proposed timelines)."
Oak saying that? What a surprise!
Imagine how long works of any scientist - or even a Mills and Boon sort of writer for that matter, at opposite extreme - would be, if they were to use this style. Imagine G.B. Shaw going on about his correspondence with, say, Isadora Duncan, in midst of his Pygmalion!
Well, actually those could be interesting. This is merely tiring. And more exasperating when one realises there's a promising beginning, which is good, not a solution, which is not a crime, but an attitude of disdain towards what Oak is afraid his colleagues and neighbours would question or ridicule him about, with a passing off of that lack of solution as not only a solution but the best solution possible, with the said attitude and disdain patching over the gaps - well, the exasperation is overwhelming. And as if that's not enough, Oak hammers it several times over!
Also exasperating is his habit of stating, hand-waving, asserting, and then presuming proof done, while it's nothing of the sort.
" ... forced to invoke other explanations such as either ‘astrological drishti’ or ‘descriptions of impossible events by Mahabharata author’. The problem with the latter two approaches is that once one decides to employ them, anything anywhere can be explained! ... "
Not true.
" ... The problem with ‘Astrological Drishti’ is that once one decides to employ it, anything anywhere can be explained! As soon as this happens, although theory may still retain its empirical character, is no longer falsifiable and scientific."
Not true.
"The Mahabharata War timeline begins with Krishna leaving Upaplavya to visit Hastinapur before the War and ends with the passing away of Bhishma, when the Sun turned north, after the War."
What follows is Oak’s list of his matching of events of Mahabharata with the single timeline he's picked, but there are three major faults.
One, he doesn't point out that the dates are his conclusions. Two, having gone on and emphasised over and over that he treats all celestial descriptions as visual observations of astronomical nature, he resorts to calling them poetic only if he can't date them or if they go against his thesis, but otherwise forces a visual correspondence if he finds farfetched justifications.
Three, he completely ignores the one event of humongous importance which cannot but be admitted as a visual observation of astronomical nature corresponding to an event on the battlefield. If he did mention it, he'd have to admit either that his timeline and all rest of his work here failed, and look independently for another timeline not given by previous authors, or admit Divine Action.
Dating Mahabharata by counting days, between events such as discussions prior to War and subsequent Bhishma Nirvana on or past winter solstice, is only a primary bit.
But not dating the one event of vital importance that must be fitted into timeline, makes this whole effort worthless as anything but work.
This event, ignored by Oak for most part except a barest mention, is the day Arjuna almost died, but for Krishna, who either knew about an impending solar eclipse while others obviously did not, and knew how people would react, or he used his Chakra as author of Mahabharata explicitly states, to hide the Sun just before sunset, and revealed it before it set, just as Jayadratha the murderer came out of hiding to see Arjuna climb onto his own funeral pyre.
Despite all tomtomming Oak dies about treating all celestial descriptions as visual observation of astronomical nature, he ignores the one description that is nothing but visual observation of astronomical nature, ignores the vital importance of correlation of this observation with events unfolding on battlefield, ignores vital importance of consequences of alternative, and pretends it's non-existence by not even mentioning it.
Oak couldn't be more dishonest if he vowed to do so.
................................................................................................
Oak begins not by introducing the subject but by talking about himself, and goes on and on, speaking of Arundhati observation, without explaining what he's talking about.
"Fifteen years ago, I stumbled on ‘Arundhati’1 observation, recorded in Bhishma Parva of Mahabharata. I liked this observation for two reasons. The observation had very high improbability associated with it. The only rational I could imagine on the part of Mahabharata author, to include such an improbable observation, was due to this being a factual observation at the time of Mahabharata War. If I could somehow test it, the observation held the key to falsification of ‘astronomical’ observations within the Mahabharata text. I could comprehend this observation, unlike numerous other astronomical observations within Mahabharata. I wanted to convince myself of the authenticity (or absurdity) of astronomical observations from the Mahabharata text, and ‘Arundhati’ observation was the most suitable for my purpose and abilities."
"It was not until 1997 A. D. when I began testing ‘Arundhati’ observation and it was not until 2009 A. D. when I succeeded in solving the mystery of Arundhati. My tests of ‘Arundhati’ observation not only resisted my falsification attempts, but also provided higher and lower bounds for plausible year of the Mahabharata War. The discovery of mine, as far as I am aware, is the first instance of such a precise prediction, albeit an interval bounded by higher and lower limits, for the plausible year of an ancient event, based on astronomical observations."
" ... Only 4 of these researchers had proposed years for the Mahabharata War that fell within the Epoch of Arundhati. ... "
If he's trying to be mysterious and pique interest, he's failing spectacularly - serious readers are highly irritated with this behaviour suitable more to a hindi film heroine of black and white era.
"Many researchers in last two centuries working on Mahabharata have precisely made this mistake. Some have used commonly accepted norms of astrology (and not astronomy), e.g. ‘Astrological drishti’ in describing Mahabharata references of a specific planet afflicting specific nakshatra. The problem with this approach is that once one starts using astrological interpretations, there is no stopping and thus anything anywhere can be explained!"
Isn't that the problem also with earning, cooking, feeding an infant, bathing, clothing, even eating?
Besides, if one's read anything by Oak, this attitude is not only familiar, but reminding one of the ridiculous ditches he digs himself into as a consequence. For example he asserts he assumes all astronomical observations of Valmiki Ramayana are visual, and interprets five exalted planets at birth of Rama as above horizon at the moment of birth! He doesn't dispute the birth being on Chaitra Shuddha Navami, at noon, so there's no Solar eclipse, and he hasn't realised that nobody does visual observation of five planets at noon on such a date at such a time, because it's impossible to do so from Earth.
So right away, reading this attitude posture here, one wonders what he's going to dig himself into and never realise it.
"Raghavan, Achar, Karandikar and few other researchers have proposed the beginning of Mahabharata War (the first day) near full moon day (Margashirsha Shuddha 11/12 through Margashirsha Purnima). These researchers invoke following observations in support of their theory,
"1. Traditionally celebrated day of Gita Jayanti. Gita Jayanti is celebrated on Margashirsha Shuddha 11.
"2. Late moonrise on the 14th day of War 3. Shravana nakshatra on the last day of War, based on statement of Balarama"
Oak emphatically declares traditional belief worthless. Wonder why he's taken trouble to do this work, then, since Mahabharata is traditionally believed by India to have taken place, as expounded by Vyasa, which too is traditional belief. There are no pyramid structures to prove existence of any of it. So why waste time dating something that's only traditional belief of India? For the same reasons that some so-called Indologists, with no connection whatsoever to India, do?
No, Oak is merely attempting to prove he isn't attached to his roots. Again, why bother? For neighbours and colleagues, to fend off ridicule? Why not cut it short and research West Asian documents instead? Too dangerous?
................................................................................................
"Solar Eclipse – The First day of War
"Voyager conjunction search shows that the solar eclipse of 16th October 5561 B.C. occurred at 12:57 PM and with a separation angle of 1.8°. I request experts to shed some light on the type of solar eclipse this would have been. The Mahabharata text does not specifically state the occurrence of the solar eclipse on the first day of War. Vartak identified Mahabharata observations 34, 35, which allude to the occurrence of the solar eclipse on the first day of War. I identified additional observations alluding to the same phenomenon."
This disproves the dates proposed and Oak has not realised it!
The famous - or, rather, very infamous - solar eclipse that happened during Mahabharata War couldn't have been on first day at noon, since it was after Abhimanyu had been trapped and set upon by a gang of enemies against the rules and butchered; Arjuna, who was fighting elsewhere, came to know of it, and vowed he'd kill the murderer of his son before sunset or else give his own life. He couldn't find the killer, hidden by the enemies. As it darkened and Arjuna prepared to climb his funeral pyre, the killer came out gloating, and so did the Sun reappear. Krishna promptly instructed Arjuna to aim, and it was done.
This, presented in Mahabharata as action by Krishna hiding the Sun by using his Chakra, has been argued by those unwilling to credit a weapon wielded by an Avatar, the God, Krishna, doing the job, as something that couldn't have been anything but a solar eclipse close to Sunset, thus giving illusion of a sunset, bit getting over before Sun set.
Obviously this was neither on first day of Mahabharata nor at noon. And since the War didn't go on over a month, but was of much shorter duration, there couldn't have been two eclipses.
"Disappearance of the Sun in the middle of the battle36
"As two armies engaged in bloody fight, on the first day of War, the Sun disappeared36. It is true that Mahabharata observer suggests dust raised by the armies as the cause of Sun’s disappearance. The time of the disappearance of the Sun was sometime around noon, but before the end of the first half of the first day’s War and it corroborates well with that of the time of solar eclipse."
But the solar eclipse isn't described in Mahabharata, merely happens to have been on the day selected by Oak as his choice, for whatever reason. This argument is fraudulent.
Mahabharata author was quite capable of stating it accurately if there was a solar eclipse. And the description would not be possible to confuse with light hidden due to dust raised.
There'd be stars visible, also planets close to the Sun including Mercury, and birds would be out in numbers too, especially crows, making a din of their calls, very noticeable.
"The Sun and the Moon seen on Amawasya38
"Satyaki and Abhimanyu were forced to fight from the same chariot with the Kaurava army on the third day of War and Mahabharata author compares them to the view of Sun and Moon, together, as seen on the past/recent (Gatau) Amawasya day38. The reader may recall that the Moon can be seen (edges of the moon) along with the Sun only during the solar eclipse, which occurs on Amawasya. I present observations related to the solar eclipse 29, 34, 35, 36, 38 as corroborative evidence for ‘Amawasya’ as the first day of Mahabharata war."
If Abhimanyu fought on day three, Amawasya was not until that day or next, at earliest. Krishna telling Arjuna "here's Sun and there's Jayadratha", commanding him to skay killer of his son instantly keeping presence of mind, instead of giving in to grief climbing onto the pyre, was either due to God Krishna performing a miracle and hiding Sun by throwing his Chakra until such time as Jayadratha came out of hiding as Krishna knew he would; or else, there was an eclipse close to Sunset and as darkness fell, only Krishna knew, and so didn't stop the funeral pyre building activities by Arjuna.
"The face of King Neel, killed by Ashwatthama on the 12th day of War, is compared with the full moon51 and so is the face of fallen Abhimanyu on the 13th day of War52. This observation also provides another peculiar analogy: the scene is described as if the moon had eclipsed52! Voyager simulation shows that the Moon was near the node (Rahu) on the 13th day of the War. ... "
Oak gives a long list of various people compared to Moon hereafter. But the point is, either he must explain the Jayadratha slaying, with Sun reappearing in West after having set, as a solar eclipse for a short duration close to time of Sun setting, but with eclipse getting over before sunset; or claim that it was Divine Action by God Sri Krishna who used his Chakra to hide Sun just so Jayadratha would come out of hiding.
And if latter, why avoid astrological terminology so assiduously, claiming everything of that nature is visual observation, when logically its obviously false? Such as Oak’s mist idiotic interpretation of exalted planets at birth of Rama being that they were all above horizon!
So Abhimanyu killed on 13th day makes next day or that day, when Arjuna slayed his son's murderer, the solar eclipse day, by any so-called rational thinking. Else one needs to explain that phenomenon, whether as Divine intervention or invent another one. Oaks usual disdain as "not giving importance", presumably, to whatever he can't comprehend or solve?
Oak gives a long list of various people compared to Moon, most of them dead on battle field.
" ... I present these Mahabharata observations and their
comparison with that of the full moon, during last the 7 days of War as corroborative evidence in support of ‘Amawasya’ as the first day of War."
Somehow it's seriously doubtful that if a full Moon were really shining above, anyone would look on a dead face and find it comparable to the Moon above, even a dead warrior's mother. So the sole argument seems about light that allowed the battle to continue.
People did have torches, and the war was getting critical, people were probably not as much in family mood as on day one (most peopleinvolved, at the top, being related, much like the Royal mob in WWI, only more so), especially after the treacherous murder of Abhimanyu.
The far more critical point remains the event regarding Sun setting, seemingly but convincing everyone, and again suddenly shining in West, whence Arjuna could slay the murderer of his son instead of climbing onto his own funeral pyre.
If this wasn't a solar eclipse close to Sunset but over just before, and one isn't going to argue that it was Divine Action by God Sri Krishna who used his Chakra to hide Sun just so Jayadratha would come out of hiding, seeing Arjuna getting ready to climb his own pyre, one has to find another convincing explanation purely of physical level. One somehow assumes that thinkers post 19th century would have found one, that such an explanation does not likely involve any discovery of science thereafter.
"5. Bhishma is compared with the full moon on the first day of War. This analogy conflicts with my timeline since the first day of War is Amawasya, per my proposed timeline.
"6. The Mahabharata text states analogy of the solar eclipse, during Bhima-Duryodhana fight, on the 18th and the last day of War. This day was closer to the full moon day and nowhere close to Amawasya. Thus the analogy of the solar eclipse appears to conflict with my timeline.
"7. When Krishna left for Hastinapur, the Mahabharata observation states that it was the end of Sharad season. This observation, suggesting the season when Krishna left on a peace mission, directly contradicts my timeline. The Mahabharata War took place, per my timeline, during the Sharad season. In addition, I conjectured time interval of an additional lunar month and 7 days between the first day of Mahabharata War and the end of Krishna’s visit to Hastinapur (i.e. Krishna-Karna meeting)."
The fifth point is serious for Oak because he has vowed to treat every such mention as not only a direct visual observation of astronomical nature but also one that was instantly conducted. So he is forced in all honesty to conclude that the war began close to a full Moon clearly visible.
It's in harmony with the solar eclipse interpretation of Arjuna avenging murder of Abhimanyu event of Sun seemingly setting and being visible again in West.
Also, if day 14 was solar eclipse in the evening, just before sunset, Oak’s sixth point above would harmonize with his own principles about poetic imagination not being on the loose but firmly tied to instant and immediate visual observation of astronomical nature.
The final point of Oak seems to indicate that his and any other interpretations hurrying the war are incorrect, and that even after Krishna visiting Hastinapur, there must have been time gap, not so much for preparation of armies as for diplomatic missions whereby various other kings were asked by each of the two sides to join theirs. Since this was pretty much going around India, the war itself must have been fixed with a good site in mind and an auspicious muhourta too, in advance of the hour fixed for beginning, as evidenced by the armies travelling up country from Hastinapur to Kurukshetra.
And the muhourta simply couldn't have been fixed for an Amawasya with a solar eclipse at noon.
Reality? Still not a step further.
His general proposed bound for Mahabharata War being before 5,000 BCE, very good; his fixing on 5561 BCE, ok, but unconvincing, as is his unproven assertions about all possible past timings modulo 26,000 years cycles before his timeline being out of question.
His insistence on Margashirsha and on an Amawasya, that too one with a solar eclipse at noon, for a beginning of the war, out of question unless he's declared the events of 13th or 14th day of Arjuna avenging his sons murder with Jayadratha slaying as result of a direct Divine Action intervention by Krishna, and not merely a solar eclipse that Krishna knew was about to occur, giving illusion of a Sun setting earlier.
Oak will have to accept his timeline is wrong by that much, although generally in a good neighborhood due to major considerations.
"The Problem
"Mahabharata observation describes late moonrise, which directly contradicts my proposed timeline. Ghatotkacha was killed around the midnight of the 14th day. The fight continued and the soldiers of both sides were injured by arrows and were exhausted, long before half of the night was over91. Arjuna noticed this condition of the army on both sides and said to the fighting armies, “You and your animals are exhausted and are overpowered with sleep. The battlefield is covered with darkness due to enormous dust in the air. If you consider it appropriate, stop the fight and rest for a while92. After the moonrise (or when the moon is visible again), you may resume the fight”93. Both sides accepted the proposal, warriors retired from fighting and slept for some time.94 After sometime the Moon appeared in the sky95.
"Late moonrise on the 14th day of War necessitates that the War began around the full moon day. Raghavan/Achar and few others have attempted such proposals. All such proposals run into difficulty while corroborating observations of the night of 14th day of War and numerous additional observations."
Oak neither mentions what difficulties not why or corroboration with what, but obviously if Jayadratha slaying on 13th or 14th day was instantly after solar eclipse, then night of 14th day would have moon rise very late, indeed, just about at dawn, in fact.
"This late moonrise on the night of the 14th day of War is impossible for my proposed timeline, since the 14th day of War, per my timeline, is near the full moon day. This is then the problem of late moonrise. I have borrowed a lot from P V Vartak in solving this problem. However I have proposed a different solution and have also corroborated descriptions of the moon, which in turn removed the need for additional ad hoc conjectures employed by Vartak."
Why not attempt a better pinpointing within a good timeline, having found one? Why stick to Amawasya as muhourta for first day? Why not solve Jayadratha first?
Timeline of the events – 14th day of the War
"The time of the appearance of the moon (either reappearance or moonrise), although approximate, can be estimated. The fight resumed, sometime after ‘moonrise’, when only 3 out of 15 Muhurtas (Muhurta = 48 min) of the night were still remaining96. Voyager simulation shows the sunrise at 6:30 AM on the 15th day of War. This would mean the fight resumed 3 Muhurtas before 6:30 AM, which would be around 4 AM. The Mahabharata text refers to time of approximately 2 Muhurtas between moonrise or reappearance of the moon, and resumption of the fight 97, 98. This would mean the moonrise occurred around 2 AM."
This corresponds with, of course, 13th day of the War being Solar eclipse, over just before sunset.
Why does oak stick to the terminology of science in using labels such as "Error Elimination – Experiment", when it's none of those except error? It would be far more appropriate to label each as "testing foe corroborative evidence ", for example; and here, this piece of evidence is the most definitive (next to Jayadratha slaying, not even mentioned by Oak), and Oak’s theory fails spectacularly here.
Why he didn't reconsider his assumptions about dating the War at Margashirsha Amawasya, is a question that seems to have only his own ego as clue so far.
"Description of the Moon on the 14th day of War
"Assuming late moonrise around 2 AM, the phase of the moon is such that the moon is only 5 days away (~34% illumination) from the Amawasya day. Late night moonrise is expected during the time of the lunar month close to but before Amawasya day.
"On the other hand the rising Moon is described as similar to the bow of Kamadev (Cupid) ... "
Surely anyone would recognize that this means a crescent?
" ... and the Moon was shining with full brightness100. In no time, rays of the moon dimmed the brightness of nakshatras and exhibited first signs of the dawn97. ... "
Coming after a dark night, a Moon would brighten up the hour before dawn, especially as dawn followed close on heels of the moon anyway.
" ... After exhibiting signs of the dawn, the moon started spreading broad light, similar to the golden rays and began destroying the darkness101. Within one Muhurta, the battlefield was bright and the darkness completely vanished98. The battlefield was bright like a day, once the moon started shining102. The warriors woke up with the touch of the rays of the Moon, similar to the waking up of lotuses due to the rays of the Sun. The excitement arose within the army similar to the turbulence of the ocean due to the rising of the moon, and the fight resumed103. "
Oak is attempting to exhaust the reader into agreeing to any idiotic assertion of his, and here it comes.
"I assert that descriptions of the moon presented here are suggestive of the time of the full moon or near full moon, rather than of a time close to Amawasya."
Not possible, the late rising of Moon on night of 14th, dawn of fifteenth, close on heels of Jayadratha slaying.
Unless Arjuna was unable to find him until fifteenth day, which fits everything perfectly, except the insistence by Oak on his pick of the precise date, tithi etc al, due only to ego, and assertion about not caring about traditional belief.
Admit it, Oak, and man up! You did a good job in finding Epochs of Arundhati, and Sannyas of Abhijit (why term it "fall"?), but the insistence on fixing a Tithi and date and year was too ambitious, while having made mistakes there due to lazy and shoddy work, attempting to justify a late rising Moon of dawn as full Moon is both stupid and dishonest.
................................................................................................
Oak next gives gory descriptions of night of 14th under the title of "Error Elimination – Experiment 59", while so far he's given extremely little of the text (and never in original); what error of his it eliminates by doing so is totally unclear.
Calling these attempts to corroborate his theory (and if it doesn't, insist that it does, anyway) as he does, the label he uses - "Error Elimination – Experiment" - is so very false, it's transparently dishonest.
The dishonesty is further exposed by this claim of his.
"I conjecture that rising of dust was the cause of disappearance of full moon during the night’s fight on the 14th day. In addition, the warriors and their horses and elephants were exhausted. Against this background, Arjuna suggested that both sides should stop the fight and take some rest until the moonrise or reappearance of the Moon, before resuming the fight92. This is when both parties accepted the offer and slept for some time94."
But he has quoted the text to the effect that the Moon looked like a Cupid's bow! Is he trying to fool readers into forgetting that bows are nothing like full Moon in shape, but a crescent certainly is like a bow? Height of dishonesty, Oak!
"Why did the fight continued into the night?
"I was under the impression that both parties agreed to end the fight each day at sunset. I do not know why I made such an erroneous assumption! No wonder I was surprised to read that the fight continued into the night on the 14th day. In addition, no leaders of either side objected to the continuation of fight past sunset. This episode made me re-read portions of the Mahabharata text where ground rules for the War were set. This is when I realized my mistake. The rules emphasized maintaining respectful relationship after the battle of the day was over, but never stated that the fighting should be stopped at sunset107.
"I conjecture that while no strict rules were in place to end the fight, the fight continued each day as long as there was sufficient light to carry it out. Notwithstanding the rules laid down for the war etiquettes, it appears that both parties engaged in a fight on any given day either until they were severely exhausted or until severe darkness forced them to stop the fight."
Oak must truly be an ABCD. Why doesn't he seem to know, that stopping battle for the day at sunset and bring courteous to opposite side thereafter, is as germain to civilisation of India since antiquity, until invading barbarians changed it over a millennium ago, is otherwise inexplicable.
This need not have been especially written down or emphasised prior to battle any more than not striking an unarmed opponent was, code of Arya and Kshatra Dharma being well understood by everyone in battle field.
But this war was humongous and unusual, not only due to size but the close relationships and interpersonal animosities and histories thereof, so the furore of the battles changed it all, particularly so after Abhimanyu was set upon by a whole gang - a no-no - and struck when down, another no-no, amounting to murder rather than duel.
This changed the character of the War, from first day when armies were still even after conches were blown, as Arjuna wasn't ready to kill family and elders, while God Krishna expounded Gita, and in evening the opposing sides met courteously - to the gory nights after Abhimanyu was murdered by an evil, dastardly gang that included his own uncles.
Oak is unaware of the civilisation of ancient India, so much so he expects a written document of contract between parties here, rather than something akin to England's constitution, not written but no less valid than that of US.
Oak reinterprets Moon rising late as Moon reappearance after settling of dust.
" ... My interpretation not only solves the problem of the late moonrise but also provides consistent explanation for all Mahabharata observations related to the fight, including full moonlike descriptions, on the night of 14th day of War.
"On the other hand what we do know is that if one insists on ‘late moonrise’ interpretation, such an assumption contradicts practically all observations discussed in the context of ‘late moonrise’ of the 14th day as well as all Mahabharata observations discussed in Chapter 8 and one observation of seven planets attacking moon of Chapter 7. ... "
No, it only goes with Oak’s picks, but not with the most vital description that's not poetic imagery, about a Sun reappearing after having set, after 13th morning and after Abhimanyu had been murdered. Oak still ignores this most vital description.
................................................................................................
"Bhishma fell in the battle on the 10th day of War and the War continued for 8 more days. Ashwatthama killed Dhristadyumna, Shikhandi and sons of Draupadi during the night of 18th day of the War. The Pandavas subdued Ashwatthama the next day and the Kuru women visited the battlefield in search of the bodies of their beloved. Yudhishthir asked Sudharma, Dhaumya and others to perform final fire rights for those fallen in the War. Vidura, Sudharma, Dhaumya, Indrasen and others arranged fire rights and made huge funeral pyres111. After these events, Yudhishthir went, with his brothers and Dhritarashtra, to the bank of Ganga112 and spent up to a month on the bank of Ganga113.
"The Pandavas returned to Hastinapur amid a great celebration, after spending a month on the bank of Ganga, and the timing appears to be near full moon day 114-117. ... "
Oak doesn't clarify whether it's full Moon day according to Mahabharata or only due to his choice of beginning date. This makes next parts suspect, if they depend on this.
" ... Yudhishthir was crowned as the King and he assigned his brothers and other surviving members of the Kuru family to various posts. Yudhishthir assigned various palaces to his brothers, paid compensation to the relatives of deceased warriors, and honored Krishna. The Mahabharata text is not explicit on the length of time interval when these incidents took place.
"After the crowning of Yudhishthir and assignment of offices, Krishna asked Yudhishthir to visit Bhishma and seek guidance from Bhishma. Yudhishthir left Hastinapur, per Krishna’s suggestion, along with his brothers, Krishna, Satyaki, Kripacharya, Yuyutsu, and Sanjay to meet Bhishma118. Yudhishthir and his entourage arrived at Kurukshetra. ... "
Oak is very fond of not sparing his reader any gory descriptions, and he gives those here.
It's starting to realise that Bhishma, the elder, not only a Crown Prince who had given up all his rights promising to serve and protect progeny of the second wife his father wished, but a God born on Earth due to a prank committed under his leadership in his natural habitat of heaven, was alone without family on this exhausted battlefield, having - but necessarily - chosen the wrong side in the war.
"Yudhishthir visited Bhishma for last but one time, on the 51st day before Bhishma Nirvana, along with extended entourage that included Dhritarashtra, Gandhari, royal priests and ministers 129. In this way, Yudhishthir spent six days (51-56th days before Bhishma Nirvana) in the company of Bhishma, seeking guidance from the latter. Yudhishthir took leave of Bhishma at the end of the 6th day (51st day before Bhishma Nirvana), promising to return as soon as the sun turned north, went to Hastinapur and remained engaged in the affairs of the state for next 50 nights130."
Even the old couple, bereft of sons, wasn't able to stay with the elder who'd fought for their sons?
Oak, after giving descriptions of the clan visits and so on, adds up the number of days of Bhishma on his last bed, and so the Interval from beginning of the War to winter solstice.
"I could draw following conclusions, (1) Bhishma was lying on the bed of arrows for 9 nights out of 18 days (or nights) of the War. (2) He was also lying on bed of arrows when the Pandavas spent approximately one month on the bank of Ganga. I estimated 27 (sidereal month) days, as a conservative estimate, for this month long period113. The actual time period could be anywhere from 27 to 30 days. (3) The Mahabharata text is not explicit on number of days between return of the Pandavas to Hastinapur and their first visit to Bhishma. Let’s assume that the number of days for this time interval was equal to ‘X’. (4) Bhishma spent additional 56 days leading to the day of Bhishma Nirvana120.
"I estimated total number of nights spent by Bhishma, on the bed of arrows as follows,
"Total Number of nights spent by Bhishma, on bed of arrows
"10 through 18 days of the War 09
"The Pandavas on the bank of Ganga 27
Time Interval: Return to Hastinapur & meet Bhishma X Time Interval: First meeting & Bhishma Nirvana 56
= 92 + X (days)"
" ... I assert that Bhishma was lying on the bed of arrows, based on above timeline, for 98, and not 58 nights."
Has he realised that his calculations change his favorite pick? If instead of roughly sixty days, it's over ninety, then the beginning is indeed on the traditional tithi of Gita Jayanti, namely, Kartika Shuddha Ekadashie, and were closer to fitting in the knowledge of an imminent solar eclipse helping God Krishna to save life of the hero, Arjuna.
No, Oak doesn't realise it, and keeps arguing that he's confirmed his date!
"I realized that even the author of this alleged interpolation, whoever he may be, had assumed Kartika Amawasya as the first day of Mahabharata War. This is because the reference assumes the day of winter solstice, 58 days removed from the fall of Bhishma which also means 68 days removed from the first day of Mahabharata War, and since the day of winter solstice is described as Magha Shuddha Ashtami, it follows that Kartika Amawasya was the first day of Mahabharata War, 68 days before the day of winter solstice."
He flagellates those that propose another tithi for the beginning of the war, bur he's forgotten that he just calculated 90+ days, after waiting text and adding up.
"In any case, I would add that reference to 58 days also points to the day of Magha Shuddha Ashtami and Rohini nakshatra. And these references individually or together also point to Kartika Amawasya as the first day of War, i.e. (20-21 days of Margashirsha + 29-30 days of Pausha + 7-8 days of Magha), an obvious fact lost on those researchers who have proposed a day other than Kartika Amawasya as the first day of War (Raghavan/Achar, Karandikar, Sengupta) while still claiming observations surrounding Bhishma Nirvana as critical in building their timeline."
But he's just made the case for roughly just over three, not roughly short of two, months! Why's he still pressing for the incorrect timeline? He's failed to realise that, having asserted that Bhishma was on his last bed for roughly 98 days, he's taken the War to at least ten days before Kartika Amawasya, when Bhishma fell according to Oak’s calculations; and so the traditional beginning on Gita Jayanti fits, as does solar eclipse on the 14th day of War. This amounts roughly to the whole period being of 104 days, but with tithi often lapsing, I.e., month being ~27 days as Oak points out, it's even exactly at the traditional date.
No, he prefers to cheat rather than correct his mistakes.
"Add to this fun one Adhika masa. For example if one interprets Magha (the full moon of 28-29 December 5561 B.C.) as Adhik Magha (intercalary month) and next month (the full moon of 27 January 5560 B.C.) as Magha, in that case, Bhishma died on Magha Krishna 4."
"Bhishma Nirvana & Sharad Season
"Bhishma fell in the War on the 10th day and ~98 days before the day of winter solstice. This means the Mahabharata war began ~108 days before the day of winter solstice, and thus Sharad season had just begun (~12 days into the season) when the Mahabharata war started. ... "
He goes on asserting contradictory timelines, instead of adjusting his pick, and doesn't look at the most telling event of the war, Jayadratha Vadha.
But this count of 108 days has taken us close to Kartika Ekadashie as beginning of the war and solar eclipse just before sunset on 14th day.
" ... seven planets attacking the moon on the 14th day of War. After Arjuna killed Jayadratha, fight resumed. The timing was that of the evening of 14th day of War. ... "
That seven planets attacking is poetic allegory, but Sun setting and then visible again, enabling Arjuna to kill Jayadratha, isn't; 14th day was Amawasya, then, and as Sun set, it had changed to the next tithi and month, eclipse bring over just before Sunset. So the War began before Pournima, and a matter of Tithi being not 24 hours each, Kartika Ekadashie was the correct Tithi.
"My Theory
"1. All astronomy observations in Mahabharata are ‘visual observations’ of the sky."
Because Oak can neither imagine poets with retention of memory using poetic allegory, nor astronomers and astrologers of yore predicting events of celestial nature in advance by calculations, and so has all descriptions of celestial nature involve a poet looking up at heavens and down and battlefield in rapid succession as he roams about with a notebook and ink pot, or a scribe?
"2. Mahabharata astronomers were meticulous and patient empirical astronomers. They were inheritors of even farther ancient tradition of astronomy observations. Mahabharata astronomers had means to observe objects in the sky, which would not be otherwise visible to a naked eye."
He's playing safe there, mentioning neither instruments thereof nor yogic powers; latter he can't, after the explicit statement of disdain for "traditional beliefs" asserted so early (CYA against neighbours and colleagues in West?); former is unprovoked, there are no records thereof, unlike Pushpak Vimana of Ramayana.
"3. Mahabharata author’s motivation for noting down specific astronomy observations during and around the time of Mahabharata War was to create records of Mahabharata War. These observations were embedded in the Mahabharata text. Mahabharata author embedded these observations as is and also in the form of similes signifying bad omens, engagement of key warriors on the battlefield or death of principal warriors."
Yes, Oak cannot imagine anyone being compared to Moon or Venus unless there's actually one in skies, visible, right then and there!
"I had also stated that one would, very likely, find numerous additional astronomy observations within the Mahabharata Text. I found numerous astronomy (or chronological) observations and corroborated them with the predictions of my theory. My list is not complete by any means and I encourage readers to search for additional Mahabharata observations."
So he ignores the one key observation of humongous importance, with nary a mention, and does this last line above - as CYA against criticism by everyone familiar with Mahabharata, which is India plus a few more?
................................................................................................
The third chapter about astronomical observations, and explanations thereof, describes figures explaining astronomical observations, in particular precession of equinoxes. It's a puzzle when he goes on and on with no figures in sight, while one patiently expects them to appear on next page.its an unpleasant surprise when one realises they don't accompany the chapter but instead are banished to the end of the book.
This inefficient arrangement couldn't have been designed to torture the readers, could it? Was it profitable? Wonder how stupid children's story books in US would look doing that. Are they exorbitantly expensive due to not foing do? That'd explain the dominant lack of literacy in the first nation.
................................................................................................
Chapter four is about astronomical observations in Mahabharata, and thereby also about Indian calendar.
"While the West was still thinking, perhaps, of 6,000 years old universe – India was already envisioning ages and eons and galaxies as numerous as the sands of the Ganges. The Universe so vast that modern astronomy slips into its folds without a ripple.
"- Houston Smith"
................................................................................................
" ... I conjecture that the Vedic practice of performing ‘Yajna’ or ‘Satra’ with clear aim of keeping track of time and to make necessary corrections was well established by the time of Mahabharata. ... "
Thats silly. So small an aim is achieved pretty well, by anyone incarcerated, by markings on walls with elementary systems! Yajna and related spiritual rituals are too elaborate a construction for so small an aim.
Is Oak trying to fend off queries by colleagues out West about his creed?
"Usage of ‘Varsha’ for a year also suggests the beginning of a year with the rainy season, and in the Indian context that meant on summer solstice. At least one of the many beginnings of a year can be said to begin with summer solstice during Mahabharata time, unless of course the term continued its use from Vedic times when ‘Varsha (rain)’ and summer solstice were used as beginning of a new year and thus coincided with beginning and end of ‘Satra’ or ‘Yajna’ or ‘Samvatsara’. Mahabharata is thus not explicit regarding the beginning of a new year. ... "
Oak hasn't perhaps been as familiar with Sanskrit as with West, and it hasn't occurred to him that the two words that seem related might be due to anther reason, related to the root of both; he's not remembered that fir example, one of the terms for cattle in Sanskrit is related to this root as well, but another to the word for Light, so one can't conclude that cattle was seen as clouds or rain. Or year.
This root might be the one related to increase, which fits al of these - and also the word for old.
................................................................................................
" ... Mahabharata is clear about daily calendar being lunar in origin and also about the fact that approximately two additional months were added every five years in order to synchronize lunar calendar with the solar calendar2."
"Mahabharata calendar employed lunar months in daily practice and this is apparent throughout the text. On the other hand, Mahabharata society was aware of both lunar and solar years, and choice of lunar vs. solar year was responsible for Duyrodhana’s confusion regarding the total duration spent by the Pandavas in exile."
Or he could have been lying about confusion, obduracy regarding ousting the superior cousins being reality, jealousy being key, as in case of antisemitism or anti-Hindu, anti-India attitude and policies across space and time.
"Luni- Solar year & Yuga
"The word ‘yuga’ has multiple meanings however I want to emphasize one of the many contexts in which it is used in the Mahabharata. Yuga I am referring to is the Yuga of 5 years. Incorporation of additional two lunar months every five lunar years brought lunar calendar in accord with the solar calendar. Bhishma refers to insertion of two Adhika masa (extra months) during each five-year period2."
" ... There is no clear reference in Mahabharata, referring to starting point of the lunar month. We have to infer the beginning of the lunar month from available evidence. Available evidence, per P V Kane, suggests two beginnings for the month, one starting with new moon day (Amanta), as is the case at present and another starting with full moon day (Purnamanta). Mahabharata calendar had twelve lunar months, including one extra month, which was inserted every two and half years3. ... "
"I have assumed Amanta reckoning for lunar months throughout the book."
But North India uses the other, months ending in full moon. What if that was so during Mahabharata too? There seems no reason why people would change after!
" ... On new moon day, moon’s unilluminated side is facing the Earth and thus is not visible, except during a solar eclipse. ... "
No, that's incorrect. What's discernible is evidence of the fact of Moon having come in a line between Earth and Sun, by the shadow it casts on Sun, but not that it is Moon. Else, people would have known it was the Moon casting shadow, by simply looking, but it wasn't so. It was realised much later, despite knowing that a solar eclipse always occurred only on a no Moon day.
................................................................................................
"Mahabharata method of referring to the day is by referring to the Nakshatra closest to the Moon. One can determine the lunar month with reasonable accuracy by knowing the nakshatra of the day along with the Paksha and the phase of the moon.
"In Indian calendar system ‘Aha’ may refer to period of time when the Sun is above the horizon, ‘Ratra’ may refer to the time when the Sun is below the horizon and ‘AhoRatra’ as referring to modern 24 hours day. It is important to note that words ‘Aham’ or ‘Ratra’ were also used to designate ’24 hour day’ in Mahabharata times. ... "
That last part is incorrect; ‘Ratra’ or ‘Ratri’ is always night, just as nomenclature in most languages goes, while ‘Aham’ or ‘Aho’ denotes , 'Day', also used in both senses in English and to be understood by context, whether it means a 24 hour period, or the time that light lasts within the said 24 hour period, or from Sunrise to Sunset.
In tropics, of course, and through most of India, the twilight is a very short period compared with its duration in latitudes closer to either of the two poles where daylightlast much longer after sunset and begins much earlier, especially in summer.
So there's no confusion, usually, about precisely what's intended by the word.
................................................................................................
"The Mahabharata text describes planets afflicting (pidyate) or attacking (akramya) specific nakshatras. Mahabharata researchers, proposing a theory and corresponding timing for the War, are required to interpret these Mahabharata observations. Observations can be interpreted in multiple ways. For example, the Sun and the Moon can be visualized as fighting against each other on the full moon day, at the time of sunset or sunrise. The same analogy might even be used on the day of Amawasya when both of them are next to each other."
Does Mahabharata ever refer to Sun and Moon fighting? That isn't ever known or thought in India, and if it were in Mahabharata, there would be such a tradition. So Oak is being callous to India's sensibilities.
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 7
"Some astronomers have speculated extremely slow motion of Arundhati around Vasistha. The motion suggested is indeed speculative in nature. I will name this conjecture ‘motion of Arundhati around Vasistha’. If such a motion does exist, astronomers predict that it will take some 750000 years for Arundhati to complete one circle around Vasistha. If so, for certain time period during its orbit around Vasistha, Arundhati could be envisioned as walking ahead of Vasistha. All the problems discussed in the context of North-south movement of Arundhati and Vasistha (Error elimination - Experiment 6) also apply to this scenario, in addition to the fact that the motion of Arundhati around Vasistha remains highly speculative.
"Error Elimination – Experiment 8
" ... I realized what a significant change in Declination of some stars (e.g. Abhijit) could be caused by the precession of equinoxes. I wondered what that might mean to the relative Declinations of Arundhati and Vasistha."
" ... Measurements using Sky Gazer showed that Arundhati and Vasistha would have had attained same Declination in 44320 BP, instead of my earlier crude calculations of 20200 BP.
" ... I was looking for a possibility of Vasistha being north of Arundhati due to the effect of the precession of equinoxes. DD started declining as experiments progressed into the past, advancing with a jump of 1000 years, however only after few data points the trend reversed and DD began to increase. DD never changed from positive to negative, a scenario I was eagerly hoping for. The magnitude of ‘Declination Delta’ did show oscillations during simulation, nonetheless DD never turned negative."
"Error Elimination – Experiment 9
"I defined Right Ascension Delta (RAD) as,
"RAD =RA (Arundhati) – RA (Vasistha)
"I defined RAD in such a way so as to yield positive values for the current period (2009 A.D.). I simulated measurements for RAD, advancing with a jump of 1000 years, beginning with the present, and going backward in the past. ... Arundhati did walk ahead of Vasistha in the past and had stopped walking ahead of Vasistha sometime after 5000 B.C. As I progressed with my experiments, I found out that Arundhati did stop walking ahead of Vasistha sometime around 13000 B.C. This meant during the recently completed cycle of the precession of equinoxes (cycle of precession with Polaris as pole star twice), Arundhati was walking ahead of Vasistha during the approximate time interval bounded by 4000 B.C. and 13000 B.C. I conjectured that the phenomena would have repeated itself during each cycle of the precession of equinoxes. I estimated such time interval for the previous cycle of the precession of equinoxes, jumped to that period (e.g. 30000 B.C. - 39000 B.C.), ran my simulation and confirmed what I had expected.
"Although I could nail down neither a single year nor unique time interval for Arundhati walking ahead of Vasistha, at least I had found time interval that possibly repeated during each cycle of the precession of equinoxes, when Arundhati walked ahead of Vasistha. I called this repetitive time interval ‘Epochs of Arundhati’, when Arundhati walked ahead of Vasistha. ... "
" ... I refined my search along the lower bound of the latest ‘Epoch of Arundhati’ and found that RAD went from positive to negative sometime between 4380 B.C. and 4390 B.C. I inferred 4380 B.C. as the lower limit on the year of the Mahabharata War. The significance of this discovery was thrilling! This discovery meant that the Mahabharata War did not take place anytime after 4380 B.C.! The discovery carried with it a great deal of force and even if this were the only observation from the Mahabharata text I could produce, it would render the unavoidable conclusion that the Mahabharata War took place sometime before 4380 B.C.!"
"My work of previous night had also alluded to the fact that these ‘Epochs of Arundhati’ lasted for few thousand years during each cycle of the precession of equinoxes. Although I could state that the Mahabharata War did not take place anytime after 4380 B.C., I could not say with confidence that it indeed took place during the time interval bounded by 4380 B.C. and 13000 B.C. In principle, the Mahabharata War could have taken place during any one of the multiple ‘Epochs of Arundhati’."
Wonder what makes him change from that frame, and put forth a proposal for a specific year, here, or in case of his work on Ramayana. Upto here in this work, his results and conclusions are correct so far. He definitely went wrong in logic due to his assumptions regarding astrology in his work on Ramayana.
"I repeated my experiments using Voyager 4.5TM and realized that Lady (Luck) Arundhati had not left me yet. Epochs of Arundhati turned into the Epoch of Arundhati!
"When I re-simulated RAD calculations, taking into account proper motions of stars, the length of epoch shortened. I could define the Epoch of Arundhati as time interval between 11091 B.C. and 4508 B.C. This is the time interval when RAD had negative values, which also meant Arundhati would have appeared to walk ahead of Vasistha during this ~6500 years time interval. This interval of 6500 years is the interval where one should search for the year of Mahabharata War. I assert that the Mahabharata War did not happen even a day late than year 4508 B.C.!
"If humanity survives for another 11000 years (13000+ A.D.), it will witness another ‘Epoch of Arundhati’ however as far as the past is concerned, there was only the Epoch of Arundhati."
He isn't explaining why it'd repeat in future but did not in past.
................................................................................................
Oak brings up another research on the subject.
" ... I consider such combination neither required nor justified. For fun and only as hypothetical exercise, I want the reader to recall it and apply it to my results."
" ... I could imagine an observer in Mahabharata times, interpreting the phenomenon described by ‘ingenious combination’ of R N Iyengar. ... An observer, noticing Arundhati walking ahead of Vasistha (who otherwise was walking behind Vasistha) may visualize the celestial North Pole (and North Pole star if there was one available) blazing and fiercely moving in reverse direction, as an explanation for the miraculous walking of Arundhati ahead of Vasistha! ... "
From what Oak has quoted of work of R N Iyengar, the latter has quoted two separate verses from Mahabharata, -
"Arundhati has gone ahead of (her husband) Vasishtha1"
"Dhruva, the Pole Star blazing and fierce, is moving anti-clockwise14"
- and while they aren't together in the original, they indeed seem to fit Oak’s own rules and strictures about each being astronomical visual observations!
Moreover, isn't Oak always going on (and on and on and on and on and on and on ... ), about his disdain for other scholars who ignore what doesn't fit their theories?
Here's the second such instance where Oak does it, first being about the disdain for obviously astrological nature of much in Ramayana, especially the description by Valmiki of planets at time of birth of Rama.
Iyengar presumably didn't say Earth rotated in opposite direction, but merely quoted what was equally mysterious. Perhaps there is an explanation for that, seemingly impossible, description too.
Here's a few facts - in his work on Ramayana, Oak says Vega is the only bright star amongst all candidates for pole stars; he fixes the timeline for Ramayana based on this assertion by himself.
Yet here's a quote from Mahabharata about a brilliant star, designated pole star during Mahabharata era and called Dhruva in Sanskrit, Pole Star.
Since the timelines of the two epics as fixed by Oak are nowhere close, the pole stars couldn't be close. So there's more than one choice of a brilliant star for a pole star, to begin, at the very least.
Perhaps there was another phenomenon during Mahabharata era to the effect of the description in that second verse, is the possibility that must be considered.
Ninth planet come close from North, as a long shot, and being retrograde?
................................................................................................
"I agree with the hypothesis of P V Kane that Mahabharata author had, at his disposal, multiple sets of astronomical observations, more likely prepared by multiple observers around the time of Mahabharata War. Usefulness of this hypothesis can be judged by its ability to make sense of available astronomical data. This hypothesis explains multiple descriptions of the positions of planets, however, with different twists/analogies as well as different time durations for each set of observations. For example, while astronomical observations of Udyoga Parva are made over a relatively shorter period of time (8 months), those of Bhishma are made over an extended period of time (~ 30 months), before and after the War."
Why the extreme reluctance to mention the term astrology? Calendars in India, Indian, complex ones, are prepared ahead for the year by astrologers, who do the computation work for what's termed Panchaanga, and this includes predictions not only for Sun, Moon and Earth but all planets.
References in Mahabharata might or might not be visual alone, but must have included works of astrologers, not dependent on observations but predicting instead, a year or more ahead. This requires far more courage apart from precision of calculations. Any prediction not coming true would result in fall in prestige resulting in people no longer believing the particular astrologer.
What the Royal family had in Mahabharata wasn't observers, but astrologers who computed ahead of time, what to expect of astronomical observations.
................................................................................................
"I grouped multiple references of same phenomenon, e.g. Saturn afflicting Rohini, comet in the vicinity of Pushya, Marks on the moon getting covered or Mars afflicting Chitra. The summary of planetary observations is as follows,"
Oak falls to realise, with all his emphasis on treating it as visual observations (which is his way of avoiding saying the word rational), that here's something unusual, of extraordinary importance.
"Marks on the moon getting covered "??? This hasn't been recorded in known history of West!
He also fails to realise some of the said observations were not possible in span of a year. He's, moreover, not given timings thereof, so one assumes they are given in a sequence of story as told and of time.
"1. Saturn near Vishakha for a year (along with Jupiter)6
"2. Saturn near Uttara Phalguni10
"3. Saturn afflicts Rohini 8, 9"
Saturn couldn't possibly be anywhere near Rohini if it was in vicinity of Vishakha and Uttara Phalugni, so the affliction is of aspecting, astrological in nature, not visual observation.
"4. Jupiter near Vishakha for a year (along with Saturn)6
"5. Jupiter goes Vakri near Shravana11"
If Jupiter is near Vishakha it couldn't possibly be near Shravana within the year, that travel spans well over a year. On the other hand it's not aspect, so Oak missed something in assuming it's all within a year.
"6. Jupiter afflicts Rohini, after the sunset on the 17th day of War, similar to the Sun and the Moon12 (i.e. as the Sun and the Moon were afflicting Rohini, on the first day of War23)"
Again, Jupiter couldn't be anywhere near Rohini within the year of being around Vishakha.
"7. Mars goes vakri near Magha 11
"8. Mars goes vakri near Jyeshtha/Anuradha13
"9. Mars traveling in apasavya (reverse, unnatural) direction by becoming steady between Chitra and Swati, while shining brightly with fearful and cruel appearance 14"
This "fearful and cruel appearance" is puzzling, to anyone used to seeing skies. Mars is red, yes, but just about discernible slightly more so than most other celestial bodies visible, not as much as Betelgeuse generally. And neither can be really said to look fearful.
Was Mars close to Earth in past?
Else it's an observation made after its astrological interpretations following predictions based on preparation of calendar or Panchaanga of the coming year.
"10. Mars afflicts Chitra13
"11. Mars heading straight to Shravana/Abhijit region14
"12. Mercury traveling through all nakshatras15
"13. Mercury seen rising ‘Tiryak’ (oblique, unnatural, unusual) after the sunset on the 17th day of War16"
Mercury can't, ever, be seen rising after sunset. It's always close to Sun, and at best is high enough in West after Sunset to be clearly visible. Also, it's speed at best isn't visible within the time after sunset to make a retrograde motion discernible.
Was there a comet occulted by Mercury?
"14. Venus (Bhrugusoon), Mercury (Shashijen) and Mars (Dharaputra) seen in the western part of the sky, at the end of 18th day of War17
"15. Venus making a parikrama (around another planet) while turning north near Purva Bhadrapada, in the company of another planet18
"16. ‘Shweta’ (or Budha) planet settled near Chitra 19"
Shweta literally means white; that could very well be Venus.
"17. ‘Shyama’ (or Shweta) planet shining brightly and settled near Jyeshtha 20"
Seems to refer obviously to Saturn.
"18. ‘Tivra’ planet and/or nakshatra in the vicinity of Krittika 21"
That is likely Mars.
"19. Great comet and/or spread of great comet settled near Pushya 21, 22
"20. Seven planets seen along with the Moon in the sky – the evening/night of the 14th day of War 23
"21. Seven Planets seen near the Sun (first day of the War)24
"22. Seven Planets seen going away from the Sun (17th day of the War)25"
References to seven planets are perhaps about known five, plus two smaller planets in asteroid belt?
"23. The Sun and the Moon, together afflicts Rohini (on the first day of War)26"
If this is visual observation, it's definitely a day or two after Amawasya. Else it's not visual observation.
"24. Moon’s mark was covered and Rahu was approaching the Sun 9, 19, 27"
This is description of an anticipated eclipse, and Moon therefore isn't visible. Else it's about a day before, Moon is a crescent seen without any marks, and eclipse is approaching, the last being astrological calculation and definitely not visual observation.
"25. The full moon of Kartika was devoid of effulgence. The moon appeared coppery red and so did rest of the sky28"
Lunar eclipse, obviously.
"26. Two eclipses (solar & lunar) within an interval of 13 days29"
The only slightly unusual part is combination of 13 day interval within two eclipses.
"27. Up to 3 eclipses – 2 lunar and one solar based on reference to 14th day of Krishna Paksha (of Kartika)28, 29"
Can happen, has in recent past, less than a decade ago.
................................................................................................
"Jupiter & Saturn near Vishakha6
"My first simulation begins on 16 October 5562 B.C., one year before the first day of Mahabharata War. Jupiter is near Mula (Shaula) and Saturn is near Hasta (Algorab), positions nearly equidistant, in nakshatra space, east and west of Vishakha (Zubeneschamali), respectively. I employed DVATM technique with Vishakha at the center, and simulated the sky view with single day as a step change, for a year, until 16 October 5561 B.C., the first day of War. Jupiter stayed in the region of Mula-UttaraAshadha, Saturn stayed in the region of Chitra-Uttara Phalguni. I treated this as satisfactory corroboration of this Mahabharata observation6. I may mention that this was merely a verification of Vartak’s explanation."
No astrological expert would agree, and presumably astrological experts of Mahabharata era weren't less than those of the day in preparation of Panchaanga; two nakshatras away isn't vicinity, and being gour nakshatra away isn't being together.
Vishakha, besides, isn't the brightest of that region, Swati and Chitra are, in that order. So a visual observation unsupported by astrological knowledge would mention only those, especially when the proximity of one of the planets is more to them than to Vishakha.
So treating this as satisfactory is implying that astrologers of Mahabharata era were as shoddy at astronomy and asttonomical observations as Oak.
................................................................................................
"The Mahabharata text has 3 planetary observations where planets are simply listed as ‘Shyama’20, Shweta19’, ‘Tivra’ or ‘Tikshna21. Such generic names can provide open field for researchers. Researchers can imagine these planets to be planets that suit their fancy but more likely those that suit their timeline.
"Mahabharata observation of a ‘Tikshna’ or ‘Tivra’ planet near Krittika was intriguing21. It was intriguing because Mahabharata author referred to the planet as both ‘graha’ (planet) and ‘nakshatra’. Vartak has interpreted this observation, correctly I think, as referring to Pluto. ‘Nakshatra’ literally refers to one that does not move however Mahabharata author referring to a ‘nakshatra’ with respect to Krittika, another nakshatra, was the intriguing part! Vartak inferred that the word ‘nakshatra’ might have been used to mean ‘extremely slow moving planet’. He did his calculations assuming this ‘Tivra’ or ‘Tikshna’ planet/nakshatra to be Pluto and corroborated his hunch.
"My task was then simply to re-confirm what Vartak has already figured out. Pluto is seen between Rohini and Krittika, rather closer to Rohini on the first day of War. This is sufficient corroboration of this Mahabharata observation21. I want to bring it to the attention of the reader that the Mahabharata text has observations made over an extended period of time around the Mahabharata War. Pluto was between Rohini and Krittika during its retrograde motion as well as prior to reaching Rohini. This observation demands telescopic ability, i.e. access to such instruments in Mahabharata times. This ability is also required to explain few other Mahabharata observations."
Possibly it wasn't quite telescope as much as yogic ability. It's very possible they had instruments such as telescopes, but hardly likely they had a Hubble; if the existence and placements of outer planets were known, it's hardly likely India's astrology would not only have no records but forget them completely. Yogic abilities of a particular person is quite another matter.
................................................................................................
"Unusual (Tiryak) rising of Mercury on the 17th day of War (after the sunset) 16
"I would be willing to assert that most readers have not seen the planet Mercury, at least knowingly. Mercury is plenty bright, brighter than Abhijit (Vega) or Saturn. ... "
That is not strictly speaking, always true; if one has attempted observing it over years, what's vlear is that Mercury can appear very bright, but only rarely. Most often, especially in summer with its long twilights, Mercury is only visible if one knows exactly where to look, and is patient, scanning with binoculars.
Rarely, not very often, it's bright and easily visible. It's always a rewarding feeling to find it, due to either brightness or difficulty thereof, but Oak’s assertion about Mercury bring bright, brighter than Saturn, is uncommon, it's bring very elusive and difficulty of locating it being more often true.
Whichever phase it is, whether bright or elusive, it continues for the duration of that appearance, each appearance West succeeded by its retrograde motion having Mercury set and reappear mornings in East next, and so on.
" ... Difficulty of observing Mercury is due to its elusiveness. Mercury orbits so close to the Sun that even when the Earth and Mercury are ideally aligned in their orbits and Mercury is at aphelion, Mercury is still never more than ~ 27° from the Sun. This means observing Mercury is confined to a narrow band of dawn and twilight hours when the glare of the rising or setting sun inevitably interferes with observation. Mercury orbits the Sun in ~88 days, which means its position in the sky shift rapidly and thus a favorable window of time to observe Mercury does not last long.
" ... two distinct observations of Mercury in the Mahabharata text. Both observations occur at the tail end of War, i.e. the 17th and 18th day of War and provide ‘falsifying tests’ of higher degree. Mercury is described as rising in an unusual, oblique or abnormal fashion (Tiryak) after the sunset on the 17th day of War16. The observation requires that the position of Mercury is east of the Sun and have enough separation from the Sun in order for Mercury to be visible, in spite of the glare of the setting Sun.
"Voyager simulation shows position of Mercury, on the first day of the War, to the east of the Sun and separation of 8.4° between them. This separation continued to increase and reached 16.2° on the 17th day of War. An observer, observing western horizon every day, during the Mahabharata War, at sunset, would have observed Mercury as if rising from the west due to Mercury attaining higher altitude each passing day. This is then the explanation for the unusual or abnormal (Tiryak) rising of Mecury16."
It's an attempt at explanation to got the Voyager simulation to Mahabharata mention of Mercury, but it fails, clearly, for anyone used to look for and at Mercury in West. The said 8.4° degree separation is simply not good enough for a visual observation, even with astronomical or astrological precise prediction helping one to locate it. The ending 16° is barely good enough, if either one has binoculars, or it's winter, with twilight bring short.
What Oak is missing is the significance of the adjective Tiryak, which is about its being located off the ecliptic, or the great circle from a setting Sun in West to any rising objects in East, where one would generally find the planets if any. Mercury off this, and ideally to South of this great circle, which happens in winter, is far easier to locate, and occasionally even very bright. Opposite is when even the very next summer it's visible in West, setting after Sun, in long twilights of the summer, and so most elusive despite good powerful binoculars.
................................................................................................
"Seven planets seen near the Sun24 (First day of the War)
"Seven planets were seen near the Sun24. I assert that the observation belongs to the first day of War. Initially, I was not sure whether the observation referred to the factual information that there were seven planets in the sky along with the Sun or that these seven planets were seen along with the Sun in the sky."
Astrology of the time admits nine planets including Rahu and Ketu, while Sun and Moon were counted as planets everywhere around the globe. If it was strictly and only visual astronomical observation, it's everything but Ketu close to Sun, obviously.
"I speculate that the planets were seen along with the Sun, during the solar eclipse, on the first day of War. Whether they were seen or not, Voyager does confirm presence of seven planets from east to west: Neptune, Uranus, Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Mercury and Saturn. Positions of all planets, with respect to the position of the Sun, were to the east, only with the exception of Saturn which was to the west of the Sun."
Saturn being below horizon wasn't observed, of course. Neptune isn't visible to naked eye, while Uranus is. So even if the planets outside Saturn's orbits were known to anyone in India, this isn't visual observation.
So it must have been astrological prediction about seven planets being close to Sun, and possibly a visual observation, of as many as could be seen, to confirm. This list then must include, with approaching eclipse, Moon and Rahu, not Neptune.
It seems ambitious to include Uranus, since it's inexplicable why knowledge thereof would subsequently be lost to India. Knowledge of most of ancient Indian treasures of knowledge wasn't, including rising of Himalayan ranges from the ocean North of India as it vanished.
................................................................................................
Seven planets seen attacking the Moon23 (Evening/night – 14th day of the War)
Observation refers to seven planets attacking the Moon23 and employs this analogy to describe the war scene of seven Kaurava brothers attacking Bhima. The observation is of the evening/night sky on the 14th day of War. Voyager simulation shows the full Moon rising in the east and seven planets lined up to attack the Moon, from east to west: Pluto, Neptune, Mars, Venus, Uranus, Mercury and Jupiter."
It's an easy solution to claim that this proves India, or at least astrology in India, was aware of the ice planets outside Saturn's orbit; but it's only a kazy solution, it's really not likely, without an explanation such as yogic power, and that would then imply a knowledge of much more - asteroid belt, Kuiper belt, and all the minor planets known now, and even those not known yet.
Oak chose the lazy solution because it's easier to claim and leave it at that, without bothering to explain why such knowledge was lost to India. So much so he forest mention it as a question.
It's because the only other solution is to give up the visual observation condition and admit astronomical observations were possibly conducted but only as confirmation of predictions by astrologers of positions of various celestial objects, and the seven planets attacking a full Moon rising East in evening would include a Sun setting west and a node about to grasp Moon.
................................................................................................
"Seven planets going away from the Sun25 (17th day of the War)
"Seven planets were seen going away from the Sun on the 17th day of War25. While it is possible that the planets might have been seen along with the Sun during the eclipse on the first day of War, the planets could be seen only before sunrise or after sunset on the 17th day of War. Voyager simulation of the first day of the sky showed six planets to the east of the Sun and one planet (Saturn) to the west. The Sun and the Moon, of course, were together on the first day of War due to solar eclipse/Amawasya. Voyager simulation shows seven planets, after the sunset, on the 17th day of War. They were, from east: Pluto, Neptune, Mars, Venus, Mercury and Jupiter.
"The fact that seven planets could be seen in the sky immediately after the sunset is sufficient corroboration for this Mahabharata observation25, however I would like to add that the statement ‘going away from the Sun’ might refer to the fact that these seven planets were moving to the east, i.e. away from the Sun, unless of course any one of them were in retrograde motion.
"Voyager simulation showed that all planets were going away from (towards east) the Sun, with the exception of Pluto. Pluto was retrograde. The reader may keep in mind that movement of Pluto is extremely slow, whether normal or retrograde, and will appear practically stationary over a short period of time."
Again, it's not possible to see planets further than Uranus with naked eye, and it's a far tougher problem about knowledge of outer planets bring lost after Mahabharata, apart from nobody mentioning any names thereof. So the seven must include Moon and Rahu (or Ketu in case of Moon), apart from Saturn. Oak doesn't say if Saturn was retrograde, and if so, those were the ones meant.
Also, even in modern times, Ceres was seen before Pluto and counted as planet until discovery of asteroid belt, so anyone able to see Pluto must have seen Ceres, too, apart from asteroid belt, Kuiper belt, and minor planets such as Haumea to Sedna.
If it was done with instruments, it's between puzzling to out of question that there's no record thereof anywhere including in Mahabharata. After all Ramayana does mention Pushpak Vimana. And also, there's no name mentioned gor any of these other planets.
If it was yogic power, again, what was seen besides the known and conceived nine (including Sun, Moon, Rahu and Ketu) would be recorded - and known to later generations even if the said power were lost after say, just one person, as in case of Sanjaya seeing and hearing and reporting everything of the War to Dhritarashtra.
................................................................................................
"Brightly Shining Comets (!) in the Sky
"Jupiter, Saturn and Mars are described as shining brightly. While Jupiter and Saturn6 are described with an adjective ‘Prajwalita’, Mars14 is described with an adjective ‘Prajwalita ghora’. Shyama20 planet is also described with an adjective ‘Prajwalita’. I could not identify this ‘Shyama’ planet based on its generic identification ‘Shyama’ and its position near Jyeshtha20 (Error Elimination - Experiment 26)."
Amongst the known planets, "Shyama" or dark fits only Saturn. Only other option is Rahu which cannot be called ‘Prajwalita', being seen only as a shadow. Uranus which has been identified and can be seen with naked eye, doesn't look dark, and photographs thereof by telescopic cameras or by Voyager are tinged a beautiful blue-green. Neptune similarly is a beautiful blue very like that of Earth seen from anywhere outside atmosphere of Earth. Pluto's photographs show it a lovely golden not unlike titanium, and Ceres is loveliest of them all (with possible exceptions of Moon and Venus), with its shading of pink-white-peacock hues.
So one may ask, was there another planet, now lost? Or are they talking of years other moon of earth, 3753 Cruithne, known now for a while? Were there more? One has just been discovered.
The other possibility, very strong, is that Oak has misinterpreted verses where an object is mentioned repeatedly as done commonly in Sanskrit, with adjectives. So Shweta could be Jupiter or Venus, Shyama obviously Saturn and Tivra must be Mars.
If Oak had quoted the actual verses it'd be clearer.
"Three planets (Jupiter, Saturn & Mars) are bright, distinct and easy to spot in the sky and as a result I did not pay much attention to their adjectives with respect to specific Mahabharata observations until I came across an interesting hypothesis (by BNN Achar and also by Mohan Gupta) that these Mahabharata observations were referring to comets! Rational criticism of the works of other researchers, including Achar and Gupta, would fill another book and thus I will limit my discussion to their specific claim of these observations being that of comets. While Achar treats all observations of 3rd Adhyaya of Bhishma Parva as either observations of comets or purely poetic imagination in describing horrifying situation before the impending War, Gupta treats all observations of planets from this Adhyaya as comets."
Oak argues, however, that they were familiar planets instead.
"Prajwalita could be translated as begin to blaze, flame forth, burst into flames or burns/shines brightly. Ghora could be translated as dreary, horrible, dreadful, awful, frightful, scary or terrific.
"Jupiter and Saturn are described as shining brightly and settled near Vishakha for a year before the Mahabharata War. Keep in mind that the brighter the object appears, the lower the value of its magnitude. Saturn had magnitude of 1.1 on 16 October 5562 B.C., one year before the War, its brightness increased and was as high as 0.6 during latter half of January 5561 B.C. Saturn had magnitude (brightness) of 1.0 on the first day of War (16 October 5561 B.C.). Jupiter had magnitude of -1.8 one year before the War, became brighter (magnitude = -2.7) during April-May 5561 B.C. and dimmed back to -1.9 by the first day of War.
"Mars is described as settled between Chitra and Swati, began moving in apasavya (abnormal, unusual) direction, shined brightly and would have been perceived as shining with dreadful appearance. Mars (along with Saturn) are considered planets with evil influences in our times and that may be the case in Mahabharata times. In fact we have at least one Mahabharata observation14 where Mars is referred to as Parusha (harsh, cruel, unkind) graha. Voyager 4.5TM confirmed that Mars became retrograde between Chitra and Swati, began moving backwards (west) and by the end of February 5561 B.C. and became very bright (Magnitude = -2.1). It is worth remembering that at this level of brightness, Mars would have shined brighter than anything else in the sky except the Sun, the Moon and Venus.
"Venus turned retrograde near Purva Bhadrapada and, as expected, it became bright during retrograde. Mahabharata observation does not specifically refer to brightening of Venus during retrograde. Venus is as such plenty bright and the change in brightness during retrograde would not have been noticed or considered worthy of mention (from average magnitude of -3.9 to -4.6). In fact beginning with the first day of the Mahabharata War through its parikrama (retrograde) around Neptune in the region of Purva Bhadrapada and then resuming its normal movement, Venus had shown small variation in brightness, i.e. from -4.4 (16 October 5561 B.C.) to its brightest value (-4.6) during December 5561 B.C. and back to -4.3 by March 5560 B.C."
................................................................................................
"Comet attacking Pushya 21, 22
"The Mahabharata text has two instances of observations related to a fearsome comet 21, 22. One observation states that ‘great fierce comet has settled near Pushya’22 and another observation states that ‘the spread of the comet is settled near Pushya’21. There are numerous comets and their visibility from the Earth depends on their proximity to the Earth during their visit to the inner portion of the solar system. Comets with well-known orbits that have orbital period of less than 200 years are called Short-Period comets. As of 2008 A.D., less than 200 short-period comets are known.
"Mahabharata Observation does not specify additional information, other than stating that the comet and/or spread of the comet were settled near Pushya. This information is not sufficient to identify a comet from the known comets today. I ran a simulation with step change of a day, using DVA™ by locking the position of Pushya and observing the view of the sky near Pushya for a period of two years before and after 5561 B.C. No specific comet appeared and/or settled near Pushya, an observation that would corroborate Mahabharata description.
"Vartak interpreted Mahabharata observations 21, 22 as referring to Haley’s comet; performed calculations based on orbital period of Haley’s comet and inferred that Haley’s comet must have been seen during the War. Voyager simulation shows that this is not the case. ... "
" ... during apparition, comet would more than likely (usually, but not always) occupy lot more space than space of one nakshatra (Pushya). In addition, a comet would travel through multiple nakshatra space within a span of few days and thus specific reference to Pushya would be meaningless and cannot be corroborated. This postulate tuned out to be a useful one and led me to design another experiment.
"I activated the settings for all known short-period comets (known to NASA), and with the help of DVA™ began noticing moving stellar objects (comets) in the vicinity of Pushya. Lo and Behold, I found Haley’s comet in the vicinity of Pushya! Haley’s comet stayed in the vicinity of Pushya until it was ready for its next apparition. In fact it is during the apparition that the Haley’s comet started moving away from Pushya. It did not take me long to appreciate the meaning of Mahabharata observation, assuming of course the comet referred to in the Mahabharata text is indeed Haley’s comet. Mahabharata text is stating that the fearsome comet is not in its apparition and thus rather settled near Pushya19 and comet that is not in apparition can be visualized as one whose spread has collapsed on itself 21. Haley’s comet has orbital period of ~75 years and at apparition it remains visible for few weeks/months at most. Thus my interpretation appears trivial at first glance since one would wonder what would be the purpose of Mahabharata author in stating such a phenomenon of non-apparition, which is the reality for some ~75 years out of orbital period of ~75.3 years. The objection raised is entirely valid. On the other hand, while trivial, this interpretation of mine corroborates Mahabharata observations 21, 22 and corroboration is easy to demonstrate using DVA™ with step function of one year. Voyager simulation shows Haley’s comet in its non-apparition state and in the vicinity of Pushya for 99% of its orbital period and goes away from Pushya only during apparition."
Oak again pushes for recognition of knowledge of three ice planets to India in and perhaps before Mahabharata era, while insisting on this being based on visual observation.
Again, if such technology existed, it would be mentioned by name, as was Pushpak Vimana, and so would be the three ice planets. But then, so would be Ceres and the asteroid belt, and much else we know of now.
" ... I could easily eliminate 5228 B.C. however 5561 B.C. turned out resistant to my falsification attempts. Voyager simulation corroborated, for year 5561 B.C., twenty-five Mahabharata observations of planets and comets, falsified none and could not explain and/or corroborate two observations 19, 20.
"While I did not test all 110 potential instances within the Epoch of Arundhati for the year of Mahabharata War, I did test 38 potential instances (based on relative positions of Saturn near Bhaga and Jupiter near Shravana) over a shorter period of 6500 B.C. - 3500 B.C. ... "
"The year, 5561 B.C., proposed by Vartak is the only year that could meaningfully corroborate twenty-seven planetary and cometary observations. ... "
................................................................................................
"Solar Eclipse – The First day of War
"Voyager conjunction search shows that the solar eclipse of 16th October 5561 B.C. occurred at 12:57 PM and with a separation angle of 1.8°. I request experts to shed some light on the type of solar eclipse this would have been. The Mahabharata text does not specifically state the occurrence of the solar eclipse on the first day of War. Vartak identified Mahabharata observations 34, 35, which allude to the occurrence of the solar eclipse on the first day of War. I identified additional observations alluding to the same phenomenon."
This disproves the dates proposed and Oak has not realised it!
The famous - or, rather, very infamous - solar eclipse that happened during Mahabharata War couldn't have been on first day at noon, since it was after Abhimanyu had been trapped and set upon by a gang of enemies against the rules and butchered; Arjuna, who was fighting elsewhere, came to know of it, and vowed he'd kill the murderer of his son before sunset or else give his own life. He couldn't find the killer, hidden by the enemies. As it darkened and Arjuna prepared to climb his funeral pyre, the killer came out gloating, and so did the Sun reappear. Krishna promptly instructed Arjuna to aim, and it was done.
This, presented in Mahabharata as action by Krishna hiding the Sun by using his Chakra, has been argued by those unwilling to credit a weapon wielded by an Avatar, the God, Krishna, doing the job, as something that couldn't have been anything but a solar eclipse close to Sunset, thus giving illusion of a sunset, bit getting over before Sun set.
Obviously this was neither on first day of Mahabharata nor at noon. And since the War didn't go on over a month, but was of much shorter duration, there couldn't have been two eclipses.
................................................................................................
"The Sun appeared as if split in two parts34
"Solar eclipse seen from the Earth may be perceived as ‘the Sun appearing as if split in two parts’34."
Oak fails again, in two respects. He hasn't quoted the original verses, so it's unclear if he misinterpreted. And he hasn't explained how Sun could possibly look like split in two due to a solar eclipse.
Was this a case of sundogs, observed usually in arctic latitudes with snowbound landscape? Did Kurukshetra have an unusually frosty day?
Or Oak’s misinterpreted as he often does, mistaking a poetic allusion for an astronomical observation? Safe bet.
"Morning Sun with its splendor lost35
"Mahabharata observation states that while army was waiting for the sunrise, wind started blowing and raindrops appeared without clouds in the sky. Soon the war field was covered with darkness. Big meteor fell from the sky and crashed (appeared as if it crashed) into the rising Sun and made a loud noise. The Sun appeared with its splendor lost35. I consider this as corroborative evidence for the occurrence of the solar eclipse."
That's totally nuts. Meteor fall isn't solar eclipse! Nor is raindrops without clouds anything like solar eclipse.
Oak has this habit of connecting whatever phenomenon to impossible conclusions of his choice And indistinguishable he's proved it. This is another of those occurrences.
"Disappearance of the Sun in the middle of the battle36
"As two armies engaged in bloody fight, on the first day of War, the Sun disappeared36. It is true that Mahabharata observer suggests dust raised by the armies as the cause of Sun’s disappearance. The time of the disappearance of the Sun was sometime around noon, but before the end of the first half of the first day’s War and it corroborates well with that of the time of solar eclipse."
But the solar eclipse isn't described in Mahabharata, merely happens to have been on the day selected by Oak as his choice, for whatever reason. This argument is fraudulent.
Mahabharata author was quite capable of stating it accurately if there was a solar eclipse. And the description would not be possible to confuse with light hidden due to dust raised.
There'd be stars visible, also planets close to the Sun including Mercury, and birds would be out in numbers too, especially crows, making a din of their calls, very noticeable.
"The Sun and the Moon seen on Amawasya38
"Satyaki and Abhimanyu were forced to fight from the same chariot with the Kaurava army on the third day of War and Mahabharata author compares them to the view of Sun and Moon, together, as seen on the past/recent (Gatau) Amawasya day38. The reader may recall that the Moon can be seen (edges of the moon) along with the Sun only during the solar eclipse, which occurs on Amawasya. I present observations related to the solar eclipse 29, 34, 35, 36, 38 as corroborative evidence for ‘Amawasya’ as the first day of Mahabharata war."
If Abhimanyu fought on day three, Amawasya was not until that day or next, at earliest. Krishna telling Arjuna "here's Sun and there's Jayadratha", commanding him to skay killer of his son instantly keeping presence of mind, instead of giving in to grief climbing onto the pyre, was either due to God Krishna performing a miracle and hiding Sun by throwing his Chakra until such time as Jayadratha came out of hiding as Krishna knew he would; or else, there was an eclipse close to Sunset and as darkness fell, only Krishna knew, and so didn't stop the funeral pyre building activities by Arjuna.
"The moon rising with its pointed ends down48
"The planets were described, on the 10th day of War, as circling either the Sun (or the Moon) in an abnormal direction signifying inauspicious omens, while the Moon was described as rising with its pointed ends directed downwards48."
That sounds more like a partial lunar eclipse than any other possibility of an explanation. It's definitely not poetic and definitely is a visual description.
"I could not interpret the circling of planets around either the Sun (or the Moon) however the rising of the Moon with its pointed (non-smooth) ends downward corroborates well with the rising (or visible) moon during ‘Shukla Paksha’ of any month, i.e. bright half of the lunar month. I present this observation in support of ‘Amawasya’ as the first day of War."
This was tenth day, and if War began on Amawasya, it was well past half Moon; a gibbous Moon doesn't look anything like what Oak describes which sounds more like a crescent facing down, but that's out after half Moon has passed. So the only other possibility is of a partial lunar eclipse at moonrise.
"The face of King Neel, killed by Ashwatthama on the 12th day of War, is compared with the full moon51 and so is the face of fallen Abhimanyu on the 13th day of War52. This observation also provides another peculiar analogy: the scene is described as if the moon had eclipsed52! Voyager simulation shows that the Moon was near the node (Rahu) on the 13th day of the War. ... "
Oak gives a long list of various people compared to Moon hereafter. But the point is, either he must explain the Jayadratha slaying, with Sun reappearing in West after having set, as a solar eclipse for a short duration close to time of Sun setting, but with eclipse getting over before sunset; or claim that it was Divine Action by God Sri Krishna who used his Chakra to hide Sun just so Jayadratha would come out of hiding.
And if latter, why avoid astrological terminology so assiduously, claiming everything of that nature is visual observation, when logically its obviously false? Such as Oak’s mist idiotic interpretation of exalted planets at birth of Rama being that they were all above horizon!
So Abhimanyu killed on 13th day makes next day or that day, when Arjuna slayed his son's murderer, the solar eclipse day, by any so-called rational thinking. Else one needs to explain that phenomenon, whether as Divine intervention or invent another one. Oaks usual disdain as "not giving importance", presumably, to whatever he can't comprehend or solve?
Oak gives a long list of various people compared to Moon, most of them dead on battle field.
" ... I present these Mahabharata observations and their
comparison with that of the full moon, during last the 7 days of War as corroborative evidence in support of ‘Amawasya’ as the first day of War."
Somehow it's seriously doubtful that if a full Moon were really shining above, anyone would look on a dead face and find it comparable to the Moon above, even a dead warrior's mother. So the sole argument seems about light that allowed the battle to continue.
People did have torches, and the war was getting critical, people were probably not as much in family mood as on day one (most peopleinvolved, at the top, being related, much like the Royal mob in WWI, only more so), especially after the treacherous murder of Abhimanyu.
The far more critical point remains the event regarding Sun setting, seemingly but convincing everyone, and again suddenly shining in West, whence Arjuna could slay the murderer of his son instead of climbing onto his own funeral pyre.
If this wasn't a solar eclipse close to Sunset but over just before, and one isn't going to argue that it was Divine Action by God Sri Krishna who used his Chakra to hide Sun just so Jayadratha would come out of hiding, seeing Arjuna getting ready to climb his own pyre, one has to find another convincing explanation purely of physical level. One somehow assumes that thinkers post 19th century would have found one, that such an explanation does not likely involve any discovery of science thereafter.
................................................................................................
Here's more stretching by Oak, misinterpretation of text to fit his proposal.
"Five sons of Draupadi protecting Dhrishtadyumna58 &
"Five bright stars protecting the Moon I noticed this observation in the Mahabharata text only because I knew what I should be looking for. In the absence of specific expectation, this is a generic observation and may not carry much value. Five sons of Draupadi are described as protecting Dhristadyumna, their maternal uncle, by surrounding him, on the 17th day of War and Mahabharata author compares this military arrangement with the Moon protected by (5) bright stars in the sky58. I conjecture that the (5) bright stars (referring to five sons of Draupadi) protecting Dhristadyumna are 4 stars of Punarvasu (Pollux, Castor to the north & Procyon, Gomeisa to the south) along with Alhena to the west. The full moon is to the east of these stars and can be visualized as protected by these five stars."
One, it's not clear that the comparison is of a direct observation overhead at the instant.
................................................................................................
"The full moon near Krittika"
Again, Oak either confuses himself, or worse, dishonestly presents a confusion, in presenting a poetic imagery presentation as evidence of a visual observation of astronomical nature.
" ... I came across the observation of the full moon near Krittika on the 12th day of War. This observation presents, in my mind, decisive corroborative evidence for Kartika Amawasya (per Amanta reckoning) as the first day of the Mahabharata War. The Mahabharata text describes white canopy on the chariot of King Bhagadatta as similar to the full moon near Krittika. This was on the 12th day of the War50. ... "
Again, he hasn't quoted the original verses. But presumably, if the author had stated that the full moon or thereabouts was above, he'd have quoted the poet, even if only in translation.
So there's only this comparison. It doesn't prove that the full Moon of any month, whether Kartika or another, was in fact above, any more than its only when full Moon shines above that any other person of India compares a loved person or infant with beauty thereof.
On the contrary, it's when the Moon isn't above in its splendour that such comparisons are likely to occur naturally. Under a full Moon, one would know the difference, or speak poetically of a Moon above and another below, reflecting one another.
In fact it doesn't even support the month being Kartika, since the full Moon of Kartika is the most effulgent in its glory, the cool of winter onset adding to the beauty.
................................................................................................
"The Moon between two Vishakhas57
"All observations are theory laden. This means one may not even notice them unless one is expecting them, based on predictions of one’s theory. It also means that the theory determines the interpretation of an observation or the specifics of an observation one should be looking for."
Is that an ingenious defense of a working technique he is subconsciously aware of dishonesty of, but isn't ready to face that fact about, consciously?
"After I stumbled into ‘the full moon near Krittika’ observation50, I ran the simulation for the position of the moon for each day of the War, beginning with the first day (my proposed date), and noted down nakshatras in the vicinity of the moon. ... "
That's one of those rare instances where Oak admits his theory as separate from original quotes, but only in the "first day" part; he still wrongly states "‘the full moon near Krittika’" as an "observation", because it suits his theory, not because it's beyond doubt, and indeed it's a poetic imagery, not an observation.
" ... These observations of the moon point to ‘Amawasya’ as the first day of War. Observation of ‘full moon in Krittika’ on the 12th day of the War points to ‘Kartika Amawasya’ as the first day of War, per Amanta reckoning (Error Elimination – Experiment 39)."
That's his usual method, building further on non existent straws and filaments of mistakes of interpretation, and not only asserting it as proved but mixing it with original and claiming it as valid conclusion.
"Pandyaraj, another warrior, was killed on the 16th day of War and the Mahabharata text compares his face with the full moon. The same observation also mentions that the face of Pandyaraj was looking beautiful, similar to the moon between (two) Vishakhas57!"
Again, he hasn't given original verses here, but presumably it's not clearly stated that the said "moon between (two) Vishakhas" was up there right then.
"Voyager simulation had shown the Moon to be near ‘Punarvasu’ during the 16th day of War. I had employed star Pollux as YogaTara for Punarvasu, which is next to another star Castor and I knew that Pollux and Castor together represented ‘two Punarvasus’. I wondered if Mahabharata author would have referred to Pollux and Castor as two Vishakhas! ... "
So he's going to pull another confusion of his off as statement by author of Mahabharata! Or, worse yet, a confusion of nomenclature in astrology and astronomy in India?
" ... I suspected that observation referred to the full moon between the two branches (Vishakhas) of Punarvasus; one branch to the north of the ecliptic formed by Castor and Pollux and the second branch to the south of the ecliptic formed by Procyon and Gomeisa, four stars of Punarvasus. The full moon was indeed between these two branches of Punarvasus on the 16th day of War."
There it is.
"Moon would be indeed near Vishakha for the year proposed by Raghavan /Achar on the 16th day of the War, however, the day was less than 4 days removed from the day of Amawasya (30% illumination) and thus the observation cannot be corroborated with full moon description of the Mahabharata text. ... "
He could instead have also checked if his Amawasya thesis was valid, but no, too much ego!
Of course, he's discarded traditional belief or thinking explicitly as related to India, so he couldn't be bothered to think about who would plan a war to begin on Amawasya in India, where it's held as a powerfully occult time, not for beginning of new ventures, all the more particularly, anything involving a weapon or a slashing of body, including a surgery necessary to life, much less a war with its deliberately inflicted wounds - intended to slay, not just wound - as part of routine thereof?
For this war wasn't one of the sort that happen when one of the parties is not of India, by one side assaulting other by stealth withoutprovocation.
This was a purely Indian war, conducted after talks failed, with plans about when and where, with both sides having gone around India, conducting talks with those they expected to get to join their side, often both sides coming face to face in the process.
It couldn't possibly have been planned for an Amawasya, much less for a solar eclipse at midday, as first day of the war.
" ... Theory and proposed date of Raghavan/Achar has been falsified by every single observation (except Saturn near Rohini and comet near Pushya) discussed in this book. Although Raghavan or Achar have not claimed it, they would have been justified in claiming this observation of ‘moon between Vishakhas’ as corroborating their timeline. On the other hand, mention of the full moon is problematic for their timeline."
Oak doesn't realise it, but he just gave weightage to their dates. If their proposed timeline is 5,000 or more years in past, it may have a better chance of being correct.
................................................................................................
"I want to highlight one Mahabharata reference, which contradicts the season of Mahabharata War. Thus there are six specific Mahabharata observations and one traditional belief (KaliYuga and the Mahabharata War) conflicting with my theory and/or proposed timeline and are summarized as follows,
"1. The nakshatra (Pushya) when Balarama left for Tirthayatra and the nakshatra (Shravana) when he returned, after 42 days, to witness the club-fight between Bhima and Duryodhana, on the last day of War.
"2. Drona Parva refers to late moonrise at the end of 14th day of War and this phenomenon, if interpreted in certain way, directly contradicts my 18-day war timeline.
"3. Mahabharata observation records Bhishma passing away during the lunar month of Magha and when 3/4th of the month (or Paksha) was still remaining, after being on the bed of arrows for 58 nights. The day of his death was the day of winter solstice. Some manuscripts contain a verse that states Bhishma passing away on Magha Shuddha Ashtami and that the Moon was near Rohini. These Mahabharata observations contradict my proposed year of the Mahabharata War.
"4. Tradition assumes 3102 B.C. as the beginning of KaliYuga. Tradition also assumes that the Mahabharata War happened 36 years before the beginning of KaliYuga. My proposed timeline of the Mahabharata War is more than 2000 years before the traditionally assumed beginning of KaliYuga.
"5. Bhishma is compared with the full moon on the first day of War. This analogy conflicts with my timeline since the first day of War is Amawasya, per my proposed timeline.
"6. The Mahabharata text states analogy of the solar eclipse, during Bhima-Duryodhana fight, on the 18th and the last day of War. This day was closer to the full moon day and nowhere close to Amawasya. Thus the analogy of the solar eclipse appears to conflict with my timeline.
"7. When Krishna left for Hastinapur, the Mahabharata observation states that it was the end of Sharad season. This observation, suggesting the season when Krishna left on a peace mission, directly contradicts my timeline. The Mahabharata War took place, per my timeline, during the Sharad season. In addition, I conjectured time interval of an additional lunar month and 7 days between the first day of Mahabharata War and the end of Krishna’s visit to Hastinapur (i.e. Krishna-Karna meeting)."
The fifth point is serious for Oak because he has vowed to treat every such mention as not only a direct visual observation of astronomical nature but also one that was instantly conducted. So he is forced in all honesty to conclude that the war began close to a full Moon clearly visible.
It's in harmony with the solar eclipse interpretation of Arjuna avenging murder of Abhimanyu event of Sun seemingly setting and being visible again in West.
Also, if day 14 was solar eclipse in the evening, just before sunset, Oak’s sixth point above would harmonize with his own principles about poetic imagination not being on the loose but firmly tied to instant and immediate visual observation of astronomical nature.
The final point of Oak seems to indicate that his and any other interpretations hurrying the war are incorrect, and that even after Krishna visiting Hastinapur, there must have been time gap, not so much for preparation of armies as for diplomatic missions whereby various other kings were asked by each of the two sides to join theirs. Since this was pretty much going around India, the war itself must have been fixed with a good site in mind and an auspicious muhourta too, in advance of the hour fixed for beginning, as evidenced by the armies travelling up country from Hastinapur to Kurukshetra.
And the muhourta simply couldn't have been fixed fir an Amawasya with a solar eclipse at noon.
Oak will have to accept his timeline is wrong by that much, although generally in a good neighborhood due to major considerations.
................................................................................................
"There are 6 Mahabharata statements related to the Tirthayatra of Balarama,
"(1) Balarama left the Pandavas on Anuradha nakshatra75
"(2) Balarama began his Tirthayatra on Pushya88
"(3) Balarama arrived on the 18th day of War, and witnessed the dual between Bhima & Duryodhana
"(4) Balarama arrived on the 18th day of War and the nakshatra was Shravana88
"(5) The duration of his Tirthayatra was 42 days88
"(6) Balarama was surrounded by surviving Kings, and the arrangement appeared similar to the full moon surrounded by nakshatras 153.
"Statements (1), (3) & (5) do not contradict my timeline. Statement (6) provides corroborative support for my assertion that the last day of War was close to the full moon day. Statements (2) & (4) directly contradict my proposed timeline. In fact my timeline reverses the sequence of the nakshatras; i.e. Balarama began his Tirthayatra on Shravana nakshatra (21st September) and returned on the last day of War when the moon was near Pushya (2nd November), 42 days after he began his Tirthayatra.
................................................................................................
"Transposing Error & Degrees of Freedom
"I ran simulation for my proposed timeline, beginning with Pushya on 2nd November and going backwards 42 days. The Moon was near ‘Shravana’ on 21st September. ... "
"1. Balarama leaving on Pushya (for Tirthayatra or from the Pandava camp)
"2. Arriving on Shravana (18th and the last day of War)
"3. Total duration of Tirthayatra = 42 days"
"Daftari proposed theory of transposition of two nakshatras in the fashion ‘Shravanae samprayotosmi pusheyna punaragatah’. P V Kane mentions this effort of Daftari in his ‘History of Dharmashastra’. ... I would rather be content to accept the observation as not corroborating my theory."
"Transliteration Error (‘Sampryatosmi’ instead of ‘Samproptosmi’)
"Vartak proposed that ‘Samprayatosmi’88 was a transliteration error and the correct word should have been ‘Sampraptosmi’. I searched for alternate readings within the critical edition of Mahabharata and realized that had he looked into alternate readings, he would have realized that one of the alternate readings indeed suggests ‘Sampraptosmi’! It is safe to say that he did not consult critical edition for this observation88, for he goes on to suggest various ways of splitting ‘Samprayatosmi’, which would lead to the meaning of ‘arrived at’ instead of ‘departed on’."
" ... The desired meaning is also the natural outcome, if one accepts Amawasya as the first day and Margashirsha as the lunar month of Mahabharata War. ... "
Seeming tautology there. Also, Margashirsha seems as inappropriate for a planned war as the choice of Amawasya for first day, that too with an expected solar eclipse at noon!
................................................................................................
Oak presents another tautology, crowing as if it's an achievement in direction of corroboration of his theory.
"2. Late Moonrise (14th day of the War)
"The Mahabharata War began, per my proposal, on Amawasya day and thus the 14th day of War would be close to the full moon day. The moon will rise, on the full moon day, at the time of sunset and will set around the time of sunrise next day. Voyager simulation of rising and setting of the moon, on 29th October – the 14th day of War, shows that the moon rose around 6 PM (evening of the 14th day of War) just before the sunset. The moon went down the horizon around 6 AM (morning of the 15th day of War – 30th October)."
But of course, if he proposes Amawasya as beginning of anything, 14th day is bound to be close to full Moon, rising close to Sunset time, close to 6 p.m., in India!
He's crowing about it as if it's a confirmation from text, which it's not, of his own dates matching with his software. Typical of much of the chaff that is used as a filler to stretch a research paper proposing a timeline into a whole book, apart from details of his activities and criticism of others and theoretical exposes on philosophy!
Reality? Still not a step further.
His general proposed bound for Mahabharata War being before 5,000 BCE, very good; his fixing on 5561 BCE, ok, but unconvincing, as is his unproven assertions about all possible past timings modulo 26,000 years cycles before his timeline being out of question.
His insistence on Margashirsha and on an Amawasya, that too one with a solar eclipse at noon, for a beginning of the war, out of question unless he's declared the events of 13th or 14th day of Arjuna avenging his sons murder with Jayadratha slaying as result of a direct Divine Action intervention by Krishna, and not merely a solar eclipse that Krishna knew was about to occur, giving illusion of a Sun setting earlier.
"The Problem
"Mahabharata observation describes late moonrise, which directly contradicts my proposed timeline. Ghatotkacha was killed around the midnight of the 14th day. The fight continued and the soldiers of both sides were injured by arrows and were exhausted, long before half of the night was over91. Arjuna noticed this condition of the army on both sides and said to the fighting armies, “You and your animals are exhausted and are overpowered with sleep. The battlefield is covered with darkness due to enormous dust in the air. If you consider it appropriate, stop the fight and rest for a while92. After the moonrise (or when the moon is visible again), you may resume the fight”93. Both sides accepted the proposal, warriors retired from fighting and slept for some time.94 After sometime the Moon appeared in the sky95.
"Late moonrise on the 14th day of War necessitates that the War began around the full moon day. Raghavan/Achar and few others have attempted such proposals. All such proposals run into difficulty while corroborating observations of the night of 14th day of War and numerous additional observations."
Oak neither mentions what difficulties not why or corroboration with what, but obviously if Jayadratha slaying on 13th or 14th day was instantly after solar eclipse, then night of 14th day would have moon rise very late, indeed, just about at dawn, in fact.
"This late moonrise on the night of the 14th day of War is impossible for my proposed timeline, since the 14th day of War, per my timeline, is near the full moon day. This is then the problem of late moonrise. I have borrowed a lot from P V Vartak in solving this problem. However I have proposed a different solution and have also corroborated descriptions of the moon, which in turn removed the need for additional ad hoc conjectures employed by Vartak."
Why not attempt a better pinpointing within a good timeline, having found one? Why stick to Amawasya as muhourta for first day? Why not solve Jayadratha first?
................................................................................................
Timeline of the events – 14th day of the War
"The time of the appearance of the moon (either reappearance or moonrise), although approximate, can be estimated. The fight resumed, sometime after ‘moonrise’, when only 3 out of 15 Muhurtas (Muhurta = 48 min) of the night were still remaining96. Voyager simulation shows the sunrise at 6:30 AM on the 15th day of War. This would mean the fight resumed 3 Muhurtas before 6:30 AM, which would be around 4 AM. The Mahabharata text refers to time of approximately 2 Muhurtas between moonrise or reappearance of the moon, and resumption of the fight 97, 98. This would mean the moonrise occurred around 2 AM."
This corresponds with, of course, 13th day of the War being Solar eclipse, over just before sunset.
Why does oak stick to the terminology of science in using labels such as "Error Elimination – Experiment", when it's none of those except error? It would be far more appropriate to label each as "testing foe corroborative evidence ", for example; and here, this piece of evidence is the most definitive (next to Jayadratha slaying, not even mentioned by Oak), and Oak’s theory fails spectacularly here.
Why he didn't reconsider his assumptions about dating the War at Margashirsha Amawasya, is a question that seems to have only his own ego as clue so far.
................................................................................................
"Description of the Moon on the 14th day of War
"Assuming late moonrise around 2 AM, the phase of the moon is such that the moon is only 5 days away (~34% illumination) from the Amawasya day. Late night moonrise is expected during the time of the lunar month close to but before Amawasya day.
"On the other hand the rising Moon is described as similar to the bow of Kamadev (Cupid) ... "
Surely anyone would recognize that this means a crescent?
" ... and the Moon was shining with full brightness100. In no time, rays of the moon dimmed the brightness of nakshatras and exhibited first signs of the dawn97. ... "
Coming after a dark night, a Moon would brighten up the hour before dawn, especially as dawn followed close on heels of the moon anyway.
" ... After exhibiting signs of the dawn, the moon started spreading broad light, similar to the golden rays and began destroying the darkness101. Within one Muhurta, the battlefield was bright and the darkness completely vanished98. The battlefield was bright like a day, once the moon started shining102. The warriors woke up with the touch of the rays of the Moon, similar to the waking up of lotuses due to the rays of the Sun. The excitement arose within the army similar to the turbulence of the ocean due to the rising of the moon, and the fight resumed103. "
Oak is attempting to exhaust the reader into agreeing to any idiotic assertion of his, and here it comes.
"I assert that descriptions of the moon presented here are suggestive of the time of the full moon or near full moon, rather than of a time close to Amawasya."
Not possible, the late rising of Moon on night of 14th, dawn of fifteenth, close on heels of Jayadratha slaying.
Unless Arjuna was unable to find him until fifteenth day, which fits everything perfectly, except the insistence by Oak on his pick of the precise date, tithi etc al, due only to ego, and assertion about not caring about traditional belief.
Admit it, Oak, and man up! You did a good job in finding Epochs of Arundhati, and Sannyas of Abhijit (why term it "fall"?), but the insistence on fixing a Tithi and date and year was too ambitious, while having made mistakes there due to lazy and shoddy work, attempting to justify a late rising Moon of dawn as full Moon is both stupid and dishonest.
................................................................................................
Oak next gives gory descriptions of night of 14th under the title of "Error Elimination – Experiment 59", while so far he's given extremely little of the text (and never in original); what error of his it eliminates by doing so is totally unclear.
Calling these attempts to corroborate his theory (and if it doesn't, insist that it does, anyway) as he does, the label he uses - "Error Elimination – Experiment" - is so very false, it's transparently dishonest.
The dishonesty is further exposed by this claim of his.
"I conjecture that rising of dust was the cause of disappearance of full moon during the night’s fight on the 14th day. In addition, the warriors and their horses and elephants were exhausted. Against this background, Arjuna suggested that both sides should stop the fight and take some rest until the moonrise or reappearance of the Moon, before resuming the fight92. This is when both parties accepted the offer and slept for some time94."
But he has quoted the text to the effect that the Moon looked like a Cupid's bow! Is he trying to fool readers into forgetting that bows are nothing like full Moon in shape, but a crescent certainly is like a bow? Height of dishonesty, Oak!
................................................................................................
"Why did the fight continued into the night?
"I was under the impression that both parties agreed to end the fight each day at sunset. I do not know why I made such an erroneous assumption! No wonder I was surprised to read that the fight continued into the night on the 14th day. In addition, no leaders of either side objected to the continuation of fight past sunset. This episode made me re-read portions of the Mahabharata text where ground rules for the War were set. This is when I realized my mistake. The rules emphasized maintaining respectful relationship after the battle of the day was over, but never stated that the fighting should be stopped at sunset107.
"I conjecture that while no strict rules were in place to end the fight, the fight continued each day as long as there was sufficient light to carry it out. Notwithstanding the rules laid down for the war etiquettes, it appears that both parties engaged in a fight on any given day either until they were severely exhausted or until severe darkness forced them to stop the fight."
Oak must truly be an ABCD. Why doesn't he seem to know, that stopping battle for the day at sunset and bring courteous to opposite side thereafter, is as germain to civilisation of India since antiquity, until invading barbarians changed it over a millennium ago, is otherwise inexplicable.
This need not have been especially written down or emphasised prior to battle any more than not striking an unarmed opponent was, code of Arya and Kshatra Dharma being well understood by everyone in battle field.
But this war was humongous and unusual, not only due to size but the close relationships and interpersonal animosities and histories thereof, so the furore of the battles changed it all, particularly so after Abhimanyu was set upon by a whole gang - a no-no - and struck when down, another no-no, amounting to murder rather than duel.
This changed the character of the War, from first day when armies were still even after conches were blown, as Arjuna wasn't ready to kill family and elders, while God Krishna expounded Gita, and in evening the opposing sides met courteously - to the gory nights after Abhimanyu was murdered by an evil, dastardly gang that included his own uncles.
Oak is unaware of the civilisation of ancient India, so much so he expects a written document of contract between parties here, rather than something akin to England's constitution, not written but no less valid than that of US.
Oak reinterprets Moon rising late as Moon reappearance after settling of dust.
" ... My interpretation not only solves the problem of the late moonrise but also provides consistent explanation for all Mahabharata observations related to the fight, including full moonlike descriptions, on the night of 14th day of War.
"On the other hand what we do know is that if one insists on ‘late moonrise’ interpretation, such an assumption contradicts practically all observations discussed in the context of ‘late moonrise’ of the 14th day as well as all Mahabharata observations discussed in Chapter 8 and one observation of seven planets attacking moon of Chapter 7. ... "
No, it only goes with Oak’s picks, but not with the most vital description that's not poetic imagery, about a Sun reappearing after having set, after 13th morning and after Abhimanyu had been murdered. Oak still ignores this most vital description.
................................................................................................
"Bhishma fell in the battle on the 10th day of War and the War continued for 8 more days. Ashwatthama killed Dhristadyumna, Shikhandi and sons of Draupadi during the night of 18th day of the War. The Pandavas subdued Ashwatthama the next day and the Kuru women visited the battlefield in search of the bodies of their beloved. Yudhishthir asked Sudharma, Dhaumya and others to perform final fire rights for those fallen in the War. Vidura, Sudharma, Dhaumya, Indrasen and others arranged fire rights and made huge funeral pyres111. After these events, Yudhishthir went, with his brothers and Dhritarashtra, to the bank of Ganga112 and spent up to a month on the bank of Ganga113.
"The Pandavas returned to Hastinapur amid a great celebration, after spending a month on the bank of Ganga, and the timing appears to be near full moon day 114-117. ... "
Oak doesn't clarify whether it's full Moon day according to Mahabharata or only due to his choice of beginning date. This makes next parts suspect, if they depend on this.
" ... Yudhishthir was crowned as the King and he assigned his brothers and other surviving members of the Kuru family to various posts. Yudhishthir assigned various palaces to his brothers, paid compensation to the relatives of deceased warriors, and honored Krishna. The Mahabharata text is not explicit on the length of time interval when these incidents took place.
"After the crowning of Yudhishthir and assignment of offices, Krishna asked Yudhishthir to visit Bhishma and seek guidance from Bhishma. Yudhishthir left Hastinapur, per Krishna’s suggestion, along with his brothers, Krishna, Satyaki, Kripacharya, Yuyutsu, and Sanjay to meet Bhishma118. Yudhishthir and his entourage arrived at Kurukshetra. ... "
Oak is very fond of not sparing his reader any gory descriptions, and he gives those here.
It's starting to realise that Bhishma, the elder, not only a Crown Prince who had given up all his rights promising to serve and protect progeny of the second wife his father wished, but a God born on Earth due to a prank committed under his leadership in his natural habitat of heaven, was alone without family on this exhausted battlefield, having - but necessarily - chosen the wrong side in the war.
"Yudhishthir visited Bhishma for last but one time, on the 51st day before Bhishma Nirvana, along with extended entourage that included Dhritarashtra, Gandhari, royal priests and ministers 129. In this way, Yudhishthir spent six days (51-56th days before Bhishma Nirvana) in the company of Bhishma, seeking guidance from the latter. Yudhishthir took leave of Bhishma at the end of the 6th day (51st day before Bhishma Nirvana), promising to return as soon as the sun turned north, went to Hastinapur and remained engaged in the affairs of the state for next 50 nights130."
Even the old couple, bereft of sons, wasn't able to stay with the elder who'd fought for their sons?
Oak, after giving descriptions of the clan visits and so on, adds up the number of days of Bhishma on his last bed, and so the Interval from beginning of the War to winter solstice.
"I could draw following conclusions, (1) Bhishma was lying on the bed of arrows for 9 nights out of 18 days (or nights) of the War. (2) He was also lying on bed of arrows when the Pandavas spent approximately one month on the bank of Ganga. I estimated 27 (sidereal month) days, as a conservative estimate, for this month long period113. The actual time period could be anywhere from 27 to 30 days. (3) The Mahabharata text is not explicit on number of days between return of the Pandavas to Hastinapur and their first visit to Bhishma. Let’s assume that the number of days for this time interval was equal to ‘X’. (4) Bhishma spent additional 56 days leading to the day of Bhishma Nirvana120.
"I estimated total number of nights spent by Bhishma, on the bed of arrows as follows,
"Total Number of nights spent by Bhishma, on bed of arrows
"10 through 18 days of the War 09
"The Pandavas on the bank of Ganga 27
Time Interval: Return to Hastinapur & meet Bhishma X Time Interval: First meeting & Bhishma Nirvana 56
= 92 + X (days)"
" ... I assert that Bhishma was lying on the bed of arrows, based on above timeline, for 98, and not 58 nights."
Has he realised that his calculations change his favorite pick? If instead of roughly sixty days, it's over ninety, then the beginning is indeed on the traditional tithi of Gita Jayanti, namely, Kartika Shuddha Ekadashie, and were closer to fitting in the knowledge of an imminent solar eclipse helping God Krishna to save life of the hero, Arjuna.
No, Oak doesn't realise it, and keeps arguing that he's confirmed his date!
"I realized that even the author of this alleged interpolation, whoever he may be, had assumed Kartika Amawasya as the first day of Mahabharata War. This is because the reference assumes the day of winter solstice, 58 days removed from the fall of Bhishma which also means 68 days removed from the first day of Mahabharata War, and since the day of winter solstice is described as Magha Shuddha Ashtami, it follows that Kartika Amawasya was the first day of Mahabharata War, 68 days before the day of winter solstice."
He flagellates those that propose another tithi for the beginning of the war, bur he's forgotten that he just calculated 90+ days, after waiting text and adding up.
"In any case, I would add that reference to 58 days also points to the day of Magha Shuddha Ashtami and Rohini nakshatra. And these references individually or together also point to Kartika Amawasya as the first day of War, i.e. (20-21 days of Margashirsha + 29-30 days of Pausha + 7-8 days of Magha), an obvious fact lost on those researchers who have proposed a day other than Kartika Amawasya as the first day of War (Raghavan/Achar, Karandikar, Sengupta) while still claiming observations surrounding Bhishma Nirvana as critical in building their timeline."
But he's just made the case for roughly just over three, not roughly short of two, months! Why's he still pressing for the incorrect timeline? He's failed to realise that, having asserted that Bhishma was on his last bed for roughly 98 days, he's taken the War to at least ten days before Kartika Amawasya, when Bhishma fell according to Oak’s calculations; and so the traditional beginning on Gita Jayanti fits, as does solar eclipse on the 14th day of War. This amounts roughly to the whole period being of 104 days, but with tithi often lapsing, I.e., month being ~27 days as Oak points out, it's even exactly at the traditional date.
No, he prefers to cheat rather than correct his mistakes.
"Add to this fun one Adhika masa. For example if one interprets Magha (the full moon of 28-29 December 5561 B.C.) as Adhik Magha (intercalary month) and next month (the full moon of 27 January 5560 B.C.) as Magha, in that case, Bhishma died on Magha Krishna 4."
................................................................................................
"5. Bhishma appearing similar to the full moon145
" ... Naturally, I was looking for any observations that would conflict with my theory and predictions of the phases and the positions of the moon. At least I found one observation. Sanjay describes Bhishma as shining like the full moon, before the War began and on the first day of War145."
Shouldn't that, as per Oak’s usual insistence, amount to first day of War being close to full Moon?
No, he's sticking with Amawasya here, although usually his method of corroboration of his statements is taking such comparisons and insisting they were visual astronomical observations of that intent.
"Error Elimination – Experiment 70
"Bhishma compared with the Full Moon
"The reader should understand the context of this comparison of Bhishma with the full moon, comparison made on Amawasya day. Sanjay tells Dhritarashtra that he saw Bhishma on his white horse, wearing a white turban and white armor resembling the risen (or new) Moon146 and both armies beheld Bhishma standing in his silver chariot with a golden palm tree on his standard. Sanjay compares this latter arrangement with the Moon (or the Sun) surrounded by white clouds147, 148.
"I have interpreted this comparison of Bhishma with the full moon, as pure analogy, based on decorations of Bhishma (white turban and white armor) and his paraphernalia (silver chariot with golden palm tree as his standard)."
................................................................................................
"7. Problem of Seasons (Krishna leaves from Upaplavya at the end of Sharad)
"The problem of the seasons during the Mahabharata war is a minor one. I decided to include it, at the risk of much digression, for the sake of completeness. The timing of Krishna’s departure from Upaplavya on peace mission to Hastinapur is described as ‘at the end of Sharad’ (sharadante) and ‘before the arrival of winter’ (himagame)158. This Mahabharata reference contradicts practically all proposals for the year of Mahabharata War. This Mahabharata reference also contradicts my proposed timeline. The timing of Krishna’s departure from Upaplavya, per my timeline, is during the ‘Varsha’ season. This is based on the assumption that Mahabharata astronomers defined the seasons in the same fashion, as we understand them today."
Oak sticks to his whim despite Mahabharata giving plenty of details to the contrary, his calculations going against, and the two most important parts - Jayadratha Vadha, apart from Gita Jayanti - going against his whimsical pick.
He'd rather falsify what he can and ignore or twist rest.
"Bhishma Nirvana & Sharad Season
"Bhishma fell in the War on the 10th day and ~98 days before the day of winter solstice. This means the Mahabharata war began ~108 days before the day of winter solstice, and thus Sharad season had just begun (~12 days into the season) when the Mahabharata war started. ... "
He goes on asserting contradictory timelines, instead of adjusting his pick, and doesn't look at the most telling event of the war, Jayadratha Vadha.
But this count of 108 days has taken us close to Kartika Ekadashie as beginning of the war and solar eclipse just before sunset on 14th day.
" ... seven planets attacking the moon on the 14th day of War. After Arjuna killed Jayadratha, fight resumed. The timing was that of the evening of 14th day of War. ... "
That seven planets attacking is poetic allegory, but Sun setting and then visible again, enabling Arjuna to kill Jayadratha, isn't; 14th day was Amawasya, then, and as Sun set, it had changed to the next tithi and month, eclipse bring over just before Sunset. So the War began before Pournima, and a matter of Tithi being not 24 hours each, Kartika Ekadashie was the correct Tithi.
................................................................................................
"Shweta, Shyama & Tivra/Tikshna Planets 19, 20, 21
"Mahabharata researchers have had field day with these observations since planets are described with their adjectives – Shweta19 (white or bluish white), Shyama20 (dark or bluish dark) or Tivra/Tikshna21 (intense/rough/sharp). The Mahabharata text mentions ‘Shweta’ planet near Chitra19, ‘Shyama’ planet near Jyeshtha20 and Tivra/Tikshna planet or nakshatra near Krittika21."
" ... Vartak has cited these observations as evidence for Mahabharata astronomers being aware of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. Consequently Vartak assumed telescopic abilities in Mahabharata times. Holay has also assumed telescopic abilities in making a case for Uranus. The Mahabharata text does not specifically refer to telescopes, ... "
"The timing of the second observation is after sunset, on the 14th day of War and seven planets are described as attacking the Moon. Again the seven planets did not include either the Sun or the Moon. Voyager simulation shows that Saturn was below the horizon and this observation thus makes a strong case for the knowledge of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto! Rising moon on eastern horizon can be visualized as attacked by seven planets. These seven planets, from east, were Pluto, Neptune, Mars, Venus, Uranus, Mercury and Jupiter."
Unless it was a conjunction of all seven he mentions with moon, the word attack doesn't qualify visually.
In this case the observation wasn't visual or astronomical, it's clearly astrological, and the seven include Sun, Rahu and Ketu.
This isn't about seeing planets above, this is about a murder of a youth committed by adults who included his uncles. It's definitely astrological and Oak should have given exact verses from Mahabharata.
................................................................................................
" ... forced to invoke other explanations such as either ‘astrological drishti’ or ‘descriptions of impossible events by Mahabharata author’. The problem with the latter two approaches is that once one decides to employ them, anything anywhere can be explained! ... "
Not true.
" ... The problem with ‘Astrological Drishti’ is that once one decides to employ it, anything anywhere can be explained! As soon as this happens, although theory may still retain its empirical character, is no longer falsifiable and scientific."
Not true.
................................................................................................
"While I have proposed alternate timeline for pre-war and post-war incidents of Mahabharata, every attempt of mine to falsify 18-day timeline of War proposed by Vartak failed. My work related to pre-war and post-war incidents reinforced his timeline further. My research of Bhishma Nirvana shrunk the time interval for plausible year of the Mahabharata War, already defined by the Epoch of Arundhati, down to 2000 years (6500 B.C.-4500 B.C.). I tested 38 plausible instances for the Mahabharata War over this time interval (6500 B.C. - 4500 B.C.) and the testing corroborated Vartak’s timeline, again!"
It's unclear why he says previous cycles of 26,000 years won't do for Arundhati Epoch.
................................................................................................
"Once I started critically discussing work of others, I feared that my book would fill only with the criticism of others and my original work would get lost. I was also disappointed by the cocksure attitude of number of researchers, especially those who made their proposal based on only those Mahabharata observations that they presumed supported their timeline. Many of them did not bother to discuss numerous Mahabharata observations, which directly contradicted their timeline. ... "
As exemplified by Oak, who declares disdain for traditional position, due to his timeline of Mahabharata not being consistent with Gita Jayanti, or his date for birth of Rama showing not exalted planets, completely avoiding and not discussing the one indisputably visual astronomical observation in Mahabharata, Jayadratha Vadha? Because he'd have to either admit Divine Action, or admit complete failure of his choice of timeline?
" ... I began writing criticism, i.e. criticism of the theories and corresponding proposals for the year of Mahabharata War as propounded by 20+ researchers. They all had predicted the first day and the year of Mahabharata War. I realized that these researchers, with the exceptions of Vartak and Kane, have been selective in quoting Mahabharata astronomical observations. Many of them ignored vast number of Mahabharata astronomical observations. Still others claimed to have included certain observations in building their timeline they thought critical, and I could demonstrate how their theories were contradicted by these so called ‘critical’ observations. These researchers appeared to be blissfully unaware of this fact. I decided, only with great reluctance, to exclude the discussion of the works of other researchers, i.e. the criticisms of their theories and timelines for the Mahabharata War, with the exception of Vartak, from this book."
Oak wouldn't knowingly be writing there about himself, would he?
"What follows is summary of my theory and my proposed timeline of the Mahabharata war and why it should be considered a better theory, i.e. better than all existing theories (and proposed timelines)."
Oak saying that? What a surprise!
"My Theory
"1. All astronomy observations in Mahabharata are ‘visual observations’ of the sky."
Because Oak can neither imagine poets with retention of memory using poetic allegory, nor astronomers and astrologers of yore predicting events of celestial nature in advance by calculations, and so has all descriptions of celestial nature involve a poet looking up at heavens and down and battlefield in rapid succession as he roams about with a notebook and ink pot, or a scribe?
"2. Mahabharata astronomers were meticulous and patient empirical astronomers. They were inheritors of even farther ancient tradition of astronomy observations. Mahabharata astronomers had means to observe objects in the sky, which would not be otherwise visible to a naked eye."
He's playing safe there, mentioning neither instruments thereof nor yogic powers; latter he can't, after the explicit statement of disdain for "traditional beliefs" asserted so early (CYA against neighbours and colleagues in West?); former is unprovoked, there are no records thereof, unlike Pushpak Vimana of Ramayana.
"3. Mahabharata author’s motivation for noting down specific astronomy observations during and around the time of Mahabharata War was to create records of Mahabharata War. These observations were embedded in the Mahabharata text. Mahabharata author embedded these observations as is and also in the form of similes signifying bad omens, engagement of key warriors on the battlefield or death of principal warriors."
Yes, Oak cannot imagine anyone being compared to Moon or Venus unless there's actually one in skies, visible, right then and there!
"I had also stated that one would, very likely, find numerous additional astronomy observations within the Mahabharata Text. I found numerous astronomy (or chronological) observations and corroborated them with the predictions of my theory. My list is not complete by any means and I encourage readers to search for additional Mahabharata observations."
So he ignores the one key observation of humongous importance, with nary a mention, and does this last line above - as CYA against criticism by everyone familiar with Mahabharata, which is India plus a few more?
................................................................................................
"My Proposed Timeline
"The Mahabharata War timeline begins with Krishna leaving Upaplavya to visit Hastinapur before the War and ends with the passing away of Bhishma, when the Sun turned north, after the War."
What follows is Oak’s list of his matching of events of Mahabharata with the single timeline he's picked, but there are three major faults.
One, he doesn't point out that the dates are his conclusions. Two, having gone on and emphasised over and over that he treats all celestial descriptions as visual observations of astronomical nature, he resorts to calling them poetic only if he can't date them or if they go against his thesis, but otherwise forces a visual correspondence if he finds farfetched justifications.
Three, he completely ignores the one event of humongous importance which cannot but be admitted as a visual observation of astronomical nature corresponding to an event on the battlefield. If he did mention it, he'd have to admit either that his timeline and all rest of his work here failed, and look independently for another timeline not given by previous authors, or admit Divine Action.
"1. Krishna left Upaplavya on Maitri (Anuradha) Muhurta, Revati nakshatra and in the month of Lotuses: 31 August 5561 B.C.
"2. Duryodhana ordered his royal friends to leave for Kurukshetra on the day of Pushya: 6-7 September 5561 B.C.
"3. Krishna-Karna meeting, 7 days before Jyeshtha Amawasya & before Krishna left for Upaplavya: 9-10 September 5561 B.C.
"4. Shakra (Jyeshtha or possibly Vishakha) Amawasya: 16-17 September 5561 B.C.
"5. Balarama left the Pandava camp, to proceed on Saraswati Tirthayatra, on Anuradha (Maitri) nakshatra: 17 September 5561 B.C.
"6. Balarama began Tirthayatra of Saraswati around 22 September 5561 B.C.
"7. Kartika Purnima (Full moon): 30 September – 1 October 5561 B.C.
"8. Krishna left along with the Pandavas for Kurukshetra on Pushya: 4-5 October 5561 B.C.
"9. Both armies arrived at Kurukshetra on Magha: 6-7 October 5561 B.C.
"10. Vyasa met Dhritarashtra: 15 October 5561 B.C.
"11. The First day of Mahabharata War: 16 October 5561 B.C.
"12. Bhishma fell in the battlefield on the 10th day of War: 25 October 5561 B.C.
"13. Abhimanyu was killed on the 13th day of War: 28 October 5561 B.C.
"14. Arjuna killed Jayadratha and the fight continued into the night at the end of the 14th day of War: 29 October 5561 B.C.
"15. Drona was killed on the 15th day of War: 30th October 5561 B.C.
"16. Arjuna killed Karna on the 17th day of War: 1 November 5561 B.C.
"17. Shalya was killed by noon and Bhima killed Duryodhana at the end of the day on the 18th day of War: 2 November 5561 B.C.
"18. The Pandavas spent a month on the bank of River Ganga: 2-3 November- 30 November 5561 B.C.
"19. The Pandavas entered Hastinapur after spending a lunar month on the bank of Ganga: 30 November 5561 B.C.
"20. Coronation of Yudhishthir, assignment of offices & palaces, and honoring of Krishna: 30 November-5 December 5561 B.C.
"21. Yudhishthir and his brothers, Krishna, Satyaki, Yuyutsu, Kripacharya and Sanjay go to Kurukshetra to visit Bhishma, 56 days before passing away of Bhishma: 5-6 December 5561 B.C.
"22. Yudhishthir along with his brothers, Dhritarashtra, Gandhari and ministers visits Bhishma for last but one time, 51 days before passing away of Bhishma: 10-11 December 5561 B.C.
"23. Yudhishthir leaves for Kurukshetra, after spending 50 nights at Hastinapur, to meet Bhishma when the Sun turned north: 30-31 January 5560 B.C.
"24. Bhishma Nirvana: 30-31 January 5560 B.C."
Dating Mahabharata by counting days, between events such as discussions prior to War and subsequent Bhishma Nirvana on or past winter solstice, is only a primary bit.
But not dating the one event of vital importance that must be fitted into timeline, makes this whole effort worthless as anything but work.
This event, ignored by Oak for most part except a barest mention, is the day Arjuna almost died, but for Krishna, who either knew about an impending solar eclipse while others obviously fid not, and knew how people would react, or he used his Chakra as author of Mahabharata explicitly states, to hide the Sun just before sunset, and revealed it before it set, just as Jayadratha the murderer came out of hiding to see Arjuna climb onto his own funeral pyre.
Despite all tomtomming Oak dies about treating all celestial descriptions as visual observation of astronomical nature, he ignores the one description that is nothing but visual observation of astronomical nature, ignores the vital importance of correlation of this observation with events unfolding on battlefield, ignores vital importance of consequences of alternative, and pretends it's non-existence by not even mentioning it.
Oak couldn't be more dishonest if he vowed to do so.
................................................................................................
"• My theory proceeds from a simple, almost trivial, unifying idea that all astronomy observations around the time of Mahabharata War are visual observations of the sky.
"• My theory is independently testable. Anyone can access astronomy software such as Voyager 4.5™, follow through my book and test each Mahabharata observation.
"• I sought explanation for Arundhati observation, based on my theory, an observation otherwise considered absurd by entire research community (albeit with one exception), as visual observation at the time of Mahabharata War."
So far, true. But he still hasn't explained as to why he discarded all possible past timings modulo 26,000 years cycles, asserting that this interval he picked is the only possibility for Mahabharata having taken place.
Further, he has only tested more specific timelines proposed by previous researchers, and picked one that fitted more number of events as per his selection. But discarding the event of most vital importance by any criteria, and instead parading a basketful of poetic allegories as visual observations of astronomical nature, makes the whole effort by Oak not only worthless but supremely ridiculous.
"• My theory corroborates not only positions of the planets but also their movements as described in the Mahabharata text, specifically unique movements of Mars, Jupiter and Venus.
"• My theory corroborated descriptions of planets and rationale for them shining brightly at times, e.g. Jupiter and Saturn shining brightly or Mars turning in ‘apasavya’ direction while shining brightly with fearsome appearance.
"• My theory predicted ‘potential observations’ referring to the phases and the positions of the moon, which would corroborate or falsify a proposed timeline for the 18 days of War. I searched for these potential observations within the Mahabharata text, and by luck, found numerous observations.
"• My theory corroborated 100+ astronomical observations from the Mahabharata text. More importantly my theory passed numerous critical tests, which in turn provided consistent explanations for Mahabharata astronomical observations. ... "
Did he never realise he's failed, or was merely dishonest?
" ... Some of these critical tests are,
"1. Fall of Abhijit
"2. The Epoch of Arundhati ..."
These two were of importance in determining the possible intervals when Mahabharata could have taken place, modulo 26,000 years cycles before; he has still not explained, not only zeroing in on the very first possibility, but asserting there can be no other.
Rest of what he counts is of comparatively far less importance than the one event he has neither been able to fit nor explain, Jayadratha Vadha, and he chose instead to be dishonest by pretending that he hasn't noticed it.
................................................................................................
"Drona became the general of the Kaurava army and the War continued. Abhimanyu was killed on 28 October 5561 B.C., on the 13th day of War. Arjuna killed Jayadratha in the evening on 29 October 5561 B.C., the next day, i.e. 14th day of the War. The moon along with 7 planets could be seen in the sky. The fighting continued into the night, Ghatotkacha was killed around the midnight, ... "
Notice Oak ignoring the events of vital importance on both counts - one, both valiant sons of two of the most renowned warriors amongst Pandava brothers were killed on successive days, and Arjuna was almost killed himself but saved by Krishna who pointed out Sun having reappeared as he informed Arjuna of Jayadratha having come out of hiding, thus enabling Arjuna to react instantly and slay his son's murderer; and two, this involved Sun becoming visible again after having set for some time, so it was dark, and everyone assumed Arjuna had failed, hus enemies gathering around to watch him fulfill his vow, so this was certainly one of the most spectacular events involving observations of celestial bodies.
Oak cannot admit Divine intervention, and us too dishonest to admit questionable aspect of his assumptions about fixing war to begin with Amawasya, instead of a suitable Tithi leaving Amawasya and solar eclipse for 14th day of War to explain Krishna saving life of Arjuna.
................................................................................................
Oak stuffs his work's bare skeleton with verbosity, expecting to exhaust his readers.
"It is always possible to introduce ad hoc hypothesis in any theory in order to save the theory from introducing contradictions. For this reason alone, a simple theory is preferred over a complicated one, where simplicity refers to testability. If ad hoc hypothesis leads to explaining away observations, rather than explain them, such a theory becomes inferior, especially when an alternate theory can corroborate ‘observations’ without an introduction of ad hoc hypothesis. Introduction of ad hoc hypothesis is a common phenomenon and is legitimate as long as ad hoc hypothesis does not turn the theory into a metaphysical program. In addition, introduction of ad hoc hypothesis should lead to growth of knowledge and at the same time should not introduce inconsistencies."
But he's done just that, and worse. He's ignored, or stuck with declaration of disdain, important parts of the works he's dated - Ramayana and Mahabharata - and avoided working to find better timeline in each case to fit what's known, and written in, the epics.
In case of Ramayana he's got entangled in a self made logical contraction by insisting that all details of celestial nature are visual observations, that he eouldnt get into astrological interpretations, and that exalted planets were merely those above horizon. This leads to absurdity about timeline of birth of Rama, which is at noon on a sunny day without an eclipse, do visual observation of five planets above horizon is absurd.
In case of Mahabharata he's merely ignored, after the insistence about all celestial descriptions bring visual observation of astronomical nature, the one key event that is undeniably such a description, and can only be explained as an eclipse very close to Sunset, getting over just before Sun actuslly set; the only other possibility is of declaration of acceptance of poet's version, a Divine Action of an intervention by Krishna using his Chakra to hide Sun.
Oak denies all of the latter by declaration of disdain for "traditional beliefs", not even giving a thought to possibility that there's traditional knowledge; former, he ignores, due to his laziness concerning finding a better timeline than one proposed by someone else.
Instead he spins a web out of the very thin material, not being content having found a good criterion or two to define possibilities of when Mahabharata did and could or could not have occurred, by testing other proposals and insisting he going the only possibility, claiming it fits a huge number of descriptions of astronomical observations. It's nothing of the sort.
And the one key, vital, visual observation that is of celestial, his timeline cannot fit, so he ignores it.
................................................................................................
"I de-mystified Mahabharata observation of ‘Arundhati walking ahead of Vasistha’ and showed this to be a visual observation during the Mahabharata War. ... "
"This single observation defined higher and lower bounds for the timeline of Mahabharata War, ... "
It only defines a period of a few thousand years, closest to present presented by Oak as absolute single timeline, without justification of why he didn't check other timelines modulo 26,000 years cycles, why they are not viable, which he does state without any rationale thereof presented.
" ... and the observation had higher degree of improbability associated with it. The explanation of Arundhati observation and corresponding prediction of time interval for the plausible year of Mahabharata War falsified all existing proposals for the timing of Mahabharata War, with the exception of 4 proposals that fell within the ‘Epoch of Arundhati’. Arundhati observation acts as falsifying evidence for any year proposed after 4500 B.C."
He's only tested for timelines proposed by others before his work, but not admitted that the one he's termed successful is not so, that it fails the single greatest test of a visual description of an event of celestial nature.
................................................................................................
Oak puts it cleverly.
"Numerous Mahabharata observations, when analyzed, infer a time interval of not less than 92 days (9+ 27 + X + 56 = 92+ X) between ‘Fall of Bhishma’ and ‘Bhishma Nirvana’. This requirement of minimum time interval leading to Bhishma Nirvana has placed a limit on the duration of time interval within which plausible year of the Mahabharata War is to be searched, not unlike the limit placed by Arundhati observation. This inference falsifies all known proposals for the day of Bhishma Nirvana and for the year of Mahabharata War."
That includes his own too, since he will insist on a timeline that can't have a solar eclipse on day 14 of the War at time of a key event, as described, although the 92+X days interval makes it entirely possible.
" ... Set of observations describing the phases and the positions of Moon during the 18 days of War provide corroborative evidence for Amawasya as the first day of War and Kartika Amawasya as the first day of war, which also means month of Margashirsha as the month of Mahabharata War."
That's mostly a blatant lie, Oak having misinterpreted most of poetic allegories as visual observations to support his timeline, which actually does not fit the one celestial description of undeniably visual nature.
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Contents
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Introduction
1 The Problem
2 Theories & Conjectures
3 Astronomy Basics 4 Mahabharata Astronomy
5 Envious Sister & Fall of Abhijit
6 The Epoch of Arundhati
7 The Planets Were Aligned
8 The First Day of Mahabharata War
9 Conflicting Observations
10 Theory of P V Vartak
11 A Better Theory
12 Implications, Predictions & New Problems
Notes
Selected Bibliography
Tables & Figures
Mahabharata References
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
REVIEW
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Introduction
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Oak begins not by introducing the subject but by talking about himself, and goes on and on, speaking of Arundhati observation, without explaining what he's talking about.
"Fifteen years ago, I stumbled on ‘Arundhati’1 observation, recorded in Bhishma Parva of Mahabharata. I liked this observation for two reasons. The observation had very high improbability associated with it. The only rational I could imagine on the part of Mahabharata author, to include such an improbable observation, was due to this being a factual observation at the time of Mahabharata War. If I could somehow test it, the observation held the key to falsification of ‘astronomical’ observations within the Mahabharata text. I could comprehend this observation, unlike numerous other astronomical observations within Mahabharata. I wanted to convince myself of the authenticity (or absurdity) of astronomical observations from the Mahabharata text, and ‘Arundhati’ observation was the most suitable for my purpose and abilities."
"It was not until 1997 A. D. when I began testing ‘Arundhati’ observation and it was not until 2009 A. D. when I succeeded in solving the mystery of Arundhati. My tests of ‘Arundhati’ observation not only resisted my falsification attempts, but also provided higher and lower bounds for plausible year of the Mahabharata War. The discovery of mine, as far as I am aware, is the first instance of such a precise prediction, albeit an interval bounded by higher and lower limits, for the plausible year of an ancient event, based on astronomical observations."
" ... Only 4 of these researchers had proposed years for the Mahabharata War that fell within the Epoch of Arundhati. ... "
If he's trying to be mysterious and pique interest, he's failing spectacularly - serious readers are highly irritated with this behaviour suitable more to a hindi film heroine of black and white era.
"Many researchers in last two centuries working on Mahabharata have precisely made this mistake. Some have used commonly accepted norms of astrology (and not astronomy), e.g. ‘Astrological drishti’ in describing Mahabharata references of a specific planet afflicting specific nakshatra. The problem with this approach is that once one starts using astrological interpretations, there is no stopping and thus anything anywhere can be explained!"
Isn't that the problem also with earning, cooking, feeding an infant, bathing, clothing, even eating?
Besides, if one's read anything by Oak, this attitude is not only familiar, but reminding one of the ridiculous ditches he digs himself into as a consequence. For example he asserts he assumes all astronomical observations of Valmiki Ramayana are visual, and interprets five exalted planets at birth of Rama as above horizon at the moment of birth! He doesn't dispute the birth being on Chaitra Shuddha Navami, at noon, so there's no Solar eclipse, and he hasn't realised that nobody does visual observation of five planets at noon on such a date at such a time, because it's impossible to do so from Earth.
So right away, reading this attitude posture here, one wonders what he's going to dig himself into and never realise it.
"Many others have employed theories of VarahaMihir and those of others to explain Mahabharata observations; and worst part of these efforts is that these researchers have explained away, rather than explain Mahabharata observations. It would be reasonable, although conjectural, to rather assume that many interpretations in current Indian astronomy (or for that matter astrology) as well as works of VarahaMihir, Ganesh Daivajna, Aryabhatta, Nilkanth and others are based on astronomical data of the Mahabharata text, and trying to make sense of it."
Again, it'd help if he explained what he's talking about.
"I employed two versions of Mahabharata editions, edition published by Gita Press, Gorakhpur (GP) and Critical edition (CE) published by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune. I extracted Mahabharata observations from both editions, with astronomical flavors, and have listed them at the end of the book. I have also stated alternate readings from CE, when appropriate. I also referred to two additional translations of Mahabharata in English."
................................................................................................
He outlines the book plan.
"1. The Primary aim is to make a case for my work, presented in this book, as a better theory for the prediction of the timing of Mahabharata War. The theory proposed is tested using astronomical observations from the Mahabharata text. The book is primarily a scientific study of how astronomy observations within Mahabharata assist us in not only determining the timing of Mahabharata War but also shading light on ancient tradition of astronomy observations in India.
"2. The second aim is to make such knowledge easily accessible and enjoyable to a layperson. I meet many individuals who find the subject of Mahabharata or astronomy exciting and fascinating, however feel, incorrectly I think, incapable of comprehending the details. Only prerequisite I think the reader need is intense interest in the subject of Mahabharata, willingness to learn visual astronomy by going few levels deeper, and perseverance. Visual astronomy is one of the few areas within the Mahabharata text that is not quite trivial and deserves to be known and understood by every lover of Mahabharata. It can be easily explained to those who do not dislike numbers and visualization, but even those who dislike numbers and visualization should understand the matter easily if they are not too impatient and prepared to re-read relevant portions (from Chapter 3 & 4) when required.
"3. My third aim is to illustrate a method to test an observation and subsequent falsification and/or corroboration of a theory. A further aim is to establish baseline for comparison of numerous theories, those already proposed and those that will be proposed in the future, for the prediction of the year of Mahabharata War and similar ancient events."
................................................................................................
Rest of this introduction chapter is descriptions or summaries of chapters of the book. What one intended to read the book gor begins only in chapter 5, hopefully with less chaff.
"Chapter 5 deals with one of the many Mahabharata astronomy observations and makes a case for an ancient tradition of astronomy observations in India. This Mahabharata observation, although not directly relevant for dating of the Mahabharata War, was instrumental in my designing of new experiments to test the key observation of Arundhati. Chapter 6 discusses the problem of Arundhati observation and my solution to the problem. The solution resulted in well-defined time interval for the plausible year of Mahabharata War. My solution of the Arundhati problem also falsifies all but 4 (4 out of 125+) proposals for the year of Mahabharata War. Chapter 7 explores the time interval defined by Arundhati observation, with the help of Mahabharata observations of planets and comets, searching for the year of Mahabharata War and succeeds in establishing the year for Mahabharata War. Chapter 8 employs Mahabharata observations, specifically phases and positions of the moon during the 18 days of Mahabharata War, to predict the first day as well as the lunar month of Mahabharata War."
Meanwhile he's still cryptic about repeated his references to Arundhati.
"Figure 1 illustrates various motions of the Earth and Figure 2 depicts Right Ascension (RA) and Declination (Dec), astral coordinate system of measurement. Figure 3 documents movement of Abhijit (Vega) through one complete cycle of precession of equinoxes (~26000 years) and illustrates the phenomena of Abhijit becoming Pole Star. Figure 4 documents Right Ascension Delta (RAD) between Arundhati and Vasistha over a period of ~42000 years and defines ‘the Epoch of Arundhati (11000 B.C. – 4500 B.C.). Figure 5 provides visual illustration of why Arundhati would have been seen as walking ahead of Vasistha during 5561 B.C., my proposed year for the Mahabharata War. Figures 6 through 10 provide visual descriptions of Mahabharata observations of planets. These visual descriptions will assist the reader in understanding Mahabharata descriptions of planets and their multiple positions. And for a more critical and astute reader, there are tables documenting these same visual illustrations."
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
May 18, 2022 - May 19, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
1 The Problem
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
"I had conjectured, the first time I read it, Arundhati observation as the factual visual observation at the time of Mahabharata War. When I finally corroborated this observation, after 15 years, I wanted to bring this discovery to the attention of people in general and Mahabharata researchers in particular. A white paper would have been sufficient to illustrate my efforts, which is what I had in mind. On the other hand, my small success made me eager to explore works of other researchers and I was rewarded in my efforts when I found numerous works on the dating of Mahabharata War. I was curious to know how others solved the problem that bothered me for many years. As I read these works, I realized that no past researchers had solved the mystery of Arundhati, and that many had simply ignored the observation. I also realized, against this background, how spectacular my solution of ‘Arundhati’ observation was!"
Hence the padding to make a book out of a paper, not content with his showing evidence of his contention but hammering in how everyone else so far is wrong!
................................................................................................
"While many researchers began with the assumed beginning of Kali Yuga or time interval based on genealogies of kings, I began my search by testing astronomy observation of Arundhati and have deliberately restricted myself to observations, astronomy or otherwise, within the Mahabharata text. I have also insisted on corroboration of all Mahabharata observations."
"Mighty river Saraswati is assumed to have existed during the time of Mahabharata War. Some researchers have employed geological evidence for the drying of Saraswati to estimate the timing of Mahabharata War. Multiple references in Purana literature refer to Krishna’s passing away at the beginning of Kali Yuga. Many researchers have made efforts to estimate the beginning of Kali Yuga and in turn employed the beginning of Kali Yuga to estimate the year of Mahabharata War. I call this method ‘KaliYuga-Mahabharata Nyaya’, analogous to ‘Shakha-Chandra Nyaya’. Travel records of foreign visitors to India as well as records from Puranas have documented genealogies of kings of various Indian royalties. Some researchers have used these genealogies to estimate the year of Mahabharata War. These lists do not begin with Mahabharata but rather go back into further antiquity; they are not perfect and only prominent kings have been mentioned. In addition, years documented for the rule of these kings are at best approximate. ... "
"The method I have employed is the hypothetico-deductive method. One starts with a problem and proposes a tentative solution. This tentative solution (theory) is tested by developing critical experiments and the outcome of the test results in either acceptance (albeit tentative) of the theory or rejection of it. The development of critical experiments and testing is the process of error elimination. A theory that survives these critical tests is accepted as a better theory. One cannot overemphasize the tentative nature of even the most successful theory. Newly successful theory in turn leads to new and more challenging problems than the ones it solved. The process continues in iterative fashion. This may be said to be the method of physical sciences."
"In case of Mahabharata, astronomical observations from the time of Mahabharata War already exist. This makes the task doubly challenging, i.e. decoding twice – first the interpretation of astronomical observations of Mahabharata author and second the interpretation of the Mahabharata text in the light of our current knowledge of astronomy. The task is challenging indeed, however not necessarily a disadvantage. This complexity, I believe, has an added advantage of corroborative weight if, by luck, one succeeds in explaining these observations."
"Records of astronomical observations made around the time of Mahabharata War begin in Udyoga Parva and end in Anushasan Parva. Udyoga Parva has records of pre-war astronomical observations. Bhishma Parva is full of astronomical observations; it records pre-war observations going back up to a year or longer before the War, observations through the first ten days of the War, and post-war observations. Drona Parva and Karna Parva are rich in observations related to five days and two days of the War, respectively. Shalya Parva contains observations of the last few days of the War. Shalya Parva also records astronomical observations related to Krishna’s visiting Hastinapur on peace mission as well as Balarama’s Tirthayatra. Sauptic Parva and Stri Parva are devoid of specific astronomical observations however contain references useful for building chronology of post-war events. Shanti Parva and Anushasan Parva contain few astronomical observations and numerous references useful in building chronological narrative leading to the death of Bhishma. These observations from Shanti and Anushasan became critical, shockingly and surprisingly, and to my delight, not only for corroborating my timeline but also for falsifying proposals of all other researchers."
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
May 19, 2022 - May 19, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
2 Theories & Conjectures
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
One would expect the said theories and conjectures to be those related to the subject of the book. No. The chapter begins with a discussion of related to concepts of assumption, presumption, rational, criticism, knowledge, background knowledge, more of similar - also, Experts, Authorities, University Chairs, Degrees & Titles, ... academia and social institutions where robes and followers might be replaced by titles, degrees, accolades, certificates, number of graduate students, memberships in organizations or number of honorary doctorates awarded. - and so on.
And, of course, the author.
"I noticed the tendency on part of many Mahabharata researchers to quote experts and their titles and to offer glowing praise whenever a researcher wanted to quote ‘the expert’ in defense of researcher’s own proposal. This type of evidence is untenable in support of any proposal and is no different than support claimed on the basis of speculations, opinions of experts, published books, peerreviewed journal articles, specific academic communities, authorities, gurus, traditions or scriptures. All these sources could be valuable, but not without critically analyzing their content and even then recognizing their vulnerability and possible overthrow of their corroborative weight."
................................................................................................
"Key Assumptions and Assertions
"1. Astronomy simulations provided by Voyager 4.5TM (which in turn are based on cosmological formulae and astronomy data from NASA database) are assumed to be accurate and precise enough for the problem under consideration.
"2. Mahabharata War was a factual event that took place in ancient times in northern India.
"3. Nakshatra system of time reckoning was well established at the time of Mahabharata War.
"4. The Mahabharata text, as available, speaks of three (or even four) recensions. Vyasa wrote it after the War and taught it to five of his disciples. Vaishampayan, one of the disciples of Vyasa, recited Mahabharata to King Janmejaya (great grandson of Arjuna) during latter’s ‘Snake Sacrifice’. Sauti, one of the listeners of Vaishampayan recension, retold Mahabharata to group of sages assembled for twelve-year sacrifice in Naimisharanya. The Mahabharata text available to us is documentation of above recensions.
"5. The Mahabharata text tells us story of the Kuru dynasty. The main story is interrupted by digressions of ‘upa-akhyana’ (other stories).
"6. State of Mahabharata astronomy is as described in the Mahabharata text.
"7. Mahabharata was written, per statements within the Mahabharata text, some 18 years after the Mahabharata War and writing of it took 3 years. The descriptions of the deaths of Krishna and the Pandavas were added during later recensions.
"8. Vyasa wanted to write Mahabharata to preserve history of the Kuru dynasty. He used the occasion to preserve knowledge of Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha, as understood during Mahabharata times.
"9. Vyasa wrote Mahabharata. The Mahabharata text is not detailed and specific enough for me to speculate if Mahabharata is work of multiple authors. It is not unreasonable to assume that Vyasa could have used assistance of his disciples in composing grand work such as Mahabharata however this remains my pure speculation with no corroborative evidence whatsoever. The Mahabharata text available today is documentation of multiple recensions and, in that sense current Mahabharata text is work of multiple authors.
"10. Vyasa wrote Mahabharata, in a secluded cave in Himalaya, per statements of the Mahabharata text.
"11. It is reasonable to assume existence of transcription and transmission errors in the Mahabharata text. Critical edition along with footnotes, prepared by BORI, provides corroborative evidence in support of this assumption. The second assumption commonly stated is that of insertion of obscurities, exaggerations and contradictions pertaining to religious, cultural and sociological themes into the Mahabharata text due to vested interests. This is a serious charge, and anyone claiming ‘specific text’ of Mahabharata to be so has an obligation to provide his rationale for such claim along with corroborative evidence in support of his claim. The third assumption is insertion of later names (places, countries, people, etc.). All such specific claims must be backed by rationale for such insertions and by corroborative evidence."
................................................................................................
And here come Oak’s pet obsession and pet peeve, assumptions that served to fail his own argument due to inherent contradictions he is unable to see or deal with, in his other work - leading an awake reader to question if he left it so and tried to push it under a carpet of attitude heaping disdain on astrology.
"My Theory My theory has three main theses,
"1. All astronomy observations in the Mahabharata text are ‘visual observations’ of the sky."
That's the argument, coupled with the consequently inevitable misinterpretation of "exalted planets", that fails his specific dating of Ramayana, where it's the inherent contradiction of his condition above that's responsible.
"2. Mahabharata astronomers were meticulous and patient empirical astronomers. They were inheritors of even farther ancient tradition of astronomy observations. Mahabharata astronomers had means to observe objects in the sky, which would not be otherwise visible to a naked eye."
Why assume humanity couldn't see heavens far better in an era of far less of lit up skies and various pollution of our times? Even now, this reduction of visibility - and its opposite - is experienced by those having lived or travelled in diverse places, and those living in places that grew only subsequentto their occupying a dwelling.
All that, apart from sheer differences in individual levels of vision.
Or is the author seeking to rule out the inner vision spoken of, more specifically in case of Sanjaya, in Mahabharata?
"3. Mahabharata author’s motivation for noting down specific astronomy observations during and around the time of Mahabharata War was to create records of the timing of Mahabharata War. These observations were embedded in the Mahabharata text. Mahabharata author embedded these observations as is and also in the form of similes signifying bad omens, engagement of key warriors on the battlefield or death of principal warriors.
"I believe that it is possible to identify additional descriptions of planets, positions of the Moon and the Sun or other astronomy observations in the Mahabharata text, in addition to what have been already identified by previous researchers. Although I cannot be certain of my prognosis, what I feel confident is that these additional observations, if found would (should) fit the descriptions of my Mahabharata War timeline. Current and future researchers have responsibility to test newfound astronomical observations, if and when they are found within the Mahabharata text."
"Critique of Mahabharata Researches
"I could sense that all researchers, whose work I evaluated, were convinced that the timing of Mahabharata War is much farther in the past than the careless opinions thrown around for 500 B.C. or 1000 B.C. The dates proposed by these researchers are as early as 7300 B.C. and as late as 1400 B.C."
Rest of the chapter he leaves to justifying not criticizing other works on the subject.
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
May 19, 2022 - May 19, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
3 Astronomy Basics
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
This chapter describes figures explaining astronomical observations, in particular precession of equinoxes. It's a puzzle when he goes on and on with no figures in sight, while one patiently expects them to appear on next page.its an unpleasant surprise when one realises they don't accompany the chapter but instead are banished to the end of the book.
This inefficient arrangement couldn't have been designed to torture the readers, could it? Was it profitable? Wonder how stupid children's story books in US would look doing that. Are they exorbitantly expensive due to not foing do? That'd explain the dominant lack of literacy in the first nation.
Good heavens, Oak is good at high sounding, empty verbiage! Here he quotes for no reason except a decoration apparently to the chapter -
"It is through the medium of astronomy alone that a few rays from those distant objects can be conveyed in safety to the eye of a modern observer, so as to afford him a light, which, though it be scanty, is pure and unbroken, and free from the false colorings of vanity and superstition."
"- John Playfair"
The implication being, those who haven't studied astronomy couldn't possibly look up on a clear night and see the thinking stuff, that the view thereof cannot "be conveyed in safety to the eye" without the "medium of astronomy"? Sorry to inform both, it's incorrect.
................................................................................................
He spends another few paragraphs describing what to expect in the chapter. There are another couple of paragraphs describing the diagram forthcoming and instructions about what to imagine in the diagram, namely, another line. He inserts an informative paragraph - or a few - just when one is nodding off with expectations of more verbiage of intentions.
"The Earth rotates (R) around itself at an angle with respect to the plane of the ecliptic and completes one rotation in approximately 24 hours. This is the diurnal motion of the earth. This angle, with respect to the plane of the ecliptic, oscillates slowly across a range of 3° with mean around 23.5° and a full cycle of this oscillatory motion takes approximately 41,000 years. This oscillatory motion can be termed as ‘nod’ of the Earth and is not shown in the Figure 1. Earth’s axis experiences the wobble, known as the precession of equinoxes (P) and completes one cycle in approximately 26000 years. The zigzag motion of this wobble is known as nutation (N). The Earth rotates around the Sun along the ecliptic and completes one cycle in approximately 365 days. Earth’s rotating around itself is the cause of days and nights at any given location on the Earth. Earth’s rotation, at an angle (with respect to the plane of the ecliptic) around the Sun, is the cause of different seasons as well as days and nights of varying duration. The Earth wobbles, nods, and spins as it travels through its orbital path around the Sun. The Earth spins around itself in a day, orbits around the Sun in a year, completes a wobbling cycle in 26000 years and finishes nodding in 41000 years.
"Earth’s precession was historically called ‘the precession of the equinoxes’ because the equinoxes moved westward along the ecliptic relative to the fixed stars, opposite to the motion of the Sun along the ecliptic. The precession of the Earth’s axis has a number of observable effects. First, the positions of the south and north celestial poles appear to move in circles against the space-fixed backdrop of stars, completing one circuit in approximately 26000 years. Thus, while today the star Polaris lies approximately at the north celestial pole, this will change over time, and other stars will become the "north celestial stars" in succession.
"As the celestial poles shift, there is a corresponding gradual shift in the apparent orientation of the whole star field, as viewed from a particular position on the Earth. Secondly, the position of the Earth (with respect to background star field) in its orbit around the Sun, at the solstices and equinoxes, relative to the seasons, slowly changes. For example, suppose that the Earth’s orbital position is marked at the summer solstice, when the Earth’s axial tilt is pointing directly towards the Sun. One full orbit later, when the Sun has returned to the same apparent position relative to the background stars, the Earth’s axial tilt is now directly towards the Sun: because of the effects of precession, it is a little way "beyond" this. In other words, the solstice occurred a little earlier in the orbit. Thus, the tropical year, measuring the cycle of seasons (for example, the time from solstice to solstice, or equinox to equinox), is about 20 minutes shorter than the sidereal year, which is measured by the Sun’s apparent position relative to the stars. Note that 20 minutes per year is approximately equivalent to one year per 26000 years, so after one full cycle of approximately 26000 years, the positions of the seasons relative to the orbit are "back where they started".
"In actuality, other effects also slowly change the shape and orientation of the Earth’s orbit, and these, in combination with precession, create various cycles of differing periods. For identical reasons, the apparent position of the Sun relative to the backdrop of the stars at some seasonally fixed time, say the vernal equinox, slowly regresses a full 360° through all reference points in the sky (nakshatra or constellations of the zodiac), at the rate of about 50.3 arc-sec per year (approximately 360° divided by 26000), or 1° every 72 years."
"A solstice is an astronomical event that occurs twice each year, when the tilt of the Earth’s axis is most inclined toward or away from the Sun, causing the Sun’s apparent position in the sky to reach its northernmost (Summer solstice – Dakshinayan bindu) or southernmost extreme (Winter Solstice – Uttarayan bindu). Solstice means ‘Sun stands still’, because at the solstices, the Sun stands still in declination; that is, the apparent movement of the Sun’s path north or south comes to a stop before reversing direction. The term solstice can also be used in a wider sense, as the date (day) when this occurs and we are precisely interested in this latter meaning, for both solstices and equinoxes.
"An equinox occurs twice a year, when the tilt of the Earth’s axis is inclined neither away from nor towards the Sun, the Sun being vertically above a point on the Equator. The term equinox can also be used in a broader sense, meaning the date (day) when such a passage happens. The term equinox denotes equal length, because around the equinox, the night and day are approximately equally long. At an equinox, the Sun is at one of two opposite points on the celestial sphere where the celestial equator (i.e. Declination = 0) and ecliptic intersect. These points of intersection are called equinoctial points: the vernal point (Vasant Sampat) and the autumnal point (Sharad Sampat). By extension, the term equinox may denote an equinoctial point."
" ... Polaris will cease to be a northern pole star in the next few hundred years, to be replaced by Errai (Gamma Cephei) around 4000 A.D."
"Some of the key stars along this path of north celestial pole include Polaris, Kochab, Kappa Draconis, Thuban, Edasich, Tau Herculis, Deneb and Vega. However the stars themselves exhibit motions relative to each other and this motion is known as proper motion. This proper motion combined with precession of equinoxes and nutation results in apparent drift of a pole star."
"The sidereal period is the time that it takes the object to make one full orbit around the Sun, relative to the stars. This is considered to be an object’s true orbital period. The Synodic period is the time that it takes for the object to reappear at the same point in the sky, relative to the Sun, as observed from Earth; i.e. returns to the same elongation (and planetary phase). This is the time that elapses between two successive conjunctions with the Sun and is the object’s Earth-apparent orbital period. The Synodic period differs from the sidereal period since Earth itself revolves around the Sun."
"Declination (Dec) is one of the two coordinates of the equatorial coordinate system (Figure 2). Declination is comparable to latitude, projected onto the celestial sphere, and is measured in degrees north and south of the celestial equator. Points north of the celestial equator have positive declinations, while those to the south have negative declinations. The sign is customarily included even if it is positive. ... "
"A celestial object that passes over zenith has a declination equal to the observer’s latitude, with northern latitudes yielding positive declinations. A northern pole star therefore has the declination close to +90°. At present Polaris is the pole star in the northern direction. Its mean position, taking into account precession and proper motion, will reach a maximum declination of +89°32’23", i.e. 0.4603° from the celestial North Pole, in February 2102 A. D. Its maximum apparent declination, taking into account nutation and aberration, will be +89°32’50.62", i.e. 0.4526° from the celestial North Pole, on 24 March 2100 A. D.
"Right ascension (RA) is the other coordinate of the equatorial coordinate system. RA is the celestial equivalent of terrestrial longitude. Both RA and longitude measure an east-west angle along the equator; and both measure from a zero point on the equator. For longitude, the zero point is the Prime Meridian (Royal observatory, Greenwich, UK); for RA, the zero point is the point of Vernal equinox, which is the place in the sky where the Sun crosses the celestial equator at the Vernal Equinox.
"RA is measured eastward from the Vernal equinox. Any units of angular measure can be used for RA, but it is customarily measured in hours, minutes, and seconds, with 24 hours being equivalent to a full circle. The reason for this choice is that the earth rotates at an approximately constant rate. Since a complete circle has 360 degrees, an hour of right ascension is equal to 1/24 of complete circle, or 15 degrees of arc, a single minute of right ascension equal to 15 minutes of arc, and a second of right ascension equal to 15 seconds of arc. RA can be used to determine a star’s location and to determine how long it will take for a star to reach a certain point in the sky.
"Because a star lies in a nearly constant direction as viewed from the Earth, its declination is approximately constant from year to year. However, both the right ascension and declination do change gradually due to the effects of the precession of the equinoxes and proper motions of stars. Since ‘RA’ and ‘Dec’ of stars are constantly changing due to the precession, astronomers always specify these with reference to a particular epoch."
"An eclipse is an astronomical event when one celestial body moves into the shadow of another, partially or fully obscuring it from view. The two primary types of eclipses relevant to the subject matter, seen from the Earth, are the solar eclipse and the lunar eclipse. The solar eclipse occurs when the Moon travels between the Sun and the Earth, blocking sun’s light from the Earth in the middle of the day, and generally giving the appearance of a ring of light in the darkened sky. The lunar eclipse occurs when the Moon moves into the shadow of the Earth during night hours, gradually blocking the view of the Moon from the Earth. Eclipses, be they solar or lunar, occur when the Earth, Sun and Moon are in a line. If the Moon is in-between the Earth and the Sun, it blocks the view of the Sun from some parts of the Earth, and this produces a solar eclipse. If, on the contrary, it is the Earth that is in-between the Sun and the Moon, then the Earth will block the light from the Sun before it can get to the Moon. Since moonlight is just the light the Moon reflects from the Sun, this will darken the Moon, and we get a lunar eclipse."
" ... It is important to notice that the shadow is more complicated than just a cone: it actually consists of a darker cone, or umbra, where no sunlight reaches, and a lighter region, the penumbra, where only some of the sunlight is blocked. Whether you will be able to observe a total or partial eclipse will depend on which of the two regions you are located in."
" ... If the Moon is close enough to the Earth, it will cover it completely, and we get a total solar eclipse. This is the most spectacular kind, where the day changes into darkness and one can see the stars in plain day. ... "
This can happen during a partial eclipse too; Venus and Mercury were visible overhead in Mumbai during a solar eclipse which was only partially visible in Mumbai but total around Hyderabad, circa 1979-80.
................................................................................................
" ... If the Moon does not enter into the umbra, the darkest part of the Earth’s shadow, then it does not darken completely, and we get a partial eclipse. These are hard to notice; the moon just darkens a bit, but does not disappear completely into the night. ... "
No, it could be very startlingly noticeable, due to the partially visible Moon being a crescent on the wrong day of the month, and even more to the point, not the usual crescent one is accustomed to in a given place, but inclined very differently.
"A selenelion or selenehelion occurs when both the Sun and the eclipsed Moon can be observed at the same time. This can only happen just before sunset or just after sunrise, and both bodies will appear just above the horizon at nearly opposite points in the sky. This arrangement has led to the phenomenon being referred to as a horizontal eclipse. It happens during every lunar eclipse at all those places on the Earth where it is sunrise or sunset at the time. Indeed, the reddened light that reaches the Moon comes from all the simultaneous sunrises and sunsets on the Earth. Although the Moon is in the Earth’s geometrical shadow, the Sun and the eclipsed Moon can appear in the sky at the same time because the refraction of light through the Earth’s atmosphere causes objects near the horizon to appear higher in the sky than their true geometric position."
"The Moon does not completely disappear as it passes through the umbra because of the refraction of sunlight by the Earth’s atmosphere into the shadow cone; if the Earth had no atmosphere, the Moon would be completely dark during an eclipse. The red coloring arises because sunlight reaching the Moon must pass through a long and dense layer of the Earth’s atmosphere, where it is scattered. Shorter wavelengths are more likely to be scattered by the small particles, and so by the time the light has passed through the atmosphere, the longer wavelengths dominate. This resulting light we perceive as red. This is the same effect that causes sunsets and sunrises to turn the sky a reddish color; an alternative way of considering the problem is to realize that, as viewed from the Moon, the Sun would appear to be setting (or rising) behind the Earth. The amount of refracted light depends on the amount of dust or clouds in the atmosphere; this also controls how much light is scattered. In general, the dustier the atmosphere, the more that other wavelengths of light will be removed (compared to red light), leaving the resulting light a deeper red color. This causes the resulting coppery-red hue of the moon to vary from one eclipse to the next.
"Volcanoes are notable for expelling large quantities of dust into the atmosphere, and a large eruption shortly before an eclipse can have a large effect on the resulting color. War activities are notable for expelling large quantities of dust into the atmosphere."
Oak introduces reader to Julian and Gregorian calendars.
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
May 19, 2022 - May 19, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
4 Mahabharata Astronomy
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
"While the West was still thinking, perhaps, of 6,000 years old universe – India was already envisioning ages and eons and galaxies as numerous as the sands of the Ganges. The Universe so vast that modern astronomy slips into its folds without a ripple.
"- Houston Smith"
" ... I conjecture that the Vedic practice of performing ‘Yajna’ or ‘Satra’ with clear aim of keeping track of time and to make necessary corrections was well established by the time of Mahabharata. ... "
That's silly. So small an aim is achieved pretty well, by anyone incarcerated, by markings on walls with elementary systems! Yajna and related spiritual rituals are too elaborate a construction for so small an aim.
Is Oak trying to fend off queries by colleagues out West about his creed?
................................................................................................
"Usage of ‘Varsha’ for a year also suggests the beginning of a year with the rainy season, and in the Indian context that meant on summer solstice. At least one of the many beginnings of a year can be said to begin with summer solstice during Mahabharata time, unless of course the term continued its use from Vedic times when ‘Varsha (rain)’ and summer solstice were used as beginning of a new year and thus coincided with beginning and end of ‘Satra’ or ‘Yajna’ or ‘Samvatsara’. Mahabharata is thus not explicit regarding the beginning of a new year. ... "
Oak hasn't perhaps been as familiar with Sanskrit as with West, and it hasn't occurred to him that the two words that seem related might be due to anther reason, related to the root of both; he's not remembered that fir example, one of the terms for cattle in Sanskrit is related to this root as well, but another to the word for Light, so one can't conclude that cattle was seen as clouds or rain. Or year.
This root might be the one related to increase, which fits al of these - and also the word for old.
................................................................................................
" ... Mahabharata is clear about daily calendar being lunar in origin and also about the fact that approximately two additional months were added every five years in order to synchronize lunar calendar with the solar calendar2.
"Mahabharata calendar employed lunar months in daily practice and this is apparent throughout the text. On the other hand, Mahabharata society was aware of both lunar and solar years, and choice of lunar vs. solar year was responsible for Duyrodhana’s confusion regarding the total duration spent by the Pandavas in exile."
Or he could have been lying about confusion, obduracy regarding ousting the superior cousins being reality, jealousy being key, as in case of antisemitism or anti-Hindu, anti-India attitude and policies across space and time.
................................................................................................
"Luni- Solar year & Yuga
"The word ‘yuga’ has multiple meanings however I want to emphasize one of the many contexts in which it is used in the Mahabharata. Yuga I am referring to is the Yuga of 5 years. Incorporation of additional two lunar months every five lunar years brought lunar calendar in accord with the solar calendar. Bhishma refers to insertion of two Adhika masa (extra months) during each five-year period2."
" ... There is no clear reference in Mahabharata, referring to starting point of the lunar month. We have to infer the beginning of the lunar month from available evidence. Available evidence, per P V Kane, suggests two beginnings for the month, one starting with new moon day (Amanta), as is the case at present and another starting with full moon day (Purnamanta). Mahabharata calendar had twelve lunar months, including one extra month, which was inserted every two and half years3. ... "
"I have assumed Amanta reckoning for lunar months throughout the book."
But North India uses the other, months ending in full moon. What if that was so during Mahabharata too? There seems no reason why people would change after!
................................................................................................
" ... On new moon day, moon’s unilluminated side is facing the Earth and thus is not visible, except during a solar eclipse. ... "
No, that's incorrect. What's discernible is evidence of the fact of Moon having come in a line between Earth and Sun, by the shadow it casts on Sun, but not that it is Moon. Else, people would have known it was the Moon casting shadow, by simply looking, but it wasn't so. It was realised much later, despite knowing that a solar eclipse always occurred only on a no Moon day.
................................................................................................
"Mahabharata method of referring to the day is by referring to the Nakshatra closest to the Moon. One can determine the lunar month with reasonable accuracy by knowing the nakshatra of the day along with the Paksha and the phase of the moon.
"In Indian calendar system ‘Aha’ may refer to period of time when the Sun is above the horizon, ‘Ratra’ may refer to the time when the Sun is below the horizon and ‘AhoRatra’ as referring to modern 24 hours day. It is important to note that words ‘Aham’ or ‘Ratra’ were also used to designate ’24 hour day’ in Mahabharata times. ... "
That last part is incorrect; ‘Ratra’ or ‘Ratri’ is always night, just as nomenclature in most languages goes, while ‘Aham’ or ‘Aho’ denotes , 'Day', also used in both senses in English and to be understood by context, whether it means a 24 hour period, or the time that light lasts within the said 24 hour period, or from Sunrise to Sunset.
In tropics, of course, and through most of India, the twilight is a very short period compared with its duration in latitudes closer to either of the two poles where daylight lasts much longer after sunset and begins much earlier at dawn, especially more so in summer.
So there's no confusion, usually, about precisely what's intended by the word.
................................................................................................
" ... Astronomers of Mahabharata time used the system of ‘nakshatra Ganana’, developed by their predecessors, to keep track of time. Nakshatra, which is loosely translated as ‘asterism’ could be either a specific star (e.g. Chitra) or group of stars (e.g. Krittika) along the ecliptic and is employed as reference in stating the positions of astral bodies (sun, moon, planets, comets, etc.).
"It appears that the desired number of nakshatras were determined based on how long it took the moon to complete one orbital cycle. Since the moon completes one cycle through its orbit in 27.3 days, 27 nakshatras were selected. This nakshatra system was also used to track positions of other astral bodies. ... were given specific names, were assigned a devata (deity) and are frequently referred to by the name of their assigned deity. The nakshatras along with their Yoga Tara, Deity, Right Ascension and Declination measurements are listed in Table 3."
"Orbit of the Sun around the Earth is the reference plane for all Mahabharata astronomical observations made after the sunset (dusk), during the night and before the sunrise (dawn). Nakshatras were employed to track positions of the Sun, the planets and other astral bodies such as comets. Position of the Sun with specific nakshatra gained significance at the points of equinoxes and solstices. Critical point to remember is that the direct observation of the position of the Sun near a specific nakshatra is impossible and is thus inferred from the position and identification of nakshatras before sunrise or after sunset and/or also based on the positions and the phases of the Moon.
" ... The word Ketu referring to node of the moon does not appear in the Mahabharata text. The word ‘Ketu’ does appear multiple times, however it appears either as referring to flag/banner/symbol or as referring to a comet (e.g. Dhuma-Ketu), literally smoking flag or banner. The positions of these nodes along with the positions of the Sun and the Moon play critical role in occurrences or predictions of eclipses. The Mahabharata text refers to ‘Rahu’ in the sense of moon’s node whether it refers to solar or lunar eclipse. It is important to think of ‘Rahu’ as area of the sky as opposed to a specific point.
"All nodes are calculated mathematical points (points are designated using nakshatra close to the mathematically calculated point) where the ecliptic is crossed by the plane of planet’s (or the moon’s) orbit. All nodes are rather lines instead of points and are thus to be interpreted as an area of the sky, rather than a precise point. Planetary node periods are much longer than the period of the moon’s node. The periodicity of the moon’s node (e.g. Rahu) is ~18 years, which means the moon’s node will appear near the same nakshatra after ~18 years. Most planetary node periods are of the order of 24000 to 26000 years, about the same time it takes for the precession of equinoxes to complete one cycle. Thus, node of a planet is stationary for all practical purposes, however it will change in the long run as all nodes are moving counter clockwise around the ecliptic through nakshatras. All of the planets in our solar system are approximately in the same plane with respect to the background star field and thus all the planets are observed along the ecliptic."
"Mercury usually turns retrograde 3 times a year and is typically retrograde for 24 days. Venus turns retrograde every 18 months and is typically retrograde for 42 days. Mars turns retrograde once in two years and remain retrograde for 80 days. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto go retrograde once each year and for 120, 140, 150, 160 and 160 days respectively. All planets appear much brighter than their usual magnitude during their retrograde motion."
"All planets have nodes and thus exhibit oblique motion around their respective nodes, however the observed effect is pronounced for Mars and Jupiter. In case of Mercury and Venus, the occurrence of oblique motion is too frequent and may not be visible (especially in case of the Mercury because of its proximity to the Sun) while in case of Saturn, it is too infrequent."
If Oak means whether it's noticeable if a planet is visible in South or North, it is, of course, especially so for Mercury which is brighter in winter when visible in evening.
................................................................................................
"It appears that Mahabharata astronomers were aware of all the planets of solar system including Pluto. This may come as a shock and a surprise to the reader, since Uranus, Neptune and Pluto were discovered (or re-discovered) in modern times by Herschel (1781 A.D.), Verrier (1846 A.D.) and Tombaugh (1930 A.D.), respectively.
"Thus, instead of assuming that Mahabharata astronomers were aware of these planets, I decided to test my claim (previously made by P V Vartak) of Mahabharata astronomers being aware of these three planets, as part of my book. Mahabharata observations present us with at least 5 opportunities. These opportunities can be explained meaningfully only when we assume Mahabharata astronomers to have knowledge of all 9 planets of the solar system. It is true that Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are referred only few times and only in indirect fashion18, 21. One set of Specific Mahabharata observations makes sense, only if one assumes the knowledge of these three planets in Mahabharata times 24, 25. Another set of specific Mahabharata observations leaves no doubt about the identification and positions of these three planets23. What is also interesting is that the references to positions of Neptune and Pluto, planets smaller and farther than Uranus, can be inferred with stronger conviction than that of Uranus.
"On the other hand Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are mentioned in the Mahabharata text numerous times and no doubt about their identification exists. The Mahabharata text refers to five planets by names that are consistent with rest of the ancient Indian literature.
"While Mercury is referred to as either Budha or son of the Moon (Somaputra or Shashijena), Venus is referred to as either Shukra or Bhrigusoon (son of Bhrigu). Mars is identified with multiple names such as Mangal, Angarakha, Parusha graha (evil planet), Lohitanga and son of the Earth (Dharaputra). Jupiter is predominantly identified with the name ‘Brhaspati’. Saturn is identified as Shani, Shanischar or Suryaputra. At times Mahabharata refers to planets simply by adjectives such as Shyama20 (dark, dark blue), Shweta19 (white, light blue), Tikshna (sharp) or Tivra21 (intense), etc. One has to only guess, in such instances; a planet Mahabharata text might be referring to."
"Ancient Indian literature contains references for a new year to begin with Winter solstice, Vernal equinox or Summer solstice however Mahabharata is silent on the beginning of a new year. Solstices are designated in Indian calendar system as ‘Uttarayan Bindu’ (winter solstice) and ‘Dakshinayan Bindu’ (summer solstice). Equinoxes are designated as Vasant Sampat (vernal equinox) and Sharad Sampat (fall equinox). Precession of equinoxes affects beginning of new season with respect to Indian lunar calendar. Every two thousand years, the beginning of a season precedes by one lunar month."
Traditional calendars in India begin with Chaitra, at new Moon (Amawasya but day after), for a sizable section; trade community, however, for mist part, begins their new year, with fresh accounts books, the day after Amawasya during Deepavali.
Was this not so during Mahabharata era?
................................................................................................
"Brightness of a celestial object (Star or Planet)
"The apparent magnitude (m) of a celestial body is a measure of its brightness as seen by an observer on the Earth, normalized to the value it would have in the absence of atmosphere. The brighter the object appears, the lower the value of its magnitude. The scale for apparent magnitude was initially calibrated by assigning zero value to the magnitude of Vega (Abhijit)."
"The Mahabharata text describes planets afflicting (pidyate) or attacking (akramya) specific nakshatras. Mahabharata researchers, proposing a theory and corresponding timing for the War, are required to interpret these Mahabharata observations. Observations can be interpreted in multiple ways. For example, the Sun and the Moon can be visualized as fighting against each other on the full moon day, at the time of sunset or sunrise. The same analogy might even be used on the day of Amawasya when both of them are next to each other."
Does Mahabharata ever refer to Sun and Moon fighting? That isn't ever known or thought in India, and if it were in Mahabharata, there would be such a tradition. So Oak is being callous to India's sensibilities.
"Specific stars, asterisms or constellations have received greater attention in the Mahabharata text. Beginning with the stars along the ecliptic belt, Rohini (Aldebaran) appears to be one of the favorite stars of Mahabharata astronomers. Mahabharata text is at pain to describe various planets or positions of the Moon in the context of Rohini. Chitra (Spica), Swati (Arcturus), Jyeshtha (Antares), Shravana (Altair), Krittika (Pleiades), are some of the other key nakshatras besides Rohini, mentioned frequently in the Mahabharata text. Mahabharata text mentions Saptarshis (seven stars) that form the panhandle of the constellation Ursa Major and specifically Arundhati (Alcor) and Vasistha (Mizar).
"The Mahabharata text refers to Abhijit (Vega), Dhanishtha (Sualocin), Rohini (Aldabaran) and Krittika (Pleiades) in a unique context and this very context is the subject of the next chapter."
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
May 19, 2022 - May 19, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
5 Envious Sister & Fall of Abhijit
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
"Year: 14602 B.C. Lord Indra appeared worried and perplexed and conveyed his concern to Lord Skandha. Lord Indra requested Lord Skandha to discuss the matter with Lord Brahma and to come up with a solution.
"What was the problem that caused so much grief to Lord Indra? From mythological perspective, Indra is identified with the Sun (in addition to many other designations, e.g. Rain God); ... "
This is an idea imposed by indologists of West, but not true. While Sun is indeed worshipped as a God in India, and Indra is the King of heaven And of Gods therein, they are never seen as same. Indra is associated with thunder and lightening, thereby with rain, but specifically God Of rain is Varuna, again (and not all water, since rivers are separate Goddesses, except Brahmaputra, the only river not female), distinct from Indra and from Sun. Meanwhile Pawan is God that represents force of wind.
" ... Skandha is identified with the axis of Earth while Brahma is identified with the creator of cosmos."
Skanda is another name for Kartikeya, son of Shiva; skandha is shoulder. Southern insistence to use h to denote separation of two rows of Devanagarie script (one with North European pronouncing of t and d, other with dental variations common to Latin cultures), is probably confusing Oak.
................................................................................................
"Problem
"Abhijit (Vega), younger sister of Rohini (Aldebaran), desiring seniority (over Rohini?) went to the forest to perform austerities. Thus, Abhijit (Vega) slipped/moved from the sky. At that time (as a result) Indra approached Skandha and asked Skandha to discuss the matter with Brahma. Brahma ordained the beginning of time from Dhanishtha (Sualocin), while previous to this incident the beginning of time was from Rohini and the appropriate number of nakshatras existed (for time reckoning). Being told like this by Indra, Krittika (Pleiades), the nakshatra with Agni as its deity and with the shape of a cart (or with seven heads) became happy and went up in the sky4.
"My task is to make sense of the incidents described in this Mahabharata passage."
................................................................................................
"Solutions proposed by others"
" ... R N Iyengar writes,
"The above verse appears in all editions of Mahabharata, including the recognized BORI, Pune, critical edition where it appears in Chapter 219. These four verses refer to the four stars Abhijit, Rohini, Dhanishtha and Krittika. The literal meaning of the first two verses is easy. However, what is meant by Abhijit and Rohini is not clear. In Vedic literature there is ambiguity as to whether the number of nakshatras was 27 or 28. In the much later Siddhantic astronomy whenever 28 stars are mentioned in dividing the ecliptic, Abhijit is placed between U. Ashada and Shravana and is identified with star Vega (a Lyrae). In Taittriya Samhita (4.4.10) only 27 stars are mentioned, whereas in Taittriya Brahmana (1.5.1.3) 28 stars with Abhijit placed between U. Ashadha and Shravana are listed. Again, even though Rohini is popularly identified with Aldebaran, there is indication in the above text that Jyeshtha was once called by the same name Rohini. Abhijit’s competition with her elder sister Rohini and eventual vanishing from the sky should be an allegory for brightening followed by dimming beyond recognition. If we take the traditional position of Abhijit as the correct position since ancient times, its relative brightening would have been with respect to Antares (Jyeshtha Rohini). There is an indirect allusion to the missing Abhijit in Taittriya Samhita (Brahmana 3.3.6.4) also. In the available ancient Chinese, records on supernovae, there is reference to a star near Antares that vanished in 1400 B.C. Could this be the vanishing star referred as Abhijit in Mahabharata? The statement that this happened when time (year) began with star Dhanishtha lends support to this possibility. Winter solstice at Dhanishtha was the period of Vedanga Jyotisha, which has been dated to 1400 B.C. The meaning of the last three lines of the above verses, in relation to the previous ones is not clear as noted by S.B. Dikshit, a scholar of great repute."
"Vartak’s literal translation is from one of his papers, written some time after ‘Swayambhu’,
"Contesting Abhijit (Vega), the daughter-like younger sister of Rohini (Aldebaran) went to Vana (i.e. water) for heating the summer (tapa) because she was desirous of seniority. I do not understand anything. I wish you good luck, but I must tell that the star Abhijit has slipped down from the sky. This is a distant time but you (Skandha) think of it with Brahma. At that time Brahma had reckoned the time, placing Dhanishtha at the top of the list of nakshatras. Rohini was also given first place in the past. I have gathered this much knowledge (Sankhya). When Indra talked like this, Krittika went to the heaven (i.e. attained the highest respectable position). That seven-headed constellation whose deity is fire (Agni) is still glittering."
"Vartak has provided additional explanation and I paraphrase it,
"The daughter like younger sister of Rohini (Aldebaran) is Krittika (Pleiades). Krittika wanted seniority so she contested with Abhijit (Vega). Vartak considers this as poetic idea to give an explanation to the fact that Abhijit slipped down and infers that writer of Mahabharata assumed Abhijit slipped down because of Krittika and thus were held responsible. He interprets that it was Krittika who went to Vana (meaning water or forest) for tapa (meaning summer or penance), but it also means Krittika went to water for heating the summer. He wonders about his own interpretation of ‘water’ and then suggests that Krittika went to rainy season, i.e. to summer solstice, when rainy season starts in India. Since Krittika were at summer solstice around 21000 B.C., he infers that slipping of Vega was observed around this time and hence the plausible correlation in Mahabharata writer’s mind. To Vartak, Brahma’s reckoning of Dhanishtha in the first place refers to the time when Dhanishtha was at the vernal equinox, which is around the same time as 21000 B.C. And since Rohini was also in the first position in further antiquity, Vartak surmises that this was the time period of around 22500 B.C. when Rohini was at summer solstice. Vartak thinks that by exposing these two ancient facts, Indra reveals to Skandha the two methods in vogue at that time, to list the nakshatras. One method that gave the first place to the nakshatra at Vernal equinox, and the other that gave the first place to the nakshatra at summer solstice. Vartak suggest that this dialogue took place between Indra and Skandha around 13000 B.C. when there was a complete fall of Vega. And why would Indra tell this story to Skandha around 13000 B.C? Vartak asks the question and then answers that this was probably due to the fact that around 13000 B.C. summer solstice was around Abhijit and some scholars might have suggested that Abhijit be given first place, however to oppose this proposal, Indra describes the past incident and brought to notice the fact that Abhijit had fallen to the horizon to become celestial North Pole and so it was not useful as nakshatra for reckoning time."
"At present Abhijit has Declination of +39°, i.e. as far to the south as it gets from the celestial North Pole. Another time Abhijit was so close to the ecliptic was in 25000 B.C. Abhijit started moving away from the ecliptic, towards the north and became North Pole star around 12000 B.C. This is the phenomenon of the ‘Fall of Abhijit’. After 12000 B.C. Abhijit began moving away from the celestial North Pole and towards the ecliptic to attain its present position."
" ... Allegorically speaking, functional nakshatra is a nakshatra that is useful in demarking the position of the moon (e.g. close to the ecliptic) and thus assist in keeping track of time and can be considered to be one having a social life. In this context, Abhijit moving towards the celestial North Pole can be visualized as going to the forest (into seclusion and away from social life). As Abhijit approached the celestial pole, contemporary observers would have perceived Abhijit as being stationary. Allegorically speaking, slipping/movement of Abhijit towards the celestial pole and its position close to the celestial pole can be visualized as going to the forest (away from social life) to do tapa (penance) by being stationary in one place."
"Abhijit began slipping towards the celestial pole after 25000 B.C. and over time was becoming useless for the purposes of time keeping. Since this slipping of Abhijit was an extremely slow process, the required correction of eliminating Abhijit as nakshatra and replacing her with another appropriate star or asterism was delayed, until the problem had to be faced head on. When correction became imminent, Indian astronomers took the opportunity to make all necessary corrections. Indian astronomers made three specific corrections to their calendar,
"1. Removed Abhijit from the list of nakshatras as Abhijit lost its utility in keeping track of time, i.e. Abhijit lost its status as functional nakshatra.
"2. Replaced Krittika in place of Abhijit, as new nakshatra, in order to have desired number (27) of nakshatras for time reckoning.
"3. Replaced Rohini based time reckoning with Dhanishtha based time reckoning."
"If one wants to estimate the timing of this correction, one should look for ‘the time’ when,
"1. Dhanishtha would be at one of the cardinal points (equinox or solstice), considered plausible for the beginning of a year.
"2. Abhijit would be approaching the Celestial North pole, with its position close enough to be considered North pole star or soon to attend such a status, i.e. in effect significantly away from the ecliptic and unable to act as functional nakshatra.
"3. Rohini should have been at this cardinal point prior to this event. "
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination: Experiment 1"
"At present, Dhanishtha is located between the points of winter solstice and vernal equinox,
"(1) If we turn the clock backward, we reach the point of winter solstice near Dhanishtha in 1600 B.C.
"(2) Declination of Abhijit was around +40°.
"(3) Abhijit was going away from the celestial pole.
"(4) Winter solstice was near Rohini in 9500 B.C."
"On the other hand, the position of Abhijit was nowhere close to Celestial North Pole and is rather as far as it gets to the south, close to the ecliptic, and thus away from Celestial North Pole. In addition, Abhijit was moving away from celestial North Pole. Abhijit moving away from the celestial North Pole and the fact that its position was far away from the celestial North Pole are decisive observations in support of rejecting this date as the timing of the ‘Fall of Abhijit’."
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination: Experiment 2
"(1) The autumnal equinox was near Dhanishtha in 8500 B.C.
"(2) Declination of Abhijit was around +68°, significantly closer to the celestial North Pole.
"(3) Abhijit was moving away from the celestial North Pole.
"(4) Autumnal equinox was near Rohini in 16000 B.C.
"The fact that Abhijit was moving away from the celestial North Pole (8500 B.C.) is decisive observation in support of rejecting this date as the timing of the ‘Fall of Abhijit’."
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination: Experiment 3
"(1) Summer solstice was near Dhanishtha in 14500 B.C.
"(2) Declination of Abhijit was around +74°.
"(3) Position of Abhijit was the closest (among positions tested for 4 plausible time periods) to the celestial North Pole and Abhijit was moving towards the celestial North Pole.
"(4) Summer solstice was near Rohini in 22500 B.C."
"Abhijit had attained a position closer to the celestial North Pole and was moving towards the point of celestial North Pole. After additional 2500 years (12048 B.C.), Abhijit was closest to the point of North Celestial Pole. This combination presents consistent scenario that would corroborate Mahabharata observation. I will return to outcome of this experiment after explaining one last scenario."
This merely amounts to this being the first plausible timeline; every 26,000 years cycle prior to thus should be equally so.
................................................................................................
Oak discusses and discards another timeline.
"The Mahabharata text is not explicit when it comes to the beginning of a year. India has multiple time reckoning systems coexisting at present. New Year, per western calendar, begins with 1st of January, while another New Year, per Hindu calendar, begins with new moon day in the lunar month of Chaitra in some parts of India, while with new moon day of the lunar month of Vaishakha in other parts, and still another year beginning with new moon day in the lunar month of Kartika. These are not the only systems of time reckonings in vogue, however my point being to illustrate more than one system of time reckonings coexisting at any given time. It could be the case during Mahabharata times. Fortunately, uncertainty surrounding the beginning of a year during Mahabharata times does not affect our ability to select the time for the ‘Fall of Abhijit’ from four plausible alternatives. Summer solstice near Dhanishtha around 14500 B.C. corroborates all criteria for the ‘Fall of Abhijit’.
"Abhijit began moving away from the ecliptic and towards the celestial North Pole after 25000 B.C. and astute astronomers would have noted the slipping away of Abhijit (away from the ecliptic) when the summer solstice was in Rohini (22500 B.C.). For a star or asterism to become a nakshatra, its position should be at or close to the ecliptic, in order to be useful for time reckoning. Abhijit is not at or even close to the ecliptic and the only rational, I presume, ancient astronomers might have had for her inclusion into the nakshatra list is her conspicuous presence in the sky, partly due to her brightness (magnitude =0.07)."
Why Oak refers to Abhijit in female gender can only be due to his being not born and brought up in India, but in West instead. He might understand some Indian languages having studied them, but lacks the instinct that goes with absorption of general nature acquired in childhood when spent in the atmosphere.
Abhijit is the sole male nakshatra counted amongst rest of the 27, all female, although there are other stars and constellations elsewhere (not part of those along ecliptic that are counted amongst astrological or India's calendar's list of the 27) that are male, for example Agastya or Agasti.
This isn't that different from Brahmaputra being the only ticer personified not as a female Goddess but considered male, except Abhijit isn't unique over all sky, and Brahmaputra is indeed unique amongst Indian rivers as male.
Come to think, there are more male names amongst the 27: Mriga or Mrigashirsha, Hasta, Moola, Shravana, at the very least, and then there are Punarvasu and Pushya. Why Oak insists they are all female is a mystery.
Is it because there was another list of nakshatras when the legends about their being 27 wives of Moon spun, but thereafter several have been exchanged for other, more suitable?
................................................................................................
"Swati (Arcturus) or Shravana (Altair) might have been included in the nakshatra list for the same reasons as that of Abhijit. Swati is bright (magnitude= 0.16) however her Declination has changed from +20° (at present) to +60° around 7000 B.C. Shravana has magnitude of 1.02 and her Declination has changed from +5° (200 B.C.) to + 54° around 13000 B.C."
"It is important to note that the choice of Abhijit as a nakshatra is not an ideal choice. Even when Abhijit is closest to the ecliptic, its position is still far away from the ecliptic (+40°). As Abhijit moved towards the celestial North Pole, astronomers would have faced difficulties in employing Abhijit as functional nakshatra, for tracking positions of the Moon and/or the Sun, a necessary step in reckoning of time. With every passing century (or millennium) the difficulty would have turned into a problem that eventually turned into a crisis and thus had to be addressed. It was finally addressed around 14500 B.C., when Abhijit had slipped far away from the ecliptic and had attained Declination of around 74°. Indian astronomers made three corrections,
"1. They removed Abhijit from the list of nakshatras
"2. Added Krittika to the list of nakshatras making a total of functional nakshatras back to 27
"3. They acknowledged the shift in the point of summer solstice (and hence the beginning of a year), which was now near Dhanishtha and assigned the first rank, among nakshatras, to Dhanishtha."
"Krittika was added to the list of nakshatras and this selection of Krittika could have taken place for any number of reasons. What follows is my conjecture (cupiditas speculandi) for selection of Krittika. I was validating work of S B Dikshit where he determined the timing of an astronomy observation, ‘Krittika rising due east’ from Shatapatha Brahmana and my simulation (using Voyager 4.5TM) confirmed his proposed time period (~ 2927 B.C.). I realized that ‘Krittika rising due east’ was a repetitive phenomenon and I was curious to find out its occurrence prior to 2927 B.C. I simulated Declination coordinate of Krittika past 3000 B.C., until Krittika were rising due east – again! Krittika were rising due east in 14963 B.C., previous to 3000 B.C. Krittika had deviated by only 2° when summer solstice coincided with Dhanishtha (14602 B.C.). I speculate that Krittika rising due east around the time of summer solstice coinciding with Dhanishtha was the reason for the selection of Krittika to the list of nakshatras."
"The ‘Fall of Abhijit’ reference occurs in Vana Parva, where Sage Markandeya talks about it while instructing the Pandavas, towards the end of their exile in the forest. Sage Markandeya is narrating an incident of the past, of times ancient with respect to Mahabharata itself. Author of Mahabharata has used multiple digressions while telling the story of Kuru dynasty to achieve his aim of including knowledge of various subjects, as available and understood during the time of Mahabharata. It is not always easy to figure out, while reading the Mahabharata text, when the factual story ends and discourse on knowledge begins, often in a garb of a metaphor, myth or allegory.
"The Mahabharata observation and my interpretation of it asserts that Indian astronomers were meticulously documenting motions of stars and the nakshatras for a long period of time, at least as far back as 22500 B.C. When one has records of a phenomenon observed in 22500 B.C., one can easily infer that not only the science and discipline of observation must have begun in further antiquity but also the tools required to transferring such knowledge.
"Outcome of this observation indicates that Indian astronomers were observing and recording motions of key stars for a long period, at least amounting to the cycle of precession of equinoxes (26000 years) and more likely far beyond. It may be helpful to think of the movement of our current North Pole star – Polaris. Observation of Rohini at summer solstice takes us back to the time when Polaris was North Pole star (24000 B.C.) some 26000 years ago. The observation then establishes ancient, if not the oldest known tradition of visual astronomy, based on internal Mahabharata references."
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
May 19, 2022 - May 19, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
6 The Epoch of Arundhati
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
"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.
"- Nilesh Oak
"You have to be an asshole to quote yourself
"- Anonymous"
Clearly Oak has no issues about quoting distinctly unparliamentary words about himself in print, even ones not allowed on public television. Or perhaps they are in West.
"Vyasa tells Dhritarashtra, day before the Mahabharata War1, My dear King, Arundhati (saintly wife of Vasistha) who is revered by the righteous all over the three worlds, has left her husband Vasistha behind."
Unlike his other work, then, here he isn't giving direct quotes? Wonder why.
"Arundhati (Alcor) and Vasistha (Mizar) are two well-known stars from the panhandle of the constellation Ursa Major. ... "
"Mahabharata researchers, who considered Mahabharata as fiction, did not give a second thought about astronomical evidence in the Mahabharata text. On the other hand those who believed in factual nature of Mahabharata and exhibited faith in astronomical observations were also puzzled by Arundhati observation. Many dealt with the dilemma by simply ignoring it, as if the Arundhati observation did not exist. I came across, directly and indirectly, works of 20+ researchers on dating of the Mahabharata War using astronomical observations. I was astonished to find that only four researchers mentioned ‘Arundhati’ observation while rest of them ignored it altogether. I assert that this lack of inclusion of ‘Arundhati’ observation in their research is not due to oversight. Adhyaya 2 of Bhishma Parva has 4 astronomy observations,
"1. The full moon of Kartika appearing coppery red. 28
"2. Arundhati walking ahead of Vasishtha.1
"3. Saturn afflicting Rohini.9
"4. Mark on the surface of the moon invisible.9
"My assertion for deliberate omission of ‘Arundhati’ observation by these researchers can be deduced from the fact that these researchers, without exception, refer to 3 out of 4 observations while conveniently ignoring the remaining observation of Arundhati."
"The observation, specifically Arundhati walking ahead of Vasistha, is/was considered impossible and ridiculous to the extent it has been used by many to prove their conjecture of how the Mahabharata text is filled with rubbish and why astronomical observations within Mahabharata should not be taken seriously. The observation is at least acknowledged by 4 researchers and I summarize their interpretations.
"C V Vaidya, in his book ‘The Mahabharata: A Criticism’ proposes that all astronomical references were added by Sauti ‘to swell the list of evil omens’ which presumably included Arundhati observation. In his words,
"We, on our part, believe that most of these references are of doubtful authenticity, in other words that they do not belong to the original Mahabharata of Vyasa but to its latest edition. It will be admitted by all that some of them are fanciful and absurd. The last editor probably wished to accommodate the number of evil omens, which preceded the war and tried to put in such impossible combinations as he could bring together. For instance we may safely put aside as absurdities the statement that the Sun and the Moon were eclipsed at the same time or the statement that Arundhati went beyond Vasistha among the Saptarshis."
"P V Vartak attempted to solve the mystery behind Arundhati observation. He stated few conjectures and asked pertinent questions however in the end, realizing inadequacy of his explanation, and in the true spirit of a researcher, requested astronomy community to research it further. He offered various conjectures and requested experts in astronomy to test them. His conjectures are as follows,
"1. He wondered if Atreya (Alkaid) was considered Vasistha in ancient times as opposed to the current identification of star Mizar with Vasistha.
"2. He interpreted current position of Arundhati as ahead of Vasistha, based on astrological convention, since Arundhati (Alcor) is east of Vasistha (Mizar) and then wondered when Arundhati would have moved east of Vasistha.
"3. He referred to a data source (specific data source is not mentioned) according to which Vasistha made an angle of 20° with a line defined by Alioth and Megrez, 100,000 years ago. Referring to the same data source, he explained that in our times, the same angle is down to 14°. He inferred (I do not understand how he does it) that Arundhati may not be part of Saptarshi (Big dipper) cluster and assuming independent motion for Arundhati, he speculated that it is conceivable for Arundhati to go ahead of Vasistha."
In reality it's easy to see the last part, after everything modern science has known - constellations appear to Earth viewers in patterns they do but are nothing of the sort in reality, and wouldn't seem like that from a quarter of the way around the galaxy. Rigel appears not as impressive as astronomy knows it to be, but is far away. Sirius seems the most brilliant, but is closer than most others, is all.
"R. N. Iyengar offers an ingenious and admirable explanation however his conclusions are decidedly false. I mention his effort to express my appreciation of his creativity, much desired, but characteristically lacking among many others. He combines second couplet of Arundhati observation1 with another unrelated couplet14, both of them from different Adhyayas of Bhishma Parva. In the absence of my discovery, I would have failed to notice his novel combination of couplets and curious aspect of his interpretation. I do not believe that combining of partial statements from two different Adhyayas is either warranted or justified. His combination of couplets from two different Adhyayas is as follows,
"Arundhati has gone ahead of (her husband) Vasishtha1"
"Dhruva, the Pole Star blazing and fierce, is moving anti-clockwise14"
"I will return to this innovative combination and interpretation of R N Iyengar, in the light of my discovery, at the end of this chapter."
"Did Arundhati go ahead of Vasistha and assuming she did, when did she do it? This is what I termed the ‘Mystery of Arundhati’. If I could solve this problem, I reasoned, I would be willing to put extra efforts to understand nakshatras and positions of planets, in order to comprehend remaining Mahabharata observations. On the other hand, if I could convincingly prove that Arundhati observation was not a mystery after all, but rather an absurd statement introduced by either the original or later authors, I would be saved from the torture of understanding and/or interpreting remaining Mahabharata observations. Intuitively I felt that Arundhati was a factual observation since I could not come up with a rationale on the part of original author of Mahabharata (or on the part of later authors) to write or insert something that would be impossible, as they could have always gotten away with mentioning few conjunctions of planets with each other or with nakshatras. I found it fascinating that my approach to this problem was very much along the lines of ‘testability’, ‘falsifiability’ and ‘simplicity’ as espoused by Karl Popper."
" ... Vasistha and Arundhati were circumpolar stars for millennia with respect to Kurukshetra. Both of them ceased to be circumpolar with respect to north-central India around 800 A. D. Circumpolar or not, when visible, Vasistha could be seen making rounds around the point of celestial North Pole and Arundhati following behind Vasistha. Today, position of Arundhati is north of Vasistha (Declination coordinate) and east of Vasistha (Right Ascension coordinate). One standing on the Earth will perceive Arundhati as walking behind (and not ahead of) Vasistha and such perception is due to,
"(1) The Earth rotates from the west to the east.
"(2) Position of Arundhati is east of Vasistha."
................................................................................................
"Problem & Potential Solution
"The question I had to answer was,
"(1) Was Arundhati ever walking ahead of Vasistha? In other words, was position of Arundhati ever west of Vasistha based on Right Ascension measurements? In addition, assuming answer to the above question in affirmative, the next question I had to answer was,
"(2) When did such an event take place?"
"In other words, my problem was to determine if Arundhati ever appeared as walking ahead of Vasistha and if so, to determine the year or time interval, when Arundhati would have been perceived as walking ahead of Vasistha. This year or time interval then would be probable year or time interval of the Mahabharata War."
"I approached one of the professors of physics working in Astronomy and his graduate group at University of Calgary. I do not know if they understood what I was after but they were helpful. They explained what proper motion meant, taught me about ‘Declination’ and ‘Right Ascension’ coordinates and allowed me access to their small library. I noted down Proper motion Declination - PMD (north-south) and Proper motion Ascension – PMA (east-west) measurements for Arundhati and Vasistha.
"Positive PMD signifies that the star is moving in northwardly direction with respect to the ecliptic while positive PMA signifies that the star is moving in eastwardly direction with respect to the point of Vernal Equinox. My research notes from year 1999 A.D. confirm that I consulted at least three different reference books looking for PMD and PMA: Hipparcos & Tycho Stellar database, Hubble stellar library and Millennium Star Atlas. The proper motions were listed along with their standard errors. I performed calculations using mean values as well as values adjusted for standard errors."
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 5
"At present (1928 A.D.), Arundhati is east of Vasistha based on Right Ascension measurements, and thus Arundhati appears to walk behind Vasistha. I noted down PMA values for Arundhati and Vasistha, and difference between their Right ascension coordinates.
"Vasistha- PMA = 0.0141 arc-sec/year Arundhati – PMA = 0.0135 arc-sec/year.
"Delta-RA (Arundhati – Vasistha), = 1082.6 arc-secs (1928 A.D.)
"Year when Vasistha would have identical RA as Arundhati 1082.6 / (0.0141-0.0135) = 1,971,000 Years (~ 2 million years in the future)
"Positive values of PMA for Arundhati and Vasistha signify that both of them are moving eastward. Arundhati is to the east of Vasistha and since Vasistha is moving faster, albeit marginally, Vasistha will reach a position east of Arundhati some two million years into the future. This means Vasistha was never east of Arundhati (i.e. walking behind Arundhati) based on PMA calculations and RA coordinates. Thus, the test employing PMA and RA measurements failed to corroborate Arundhati observation."
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 6
" ... I decided to postpone the problem of finding adhoc hypothesis but wanted to find out if Vasistha was ever north of Arundhati in the past, considering its current location south of Arundhati.
"PMD values for Arundhati and Vasistha are negative, implying that both of them are moving south. Vasistha is moving faster than Arundhati, based on magnitude of their PMDs. Current position of Vasistha is to the south of Arundhati. I concluded that sometime in the past they had same Declination, and that Vasistha was north of Arundhati prior to them attaining same Declination. I performed the calculations using range of values for their PMD’s however demonstrate calculations based on mean values alone.
"Vasistha- PMD = - 0.02 arc-sec/year Arundhati – PMD = - 0.009 arc-sec/year.
"Delta-Dec (Arundhati – Vasistha), =222.2 arc-secs (1928 A.D.)
"Year when,
"Declination of Vasistha = Declination of Arundhati 222.2 / (0.02 - 0.009)) = 20,200 B (efore) P (resent), Where, Present = 2010 A.D.
"I could not think of visual and/or objective basis for Arundhati going ahead of Vasistha, based on output of this experiment. In summary,
"1. No visual basis existed for interpretation of Arundhati north or south of Vasistha as either ahead or behind Vasistha, even before I conducted this experiment
"2. The results of the experiment failed to establish objective criteria for
"a. Arundhati ahead of Vasistha
"b. Minimum difference in their Declination coordinate that would justify Arundhati ahead of Vasistha."
"3. Relative motions of Arundhati and Vasistha in North-South directions are/were so slow (0.011 arc-sec/year) that the phenomenon is practically useless for determining the year of the Mahabharata War with resolution (accuracy) of 1, 10, 100 or even 1000 years.
"I had an opportunity to repeat these experiments with the help of SkyGazerTM and VoyagerTM in 2009 A.D., ten years after my first attempt and conclusions remained unchanged (Error Elimination – Experiment 8). One significant difference was the timing of both stars attaining same Declination. Instead of 20,200 BP, the number calculated using mean values of PMD (from Star databases); the SkyGazerTM simulation resulted in 44,320 BP. The difference in number of years is due to the followings reasons,
"(1) PMD and Declinations measurements from Astronomy reference books were accurate only to the second decimal places. Although this error may sound trivial, it adds up when calculations are performed over a long period of time.
"(2) The calculations ignored the effect of ‘precession of equinoxes’ on the positions of stars (Declination and Right ascension coordinates of the stars).
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 7
"Some astronomers have speculated extremely slow motion of Arundhati around Vasistha. The motion suggested is indeed speculative in nature. I will name this conjecture ‘motion of Arundhati around Vasistha’. If such a motion does exist, astronomers predict that it will take some 750000 years for Arundhati to complete one circle around Vasistha. If so, for certain time period during its orbit around Vasistha, Arundhati could be envisioned as walking ahead of Vasistha. All the problems discussed in the context of North-south movement of Arundhati and Vasistha (Error elimination - Experiment 6) also apply to this scenario, in addition to the fact that the motion of Arundhati around Vasistha remains highly speculative.
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 8
" ... I realized what a significant change in Declination of some stars (e.g. Abhijit) could be caused by the precession of equinoxes. I wondered what that might mean to the relative Declinations of Arundhati and Vasistha."
" ... Measurements using Sky Gazer showed that Arundhati and Vasistha would have had attained same Declination in 44320 BP, instead of my earlier crude calculations of 20200 BP.
" ... I was looking for a possibility of Vasistha being north of Arundhati due to the effect of the precession of equinoxes. DD started declining as experiments progressed into the past, advancing with a jump of 1000 years, however only after few data points the trend reversed and DD began to increase. DD never changed from positive to negative, a scenario I was eagerly hoping for. The magnitude of ‘Declination Delta’ did show oscillations during simulation, nonetheless DD never turned negative."
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 9
"I defined Right Ascension Delta (RAD) as,
"RAD =RA (Arundhati) – RA (Vasistha)
"I defined RAD in such a way so as to yield positive values for the current period (2009 A.D.). I simulated measurements for RAD, advancing with a jump of 1000 years, beginning with the present, and going backward in the past. ... Arundhati did walk ahead of Vasistha in the past and had stopped walking ahead of Vasistha sometime after 5000 B.C. As I progressed with my experiments, I found out that Arundhati did stop walking ahead of Vasistha sometime around 13000 B.C. This meant during the recently completed cycle of the precession of equinoxes (cycle of precession with Polaris as pole star twice), Arundhati was walking ahead of Vasistha during the approximate time interval bounded by 4000 B.C. and 13000 B.C. I conjectured that the phenomena would have repeated itself during each cycle of the precession of equinoxes. I estimated such time interval for the previous cycle of the precession of equinoxes, jumped to that period (e.g. 30000 B.C. - 39000 B.C.), ran my simulation and confirmed what I had expected.
"Although I could nail down neither a single year nor unique time interval for Arundhati walking ahead of Vasistha, at least I had found time interval that possibly repeated during each cycle of the precession of equinoxes, when Arundhati walked ahead of Vasistha. I called this repetitive time interval ‘Epochs of Arundhati’, when Arundhati walked ahead of Vasistha. ... "
" ... I refined my search along the lower bound of the latest ‘Epoch of Arundhati’ and found that RAD went from positive to negative sometime between 4380 B.C. and 4390 B.C. I inferred 4380 B.C. as the lower limit on the year of the Mahabharata War. The significance of this discovery was thrilling! This discovery meant that the Mahabharata War did not take place anytime after 4380 B.C.! The discovery carried with it a great deal of force and even if this were the only observation from the Mahabharata text I could produce, it would render the unavoidable conclusion that the Mahabharata War took place sometime before 4380 B.C.!"
"My work of previous night had also alluded to the fact that these ‘Epochs of Arundhati’ lasted for few thousand years during each cycle of the precession of equinoxes. Although I could state that the Mahabharata War did not take place anytime after 4380 B.C., I could not say with confidence that it indeed took place during the time interval bounded by 4380 B.C. and 13000 B.C. In principle, the Mahabharata War could have taken place during any one of the multiple ‘Epochs of Arundhati’."
Wonder what makes him change from that and put forth a proposal for a specific year, here, or in case of his work on Ramayana. Upto here in this work, his results and conclusions are correct so far. He definitely went wrong in logic due to his assumptions regarding astrology in his work on Ramayana.
................................................................................................
"Imagine interpreting and testing 100+ astronomical observations from the Mahabharata text for multiple instances (years) within an ‘Epoch of Arundhati’ which lasted approximately nine thousand years; and here I was faced with one such time interval every twenty six thousand years! What I stumbled on was progress indeed, especially because the outcome had falsified 96+% of all existing proposals for the year of Mahabharata War. On the other hand, the plural aspect of this ‘Epoch of Arundhati’ presented enormous mental and practical roadblock in my ability to search for the year of Mahabharata War."
As one recalls a few lines of a poem or song vaguely remembered from sixties, they seem appropriate in the context with a little paraphrasing -
"In true search or research, no one promised anyone a rose garden"
................................................................................................
" ... Tim DeBenedictis, an extremely knowledgeable and kind employee of Carina Software wrote back, informing me that Sky GazerTM did not take into account ‘proper motion’ of stars however their professional version of the software –Voyager 4.5TM did incorporate ‘proper motion’ of stars."
"I repeated my experiments using Voyager 4.5TM and realized that Lady (Luck) Arundhati had not left me yet. Epochs of Arundhati turned into the Epoch of Arundhati!
"When I re-simulated RAD calculations, taking into account proper motions of stars, the length of epoch shortened. I could define the Epoch of Arundhati as time interval between 11091 B.C. and 4508 B.C. This is the time interval when RAD had negative values, which also meant Arundhati would have appeared to walk ahead of Vasistha during this ~6500 years time interval. This interval of 6500 years is the interval where one should search for the year of Mahabharata War. I assert that the Mahabharata War did not happen even a day late than year 4508 B.C.!
"If humanity survives for another 11000 years (13000+ A.D.), it will witness another ‘Epoch of Arundhati’ however as far as the past is concerned, there was only the Epoch of Arundhati."
He isn't explaining why it'd repeat in future but did not in past.
................................................................................................
"The placement of Arundhati ‘west’ of Vasistha, during the Epoch of Arundhati was caused by,
"1. The precession of equinoxes, which result in the movement of the celestial North Pole, such that location of celestial North Pole made peculiar orientation with respect to relative positions of Arundhati and Vasistha.
"2. Proper motions of Arundhati and Vasistha also contributed to changes in Right Ascension and Declination in addition to the changes in the Right Ascension and Declination measurements of Arundhati and Vasistha caused by the movement of the celestial North Pole.
"Negative Value of RAD refers to the position of Arundhati west of Vasistha with respect to an observer on the Earth. In this case, an observer will perceive Arundhati walking ahead of Vasistha!"
"I would encourage readers to run their own simulation to validate my findings. The Epoch of Arundhati began when the Celestial North Pole was near Star HR6767 (Magnitude 6.37) in Hercules constellation (11091 B.C.) and lasted for ~6500 years (until 4508 B.C.) when the Celestial North Pole was near Star HR 133666 (Magnitude 6.85). Celestial North Pole was close to Star HR 5715 at the time of Mahabharata War. I have provided the nomenclature and magnitudes of pole stars only as a reference and to aid readers in their simulation."
................................................................................................
Oak brings up another research on the subject.
" ... I consider such combination neither required nor justified. For fun and only as hypothetical exercise, I want the reader to recall it and apply it to my results."
" ... I could imagine an observer in Mahabharata times, interpreting the phenomenon described by ‘ingenious combination’ of R N Iyengar. ... An observer, noticing Arundhati walking ahead of Vasistha (who otherwise was walking behind Vasistha) may visualize the celestial North Pole (and North Pole star if there was one available) blazing and fiercely moving in reverse direction, as an explanation for the miraculous walking of Arundhati ahead of Vasistha! ... "
From what Oak has quoted of work of R N Iyengar, the latter has quoted two separate verses from Mahabharata, -
"Arundhati has gone ahead of (her husband) Vasishtha1"
"Dhruva, the Pole Star blazing and fierce, is moving anti-clockwise14"
- and while they aren't together in the original, they indeed seem to fit Oak’s own rules and strictures about each being astronomical visual observations!
Moreover, isn't Oak always going on (and on and on and on and on and on and on ... ), about his disdain for other scholars who ignore what doesn't fit their theories?
Here's the second such instance where Oak does it, first being about the disdain for obviously astrological nature of much in Ramayana, especially the description by Valmiki of planets at time of birth of Rama.
Iyengar presumably didn't say Earth rotated in opposite direction, but merely quoted what was equally mysterious. Perhaps there is an explanation for that, seemingly impossible, description too.
................................................................................................
Here's a few facts - in his work on Ramayana, Oak says Vega is the only bright star amongst all candidates for pole stars; he fixes the timeline for Ramayana based on this assertion by himself.
Yet here's a quote from Mahabharata about a brilliant star, designated pole star during Mahabharata era and called Dhruva in Sanskrit, Pole Star.
Since the timelines of the two epics as fixed by Oak are nowhere close, the pole stars couldn't be close. So there's more than one choice of a brilliant star for a pole star, to begin, at the very least.
Perhaps there was another phenomenon during Mahabharata era to the effect of the description in that second verse, is the possibility that must be considered.
Ninth planet come close from North, as a long shot, and being retrograde?
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
May 19, 2022 - May 20, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
7 The Planets Were Aligned
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
"I had collected, by this time, numerous observations of planets from the Mahabharata text. Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are mentioned explicitly among planetary observations. Saturn and Jupiter are the slower moving planets of these five planets. I built my search strategy using Mahabharata descriptions for the positions of Saturn and Jupiter, a strategy to explore the Epoch of Arundhati looking for a probable year of the Mahabharata War. For example, the Mahabharata text states that Jupiter and Saturn were settled near Vishakha for a year and dimmed the brightness of Saptarshis6. Position of Vishakha is next to Swati and Swati was understood to be in the vicinity of Saptarshi by Mahabharata astronomers7. Saturn was afflicting (pidayati) Rohini around the time of War 8, 9. Saturn is also described as afflicting (akramya) Uttara Phalguni (Bhaga)10. Jupiter is described as going vakri near Shravana11. Final mention of Jupiter occurs after the death of Karna, when Jupiter began afflicting (sampra-pidya) Rohini, similar to the Sun and the Moon, after the sunset on the 17th day of War12."
Presumably these were all separate observations, not close in time.
" ... Search for such Saturn/Jupiter combinations within The Epoch of Arundhati, spanning 6500 years (11000 B.C. – 4500 B.C.), resulted in ~ 110 instances for the plausible year of Mahabharata War (6500/60 ~ 110). I was gung ho on using information related to positions of Mars, Venus & Mercury, as described in the Mahabharata text, to narrow down the timing of Mahabharata War from these ~110 possibilities."
" probable instances for the Mahabharata War, to be tested within the Epoch of Arundhati, can be reduced to less than 40, when one takes into account orbital period of Rahu ... "
"Later on, as my work progressed (Chapter 9), observations related to Bhishma Nirvana allowed me to define a 3000 year time interval for the plausible year of Mahabharata War (3500 B.C. through 6500 B.C.) and combining this knowledge with the Epoch of Arundhati provided a compact time interval of 2000 years (4500 B.C. -6500 B.C.) for the plausible year of Mahabharata War. Nonetheless at the time, I was not aware of these additional observations of Bhishma Nirvana and their consequences for the plausible year of Mahabharata War.
"Mars is described as traveling through space of 13 nakshatras beginning with Magha and ending with Shravana/Abhijit. Mars has orbital period of 686.93 days (~1.88 years) and this means the Mahabharata text has recorded observations of Mars for a period of more than one year. Mars went vakri near Magha11 and then settled between Chitra and Swati, while shining brightly, and was seen going in abnormal (apasavya) direction14. Mars was seen afflicting Chitra13. Mars went vakri near Jyeshtha while pleading for friendship with Anuradha13. After completing this vakra-anuvakra journey, the red planet approached bright Shravana and settled along Brahmarashi (Abhijit)14."
" ... Mercury is described as rising ‘Tiryak’ (unusual, oblique or unnatural) in the sky after the sunset on the 17th day of War16. Mercury is also described as seen in the western part of the sky, along with Mars and Venus, on the 18th and the last day of War17. Venus is described as making a ‘parikrama’ (moving in a close loop) by turning north near Purva Bhadrapada, and in the presence of another planet18.
"Three planets with no clear identification are also described. ‘Shweta’ planet settled near Chitra19, ‘Shyama’ planet appeared fiery and smoky and was shining brightly while settled near Jyeshtha20 and Tivra planet and/or nakshatra was in the vicinity of Krittika21. Great comet22 and/or spread of great comet21 settled near Pushya. Seven planets were seen along with the Moon during the evening/night on the 14th day of War23. Seven planets were also seen near the Sun on the first day of War24. Seven planets were seen going away from the Sun on the 17th day of War25. The Sun and the Moon together, afflicted Rohini on the first day of War26.
"The Mahabharata text also records observations of eclipses and are useful in narrowing down search for the year of Mahabharata War, when combined with numerous observations of planets. Marks on the moon were covered 9, 27 and Rahu was approaching the Sun 19, 27. Rahu approaching the Sun is indicative of solar eclipse in the near future. The full moon of Kartika was devoid of effulgence; the moon appeared coppery red and so did rest of the sky28. The Mahabharata text refers to pair of eclipses, solar and lunar, separated by only 13 days29. The conversation between Vyasa and Dhritarashtra occurred one day before the War, based on the observation that showers of blood (water) and flesh (hail) occurred on the 14th day of ‘Krishna Paksha’30. Thus there are total of 27 observations related to eclipses and positions of planets around the time of Mahabharata War.
................................................................................................
"I agree with the hypothesis of P V Kane that Mahabharata author had, at his disposal, multiple sets of astronomical observations, more likely prepared by multiple observers around the time of Mahabharata War. Usefulness of this hypothesis can be judged by its ability to make sense of available astronomical data. This hypothesis explains multiple descriptions of the positions of planets, however, with different twists/analogies as well as different time durations for each set of observations. For example, while astronomical observations of Udyoga Parva are made over a relatively shorter period of time (8 months), those of Bhishma are made over an extended period of time (~ 30 months), before and after the War."
Why the extreme reluctance to mention the term astrology? Calendars in India, Indian, complex ones, are prepared ahead for the year by astrologers, who do the computation work for what's termed Panchaanga, and this includes predictions not only for Sun, Moon and Earth but all planets.
References in Mahabharata might or might not be visual alone, but must have included works of astrologers, not dependent on observations but predicting instead, a year or more ahead. This requires far more courage apart from precision of calculations. Any prediction not coming true would result in fall in prestige resulting in people no longer believing the particular astrologer.
What the Royal family had in Mahabharata wasn't observers, but astrologers who computed ahead of time, what to expect of astronomical observations.
................................................................................................
"I grouped multiple references of same phenomenon, e.g. Saturn afflicting Rohini, comet in the vicinity of Pushya, Marks on the moon getting covered or Mars afflicting Chitra. The summary of planetary observations is as follows,"
Oak falls to realise, with all his emphasis on treating it as visual observations (which is his way of avoiding saying the word rational), that here's something unusual, of extraordinary importance.
"Marks on the moon getting covered "??? This hasn't been recorded in known history of West!
He also fails to realise some of the said observations were not possible in span of a year. He's, moreover, not given timings thereof, so one assumes they are given in a sequence of story as told and of time.
................................................................................................
"1. Saturn near Vishakha for a year (along with Jupiter)6
"2. Saturn near Uttara Phalguni10
"3. Saturn afflicts Rohini 8, 9"
Saturn couldn't possibly be anywhere near Rohini if it was in vicinity of Vishakha and Uttara Phalugni, so the affliction is of aspecting, astrological in nature, not visual observation.
"4. Jupiter near Vishakha for a year (along with Saturn)6
"5. Jupiter goes Vakri near Shravana11"
If Jupiter is near Vishakha it couldn't possibly be near Shravana within the year, that travel spans well over a year. On the other hand it's not aspect, so Oak missed something in assuming it's all within a year.
"6. Jupiter afflicts Rohini, after the sunset on the 17th day of War, similar to the Sun and the Moon12 (i.e. as the Sun and the Moon were afflicting Rohini, on the first day of War23)"
Again, Jupiter couldn't be anywhere near Rohini within the year of being around Vishakha.
"7. Mars goes vakri near Magha 11
"8. Mars goes vakri near Jyeshtha/Anuradha13
"9. Mars traveling in apasavya (reverse, unnatural) direction by becoming steady between Chitra and Swati, while shining brightly with fearful and cruel appearance 14"
This "fearful and cruel appearance" is puzzling, to anyone used to seeing skies. Mars is red, yes, but just about discernible slightly more so than most other celestial bodies visible, not as much as Betelgeuse generally. And neither can be really said to look fearful.
Was Mars close to Earth in past?
Else it's an observation made after its astrological interpretations following predictions based on preparation of calendar or Panchaanga of the coming year.
"10. Mars afflicts Chitra13
"11. Mars heading straight to Shravana/Abhijit region14
"12. Mercury traveling through all nakshatras15
"13. Mercury seen rising ‘Tiryak’ (oblique, unnatural, unusual) after the sunset on the 17th day of War16"
Mercury can't, ever, be seen rising after sunset. It's always close to Sun, and at best is high enough in West after Sunset to be clearly visible. Also, it's speed at best isn't visible within the time after sunset to make a retrograde motion discernible.
Was there a comet occulted by Mercury?
"14. Venus (Bhrugusoon), Mercury (Shashijen) and Mars (Dharaputra) seen in the western part of the sky, at the end of 18th day of War17
"15. Venus making a parikrama (around another planet) while turning north near Purva Bhadrapada, in the company of another planet18
"16. ‘Shweta’ (or Budha) planet settled near Chitra 19"
Shweta literally means white; that could very well be Venus. Or Jupiter.
"17. ‘Shyama’ (or Shweta) planet shining brightly and settled near Jyeshtha 20"
Seems to refer obviously to Saturn.
"18. ‘Tivra’ planet and/or nakshatra in the vicinity of Krittika 21"
That is likely Mars.
"19. Great comet and/or spread of great comet settled near Pushya 21, 22
"20. Seven planets seen along with the Moon in the sky – the evening/night of the 14th day of War 23
"21. Seven Planets seen near the Sun (first day of the War)24
"22. Seven Planets seen going away from the Sun (17th day of the War)25"
References to seven planets are perhaps about known five, plus two smaller planets in asteroid belt?
"23. The Sun and the Moon, together afflicts Rohini (on the first day of War)26"
If this is visual observation, it's definitely a day or two after Amawasya. Else it's not visual observation.
"24. Moon’s mark was covered and Rahu was approaching the Sun 9, 19, 27"
This is description of an anticipated eclipse, and Moon therefore isn't visible. Else it's about a day before, Moon is a crescent seen without any marks, and eclipse is approaching, the last being astrological calculation and definitely not visual observation.
"25. The full moon of Kartika was devoid of effulgence. The moon appeared coppery red and so did rest of the sky28"
Lunar eclipse, obviously.
"26. Two eclipses (solar & lunar) within an interval of 13 days29"
The only slightly unusual part is combination of 13 day interval within two eclipses.
"27. Up to 3 eclipses – 2 lunar and one solar based on reference to 14th day of Krishna Paksha (of Kartika)28, 29"
Can happen, has in recent past, less than a decade ago.
................................................................................................
"I found it exhausting to test 27 observations for each plausible year (of the Mahabharata War) from 110 instances. My challenge involved testing each of these 27 observations using Voyager 4.5TM. The testing was tiresome, as tiresome as ‘samudramanthan’ might have been however I was rewarded with at least one precious gem.
:I invented a technique – Dynamic Visual Astronomy, DVATM, while trying to make sense of Mahabharata observations of Mars. DVATM is a simple technique and although I am claiming myself as its innovator in the context of Mahabharata research, all credit goes to the team at Carina Software who designed and developed Voyager 4.5TM. DVATM involves simulating movement of the object of interest, as seen from a specific location on the Earth, and is far superior to observing or analyzing static images of the sky. The object of interest could be a planet, a comet, the Sun, the Moon or a nakshatra. Estimating optimum time interval between adjacent static images is critical to the success of DVATM, and the desired time interval depends on the objective of the search.
"DVATM was of immense help in understanding Mahabharata descriptions of Mars and I applied the technique in understanding and/or corroborating other Mahabharata observations as well. DVATM was critical to my understanding of Mahabharata observations of Venus and of comet (Dhumaketu). I utilized DVATM to explain ‘Fall of Abhijit’, ‘The Epoch of Arundhati’, ‘Jupiter & Saturn near Vishakha and journey of Mars through 13 nakshatras during the time of Mahabharata War."
" ... I found that only 4 out of 20 researchers had proposed year of the Mahabharata War that fell within the ‘Epoch of Arundhati’. Modak proposed 5000 B.C. and Dikshit proposed 7300 B.C. Both dates were proposed as an approximate time period rather than a specific day or year, and for this reason I decided to eliminate them from further testing. Lele proposed 5228 B.C. and Vartak proposed 5561 B.C.
"I developed critical tests to see if Mahabharata observations corroborated the timing proposed by either Lele or Vartak. I tested observations of the Mahabharata text using DVATM and Voyager 4.5TM for the year 5228 B.C. and could immediately eliminate this year as a possible year of the Mahabharata War. On the other hand, year 5561 B.C., proposed by P V Vartak, proved resistant to my falsification attempts. ... I began testing of his proposed day and year of the War by simulating the positions of various planets on the first day of Mahabharata War."
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 10
"Jupiter & Saturn near Vishakha6
"My first simulation begins on 16 October 5562 B.C., one year before the first day of Mahabharata War. Jupiter is near Mula (Shaula) and Saturn is near Hasta (Algorab), positions nearly equidistant, in nakshatra space, east and west of Vishakha (Zubeneschamali), respectively. I employed DVATM technique with Vishakha at the center, and simulated the sky view with single day as a step change, for a year, until 16 October 5561 B.C., the first day of War. Jupiter stayed in the region of Mula-UttaraAshadha, Saturn stayed in the region of Chitra-Uttara Phalguni. I treated this as satisfactory corroboration of this Mahabharata observation6. I may mention that this was merely a verification of Vartak’s explanation."
No astrological expert would agree, and presumably astrological experts of Mahabharata era weren't less than those of the day in preparation of Panchaanga; two nakshatras away isn't vicinity, and being gour nakshatra away isn't being together.
Vishakha, besides, isn't the brightest of that region, Swati and Chitra are, in that order. So a visual observation unsupported by astrological knowledge would mention only those, especially when the proximity of one of the planets is more to them than to Vishakha.
So treating this as satisfactory is implying that astrologers of Mahabharata era were as shoddy at astronomy and asttonomical observations as Oak.
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 11
"Saturn near Bhaga (Uttara Phalguni)10
"Voyager simulation shows that Saturn is near Bhaga (Uttara Phalguni) for a period of more than two years leading to the first day of Mahabharata War, when it began approaching Chitra."
That's definitely not corroboration of Saturn bring near Vishakha. If claimed as such, it's sloppy, Ignorant, or dishonest.
"Description of the motions and the positions of Mars make it ample clear that Mahabharata astronomers referred to oblique crossing of the ecliptic by a planet as ‘vakri’ motion while the true retrograde motion of a planet was described as being steady (dhruva or sthayi), or traveling in reverse (apasavya) direction."
"When I realized the significance of ‘vakri’ as demonstrated by the simulation of the motions of Mars, observation of ‘Jupiter traveling vakri near Shravana’ presented itself as ‘falsification test’ for my interpretation of ‘Vakri’ motion. DVATM simulation of Jupiter corroborated ‘vakri’ motion of Jupiter as it traveled obliquely across the ecliptic near Shravana11. Figure 9 and Table 7 provide additional details related to vakri motion of Jupiter near Shravana."
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 16
"Tivra or Tikshna, Planet or nakshatra near Krittika21
"The Mahabharata text has 3 planetary observations where planets are simply listed as ‘Shyama’20, Shweta19’, ‘Tivra’ or ‘Tikshna21. Such generic names can provide open field for researchers. Researchers can imagine these planets to be planets that suit their fancy but more likely those that suit their timeline.
"Mahabharata observation of a ‘Tikshna’ or ‘Tivra’ planet near Krittika was intriguing21. It was intriguing because Mahabharata author referred to the planet as both ‘graha’ (planet) and ‘nakshatra’. Vartak has interpreted this observation, correctly I think, as referring to Pluto. ‘Nakshatra’ literally refers to one that does not move however Mahabharata author referring to a ‘nakshatra’ with respect to Krittika, another nakshatra, was the intriguing part! Vartak inferred that the word ‘nakshatra’ might have been used to mean ‘extremely slow moving planet’. He did his calculations assuming this ‘Tivra’ or ‘Tikshna’ planet/nakshatra to be Pluto and corroborated his hunch.
"My task was then simply to re-confirm what Vartak has already figured out. Pluto is seen between Rohini and Krittika, rather closer to Rohini on the first day of War. This is sufficient corroboration of this Mahabharata observation21. I want to bring it to the attention of the reader that the Mahabharata text has observations made over an extended period of time around the Mahabharata War. Pluto was between Rohini and Krittika during its retrograde motion as well as prior to reaching Rohini. This observation demands telescopic ability, i.e. access to such instruments in Mahabharata times. This ability is also required to explain few other Mahabharata observations."
Possibly it wasn't quite telescope as much as yogic ability. It's very possible they had instruments such as telescopes, but hardly likely they had a Hubble; if the existence and placements of outer planets were known, it's hardly likely India's astrology would not only have no records but forget them completely. Yogic abilities of a particular person is quite another matter.
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 20
"Unusual (Tiryak) rising of Mercury on the 17th day of War (after the sunset) 16
"I would be willing to assert that most readers have not seen the planet Mercury, at least knowingly. Mercury is plenty bright, brighter than Abhijit (Vega) or Saturn. ... "
That is not strictly speaking, always true; if one has attempted observing it over years, what's vlear is that Mercury can appear very bright, but only rarely. Most often, especially in summer with its long twilights, Mercury is only visible if one knows exactly where to look, and is patient, scanning with binoculars.
Rarely, not very often, it's bright and easily visible. It's always a rewarding feeling to find it, due to either brightness or difficulty thereof, but Oak’s assertion about Mercury bring bright, brighter than Saturn, is uncommon, it's bring very elusive and difficulty of locating it being more often true.
Whichever phase it is, whether bright or elusive, it continues for the duration of that appearance, each appearance West succeeded by its retrograde motion having Mercury set and reappear mornings in East next, and so on.
" ... Difficulty of observing Mercury is due to its elusiveness. Mercury orbits so close to the Sun that even when the Earth and Mercury are ideally aligned in their orbits and Mercury is at aphelion, Mercury is still never more than ~ 27° from the Sun. This means observing Mercury is confined to a narrow band of dawn and twilight hours when the glare of the rising or setting sun inevitably interferes with observation. Mercury orbits the Sun in ~88 days, which means its position in the sky shift rapidly and thus a favorable window of time to observe Mercury does not last long.
" ... two distinct observations of Mercury in the Mahabharata text. Both observations occur at the tail end of War, i.e. the 17th and 18th day of War and provide ‘falsifying tests’ of higher degree. Mercury is described as rising in an unusual, oblique or abnormal fashion (Tiryak) after the sunset on the 17th day of War16. The observation requires that the position of Mercury is east of the Sun and have enough separation from the Sun in order for Mercury to be visible, in spite of the glare of the setting Sun.
"Voyager simulation shows position of Mercury, on the first day of the War, to the east of the Sun and separation of 8.4° between them. This separation continued to increase and reached 16.2° on the 17th day of War. An observer, observing western horizon every day, during the Mahabharata War, at sunset, would have observed Mercury as if rising from the west due to Mercury attaining higher altitude each passing day. This is then the explanation for the unusual or abnormal (Tiryak) rising of Mecury16."
It's an attempt at explanation to got the Voyager simulation to Mahabharata mention of Mercury, but it fails, clearly, for anyone used to look for and at Mercury in West. The said 8.4° degree separation is simply not good enough for a visual observation, even with astronomical or astrological precise prediction helping one to locate it. The ending 16° is barely good enough, if either one has binoculars, or it's winter, with twilight bring short.
What Oak is missing is the significance of the adjective Tiryak, which is about its being located off the ecliptic, or the great circle from a setting Sun in West to any rising objects in East, where one would generally find the planets if any. Mercury off this, and ideally to South of this great circle, which happens in winter, is far easier to locate, and occasionally even very bright. Opposite is when even the very next summer it's visible in West, setting after Sun, in long twilights of the summer, and so most elusive despite good powerful binoculars.
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 21
"Mars, Venus & Mercury in the western part of sky17
"After sunset, 18th day of the War Mars, Venus and Mercury appeared behind the Pandavas on the 18th day of War17. The Pandava army had taken position to the west of the Kaurava army32 and thus when the War took place, the Pandava army was facing eastward33. The observation is thus describing the positions of planets – Mars, Venus and Mercury in the western part of the sky.
"Voyager simulation confirmed positions of these planets in the western part of the sky after sunset. The separation angles between planets and the Sun were 46.6°, 43.1° and 16.5° for Mars, Venus and Mercury respectively. Reader should note that visible area of the sky at any given time corresponds to 180°."
This is strictly speaking the maximum but in reality not visible; anything not separated enough from Sun would be between difficult and impossible to see, whether in West after Sunset or East before Sunrise. Venus has a far better chance of being seen closer to Sun than another planet, and a star needs to be bright to compete but in reality stars are visible at any location only later than a brighter planet such as Jupiter in East after Sunset or Venus in West at that time.
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 22
"Seven planets seen near the Sun24 (First day of the War)
"Seven planets were seen near the Sun24. I assert that the observation belongs to the first day of War. Initially, I was not sure whether the observation referred to the factual information that there were seven planets in the sky along with the Sun or that these seven planets were seen along with the Sun in the sky."
Astrology of the time admits nine planets including Rahu and Ketu, while Sun and Moon were counted as planets everywhere around the globe. If it was strictly and only visual astronomical observation, it's everything but Ketu close to Sun, obviously.
"I speculate that the planets were seen along with the Sun, during the solar eclipse, on the first day of War. Whether they were seen or not, Voyager does confirm presence of seven planets from east to west: Neptune, Uranus, Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Mercury and Saturn. Positions of all planets, with respect to the position of the Sun, were to the east, only with the exception of Saturn which was to the west of the Sun."
Saturn being below horizon wasn't observed, of course. Neptune isn't visible to naked eye, while Uranus is. So even if the planets outside Saturn's orbits were known to anyone in India, this isn't visual observation.
So it must have been astrological prediction about seven planets being close to Sun, and possibly a visual observation, of as many as could be seen, to confirm. This list then must include, with approaching eclipse, Moon and Rahu, not Neptune.
It seems ambitious to include Uranus, since it's inexplicable why knowledge thereof would subsequently be lost to India. Knowledge of most of ancient Indian treasures of knowledge wasn't, including rising of Himalayan ranges from the ocean North of India as it vanished.
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 23
"Seven planets seen attacking the Moon23 (Evening/night – 14th day of the War)
Observation refers to seven planets attacking the Moon23 and employs this analogy to describe the war scene of seven Kaurava brothers attacking Bhima. The observation is of the evening/night sky on the 14th day of War. Voyager simulation shows the full Moon rising in the east and seven planets lined up to attack the Moon, from east to west: Pluto, Neptune, Mars, Venus, Uranus, Mercury and Jupiter."
It's an easy solution to claim that this proves India, or at least astrology in India, was aware of the ice planets outside Saturn's orbit; but it's only a kazy solution, it's really not likely, without an explanation such as yogic power, and that would then imply a knowledge of much more - asteroid belt, Kuiper belt, and all the minor planets known now, and even those not known yet.
Oak chose the lazy solution because it's easier to claim and leave it at that, without bothering to explain why such knowledge was lost to India. So much so he forest mention it as a question.
It's because the only other solution is to give up the visual observation condition and admit astronomical observations were possibly conducted but only as confirmation of predictions by astrologers of positions of various celestial objects, and the seven planets attacking a full Moon rising East in evening would include a Sun setting west and a node about to grasp Moon.
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 24
"Seven planets going away from the Sun25 (17th day of the War)
"Seven planets were seen going away from the Sun on the 17th day of War25. While it is possible that the planets might have been seen along with the Sun during the eclipse on the first day of War, the planets could be seen only before sunrise or after sunset on the 17th day of War. Voyager simulation of the first day of the sky showed six planets to the east of the Sun and one planet (Saturn) to the west. The Sun and the Moon, of course, were together on the first day of War due to solar eclipse/Amawasya. Voyager simulation shows seven planets, after the sunset, on the 17th day of War. They were, from east: Pluto, Neptune, Mars, Venus, Mercury and Jupiter.
"The fact that seven planets could be seen in the sky immediately after the sunset is sufficient corroboration for this Mahabharata observation25, however I would like to add that the statement ‘going away from the Sun’ might refer to the fact that these seven planets were moving to the east, i.e. away from the Sun, unless of course any one of them were in retrograde motion.
"Voyager simulation showed that all planets were going away from (towards east) the Sun, with the exception of Pluto. Pluto was retrograde. The reader may keep in mind that movement of Pluto is extremely slow, whether normal or retrograde, and will appear practically stationary over a short period of time."
Again, it's not possible to see planets further than Uranus with naked eye, and it's a far tougher problem about knowledge of outer planets bring lost after Mahabharata, apart from nobody mentioning any names thereof. So the seven must include Moon and Rahu (or Ketu in case of Moon), apart from Saturn. Oak fiesnt say if Saturn was retrograde, and if so, those were the ones meant.
Also, even in modern times, Ceres was seen before Pluto and counted as planet until discovery of asteroid belt, so anyone able to see Pluto must have seen Ceres, too, apart from asteroid belt, Kuiper belt, and minor planets such as Haumea to Sedna.
If it was done with instruments, it's between puzzling to out of question that there's no record thereof anywhere including in Mahabharata. After all Ramayana does mention Pushpak Vimana. And also, there's no name mentioned gor any of these other planets.
If it was yogic power, again, what was seen besides the known and conceived nine (including Sun, Moon, Rahu and Ketu) would be recorded - and known to later generations even if the said power were lost after say, just one person, as in case of Sanjaya seeing and hearing and reporting everything of the War to Dhritarashtra.
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 25
"Brightly Shining Comets (!) in the Sky
"Jupiter, Saturn and Mars are described as shining brightly. While Jupiter and Saturn6 are described with an adjective ‘Prajwalita’, Mars14 is described with an adjective ‘Prajwalita ghora’. Shyama20 planet is also described with an adjective ‘Prajwalita’. I could not identify this ‘Shyama’ planet based on its generic identification ‘Shyama’ and its position near Jyeshtha20 (Error Elimination - Experiment 26)."
Amongst the known planets, "Shyama" or dark fits only Saturn. Only other option is Rahu which cannot be called ‘Prajwalita', being seen only as a shadow. Uranus which has been identified and can be seen with naked eye, doesn't look dark, and photographs thereof by telescopic cameras or by Voyager are tinged a beautiful blue-green. Neptune similarly is a beautiful blue very like that of Earth seen from anywhere outside atmosphere of Earth. Pluto's photographs show it a lovely golden not unlike titanium, and Ceres is loveliest of them all (with possible exceptions of Moon and Venus), with its shading of pink-white-peacock hues.
So one may ask, was there another planet, now lost? Or are they talking of years other moon of earth, 3753 Cruithne, known now for a while? Were there more? One has just been discovered.
The other possibility, very strong, is that Oak has misinterpreted verses where an object is mentioned repeatedly as done commonly in Sanskrit, with adjectives. So Shweta could be Jupiter or Venus, Shyama obviously Saturn and Tivra must be Mars.
If Oak had quoted the actual verses it'd be clearer.
If Oak had quoted the actual verses it'd be clearer.
"Three planets (Jupiter, Saturn & Mars) are bright, distinct and easy to spot in the sky and as a result I did not pay much attention to their adjectives with respect to specific Mahabharata observations until I came across an interesting hypothesis (by BNN Achar and also by Mohan Gupta) that these Mahabharata observations were referring to comets! Rational criticism of the works of other researchers, including Achar and Gupta, would fill another book and thus I will limit my discussion to their specific claim of these observations being that of comets. While Achar treats all observations of 3rd Adhyaya of Bhishma Parva as either observations of comets or purely poetic imagination in describing horrifying situation before the impending War, Gupta treats all observations of planets from this Adhyaya as comets."
Oak argues, however, that they were familiar planets instead.
"Prajwalita could be translated as begin to blaze, flame forth, burst into flames or burns/shines brightly. Ghora could be translated as dreary, horrible, dreadful, awful, frightful, scary or terrific.
"Jupiter and Saturn are described as shining brightly and settled near Vishakha for a year before the Mahabharata War. Keep in mind that the brighter the object appears, the lower the value of its magnitude. Saturn had magnitude of 1.1 on 16 October 5562 B.C., one year before the War, its brightness increased and was as high as 0.6 during latter half of January 5561 B.C. Saturn had magnitude (brightness) of 1.0 on the first day of War (16 October 5561 B.C.). Jupiter had magnitude of -1.8 one year before the War, became brighter (magnitude = -2.7) during April-May 5561 B.C. and dimmed back to -1.9 by the first day of War.
"Mars is described as settled between Chitra and Swati, began moving in apasavya (abnormal, unusual) direction, shined brightly and would have been perceived as shining with dreadful appearance. Mars (along with Saturn) are considered planets with evil influences in our times and that may be the case in Mahabharata times. In fact we have at least one Mahabharata observation14 where Mars is referred to as Parusha (harsh, cruel, unkind) graha. Voyager 4.5TM confirmed that Mars became retrograde between Chitra and Swati, began moving backwards (west) and by the end of February 5561 B.C. and became very bright (Magnitude = -2.1). It is worth remembering that at this level of brightness, Mars would have shined brighter than anything else in the sky except the Sun, the Moon and Venus.
"Venus turned retrograde near Purva Bhadrapada and, as expected, it became bright during retrograde. Mahabharata observation does not specifically refer to brightening of Venus during retrograde. Venus is as such plenty bright and the change in brightness during retrograde would not have been noticed or considered worthy of mention (from average magnitude of -3.9 to -4.6). In fact beginning with the first day of the Mahabharata War through its parikrama (retrograde) around Neptune in the region of Purva Bhadrapada and then resuming its normal movement, Venus had shown small variation in brightness, i.e. from -4.4 (16 October 5561 B.C.) to its brightest value (-4.6) during December 5561 B.C. and back to -4.3 by March 5560 B.C."
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 26
"Shweta (near Chitra) 19 & Shyama (near Jyeshtha) 20
"At the outset, I want to make it clear that I have no clue whatsoever regarding the identification of two planets, based on limited information, as simply Shyama20 and Shweta19 along with their positions near Jyeshtha20 and Chitra19, respectively. Here is my feeble attempt and speculation, with the help of Voyager 4.5TM and Mahabharata descriptions, to identify these planets.
"Shweta19 planet described in the vicinity of Chitra also appears as Budha (Mercury) in some manuscript(s) of Mahabharata. Voyager simulation shows that Saturn, after staying in the region of Chitra-Uttara Phalguni for a long period, approached Chitra around the first day of Mahabharata War. I speculated that this ‘Shweta’ planet could be Saturn. Saturn was approaching Chitra (RA = 6 h 42 min) and was very close to Chitra (Saturn RA = 6 h 26 min) on the first day of War (16 October 5561 B.C.). Why Saturn would be called ‘Shweta’ is beyond me. I present this observation of Saturn near Chitra to document one of my feeble attempts to corroborate Mahabharata observation of ‘Shweta near Chitra’19."
"Shyama20 planet (whatever that means) is also described as shining brightly and in the vicinity of Jyestha20. Observation refers to a planet near Jyeshtha however the Mahabharata text does not specify its identity other than referring to it by an adjective ‘Shyama’20. This Shyma20 planet also appears as ‘Shweta’ in some manuscript(s) of Mahabharata, not to confuse with another observation19, which also refers to a planet as ‘Shweta’. Not surprisingly, Mahabharata researchers had field day with this observation. Researchers have spent time interpreting ‘Shyama’ or ‘Shweta’ to mean a specific planet. To me any planet will do if one can be found in the position as described by the Mahabharata text, provided all other observations can be corroborated. I could not find any planet near Jyeshtha, at least not on the first day of War. My speculative hunch is that the description is of Jupiter, based on the fact that it was also described as ‘Shweta’ but also ‘Prajwalita’, smoky (sadhuma) and fiery (saha-Pawaka) and in the vicinity of Jyeshtha (nakshatra of Indra). The only planet that went retrograde near Jyeshtha during my proposed timeline for the Mahabharata War was Jupiter. Beginning December 5563 B.C. (~2 years before the Mahabharata War) through July 5562 B.C., Jupiter was in the vicinity of Jyeshtha, went retrograde near Jyeshtha, and attained magnitude as bright as -2.6. It is important to remember that Jupiter is plenty bright (-1.8 to -1.9) even when it is not retrograde."
Jupiter being seen as Shyama, dark, is unlikely; its pictured as or associated with bright yellow ochre, almost in every culture and astrology. Grahastotra associates Saturn with dark blue.
" ... This latter observation19 appears as ‘Budha near Chitra’ in some manuscript(s) of Mahabharata. Mercury (Budha), Venus and Jupiter can be identified with the objective ‘Shweta’ because of their brightness and visual appearance to the naked eye. Mars appears as red and Saturn (at least to me) appears as red to yellowish-brown. I wanted to test the possibility of Mercury (Budha) near Chitra, and Voyager 4.5™ simulation suggested a corroborative scenario for 22nd July 5562 B.C., after sunset. Similar scenario also existed for 2nd September 5562 B.C. (before Sunrise) and for 22nd July 5561 B.C., after sunset. Venus was near Chitra on 12 July 5561 B.C., after sunset or on 23 September 5562 B.C., before sunrise. ... "
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 27
"Comet attacking Pushya 21, 22
"The Mahabharata text has two instances of observations related to a fearsome comet 21, 22. One observation states that ‘great fierce comet has settled near Pushya’22 and another observation states that ‘the spread of the comet is settled near Pushya’21. There are numerous comets and their visibility from the Earth depends on their proximity to the Earth during their visit to the inner portion of the solar system. Comets with well-known orbits that have orbital period of less than 200 years are called Short-Period comets. As of 2008 A.D., less than 200 short-period comets are known.
"Mahabharata Observation does not specify additional information, other than stating that the comet and/or spread of the comet were settled near Pushya. This information is not sufficient to identify a comet from the known comets today. I ran a simulation with step change of a day, using DVA™ by locking the position of Pushya and observing the view of the sky near Pushya for a period of two years before and after 5561 B.C. No specific comet appeared and/or settled near Pushya, an observation that would corroborate Mahabharata description.
"Vartak interpreted Mahabharata observations 21, 22 as referring to Haley’s comet; performed calculations based on orbital period of Haley’s comet and inferred that Haley’s comet must have been seen during the War. Voyager simulation shows that this is not the case. ... "
" ... during apparition, comet would more than likely (usually, but not always) occupy lot more space than space of one nakshatra (Pushya). In addition, a comet would travel through multiple nakshatra space within a span of few days and thus specific reference to Pushya would be meaningless and cannot be corroborated. This postulate tuned out to be a useful one and led me to design another experiment.
"I activated the settings for all known short-period comets (known to NASA), and with the help of DVA™ began noticing moving stellar objects (comets) in the vicinity of Pushya. Lo and Behold, I found Haley’s comet in the vicinity of Pushya! Haley’s comet stayed in the vicinity of Pushya until it was ready for its next apparition. In fact it is during the apparition that the Haley’s comet started moving away from Pushya. It did not take me long to appreciate the meaning of Mahabharata observation, assuming of course the comet referred to in the Mahabharata text is indeed Haley’s comet. Mahabharata text is stating that the fearsome comet is not in its apparition and thus rather settled near Pushya19 and comet that is not in apparition can be visualized as one whose spread has collapsed on itself 21. Haley’s comet has orbital period of ~75 years and at apparition it remains visible for few weeks/months at most. Thus my interpretation appears trivial at first glance since one would wonder what would be the purpose of Mahabharata author in stating such a phenomenon of non-apparition, which is the reality for some ~75 years out of orbital period of ~75.3 years. The objection raised is entirely valid. On the other hand, while trivial, this interpretation of mine corroborates Mahabharata observations 21, 22 and corroboration is easy to demonstrate using DVA™ with step function of one year. Voyager simulation shows Haley’s comet in its non-apparition state and in the vicinity of Pushya for 99% of its orbital period and goes away from Pushya only during apparition."
Oak again pushes for recognition of knowledge of three ice planets to India in and perhaps before Mahabharata era, while insisting on this being based on visual observation.
Again, if such technology existed, it would be mentioned by name, as was Pushpak Vimana, and so would be the three ice planets. But then, so would be Ceres and the asteroid belt, and much else we know of now.
" ... I could easily eliminate 5228 B.C. however 5561 B.C. turned out resistant to my falsification attempts. Voyager simulation corroborated, for year 5561 B.C., twenty-five Mahabharata observations of planets and comets, falsified none and could not explain and/or corroborate two observations 19, 20.
"While I did not test all 110 potential instances within the Epoch of Arundhati for the year of Mahabharata War, I did test 38 potential instances (based on relative positions of Saturn near Bhaga and Jupiter near Shravana) over a shorter period of 6500 B.C. - 3500 B.C. ... "
"The year, 5561 B.C., proposed by Vartak is the only year that could meaningfully corroborate twenty-seven planetary and cometary observations. ... "
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
May 20, 2022 - May 21, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
8 The First Day of Mahabharata War
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
"Raghavan, Achar, Karandikar and few other researchers have proposed the beginning of Mahabharata War (the first day) near full moon day (Margashirsha Shuddha 11/12 through Margashirsha Purnima). These researchers invoke following observations in support of their theory,
"1. Traditionally celebrated day of Gita Jayanti. Gita Jayanti is celebrated on Margashirsha Shuddha 11.
"2. Late moonrise on the 14th day of War 3. Shravana nakshatra on the last day of War, based on statement of Balarama"
Oak emphatically declares traditional belief worthless. Wonder why he's taken trouble to do this work, then, since Mahabharata is traditionally believed by India to have taken place, as expounded by Vyasa, which too is traditional belief. There are no pyramid structures to prove existence of any of it. So why waste time dating something that's only traditional belief of India? For the same reasons that some so-called Indologists, with no connection whatsoever to India, do?
No, Oak is merely attempting to prove he isn't attached to his roots. Again, why bother? For neighbours and colleagues, to fend off ridicule? Why not cut it short and research West Asian documents instead? Too dangerous?
" ... Vartak provided multiple Mahabharata observations in support of ‘Amawasya’ as the first day of Mahabharata War, specifically Mahabharata observations alluding to the solar eclipse on the first day of War. In addition Vartak provided alternate explanation for the late moonrise on the 14th day of War93. Vartak’s explanation of Balarama Tirthayatra88, its duration, and nakshatra of his arrival is a mixed baggage. I have borrowed Vartak’s explanation of Mahabharata observations related to the solar eclipse however, have provided alternate explanations for the late moonrise93 as well as Tirthayatra of Balarama88 (Chapter 9)."
................................................................................................
"In this chapter, my objectives are,
"(1) To test the conjecture of ‘Amawasya’ as the first day of Mahabharata War;
"(2) To propose timeline for pre-war events, beginning with Krishna leaving for Hastinapur (from Upaplavya) on peace mission and ending with Vyasa meeting Dhritarashtra, day before the War;
"(3) To corroborate my proposed timeline (for pre-war events) with Mahabharata observations;
"(4) To corroborate passing away of Krishna, 36 years after the Mahabharata War."
" ... I realized that, in addition to the descriptions of the planets and eclipses, Mahabharata author was equally happy employing specific astronomical events happening around him in comparing the War scenes. Eclipses are indeed dramatic, but Mahabharata author is equally happy comparing warriors with mid-day sun or with the positions and the phases of the Moon and/or stars."
Again one has to go through Oak mixing up poetic freedom with astronomy and claim that a comparison is due to astronomical visual observations! I suppose the usual, common poetic tradition of India where every beautiful or loved person or infant is compared to Moon must have Oak conclude that Indian people keep traveling to outer space, if not Moon. Unless he concludes, of course, that every such comparison is due to small pox epidemics.
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 28
"Lunar Eclipses9, 27, 28, 29, 64
"The Mahabharata text has up to 5 observations, considered by other researchers as referring to lunar eclipse(s). ... however it is not clear whether the observations refer to one or more (lunar) eclipses. ... "
" ... I ran Voyager 4.5™ conjunction search as well as simulations for lunar months (specifically full moon days) of Ashwin through Pausha in 5561 B.C. Conjunction search showed a possible lunar eclipse on Kartika full moon, with separation angle of 2.726°, at 9:58 PM on September 30, 5561 B.C. Another lunar eclipse was shown on 30 October 5561 B.C., with separation angle of 0.127°, at 12:19 PM. I request experts to determine if separation angle of 2.726° for the conjunction of 30th September qualifies as lunar eclipse and, assuming an affirmative answer, also to determine the type of lunar eclipse. The time of the second eclipse, the lunar eclipse of October 30 is around noon and thus the eclipse would not have been visible at Kurukshetra (~Delhi). Voyager simulation, however, showed that the Moon, still eclipsed, was above the horizon at 7 PM and Mahabharata observer would have seen eclipsed Moon for at least ~90 min, albeit in final stages of the eclipse, before the Moon became free from the Earth’s shadow.
"Description of ‘the full moon’ on Kartika Purnima is generic enough and cannot be used as decisive description of the lunar eclipse. On the other hand, if someone confirms this lunar eclipse (Kartika Purnima) by other means, the Mahabharata description could be used to corroborate such an instance. The reader should keep in mind that when the Moon does not enter into the umbra, the darkest part of the Earth’s shadow, it does not darken completely, and we get a partial eclipse. These are hard to notice; the moon just darkens a bit, but does not disappear completely into the night. Of course it is important to remember that the moon does not disappear even during the total lunar eclipse, but rather turns dark red. ... "
"Most researchers have considered only two eclipses, i.e. the lunar eclipse on Kartika Purnima, followed by the solar eclipse on Kartika Amawasya. For example, Vartak has not given any consideration to the lunar eclipse of 30th October 5561 B.C. My point being he did not arrive at his proposed year based on this lunar eclipse. Eclipses are critical in order to validate and corroborate any specific proposal for the year of Mahabharata War. On the other hand, many researchers depended too much, incorrectly I think, on presence of solar and lunar eclipses in predicting their proposed year of the Mahabharata War."
"Error Elimination – Experiment 29
"Two eclipses separated by only 13 days29
"Many researchers have voiced their frustration with the Mahabharata reference29 of either Amawasya occurring within 13 days or the lunar and the solar eclipses occurring on the same day. The frustration and confusion is caused by existence of multiple versions (due to transcription and transliteration errors) for this reference29. Critical edition lists one version (not employed by any past researchers) which reads, ‘chaturdashi panchadashi kadachidapi shodashim, imam tu nabhijanami bhutaPurva trayodashim’ and when this version is combined with the next verse of the lunar and the solar eclipses separated by only 13 days, the translation and interpretation becomes straightforward. The time interval of 13 days is not referring to Amawasya, but rather to the time interval between the lunar and the solar eclipses.
"The lunar eclipse of 30th October is hardly in doubt and I assert that Mahabharata observation of seeing two eclipses (the lunar and the solar eclipses) separated by only 13 days refers to the solar eclipse of 16th October and the lunar eclipse of 30th October. The solar eclipse occurred mid-day on 16th October while the lunar eclipse occurred on 30th October (lunar eclipse occurred around mid-day but was visible at Kurukshetra only in the evening for less than 2 hours), and thus these two eclipses are separated by 13 days, i.e. not counting the days of eclipses themselves29."
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 30
"Solar Eclipse – The First day of War
"Voyager conjunction search shows that the solar eclipse of 16th October 5561 B.C. occurred at 12:57 PM and with a separation angle of 1.8°. I request experts to shed some light on the type of solar eclipse this would have been. The Mahabharata text does not specifically state the occurrence of the solar eclipse on the first day of War. Vartak identified Mahabharata observations 34, 35, which allude to the occurrence of the solar eclipse on the first day of War. I identified additional observations alluding to the same phenomenon."
This disproves the dates proposed and Oak has not realised it!
The famous - or, rather, very infamous - solar eclipse that happened during Mahabharata War couldn't have been on first day at noon, since it was after Abhimanyu had been trapped and set upon by a gang of enemies against the rules and butchered; Arjuna, who was fighting elsewhere, came to know of it, and vowed he'd kill the murderer of his son before sunset or else give his own life. He couldn't find the killer, hidden by the enemies. As it darkened and Arjuna prepared to climb his funeral pyre, the killer came out gloating, and so did the Sun reappear. Krishna promptly instructed Arjuna to aim, and it was done.
This, presented in Mahabharata as action by Krishna hiding the Sun by using his Chakra, has been argued by those unwilling to credit a weapon wielded by an Avatar, the God, Krishna, doing the job, as something that couldn't have been anything but a solar eclipse close to Sunset, thus giving illusion of a sunset, bit getting over before Sun set.
Obviously this was neither on first day of Mahabharata nor at noon. And since the War didn't go on over a month, but was of much shorter duration, there couldn't have been two eclipses.
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 31
"The Sun appeared as if split in two parts34
"Solar eclipse seen from the Earth may be perceived as ‘the Sun appearing as if split in two parts’34."
Oak fails again, in two respects. He hasn't quoted the original verses, so it's unclear if he misinterpreted. And he hasn't explained how Sun could possibly look like split in two due to a solar eclipse.
Was this a case of sundogs, observed usually in arctic latitudes with snowbound landscape? Did Kurukshetra have an unusually frosty day?
Or Oak’s misinterpreted as he often does, mistaking a poetic allusion for an astronomical observation? Safe bet.
"Error Elimination – Experiment 32
"Flames of the Sun were visible34
"This observation is from the same couplet where the Sun is described as split in two parts. During the solar eclipse, two phenomenons are observed – Baily’s beads and solar corona and I think the description of ‘visible flames’ of the Sun is referring to one or both of these phenomena.
"Error Elimination – Experiment 33
"Morning Sun with its splendor lost35
"Mahabharata observation states that while army was waiting for the sunrise, wind started blowing and raindrops appeared without clouds in the sky. Soon the war field was covered with darkness. Big meteor fell from the sky and crashed (appeared as if it crashed) into the rising Sun and made a loud noise. The Sun appeared with its splendor lost35. I consider this as corroborative evidence for the occurrence of the solar eclipse."
That's totally nuts. Meteor fall isn't solar eclipse! Nor is raindrops without clouds anything like solar eclipse.
Oak has this habit of connecting whatever phenomenon to impossible conclusions of his choice And indistinguishable he's proved it. This is another of those occurrences.
"Error Elimination – Experiment 34
"Disappearance of the Sun in the middle of the battle36
"As two armies engaged in bloody fight, on the first day of War, the Sun disappeared36. It is true that Mahabharata observer suggests dust raised by the armies as the cause of Sun’s disappearance. The time of the disappearance of the Sun was sometime around noon, but before the end of the first half of the first day’s War and it corroborates well with that of the time of solar eclipse."
But the solar eclipse isn't described in Mahabharata, merely happens to have been on the day selected by Oak as his choice, for whatever reason. This argument is fraudulent.
Mahabharata author was quite capable of stating it accurately if there was a solar eclipse. And the description would not be possible to confuse with light hidden due to dust raised.
There'd be stars visible, also planets close to the Sun including Mercury, and birds would be out in numbers too, especially crows, making a din of their calls, very noticeable.
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 35
"The Sun and the Moon seen on Amawasya38
"Satyaki and Abhimanyu were forced to fight from the same chariot with the Kaurava army on the third day of War and Mahabharata author compares them to the view of Sun and Moon, together, as seen on the past/recent (Gatau) Amawasya day38. The reader may recall that the Moon can be seen (edges of the moon) along with the Sun only during the solar eclipse, which occurs on Amawasya. I present observations related to the solar eclipse 29, 34, 35, 36, 38 as corroborative evidence for ‘Amawasya’ as the first day of Mahabharata war."
If Abhimanyu fought on day three, Amawasya was not until that day or next, at earliest. Krishna telling Arjuna "here's Sun and there's Jayadratha", commanding him to skay killer of his son instantly keeping presence of mind, instead of giving in to grief climbing onto the pyre, was either due to God Krishna performing a miracle and hiding Sun by throwing his Chakra until such time as Jayadratha came out of hiding as Krishna knew he would; or else, there was an eclipse close to Sunset and as darkness fell, only Krishna knew, and so didn't stop the funeral pyre building activities by Arjuna.
"Error Elimination – Experiment 36
"First 11 days of the War
"The moon is conspicuous by its absence in Mahabharata descriptions during the first 7 days of War. The battlefield at the end of the third day of War is described as similar to the autumnal starstudded sky40. Mahabharata author describes distinguished warriors troubling armies of the opposite side with that of the scorching sun or the autumnal sun throughout the War. The battlefield is described as similar to the sky, which was filled with planets and nakshatras41. One has to wait until the 8th day of War to read description of the war scenes and their comparison with the moon. Duryodhana who was surrounded by his servants with oil lamps in their hands, on his way to meet Bhishma, is compared with the Moon surrounded by planets43. The first mention of the full Moon appears on the 10th day of War where Arjuna troubling Dusshasan, during the fight, is compared with angry Rahu troubling the full Moon47. Arjuna sitting in his chariot and surrounded by various jewels of his chariot, on the 11th day of War, is compared with the Moon surrounded by nakshatras49."
Again Oak confuses poetic description with visual observations of sky, perhaps deliberately to suit his choice of dates. Vyasa was unlikely to look up and think, say, that Moon there, it's looking like the guy who was junior villain disrobing the wife of the hero! No, this is allegorical, not visual.
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 37
"The moon rising with its pointed ends down48
"The planets were described, on the 10th day of War, as circling either the Sun (or the Moon) in an abnormal direction signifying inauspicious omens, while the Moon was described as rising with its pointed ends directed downwards48."
That sounds more like a partial lunar eclipse than any other possibility of an explanation. It's definitely not poetic and definitely is a visual description.
"I could not interpret the circling of planets around either the Sun (or the Moon) however the rising of the Moon with its pointed (non-smooth) ends downward corroborates well with the rising (or visible) moon during ‘Shukla Paksha’ of any month, i.e. bright half of the lunar month. I present this observation in support of ‘Amawasya’ as the first day of War."
This was tenth day, and if War began on Amawasya, it was well past half Moon; a gibbous Moon doesn't look anything like what Oak describes which sounds more like a crescent facing down, but that's out after half Moon has passed. So the only other possibility is of a partial lunar eclipse at moonrise.
"The face of King Neel, killed by Ashwatthama on the 12th day of War, is compared with the full moon51 and so is the face of fallen Abhimanyu on the 13th day of War52. This observation also provides another peculiar analogy: the scene is described as if the moon had eclipsed52! Voyager simulation shows that the Moon was near the node (Rahu) on the 13th day of the War. ... "
Oak gives a long list of various people compared to Moon hereafter. But the point is, either he must explain the Jayadratha slaying, with Sun reappearing in West after having set, as a solar eclipse for a short duration close to time of Sun setting, but with eclipse getting over before sunset; or claim that it was Divine Action by God Sri Krishna who used his Chakra to hide Sun just so Jayadratha would come out of hiding.
And if latter, why avoid astrological terminology so assiduously, claiming everything of that nature is visual observation, when logically its obviously false? Such as Oak’s mist idiotic interpretation of exalted planets at birth of Rama being that they were all above horizon!
So Abhimanyu killed on 13th day makes next day or that day, when Arjuna slayed his son's murderer, the solar eclipse day, by any so-called rational thinking. Else one needs to explain that phenomenon, whether as Divine intervention or invent another one. Oaks usual disdain as "not giving importance", presumably, to whatever he can't comprehend or solve?
Oak gives a long list of various people compared to Moon, most of them dead on battle field.
" ... I present these Mahabharata observations and their
comparison with that of the full moon, during last the 7 days of War as corroborative evidence in support of ‘Amawasya’ as the first day of War."
Somehow it's seriously doubtful that if a full Moon were really shining above, anyone would look on a dead face and find it comparable to the Moon above, even a dead warrior's mother. So the sole argument seems about light that allowed the battle to continue.
People did have torches, and the war was getting critical, people were probably not as much in family mood as on day one (most peopleinvolved, at the top, being related, much like the Royal mob in WWI, only more so), especially after the treacherous murder of Abhimanyu.
The far more critical point remains the event regarding Sun setting, seemingly but convincing everyone, and again suddenly shining in West, whence Arjuna could slay the murderer of his son instead of climbing onto his own funeral pyre.
If this wasn't a solar eclipse close to Sunset but over just before, and one isn't going to argue that it was Divine Action by God Sri Krishna who used his Chakra to hide Sun just so Jayadratha would come out of hiding, seeing Arjuna getting ready to climb his own pyre, one has to find another convincing explanation purely of physical level. One somehow assumes that thinkers post 19th century would have found one, that such an explanation does not likely involve any discovery of science thereafter.
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 39
"The full moon near Krittika"
Again, Oak either confuses himself, or worse, dishonestly presents a confusion, in presenting a poetic imagery presentation as evidence of a visual observation of astronomical nature.
" ... I came across the observation of the full moon near Krittika on the 12th day of War. This observation presents, in my mind, decisive corroborative evidence for Kartika Amawasya (per Amanta reckoning) as the first day of the Mahabharata War. The Mahabharata text describes white canopy on the chariot of King Bhagadatta as similar to the full moon near Krittika. This was on the 12th day of the War50. ... "
Again, he hasn't quoted the original verses. But presumably, if the author had stated that the full moon or thereabouts was above, he'd have quoted the poet, even if only in translation.
So there's only this comparison. It doesn't prove that the full Moon of any month, whether Kartika or another, was in fact above, any more than its only when full Moon shines above that any other person of India compares a loved person or infant with beauty thereof.
On the contrary, it's when the Moon isn't above in its splendour that such comparisons are likely to occur naturally. Under a full Moon, one would know the difference, or speak poetically of a Moon above and another below, reflecting one another.
In fact it doesn't even support the month being Kartika, since the full Moon of Kartika is the most effulgent in its glory, the cool of winter onset adding to the beauty.
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 40
"The Moon between two Vishakhas57
"All observations are theory laden. This means one may not even notice them unless one is expecting them, based on predictions of one’s theory. It also means that the theory determines the interpretation of an observation or the specifics of an observation one should be looking for."
Is that an ingenious defense of a working technique he is subconsciously aware of dishonesty of, but isn't ready to face that fact about, consciously?
"After I stumbled into ‘the full moon near Krittika’ observation50, I ran the simulation for the position of the moon for each day of the War, beginning with the first day (my proposed date), and noted down nakshatras in the vicinity of the moon. ... "
That's one of those rare instances where Oak admits his theory as separate from original quotes, but only in the "first day" part; he still wrongly states "‘the full moon near Krittika’" as an "observation", because it suits his theory, not because it's beyond doubt, and indeed it's a poetic imagery, not an observation.
" ... These observations of the moon point to ‘Amawasya’ as the first day of War. Observation of ‘full moon in Krittika’ on the 12th day of the War points to ‘Kartika Amawasya’ as the first day of War, per Amanta reckoning (Error Elimination – Experiment 39)."
That's his usual method, building further on non existent straws and filaments of mistakes of interpretation, and not only asserting it as proved but mixing it with original and claiming it as valid conclusion.
"Pandyaraj, another warrior, was killed on the 16th day of War and the Mahabharata text compares his face with the full moon. The same observation also mentions that the face of Pandyaraj was looking beautiful, similar to the moon between (two) Vishakhas57!"
Again, he hasn't given original verses here, but presumably it's not clearly stated that the said "moon between (two) Vishakhas" was up there right then.
"Voyager simulation had shown the Moon to be near ‘Punarvasu’ during the 16th day of War. I had employed star Pollux as YogaTara for Punarvasu, which is next to another star Castor and I knew that Pollux and Castor together represented ‘two Punarvasus’. I wondered if Mahabharata author would have referred to Pollux and Castor as two Vishakhas! ... "
So he's going to pull another confusion of his off as statement by author of Mahabharata! Or, worse yet, a confusion of nomenclature in astrology and astronomy in India?
" ... I suspected that observation referred to the full moon between the two branches (Vishakhas) of Punarvasus; one branch to the north of the ecliptic formed by Castor and Pollux and the second branch to the south of the ecliptic formed by Procyon and Gomeisa, four stars of Punarvasus. The full moon was indeed between these two branches of Punarvasus on the 16th day of War."
There it is.
"Moon would be indeed near Vishakha for the year proposed by Raghavan /Achar on the 16th day of the War, however, the day was less than 4 days removed from the day of Amawasya (30% illumination) and thus the observation cannot be corroborated with full moon description of the Mahabharata text. ... "
He could instead have also checked if his Amawasya thesis was valid, but no, too much ego!
Of course, he's discarded traditional belief or thinking explicitly as related to India, so he couldn't be bothered to think about who would plan a war to begin on Amawasya in India, where it's held as a powerfully occult time, not for beginning of new ventures, all the more particularly, anything involving a weapon or a slashing of body, including a surgery necessary to life, much less a war with its deliberately inflicted wounds - intended to slay, not just wound - as part of routine thereof?
For this war wasn't one of the sort that happen when one of the parties is not of India, by one side assaulting other by stealth withoutprovocation.
This was a purely Indian war, conducted after talks failed, with plans about when and where, with both sides having gone around India, conducting talks with those they expected to get to join their side, often both sides coming face to face in the process.
It couldn't possibly have been planned for an Amawasya, much less for a solar eclipse at midday, as first day of the war.
" ... Theory and proposed date of Raghavan/Achar has been falsified by every single observation (except Saturn near Rohini and comet near Pushya) discussed in this book. Although Raghavan or Achar have not claimed it, they would have been justified in claiming this observation of ‘moon between Vishakhas’ as corroborating their timeline. On the other hand, mention of the full moon is problematic for their timeline."
Oak doesn't realise it, but he just gave weightage to their dates. If their proposed timeline is 5,000 or more years in past, it may have a better chance of being correct.
................................................................................................
Here's more stretching by Oak, misinterpretation of text to fit his proposal.
"Error Elimination – Experiment 41
"Five sons of Draupadi protecting Dhrishtadyumna58 &
"Five bright stars protecting the Moon I noticed this observation in the Mahabharata text only because I knew what I should be looking for. In the absence of specific expectation, this is a generic observation and may not carry much value. Five sons of Draupadi are described as protecting Dhristadyumna, their maternal uncle, by surrounding him, on the 17th day of War and Mahabharata author compares this military arrangement with the Moon protected by (5) bright stars in the sky58. I conjecture that the (5) bright stars (referring to five sons of Draupadi) protecting Dhristadyumna are 4 stars of Punarvasu (Pollux, Castor to the north & Procyon, Gomeisa to the south) along with Alhena to the west. The full moon is to the east of these stars and can be visualized as protected by these five stars."
One, it's not clear that the comparison is of a direct observation overhead at the instant. Two, again, it's pretty silly to imagine a poet, or anyone else for that matter, looking at a battle field and then up, to find a comparison.
Obviously the poet had seen Moon in that position at some time in past, long before writing about the scene, and when writing, it was subconscious inspiration that wrote itself weaving the two together.
"Error Elimination – Experiment 42
"Two Panchal warriors behind Yudhishthir & Two Punarvasus behind the Moon59
"Two Panchal warriors protected Yudhishthir, from behind, on the 17th day of War and Mahabharata author compares this military arrangement with the moon protected by two Punarvasus59! This observation is another distinct observation that corroborates the position of moon on the 17th day of War, but also ‘Kartika Amawasya’ as the first day of War.
Again, same point. Vyasa definitely did not roam the battlefield looking up half the time and at battlefield for the rest. Nor was he likely to consult a Panchaanga while writing to see if he could fit another observation.
Mahabharata was reportedly dictated to the God of Knowledge, Ganapati, whose sole condition for acceptance of the role was, he wouldn't wait while poet composed the next verse. Paraphrased, this amounts to the whole of the original text having been inspired writing in a flow.
" ... I do not deny the possibility that Mahabharata author might have simply used the analogy of ‘full moon between Vishakhas’, without any intent of comparing it with actual situation in the sky."
Rare admission from Oak about his overreach.
................................................................................................
Error Elimination – Experiment 43
"Yudhishthir free from misery & The moon free from Rahu64
"Yudhishthir was injured on the battlefield, on the 17th day of War, and his protectors removed him from the battlefield. Expert medical practitioners removed the arrows from Yudhishthir’s body and in no time Yudhishthir was back on the battlefield.
"Mahabharata author compares the return of joyous Yudhishthir, free from misery, with the full Moon freed from the torture of Rahu64, i.e. the full moon coming out of the lunar eclipse.
"Mahabharata observer could witness the lunar eclipse on the 15th day of the War for some 90 minutes after the sunset. Although 90 min is sufficiently long time interval to notice an eclipse, it is also important to remember that objects below and close to the horizon can be seen due to refraction of light."
Whatever the truth of the last point, if such a lunar eclipse were witnessed by the battlefield, it would be written in dar more explicitly.
Instead, what is there, clearly, is the solar eclipse close to Sunset and Sun emerging just before sunset out of the shadow, and Arjuna able to avenge the unlawful slaying of his son due solely to this - which has been written in as a miracle, performed by the living God, Krishna, using his Chakra to hide Sun just so Jayadratha would come out of hiding as Krishna knew he would. This was not before the 13th day of war, but not too long after, so it must have been 13th or 14th day of War.
................................................................................................
"Problem of Pre-War timeline
"The problems posed by observations related to the timeline before the War and leading to the first day of War, have implications for adjusting the timeline of events before the War, but does not affect either the first day & the year of the War or the timeline of events after the War. Any timeline, proposed for the events before the War, has to satisfy the following,
"1. Krishna leaves for Hastinapur (from Upaplavya) early morning on Anuradha Muhurta and on Revati nakshatra during the lunar month of Kartika or Kaumudi (month of lotuses).
"2. Krishna and Karna meet 7 days before Shakra (Jyeshtha) Amawasya.
"3. Krishna returns to Upaplayva before the arrival of Balarama to the Pandava camp.
"4. Balarama arrives at the Pandava camp and then leaves for Saraswati Tirthayatra on Anuradha nakshatra.
"5. Rukmi visits the Pandavas and the Kauravas and then returns to his kingdom.
"6. Yudhishthir holds secret meeting, after the departures of Balarama and Rukmi, but before the visit of Uluka. This meeting appears to be near the full moon day.
"7. Uluka visits the Pandava camp, with the message from Duryodhana, and returns to the Kaurava camp with the message from the Pandavas.
"8. Both the Kauravas and the Pandavas leave on Pushya day.
"9. Both armies arrive at Kurukshetra on Magha day.
"10. Balarama spends 42 days doing Saraswati Tirthayatra, before arriving on the last day of War, to attend the fight between Bhima and Duryodhana.
"11. Balarama leaves for Tirthayatra on Pushya (Shravana or Anuradha) and arrives on the last day of the War on Shravana (or Pushya).
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 52
"Krishna Nirvana 81, 82, 83
"I have included timing of Krishna Nirvana in this chapter only because astronomy observations related to Krishna Nirvana are of eclipses and are compared with that of the Mahabharata War. Otherwise, it is my considered opinion that many researchers have made a big deal of this observation for nothing."
Oak seems to deliberately adopt an attitude of offensive belligerence towards anything that might hurt India by doing so. This is true only as long as anyone in India cared about him, his pronouncements, his attitude, his declaration of how little importance he gives. Else he reminds one of nothing so much as one of those angry little ridiculous strutting toddlers shouting in temper on AFV.
"Other ancient texts refer to sightings of comet (Haley’s comet) before the Mahabharata War, but also after the Mahabharata War and before Krishna Nirvana. These observations have significance for the timing of Mahabharata War however, in keeping up with my promise of restricting to only Mahabharata observations I have not discussed these extraneous observations, extraneous to the Mahabharata text, in this book."
Why does he refrain from mentioning the names of those specific ancient texts?
"Krishna passed away 36 years after the Mahabharata War. ... "
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
May 21, 2022 - May 21, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
9 Conflicting Observations
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
"I want to highlight one Mahabharata reference, which contradicts the season of Mahabharata War. Thus there are six specific Mahabharata observations and one traditional belief (KaliYuga and the Mahabharata War) conflicting with my theory and/or proposed timeline and are summarized as follows,
"1. The nakshatra (Pushya) when Balarama left for Tirthayatra and the nakshatra (Shravana) when he returned, after 42 days, to witness the club-fight between Bhima and Duryodhana, on the last day of War.
"2. Drona Parva refers to late moonrise at the end of 14th day of War and this phenomenon, if interpreted in certain way, directly contradicts my 18-day war timeline.
"3. Mahabharata observation records Bhishma passing away during the lunar month of Magha and when 3/4th of the month (or Paksha) was still remaining, after being on the bed of arrows for 58 nights. The day of his death was the day of winter solstice. Some manuscripts contain a verse that states Bhishma passing away on Magha Shuddha Ashtami and that the Moon was near Rohini. These Mahabharata observations contradict my proposed year of the Mahabharata War.
"4. Tradition assumes 3102 B.C. as the beginning of KaliYuga. Tradition also assumes that the Mahabharata War happened 36 years before the beginning of KaliYuga. My proposed timeline of the Mahabharata War is more than 2000 years before the traditionally assumed beginning of KaliYuga.
"5. Bhishma is compared with the full moon on the first day of War. This analogy conflicts with my timeline since the first day of War is Amawasya, per my proposed timeline.
"6. The Mahabharata text states analogy of the solar eclipse, during Bhima-Duryodhana fight, on the 18th and the last day of War. This day was closer to the full moon day and nowhere close to Amawasya. Thus the analogy of the solar eclipse appears to conflict with my timeline.
"7. When Krishna left for Hastinapur, the Mahabharata observation states that it was the end of Sharad season. This observation, suggesting the season when Krishna left on a peace mission, directly contradicts my timeline. The Mahabharata War took place, per my timeline, during the Sharad season. In addition, I conjectured time interval of an additional lunar month and 7 days between the first day of Mahabharata War and the end of Krishna’s visit to Hastinapur (i.e. Krishna-Karna meeting)."
The fifth point is serious for Oak because he has vowed to treat every such mention as not only a direct visual observation of astronomical nature but also one that was instantly conducted. So he is forced in all honesty to conclude that the war began close to a full Moon clearly visible.
It's in harmony with the solar eclipse interpretation of Arjuna avenging murder of Abhimanyu event of Sun seemingly setting and being visible again in West.
Also, if day 14 was solar eclipse in the evening, just before sunset, Oak’s sixth point above would harmonize with his own principles about poetic imagination not being on the loose but firmly tied to instant and immediate visual observation of astronomical nature.
The final point of Oak seems to indicate that his and any other interpretations hurrying the war are incorrect, and that even after Krishna visiting Hastinapur, there must have been time gap, not so much for preparation of armies as for diplomatic missions whereby various other kings were asked by each of the two sides to join theirs. Since this was pretty much going around India, the war itself must have been fixed with a good site in mind and an auspicious muhourta too, in advance of the hour fixed for beginning, as evidenced by the armies travelling up country from Hastinapur to Kurukshetra.
And the muhourta simply couldn't have been fixed for an Amawasya with a solar eclipse at noon.
Oak will have to accept his timeline is wrong by that much, although generally in a good neighborhood due to major considerations.
................................................................................................
"There are 6 Mahabharata statements related to the Tirthayatra of Balarama,
"(1) Balarama left the Pandavas on Anuradha nakshatra75
"(2) Balarama began his Tirthayatra on Pushya88
"(3) Balarama arrived on the 18th day of War, and witnessed the dual between Bhima & Duryodhana
"(4) Balarama arrived on the 18th day of War and the nakshatra was Shravana88
"(5) The duration of his Tirthayatra was 42 days88
"(6) Balarama was surrounded by surviving Kings, and the arrangement appeared similar to the full moon surrounded by nakshatras 153.
"Statements (1), (3) & (5) do not contradict my timeline. Statement (6) provides corroborative support for my assertion that the last day of War was close to the full moon day. Statements (2) & (4) directly contradict my proposed timeline. In fact my timeline reverses the sequence of the nakshatras; i.e. Balarama began his Tirthayatra on Shravana nakshatra (21st September) and returned on the last day of War when the moon was near Pushya (2nd November), 42 days after he began his Tirthayatra.
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 53
"Transposing Error & Degrees of Freedom
"I ran simulation for my proposed timeline, beginning with Pushya on 2nd November and going backwards 42 days. The Moon was near ‘Shravana’ on 21st September. ... "
"1. Balarama leaving on Pushya (for Tirthayatra or from the Pandava camp)
"2. Arriving on Shravana (18th and the last day of War)
"3. Total duration of Tirthayatra = 42 days"
"Daftari proposed theory of transposition of two nakshatras in the fashion ‘Shravanae samprayotosmi pusheyna punaragatah’. P V Kane mentions this effort of Daftari in his ‘History of Dharmashastra’. ... I would rather be content to accept the observation as not corroborating my theory."
"Error Elimination – Experiment 54
"Transliteration Error (‘Sampryatosmi’ instead of ‘Samproptosmi’)
"Vartak proposed that ‘Samprayatosmi’88 was a transliteration error and the correct word should have been ‘Sampraptosmi’. I searched for alternate readings within the critical edition of Mahabharata and realized that had he looked into alternate readings, he would have realized that one of the alternate readings indeed suggests ‘Sampraptosmi’! It is safe to say that he did not consult critical edition for this observation88, for he goes on to suggest various ways of splitting ‘Samprayatosmi’, which would lead to the meaning of ‘arrived at’ instead of ‘departed on’."
" ... The desired meaning is also the natural outcome, if one accepts Amawasya as the first day and Margashirsha as the lunar month of Mahabharata War. ... "
Seeming tautology there. Also, Margashirsha seems as inappropriate for a planned war as the choice of Amawasya for first day, that too with an expected solar eclipse at noon!
................................................................................................
Oak presents another tautology, crowing as if it's an achievement in direction of corroboration of his theory.
"2. Late Moonrise (14th day of the War)
"The Mahabharata War began, per my proposal, on Amawasya day and thus the 14th day of War would be close to the full moon day. The moon will rise, on the full moon day, at the time of sunset and will set around the time of sunrise next day. Voyager simulation of rising and setting of the moon, on 29th October – the 14th day of War, shows that the moon rose around 6 PM (evening of the 14th day of War) just before the sunset. The moon went down the horizon around 6 AM (morning of the 15th day of War – 30th October)."
But of course, if he proposes Amawasya as beginning of anything, 14th day is bound to be close to full Moon, rising close to Sunset time, close to 6 p.m., in India!
He's crowing about it as if it's a confirmation from text, which it's not, of his own dates matching with his software. Typical of much of the chaff that is used as a filler to stretch a research paper proposing a timeline into a whole book, apart from details of his activities and criticism of others and theoretical exposes on philosophy!
Reality? Still not a step further.
His general proposed bound for Mahabharata War being before 5,000 BCE, very good; his fixing on 5561 BCE, ok, but unconvincing, as is his unproven assertions about all possible past timings modulo 26,000 years cycles before his timeline being out of question.
His insistence on Margashirsha and on an Amawasya, that too one with a solar eclipse at noon, for a beginning of the war, out of question unless he's declared the events of 13th or 14th day of Arjuna avenging his sons murder with Jayadratha slaying as result of a direct Divine Action intervention by Krishna, and not merely a solar eclipse that Krishna knew was about to occur, giving illusion of a Sun setting earlier.
"The Problem
"Mahabharata observation describes late moonrise, which directly contradicts my proposed timeline. Ghatotkacha was killed around the midnight of the 14th day. The fight continued and the soldiers of both sides were injured by arrows and were exhausted, long before half of the night was over91. Arjuna noticed this condition of the army on both sides and said to the fighting armies, “You and your animals are exhausted and are overpowered with sleep. The battlefield is covered with darkness due to enormous dust in the air. If you consider it appropriate, stop the fight and rest for a while92. After the moonrise (or when the moon is visible again), you may resume the fight”93. Both sides accepted the proposal, warriors retired from fighting and slept for some time.94 After sometime the Moon appeared in the sky95.
"Late moonrise on the 14th day of War necessitates that the War began around the full moon day. Raghavan/Achar and few others have attempted such proposals. All such proposals run into difficulty while corroborating observations of the night of 14th day of War and numerous additional observations."
Oak neither mentions what difficulties not why or corroboration with what, but obviously if Jayadratha slaying on 13th or 14th day was instantly after solar eclipse, then night of 14th day would have moon rise very late, indeed, just about at dawn, in fact.
"This late moonrise on the night of the 14th day of War is impossible for my proposed timeline, since the 14th day of War, per my timeline, is near the full moon day. This is then the problem of late moonrise. I have borrowed a lot from P V Vartak in solving this problem. However I have proposed a different solution and have also corroborated descriptions of the moon, which in turn removed the need for additional ad hoc conjectures employed by Vartak."
Why not attempt a better pinpointing within a good timeline, having found one? Why stick to Amawasya as muhourta for first day? Why not solve Jayadratha first?
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 57
Timeline of the events – 14th day of the War
"The time of the appearance of the moon (either reappearance or moonrise), although approximate, can be estimated. The fight resumed, sometime after ‘moonrise’, when only 3 out of 15 Muhurtas (Muhurta = 48 min) of the night were still remaining96. Voyager simulation shows the sunrise at 6:30 AM on the 15th day of War. This would mean the fight resumed 3 Muhurtas before 6:30 AM, which would be around 4 AM. The Mahabharata text refers to time of approximately 2 Muhurtas between moonrise or reappearance of the moon, and resumption of the fight 97, 98. This would mean the moonrise occurred around 2 AM."
This corresponds with, of course, 13th day of the War being Solar eclipse, over just before sunset.
Why does oak stick to the terminology of science in using labels such as "Error Elimination – Experiment", when it's none of those except error? It would be far more appropriate to label each as "testing foe corroborative evidence ", for example; and here, this piece of evidence is the most definitive (next to Jayadratha slaying, not even mentioned by Oak), and Oak’s theory fails spectacularly here.
Why he didn't reconsider his assumptions about dating the War at Margashirsha Amawasya, is a question that seems to have only his own ego as clue so far.
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 58
"Description of the Moon on the 14th day of War
"Assuming late moonrise around 2 AM, the phase of the moon is such that the moon is only 5 days away (~34% illumination) from the Amawasya day. Late night moonrise is expected during the time of the lunar month close to but before Amawasya day.
"On the other hand the rising Moon is described as similar to the bow of Kamadev (Cupid) ... "
Surely anyone would recognize that this means a crescent?
" ... and the Moon was shining with full brightness100. In no time, rays of the moon dimmed the brightness of nakshatras and exhibited first signs of the dawn97. ... "
Coming after a dark night, a Moon would brighten up the hour before dawn, especially as dawn followed close on heels of the moon anyway.
" ... After exhibiting signs of the dawn, the moon started spreading broad light, similar to the golden rays and began destroying the darkness101. Within one Muhurta, the battlefield was bright and the darkness completely vanished98. The battlefield was bright like a day, once the moon started shining102. The warriors woke up with the touch of the rays of the Moon, similar to the waking up of lotuses due to the rays of the Sun. The excitement arose within the army similar to the turbulence of the ocean due to the rising of the moon, and the fight resumed103. "
Oak is attempting to exhaust the reader into agreeing to any idiotic assertion of his, and here it comes.
"I assert that descriptions of the moon presented here are suggestive of the time of the full moon or near full moon, rather than of a time close to Amawasya."
Not possible, the late rising of Moon on night of 14th, dawn of fifteenth, close on heels of Jayadratha slaying.
Unless Arjuna was unable to find him until fifteenth day, which fits everything perfectly, except the insistence by Oak on his pick of the precise date, tithi etc al, due only to ego, and assertion about not caring about traditional belief.
Admit it, Oak, and man up! You did a good job in finding Epochs of Arundhati, and Sannyas of Abhijit (why term it "fall"?), but the insistence on fixing a Tithi and date and year was too ambitious, while having made mistakes there due to lazy and shoddy work, attempting to justify a late rising Moon of dawn as full Moon is both stupid and dishonest.
................................................................................................
Oak next gives gory descriptions of night of 14th under the title of "Error Elimination – Experiment 59", while so far he's given extremely little of the text (and never in original); what error of his it eliminates by doing so is totally unclear.
Calling these attempts to corroborate his theory (and if it doesn't, insist that it does, anyway) as he does, the label he uses - "Error Elimination – Experiment" - is so very false, it's transparently dishonest.
The dishonesty is further exposed by this claim of his.
"I conjecture that rising of dust was the cause of disappearance of full moon during the night’s fight on the 14th day. In addition, the warriors and their horses and elephants were exhausted. Against this background, Arjuna suggested that both sides should stop the fight and take some rest until the moonrise or reappearance of the Moon, before resuming the fight92. This is when both parties accepted the offer and slept for some time94."
But he has quoted the text to the effect that the Moon looked like a Cupid's bow! Is he trying to fool readers into forgetting that bows are nothing like full Moon in shape, but a crescent certainly is like a bow? Height of dishonesty, Oak!
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 62
"Why did the fight continued into the night?
"I was under the impression that both parties agreed to end the fight each day at sunset. I do not know why I made such an erroneous assumption! No wonder I was surprised to read that the fight continued into the night on the 14th day. In addition, no leaders of either side objected to the continuation of fight past sunset. This episode made me re-read portions of the Mahabharata text where ground rules for the War were set. This is when I realized my mistake. The rules emphasized maintaining respectful relationship after the battle of the day was over, but never stated that the fighting should be stopped at sunset107.
"I conjecture that while no strict rules were in place to end the fight, the fight continued each day as long as there was sufficient light to carry it out. Notwithstanding the rules laid down for the war etiquettes, it appears that both parties engaged in a fight on any given day either until they were severely exhausted or until severe darkness forced them to stop the fight."
Oak must truly be an ABCD. Why doesn't he seem to know, that stopping battle for the day at sunset and bring courteous to opposite side thereafter, is as germain to civilisation of India since antiquity, until invading barbarians changed it over a millennium ago, is otherwise inexplicable.
This need not have been especially written down or emphasised prior to battle any more than not striking an unarmed opponent was, code of Arya and Kshatra Dharma being well understood by everyone in battle field.
But this war was humongous and unusual, not only due to size but the close relationships and interpersonal animosities and histories thereof, so the furore of the battles changed it all, particularly so after Abhimanyu was set upon by a whole gang - a no-no - and struck when down, another no-no, amounting to murder rather than duel.
This changed the character of the War, from first day when armies were still even after conches were blown, as Arjuna wasn't ready to kill family and elders, while God Krishna expounded Gita, and in evening the opposing sides met courteously - to the gory nights after Abhimanyu was murdered by an evil, dastardly gang that included his own uncles.
Oak is unaware of the civilisation of ancient India, so much so he expects a written document of contract between parties here, rather than something akin to England's constitution, not written but no less valid than that of US.
Oak reinterprets Moon rising late as Moon reappearance after settling of dust.
" ... My interpretation not only solves the problem of the late moonrise but also provides consistent explanation for all Mahabharata observations related to the fight, including full moonlike descriptions, on the night of 14th day of War.
"On the other hand what we do know is that if one insists on ‘late moonrise’ interpretation, such an assumption contradicts practically all observations discussed in the context of ‘late moonrise’ of the 14th day as well as all Mahabharata observations discussed in Chapter 8 and one observation of seven planets attacking moon of Chapter 7. ... "
No, it only goes with Oak’s picks, but not with the most vital description that's not poetic imagery, about a Sun reappearing after having set, after 13th morning and after Abhimanyu had been murdered. Oak still ignores this most vital description.
................................................................................................
"3. Bhishma Nirvana
"Bhishma, the first general of the Kaurava army, fell down in the battlefield on the 10th day of War. Bhishma could control the timing of his death by employing the siddhi awarded to him. Bhishma realized that the Sun was still in Dakshinayan (southward motion), which also meant improper time for one’s death (per the understanding of Mahabharata times). ... "
Again Oak is wrong. This belief, for what it's worth, isn't merely "per the understanding of Mahabharata times", but has been dance before and still is; its no more worthy of ridicule than, say, original sin making death of an unbaptised infant being subject to the said infant's further sojourn unsecured.
" ... He decided to postpone his death until the Sun turned northward. He chose to delay his death, while lying on the bed of arrows, until the first day of Uttarayan (beginning of northward journey of the Sun along the ecliptic), i.e., either the day of winter solstice or one day after the day of winter solstice."
Most people aren't able to control it of course, so there's no way to secure the further sojourn except by good conduct through life and hope it's enough.
Oak gives detailed description of date chosen by Bhishma for his passing on, in terms of tithi and nakshatra or name of month, except one- he does not mention that, winter solstice being the critical point when Uttarayan begins, is not in December in India but is still celebrated as of ancient times, on 14th or 15th of January, called Sankranti or Makara Sankranti, literally, Capricorn transition.
"The day of Bhishma Nirvana, based on 2 (or 3) specific Mahabharata observations 108-110 has to satisfy the following,
"(1) The day has to be not more than +/- 1 day from the day of winter solstice
"(2) Lunar Month of Magha
"(3) Shuddha Ashtami (i.e. 8th day of the bright half of lunar month Magha) considering 3/4th referred to the lunar month, or Magha Shuddha 4 or Magha Krishna 4 considering 3/4th referred to the lunar Paksha.
"(4) The Moon near Rohini
"(5) Time interval of 58 nights between fall of Bhishma (in the battlefield) and the day of Bhishma Nirvana."He gives the date later.
" ... Vartak proposes 22nd December 5561 B.C. as the day of Bhishma Nirvana. The day is indeed 58 days after Bhishma fell down in the battlefield and month is lunar month of Magha, day of Shuddha Ashtami and the Moon near Rohini. Thus Vartak’s proposed day for Bhishma Nirvana corroborates 4 out of 5 conditions recognized by current and past Mahabharata researchers. The only problem for this timing is that the day of winter solstice was still some 40 days away, in the future, i.e. on 30th January 5560 B.C. This is indeed a significant problem."
Why not retrofit rest beginning with this, instead of the stupid insistence on Margashirsha Amawasya?
" ... My reading of the Mahabharata text reinforced this view further. The Mahabharata text has references, which corroborate my conjecture that Mahabharata astronomers were capable of predicting the day of winter solstice with precision. ... "
That remains true, except it's astrologers, not astronomers. The latter are busy discovering and identifying celestial bodies newfound, while former are calculating next year's planetary situations in skies of a given place, and publishing them as calendar before new year and Panchaanga before Indian new year.
" ... I decided to accept the conclusion that year 5561 B.C., although superior to any other attempt and in spite of being the best approximation to the truth, was at least not corroborated by the Mahabharata observations related to Bhishma Nirvana."
He proceeds to show that other researchers have failed as well.
"Bhishma fell in the battle on the 10th day of War and the War continued for 8 more days. Ashwatthama killed Dhristadyumna, Shikhandi and sons of Draupadi during the night of 18th day of the War. The Pandavas subdued Ashwatthama the next day and the Kuru women visited the battlefield in search of the bodies of their beloved. Yudhishthir asked Sudharma, Dhaumya and others to perform final fire rights for those fallen in the War. Vidura, Sudharma, Dhaumya, Indrasen and others arranged fire rights and made huge funeral pyres111. After these events, Yudhishthir went, with his brothers and Dhritarashtra, to the bank of Ganga112 and spent up to a month on the bank of Ganga113.
"The Pandavas returned to Hastinapur amid a great celebration, after spending a month on the bank of Ganga, and the timing appears to be near full moon day 114-117. ... "
Oak doesn't clarify whether it's full Moon day according to Mahabharata or only due to his choice of beginning date. This makes next parts suspect, if they depend on this.
" ... Yudhishthir was crowned as the King and he assigned his brothers and other surviving members of the Kuru family to various posts. Yudhishthir assigned various palaces to his brothers, paid compensation to the relatives of deceased warriors, and honored Krishna. The Mahabharata text is not explicit on the length of time interval when these incidents took place.
"After the crowning of Yudhishthir and assignment of offices, Krishna asked Yudhishthir to visit Bhishma and seek guidance from Bhishma. Yudhishthir left Hastinapur, per Krishna’s suggestion, along with his brothers, Krishna, Satyaki, Kripacharya, Yuyutsu, and Sanjay to meet Bhishma118. Yudhishthir and his entourage arrived at Kurukshetra. ... "
Oak is very fond of not sparing his reader any gory descriptions, and he gives those here.
It's starting to realise that Bhishma, the elder, not only a Crown Prince who had given up all his rights promising to serve and protect progeny of the second wife his father wished, but a God born on Earth due to a prank committed under his leadership in his natural habitat of heaven, was alone without family on this exhausted battlefield, having - but necessarily - chosen the wrong side in the war.
"The party met Bhishma, and Krishna told Bhishma that the latter had 56 more days to live, i.e. there were 56 more days before the sun turned northward120. Yudhishthir spent a few days in conversations with Bhishma. I could estimate this time period to be equal to 6 days. The incidents of these 6 days, when Yudhishthir sought guidance from Bhishma, can be traced with remarkable accuracy using Mahabharata observations from Shanti and Anushasan Parvas.
"Yudhishthir and his party spent the first day in conversation with Bhishma. When the Sun was ready to set, they took leave of Bhishma and left for Hastinapur. It appears that Yudhishthir had carried a good-sized army along with him, for the army on foot could be seen for a great distance ahead of and also behind the chariots. As they were traveling towards Hastinapur, the moon rose in the sky and pleased the army with its rays. They reached Hastinapur, late at night, utterly exhausted121. This was the end of the 56th day before Bhishma Nirvana.
"Next morning, (55 days before Bhishma Nirvana) Yudhishthir decided not to take the army and rest of the entourage with him as he proceeded to meet Bhishma. Yudhishthir thought it unwise to take all common men with him since it would disturb Bhishma and he also thought it wise to seek counseling in private as Bhishma would be consulting him in ways of Rajaniti and other critical matters, and proceeded to Kurukshetra only with his brothers, Krishna and Satyaki122. Yudhishthir and party took leave of Bhishma (55 days before Bhishma Nirvana) and performed their ‘Sandhya’ at ‘Drishtavati’ on their return journey to Hastinapur123.
"Next day, Yudhishthir along with his brothers, Krishna and Satyaki left for Kurukshetra in the morning to meet Bhishma. This was 54th day before Bhishma Nirvana124. ... "
"Yudhishthir visited Bhishma for last but one time, on the 51st day before Bhishma Nirvana, along with extended entourage that included Dhritarashtra, Gandhari, royal priests and ministers 129. In this way, Yudhishthir spent six days (51-56th days before Bhishma Nirvana) in the company of Bhishma, seeking guidance from the latter. Yudhishthir took leave of Bhishma at the end of the 6th day (51st day before Bhishma Nirvana), promising to return as soon as the sun turned north, went to Hastinapur and remained engaged in the affairs of the state for next 50 nights130."
Even the old couple, bereft of sons, wasn't able to stay with the elder, who'd fought for their sons?
Oak, after giving descriptions of the clan visits and so on, adds up the number of days of Bhishma on his last bed, and so the Interval from beginning of the War to winter solstice.
"I could draw following conclusions, (1) Bhishma was lying on the bed of arrows for 9 nights out of 18 days (or nights) of the War. (2) He was also lying on bed of arrows when the Pandavas spent approximately one month on the bank of Ganga. I estimated 27 (sidereal month) days, as a conservative estimate, for this month long period113. The actual time period could be anywhere from 27 to 30 days. (3) The Mahabharata text is not explicit on number of days between return of the Pandavas to Hastinapur and their first visit to Bhishma. Let’s assume that the number of days for this time interval was equal to ‘X’. (4) Bhishma spent additional 56 days leading to the day of Bhishma Nirvana120.
"I estimated total number of nights spent by Bhishma, on the bed of arrows as follows,
"Total Number of nights spent by Bhishma, on bed of arrows
"10 through 18 days of the War 09
"The Pandavas on the bank of Ganga 27
Time Interval: Return to Hastinapur & meet Bhishma X Time Interval: First meeting & Bhishma Nirvana 56
= 92 + X (days)"
" ... I assert that Bhishma was lying on the bed of arrows, based on above timeline, for 98, and not 58 nights."
Has he realised that his calculations change his favorite pick? If instead of roughly sixty days, it's over ninety, then the beginning is indeed on the traditional tithi of Gita Jayanti, namely, Kartika Shuddha Ekadashie, and were closer to fitting in the knowledge of an imminent solar eclipse helping God Krishna to save life of the hero, Arjuna.
No, Oak doesn't realise it, and keeps arguing that he's confirmed his date!
"I realized that even the author of this alleged interpolation, whoever he may be, had assumed Kartika Amawasya as the first day of Mahabharata War. This is because the reference assumes the day of winter solstice, 58 days removed from the fall of Bhishma which also means 68 days removed from the first day of Mahabharata War, and since the day of winter solstice is described as Magha Shuddha Ashtami, it follows that Kartika Amawasya was the first day of Mahabharata War, 68 days before the day of winter solstice."
He flagellates those that propose another tithi for the beginning of the war, bur he's forgotten that he just calculated 90+ days, after waiting text and adding up.
"In any case, I would add that reference to 58 days also points to the day of Magha Shuddha Ashtami and Rohini nakshatra. And these references individually or together also point to Kartika Amawasya as the first day of War, i.e. (20-21 days of Margashirsha + 29-30 days of Pausha + 7-8 days of Magha), an obvious fact lost on those researchers who have proposed a day other than Kartika Amawasya as the first day of War (Raghavan/Achar, Karandikar, Sengupta) while still claiming observations surrounding Bhishma Nirvana as critical in building their timeline."
But he's just made the case for roughly just over three, not roughly short of two, months! Why's he still pressing for the incorrect timeline? He's failed to realise that, having asserted that Bhishma was on his last bed for roughly 98 days, he's taken the War to at least ten days before Kartika Amawasya, when Bhishma fell according to Oak’s calculations; and so the traditional beginning on Gita Jayanti fits, as does solar eclipse on the 14th day of War. This amounts roughly to the whole period being of 104 days, but with tithi often lapsing, I.e., month being ~27 days as Oak points out, it's even exactly at the traditional date.
No, he prefers to cheat rather than correct his mistakes.
"Add to this fun one Adhika masa. For example if one interprets Magha (the full moon of 28-29 December 5561 B.C.) as Adhik Magha (intercalary month) and next month (the full moon of 27 January 5560 B.C.) as Magha, in that case, Bhishma died on Magha Krishna 4."
................................................................................................
" ... Mahabharata text contains varied definitions of Yuga and none of them would convincingly lead us to year 3102 B.C."
"The impact of 3102 B.C. as the beginning of Kali Yuga and its connection with the Mahabharata War appears to be strong among many Mahabharata researchers, to the extent 50% of all proposed dates for the Mahabharata War fall around 3000 B.C."
"Hanuman alludes to the passing away of Krita and Treta and thus the time of his conversation with Bhima is that of Dwapara Yuga134. This inference is also confirmed by Hanuman’s comment that soon the KaliYuga would begin and this means at the time of conversation, Dwapara was still in vogue135."
"Sage Markandeya describes the four Yugas as referring to ‘a long period of time’. He assigns specific years for each Yuga. Many researchers have translated these years as referring to Divya (divine) years. While I consider this as a possibility, I have translated them as ordinary years since I did not find the word ‘Divya’ mentioned anywhere. Markandeya defines Krita, Treta, Dwapara and Kali as made up of 4000, 3000, 2000 and 1000 years (or Divya years), respectively. He defines the transition periods, ‘Sandhya or ‘Sandhyamshash’, of 400 years each for Krita. The transition periods are of 300, 200 and 100 years long for Treta, Dwapara and Kali Yugas, respectively. Markandeya explains that this time interval of 12000 years (4800 + 3600 + 2400 + 1200) makes one ChaturYuga and that a day of Brahma consists of 1000 ChaturYugas. Markandeya also explains characteristics of each Yuga."
"Sanjay describes his version of Yuga theory to Dhritarashtra. He describes four Yugas in terms of the life span of human beings. It is not clear how he defines ‘life span’, i.e. whether in terms of quality, piety or purely in terms of number of years lived. He states that ‘life span’ is equivalent to 4000 years in Krita and 3000 in Treta. Sanjay does not specify ‘life span’ for KaliYuga, however mentions that infant mortality is a common occurrence137. Sanjay states that the land of Himavat surpasses BharatVarsha in virtues, and HariVarsha as superior, even to Himavat139.
"Sanjay states that during the present time of Dwapara Yuga, i.e. at the time of conversation between him and Dhritarashtra, people live for 2000 years138. He goes on to explain the characteristics of human beings in each Yuga and reiterates the time of his conversation with Dhritarashtra as that of Dwapara Yuga139."
"Bhishma defines the theory of ChaturYuga in terms of qualities, actions and characteristics of the ruling King. Bhishma describes the actions, of the king, responsible for bringing ‘Krita’, “Treta’, ‘Dwapara’ or ‘Kali’ Yuga and describes rewards king receives depending on the Yuga King creates with his actions, and states that the King is wholly responsible for the precipitation of a specific Yuga."
" ... Vyasa holds that all creation remains in the state of ‘Yoganidra’ during the night of Brahma. While Sanjay describes ‘life span’ of human beings as 4000, 3000, 2000 years and unspecified time interval for Krita, Treta, Dwapara and Kali respectively, Vyasa describes these ‘life spans’ as 400, 300, 200 and 100 years, respectively for these Yugas. Vyasa also describes the characteristics of each Yuga, which are similar to those described by others."
................................................................................................
"5. Bhishma appearing similar to the full moon145
" ... Naturally, I was looking for any observations that would conflict with my theory and predictions of the phases and the positions of the moon. At least I found one observation. Sanjay describes Bhishma as shining like the full moon, before the War began and on the first day of War145."
Shouldn't that, as per Oak’s usual insistence, amount to first day of War being close to full Moon?
No, he's sticking with Amawasya here, although usually his method of corroboration of his statements is taking such comparisons and insisting they were visual astronomical observations of that intent.
"Error Elimination – Experiment 70
"Bhishma compared with the Full Moon
"The reader should understand the context of this comparison of Bhishma with the full moon, comparison made on Amawasya day. Sanjay tells Dhritarashtra that he saw Bhishma on his white horse, wearing a white turban and white armor resembling the risen (or new) Moon146 and both armies beheld Bhishma standing in his silver chariot with a golden palm tree on his standard. Sanjay compares this latter arrangement with the Moon (or the Sun) surrounded by white clouds147, 148.
"I have interpreted this comparison of Bhishma with the full moon, as pure analogy, based on decorations of Bhishma (white turban and white armor) and his paraphernalia (silver chariot with golden palm tree as his standard)."
................................................................................................
"7. Problem of Seasons (Krishna leaves from Upaplavya at the end of Sharad)
"The problem of the seasons during the Mahabharata war is a minor one. I decided to include it, at the risk of much digression, for the sake of completeness. The timing of Krishna’s departure from Upaplavya on peace mission to Hastinapur is described as ‘at the end of Sharad’ (sharadante) and ‘before the arrival of winter’ (himagame)158. This Mahabharata reference contradicts practically all proposals for the year of Mahabharata War. This Mahabharata reference also contradicts my proposed timeline. The timing of Krishna’s departure from Upaplavya, per my timeline, is during the ‘Varsha’ season. This is based on the assumption that Mahabharata astronomers defined the seasons in the same fashion, as we understand them today."
Oak sticks to his whim despite Mahabharata giving plenty of details to the contrary, his calculations going against, and the two most important parts - Jayadratha Vadha, apart from Gita Jayanti - going against his whimsical pick.
He'd rather falsify what he can and ignore or twist rest.
................................................................................................
"Error Elimination – Experiment 75
"Bhishma Nirvana & Sharad Season
"Bhishma fell in the War on the 10th day and ~98 days before the day of winter solstice. This means the Mahabharata war began ~108 days before the day of winter solstice, and thus Sharad season had just begun (~12 days into the season) when the Mahabharata war started. ... "
He goes on asserting contradictory timelines, instead of adjusting his pick, and doesn't look at the most telling event of the war, Jayadratha Vadha.
But this count of 108 days has taken us close to Kartika Ekadashie as beginning of the war and solar eclipse just before sunset on 14th day.
" ... seven planets attacking the moon on the 14th day of War. After Arjuna killed Jayadratha, fight resumed. The timing was that of the evening of 14th day of War. ... "
That seven planets attacking is poetic allegory, but Sun setting and then visible again, enabling Arjuna to kill Jayadratha, isn't; 14th day was Amawasya, then, and as Sun set, it had changed to the next tithi and month, eclipse bring over just before Sunset. So the War began before Pournima, and a matter of Tithi being not 24 hours each, Kartika Ekadashie was the correct Tithi.
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
May 21, 2022 - May 22, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
10 Theory of P V Vartak
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
"My objective in critically discussing the theory of Vartak is to point out mistakes, to identify superfluous assumptions and, if possible, to eliminate errors. I demonstrate that some of his conjectures were unnecessary. I demonstrate how his theory has unacceptable consequences and how it did not solve the problem it set out to solve. I also show how in some instances, his conjectures merely shifted the problem, raising difficulties worse than it surmounted. In spite of these limitations, his proposal for 5561 B.C. as the year of Mahabharata War and how he arrived at this date is astonishing, and remains mystery to me. I can hardly imagine the amount of work and astronomical calculations he would have gone through, most of them done manually, unlike my use of Voyager 4.5™!"
................................................................................................
" ... All four researchers (Vartak, Lele, Dikshit and Modak) treated the nakshatra at the point of Vernal equinox as the first nakshatra.
"Vartak proposed 5561 B.C. as the year of Mahabharata War. Vernal equinox was near Punarvasu in 5561 B.C., however since Vartak has assigned the first position to Pushya nakshatra, I presume that he assumes the convention for his ‘Nirayan assignment of nakshatra’ continued from 7440 B.C. He employs Ashwini as the first nakshatra for the Sayan method (Sayan being the original reference of first nakshatra, to which Nirayan is considered a deviation, due to the precession of equinoxes). This assumption of his alludes to the time of original reference, i.e. vernal equinox near Ashwini, to 26000 B.C. Vernal equinox also coincided with Ashwini in 400 B.C. and may be taken as the reference, i.e. Sayan reference – for Sayan-Nirayan theory, however, one should realize that this event (400 B.C.) occurred long after the proposed year (5561 B.C.) of Vartak for the Mahabharata War, and such posterior reference for Sayan counting is inconsistent with Sayan – Nirayan theory."
"Vartak’s insistence on corroboration of all Mahabharata observations led him to anticipate many of the discoveries made in this book. I speculate that random coincidence of 22 December corroborating with Magha Shuddha 8, moon in Rohini and interval of 58 nights between 25 October (fall of Bhishma) and 22 December deceived him and sent him on a tangential path. I was immensely impressed with the corroboration of Mahabharata observations with proposed date of Vartak, to the extent I spent more than six months exploring alternate explanations (Adhika masa, Kshaya masa, colure of the Sun around the point of winter solstice and what not) to justify 22 December as the day of Bhishma Nirvana."
"Vartak interpreted ‘the Sun and the Moon, together, afflicting Rohini’26 as the observation on the first day of War. He explained this observation not as visual observation, but rather via his theory of astrological drishti. I explained this observation as visual observation on the first day of War however credit goes to Vartak for suggesting the timing of this observation. The day was Amawasya and thus at the time of sunset, when the Sun and the Moon were together on the western horizon, Rohini was rising on the eastern horizon. When I reread the Mahabharata text, I realized that Vyasa was observing the sky both before sunrise and after sunset (and of course at night), before and during the war31."
"An astute observer would have noticed, immediately after sunset, eastward movement of Mercury through 18 days of the War, assuming Mercury could be seen, beginning with the first day of War. During the 18 days of War, apparent distance between Mercury and the Sun was increasing with each passing day. Jupiter was east of Mercury (and the Sun) on the first day of War, however by the end of the 17th day of War, it was between Mercury and the Sun. I interpreted this rising up of Mercury against the western horizon, as ‘Tiryak’ rising of Mercury16. As a result, both Mercury16 and Jupiter12 were visible and on the western horizon after the sunset on the 17th day of War and their positions corroborate well with Mahabharata observations."
"Mars, Venus and Mercury were seen in the western part of sky after the sunset on the 18th day of War17. Voyager simulation confirmed this to be the case after the sunset on the 2nd November 5561 B.C.
"Vartak invoked astrological explanation for this observation. I conjecture that this was due to his erroneous assumption about the positions of these planets, i.e., Mars in Anuradha, Venus in Purva Bhadrapada and Mercury near Jyeshtha on the first day of War. ... "
................................................................................................
"Shweta, Shyama & Tivra/Tikshna Planets 19, 20, 21
"Mahabharata researchers have had field day with these observations since planets are described with their adjectives – Shweta19 (white or bluish white), Shyama20 (dark or bluish dark) or Tivra/Tikshna21 (intense/rough/sharp). The Mahabharata text mentions ‘Shweta’ planet near Chitra19, ‘Shyama’ planet near Jyeshtha20 and Tivra/Tikshna planet or nakshatra near Krittika21."
" ... Vartak has cited these observations as evidence for Mahabharata astronomers being aware of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. Consequently Vartak assumed telescopic abilities in Mahabharata times. Holay has also assumed telescopic abilities in making a case for Uranus. The Mahabharata text does not specifically refer to telescopes, ... "
"The timing of the second observation is after sunset, on the 14th day of War and seven planets are described as attacking the Moon. Again the seven planets did not include either the Sun or the Moon. Voyager simulation shows that Saturn was below the horizon and this observation thus makes a strong case for the knowledge of Uranus, Neptune and Pluto! Rising moon on eastern horizon can be visualized as attacked by seven planets. These seven planets, from east, were Pluto, Neptune, Mars, Venus, Uranus, Mercury and Jupiter."
Unless it was a conjunction of all seven he mentions with moon, the word attack doesn't qualify visually.
In this case the observation wasn't visual or astronomical, it's clearly astrological, and the seven include Sun, Rahu and Ketu.
This isn't about seeing planets above, this is about a murder of a youth committed by adults who included his uncles. It's definitely astrological and Oak should have given exact verses from Mahabharata.
................................................................................................
"Vartak interpreted ‘Haley’s comet’ as the Dhumaketu (comet) referred to in the Mahabharata text, and performed crude calculations using orbital period of 77 years, and conjectured that Haley’s comet was visible during the Mahabharata War. Voyager simulation confirms location of Haley’s comet near Pushya however the comet was not at all visible during 5561 B.C. Voyager simulation confirmed Haley’s comet appearing in 5622 B.C. and again in 5547 B.C. I have already provided alternate explanation for ‘Dhumaketu near Pushya’ in Chapter 7."
"Vartak quotes Mahabharata observation from Anushasan Parva109 where Bhishma says, “It had been 58 nights since I am lying on the bed of arrows. Today is the month of Magha and one third of it (month or Paksha) remains.” Another Mahabharata observation from the same Adhyaya of Anushasan, considered interpolated by many, refers to the day being Magha Shuddha Ashtami and the Moon near Rohini110. Bhishma supposedly passed away on this day. This means the day was either the day of winter solstice or one day after the winter solstice. Anyone claiming these two observations as crucial for determining the year of Mahabharata War must accept that Bhishma was lying on the bed of arrows for 58 nights and that the War started on or near Kartika Amawasya day (per Amanta reckoning). I stress this point since I came across many researchers who insist on these two 109, 110 Bhishma Nirvana observations as critical, but then do not bother to show how these observations corroborate their proposals."
"Vartak’s proposal corroborates month of Magha, day of Magha Shuddha Ashtami, the Moon near Rohini110, Bhishma lying on the bed of arrows for 58 nights109 and beginning of the Mahabharata War on Kartika Amawasya. The extent of corroboration is indeed impressive, however with one severe drawback! The day, 22 December 5561 B.C. is not the day of winter solstice; rather it is removed by some 39-40 days from the actual day of winter solstice. ... "
"Vartak determined approximate time period of 5480 B.C. as the time of Mahabharata War in his first edition of ‘Swayambhu’, published on 25 February 1980 A.D. On 21 September 1980 A.D., Vartak determined 16 October 5561 B.C. as the first day of Mahabharata War and included the details (in appendix) in the second edition of ‘Swayambhu’, published in May 1981 A.D.
"Vartak deals with Mahabharata observations that contradict his proposed day of Bhishma Nirvana as follows. Vartak interprets Mahabharata observation that refers to Yudhishthir staying in Hastinapur for 50 days130 as referring to the time interval between the last day of War and the day of Bhishma Nirvana. Initially, he accepts that the Pandavas did spend a month outside Hastinapur on the bank of Ganga113 and considers these month long period (27-30 days) as part of the total of 50 days130. He borrows, incorrectly I think, the translation of Nilkanth for Mahabharata observation120 where Krishna tells Bhishma, that Bhishma had 30 (correct and straightforward translation suggests 56 more days) more days to live.
"Vartak assumes, wrongly again, that this meeting between Krishna and Bhishma occurred when the Pandavas were still staying on the bank of Ganga. He offers translation of Nilkanth as a proof against conjectures of other researchers (and against the internal evidence of Mahabharata text itself) that Krishna and the Pandavas visited Bhishma only after spending 30 days outside Hastinapur. I believe that this contradiction, especially against the internal evidence of the Mahabharata text, was not lost on Vartak. No wonder he questions the very assumption (and the Mahabharata text) of the Pandavas entering Hastinapur only after spending 30 days on the bank of Ganga."
"The Sun is almost 40° (2 hr and 41 min of Right Ascension measurement) away from the point of winter solstice on 22nd December 5561 B.C, i.e. the day of winter solstice was ~40 days into the future and not on 22 December 5561 B.C."
"He conjectured that there was a need (on the part of Mahabharata author) to consider one of three months of Kartika, Margashirsha or Pausha as ‘kshaya’ (elapsed), however he claimed that Mahabharata author failed to do so. He considers this error on the part of Mahabharata author as responsible for the confusion related to the time of Bhishma Nirvana."
................................................................................................
" ... forced to invoke other explanations such as either ‘astrological drishti’ or ‘descriptions of impossible events by Mahabharata author’. The problem with the latter two approaches is that once one decides to employ them, anything anywhere can be explained! ... "
Not true.
" ... The problem with ‘Astrological Drishti’ is that once one decides to employ it, anything anywhere can be explained! As soon as this happens, although theory may still retain its empirical character, is no longer falsifiable and scientific."
Not true.
................................................................................................
"While I have proposed alternate timeline for pre-war and post-war incidents of Mahabharata, every attempt of mine to falsify 18-day timeline of War proposed by Vartak failed. My work related to pre-war and post-war incidents reinforced his timeline further. My research of Bhishma Nirvana shrunk the time interval for plausible year of the Mahabharata War, already defined by the Epoch of Arundhati, down to 2000 years (6500 B.C.-4500 B.C.). I tested 38 plausible instances for the Mahabharata War over this time interval (6500 B.C. - 4500 B.C.) and the testing corroborated Vartak’s timeline, again!"
It's unclear why he says previous cycles of 26,000 years won't do for Arundhati Epoch.
"My admiration for his work does not stem from his specific results. After all, his proposed date (for the Mahabharata War) could have been wrong (and may be falsified in future). In addition, I have shown inconsistency, contradictions, limitations and subjectivity of his Sayan-Nirayan theory. He was forced to employ numerous patchworks such as astrological Drishti, forced interpretations of Ratra, Kshapa, Dina, Aha, Vyasa creating puzzles for Ganesha, awkward interpretations and modifications of Mahabharata passages leading to the day of Bhishma Nirvana.
"My admiration for him and his work stems from his approach to the problem. Published in 1980-1987 A.D., his work was definitely an improvement over the past Mahabharata research, in any language. His work appears to be improvement over the research conducted in last 25-30 years! Stated alternately, I am asserting that no significant improvement or growth of knowledge occurred in last 30 years. To be fair to other researchers who contributed in last 30 years, I am willing to admit that I benefitted immensely from their work. Works of these researchers provided me with alternate scenarios to test. In addition, there were inspiring snippets of new information; identification of numerous astronomy observations within and outside Mahabharata by R N Iyengar, possibility of three eclipses by Achar, two eclipses within 13 days by S Balakrishna, Saraswati research by Srinivasan Kalyanaraman or by Frankfort.
"Unique aspect of Vartak is his unpretentious willingness to be wrong! No wonder he could be creative in his endeavors beyond Mahabharata research. He understood the essence of Einstein’s famous quote, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong” and exhaustively searched for Mahabharata observations he could test and experiment, a realization lost on many. He intuitively understood tentative nature of any theory and continued to improve upon his research. He eagerly encouraged his readers to test his proposals and also to research Mahabharata observations he could not explain.
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
May 22, 2022 - May 22, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
11 A Better Theory
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
One of the beginning chapters consisted of descriptions of what he's done, how he did it, and so on, before detailed descriptions of chapters of the book. This chapter consists of descriptions of what he's done in this work, in more detail, just in case a reader arrives here after skipping chapters before. Then it's about importance thereof.
"Once I started critically discussing work of others, I feared that my book would fill only with the criticism of others and my original work would get lost. I was also disappointed by the cocksure attitude of number of researchers, especially those who made their proposal based on only those Mahabharata observations that they presumed supported their timeline. Many of them did not bother to discuss numerous Mahabharata observations, which directly contradicted their timeline. ... "
As exemplified by Oak, who declares disdain for traditional position, due to his timeline of Mahabharata not being consistent with Gita Jayanti, or his date for birth of Rama showing not exalted planets, completely avoiding and not discussing the one indisputably visual astronomical observation in Mahabharata, Jayadratha Vadha? Because he'd have to either admit Divine Action, or admit complete failure of his choice of timeline?
" ... I began writing criticism, i.e. criticism of the theories and corresponding proposals for the year of Mahabharata War as propounded by 20+ researchers. They all had predicted the first day and the year of Mahabharata War. I realized that these researchers, with the exceptions of Vartak and Kane, have been selective in quoting Mahabharata astronomical observations. Many of them ignored vast number of Mahabharata astronomical observations. Still others claimed to have included certain observations in building their timeline they thought critical, and I could demonstrate how their theories were contradicted by these so called ‘critical’ observations. These researchers appeared to be blissfully unaware of this fact. I decided, only with great reluctance, to exclude the discussion of the works of other researchers, i.e. the criticisms of their theories and timelines for the Mahabharata War, with the exception of Vartak, from this book."
Oak wouldn't knowingly be writing there about himself, would he?
"What follows is summary of my theory and my proposed timeline of the Mahabharata war and why it should be considered a better theory, i.e. better than all existing theories (and proposed timelines)."
Oak saying that? What a surprise!
"My Theory
"1. All astronomy observations in Mahabharata are ‘visual observations’ of the sky."
Because Oak can neither imagine poets with retention of memory using poetic allegory, nor astronomers and astrologers of yore predicting events of celestial nature in advance by calculations, and so has all descriptions of celestial nature involve a poet looking up at heavens and down and battlefield in rapid succession as he roams about with a notebook and ink pot, or a scribe?
"2. Mahabharata astronomers were meticulous and patient empirical astronomers. They were inheritors of even farther ancient tradition of astronomy observations. Mahabharata astronomers had means to observe objects in the sky, which would not be otherwise visible to a naked eye."
He's playing safe there, mentioning neither instruments thereof nor yogic powers; latter he can't, after the explicit statement of disdain for "traditional beliefs" asserted so early (CYA against neighbours and colleagues in West?); former is unprovoked, there are no records thereof, unlike Pushpak Vimana of Ramayana.
"3. Mahabharata author’s motivation for noting down specific astronomy observations during and around the time of Mahabharata War was to create records of Mahabharata War. These observations were embedded in the Mahabharata text. Mahabharata author embedded these observations as is and also in the form of similes signifying bad omens, engagement of key warriors on the battlefield or death of principal warriors."
Yes, Oak cannot imagine anyone being compared to Moon or Venus unless there's actually one in skies, visible, right then and there!
"I had also stated that one would, very likely, find numerous additional astronomy observations within the Mahabharata Text. I found numerous astronomy (or chronological) observations and corroborated them with the predictions of my theory. My list is not complete by any means and I encourage readers to search for additional Mahabharata observations."
So he ignores the one key observation of humongous importance, with nary a mention, and does this last line above - as CYA against criticism by everyone familiar with Mahabharata, which is India plus a few more?
................................................................................................
"My Proposed Timeline
"The Mahabharata War timeline begins with Krishna leaving Upaplavya to visit Hastinapur before the War and ends with the passing away of Bhishma, when the Sun turned north, after the War."
What follows is Oak’s list of his matching of events of Mahabharata with the single timeline he's picked, but there are three major faults.
One, he doesn't point out that the dates are his conclusions. Two, having gone on and emphasised over and over that he treats all celestial descriptions as visual observations of astronomical nature, he resorts to calling them poetic only if he can't date them or if they go against his thesis, but otherwise forces a visual correspondence if he finds farfetched justifications.
Three, he completely ignores the one event of humongous importance which cannot but be admitted as a visual observation of astronomical nature corresponding to an event on the battlefield. If he did mention it, he'd have to admit either that his timeline and all rest of his work here failed, and look independently for another timeline not given by previous authors, or admit Divine Action.
"1. Krishna left Upaplavya on Maitri (Anuradha) Muhurta, Revati nakshatra and in the month of Lotuses: 31 August 5561 B.C.
"2. Duryodhana ordered his royal friends to leave for Kurukshetra on the day of Pushya: 6-7 September 5561 B.C.
"3. Krishna-Karna meeting, 7 days before Jyeshtha Amawasya & before Krishna left for Upaplavya: 9-10 September 5561 B.C.
"4. Shakra (Jyeshtha or possibly Vishakha) Amawasya: 16-17 September 5561 B.C.
"5. Balarama left the Pandava camp, to proceed on Saraswati Tirthayatra, on Anuradha (Maitri) nakshatra: 17 September 5561 B.C.
"6. Balarama began Tirthayatra of Saraswati around 22 September 5561 B.C.
"7. Kartika Purnima (Full moon): 30 September – 1 October 5561 B.C.
"8. Krishna left along with the Pandavas for Kurukshetra on Pushya: 4-5 October 5561 B.C.
"9. Both armies arrived at Kurukshetra on Magha: 6-7 October 5561 B.C.
"10. Vyasa met Dhritarashtra: 15 October 5561 B.C.
"11. The First day of Mahabharata War: 16 October 5561 B.C.
"12. Bhishma fell in the battlefield on the 10th day of War: 25 October 5561 B.C.
"13. Abhimanyu was killed on the 13th day of War: 28 October 5561 B.C.
"14. Arjuna killed Jayadratha and the fight continued into the night at the end of the 14th day of War: 29 October 5561 B.C.
"15. Drona was killed on the 15th day of War: 30th October 5561 B.C.
"16. Arjuna killed Karna on the 17th day of War: 1 November 5561 B.C.
"17. Shalya was killed by noon and Bhima killed Duryodhana at the end of the day on the 18th day of War: 2 November 5561 B.C.
"18. The Pandavas spent a month on the bank of River Ganga: 2-3 November- 30 November 5561 B.C.
"19. The Pandavas entered Hastinapur after spending a lunar month on the bank of Ganga: 30 November 5561 B.C.
"20. Coronation of Yudhishthir, assignment of offices & palaces, and honoring of Krishna: 30 November-5 December 5561 B.C.
"21. Yudhishthir and his brothers, Krishna, Satyaki, Yuyutsu, Kripacharya and Sanjay go to Kurukshetra to visit Bhishma, 56 days before passing away of Bhishma: 5-6 December 5561 B.C.
"22. Yudhishthir along with his brothers, Dhritarashtra, Gandhari and ministers visits Bhishma for last but one time, 51 days before passing away of Bhishma: 10-11 December 5561 B.C.
"23. Yudhishthir leaves for Kurukshetra, after spending 50 nights at Hastinapur, to meet Bhishma when the Sun turned north: 30-31 January 5560 B.C.
"24. Bhishma Nirvana: 30-31 January 5560 B.C."
Dating Mahabharata by counting days, between events such as discussions prior to War and subsequent Bhishma Nirvana on or past winter solstice, is only a primary bit.
But not dating the one event of vital importance that must be fitted into timeline, makes this whole effort worthless as anything but work.
This event, ignored by Oak for most part except a barest mention, is the day Arjuna almost died, but for Krishna, who either knew about an impending solar eclipse while others obviously fid not, and knew how people would react, or he used his Chakra as author of Mahabharata explicitly states, to hide the Sun just before sunset, and revealed it before it set, just as Jayadratha the murderer came out of hiding to see Arjuna climb onto his own funeral pyre.
Despite all tomtomming Oak dies about treating all celestial descriptions as visual observation of astronomical nature, he ignores the one description that is nothing but visual observation of astronomical nature, ignores the vital importance of correlation of this observation with events unfolding on battlefield, ignores vital importance of consequences of alternative, and pretends it's non-existence by not even mentioning it.
Oak couldn't be more dishonest if he vowed to do so.
................................................................................................
"• My theory proceeds from a simple, almost trivial, unifying idea that all astronomy observations around the time of Mahabharata War are visual observations of the sky.
"• My theory is independently testable. Anyone can access astronomy software such as Voyager 4.5™, follow through my book and test each Mahabharata observation.
"• I sought explanation for Arundhati observation, based on my theory, an observation otherwise considered absurd by entire research community (albeit with one exception), as visual observation at the time of Mahabharata War."
So far, true. But he still hasn't explained as to why he discarded all possible past timings modulo 26,000 years cycles, asserting that this interval he picked is the only possibility for Mahabharata having taken place.
Further, he has only tested more specific timelines proposed by previous researchers, and picked one that fitted more number of events as per his selection. But discarding the event of most vital importance by any criteria, and instead parading a basketful of poetic allegories as visual observations of astronomical nature, makes the whole effort by Oak not only worthless but supremely ridiculous.
"• My theory corroborates not only positions of the planets but also their movements as described in the Mahabharata text, specifically unique movements of Mars, Jupiter and Venus.
"• My theory corroborated descriptions of planets and rationale for them shining brightly at times, e.g. Jupiter and Saturn shining brightly or Mars turning in ‘apasavya’ direction while shining brightly with fearsome appearance.
"• My theory predicted ‘potential observations’ referring to the phases and the positions of the moon, which would corroborate or falsify a proposed timeline for the 18 days of War. I searched for these potential observations within the Mahabharata text, and by luck, found numerous observations.
"• My theory corroborated 100+ astronomical observations from the Mahabharata text. More importantly my theory passed numerous critical tests, which in turn provided consistent explanations for Mahabharata astronomical observations. ... "
Did he never realise he's failed, or was merely dishonest?
" ... Some of these critical tests are,
"1. Fall of Abhijit
"2. The Epoch of Arundhati ..."
These two were of importance in determining the possible intervals when Mahabharata could have taken place, modulo 26,000 years cycles before; he has still not explained, not only zeroing in on the very first possibility, but asserting there can be no other.
Rest of what he counts is of comparatively far less importance than the one event he has neither been able to fit nor explain, Jayadratha Vadha, and he chose instead to be dishonest by pretending that he hasn't noticed it.
"3. Positions of Jupiter and Saturn in the vicinity of Vishakha for up to a year.
"4. Vakri motions of Mars near Magha and near Jyeshtha/Anuradha;
"5. Vakri motion of Jupiter near Shravana;
"6. Mars becoming steady between Chitra/Swati while moving in apasavya direction + Mars afflicting Chitra;
"7. Timing and rationale for specific descriptions (e.g. shining brightly) of Jupiter, Saturn & Mars;
"8. Circular motion of Venus near Purva Bhadrapada in the company of another planet;
"9. Tiryak rising of Mercury after the sunset on the 17th day of War;
"10. Jupiter afflicting Rohini, similar to the Moon and the Sun, after the sunset on the 17th day of War;
"11. The Phases and the positions of the moon through 18 days of the War;
"12. Time interval between Fall of Bhishma and Bhishma Nirvana;
"13. Mars, Venus and Mercury in the western part of sky, after sunset, on the last day of War. "
................................................................................................
"Drona became the general of the Kaurava army and the War continued. Abhimanyu was killed on 28 October 5561 B.C., on the 13th day of War. Arjuna killed Jayadratha in the evening on 29 October 5561 B.C., the next day, i.e. 14th day of the War. The moon along with 7 planets could be seen in the sky. The fighting continued into the night, Ghatotkacha was killed around the midnight, ... "
Notice Oak ignoring the events of vital importance on both counts - one, both valiant sons of two of the most renowned warriors amongst Pandava brothers were killed on successive days, and Arjuna was almost killed himself but saved by Krishna who pointed out Sun having reappeared as he informed Arjuna of Jayadratha having come out of hiding, thus enabling Arjuna to react instantly and slay his son's murderer; and two, this involved Sun becoming visible again after having set for some time, so it was dark, and everyone assumed Arjuna had failed, hus enemies gathering around to watch him fulfill his vow, so this was certainly one of the most spectacular events involving observations of celestial bodies.
Oak cannot admit Divine intervention, and us too dishonest to admit questionable aspect of his assumptions about fixing war to begin with Amawasya, instead of a suitable Tithi leaving Amawasya and solar eclipse for 14th day of War to explain Krishna saving life of Arjuna.
................................................................................................
"Duration of time interval of greater than 92 days between fall of Bhishma and Bhishma Nirvana falsified all previous proposed timelines for the Mahabharata War. ... "
That still leaves every timeline 26,000 years cycles in past.
" ... The duration of 92 days is a conservative estimate, since actual number has to be indeed higher than 92. Additionally, Arundhati observation falsified all but 4 proposed timelines of the Mahabharata War. Arundhati observation presents ‘ready falsification’ for any proposed date, proposed in the past or that might be proposed in the future, for the Mahabharata War, that falls after 4508 B.C. ... "
Oak still hasn't explained what's wrong with hoping back another n×26,000 years back for a positive n.
He's also not explained why other possibilities during Epoch of Arundhati are not looked at by him, other than his shortcut of testing only those proposed by others.
" ... Peculiar journey of Mars through 13 nakshatras, oblique motion of Jupiter near Shravana, retrograde motion of Venus near Purva Bhadrapada, presence of Mars, Venus and Mercury in the western part of the sky, after sunset, on the last day of War and 20 additional planetary observations present near unique scenario that must be corroborated by any proposed year of the Mahabharata War. Mahabharata observations of chapter 8 falsify any timeline for the first day of Mahabharata War that does not begin on Amawasya day."
None of them is as important as the solar eclipse of 14th day close to just before sunset and getting over before Sun set, taking the story forward dynamically to a positive side's win.
And Oak’s theory, his timeline fails spectacularly here.
................................................................................................
Oak stuffs his work's bare skeleton with verbosity, expecting to exhaust his readers.
"It is always possible to introduce ad hoc hypothesis in any theory in order to save the theory from introducing contradictions. For this reason alone, a simple theory is preferred over a complicated one, where simplicity refers to testability. If ad hoc hypothesis leads to explaining away observations, rather than explain them, such a theory becomes inferior, especially when an alternate theory can corroborate ‘observations’ without an introduction of ad hoc hypothesis. Introduction of ad hoc hypothesis is a common phenomenon and is legitimate as long as ad hoc hypothesis does not turn the theory into a metaphysical program. In addition, introduction of ad hoc hypothesis should lead to growth of knowledge and at the same time should not introduce inconsistencies."
But he's done just that, and worse. He's ignored, or stuck with declaration of disdain, important parts of the works he's dated - Ramayana and Mahabharata - and avoided working to find better timeline in each case to fit what's known, and written in, the epics.
In case of Ramayana he's got entangled in a self made logical contraction by insisting that all details of celestial nature are visual observations, that he eouldnt get into astrological interpretations, and that exalted planets were merely those above horizon. This leads to absurdity about timeline of birth of Rama, which is at noon on a sunny day without an eclipse, do visual observation of five planets above horizon is absurd.
In case of Mahabharata he's merely ignored, after the insistence about all celestial descriptions bring visual observation of astronomical nature, the one key event that is undeniably such a description, and can only be explained as an eclipse very close to Sunset, getting over just before Sun actuslly set; the only other possibility is of declaration of acceptance of poet's version, a Divine Action of an intervention by Krishna using his Chakra to hide Sun.
Oak denies all of the latter by declaration of disdain for "traditional beliefs", not even giving a thought to possibility that there's traditional knowledge; former, he ignores, due to his laziness concerning finding a better timeline than one proposed by someone else.
Instead he spins a web out of the very thin material, not being content having found a good criterion or two to define possibilities of when Mahabharata did and could or could not have occurred, by testing other proposals and insisting he going the only possibility, claiming it fits a huge number of descriptions of astronomical observations. It's nothing of the sort.
And the one key, vital, visual observation that is of celestial, his timeline cannot fit, so he ignores it.
"I de-mystified Mahabharata observation of ‘Arundhati walking ahead of Vasistha’ and showed this to be a visual observation during the Mahabharata War. ... "
"This single observation defined higher and lower bounds for the timeline of Mahabharata War, ... "
It only defines a period of a few thousand years, closest to present presented by Oak as absolute single timeline, without justification of why he didn't check other timelines modulo 26,000 years cycles, why they are not viable, which he does state without any rationale thereof presented.
" ... and the observation had higher degree of improbability associated with it. The explanation of Arundhati observation and corresponding prediction of time interval for the plausible year of Mahabharata War falsified all existing proposals for the timing of Mahabharata War, with the exception of 4 proposals that fell within the ‘Epoch of Arundhati’. Arundhati observation acts as falsifying evidence for any year proposed after 4500 B.C."
He's only tested for timelines proposed by others before his work, but not admitted that the one he's termed successful is not so, that it fails the single greatest test of a visual description of an event of celestial nature.
................................................................................................
Oak puts it cleverly.
"Numerous Mahabharata observations, when analyzed, infer a time interval of not less than 92 days (9+ 27 + X + 56 = 92+ X) between ‘Fall of Bhishma’ and ‘Bhishma Nirvana’. This requirement of minimum time interval leading to Bhishma Nirvana has placed a limit on the duration of time interval within which plausible year of the Mahabharata War is to be searched, not unlike the limit placed by Arundhati observation. This inference falsifies all known proposals for the day of Bhishma Nirvana and for the year of Mahabharata War."
That includes his own too, since he will insist on a timeline that can't have a solar eclipse on day 14 of the War at time of a key event, as described, although the 92+X days interval makes it entirely possible.
" ... Set of observations describing the phases and the positions of Moon during the 18 days of War provide corroborative evidence for Amawasya as the first day of War and Kartika Amawasya as the first day of war, which also means month of Margashirsha as the month of Mahabharata War."
That's mostly a blatant lie, Oak having misinterpreted most of poetic allegories as visual observations to support his timeline, which actually does not fit the one celestial description of undeniably visual nature. ................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
May 22, 2022 - May 22, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
12 Implications, Predictions & New Problems
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
"Many ancient civilizations such as Sumerian, Greek, Egyptian, Sindhu-Saraswati, Babylonian, Mayan and Incas have been discovered and studied. Traditional scholarship considers Sumerian civilization as the earliest known civilization and also the cradle of civilization, and assigns 3500 B.C. as roughly the timing of this civilization. Egyptian civilization is considered as old as 3100 B.C. and Sindhu (Indus) valley civilization as old as 2600 B.C. Minoan (ancient Greek) civilization also goes as far back as 3000 B.C. It is true that first settlement (Eridu) for Sumerian civilization is claimed as far back as 5300 B.C. and timing of small tribes living in Nile Valley (Egyptian civilization) settled in established agriculture go back to 5500 B.C. Ceramic Neolithic phase (Mehrgarh II) of Sindhu civilization extends back to 5500 B.C. and early food producing era (Mehrgarh I) extends even further back to 7000 B.C.
"I am asserting Mahabharata civilization as an established civilization with chariots and horses, elephants and camels, explosives and weapons. I am also asserting Mahabharata civilization with cast based social system, well established system of religious rituals, advanced visual astronomy, palaces and boats, clothing made out of cotton and silk, advances in metallurgy (gold, silver, copper, iron), all of this during and before 5561 B.C. Thus my date (or my claim) of the Mahabharata War predates all known civilizations of the world, based on social and technological development and based on traditional (scholarship) dates for these ancient civilizations."
" ... Mahabharata has stray references to faraway lands, richer in resources, and I hope that my work will lead to re-searching the traditional dates assigned to other civilizations. Archeology research at Sindhu- Saraswati (Indus- Saraswati) sites leads to a period as early as 7000 B.C., however, the state of civilization claimed from such archeological data nowhere compares with the advancements described in the Mahabharata text.
"There are allusions to antiquity of other world civilizations, Incas, Maya, Aztec and also plausible connections of these civilizations with Indian civilizations. There is a need to make bold conjectures and corresponding predictions, which in turn should be subjected to rational criticism.
"Mahabharata observations (Fall of Abhijit) allude to the events of the ancient past as far back as 14500 B.C. and 22500 B.C. The Mahabharata text contains references, which indicate Veda and Ramayana predating the Mahabharata. Although exact timing of Ramayana is uncertain, what is certain is that Ramayana occurred long before the Mahabharata war. Ramayana and Mahabharata, both contain references to Veda. The Mahabharata War, as a chronological marker, pushes the timing of Ramayana and that of Veda, in further antiquity.
"The Mahabharata text states that rivers began flowing, only after hiding themselves under the sand, in describing the time of the destruction of Vrishni dynasty. This Mahabharata observation may refer to disappearance of rivers such as Saraswati under the Sand187. We do not have to depend on such indirect references though. Numerous references to Saraswati appear in Vana, Bhishma and Shalya Parvas. The Mahabharata text refers to benefit of taking bath in Saraswati where it meets the sea188, and also refers to benefit of taking bath where Sindhu meets the sea189.
"The Mahabharata text describes Vinashan as the place where Saraswati disappeared from the surface 205 and Plakshapravana as the place for the origin of Saraswati, the best of best rivers 202.
"Lomash describes Saraswati204 as magnificent and fast flowing river. Lomash also describes Saraswati meeting the sea 207, 208. It is not clear if his description refers to the time of Yajna of Prajapati he is narrating or the time of his conversation with Yudhishthir. This is critical because in the same line Lomash also refers to Vinashan’, the place where Saraswati went underground in the desert and thus disappeared. Lomash also mentions ‘Chamasod’, another place where Saraswati reappeared and also where all sea going rivers had come together. Lomash describes Saraswati as the river that disappears and reappears multiple times. Lomash goes on to describe river Sindhu after describing Saraswati.
"Descriptions of the Tirthayatra of Balarama206 mention an unnamed city on the bank of Saraswati, a big city with active international marketplace, filled with people of different types (races?)! Balarama purchased horses originating from various countries, chariots, cows, jewels, pearls, and corals, plates made out of pure gold, silver, iron and copper. Balarama purchased these to distribute to Brahmanas. Balarama visited Udapana, a place of pilgrimage, and the Mahabharata text mentions that experts recognized the existence of underground Saraswati at Udapana, based on wet soil and moisture content generated by medicinal plants and trees209. Saraswati turned east at one location and Balarama was awestruck at the magnificent view of the river, which shifted its direction at this location214.
"One could infer from above references that Saraswati was indeed a mighty river before Mahabharata. The existence of mythologized stories in Mahabharata times also alludes to ancient nature of Saraswati, i.e. ancient with respect to Mahabharata. One could also infer that Saraswati was still flowing in many places during the Mahabharata War, but it had also appeared and disappeared205 in many places including disappearances at Vinashan 190, 204,213 and at Udapana 215 and Saraswati merging with Ganga200 and thus it is reasonable to assume that Yamuna might have stopped feeding its water to Saraswati by the time of Mahabharata. This would mean only minor rivers were feeding their waters to Saraswati and thus Saraswati was no longer a grand river during the time of Mahabharata War, however, its past glory was still afresh in the minds of Mahabharata sages. Sutlej had turned west even during the time of Ramayana and Yamuna existed as distinct river in Ramayana times. This would mean Saraswati might have ceased her status as swift flowing Grand River of Rig-Veda, long before the time of Mahabharata War and possibly long before the time of Ramayana.
" ... Lansat satellite images show 8 km wide course of the former river. It is interesting to note that when the protohistoric (as defined by traditional scholarship) people settled in this area, no large perennial river had flowed there for a long time. Archaeological sites were located not only on the banks of former natural waterways, but even in the middle of the supposed larger riverbeds. One such excavated site situated on a dune in the middle of ancient riverbed, is at least as old as 2000 B.C. Francfort’s research team concluded that the actual large paleocourses of the river have been dry since the early Holocene period or even earlier. It is important to recognize that pre harappan settlements exist from 3700 B.C. Early Holocene refers to time interval 10000 B.C. – 7000 B.C."
................................................................................................
"Indo-Aryan speaking civilizations such as Mittani were established in Northern Syria and South-eastern Turkey by 1500 B.C. Many other civilizations from this region have allusions to them migrating from the east. These civilizations need to be studied in the context of my Mahabharata timeline. These could be, but not necessarily, post Mahabharata migrations to the west.
"On the other hand, King Pururava had two sons from Urvashi, Ayu and Amawasu. Ayu migrated to the east and his descendants were known as Kuru-Panchala and Kashi-Videhas. Amawasu migrated to the west and his descendants were known as Gandharas, Parsu and Arrattas. King Pururava is listed as descendant of Ila and Ila is descendant of Manu.
"It is true that genealogy of Kings lists only prominent kings. Still, with limited list of Kings available, the Pandavas are listed after a gap of 55+ descendants of King Pururava, from the line of Ayu (Kuru-Panchalas). As a result one has to search for Amawasu migration, long before the Mahabharata War."
................................................................................................
" ... I am rather predicting existence of domesticated horses (in India) definitely around 5561 B.C., long time before the earliest date proposed (4000 B.C.) for domestication of horses and that too only outside India by traditional scholarship. In fact I am predicting existence of domesticated horses long before 5561 B.C., based on my assertion of Ramayana before Mahabharata, and Vedas before Ramayana and the fact that Mahabharata, Ramayana and Vedas have descriptions of domesticated horses, ashwamedha sacrifice and horse drawn chariots."
"Mahabharata preserves numerous details of empirical astronomical observations of Mahabharata times and of times earlier to Mahabharata. Ability of these ancient civilizations to document empirical data amazes me.
"I conjecture that writing skills existed long before 3500 B.C., the date accepted as invention of writing by traditional scholarship. I do not know where to look for such evidence or the type of empirical evidence that will convince us of the antiquity of writing skills.
"Rig-Veda, Ramayana and Mahabharata contain indirect allusions to existence of writing nevertheless I desire independent evidence.
" ... I have made a case for history of astronomy in India as far back as 22500 B.C. and beyond. Even by conservative estimate of 5561 B.C., i.e., the timeline of Mahabharata War, we must consider Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and other schools of astronomy as only recent.
"There are allusions to knowledge of astronomy in Egypt that would parallel my proposed timeline for the history of astronomy in India, however additional research is required to make a convincing case for such antiquity in Egypt.
................................................................................................
"One of my friends, conversant in astronomy but otherwise not familiar with Mahabharata, asked me, after he had read draft of this book: “What if the Mahabharata and the Mahabharata War is proved to be a myth and not a fact?” ... "
"“Hypothesis Non Fingo,” I replied.
"On a second thought, I told him that if such a scenario presented itself, one would be forced to search for that unknown great astronomer and a poet in India who wrote the Mahabharata. This unknown astronomer must have had in his possession Newton’s laws and his formulae, corrections suggested by La Grange, accuracy of astronomy data that would equal NASA database, documented empirical astronomy observations of multiple millenniums and advanced telescopic capability. I told my friend that the timing of this person cannot be later than 200 B.C. - 400 AD, the timing, albeit speculative, for the last recasting of the Mahabharata text.
"My friend was satisfied with my response however his satisfied look lasted only for a moment. Suddenly his eyes widened, he stared at me and asked, “Why would this great Indian astronomer and poet, generate series of astronomical statements to fit 5561 B.C. as the timing of his fiction – the Mahabharata?”
"“Hypothesis Non Fingo,” replied I."
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
May 22, 2022 - May 22, 2022.
................................................
................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
When Did The Mahabharata War Happen?:
The Mystery of Arundhati
by Nilesh Nilkanth Oak (Author)
................................................
................................................
May 18, 2022 - May 22, 2022.
Purchased May 18, 2022.
Kindle Edition
Format: Kindle Edition
Publisher: Danphe; 1st edition
(12 July 2011)
Language: English
ASIN:- B005CDXTTO
................................................
................................................
ISBN-13: 978-0983034407
ISBN-10: 0983034400
E-Book ISBN: 978-1-4392-8348-6
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
"Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a data or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher."
"Printed in the United States of America"
No wonder Oak’s need to connect to his roots is severely stressed by his greater need to not look ridiculous to his neighbours.
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4738490993
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
"Nilesh Nilkanth Oak was born in India. He received his B.S. in Chemical Engineering from UDCT, Mumbai University. He immigrated to Canada, where he received his M.S. in Chemical Engineering from University of Alberta. He received his executive MBA from Emory University. He works for a Fortune 500 company.
"He is interested in Astronomy, Archaeology, Anthropology, Quantum Mechanics, Economics, Mythology and Philosophy.
"Nilesh Oak resides in Atlanta, Georgia."
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
