A researcher demands…. “Unless you postulate that the Ramayana was pre-Vedic, or the archaeo-astronomical dates indicated in the Vedanga are artificially late dates, you cannot square a 14,000 year before present date for the Ramayana with the 5000-4000 years before present dates seemingly found in the Vedanga.” My response… What am I missing here? There…
A researcher wrote, critiquing and (slightly) objecting to my methodology…. Most astronomical phenomena of the type in the MBh and Ramayana is recurrent. Now, had unique events like novae or supernovae been recorded, that would be a different matter. So, as a first approximation, one obtains the LCM (least common multiple) of all the recurrence…
A researcher raised a concern…. “Which is why back-calculation errors might throw the dates off tremendously, when the results are taken to be correct today.” My response… This is correct. This is always a possibility. And this is what makes my theory and corresponding inferences….falsifiable, and hence ‘scientific’. I should remind you of your ‘astute’…
This short note is by Dr. Shiv Sastry. I found it poignant enough to worth reproducing as one of the blog notes. — By Dr. Shiv Sastry “Look at the irony of the situation today and it sometimes makes me both sad and angry that we Indians have really been hoodwinked but we remain too…
It is for us to generate original research to provide alternate chronology (based on tremendous data from Rigveda, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranas ) with the help of various disciplines of science.. Genetics, Astronomy, Archaeology, Genealogies of Kings and Sages, hydrology, climatology, geology, technology origins, civilizations origins, origins of agriculture and domestication). This is planting the seeds.…
Continued from previous part….. Shri Dieter Koch responded further. I responded to him in a letter/email. Dieter Koch writes, My critique of your work was actually not only addressed to you but to the public. I responded…. I did not understand it otherwise. All criticisms, analysis etc. are truly for the consumption of the public.…
Continued from the previous part…. The confused criticism of Shri Deiter Koch is due to his confusion between Vada (Discussion) Jalpa (wrangling) and Vitanda (Cavil). Shri Dieter Koch mentioned AV observation in his book with the statement that he would get back to discussing it later in his book but he never returned to it.…
Continued from part 2 Links to previous parts are here: https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2017/05/06/debating-evidence-method-inferences-oak-vs-koch-part-1/ https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2017/05/15/debating-evidence-method-inferences-oak-vs-koch-part-2/ — And thus, Dieter Koch began with wrong argumentation, followed by not comprehending my scientific argument (that how big a separation does not matter. Period), followed by superfluous and unnecessary speculation, he comes a full circle, when he repeats his arguments (which was…
Shrimati Rupa Bhaty provides summary of the issue, succinctly, in her short note, below महाभारत काल के विषय मे चिन्ता की तब ये सामने बात आयी कि अरुन्धती आगे क्यों आ गयीं और ध्रुव तारा सिर्फ़ ध्यान मे ही क्योंकर रहा। अगर अरुन्धती ही आगे हो कर सप्तऋषिओं को खीच रही थीं मगर किसके इर्द…
All Genealogy lists of ancient Indian Kings are INCOMPLETE. What is there not to understand! Why do Mahabharata & Ramayana researchers find it hard to comprehend? — For example: Harivamsha & Matsyapurana are shouting this fact from the rooftops… ……………..but researchers choose to act deaf! HARIVAMSHA MATSYA-PURANA
Continued from part 1 here: https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2017/05/06/debating-evidence-method-inferences-oak-vs-koch-part-1/ — Now, Dieter Koch claims to turn next objection of his, Instead, let us turn to another objection that has been made against his approach. Vyasa is talking about astronomical observations (omens) that were made in the very year of the war, more precisely only a few days before…
