Dr. Elst’s theory of ‘The Arundhati Omen’: Part 3 of 8

I ended previous part (part 2) in this series with the following…

Dr. Elst continues…

So, let’s drop this eccentric theory and discuss possible dates for the Mahabharata war within the usual range of dates.

This is no longer an eccentric theory, a theory that is been corroborated by 200+ astronomy, chronology and season observations of Mahabharata text.

(BTW, all theories, at least revolutionary theories, when proposed are indeed eccentric theories. But then that is a trivially true statement of all revolutionary theories that we know of.)

AV observation was an eccentric sounding observation (at least until I demystified it in May 2009 CE)… to the extent many called it ‘absurd’, ‘impossible in the very order of nature’ and many tried to explain by speculating that later commentators or even Sauti, inserted something that could not be possible to dramatize the situation leading to the day of the Mahabharata War

I will discuss rest of Dr. Elst’s comments in concluding and last part (part 3).

When I began writing Part – 3, I realized that there was no way I was going to do justice to various points mentioned by Shri Koenraad Elst.

I will discuss remaining comments of Dr. Elst in few additional articles.

Before I do that, I want to return to his earlier comment. He made two points:

(1). ‘Epoch of Arundhati’ as an eccentric theory

(2). Appeal to discuss possible dates for Mahabharata War within THE USUAL RANGE.

I want to emphasize that my theory is rather a vanilla theory – anything but eccentric. My theory simply asserts that all astronomy observations of Mahabharata text are visual observations of the sky. There is nothing eccentric about it. I wish there was something exotic and eccentric about it, e.g. UFO, Aliens, etc.

[Not that I have problem with eccentric theories. I am studying Quantum Mechanics/Philosophy since 1993 and I am equally comfortable with ‘Multi-universe theory’ and even recent ‘Zero universe theory’, in addition to ‘one universe’ theory’ which is essentially a Copenhagen interpretation. But I digressed.]

When we combine (1) with (2), we may understand what Dr. Elst might be driving at, when he encourages his readers to discuss the dates within ‘THE USUAL RANGE’.

We will not blame Dr. Elst for staying within a comfort zone.

After all, many contemporaries of Galileo refused to look at the heaven (sky) through his telescope, lest they would be convinced of alternate reality (i.e. celestial = terrestrial). Of course, their decision not to look at the sky through telescope was driven by their unwillingness to shake their existing foundations of cosmos. They would have preferred to stick to Aristotelian view of cosmos, irrespective of its verisimilitude.

On the other hand, growth of knowledge has always come from daring and revolutionary theories.

To wit, there are ~130+ different proposals for the timing of Mahabharata War and ~125 of them fall outside the ‘Epoch of Arundhati’ (i.e. after 4508 BCE). Majority of these 125, fall around 3000 BCE, mainly driven by an assumption for the beginning of Kaliyuga = 3102 BCE. The remaining dates from these 125 proposals that are not around 3000 BCE are driven by laughable AIT nonsense.

Some of these researchers are/were great astronomy researchers in their own rights and have made significant original contributions. To name a few: Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Shankar Balakrishna Dikshit, V B Ketkar, Lele Shastri, Kota Venkatachalam, P V Holay, Prof. R N Iyengar, Prof. Srinivas Raghavan/Prof. Narahari Achar, Prof. Subhash Kak, Bharatacharya C V Vaidya, Bharat Ratna and Mahamahopadhyaya Pandurang Vaman Kane.

All of them failed to discover ‘Epoch of Arundhati’ in spite of their immense contribution to Ancient Indian astronomy/history via Astronomy. This should not come as surprise for anyone, unless they confuse ‘theory of successful thinking’ with that of ‘theory of creative thinking’.

In the words of that rare genius, Sir Karl Popper,

“I think that the demand for a theory of successful thinking cannot be satisfied, and that it is not the same as the demand for a theory of creative thinking. Success depends on many things – for example on luck. It may depend on meeting with a promising problem. It depends on not being anticipated. It depends on such things as a fortunate division of one’s time between trying to keep up-to-date and concentrating on working out one’s own ideas.

But it seems to me that what is essential to “creative” or “inventive” thinking is a combination of intense interest in some problem (and thus a readiness to try again and again) with highly critical thinking; with a readiness to attack even those presuppositions which for less critical thought determine the limits of the range from which trials (conjectures) are selected; with an imaginative freedom that allows us to see so far unsuspected sources of error: possible prejudices in need of critical examination”.
(Ephasis mine)

[Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography by Sir Karl Popper, Pages 47-48]

While I read his Autobiography in 2012 CE, above two passages from his autobiography captures my struggle but also passion with AV observation from ~1995 CE through 2009 CE.

We will get into specific comments of Dr. Elst, beginning with next part…

To be continued….


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s