I receive numerous emails asking questions or questioning my proposed timeline for either Ramayana or Mahabharata.
These are welcome developments. I am glad that people are not only reading and are accepting blindly –conclusions of my research, but consciously thinking through the implications.
There is one (or few) consistent element among these correspondences that frustrates me. Certainly it is not conscious fault of readers.
First: What is this element that is frustrating me?
Answer: Characteristic lack of understanding of the scientific method; at least as employed —consciously or unconsciously– by likes of Newton, Einstein, Kepler, Darwin, etc.
Here are some illustrative examples of comments I receive
(1) “You say (I Say!!!!???) Ramayana occurred in 12000 BCE, but Sanskrit was simply not there, no!”
I am not saying anything. I am simply interpreting ‘astronomy’ observations of Valmiki, in the light of our current knowledge of astronomy and precession and such.
(2) “Your (Mine!!!!???) date of Ramayana is 12000 BCE but it does not gel (corroborate/commensurate) with archeology evidence”
Really? What ‘Archeological’ evidence do you have? and from where? Oh by the way, don’ tell me about the archeological evidence ‘YOU DO NOT HAVE.’
You get the flavor.
Such comments tell me that may be the readers are not going deep enough into my ‘Error elimination’ experiment to comprehend the solid foundation (only relatively speaking) the conclusions are based on (Sanskrit shlok interpretation and/or astronomy interpretation of phenomena).
But the problem is even bigger.
We have to go back by few centuries to likes of Francis Bacon, who attempted to take away ‘religion’ out of science but not ‘religiosity’. The entire scientific establishment (with very few notable exceptions) is brainwashed into logical positivism and induction and authority and epistemological nonsense. It is a matrix (Maya-Jal) and breaking Maya-jal is not easy. The problem is no one accepts that they are in the matrix. To recognize it is the first step in plausibly coming out of it.
Reading of Popper’s ‘Logic of Scientific Discovery’ and “Conjectures & Refutations’ can begin this process. While there are no guaranties, efforts is all one can make.
As Stefano Gattei states it with razor sharp clarity,
“Popper exposes the errors of any attempt at providing a foundation for our knowledge and describes science as empirical BUT NOT inductive, testable and confirmable BUT never certain, demarcated from metaphysics by falsifiability WITHOUT deeming metaphysics meaningless.” (emphasis mine)