Shri Shrikant Talageri wrote in comment to one of my blog article (part of 1 of 8 part series I wrote in response to Dr. Elst comment on AV observation.
I hope that Shri Shrikant Talgeri will read rest of the parts of that series and will post more comments.
I also plan to respond to comments of Shri Shrikant Talageri, however, wanted to post his comment in full for benefit of readers.
In the sprit of education, self-learning and educating others, it will be great if readers take this as an opportunity to respond to comments of Shri Talageri. This would provide a good exercise for readers to asses how much they understand Archeo-astronomy, testable and non-testable theories, logic of scientific methodology and most importantly deductive process of reasoning.
Comments of Shri Shrikant Talageri follows..
I think Nilesh Oak misses the central point of Koenraad Elst’s rejection of his “Arundhati phenomenon” argument. The very fact that Vyasa “saw Arundhati rise before her twin star Vasishtha”, and mentions it as one of the evil omens seen by him, proves that this could definitely not have been “between the 12th and the 5th millennia BCE”. In that period, Arundhati always rose before her twin star Vasishtha, and so no-one seeing it rise thus would have treated it as an “omen” of anything, good or evil. For example, the sun always rises in the east, and no-one would treat an observation that the sun rose in the east as an “omen” of anything.
Therefore, the observation pertains to a period long after 4508 BCE, when Arundhati never rose before her twin star Vasishtha, and anyone making an observation that it rose before Vasishtha would naturally treat it as an “omen”, as for example it would definitely be if the sun was suddenly observed rising from the west. This is simple logic.
Nilesh would then argue that the sun can never rise from the west, and Arundhati, after 4508 BCE, could never be seen rising before Vasishtha, and that this statement represents a “visual observation of the sky”, and therefore must pertain to a period before 4508 BCE. But then why would Vyasa describe a perfectly normal daily phenomenon of that period as an “omen”? We can not, just for our own wishful purposes, ignore the fact that the observation is made only from the point of view of an “omen”, and we can not treat it as a “visual observation” and ignore the “omen” part of it.
Then what kind of an observation is it? Obviously, omens are not reported by every Tom, Dick and Harry; they are only reported by people who are supposed to have special psychic or visionary powers that allow them to see things that others can not see, and therefore Vyasa’s vision of Arundhati rising before Vasishtha was not supposed to be a “visual observation of the sky” but a “psychic observation” not visible to others of a non-normal phenomenon. This is the only logical meaning of Vyasa’s observed omen: before 4508 BCE, it would not have been an “omen”, and after 4508 BCE, it could not have been an “observation”.
Could we write a scholarly thesis proving that air-borne vehicles were present in India in the 13th century AD (CE) on the basis of “visual observations” recorded by people who saw Sant Dnyaneshwar of Maharashtra riding on a wall to meet Changdev?