‘VAKRI’ did not mean ‘RETROGRADE’ in Mahabharata astronomy – Part 1

“If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem.”

― Eldridge Cleaver

Our reader writes….

“Ref. No. 11 – मघासु अंगारको वक्रः comes in Bhishmaparava just at beginning of war. Actually it happened more than one year before the proposed date of war! By the beginning of war Mars has gone to Shravan. Why is Vyasa referring to an old event and calling it a bad omen? If true, it will be equally true or relevant if 1st day of war was in December.
Ref No 13 and 15.
No. 13 is stated by Karna to Krishna, just a few days prior to commencement of war. Actually Mars passed through that part of its journey four months back and by that day had moved on to Shravan. So why is Karna calling it a bad omen for Duryodhan? It would be equally bad then for any different date for 1st date of war. No. 15 is in the speech of Vyasa to Dhritarashtra again at beginning of war. Mars at Shravan, current position, is also described as a bad omen! Maybe, if 1st day of war was some days later, it would still be a bad omen.
These both references cant be considered as corroborating the proposed date.
Ref. No. 11. Translation of श्रवणे च बृहस्पतिः as done by Oak is correct and the Vakri motions of Jupiter are seen. But something strange here! Both the vakri motions of Jupiter, near Shravan, occur much later than 16th Oct. 5561 BC, on 6th April 5560BC and 23 Nov. 5560 BC, not even in the proposed year of war! They have no relevance to the war! How Vyasa is mentioning this at all, at beginning of war? No corroboration of 16th Oct. or 5561BC.”

My Response…

Our reader is also entangled/stuck in the problem of omen. In this part, I want to separate out and deal with ‘the problem of Omen’. This is a recurring problem and while many are enthusiastic about raising it, no one dares to solve it, especially those who raise it. Well, there are excpetions, such as, Yours truly!

Many readers have raised it before and the list includes distinguished researchers such as Dr. Koenraad Elst and Shri Shrikant Talageri. I wrote 8 parts series in the context of ‘problem of Omen’ raised by Shri Shrikant Talageri. I am confident, in due time, this series would be deemed a ‘classic‘ on this issues of ‘Theory of Omen and theoy of visual astronomy observations’ but also on the issue of ‘testable and non testable theories’ aka ‘refutable and irrefutable theories’.

We will start analyzing comments of our reader in the next part of this series, however, I am adding links, for the convenience of readers, to series of articles I wrote in response to comments of Shri Shirkant Talageri on AV observation.

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/response-to-shri-shrikant-talageri-part-1/

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/response-to-shri-shrikant-talageri-part-2/

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/response-to-shri-shrikant-talageri-part-3/

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/09/01/response-to-shri-shrikant-talageri-part-4/

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/09/09/response-to-shri-shrikant-talageri-part-5/

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/response-to-shri-shrikant-talageri-part-6/

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/response-to-shri-shrikant-talageri-part-7/

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/response-to-shri-shrikant-talageri-part-8/

Advertisements

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