Update: Settled (!) matter of Rama-Janma

I want to thank Prof. Rajendra Gupta for taking an active role and thus contributing his portion to Indian’s cumulative effort in discovering, recovering, comprehending ancient Indian, and thus world history.

What is urgently required is not acceptance of one specific claim (that is dangerous in any situation), but a recognition of multiple claims with their strengths and weaknesses stated.  That is rational and scientific, but even more important, sets the stage for future research and thus growth of knowledge.

Prof. Gupta commented on my blog article, however I thought it important to include his comment (in full) for wider circulation.

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2015/09/22/rama-janma-goebbels-law/#comment-318

Prof. Gupta visited the I-SERVE exhibit yesterday. Summary of his visit, in his words…

“I visited Mrs Saroj Bala’s exhibition ‘Rigveda to Robotics’ yesterday and met her. I told her about your work and books; and that you had contacted her sometime back by email. She was in no mood to have any discussion on any topic.

She said, “we want no discussion. Our dates are final. We are working for the last six years. We are much ahead of everyone else”.

Her exhibition was covered widely by the print and electronic media in India.

Pushakar Bhatnagar / Saroj Bala’s date have been accepted and propagated by many saints including Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. Now, the Ministry of Culture has full support for his work. Many household Panchang books give a summary of Bhatnagar’s dates about Sri Ram.

Your works needs wider reach, discussion and acceptance. Please plan something for your next visit to India.”

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Update: Settled (!) matter of Rama-Janma

  1. grossly misquoted! In fact I had told that “we had learnt from all, including Nilesh Oak, and we made verifications and found some gaps in many thesis including that of Nilesh Oak, Vartak and Pitale. We cordially invite Nilesh Oak Ji to study our work and then have discussion after the Exhibition”

  2. Saroj ji, Thank you for your response. I will let Rajendra ji Gupta clarify his position. The bigger point is we must present our individual research/theory with full conviction, provide rational criticism for the work of others, recognize limitations and gap in our own research. Only method of rational criticism will lead to growth of knowledge in this much needed area of ancient Indian history.

    I have studied works of Shri Pushkar Bhatnagar and also those of you (your books).

    Regards,

    Nilesh Oak

  3. Saroj Bala ji,

    we are just about coming out of the AIT (Aryan Invasion Theory) and the FaSAT (Faulty Sheet Anchor Theory) Maya. What we would do not wish is to fall into another deep ditch, and have trouble coming out. So before putting the Ramayana dates in stone, it is very important to get everybody on board, and that includes thinkers like Nilesh Nilkanth Oak.

    We do not wish to see a people of your dedication in the cause of Bharata end up as another Romila Thapar. It’s not good for the psyche of Indians to have to put up with continuous revisions of facts presented as absolutely truth.

    Please do consider an active dialogue with Nilesh Nilkanth Oak.

  4. Historicity of Ram and dating of his era is an issue of national importance and of utmost public interest. I am greatly confused by various claims ranging from 12,240 BCE to 1200 BCE for the year of birth of Sri Ram. Each claim is based on astronomical calculations. I don’t know anything about astronomy or the methodology adopted by Saroj ji, Nilesh ji or other researchers. I am not in a position to say who is right and who is wrong. I believe that there are only five or six specialists and they must sit together and reach a consensus. If one of the dates is accepted by the general public due to much hype and publicity, and it is proved wrong later, the general public will lose faith in the astronomical method. It will be a great disservice done by well-meaning people. It will be counter-productive to the cause in the long run. To the best of my knowledge, Nilesh ji has presented a critique of the works of other researchers on the dating of era of Ram, but not the vice versa. I had met with and heard a lecture by the late Mr Pushkar Bhatnagar ji soon after publication of his book. I am sure that had he been alive, he would have surely discussed the matter with Nilesh ji. Bhatnagar ji’s work is being propagated and extended by Saroj Bala ji and her institute, I-SERVE. She has organized two international conferences on historicity of the Vedic and the Ramayan eras. She is a pioneer in bringing people together on this subject. She has the resources. Therefore, I had suggested to her that instead of a big conference, she may consider holding a brainstorming of all those involved in astronomical dating of Vedas, Ramayana, and Mahabharata. She told me that “We want no discussion. Our dates are final.” Saroj Bala ji has alleged on this blog that I have ‘grossly misquoted’ her. If she feels that, so be it. I don’t want to join issue with her. I greatly welcome her statement that she is agreeable for a discussion with Nilesh ji about dating of Ramayana and Mahabharata. I sincerely wish that it happens.
    I also request Nilesh Oak ji, to plan a brainstorming session on his own initiative during his next visit to India.

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