Uttar Paksha: Arundhati-Vasishtha (AV) observation

“If ‘Arundhati – Vasishtha (AV) observation’ does not qualify as the most unambiguous astronomical evidence in determining the date of Mahabharata War, let’s stop talking about astronomical evidence in Mahabharata.”

                  – Nilesh Oak

“You have to be an asshole to quote yourself.”

                 – Anonymous

And for those who might need  a visual primer on ‘Precession of Earth’

(Precession of Earth is the phenomenon.  Movement of the cardinal points against the background reference frame of Nakshatra system is its consequence)

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Uttar Paksha: Arundhati-Vasishtha (AV) observation

  1. My dear friend, I have told you earlier WHY your AV theory is wrong & insensible. One last time, I will tell you this. Your theory doesn’t confirm to any archaeological or genealogical evidence either, it’s just a fancy SCI-FI interpretation. The very verse you base your theory on is being interpreted incorrectly by you. You take the word पृष्ठ (pRSTha) of this AV verse to mean “behind” wherein you are completely ignoring its primary meaning “the top/upper side” as in “the Mountain पृष्ठ”. For your theory to stand anywhere, you first need to PROVE beyond all doubts that the word combo “पृष्ठ / पृष्ठत”, within the context of Mahabharata, can NOT mean “top / on top of”. This word occurs about 296 times in Mahabharata text. Doing that would be scientific and scholarly. Also, it’s been a few days since I have given out all the Mahabharata planetary positions (http://www.slideshare.net/sheoran1/mahabharata-war-827-bce-finally) which match all Ved Vyasa Omens quite clearly and had also conveyed the same to you. But instead of taking note of that or even trying to examine it, here you are stuck in your own small world of “AV” observation and bent upon proving how great “scholar” you are. This AV is the smallest part of all Mahabharata observations. You are essentially making the same mistake that many many people in the past have done: gross distortion of history, for a little fame or monetary benefit. There is no glory in that. History will never remember you that way. Pardon me for the harsh words buddy but that’s the truth. Mahabharata is fixed for once and all at 827 BCE. You will start seeing this acceptance worldwide within next few years itself, well within your lifetime. If you or anyone for that matter can sufficiently & clearly prove me wrong on my dates, I have a reward of USD 5,000 waiting. And if you lose, all I ask is for you to be on the side of TRUTH, leaving aside the petty motivations of the Ego. Ready to take up the challenge?

  2. All presentation is technically correct but I wonder whether it would explain the subject to someone who has not already understood it from your book or who is looking at the matter for the first time. Two improvements could be made. 1. All seven stars and arundhati should be shown. Then the viewer recognizes the familiar Saptarshi. 2. Show the view of sky facing north, as seen at kurukshetra i. e. North pole at the elevation of Latitude of the location above a horizon line with a n. s. meridian line passing through north pole. You have seen the pictorial views I presented (not true to scale). I found my spectators easily understood the changing relative position over the millennia. However, this is your show and it is good.
    Your concept of Purva-paksha uttar-paksha is non-standard! As per Indian standard, Purvapaksha-Uttarapaksha are supposed to be presentation of opposing points of view of a subject by two different persons. (Read last part of शारदा नाटक for pp/up on whether sharada’s marriage to bhujanganath was over and binding or not over and hence nonbinding.)

  3. I have not read Amrutanubhava ( nor dnyaneshvari!). What does Amrutanubhava say about P/U. If they are parts of an argument, then maybe, Poorvardh and Uttarardha would be more appropriate terms.

    • The process is to present a given view/interpretation/theory/proposal etc. of someone from not only that person’s point of view…but even to add any other non explored arguments in its flavor. This is called ‘Mandan’. Then comes the ‘Khandan’. This shows limitations of this approach. and finally the person presents his own view, his own solution and shows why the solution is superior, better than the view explained in the first part – Mandan.

    • Purva paksha, sometimes also transliterated as pūrvapakṣa or poorva paksha, is a tradition in dharma discourse. It involves building a deep familiarity with the opponent’s point of view before criticizing it. The purva paksha approach was used by Adi Shankaracharya in his work to re-establish Sanatana Dharma in India.[citation needed]

      In ancient Indian jurisprudence, purva paksha referred to the complaint, with other parts of a trial consisting of uttar (the reply), kriyaa (trial or investigation by the court), and nirnaya (verdict or decision).[1]:13

      In his book Being Different (2011), Rajiv Malhotra sought to use the purva paksha approach.[2] Malhotra states that purva paksha

      is the traditional dharmic approach to rival schools. It is a dialectical approach, taking a thesis by an opponent (‘purva pakshin’) and then providing its rebuttal (‘khandana’) so as to establish the protagonist’s views (‘siddhanta’). The purva paksha tradition required any debater first to argue from the perspective of his opponent in order to test the validity of his understanding of the opposing position, and from there to realize his own shortcomings. Only after perfecting his understanding of opposing views would he be qualified to refute them. Such debates encourage individuals to maintain flexibility of perspective and honesty rather than seek victory egotistically.In this way, the dialectical process ensures a genuine and far-reaching shift in the individual.[2]:48

      According to Shrinivas Tilak, Malhotra’s use of purva paksha in Being Different may be regarded as a kind of “reverse anthropology.”[3]:288[4] Tilak states that

      By “reversing” the gaze on contemporary Western and Indological constructions of the dharmic worldview and ways of life, Malhotra seeks to expose how “exotic,” “ethnic,” and “provincial” such constructions have really been notwithstanding the West’s allegedly “universalistic” claims (2011: 67, 176, 334). His other objective is to draw attention to the Christian-centric focus of the West’s archive of knowledge and its historical involvement in the systematic suppression of the dharmic worldview and ways of life to be found in the works of Indologists. By problematizing the way in which Dharma has been represented by Western scholarship, he exposes the asymmetrical nature of the relationship that obtains between the powerful discipline of Indology and its disempowered subjects, the Indians (334).[3]:288

      See also[edit]
      Tarka sastra
      References[edit]
      Jump up ^ Kumar, Raj (2003). Essays On Legal Systems In India. Discovery Publishing House. ISBN 9788171417018.
      ^ Jump up to: a b Malhotra, Rajiv (2011). Being different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism. New Delhi: HarperCollins Publishers India. ISBN 9789350291900. OCLC 769101673. ISBN 9350291908
      ^ Jump up to: a b Tilak, S. (2013). “Differing Worldviews (Western and Dharmic) in Rajiv Malhotra’s Being Different”. International Journal of Hindu Studies. doi:10.1007/s11407-012-9130-2.
      Jump up ^ Tilak states “The methodological stance of the purvapaksha in Being Different may be broadly described as a context-sensitive approach to “anthropologize” the Western worldview in a manner akin to what Roy Wagner has called “reverse anthropology” (1981: 31).
      Categories: Hindu philosophical concepts

  4. It appears as though (according to you) Mandan would consist of first examining any existing views or arguments or theories on a subject, criticizing them, and rejecting them (Purva-paksha) and then presenting your own view or theory or arguments (Uttara-paksha). Thereafter if someone disagrees he can do its Khandan, which again can have its own Purva-paksha, examining and criticizing your Mandan and then proposing his own theory (if he has any. In my view that is not essential, he may simply disagree with the Mandan.) as his Uttarapaksha. Rather elaborate but acceptable. I knew of only one use of PP/UP nomenclature, in Sharada Natak, where two contrary views were presented by two persons, the second one demolishing the PP and then putting forward his own arguments in UP. Author of Sharada, Govind Ballal Deval was no lightweight so I rely on him. Similar procedure and names PP/UP were used when the Sammati Vaya issue was hotly discussed in Maharashtra in the days of Lokmanya Tilak, when British Govt. introduced the act laying down minimum age of female for marriage. (The Harbilas Sarda Act.). My understanding therefore is that Mandan and PP are same and so are Khandan and UP.

    • My description of Purva Paksha and uttar paksha is hardly mine. In recent times, Shri Rajiv Malhotra has rejuvenated the terms. The terms are older. Upanishads also use these themes. Shankaracharya, Jnaneshwar, Ekanath, Vinoba bhave (Swarajya shastra) have employed them extensively. I would say ‘Dasaboth’ might fall into similar structure. I also previously mentioned writings and talks of Sir Karl Popper.

      But let’s not get stuck in who said what.

      To me, khandan has its value in the sense that it can explore certain limitations of existing proposals or theories, however, in terms of growth of knowledge, Khandan by itself is extremely limited and if one is not careful, all it leads to is argument or arguments. On the other hand, proposition of new theory forces one to go beyond finding holes (anyone can find holes in any existing and successful theories of science).

      Growth of knowledge comes from new testable theories and proposals. Even when these new theories or proposals may be falsified, they still teach us a lot. Our discussions on ‘Fall of Abhijit’ is testimony to that. In that case, you had not only shown limitations of proposals of Oak or Vartak, but had put forward your own proposal (an alternate and viable definition for fall of Abhijit).

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