Debating evidence, method & Inferences: Oak vs Koch – Part 9

Dieter Koch writes,

Are there other reliable clues? Most probably you think so. Well, I do not think so.

My response…

You have already answered your own question. There are many.
The answer is resounding – YES! [hydrology, climatology, oceanography, seismology, anthropology, Astronomy (non-Mahabharata war references from Mahabharata text, Ramayana text, Surya Siddhanta)]
But I will restrict myself to ONLY astronomy evidence and ONLY from the text of Mahabharata.
All the references – astronomy and chronology of Bhishma Nirvana!

Dieter Koch writes,

This leads me to the question of the number of days Bhishma spent on his bed of arrows before deceasing. You (Nilesh Oak) arrived at the conclusion that it is 98 days, which would indicate a very early date of the Mahabharata War.

My response…

I have shown that, based on all references (astronomy and chronology) of Bhishma Nirvana, that Bhishma was on the bed of arrows for a minimum of 92 days (actual number >92 days) and when combined with other chronology markers, the timing of Mahabharata war can be asserted to be no later than 4700 BCE and not earlier than ~7000 BCE! NO IFS and NO BUTS.

Dieter Koch writes,

You asked me for my opinion about it. I request you to read what I wrote about it in my book, pp. 358ff. There I demonstrate that the evidence provided by the Mahabharata is actually contradictory and very difficult to disentangle.

My response…

I have read your book and just now when I did a quick re-read, I realized that you have not taken any specific position, but have rather discussed the merit and limitations of certain references of Mahabharata text (related to Bhishma Nirvana) you selected for discussion.

Dieter Koch writes,

There are text passages that support your claim, but others that contradict it. In my opinion it is not a well-established fact that Bhishma spent 98 days on bed of arrows. It is only the opinion you chose because it fits your dating of the war.

My response…

Your first statement is, again, a trivial truism. It is true and it is also true for claims of all Mahabharata researcher. No exceptions! Remaining two statements of yours are factually incorrect. Have you read my book?

While I have included all relevant references of Bhishma Nirvana (and open to add any other that I might have missed), all other Mahabharata researchers (only one exception I am aware of is that of Dr. P V Vartak) have selectively chosen 2-3 (out of total of 22-23 references! Order of magnitude difference!) and even then, failed to corroborate – even those 2-3 references of their choice – for their proposed date/year of Mahabharata war!
Opinions have no value – either those of yours or mine, in a scientific endeavor of this kind. Objective testing of evidence does! We should insist on it and we should stick to it.
The explanation of Bhishma Nivrana references is rather straightforward, especially for a savvy astronomy and Mahabharata researcher, however, may involve some investment on the part of others who may not be familiar with concepts such as shift of lunar month with respect to the day of winter solstice, Median Tithi and shift of median Tithi with respect to the day of winter solstice, how there can be disagreement in nomenclature of lunar months (as can be seen even in modern Indian calendars) however, how position of sun on the day of winter solstice can-not be manipulated.
The lack of such knowledge, few levels deeper, on the part of Mahabharata enthusiasts have restricted their ability to separate the grains from the chaff in evaluating 130+ claims for the day (and the minimum duration of Bhishma on the bed of arrows) of Bhishma Nirvana.

I am currently writing a book ‘Bhishma Nirvana’ and I would encourage all to read it and critique it when it is published. Of course, if you desire, I will be happy to provide a gist of it in my future responses to you.

Dieter Koch writes,

For a better feeling for what we are discussing, I went out last night. The sky was clear, and although the Moon was bright and although there was some light pollution and the Milky Way was not visible, I could easily see both Vasisththa and Arundhati, with the naked eye, without binoculars. The two stars are 12 minutes of arc apart, which corresponds to a little less than half of the diameter of the moon. The distance between the two stars and their relative positions in the constellation Ursa Major has changed very little since 5561 BCE, so almost the same angle between the two stars was already given in 11.000 BCE. Only their difference in right ascension has changed sign around 11.090 and 4508 BCE. I think the observation with the pole should have worked, already thousands of years before 5561 BCE. The two stars would have appeared/disappeared at the edge of the pole at different heights, about 12 arc min apart (which, as has been stated, is a bit less than half of the diameter of the Moon). Nowadays, Vasishtha’s going ahead can be observed without any tools, just by drawing an imaginary line from Dhruva-Polaris to Vasishtha. This is very easy. Unfortunately, no polar star was available over great periods of time between 11.000 and 4500 BCE, so the wooden pole or hanging rope was the likely method of observation. Or what alternative method could be thought of? It seems you don’t consider this question relevant. In my opinion it is. Nevertheless, if you or anybody has an idea, please let me know.
I think this is sufficient from my side concerning Arundhati and Vasishtha.

My response…

What you did is fascinating! I do such experiments all the time. I am doing them for more than 20+ years. I find it all useful and worthy of discussion. Not sure what made you think I find it irrelevant! However, I worry that we will get into many digressions from our pet subject – astronomy observations of Mahabharata and their ability to corroborate and/or falsify specific claims.

Having said that, if for some reason you think this is central to our discussion, I will intently listen to it until we are ready for the next step.

Advertisements

43 thoughts on “Debating evidence, method & Inferences: Oak vs Koch – Part 9

  1. Good Day Nilesh ji.
    I am aware that you are working on the date of the Rigveda. Can’t wait to read it.

    My question is:

    Have you read the recent book called The Rigveda and the History of India written by David Frawley? The author states that the Vedas themselves allude to an earlier time and mention the names of Manu, Ila/Sadyumna, Pururav, Ayush, Nahush, Yayati and Puru as heroes of the past.

    Second Dr. PV Vartak has dated the earliest part of the Rigveda to around 24000BC and that Manu was born at around 15000 BC.

    How can we reconcile the two view points.
    And which in your viewpoint is more accurate chronology.

    Or do you have a date of your own?

    Please let me know.

    • I have not read the book by Shri Vamdev Shastri (David Frawley) however what he is saying is true and make perfect sense. The chronology described by Dr. P V Vartak also makes total sense. Do remember that there are many Manus as there are many Vyasas, Vasishthas, and Vishwamitras (and also Valmiki) These are descendants of same disciplic and/or genetic succession.

      Vedvyasa edited Vedas at the time of Mahabharata (6th millennium BCE) and that is why we also have references to Devapi and Shantanu (father of Bhishma) in the10th Mandala of Rigveda (10:75).

      Thus timing of Rigveda can be stated as 6th millennim BCE for the last Mandala and beyond 17000 BCE for the earliest Mandalas (6, 3, 7, 2 etc) of Rigveda.

  2. I have not read the book by Shri Vamdev Shastri (David Frawley) however what he is saying is true and make perfect sense. The chronology described by Dr. P V Vartak also makes total sense. Do remember that there are many Manus as there are many Vyasas, Vasishthas, and Vishwamitras (and also Valmiki) These are descendants of same disciplic and/or genetic succession.

    Vedvyasa edited Vedas at the time of Mahabharata (6th millennium BCE) and that is why we also have references to Devapi and Shantanu (father of Bhishma) in the10th Mandala of Rigveda (10:75).

    Thus timing of Rigveda can be stated as 6th millennim BCE for the last Mandala and beyond 17000 BCE for the earliest Mandalas (6, 3, 7, 2 etc) of Rigveda.

  3. Thank you again sir.
    Really looking forward to reading all your future works.
    Mr. Frawley’s book “Rigveda and the History of India” is a fantastic book and it is sort of an addition to the works of Mr. Shrikant Talagiri. The book deals with the Vedic History history of India.
    While Shrikant Talagiri has emphasized on the Movements of Anus and Druhyus, Mr Frawley has emphasized what was going on in India itself at the time.

    I personally think these two books must go hand in hand.

    If you are searching for information on dating the Rigveda then this book could be of great help.

  4. But question still stands. There are only two Manus relevant of this manyantar which I am aware of :
    1)Vaivastav Manu (Surya)
    2) Shraddhadeva Manu

    In his book Mr Frawley is talking about the latter ie. Shraddhadeva Manu whom he says is alluded to as already a historical figure in the Rigveda itself.

    On the other hand PV Vartak in his respective works gives a date of Shraddhadeva Manu around 15000BC which 9 thousand years later than when the Rig Veda was written.

    I would like to point out that Mr Vartak has come up with this date of 15000 BC for Shraddhadeva Manu by using reference from Ramayana and not the Vedas themselves ( Not that i know of the existence of any reference to Shraddhadeva Manu exists in the Vedas or not)

    Now PV Vartak has given the date of Ramayana around 7400-7300 BC. But you have shown correctly that the more accurate date is 12029 BC.
    Will this new finding push the actual date of Shraddhadeva Manu farther back???

  5. Namaste Sir,
    It’s been a while since we spoke.
    I have a few questions to ask you and hope to get some answers from you.

    I sincerely hope you don’t mind my incessant nagging. I’m just a student who is fascinated Pouranic History of India. I’m hugely inspired by the works of You, Shrikant Talagiri, PV Vartak, BB Lal, Michelle Danino, KD Sethna,, Davidley, Subhash KAK, NS Rajaram, Dr Premendra Priyadarshan, etc.
    🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗

    But Economic restraint and Academics and kept me from in depth studies on this matter.

    So I to clarify some of the questions I have.

    1) Do agree with the findings of PV Vartak that certain Slokes of Mandal 4 and Mandal 7 are be dated to 24000BC-23000BC??

    2) In his book ‘Rigveda and the history of India written by Mr David Frawley he arranges the sequence of the Mandals in the order (6,2), (4,5,8), (3,7), and (1,9&10) were written and updated throughout the whole period of the Rigveda. This is VERY DIFFERENT from how Mr Shrikant Talagiri has arranged them, ie, (6,3,7), (4,2,), (5,8,), (1,9,&10). Mr Frawley’s argument he rejects the Idea of Interpolation in the Rigveda and the Soma Hymns of Mandals 1,9 &10 were actually composed way before the main body of the Rigveda was composed is that he is asserting that the Hymns attributed to Purukutsa and Trasadasyu were not interpolation rather they rose during the time interval between Divodas and Sudas, and Sudas only rose some time after Trasadasyu. And the Rishis who composed those Hymns were contemporary. But Also said that Mandals 4,5,8 also have Hymns showing the rise of Srinjayas under Sudas thus claiming these Mandals are of Mixed nature.

    Can you do a comparative study analysis of their works??

    3) As I have also found out that you are trying to date the Rigveda as well using Shrikant Talagiri’s work. Then are you taking into account the works of Mr Frawley’s on the sequence of the Rigveda as well??

    4) You have mentioned the works of Sue Sullivan on the Indus Script then have you compared it with the deciphering methods of NS Rajaram and that of Srinivas Kalyanaraman who have also come up with the conclusion that Indus scripture language is Sanskrit-Prakrit. Can give us a comparative review of their methods??

    5) The Sindhu-Saraswati civilization matured at around 3100 BC do you think this is somehow related to the fixation of the date of the start of the Kaliyuga in 3012 BC??

    6) Some Tibetan records claim that Buddha nirvana dates back to 2400 BC can you compare that with the Indian records of 1800 BC??

    7) When is your next books coming out???

  6. Sir, I have been keenly following up on your mahabharta dating evidence. You have a long explanation on why you have completely ignored the evidence in anushasana parva chapter 167 on bhishma nirvana in Magha month. I think this seriously hurts your argument. There is a second piece of evidence in Udyoga parva that confirns uttarayan in Magha month. Udyoga parva states that sharad ritu gave way hemant ritu in karthik month when Krishna left for hasttinapur. Hence autumn equinox would have been in karthik month. Hence 3 months from karthik month in magha month uttarayan woukd happen. This evidence seriously dents your theory.

    • Thank you for following up my work. Where do I state (long explanation) that I have avoided reference to lunar month of Magha?

      Leaving that point aside….

      (1) Here is the second piece of evidence you refer to (I think) from Udyoga parva

      Udyoga 81:7

      कौमुदे मासि रेवत्यां शरदन्ते हिमागमे |
      स्फीतसस्यसुखे काले कल्यः सत्त्ववतां वरः ||७||

      I am glad that you correctly translate ‘शरदन्ते हिमागमे’ as ‘

      Udyoga parva states that sharad ritu gave way hemant ritu

      ‘.

      [We can leave the issue of ‘Kartika’ complete out for now. However, if you insist be ready to accept the consequences of ‘कौमुदे मासि = Karitka month’. In reality ‘कौमुदे मासि’ simple means month of lotuses. Now what specific month qualifies as month of lotuses will depend on ‘When (millennium CE or Millennium BCE) and ‘where’ (location of description).]

      (2) Let’s state the month of Magha reference from Anushasan parva you refer to.

      Anushasan 153:28

      माघोऽयं समनुप्राप्तो मासः पुण्यो युधिष्ठिर |
      त्रिभागशेषः पक्षोऽयं शुक्लो भवितुमर्हति ||२८||

      Now, we are ready to discuss your objection. However, I need TWO (2) more most crucial thing from you

      (3)

      Do you have either your own claim for the year of Mahabharata war or do you have a specific claim that you are convinced is better than my claim of 5561 BCE?

      (4) How do you arrive at this conclusion –

      “Hence autumn equinox would have been in karthik month.”

      based on Uydoya 81:7!?

      [If you are following conversations between Prof. Achar and I at Pragyata.com, this confusion of Kartika during autumnal equinox and yet Kartika occurring during Hemant season is the very reason Prof. Achar is claiming confused time interval of 3200 BCE through 1800 BCE for the Mahabharata.]

      Let me know and we can take this conversation further.

      Cheers!

      Nilesh Oak

      • Thank you for the reply. I like the analytical way you reply to criticism. Thank you for breaking down my criticism into bullet points. I will follow it up
        (1) कौमुदे मासि रेवत्यां शरदन्ते हिमागमे |
        स्फीतसस्यसुखे काले कल्यः सत्त्ववतां वरः ||७|

        If I understood it correctly you question कौमुदे as being Karthik month. There are plenty of reference outside mahabharatha from Puranas and Karthik Mahatmyas to prove that कौमुदे is the Karthik month. But when you give qualifiers “when” and “where” you question what कौमुदे meant in mahabharatha time. I will give two proofs from mahabharatha that conclusively proves कौमुदे is karthika masa.

        ->सप्तमाच्चापि दिवसादमावास्या भविष्यति। सङ्ग्रामो युज्यतां तस्यां तामाहुः शक्रदेवताम् ॥ 5-142-18
        ->एतैश्चान्यैश्च राजेन्द्रि पुरा मांसं न भक्षितम्। शारदं कौमुदं मासं ततस्ते स्वर्गमाप्नुवन्॥ 13-177-74

        The first one is the statement Krishna gives to Karna after talks broke down in Udyoga parva. This is same “when and where” as कौमुदे reference. In 7 days amavasya is coming which is presided by Shakra. The star for Shakra is Jyesta. Karthika month ends in amavasya near Jyesta. Clearly putting Bhagavat yana parva of Udyoga parva at Karthika masa.

        The second reference is from anushasana parva. Bhishma gives examples of meat abstinence in कौमुदं month. There is a continuous hindu tradition with reference to puranas and Karthik Mahatmyas of meat abstinence in karthika masa. Now if you have a different month for कौमुदं you must provide a solid reference from the scriptures to disprove कौमुदं=Karthika month.
        (2) माघोऽयं समनुप्राप्तो मासः पुण्यो युधिष्ठिर। त्रिभागशेषः पक्षोऽयं शुक्लो भवितुमर्हति॥ 13-273-2

        Clearly in the date you are suggesting (Even in case of Prof Achar) Uttarayana was not in the month of Magha. If I understand your proposed dates Uttarayana falls in Chaitra masa and in Professor Achar’s date Uttarayana falls in Phalguna masa. This reference from Bhishma was made just before he passed away. Unless there is a verse to says Bhisma did not pass away in Uttarayan or Bhisma did not pass away in Magha month both your date and Prof Achar’s date will contradict the statement.

        (3) I do not have a claim for mahabharatha date. I am just setting up a lower limit for dating mahabharatha.

        (4) When Uttarayan occurs in Magha month the autumn equinox will happen 3 months earlier in Karthik masa. Autumn equinox falls close to the period when Sharad gives way to Hemant. Hence (1) and (2) reinforce each other.

        I will catch up to your conversation with Prof Achar. I would like to see proof of why uttarayan in mahabharata does not fall in Magha and Autumn Equinox does not fall in Karthik masa. If we agree on these two facts then I guess you can see how the lower limit for mahabharatha date emerges.

        I Karthika masa sun can be anywhere from Chitra to Jyesta. But not further than Jyesta. In Magha masa Sun can be as far as Dhanista, not further. Based on Precession on Equinox the date of Mahabharatha cannot be lower than 3500B.C.

        I read with interest your Arundati-Vasista hypothesis. I do have a simpler explanation for it. Will post it in your AV hypothesis blog.

        Thanks,
        Krishnakumar

  7. Kesari Chakra, I did my preliminary analysis (thanks for sending appropriate pages from his book) and here is the gist of it. Claims of Shri David Frawley are confusing to the core and his arguments superficial and vague. Still, my study of Rigveda is limited and so I thought of asking the question to Shri Shirkant Talageri ji. He has given crisp responses to claims of David Frawley (in his communication with me). I will post them one of these days.

    Quick summary: Claims for ‘relative chronology’ of Shri David Frawley are without any merit. Of course, I encourage all interested in this subject to read both the books (one of Shri Shrikant Talageri and one by Shri David Frawley) and post their analysis, here.

  8. Krishnakumar ji

    Before we go any further, I want to ensure that I understood you right.

    When you write…

    “Based on Precession on Equinox the date of Mahabharatha cannot be lower than 3500B.C.”

    Do you mean to say the date of Mahabharata cannot be after 3500 BCE? (This is what your statement means. Although my guess is that you meant the exactly opposite, i.e. the date of Mahabharata can not be anytime before (earlier in the past) than 3500 BCE)

    Please clarify. And I will proceed with our discussion as and when time permits.

    Warm regards,

    Nilesh Oak

  9. When I say the lower limit of say 4508 BCE due to AV observation, what it means is that the date of Mahabharata is not possible after 4508 BCE, i.e. any time in last ~6500 years, Mahabharata did not happen.

    • I apologize for the confusion. I meant date cannot be earlier than 3500B.C. Sorry opposite of what you meant. I will post my simpler explanation of AV observation once I get a chance.

      Krishnakumar

      • Thanks. That is what I thought and thus wanted to clarify it.

        Here are some dictionary meanings for the word ‘Kaumudi’ (only food for thought). This is from http://spokensanskrit.org/

        कौमुदी f. kaumudI day of full moon in the month Azvina
        कौमुदी f. kaumudI metre
        कौमुदी f. kaumudI day of full moon in the month kArttika
        कौमुदी f. kaumudI moonshine
        कौमुदी f. kaumudI elucidation
        कौमुदी f. kaumudI water-lily
        कौमुदी f. kaumudI festival in general
        कौमुदी f. kaumudI moonlight
        कौमुदी f. kaumudI festival in honour of kArttikeya held on that day
        कौमुदिक adj. kaumudika abounding with them
        कौमुदिक adj. kaumudika relating to water-lilies
        कौमुदीचार n. kaumudIcAra day of full moon in month Azvina
        कौमुदीमह m. kaumudImaha festival of full moon
        कौमुदीपति m. kaumudIpati husband of the moonlight
        कौमुदीपति m. kaumudIpati moon
        कौमुदीतरु m. kaumudItaru stick of a lamp
        कौमुदीजीवन m. kaumudIjIvana living on the water-lily
        कौमुदीरजनी f. kaumudIrajanI moonlight night
        कौमुदीप्रचार m. kaumudIpracAra kind of game
        कौमुदीमहोत्सव m. kaumudImahotsava festival of full moon

  10. Of all the meaning there is only one relevant meaning for कौमुदे मासि (1). No other मासि has ever been called कौमुदे. No other month besides krittika ends in an amavasya at jyesta.

    • If you say that no other month (other than Kartika) is called Kaumude, then you don’t seem to understand the various alternate dictionary meanings I quoted.

      What I am saying is if someone takes Kaumude to mean Krittika, I will let him do it and the onus would be on that person to show how this is consistent with rest of the evidence (in this case, i.e. you).

      On the other hand, if you do not accept that others can take any of the alternate meanings from the list I quoted from the dictionary, then we have to stop. Because then the issue is of you not realizing that words (and especially in Sanskrit) take many meanings (that does not mean ANY meaning).

      Let me know.

      Regards,

      Nilesh Oak

    • The reference to Shakra Amavasya is not for discussion until we are through the discussion on Uydog 81:7. When done, you may bring in ‘Shakra amavasya reference’.


      Have you read my books?

      • Yes, I am familiar with your work. Onus of showing how rest of the evidences in Mahabharata line up if Kaumude is read as Krittika is not on me. I am merely doing purva paksha on your dates based on the first astronomical evidence from Udyoga parva and last astronomical evidence in Anushasana parva. Both do not agree with your dates.
        If you are going to read alternate meaning of kaumude mas and magha mas to fit the evidence to your theory the onus of proving the alternate meaning is on you. The accepted meaning of kaumude mas as Karthik mas is based on scriptures and from evidences in mahabharatha itself. Hasta means hand, aslesha means snake, kaumude means lotus etc can lead to wild and imaginative speculation. But speculation cannot be theory based on solid evidence.
        You will need solid evidence for alternate month that can be called Kaumude mas or magha mas and you will have to refute the evidence in mahabharatha reinforcing their meaning (month ending with amavasya in jyesta). Unless you can do it, your alternate dictionary meaning of Kaumude will be a speculation like the comet theory of Dr Achar.
        Please do not misunderstand me. I really appreciate the great work you are doing. I benefit a lot when I read from your work. You do inspire lot of young folks to take interest in researching Indian history. I am one of them.

      • (1) I am glad you are familiar with my work.

        (2) If all you are doing is purva-paksha and simply listing which evidence does not match with my date, then I can make your life easier by stating what else does not agree with my dates.

        (A) Udyoga 81:7 does not agree with my date (but not because of Kaumude = Kartika isssue, but because of ‘Sharadante-Himagame’. While at it, I may mention that Udyog 81:7 does not agree with rest of Mahabharata evidence , again due to ‘Sharadante-Himagame’

        (B) If you consider Magha as Nirayan Magha and not willing to consider assumption of ‘Adhika masa’ (made by many other researchers and I have to make the same too) then yes, Magha month will also not match for my date. I may also add that this mention of Magha will also not agree with rest of the Mahabharata evidence

        (C) The specifics of Balarama – He starting on Pushya nakshatra and returning on Shravana nakshatra after a Tirthyatra of Sarasvati will also not match for my date. I may add that no other researcher has successfully corroborated this reference of Balarama for their dates either. In addition, Rest of Mahabharata evidence will also not match with this reference of Balarama tirthayatra specifics (leaving on Pushya, arriving on Shravana on the last day of war and a total duration of 42 days)

        (D) There is a minor reference of Bhishma with his white dress and white helmet compared with the moon on the first day of War. That one reference also does not match for my date. Other researchers (100% of them) are simply not aware of this reference.


        Changing subject (but not really)..

        Let’s talk of Jyeshtha Amavasya

        (1) Do you agree that Jyeshtha (MBH uses the word Shakra) amavasya refers to the amavasya that occurs at the end of Kartika month?
        (2) Do you agree that lunar month of Kartika would occur every year?
        (3) Do you agree that Shakra (Jyeshta) amavasya would also occur every year?

        If your answer is YES to all 3 (none of them is tricky qustion, btw), then I can assure you that you will be convinced with my explanation for Jyeshtha amavasya.

        The reason I asked you earlier, if you have your own date for the year of Mahabharata war (or endorse one that is not 5561 BCE) was because…

        A scientific theory is not a absolute theory but it is all about having the best explanation among all alternate explanations and thus one does not appreciate the beauty of a theory unless one is in the midst of it and have experienced the problems first hand.

        As an illustration – Newton’s theory is better than Kepler and Einstein’s is better than Newton’s…yet Einstein wrote a great essay in praise of Kepler because having worked these theories himself, Einstein could appreciate Kepler’s discoveries by being in Kepler’s shoes.

        A person not familiar with this scientific method….instead of appreciating Newton’s theory (even though imperfect) may focus on inability of Newton’s theory to explain the orbital variations/perturbations of Mercury. That was the point I was making.

        Look forward to your response and then we proceed, again..Cheers!

        Nilesh

  11. Greetings Nilesh ji,

    Hope all is well at your end.
    Are you keeping up with latest critical reviews of the Mahabharata work?

    1) https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8m8BBAJP1WMRWNvZUtXbUJlSTg/view
    Page 310, last paragraph onward please 🙂

    And ofcourse …
    2) http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.co.uk/2018/01/challenging-nilesh-oaks-dates-of.html

    I am not demanding that you respond. Just in case you have the inclination 🙂

    Regards,
    Virendra

    • Virendra ji

      Thank you. I am aware of both individuals. I have had interaction with both of them (with first one via FB and with the second one in person). Both are nuts par excellence. First one is clueless about everything and the second one is extremely dogmatic to the extent any logical and rational conversation is next to impossible.

      So, I look at them in the optimistic sense of “There is no bad marketing”.

      • Namaste Sir,
        I am looking forward for your posts regarding the chronology of the Rigveda Mandals.

        Hope you don’t mind me asking more questions 😊😊😊😊😊

        I want to know your thoughts on the works of Andrew Collins and others who have stated that Rakshasa, Danavas and the Daityas are either Denisovans or Denisovan-Human hybrids.

        The people of Indonesia believe that their homeland is protected by the “Rakshasa” which is quite interesting.

        The Stegodon or Elephants with Four tusks as mentioned in the Ramayana was also in that region till at least 10000 BC

        The people of the region of Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei have 4%-5% Denisovan DNA while People of India have 1% Denisovan DNA even people of North and South America, where people like PV Vartak and you yourself say Raja Bali king of the Daityas went, have certain amount of Denisovan DNA so could these people have been Denisovan or Denisovan- Human hybrid people??

        Will EAGERLY wait for your reply 🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗🤗

  12. I am not familiar with the works on Andrew Collins. The only point I am eligible to comment is the word ‘Rakshasa’. One of the etymological/root for ‘Rakshasa’ is indeed ‘Raksham iti rakshasa’….i.e. those who protect and thus are called Rakshasa. Thus, Indonesian belief is closer to the truth and should not surprise anyone. Hope this helps.

    • Okay Sir,
      But I would recommend his book “Lost World of Human Hybrids”.
      I find it really interesting and gives us a new perspective that Ravan and his Family were Denisovan-Human Hybrids.
      And Ram who was a Human Being had to fight them.

      It might help in your further research on the Ramayan.

  13. One more thing got my attention.
    In your debate with Mr. Koenrad Elst you mentioned that research done by Shrimati Rupa Bhati on Agsatya will allow you to go beyond the 26000 BC timeline can you please elaborate on that??

      • Okay Sir,
        But I just need one clarification on this matter.

        PLEASE 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

        Mr PV Vartak has put parts of Mandal 4 & 2 of the Rigveda at a date 24000 BC or 23932 BC to be more precise based on the references of Rainy season starting at Mriga Nakshatra.

        Do you agree to that or do you have another date for these Mandals???

  14. About the Harappan Script Sir.
    I see that you have worked with both Sue Sullivan and Mr. S. Kalyanaraman.
    How would you compare their respective approaches to try and decipher the Harappan Script???
    Which approach in your opinion is more correct?

    • Sindhu Sarasvati script.

      I have only worked with Sue Sullivan. I have analyzed approach of S Kalyanaraman and of many others.

      Sue Sullivan is the best. This is not the final word, rather the first baby step.

      S Kalyanaraman’s is beyond my comprehension. He writes a lot and frequently and I receive all such emails from him. Unfortunately, none of what he writes passes the test of objectively testable evidence.

      A while ago, I read a paper by one Dr. Rao and few other from TIFR and felt it had a great potential (and still may have), I tried to contact them, even made an effort to connect them with Sue Sullivan. I will not go into the details, but in short, my efforts had no success.

  15. Kesari Chakra,

    Will you be kind (as always) to scan specific pages of Vartak’s work that refer to his rationale for placing Manadalas 4 and 2 around ~24K BCE.

    BTW, I do not see anything conflicting with this timeline. What we also need to be careful is to recognize that not all content of each Manadala was composed in a specific period.

    Rather what evidence shows us, is that certain content of a specific Mandala must belong to a certain period. I hope you see the distinction. (This principle applies to both, research in relative chronology or research in absolute chronology.

  16. Yash,

    Yes, Rajesh Rao from the University of Washington. I am convinced that if foundational work of Sue Sullivan is tested/explored further with computer algorithms developed by Rao and team, SSVC script research would progress in leaps and bounds.

    Thanks

    Nilesh

  17. Sir,
    We exchanged comments a while ago. My article on mahabharatha dating is ready. I am eagerly seeking peer review comments/feedback before I can put it in public domain. Would you be interested in reviewing my paper? I can send you the link to your email ID. I do not have yours. If you have concern sharing your email id in public, you can send me a test email at kkdr611@gmail.com.

    My work is in line with Shrikanth Talagiri’s work. I have shared it with him and received his initial feedback. Though it aligns with his work I have been heavily influenced by yours and Dr Narahari Achar’s methodology. I will be very grateful for your esteemed peer review/feedback.

    Thank you.

    • You can email me at NileshOak.5561BCE@gmail.com

      Look forward to read it. BTW, I hope you do recognize that my methodology (the logic of scientific discovery based on scientific acumen) is 180 degree opposite of Dr. Narahari Achar’s methodology (if his methodology can be called a methodology).

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s