Two questions: UC3 & timing of epic events vs writing of the epics

AKS wrote,

” Precision of Equinox is 25,920 years, keeping that in view your research area is dating Ramayana and Mahabharata; You have placed it in current equinox cycle, dating Mahabharata – 7000 years, Ramayana – 14000 years ago wrt to current.

Precise question is why it cannot be placed in any of the previous equinox’s – what unique celestial constant condition stops us to do that.

(on lighter note a nomenclature UC3 – Unique celestial constant condition)

My response,

In case of Mahabharata, AV observation is a unique phenomenon that occurred only once in the past.  thus for Mahabharata, AV observation is UC3.
 
In case of Ramayana, no UC3, per say, however, the latest Rama-Ravana yuddha could have occurred was before 10,000 BCE or in 12209 BCE.
AKS wrote,

Ramayana and Mahabharata have astrological instances which are the basis of your research.The respective texts have been written by Valmiki and Ved Vyasa.

Can we assume they were not written but orally transferred and in later years they were written?

Can it happen that celestial positions of that time have been considered and real event if ever it had happened have happened much earlier?

My response,

We can assume anything we like.  There is nothing in principle that can conflict with your assumption.  
 
However few things to consider.  If you make such an assumption (in fact, it is not just an assumption but a conjecture.. new theory), you should have natural inclination to validate it.  Otherwise, it is to be seen as wasteful imagination with no purpose.
 
Also, any theory is always proposed to solve an unsolved problem not solved by previous attempts. So, a question can be asked.. what specific unsolved problem you are trying to solve by making this specific conjecture?
 
This conjecture would also make Valmiki and Vedvyasa as brilliant poets but not rooted in reality.  Enough references in Ramayana and Mahabharata exist to show that they were contemporary of Ramayana & Mahabharata times, respectively.  One can not selectively ignore these references only because they conflict with one’s theory.
 
The hydrology/geology/geophysics/morphodynamic evidence of river Sarasvati and its tributaries,  from Rigveda, Ramayana and Mahabharata fits amazingly well for the chronology I have proposed (6th millennium BCE for Mahabharata, 13th millennium BCE for Ramayana, and 6th through 20th millennium BCE and beyond for Rigveda), like a beautiful zigsaw puzzle.
Thus, your theory would be forced to consider this hard scientific evidence from multiple and totally unrelated disciplines (textual references, astronomy, hydrology, geology, oceanography, seismology, genealogy records of kings and sages, etc.)  as a deep conspiracy that goes beyond epics (to Rigveda).  Your theory would have to assume a deep collaboration/conspiracy between 13th millennium BCE Valmiki and 6th millennium BCE Vyasa and composers/seers of Vedic hymns who composed oldest mandalas (6, 3, 7, 2) long before 20th millennium BCE.
 
There are many more issues that can be raised against the theory you have proposed.  But this will do.  At this point ‘Occam’s razor’ would apply since we are talking about a ‘scientific theory’.
 
Occam’s razor would assess that your theory creates more problems than it solves. and, at least, based on your short note, it is not clear what specific problem(s) your theory intends to solve.

 

 

 

 

 

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 )

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