On the chronology of Mahabharata War: 5561 BCE vs 3067 BCE – Part 3

In this part, I will respond to the comment made by Prof. Achar related to Arundhati-Vasishtha (AV) observation, i.e. point#5.

Prof. Achar states in his point#5

(5) At the time of 5561 BCE, Arundhati is leading Vasistha for about 5000 years. Can one regard AV observation as an omen? Prof. Achar comments that he can not consider it as an omen.

There is so much wrong and objectionable in the above comment of Prof. Achar that response to such a claim would fill an entire book.  I would avoid the temptation and try to be as brief as possible.

The confusion of Prof. Achar and his emphasis on ‘omen’ character of this observation, albeit wrongly placed, is due to his lack of understanding of my theory.  My theory is not the theory of omens or the theory of astronomy omen observations.  These two theories are very interesting theories, however, I am not aware of anyone proposing them for their claims.  All I can assert is that it is not my theory. So what is my theory?

It is important to comprehend the logic of scientific method in order to understand what is demanded of a scientific theory, how its consequences are calculated and how it is objectively tested with the help of evidence.

Framework - Scientific method

Here is the necessary information about my theory as it relates to 5 key elements of the scientific method:

  1. All astronomy observations of the Mahabharata text are visual, actual, factual observations of the sky of the Mahabharata times.
  2. All astronomy and associated observations from the Mahabharata text add up to 300+ and all of them must be objectively tested.
  3. Objective testing was carried out with the help of mathematical calculations and/or astronomy simulations (e.g. Voyager 4.5)
  4. Inferences (or corroboration for existing inference) were drawn based on triangulation of evidence via objective testing.  Each piece of evidence was tested either individually or in a group (as appropriate) and the inferences were drawn based on logical reasoning.
  5. The background knowledge includes modern astronomy, Indian astronomy, Luni-solar calendar, the precession of the Earth’s axis and proper motions of the stars.

[While on the subject of the statement of a theory, I encourage readers to identify, in works of these Mahabharata researchers or request other Mahabharata researchers (not limited to Prof. Achar), the clear statements of their theories. The responses readers will receive (or not receive) will allow them to further distinguish the quality of my work on the Mahabharata chronology from the rest of Mahabharata researchers.]

Do recognize that Prof. Achar does recognize the revolutionary nature of my work on AV observation, making it objectively testable and that ‘Arundhati walking ahead of Vasistha’ is only valid during the time interval of 11091 BCE through 4508 BCE.

It is worth mentioning that Mahabharata researchers are investigating AV observation for at least 100+ years (e.g. CV Vaidya, PV Kane, PV Vartak, RN Iyengar) with no success.

The AV observation and my testing of it have defined the standard of what an ‘unambiguous’ evidence ought to look like.  This ought to be a cause for celebration by all Indians and all Mahabharata researchers. Interestingly, while the majority of Indians and Mahabharata enthusiasts who become aware of AV observation and its implication are elated and amazed by its implications for the history of Hindu civilization, the reaction of the majority of Mahabharata researchers is that of fear and panic.  This reaction of fear and panic is understandable, however, it is emotional and short-sighted.  The short-sighted panic is due to the simple fact that this single observation (AV observation) falsified, as a case of best scientific evidence, all claims for the year of Mahabharata war after 4508 BCE, i.e.  96+% of all  130+ existing claims!

All revolutionary theories and corresponding validating experiments/evidence lead to the overthrowing of much of the existing theories.  This was true of  Copernicus theory of Heliocentric planetary model, Galileo’s telescopic observation that led to ‘celestial=terrestrial’, Kepler’s theory of ‘elliptical planetary orbits’, Newton’s theory of force at a distance between inertial bodies or Einstein’s theory of relativity. There are many more such examples.

Let’s return to the objection of Prof. Achar

A reader may notice that my theory has no place for ‘Omens’ and thus anyone (such as Prof. Achar) trying to divert the topic away from objective testing of ‘astronomy evidence’ and shifting the discussion to ‘Why or why not AV observation qualifies as omen’ is worthy of rebuke, per logical reasoning.

In fact, sage Gotama’s Nyaya-darshan is full of advice on when the rebuke is in order and diversion created by Prof. Achar qualifies for numerous suggestions for a rebuke from the Nyayadarshana.  The explanation of these reasonings (for rebuke)  would demand detailed discussion and undesired digression  (I encourage interested readers to read Nyaya-sutras, in the original, especially Book 1 and Book 5).  To keep this discussion brief,  I am going to select only one such suggestion from Nyayadarshana to show the futility of Prof. Achar’s digression.

स्वप्रतिपक्षस्थापनाहीनो “वितंडा ” (गोतम  न्यायसूत्र १. २. ३ )

For a minute and only hypothetically speaking, let’s assume that criticism in point #5 made by Prof. Achar is valid.  Now, irrespective of the validity of his criticism, there is a demand on Prof. Achar (or anyone claiming a year of Mahabharata war after 4508 BCE)  to show how this very observation (Arundhati-Vasishtha)- AV observation is corroborated for Prof. Achar’s own claim of 3067 BCE.  It is important to mention that the mere (1) explanation is not enough but the objectively testable instance should also lead to (2) the inference of 3067 BCE.  I have explained these two critical requirements here:

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2018/04/10/meaning-purpose-of-objective-testing/

Prof. Achar fails on both the counts.  He is incapable of explaining AV observation astronomically for his claim of 3067 BCE and he is also unable to show how any objectively testable instance of AV observation would lead to the year of 3067 BCE.  Therefore what Prof. Achar is doing here is pure ‘”वितंडा ”  and thus deserves a rebuke.

If Prof. Achar does not agree with my charge on him doing वितंडा (cavil), he must explain AV observation for his claim of 3067 BCE and also show how it can be objectively tested and how the consequent inference of it leads to his claim of 3067 BCE.  Of course, Prof. Achar will also have to explain the omen character of AV observation for 3067 BCE.

Prof. Achar is not the first one to confuse mixing of omen aspect with astronomy aspect of AV observation.  Shri Shrikant Talageri (and also Dr. Koenraad Elst) objected along the same line a few years ago and I  provided a befitting reply (both of them have not responded to my rebuttal).  I showed that if their demand for the theory of astronomy omen observation, which they were clueless how to develop (their participation was limited to ‘वितंडा’) is indeed developed (I demonstrated how it could be developed, how it could be objectively tested and how it can be validated via evidence), it leads to amazing consequences that assert deep antiquity for Indian astronomy.

To truly comprehend the beauty of my reply, I encourage readers to read all 8  parts of my response.  The links are here:

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/

To summarize; unless Prof. Achar explains AV observation in the context of 3067 BCE and shows its objective testing which in turn leads to 3067 BCE (oh, and he better not forget to explain the omen characteristic of it, too!), his claim made in Point#5 stands rejected.

We will return to other points in future posts.

To be continued…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “On the chronology of Mahabharata War: 5561 BCE vs 3067 BCE – Part 3

  1. Nice one sir. I saw the video of the group discussion, and I noted with sadness a little amount of bitterness in the ideas of Prof. Achar. Dr Kak, who I admire a lot, also was not very sympathetic. It is sad that a finding like this should be discussed and finalized by our scholars and effectively become a mainstream idea. ‘The feel good’ factor which Dr Kak talked about is hardly an issue. Why is so much resistance from Indian authorities themselves? Let there be a solid symposium on the chronology of Mahabharata and seal the issue once and for all. This infighting does not augur well for our newly emerging ideas of India.

    • This is all true. But old guard is very much a populist crowd. Sure, they may throw in science for credibility, however, it appears that the priority is about becoming popular. They are not opposed to the truth if it can be had along the way.

      The mistake of Indians is to fall into the trap of ‘authorities’. In Adhyatma or science, there is a method, a process, evidence and attempts of past seekers and researchers for anyone to evaluate. It should be seen as an inspiration and be used for guidance. Nothing more.

  2. I am personally convinced and have faith in occurence of Mahabharat etc.

    While I have having debates about it being real or myth I put my logic that there are positions of planets and related events, and archeological evidences of Dwarka city by ASI. In support of all this happened

    I could not counter one question, could it not be like a fictional writing just as today one would write in the context of current social issue and with geographic location that a boy born in Bangalore andso on……

    It could be fiction regarding the character which could set up ideal situation and philosophy for future generations to make that thing more realistic.

    I couldn’t counter this logic.

    I know it’s modern thought to deliberately rationalise things and make things look close to reality, it doesn’t matter what the truth is.

    How to reply to such senceless questions.

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