Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 08 Jul 2017 06:28

Per the Board, Newest Member is

Non-Dravida?? Welcome to BRF.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 08 Jul 2017 06:56

Even now the Adam's bridge connecting Talai Mannar and Dhanushkodi is only 1 to 10 meter under water. If the water level back then was 80m lower than today then one could have easily built may be a 30 lane highway to SriLanka! A bathymetry contour map of the area should make that obvious.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 08 Jul 2017 06:59

Nilesh Oak wrote:
The more observations one fits, the further in the past the date goes.
How naive!

I hope this naivety was not driven by two sets of data.. 215+ observations of Mahabharata leading to 5561 BCE and 575+ observations of Ramayana leading to 12209 BCE! (More observations leads to further in the past!!)

The reality is far from such naivety. When one sits on these data sets and aspires to fit them as jigsaw puzzle, not only the initial reaction, but a recurrent reaction, as one goes on solving it, is predominantly ....Whaat the XXXX?

I don't think it's naivete, it could just be that AGupta's assumption is different from yours. Your assumption is - the astronomical observations are based on the actual date of the epics, as recorded by the author. So according to you, the number of observations in each epic has nothing to do with how far back that epic was written, it's just that the author of the Ramayana happened to insert more observations in his text than the author of the MB.

AGupta's assumption could be - these astronomical observations are simply random embellishments by the author(s). Therefore, the more observations there are, the less likely they will match closer to our present time, you need to go much further in antiquity to increase the probability of finding a matching time at which all these random "observations" line up exactly. IOW, your matching is simply a non-starter, since all you are doing is matching random fictional statements, and concluding that you've found the "time at which the epic happened."

So - different axioms to begin with.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 08 Jul 2017 07:03

A_Gupta wrote:14000 years before present, the sea level was some 80 meters or more lower than modern day levels.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

If the traditional geography of the Ramayana is accepted, nothing would need to be constructed to get to Lanka.

PS: The depth of the sea around Ram Sethu/Adam's Bridge is 10-12 meters for a wide area. 14,000 years ago this would have all been high above sea level.

AND

Don't let facts get in the way of a good story!

Listen to 1:35 through 1:39 (almost the end of the talk.. during Q&A). I respond to these issues. I have worked and am working with oceanographers and geologists around the world. Again, this is a great problem to investigate and solve, but only if one is already convinced about 14000 BP timeline for Ramayana.

On the other hand, this is not a falsification of 14000 BP claim for Ramayana, for the reasons I state during this 4 min segment.

And by any means, this is not the end of NEW problems... (Pushpak vimana, elephants with 3 and 4 tusks, long sleep of Kumbhakarna, on and on...I have them listed in my book including where one needs to research for the solutions). I have worked out issues such as elephants with 3/4 tusks, Long sleep of Kumbhakarna and many more.. but that is the stuff of future works.

For now.. watch 1:35 through 1:39 .

https://youtu.be/RedV48OCEFg

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 08 Jul 2017 07:19

Too much Berkeley-Stanford in that NASA article. Note that all the discussion is about North America and Greenland and Antarctica. What was happening in the rest of the world? Siberia/Russia/China? Australia? I think their numbers may be wildly wrong. I can imagine sea level being lower, but 80m (240 feet) lower? If this is the case, there must have been MANY human settlements that went under when the level rose. Unfortunately, I have no way of calibrating except that they don't present any evidence from the Eurasian land mass and Australia.

Maybe North America did not have a uniform ice sheet at all, because of the activity of the Yellowstone super volcano, as well as the Indonesian volcanos melting Asian ice sheets. The whole notion of Ice Ages may be quasi-bogus. Sure, there were glaciers in Montana, but I wonder about the rest.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 08 Jul 2017 07:26

BTW, has anyone paid attention to the Lakshadweep / Maladweep regions? Those are clearly volcano rims (I investigated them in detail while considering various CTs about MH370). A sea level drop of 50/80 meters would have opened up a huge sub-continent south and southwest of India. Probably connected to India. Is there mention of a huge volcanic explosion in those parts? Is this the source of the legend of the Parasurama Avatara creating Malloostan?

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 08 Jul 2017 07:46

Wikipedia says as per Temple's record Adam's Bridge was completely above water until 15th century and one could simply walk across. It went under water only in 1480.

It was reportedly passable on foot up to the 15th century until storms deepened the channel: temple records seem to say that Adam's Bridge was completely above sea level until it broke in a cyclone in 1480.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%27s_Bridge

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 08 Jul 2017 08:00

Regarding the timeline of the Ram setu connecitng India and Sri Lanka going underwater, it is observed that the animal species found in Sri Lanka are fairly different from those in mainland India This is especially true of terrestrial mammals such as Leopards, Elephants, Sloth bear etc. They are classified as different sub-species. This is viewed as a consequence of geographical isolation and slightly divergent evolution over a long period, definitely longer than 500-600 years.

Moreover, Tigers have never been found in Sri Lanka, though historically their habitat stretched to the very tip of India. One of reasons cited for Tigers being absent from Sri Lanka but Leopards being present is that by the time Tigers had spread to the very South of India, the land bridge connecting India and Sri Lanka had gone under water. This was again very long ago.

But then there is documented evidence that the bridge was passable on foot till very recently.

Is it possible that the water levels in this region fluctuated, rising and falling many a time over the years and therefore, the Ram setu and at the times of low water levels, the Ram setu was visible and passable on foot and at other times it was completely submerged.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 08 Jul 2017 08:07

Yes. The ice-age melt was not randomly sudden with flash floods. It happened for 1000s of years to raise up. [And periods of mad-monsoons (Krishna-Indra-Govardhan Hill-Rains) ending as well at around the same time / Saraswati dry up]

from 17-20k years back up to about 11-13k years back. It is my belief that both Ram Seth submerge & Saraswati dry up was because of the same or connected geological event.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 08 Jul 2017 08:12

I guess that is the right perspective. That 100-meter rise in ocean level must have happened with several fluctuations. I think the Lakshadweep/Maladweep area must have quite a story to tell if ever archaeology reaches there. Still surprising that there is no known mention of massive cataclysms befalling anywhere except Dvaraka. Is there nothing in Tamil lore about a vast empire being swallowed by the sea? No massive volcanic explosions/eruptions? The other thing I have not understood is the slope of the Deccan plateau. It comes down to sea level on the east coast, but ends in high mountains on the west.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jul 2017 08:58

UlanBatori wrote:The other thing I have not understood is the slope of the Deccan plateau. It comes down to sea level on the east coast, but ends in high mountains on the west.

This is because Aryans are trying to tilt the peninsula and throw Dravidians into the sea

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 08 Jul 2017 09:06

Interesting documentary, probably the right caption is "Flooded Kingdoms of The Ice Age"

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 08 Jul 2017 10:25

Simulation of coastline in 8,600 BC shows Sri Lanka was connected to mainland by a chunk of land several 100 KM wide.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 08 Jul 2017 10:59

shiv wrote:
UlanBatori wrote:The other thing I have not understood is the slope of the Deccan plateau. It comes down to sea level on the east coast, but ends in high mountains on the west.
This is because Aryans are trying to tilt the peninsula and throw Dravidians into the sea

An alternate theory is the Wendians are out to get the Endians! If you look closely the East has been uppressed by the West!
That is the sea faring TFTA (imagine Aishwarya Rai's people) are out to get SDRE Bengalis

Jokes aside... trace the Indian Sub-Continents drift from Africa on your favorite map app
(satellite mode to see the stretch marks in the Arabian sea...)

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 08 Jul 2017 11:03

shiv wrote:
Pulikeshi wrote: Indians of education must consider the word "Aryan" the equivalent of the N word for African origin people!
If someone uses this word to denote people, then he or she is a RACIST!
Well said

Pulikeshi is a man who long ago proved that he really has all the qualities that Srijoy boasted about. And he never said it. he simply showed it.

We are all learning through debate - been a while since we jousted - nice to see u fired up!

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 08 Jul 2017 17:00

Dipanker wrote:Simulation of coastline in 8,600 BC shows Sri Lanka was connected to mainland by a chunk of land several 100 KM wide.

Strangely the sea appears to have receded only in the Palk Straits while doing nothing at the Lakshadweep and Maldives. Perhaps this was taken before the Aryans tilted the Deccan down on the Southeast side while lifting it in worship to the West.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 08 Jul 2017 17:02

SaiK wrote:Yes. The ice-age melt was not randomly sudden with flash floods. It happened for 1000s of years to raise up. [And periods of mad-monsoons (Krishna-Indra-Govardhan Hill-Rains) ending as well at around the same time / Saraswati dry up]

from 17-20k years back up to about 11-13k years back. It is my belief that both Ram Seth submerge & Saraswati dry up was because of the same or connected geological event.

Geological events are driven through 3 known key mechanisms (there could be additional mechanisms)

(1) Plate -tectonics

(2) Earth crust displacement (Charles Hapgood presented this theory with much evidence...but had faced resistance from mainstream academia.. but then they did not respond to his objections to their models. They did not explain the evidence he had discussed)

(3) Sudden/abrupt events, due to above two but also other reasons... such as Tsunami, earthquakes (partly due to above two), meteor strikes etc..

--
As to raising of water levels, these happened slowly and continuously (so to say) , but also with abrupt and local rise too. Evidence for this comes from all over the world - Arabian sea, coast of Maine, Agean sea/Black sea region, Bahamas/Barbados. Atlantic has evidence for 3 recent CREs (Crtical rise events) around 12000 BCE, ~9000 BCE and 5600 BCE, each of them with 5-10 meters sudden rise in sea levels.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 08 Jul 2017 17:24

sudarshan wrote: I don't think it's naivete, it could just be that AGupta's assumption is different from yours. Your assumption is - the astronomical observations are based on the actual date of the epics, as recorded by the author. So according to you, the number of observations in each epic has nothing to do with how far back that epic was written, it's just that the author of the Ramayana happened to insert more observations in his text than the author of the MB.

AGupta's assumption could be - these astronomical observations are simply random embellishments by the author(s). Therefore, the more observations there are, the less likely they will match closer to our present time, you need to go much further in antiquity to increase the probability of finding a matching time at which all these random "observations" line up exactly. IOW, your matching is simply a non-starter, since all you are doing is matching random fictional statements, and concluding that you've found the "time at which the epic happened."

So - different axioms to begin with.

My objections was not about any actual or assumed background assumptions of Shir Gupta ji or my own..

This is what he wrote...

The more observations one fits, the further in the past the date goes.

Is this true? I assert it is not, but willing to be proven wrong.

Try this yourself. (1) Pick two specific dates (2) Then generate number of astronomy descriptions for that date using Voyager/stellarrium, etc. (3) How many observations you want to generate is really up to you. This has nothing -nada- to do with if which of the two dates is older.

That was my limited point.
--
In addition, I called it naive...

because, as I said, at a layman level, it is ok to say that all astronomy observations are fitted to a specific date not unlike fitting a polynomial through data points. But only as a layman's explanation.

Reality is, of course, far more complicated.

The astronomy observations are spread out through out the epic(s). They are not always in the form of "planet x is in conjunction with nakshatra y' but include descriptions of seasons, chronological references, lunar Tithis related to certain events, phases and positions of the moon....and what that leads to...

(1) Unique observations may help define lower and upper bounds

(2) Not so unique but observations affected by long term phenomenon (Precession) may allow to place additional constraints

(3) rest of the data gets splits into numerous subgroups which may allow to estimate (note) plausible timing of certain events.

Then, this may all come together as a Jigsaw puzzle, and more likely, with few pieces still missing...leaving one in doubt whether the final product/creature is an ass or horse! The pieces that might have determined this distinction and led to assured finality may not be found. Further, one is left with few pieces that fit nowhere, but even worse, can be shown that they WILL NOT fit with rest of the pieces.

So the usage of data in the final outcome is more along the lines of a painting.. some of the data was used to do pencil drawing, other sets to draw the objects, still others to add color and still other to add shades and gloss.

This is not a nth order polynomial fitting exercise.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 08 Jul 2017 17:43

That Ganga should be mispronounced to Ganges (since it is the holiest of the holy rivers for the Hindus) and not say the Narmada is not an accident.

TM ji,
OT nitpick.Angrez were equal oppurtunity offenders.Narmada was called Nerbudda by them.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 08 Jul 2017 19:18

That's quite OK. Oiropeans were called "Oora Thappiyavans" by Malloostanis. Very logical as always: the legend is that the first English came to India and saw the monkeys sitting on trees, tails majestically hanging down. They recognized the resemblance to themselves immediately but were puzzled at the one difference: so they felt around for a tail on their musharrafs (Oora) and thus became The Searcher (Thappiyavan).

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 08 Jul 2017 19:57

Nilesh Oak wrote: My objections was not about any actual or assumed background assumptions of Shir Gupta ji or my own..

This is what he wrote...

The more observations one fits, the further in the past the date goes.
Is this true? I assert it is not, but willing to be proven wrong.

...

No disagreements, just pointing out that some people perceive it that way. I.E., they think the whole "astronomical dating" business is an exercise in futility, they think that if an author today were to create a piece of fiction and playfully insert astronomical details into this work, then somebody in the future who looks at these details will always find a time at which all these astronomical "observations" could have lined up, but that time will not match the time of creation of the fiction. IOW, if I were to write a novel today, in 2017, and if I were to say "sun was in Swati, moon in Moola, mars was retrograde in Jyeshtha," etc., all just randomly based on my own imagination, then somebody in say 20,000 AD who wanted to know when my novel was written, who looked at these astronomical observations as a clue, would try tracing them back, and find that they actually lined up in (say) 1156 AD. So the conclusion of this future investigator, that the novel was written in 1156 AD, would be totally erroneous.

That is also the way many lay people perceive it, they don't see any point in astronomical dating at all, since all the observations could be purely fictional and imaginative. And these people would agree with AGupta's statement, that the more such fictitious observations that have been inserted in the novel, the farther back the matching date would be, just from a pure probabilistic point of view.

Edit: Yes, they do think of it as polynomial fitting, like if there are more observations, then you need a higher order polynomial. I agree that the reality of astronomical dating is far more complex.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 08 Jul 2017 19:59

UlanBatori wrote:That's quite OK. Oiropeans were called "Oora Thappiyavans" by Malloostanis. Very logical as always: the legend is that the first English came to India and saw the monkeys sitting on trees, tails majestically hanging down. They recognized the resemblance to themselves immediately but were puzzled at the one difference: so they felt around for a tail on their musharrafs (Oora) and thus became The Searcher (Thappiyavan).

For real, Europeans were called that by Malloos?

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 08 Jul 2017 20:13

Would UBCNews present anything except the 400% truth, hain? Yes, that is quite accurate, seriously. One of many legends carefully instilled in children in the pre- and post- Independence periods. Other legends along those lines would probably derail this fine thread, so we will refrain. You didn't think that a people represented by Appu below, did not have their own objective scientific research and communications to deal with obnoxious colonial bullies?

Engineering college smart-ass gang bullying the humble waiter in chai-shop:
"Appu, we have decided that we have been very unkind to you for the past 4 years. We won't make fun of you any more.
Appu: "Saaranmare, that is very nice. if you won't bully me, then I won't biss in your tea any more either.

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 08 Jul 2017 20:29

Far away from Ulan Bator, but in nearby Palakkad, the word "European" has a similar etymology.

Since Aryans are not savages like Dravidians (who clean their bottoms with water), the master race wiped theirs with papyrus. The end result was oftentimes an unsatisfactory wet residue sticking to their netherlands.

Hence: Eera (wet) + Peeyan (cr@pper) = European

Prem Kumar · Post by **Prem Kumar** » 08 Jul 2017 21:27

A_Gupta's post brings up an interesting POV, an axiom if you will.

Axiom: "You can arbitrarily introduce any number of random astronomical observations post-fact & there will always be a date-range in which these will fit"

This axiom, if true would call into question the validity of archaeo-astronomy itself. That's a big if though.

Other than Nilesh here, no one has worked extensively on the astronomy software. So, he is the best person to answer this axiom: is it true?

Nilesh, in his video, talks about 2 kinds of astronomical observations:

Type (1) Frequently recurring phenomena caused by near-earth events like eclipses, phases of moon etc
Type (2) Rarely occurring phenomena caused by earth axis' precession like Arundhati-Vasishta, name of Pole Star etc

I reckon its far easier to interpolate Type (1) observations post-fact. Its far more harder to insert more than 1, mutually consistent Type (2) observations post-fact. So, I propose we look at the # of Type (2) observations. If there are several of them and they converge to a specific date range, its less likely to be a later interpolation. This is the reason why I asked Nilesh if there were other observations that corroborated the Arundhati-Vasishta date range, to which he replied in the affirmative

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 08 Jul 2017 21:36

What about comet observations? Surely there must be quite a few in the Puranas.

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 08 Jul 2017 21:44

plus later interpolation would also mean at least hundred of years old. Indians did not have supercomputer to accurately predict start movements and insert them so that in 21st century, a country called US and an agency called NASA, using its super computer called deep blue can decipher all this. The most logical explanation is that it happened and people recorded them as it happened.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 08 Jul 2017 21:51

Fanne ji, I don't think you grasped the implications of what AGupta seems to be suggesting. The premise here (though AGupta didn't explicitly state it) is that you can just arbitrarily make up observations (limited by your imagination alone) and put them in the epics, and there will be some date or the other where these observations will match. It just so happens that for the MB, the match was in 5565 BC, and for the Ramayana, it was around 12,000 BC.

I've worked with this astronomy stuff a little (not to the extent Nilesh Oak has), and I'm fairly certain it's not that simple.

UB, yes, there are comet observations. Nilesh Oak in his Ramayana dating book mentions that he found the initial estimate for the Ramayana date based on a comet observation (Halley's, I think)? And Nilesh ji also said that since in the Ramayana, this comet was first mentioned by Lakshman, and that since this is the earliest known human reference to this comet, that this comet should be called "Comet Lakshman" and not "Halley's Comet."

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 08 Jul 2017 21:54

UlanBatori wrote:What about comet observations? Surely there must be quite a few in the Puranas.

Yes, they are.

The facts that there are more than 200 known comets, further classified into long and short trajectories...means they are seen frequently, especially when one is talking of events separated by 1000s of years.

Thus, comet observations are useful in fine tuning dates, but are of limited value in assigning lower and upper limits on the timing of specific event under study.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 08 Jul 2017 21:58

sudarshan wrote:UB, yes, there are comet observations. Nilesh Oak in his Ramayana dating book mentions that he found the initial estimate for the Ramayana date based on a comet observation (Halley's, I think)? And Nilesh ji also said that since in the Ramayana, this comet was first mentioned by Lakshman, and that since this is the earliest known human reference to this comet, that this comet should be called "Comet Lakshman" and not "Halley's Comet."

Chapter 7 - Needle in a Haystack (celestial neede, that is) in The Historic Rama.

The comet is/was not Halley's. The comet (Laxman) was useful in proposing year of Rama-Ravana yuddha, and in turn ...rest of the chronological events of Ramayana.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 08 Jul 2017 22:06

Prem Kumar wrote:I reckon its far easier to interpolate Type (1) observations post-fact. Its far more harder to insert more than 1, mutually consistent Type (2) observations post-fact. So, I propose we look at the # of Type (2) observations. If there are several of them and they converge to a specific date range, its less likely to be a later interpolation. This is the reason why I asked Nilesh if there were other observations that corroborated the Arundhati-Vasishta date range, to which he replied in the affirmative

(1) Assuming sophisticated back calculations (as good as modern simulations based on post newton/Lagrange corrections assisted by Hubble telescope measurements) was possible, say, 2000 years+ ago, and assuming that is what was used by likes of what we call today Vyasa or Valmiki,

We are looking at the grandest conspiracy of all time, not just limited to India, but through entire existence of Humanity.

But then belief does not need evidence.

(2) Unfortunately, even if someone considers above as a possibility, the likes of Vyasa and Valmiki did not rely only on sophisticated astronomy algorithms but would have had to borrow sophisticated algorithms from fields of hydrology (Sarasavati, Satlaj, Yamuna), Geology (global maps), climatology and oceanography. This is a minimum requirements.

Of course, as the evidence grows, from these and other fields, conspiracy will only get deeper.

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 08 Jul 2017 22:12

Nilesh Oak wrote: ...
https://youtu.be/RedV48OCEFg

Nilesh-ji, I watched the entire discussion. Compelling and khup changle kaam kele aahe. Saglya, skeptics and counter arguments madhey kuthlya counter argument var saarvat jasta vichar karava lagla?

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 08 Jul 2017 22:19

Sudarshanji, the trouble with "random events cooked up by imaginative fiction-writers" is that they will yield a random pattern, unless everyone latched on to the same first imagined fictional event. So in my view, this quickly distills only one realistic possibility other than the truth: the first astronomical description in the epics/ Vedas was imagination. I find that very hard to defend. Let us put on our Treta-Yugic sandals and imagine ourselves sitting on Valmiki's ant-hill or Vyasa's riverbank rock. These writers had very serious missions, and reputations. Why would someone one day declare something like "Arundhati walked before Vashishta"? It would only get them laughed-at. Their eyesight and sobriety would be questioned. They could invent something much more plausible such as crows flying upside down or a 3-tusked boar. Or, say, an observation that Arundhati was seen rapidly closing in on Vasishta to bonk him on the head, then rapidly retreating. One had to be watching closely to see this event, etc.

We see nothing of the sort, just a very calm observation that Arundhati was walking ahead of Vasishta. Note that this would be heresy too unless it was corroborated by the readers of that time: Arundhati's reputed nature was such that she would not be caught dead walking in front of Vasishta, and Vashishta, the Ideal Hubby would surely speed up to prevent his beloved Ideal Bibi from committing any such faux pas leading to bad Karma. So "Arundhati preceding Vasishta" is not credible, and would be considered utterly unacceptable in a serious book, unless it happened to be known to be true.

So we come down to the conclusion that there is no imaginable motivation for someone to cook up astronomical patterns in the Vedic/epic eras. Thus I think Guptaji's question, though a good one, also has a good and thorough answer.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 08 Jul 2017 22:34

chanakyaa wrote:
Nilesh Oak wrote: ...
https://youtu.be/RedV48OCEFg
Nilesh-ji, I watched the entire discussion. Compelling and khup changle kaam kele aahe. Saglya, skeptics and counter arguments madhey kuthlya counter argument var saarvat jasta vichar karava lagla?

Thank you. None of the arguments were new or original and majority of them were driven by logical fallacy.

sudarshan · Post by **sudarshan** » 08 Jul 2017 22:43

UB, actually, AGupta didn't explicitly ask this question. I was the one who went off on a tangent, deducing the axiom from which AGupta's original statement (below) could have come:

The more observations one fits, the further back the date will go

(paraphrasing)

That said, this is a very common question from lay people, one that I've come across a couple of times as well - "how do you know the astronomical observations aren't entirely fictional to begin with?"

That said, yes, the question has a good and thorough answer. The AV observation especially is hard to bracket as simply "fiction." Kudos to Nilesh ji for zeroing in on this observation, which is great corroboration for his (and Vartak's) proposed date. The beauty is that this fits so well into the Indian cultural scene - a wife (or bride) walking ahead of her husband around the sacred fire would be very unusual indeed, if not unheard of, so when it was observed in the night sky with Arundhati and Vashishta, it would have been interpreted as a sign of unusual times. Of course, the identification of the stars as Arundhati and Vashishta would itself have been based on the cultural norm - Vashishta would have been defined in such a way as to be ahead of Arundhati in the direction of rotation around the NCP (North Celestial Pole).

The clincher for me, from this A/V observation, was the fact that (as Nilesh ji explains in his MB dating book) initially, he could not reproduce this observation at all, using the Voyager software. So he was at the point of declaring the observation as not corroborating the timeline proposed by the rest of the observations. Then he thought of including (or turning on in the software) the phenomenon of "proper motion of stars," and then he found that there was a one-time event, where A was indeed ahead of V in the night sky. This event was not periodic, i.e., could not be observed before that specific instance, nor has it occurred after to present time.

Sorry Nilesh ji, if I'm giving away too many spoilers (I'll stop if I am). But this has already been discussed to death in the archaeo-astronomy thread, so I thought it was okay. Plus, it would generate interest in your book

.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 09 Jul 2017 00:41

Don't we just love our morning cup of Soma! Soma most likely is amanita muscaria. Display of such fertile imagination can only be attributed to a dose of choicest mushroom!

On the brighter side the story of Arundhati walking in front of Ashwasthama Naro va Kunjaro...oops excuse my Soma, I mean Vashistha!! points to antiquity of Sanskrit language as Arundhati and Vashistha being both Sanskrit names, Sanskrit must be older than 12,000 BC!

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 09 Jul 2017 01:15

Their names may have been like that onlee, but not written in Devanagari.
Probably Arundhati was pronounced as "Grrrrr!!!" and Vasishta as "Purrrrrrrr!" before they ascended to the skies. Note that the names are descriptive of characteristics. For example, long after I am vaporized, I am sure I will be known as "The Kind, Gentle and Reasonable" But I wouldn't want to be called that at present, no thanks!

For instance, can u imagine being in elementary school with a name like ViswaMitra?

OTOH, if Smt. A had only known that in the Kali Yuga there would be someone named A**** Roy, she would have demanded a name change.

Also, the association of "Soma" with Kingfisher is a bit dubious, IMO.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 09 Jul 2017 01:25

Prem Kumar wrote:I reckon its far easier to interpolate Type (1) observations post-fact. Its far more harder to insert more than 1, mutually consistent Type (2) observations post-fact. So, I propose we look at the # of Type (2) observations. If there are several of them and they converge to a specific date range, its less likely to be a later interpolation. This is the reason why I asked Nilesh if there were other observations that corroborated the Arundhati-Vasishta date range, to which he replied in the affirmative

To add, to your thoughts, take for example this alternate set of observations (Bhishma Nirvana) that also leads to lower limit of 4700 BCE (and upper limit of ~7000 BCE), further tightening plausible time interval due to AV observation.

The observations from this set are spread throughout the Mahabharata text. Even if we ignore summary statements from first Parva (Adi) referring to 18 days of the war and describing events of Bhishma Nirvana...

We are still left with specific astronomy, chronology, seasons, day of winter solstice, and such references that begin with Udyoga parva, and continue through Bhishma, Drona, Karna, Shalya, Sauptic, Stri, Shanti and Anushasan parva. They are so spread out that unless someone has a context to even bother paying attention to them, they would have been ignored as simple statements with no relevance. Well, that is exactly what happened until now, to the extent that I have spent good part of last 4+ years (2012+) in simply making people aware of these references (although included in my first book ...as early as 2011).

The impact of 'arbitrary and selective (deliberate or otherwise) set of references repeated carelessly is such that people are shocked and refuse to believe that the references I quote are part of the Mahabharata text. The situation is/was so pathetic. Never mind, they comprehending the implications of these observations. That is when I realized I have to write a separate book - Bhishma Nirvana (in works).

The number I employ (23+) for the set of Bhishma Nirvana references are for the sake of convenience and brevity. In reality, many additional references can be and should be considered to be part of this data set. For example, astronomy observations such as Kartika full moon is already over or that Kartika Vadya Chaturdashi is also over before the first day of the war (Bhishma 2 and 3) or that Arjuna, after the war and after Bhishma Nirvana left for collecting wealth and returned to Hastinapur/Indraprastha and this was around the full moon of Chaitra (Ashwamedha Parva). These additional observations when combined with 23+ (mentioned in the blog link below - from Stri, Shanti and Anushasan) lead to plausible time interval of 4700 BCE through ~7000 BCE, for the timing of Mahabharata war.

https://nileshoak.wordpress.com/2016/08 ... den-bloom/

This conclusion is independent of AV observation.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 09 Jul 2017 02:17

sudarshan wrote:Sorry Nilesh ji, if I'm giving away too many spoilers (I'll stop if I am). But this has already been discussed to death in the archaeo-astronomy thread, so I thought it was okay. Plus, it would generate interest in your book .

Thank you. What you are doing is distribution of knowledge, a dharma-kartavya.

As many BRFites know, I gave away books both in paperback and in PDF. I am not allowed to do that anymore (at least not the PDFs) due to some publishing rules, however those who have them already can forward to those who are interested in them, as much as they like.

I sent 50+ paper copies, of my both books, to well known Indic researchers around the world. Only one researcher responded.

Implication of AV observation is not unlike wisdom of Bhagavad Gita (same Parva - Bhishma Parva). Even if it is in the open, only those who are capable of it can absorb it.

It is indeed a fortunate thing, that 1000s more have comprehended it in last few years. (Daivam chaivatra panchamam).

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 09 Jul 2017 03:33

Cameroonians Speak Tamil? Another example of OIT?? I have no idea, I don't speak/understand tamil. I thought one word was in Punjabi!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWyAYGlFZjk&t=8s