Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 02 Aug 2012 20:46

RajeshA, ji,

Try doing an experiment (Yukteshwar write up on Yugas), using my analogy of triangle - Explanation-prediction-testing

I could not figure out what problem he (or writer, Yogananda?) is trying to solve (Prediction). I could not understand how they were planning to test their theories (testing).

They have provided explanation. Fine. While I can not comment on Sun's position to Vishnu Nabhi and its effect on human intellect, his comment that King Parikshit was ruling the WHOLE WORLD, and since he did not know science of calendrics, knowlege of Calenders was lost. To me, all hot air.

They have made various claims - but where is evidence of hard work to do something with that information.

Now defenders of that write up will say that P. Yogananda had different purpose in writing his biography, etc. So it's a claim that we don't know how to test or what to do with it.

Anyone can make claims. Mr. Hegel (Germany fame) proved, merely by thought, the 'law of gravity' and 'elleptical orbits for planets', only 150 years after Newton, and only 200+ years after Kepler.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 02 Aug 2012 20:56

RajeshA wrote: That is from today's PoV. The question is whether those who lived in Dwapara Yuga, used any Dwapara Yuga-based calendar to timestamp the events of that time. Can we see such timestamps in the scriptures?

RajeshA ji,

Various characters of Mahabharata agree that the timing of Mahabharata was that of Dwapara yuga. (refer to pages 142-146 of my book).

We can also say that phenomena of Arundhati going ahead of Vasistha occurred only once (11091 BC -4508 BC) in the past.

This is a great 'Time Stamp'.

I may have a 'Time stamp' (not as unique as Arundhati observation) for Treta Yuga. But you have to kindly wait.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 02 Aug 2012 21:13

Bingo!

RajeshA ji,

Sri Mikteshwar's claim of Yuga, their designations and beginnings etc. DOES NOT stand against the scrutiny of Mahabharata authority (so new problem would be Mahabharata vs. Sri Mukteshwar.

Sri Mukteshwar says Kaliyuga was over in 1699 AD ~ 1700 AD

Using his durations for each yuga, and going backwards, (KY = 1200, DY= 2400, TY = 3600, SY = 4800)

Kaliyuga began 1700-1200 = 500 AD

This means, according to him, Dwapar Yuga began in

500 AD - 2400 years = 1900 BC

Treta yuga began in 1900 BC - 3600 years = 5500 BC

This would mean Mahabharata War occured (per Sri Mukteshwar, asssuming he is willing to give me benefit of doubt) just BEFORE Treta yuga began!!!!!!!!!

There you go RajeshA ji.

Now I will shut up, before ravi_g is worried about me never allowing this thread to end.

(Earlier he was worried about me killing the thread too early!):-)

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 02 Aug 2012 21:21

Nilesh Oak ji,

I went through your book again. You write on page 143, "Let me emphasize that I am not commenting or questioning the assumption or assertion of 3102 B.C. as the beginning of Kali Yuga." Sri Yukteswar is actually doing just that. Thus the confusion in me remains.

Sri Yukteswar, in my opinion makes a convincing case, with regard to the length of the various Yugas. So sourcing from an earlier post:

Satya Yuga = 4 x 1200 = 4800 years
Treta Yuga = 3 x 1200 = 3600 years
Dwapara Yuga = 2 x 1200 = 2400 years
Kali Yuga = 1 x 1200 = 1200 years

He maintains that the Manu-Smriti does not use 'divya varsha', just normal solar years, and as such there is no multiplication of the above by 360, and so goes by Manu Smriti.

Now that could be his own opinion, but considering that when we use 'divya varsha', the lengths of these Yugas just do not sound plausible as coinciding with the age of human civilization. Otherwise Satya Yuga should have started some 3,893,114 YBP!!!

As such I consider the length of Kali Yuga of 1200 as suitable. In that case even if we consider Kali Yuga to have started in 3102 BCE, we would have been out of it a long time ago, as

Descending Satya Yuga = 13,902 BC - 9,102 BC
Descending Treta Yuga = 9,102 BC - 5,502 BC
Descending Dwapara Yuga = 5,502 BC - 3,102 BC
Descending Kali Yuga = 3,102 BC - 1,902 BC
Ascending Kali Yuga = 1,902 BC - 702 BC
Ascending Dwapara Yuga = 702 BC - 1,702 AD
Ascending Treta Yuga = 1,702 AD - 5,302 AD
Ascending Satya Yuga = 5,302 AD - 10,102 AD

So depending on whether we consider the Yuga Cycle as 24,000 years with descending and ascending phases or just 12,000 years in an ever repeating order, we would today be in 310 Ascending Treta Yuga or in 4108 Satya Yuga.

Secondly he maintains that the Yuga Cycle corresponds with the Precession of the Equinoxes - 24,000 years. Now normally the Precession of the Equinoxes is considered to be around 25,772 (or 26,000) years long. And as such I would have dismissed his 24,000 year suggestion, were it not for the fact, that a few claim that the rate of precession is increasing and is in fact 24,000 years. This was taken up in an earlier post.

As such I think we cannot really dismiss his claim lightly!

Perhaps another way to formulate the question would be, how would one translate 5561 BCE into Dwapara Yuga. How many years would have passed of Dwapara Yuga when Mahabharata took place?

Just curious!

Added Later before posting: Saw your other posts!

fanne · Post by **fanne** » 02 Aug 2012 21:26

Nilesh ji,
Few Questions -
My dealing with star movement is limited to few free software for purposes of astrology. As such my knowledge is limited. But I know few facts (wrong or otherwise), Sun and Mercury cannot be further than x degrees (23 degrees maybe). Saturn takes the longest to complete 1 revolution (and goes retro, if from lagna it is in these houses). Basically what I am saying is, someone who is observing the night sky can extrapolate the data. One argument that ravi_g and others can make is, it was easy for the ancient to do just that. My questions are -
1. Are the star positions (meaning the 7 grahas with Rahu Ketu, that is what you are using to date), cyclical in nature. When will the same star position repeat itself?
2. How easy or hard is to calculate these positions, are they linear in nature or mathematically very complex? What is the degree of that complexity (as in complex enough to rule out, without todays computer and understanding of law of physics, it is impossible to predict STAR position?)
Thanks,
fanne
Ps - On having a different handle, your tough words for Yukteshwar may not go well with many well meaning Yogananda followers. What you say may be true, but associating that with your name is not wise. Tomorrow that can be used to turn a well meaning person against you, who would otherwise be a great asset. I know many of them who are great followers of Yogananda and in outlook just like you and me (willing to challenge history and having the right credentials to do it).
Thanks RajeshA ji for correcting, I had Yogananda in mind (but wrote Prabhupada). I have similar difficulty in NJ, when asked to meet at Akbar Restaurant I show up at Moghul.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 02 Aug 2012 21:30

Nilesh Oak ji,

If we take 3102 BCE as start of Kali Yuga, then by using solar years instead of divya years, we get Mahabharata (5561 BCE) to have taken place just 59 years before the start of Dwapara Yuga! So the people at that time may have been anticipating the start of Dwapara Yuga, and hence may have included references to this Yuga.

The other scenario is if Kali Yuga really did start with the passing away of Krishna, but it happened in 5525 BCE rather than 3102 BCE. That scenario would then look like:

Descending Satya Yuga = 16,325 BC - 11,525 BC
Descending Treta Yuga = 11,525 BC - 7,925 BC
Descending Dwapara Yuga = 7,925 BC - 5,525 BC
Descending Kali Yuga = 5,525 BC - 4,325 BCE
Ascending Kali Yuga = 4,325 BC - 3,125 BC
Ascending Dwapara Yuga = 3,125 BC - 725 BC
Ascending Treta Yuga = 725 BC - 2,875 AD
Ascending Satya Yuga = 2,875 AD - 7,675 AD

Today 2012 would then be 2,737 Ascending Treta Yuga!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 02 Aug 2012 21:53

fanne ji,

Sri Yukteswar's main disciple was Paramahansa Yogananda, who established Self-Realization Fellowship.

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada of ISKCON is from a different school.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 02 Aug 2012 21:55

RajeshA Ji,

I am not dismissing anyone's claim. All I said is I am at loss to know what I do with such information. Start a new calendar?

My position on 'Yuga' is. "I don't know and I am clueless". There are various definitions of Yuga - ordinary, Daivi years but also a yuga based on the kind of just/unjust administration a King creates (Rajah Kalasya karanam).

As far as Mahabharata is concerned, I have quoted internal references, where all (MBH characters) said that the time of Mahabharata War was Dwapara, end of Dwapra or Sandhi between Dwapara and Kali. How or why they said such things, I don't know.

My small claim to glory is the proposal that Mahabharata War occurred in 5561 BC. Again, not a new claim (P V Vartak made it 25 years ago). I validated it but also placed it on a much solid footing.

Fanne ji,

Were you referring to 'Hare Krishnas/Iskcon' when you said "Prabhupada' or Sri Mukteshwar is also known as Prabhupada? I have not said a single word of disrespect about Sri Yukteshwar or (Yogananda), however I can see that how easily my writing could be seen as somehow personal attack on either of them.

I have read 'Autobiography of Yogi', have a copy in my possession and I thouroughly enjoyed reading it. I am still aware that I may not be absolved of my sins.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 02 Aug 2012 22:07

RajeshA ji,

You deserve 'Wit-mer' medal!

Since you are smart enough to quote only specific two lines from my book (and ignore the rest), I will leave it to you to figure out 'Wit-mer'.

You should have quoted at least the sentence after what you quoted. Your selective quoting gives the impression that I am accepting 3102 BC as beginning of Kali Yuga!

Rather the point I am making is whether Kali yuga began with 3102 BC or not is a subject important in its own right, but not the strongest route to determine timing of Mahabharata and there is nothing in Mahabharata itself that would lead us to 3102 BC as beginning of Kali Yuga.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 02 Aug 2012 22:12

Nilesh Oak ji,

I opened the issue w.r.t. Yuga and Yuga-based calendars, because you spoke about filling in the dark ages in Indian history, and I thought that a somewhat more solid footing on our understanding of Yugas could help, as it could help place those events which are simply timestamped with Yuga date. Some periods in our history may not have decisive archaeoastronomical placement possibilities and as such their self-claimed Yuga date would help.

Of course, if all parties in Kali Yuga felt that Kali Yuga started in 3102 BC and we are still in Kali Yuga, then of course we can still place them, regardless of how Kali Yuga should really have started, according some historian's PoV.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 02 Aug 2012 22:15

Nilesh Oak ji,

pardon if I caused any misunderstanding. My point was not to question your proposal for Mahabharata timing as 5561 BCE. In fact, thoughout I am using that date. I also did not make the claim that your finding of Mahabharata was based on Kali Yuga considerations.

I am simply trying to understand the Yuga system, independent of how Mahabharata is placed on the timeline. Thus what I quoted was only with relevance to that!

You write in the next lines, "Rather what I am asserting is that the Mahabharata text contains varied definitions of Yuga and none of them would convincingly lead us to year 3102 B.C."

I did not include the line, because the that still does not answer for me when the Yugas started or ended.

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 02 Aug 2012 22:16

RajeshA wrote:
The reason I am asking this is because Sri Yukteswar in his book makes following claims
According to calculations given in the book, the most recent yuga change was in 1699, when the Earth passed from Kali Yuga (the lowest material age) to Dvāpara Yuga (the second age associated with electrical, atomic and finger forces). We are in an ascending spiral right now, and will pass into the Tretā Yuga in 4100 CE.

To this day there is still much confusion why the Kali starts at this date or what the correct length of the Yugas should be. Yukteswar suggests that a return to basing the Yuga calendar on the motion of the equinox would be a positive step.

The way I read it, Kali Yuga was in vogue (per Sri Mukteshwar) until 1699 AD. Am I correct?

The writer seems to agree (with me) that "to this day there is still much confusion.....".

And Sri Yukteshwar is not claiming to fix/solve the problem either, rather a positive step towards...."

Any Takers?

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 02 Aug 2012 22:21

RajeshA ji,

What I wrote about the award was in humor

What I was doing with your Yukteshewar post was, sincerely, trying to make sense of it.

Full disclaimer for future: There is nothing you or anyone else on this forum will say that would offend me.

If it does, I won't let you know.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 02 Aug 2012 22:30

Nilesh Oak wrote:
According to calculations given in the book, the most recent yuga change was in 1699, when the Earth passed from Kali Yuga (the lowest material age) to Dvāpara Yuga (the second age associated with electrical, atomic and finger forces). We are in an ascending spiral right now, and will pass into the Tretā Yuga in 4100 CE.

To this day there is still much confusion why the Kali starts at this date or what the correct length of the Yugas should be. Yukteswar suggests that a return to basing the Yuga calendar on the motion of the equinox would be a positive step.
The way I read it, Kali Yuga was in vogue (per Sri Mukteshwar) until 1699 AD. Am I correct?

The writer seems to agree (with me) that "to this day there is still much confusion.....".

And Sri Yukteshwar is not claiming to fix/solve the problem either, rather a positive step towards...."

Any Takers?

Nilesh Oak ji,

I gave various partitions of the timeline based on different start and end of Yugas. I did that because I am not buying Sri Yukteswar's claims on when Kali Yuga started or ended.

The part that I find interesting about his work is that he is asking everybody to take the Yuga lengths as they were defined in the Manu-Smriti. It is the length of the Yugas proposed by him that is interesting, and NOT his timeline partition.

Now even if the Kali Yuga started in 3102 BC, we would have been out of it a long time ago, if the Kali Yuga was just 1,200 years long.

So the question I posed was simply whether you can help in providing a more educated partition of the timeline based on Yugas! If you think you can't, then it is fine! If you can, you may like to make a proposal. This has got nothing to do with your proposal for a Mahabharata date! The Yuga system would have been established much before the Mahabharata, if they make allusions to Dwapara Yuga.

I do not know if I could make myself clear, or whether it would lead to new misunderstandings!

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 02 Aug 2012 22:34

Kali yuga and Passing away of Krishna
Your's is a sincere attempt, RajeshA ji, to take that date 5525 BC and use if for Yuga defintion. In Einstein's words after his general relativity... "Right side of the equation is on a very solid footing but the left side of equation is in sand".

We still have confusion on what is Yuga, how to define it, can it be defined by strict time boundaries, etc.

but back to Kali yuga and passing away of Krishna
The ref. occurs in Bhagavat purana (not with me right now)...where if you see the translation.. it says... "kaliyuga began after Krishna left the plantet. that is what people say (people think etc.).
Many have used this to write the following equation
3102 BC = passing away of Krishna

and since Krishna left 36 years after MBH war,

Solving two simultaneous equations (ravi_g, my math skills are limited to this

)

Mahabharata War time = 3102+36 = 3138 ~ 3138 BC (Kota Venkatachalam, P V Holay-3143 BC and many ohters)

Evidence comes in many forms and their quality is varied and also quality changes depending on what problem we are trying to solve (pages 201-203 - Degree of Falsifiability, in my book).

Thus when Bhagavat statement states it as generic/traditional/someone's opinion, and then we have another traditional theme of 3102 BC as Kali Yuga.

As of now both sides of our equation are in sand!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 02 Aug 2012 22:38

Nilesh Oak ji,

Does "Wit-mer" stand for "Witzel-Farmer"?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 02 Aug 2012 22:44

Wouldn't yuga start or end be based on characteristics of mankind experiences faced by way of culture, living, technology and learning etc? The reverse may be true.. where we pick a period, and say attribute that to yuga, where as one might find difficult in exactly measuring yuga by time units.

i may be wrong.. but just wondering

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 02 Aug 2012 22:45

RajeshA Ji,

What you are writing, doing, posting is most facinating. I can not see where there would be room for misunderstanding.

I have played with all scenarios (duration, human years, divine years) and have reached the conclusion.. that " I don't know and I am clueless"

However I do have evidence (need validation/verification)that Indians of last 1500-2000 years did have the belief that Kailiyuga began on 3102 BC. At a minimum that is the basis they seem to have used for developing their calnedars (Greater India). I have a paper by John Playfair (written in 18th century) in mind. In addition, the positions of planets were described well for this day. Thus excluding the possibility of backward calculations, we have to accept it as visual observation (That would validate historicity of India at least that long). If someone insist on ability to 'baward calculations of planets' 2000 years ago in india, we should start our search in earnest for Indian Newton, combined with La Grange and data collection that would rival Hubble telescpe). Either scenario would affirm Glory of India.

(Pages 211-212 of my book)

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 02 Aug 2012 22:47

RajeshA wrote:Nilesh Oak ji,

Does "Wit-mer" stand for "Witzel-Farmer"?

Well well, now you are putting words in my mouth.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 02 Aug 2012 22:52

Nilesh Oak wrote:but back to Kali yuga and passing away of Krishna[/u]
The ref. occurs in Bhagavat purana (not with me right now)...where if you see the translation.. it says... "kaliyuga began after Krishna left the plantet. that is what people say (people think etc.).
Many have used this to write the following equation
3102 BC = passing away of Krishna

and since Krishna left 36 years after MBH war,

Solving two simultaneous equations (ravi_g, my math skills are limited to this )

Mahabharata War time = 3102+36 = 3138 ~ 3138 BC (Kota Venkatachalam, P V Holay-3143 BC and many ohters)

Evidence comes in many forms and their quality is varied and also quality changes depending on what problem we are trying to solve (pages 201-203 - Degree of Falsifiability, in my book).

Thus when Bhagavat statement states it as generic/traditional/someone's opinion, and then we have another traditional theme of 3102 BC as Kali Yuga.

As of now both sides of our equation are in sand!

Just speculating here!

Kali Yuga basically has two meanings:
Scientific: A Timeline Partition
Spiritual: An age when the human civilization degenerates morally.

So in view of the great loss that the people of Dwaraka and Bharatvarsha felt at the loss of Sri Krishna, the remark that "Kaliyuga began after Krishna left" can just as well mean that the human civilization would be much poorer without the Lord and without his guidance the society may well degenerate.

The remark may not have referred to Kali Yuga as Timeline partition at all! I presume there are many references to Kali Yuga, which have been made with such semantics in mind!

Nilesh Oak wrote:
RajeshA wrote:Nilesh Oak ji,
Does "Wit-mer" stand for "Witzel-Farmer"?
Well well, now you are putting words in my mouth.

Yeah, I took 'em from your mind, before putting 'em there!

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 02 Aug 2012 22:59

RajeshA ji,

What you understood in less than 20 hrs since you had my book, many astronomers (Indian and otherwise) who publish regularly in peer reviewed journals have still failed to understand. Thank you!

Many other Mahabhabharata researchers who have proposed year for Mahabharata war, and to whom I sent copies of the books more than one year ago, have responded with deafening silence!

And stil many other researchers have completely missed the point. They asked (before even reading my book), "Where is the Archeological data?"

All the fun!

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 02 Aug 2012 23:09

ravi_g wrote:Also the Mula Dwarka coordinates provided in pictures 2 above is the closest point of approach to the island in picture 1 in the same post by RajeshA ji.

To this, add,

Dwarka was decribed as a places with bridges over water connecting other areas. If our conejcture is right, wouldn't location of MulDwarka be the location of entrance (Golden gate bridge) to Dwarka from Mainland?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Aug 2012 23:23

RajeshA, The loss of guidance and change in values is what elders imply when they say its Kali Yuga.
The entire Mahabharata is written/talked about/criticised by learned and unlearned people only to understand what changed and whether the change is for the better or worse.
The science based scholars think of it as a timeline when its about changes in civilzational values.

In Telugu a trio of contemporary scholars :Shanmukha Sastri, Malladi Chandrasekhara sastri and Chaganti Koteswara Rao have and are giving discources for the common public to make them aware of what is the change and to let the people make up their minds if it was for better or worse and to make course corrections.
Unfortunaely its only in Telugu and thus is limited to those familiar with the language.

For instance MCS says in part 7 of his talk (about Sanjaya/Krishna Rayabharam) that to criticise Dharma one needs to know what is Dharma.

He says many times Dharmic acts appear Dharmic, at other times Dharmic acts appear Adharmic, at other times Adharmic acts appear Dharmic and finally Adharmic acts appear Adharmic. So only in two areas there is invariancy.

The confusion is due to the changing human mind that provides different prespective. So to reduce the confusion one has to be clear on what is Dharma and what is not Dharma.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 03 Aug 2012 00:06

ramana garu, just to add, Vivekananada too cautiuons his readers in book "Yogas and other works" about using present day dharmic laws in judging the acts of say Indra and judge him to be amoral...rules of one period might be not be portable to another.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 03 Aug 2012 00:21

Nilesh Oak wrote:
ravi_g wrote:Also the Mula Dwarka coordinates provided in pictures 2 above is the closest point of approach to the island in picture 1 in the same post by RajeshA ji.
To this, add,

Dwarka was decribed as a places with bridges over water connecting other areas. If our conejcture is right, wouldn't location of MulDwarka be the location of entrance (Golden gate bridge) to Dwarka from Mainland?

Mul Dwarka just off the NH 51 near Kodinar being the entrance is plausible. A physical Bridge from this point to the Island would need to be perhaps 200 km long. However, the big point in your comment is that 'Dwarka was described as a place with bridges'. The video you posted earlier of Grahm Hancock shows that the Island in the process of getting submerged would have presented a land mass in need of off shore bridges around 6900 years ago. The whole island complex could possibly have had several bridges linking several differnet highpoints of the fast submerging Island. That reference perhaps can also be used to further establish the historicity of Krishna. Did Krishna rule Dwarka during the time it is described to have bridges.

Caveat - How does Mul Dwarka relate to Saraswati. Is there any reference to both being near or Mul Dwarka being at the mouth of River Saraswati. Because Saraswati had its mouth further west, i guess.

History of Dwarka could have a lot to do with OIT. Imagine finding a sophisticated city about 7700 to 6900 old. Hardly any part of the world would have this kind of civilizing force during that time period. Bolsters the chances of knowledge flowing from Dwarka and contiguous civilization to other parts of the world.

RajeshA ji, filliing the gaps in history using the concept of Yugas, does not have a direct link with OIT. You could be highjacking your own thread.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 03 Aug 2012 00:57

Ravi ji, I think n-body probem can be replaced or approximated to be a 2 body problem in most instances of satellite trajectories as the masses involved are relatively not huge, I think only during a gravity assisted trajectories to account for 'slingshot' effect of another planet's gravity the satellite is being affected that the problem then becomes 3-body problem.

Yes for stars with huge masses and distances the problem might get complicated, but then if we can't account for relativistic effects, we might as well use simpler models to predict the trajectories as the answer without relativistic effects is approximate anyway?

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 03 Aug 2012 01:47

fanne wrote:
Nilesh ji,
Few Questions -
My dealing with star movement is limited to few free software for purposes of astrology. As such my knowledge is limited. But I know few facts (wrong or otherwise), Sun and Mercury cannot be further than x degrees (23 degrees maybe). Saturn takes the longest to complete 1 revolution (and goes retro, if from lagna it is in these houses). Basically what I am saying is, someone who is observing the night sky can extrapolate the data. One argument that ravi_g and others can make is, it was easy for the ancient to do just that. My questions are -
1. Are the star positions (meaning the 7 grahas with Rahu Ketu, that is what you are using to date), cyclical in nature. When will the same star position repeat itself?
2. How easy or hard is to calculate these positions, are they linear in nature or mathematically very complex? What is the degree of that complexity (as in complex enough to rule out, without todays computer and understanding of law of physics, it is impossible to predict STAR position?)

Fanne Ji,

(1) When a certain combination will repeat does involve lot of work , even with sophisticated software. Again, how accurate one needs the answer would define degree of difficulty. You alluded to slow motion of Saturn. Such combinations (e.g. Jupiter (12 yr) and Saturn (29.5 yr) provides you an interval of ~ 60 years periodicity for these planets to be in identical positions (refer to page 73/74 of my book for some other ideas)

(2) I will repeat what I said about reading scriptures... It is lot easy to tackle these kind of problems with specific prolbme in mind. Identification of problem opens up many ideas for shortcuts.

I hope this helps

Nilesh Oak · Post by **Nilesh Oak** » 03 Aug 2012 01:57

ravi_g Ji,

Your observation reg. Arudhanti/Vasistha and 3 points you made previously is right on.
Regarding this observation, I wrote,
"If I were allowed to research only one Mahabharata observation, I would have considered myself lucky to research on Arundhati observation. I was lucky... I happen to stumble on Arundhati observation, and fortunately, not let it go for 15+ years.

I will add your 3 points to my list of reasons for working on ARundhati observation.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 03 Aug 2012 02:32

ravi_g wrote:Nilesh ji, some time back I chanced upon a discussion on the net where one guy was pushing to establish the inaccuracy of the star-map softwares of the kind that Vartak ji, others and yourself use. What he said that it is mathematically impossible to work out the trajectories of the heveanly bodies because of what was called the '3 body or n-body problem'.

There is no closed form solution to n-body problems (n > 3). But that factoid is not really very relevant because most of these problems are solved using numerical simulation codes which are widely available in open source form. There are also new algorithms (I have published an O(n) algorithm - hope I am not giving away my ident as I do not wish to). One well known -but not O(n) - algorithm is Greengard's. Another code is Barnes and Hut.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Aug 2012 06:21

so, which is the start point for the yugas? is there one? I am looking for the origin date/timestamp

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Aug 2012 06:23

Nilesh Oak wrote:
And stil many other researchers have completely missed the point. They asked (before even reading my book), "Where is the Archeological data?"

All the fun!

I keep repeating on here that the educated Indian mind is deeply afflicted by Macaulay whose policies represented attitudes that said, "If its Indian or said by an Indian, it must be bullshit." I like your use of the concept of falsifiability, and I have myself tried to find explanations for Indian attitudes other than a blind slavish acceptance of Indian is bad, white/foreign is better. I am still applying the falsifiability test to this hypothesis and am willing to look at better explanations for this particular Indian attitude, of being defensive, derisive and in denial of good about anything out of India.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Aug 2012 06:27

How about releasing a fantastic book on all these, with a fake firang author.. then after some size-able period of time, when people goes gaga over it, reveal the real authors name and skin color/country of origin?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Aug 2012 06:35

SaiK wrote:How about releasing a fantastic book on all these, with a fake firang author.. then after some size-able period of time, when people goes gaga over it, reveal the real authors name and skin color/country of origin?

We are gong OT. I am actually inspired by Nilesh Oak's model of rigor, humility and satya so if I write, it will be my name onlee.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 03 Aug 2012 07:12

I think, the foundation of this thread/discussion was laid down by Kaushal 8-10 years ago. Hope it culminates in next few years we get to do the donkey trial of foreig donkeys, desi monkies and the cheering followers enjoying oral lansexing with each others on Aryan horse.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 03 Aug 2012 07:56

There is interesting culmination of yuga puranas, ithihasas and legends associated with them, at one very old temple in Karnataka. Was very fortunate to recently visit Kurdumale Mahaganapathi temple, in Mulabagal, kolar district. (Could easily be done in less than day - for namma bengaluru jingoes). The antiquity of this temple is said to be 5000+ years old. Even the temple priest mentioned that to my nosy query. A little note about this temple. The deity of Mahaganapathi is of saligrama (13+ feet) and is believed to be have by installed by Trimurthis (Braham, Vishnu and Maheshwara). This deity is believed to have been worshipped in all the four yugas. Actually, this place was called as KooduMale (meeting place of all the gods) and has deteriorated to be called as "kurdumale". The deity was worshipped in open fields for a long time and is 13+ feet in height.

1) In Satya yuga - Maheshwara worships Mahaganapathi deity in this temple before he battles tripurasura (has lot of blessings from ganapathi himself). Shiva gets blessings before he could defeat tripurasura.

2) In treta yuga - Sri Ramachandra worships this deity and obtains blessings before ravana samhara.

3) In Dwapara Yuga - Sri Krishna worships Mahaganapathi in the same temple to get rid of curse due to Shymanthakamani episode. (krishna watches moon during Ganesh chaturthi and is blamed to have stolen the Shymanthakamani) (interstingly there is also Jambavan's temple nearby in the same district). Even, pandavas worship here before they get into kurukshetra war.

4) In Kali Yuga - Sri Krishnadevaraya builds a proper temple complex and a prime devotee.

The temple has become a Heritage site, although nithya puja happens, as is case with heritage sites it mostly is in not a great shape.

There is also Sri Anjaneya temple (consecrated by Arjuna) after victory in Mahabharata war, which is in Mulbagal about 10 kms from koodumale. This temple is also claimed by temple priests and local people to have atleast 5000+ years to it. The antiquity of the temple is very obvious by looking at the deity and condition. It is also one of the biggest of Hanuman deity.

Well, that region is pregnant with lot of ithihasa associated with it, both Ramayana and Mahabharata. Avani etc.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 03 Aug 2012 09:19

Near Dwarika of Today, where archaeological excavation carried out by Dr. Rao is known as Bet Dwarka. In Gujarati Bet=Island

Regarding Mul Dwarka, also known as Visvada, GoG website details:

Visavda (Mul dwarka)
Place’s name:
Mul dwarka
Place’s detailed information
While going from Mathura to Dwarka Lord Krishna had stopped in Porbandar at village Visaavda. In its remembrance in Visavda (Mul Dwarka) Lord Krishna’s “paduka” can be seen in this temple.

At a distance of about 23 km from Mul Dwaraka approximately before 750 years Vinjhat Bhalat (devotte) had constructed these temples. Script says this temple was constructed in Vikram Samvat 1262 can be seen in Visavda’s this temple. In Visavda means Mul dwarka every year on Janmashtmi day huge fair is organized.

http://porbandardp.gujarat.gov.in/Porba ... savada.htm

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 03 Aug 2012 09:29

More need to be excavated at both Bet and Mul Dwarika

It is mentioned in puran that Suvarna Dwarika submerged in great flood/tsunami. What is found submerged near Bet Dwarika corroborates this. But, Mul Dwarka is also ancient place.

I had been to Mul Dwarka many times and other historical areas near Kodinar/Somnath. Too much of antiquity there.

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 03 Aug 2012 09:46

Kaliyug Indeed Started - on 18 February 3102 BC at Equator (then known as Lanka)

http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdatauplo ... 67_117.pdf

-Y V Jeppu (DRDO/ADA)

Aryabhatiyam Mentions that there was a conjunctions of all planets including nodes at the start of Kaliyug (this is known as Gol Yog in astrology?)

The article in the above link tells more

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 03 Aug 2012 10:30

Aryabhatiya in Sanskrit with Sanskrit Commentary

http://ia700401.us.archive.org/33/items ... 00arya.pdf

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 03 Aug 2012 11:58

Nilesh Oak wrote: However I do have evidence (need validation/verification)that Indians of last 1500-2000 years did have the belief that Kailiyuga began on 3102 BC.

Even Sri Yukteswar agrees with you on that point. However, he says it is the result of an error.

As per Yukteswar, if we combine descending and ascending Kali Yugas, then the total duration is 2400 years - 700 BC to 1699 AD. The lowest point was at 500 AD.