आपणास माझे लेखन आवडते आहे असे ब्लॉगला भेट देणारांच्या वाढत्या संख्येवरून वाटते. विषेशकरून कर्णकथेला वाचक पुष्कळ मिळाले. आपल्या प्रतिक्रिया जरूर मिळावयास हव्यात! त्याशिवाय लिहीत राहण्याचा उत्साह कसा टिकून रहाणार?
I changed over from Marathi to English for my comments on Shri. Oak's book recently. I continue to get readers but there are no comments! Wonder whether I am boring!
Thursday, February 9, 2017
Shri. Oak has assumed 16th Oct., the date proposed by Dr. Vartak to be Julian but obviously, it is not so. It is Gregorian. Based on 16th Oct to be Julian date Shri. Oak has noted down various planet positions for that date. He has claimed in his book and on his blog and on facebook repeatedly, that they match the astronomical references in Mahabharat. I do not accept the claim in many cases and have written extensively on this blog, giving my reasons.
There is a gap of almost 40 days between 16th Oct. Julian and 16th Oct Gregorian. Within those 40 days there may be no major change in the positions of the planets. I believe, if positions on the Julian date can be considered corroborated, so can be those, for the Gregorian 16th Oct. I wonder whether Shri. Oak agrees or finds any major problems.
16th Oct Julian, accrding to Shri. Oak, was an Amavasya. If so 16th Oct., Gregorian, will not be an Amavasya. Dr. Vartak in his book has claimed that it could have been an amavasya. He does this based on a 39 years cycle for repetition of a particular combination of date and tithi. Is the tithi of a particular date, 7500 years back, given by Software really reliable? If not what margin of error is likely? What was the tithi of 16th Oct. Greg.?
What does Shri. Oak say?
Monday, February 6, 2017
Shri. Oak in his book has claimed that he examined years and dates (where given) proposed by various researchers and found that except Dr. Vartak's year and date all other cases failed because either they were outside the 'Epoch' or planet positions for the proposed year did not match those in Mahabharat. He has not proposed any year or date of his own, based on his calculations but has examined the year 5561 BCE and 16th Oct as date of first day and has claimed corroboration in practically each case. He has done the exercises on the basis that 16th Oct. is Julian Date. There is problem with this.
From Dr. Vartak's working out of planet positions in the year 5561 BCE from known positions in recent years, working backwards using accurate speeds of the planets, it is abundantly clear that he has worked them out for 16th Oct., Gregorian and not Julian. In fact he has worked out the date 16th Oct. itself counting 68 days back from 22nd Dec,, the GREGORIAN winter solstice or start of Uttarayan. So the date 16th Oct cannot be Julian.
The question then is - 'Is Shri. Oak validating Dr. Vartak's claim of year and date? Clearly not so. Is it then a mixed bag? Year of Dr. Vartak and 16th Oct., Julian, as Shri. Oak's own claim? '
Shri. Oak needs to take a look at this and clarify his stand.
Planet positions worked out by Dr. Vartak do not match what Shri. Oak finds from his software. Is the difference due to two different dates? Shri. Oak should check planet positions for 16th Oct., Gregorian, and confirm or reject Dr. Vartak's findings. They may or may not match as Dr. Vartak has relied on manual calculations and not software.
Even in case of Saturn which is very slow, Shri. Oak finds it in Bhaga two years before war and 'approaching Chitra'by start of war, where Dr. Vartak finds it at Bhaga - Uttara Falguni.
Sunday, February 5, 2017
I went through Dr. P. V. Vatak's Swayambhu 3rd edition published in 1988. I presume it is the latest edition. I came across several interesting facts and details.
Dr. Vartak has claimed 5561 BC as the year of Mahabharata War. He has meticulously worked out positions of several planets from their known positions in recent years, working backwards using a very accurate rate at which they move along the ecliptic. He has used three different starting positions as a cross check. The positions of three main planets as established by him for 16th Oct 5561 BC (Gregorian Date) are as follows.
SATURN in Bhaga.
JUPITER in Shravan.
MARS a little ahead of Vishakha.
It is clear from his working that 16th Oct 5561BC he refers to, is a GREGORIAN date and NOT JULIAN as Shri. Oak says. This is also confirmed by the way he has derived this date in the book, taking 22nd Dec. as Winter Solstice date or start of uttarayana/death of Bhishma and working 68 days backwards from there. He has clearly taken 58 days as the time spent by Bhishma on death bed.
I always believed that Dr. Vartak's date is Gregorian and not Julian and had questioned Shri. Oak on this. He has examined Dr. Vartak's year and date and concluded that among dates and years claimed by many researchers only Dr. Vartak's claim stands scrutiny but taking the date claimed by Dr. Vartak as Julian. If Shri. Oak believes that 16th Oct Julian is the correct date he must claim it as his claim and not Dr. Vartak's claim.
More on the subject will follow.
Friday, February 3, 2017
Today I came across Dr. Vartak's book 'Svayambhu' He has written a lot of material about timing of Mahabharata in the book. On Short Krishnapaksha before start of war he says (Translated from Marathi) - 'Vishvaghastra Paksha or Kshayapaksha or 13 days fortnight - Such a fortnight occurred in 1962 and 1940. It occurs every 22 years. 5562 BCE was (5562 + 1962 =) 7524 years back which is a multiple of 22 so in 5562BCE a short krishnapaksha could have occured.'
I have a couple of questions! Dr. Vartak has claimed 5561 BCE as the year of war, not 5562 BCE! So a short Paksha one year back is of no use! Further, is there any truth in the 22 years' cycle? From 1962 adding 44 years we come to year 2006. I have found a 13 day Paksha in 2016 which does not fit.
I wonder whether anyone can confirm a 13 day paksha in 1962? Nautical Almanac of that year will provide exact timings of End of Purnima and End of Amavasya for all months in the year. I have no access to the data. A panchang for that year will also give the details. Is any reader able to help?
Thursday, February 2, 2017
In my earlier posts on this topic I had given details of a Very short Krishnapaksha in year 2016 0f a duration of 335 and 1/2 hours from beginning of Pratipada and End of Amavasya. Due to start timing of Pratipada a short time after sunrise, the day was designated as Purnima and there were ONLY 12 Days between days designated as Purnima and Amavasya in the calendar. The month perfectly matched what Vyasa has said about the Krishnapaksha just prior to start of war, that it was an exceptionally short paksha of only 12 days and Amavasya occurred on 13th day as against the normal 14th or 15th day or, exceptionally, 16th day. As what Vyasa has said was proved to be not a Flight of Fancy but quite feasible, I claimed that any particular year, claimed as Mahabharat war year, must fulfill the condition of a Very Short Krishnapaksha, just prior to the date claimed as Date of War. I also invited Shri. Nilesh Oak to verify the position in this regard, for the year and date of war claimed by him. He commented the he would do so and report. I have still to see the report.
Out of curiosity I checked from Kalanirnay 0f 2017, the Krishnapakshas of lunar months over Jan. to Dec. The length of the krishnapaksha in Jan. was as high as 15 days and 12 1/2 hrs. It increased to 15 days and 14 hrs. in Feb. and then declined progressively to 14 days 20 min. in October and further to 13 days 10 1/2 hrs. in Nov. First one is almost same as earlier instance and the second is actually SHORTER (332 1/2 hours) than the short Krishnapaksha in 2016 I had noticed and reported. And yet, both these short krishnapakshas DO NOT match what Vyasa said! In both case there are 13 clear days between the Days designated as Purnima and Amavasya, so both these Krishnapakshas, althought they are quite short, do not qualify as a '13 days krishnapaksha!' They are the common or garden variety of 14 days paksha!
It is thus clear that not only the krishnapaksha just prior to war must be Short but in addition it must be so disposed that there should be only 12 days between days designated as Purnima and Amavasya. (If I had claimed 2016 as the war year, I would have met the condition!) I invite Shri. Oak once again to verify whether he meets the requirment!Frankly speaking, I very much doubt but wont mind if proved wrong!)
Thursday, October 20, 2016
Shri Oak has identified a period in the past when Arundhati was walking ahead of Vasishtha as described by Vyasa. This is based on the Right Ascension differential as obtained from software (which I presume itself based on observations and mathematics and algorithms). We can assume these data to be correct.
As we see today, the difference between the declinations of A and V is very small. That makes it difficult to decide who is ahead, to a naked eye observer. If you see any sky photo, it will bring out the position. We have to enlarge the photo before we notice with naked eye, Arundhati, distinct from Vasishtha
It would be interesting to know what were the declination figures for Arundhati and Vasishtha at 1)start of the ‘epoch’, 2) at the time Arundhati was Max. ahead of Vasishtha 3) at end of the ‘epoch’ and 4) today when Arundhathi is still significantly behind Vasistha (after being much behind earlier). This will enable one to judge (of course qualitatively speaking) the ability of a naked eye observer to assert that Arundhati was ahead at the Mahabharata war time.
I invite Shri. Oak to let us know the declination figures which, I suppose will be easily available. Any other reader with access to suitable software is also invited to do it.
Thursday, October 13, 2016
I have written detailed comments on the concept of fall of Abhijit here earlier. One key line in the shlokas about this topic is ‘धनिष्ठादि तदा कालो ब्रह्मणा परिनिर्मितः.’
Dr. P. V. Vartak had interpreted this to mean that year started from the time when Sun was in Dhanishtha and the appropriate time for start of year should be Summer Solstice as that marks the end of summer and beginning of rainy season in Northern India. Start of year from start of rains is quite logical.
Shri. Oak has accepted this theory as far as I know. Summer Solstice was occurring when Sun was in Dhanishtha around 14,500 BCE and therefore the conclusion is that Brahma started his system of marking the end of old year and start of new year around 14,500 BCE. I was also in agreement with this conclusion.
Recently, out of curiosity I tried to read ‘The Orion’ by Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak. I followed his writing only for the first chapter! Later I felt completely out of my depth and gave up. However from what little I followed I gathered two premises he has elucidated.
1. Year was defined by commencement and completion of a set of sacrifices called ‘Satra’, which ran for a full year. Start of the Satra, and thus of the year, was initially from Vernal Equinox. The period from Vernal Equinox to Autumnal Equinox was called the ‘Deva Ayana’ Devas were all supposed to be residing at the Meru or Celestial North Pole and this period was called ‘Deva Ayana’ because Sun would be above the equator and visible to the Devas at Meru. Deva Ayana was the original Uttarayana as Sun was to the north of equator during the period from Vernal to Autumnal equinox. When Sun reached Autumnal equinox, half the year was over. The day of AE was Vishuva Din and it was the middle day of the year. The second half of the year was Dakshinayana or Pitrayana as Sun was below equator, the region of Pitaras. Tilak has quoted many references from Vedas and other vaidik literature in support of this position.
2. At a latter period, start of year was shifted to Winter Solstice. Uttarayana was now defined as the period during which Sun moved towards North upto Summer Solstice. The other half of the year was the Dakshinayana when the Sun moved southwards from SS to WS. In present times, that is how we understand Uttarayana and Dakshinayana. He further says that this change was for general civil purposes but the old system of starting year from Vernal Equinox also continued for conducting Satras. He has of course quoted references for this too!
3. Krittika was the first nakshatra according to him based on many references. I did not find any mention of Dhanishtha as first nakshatra in his book. There is a curious mention that ‘If Sun turns back before reaching Dhanishtha, it would be a bad omen’ according to some Rishi. Now Sun can ‘turn back' before reaching Dhanishtha only if SS or WS was at Dhanishtha, some 100 years previously.
4. Tilak has not made any reference to the Shloka from Mahabharat, ‘Dhanishthadi ...’
Now the question arises – How to reconcile what Tilak says with ‘Dhanishthadi Tada Kaalo ...’ from Mahabharata? Dhanishtha was at Vernal Equinox in 21000BCE.If Year began initially from Vernal Equinox as Tilak states, did Brahma set the start of year from Dhanishtha in 21000 BCE? Tilak however has NOT claimed such Large Antiquity for Vedas etc. I refer the question to Shri. Nilesh oak and other learned readers.