Summary of my comments.- 2

7. About the eclipses, the first lunar, prior to Shishtai, is clearly mentioned by Vyasa. The next solar is doubtful. What is far more important is that the specific lunar fortnight between these two should be of 13 days. Vyasa clearly mentions it, that too ending on Amavasya. The war started next day or perhaps later. The third eclipse is not mentioned by Vyasa. No need to have three eclipses in any proposed year of war. The fortnight between solar and the second lunar (if it occur) is NOT what Vyasa is referring to as abnormally short.

8. About the year 5561 BCE I have no views. In spite of several doubts, it could be correct.

9. Start of war cannot be in rainy season. It has to be 18-20 days after Autumnal equinox. No king would have agreed to start the war before end of rains. Krishna was also no fool to propose a war with rathas and elephants before end of rains.

10. Did the war start on an Amavasya? 7th 8th 10th and 14th day descriptions raise doubt. Pitch Darkness after sunset on 7th and 8th day, and description of moon by Drona to his son on 10th day raise questions. Total darkness throughout the night on 14th day is a big puzzle. Darkness due to dust is a ridiculous explanation. Moonrise just before daybreak, in crescent shape and ‘in the East’ clearly indicate Krishnapaksha. It cannot be wished away.

11. Balaram returning on 18th day is an unsolved puzzle. All play on words, ‘श्रवणे पुनरागतः’ etc. is just that, play on words.

12. Bhishma spent 58 nights on bed of arrows and nothing more. Build-up of time-line up to visit of Pandavas and Krishna to Bhishma is just that, time till that event. Minor variations in that are insignificant. Krishna’s statement of 56 days on that day has to be taken as ‘from Bhishma’s fall’, and not from that day onwards. There is a clear internal consistency between war starting after rains, i. e. some days after Autumnal equinox, and Bhishma spending 57 days on deathbed ending his life on Winter Solstice.

I will end with a general remark that the story in the text must override any astronomical references which clash. One cannot twist and hang the story on Astronomy reference pegs.

I will not write any more on the book. I have enjoyed reading the book in any case. It has taught me many new things for which I am grateful to Shri. Oak.

Summary of my comments on Shri. Oak’s book. - 1

I have written extensively on the book in this blog. I will now summarize my views on some main points of disagreement. But first some points of agreement.

1. I wholeheartedly agree with the finding about Epoch of Arundhati. Whether any proposed year, based on other branches of science should be automatically disqualified if outside the epoch is a moot point.

2. I am happy to learn about ‘धनिष्ठादि तदा कालो ब्रह्मणा परिनिर्मितः’

3. I appreciate the enormous effort of Shri. Oak in examining so many references and proposing explanations etc. and some new concepts like ‘वक्र’ motion of planets.

Now the disagreements.

1. All three positions of Saturn remain un-reconciled. All three of course cannot be met in any year. Which one is more important and must be met correctly? I cant say.

2. Same is true about Jupiter.

3. About Mars, the videos of Shri. Oak are excellent. If Mars was to go Vakra anywhere near Maghaa, the references would have been vindicated. Unfortunately, it goes vakra in Rohini, 5 nakshatra earlier. Will any other year fully meet the descriptions? I cant say. Does going Vakra mean ‘changing direction – left to right or right to left’ – and not ‘crossing of Ecliptic?’ I invite Shri. Oak to check this possibility.

4. A large numbers of references are just Upamas and whether met or not in any proposed year is immaterial.

5. Krishnashishtai timeline is not acceptable. One cannot ‘assume’ events not mentioned in the text, directly or even indirectly, to suit one’s theory. Krishna spent only 2 or max. 3 days in Hastinapur and not 7 or 8.

6. The period of Krishna Shishtai cannot be pulled back into the rainy season. It was clearly ‘शरदान्ते हिमागमे’.