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’.