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!
Friday, April 28, 2017
I now have access to Voyager software. Making use of it, I tried to check the movement of Mars from Magha onwrdas for 'Vakra' and 'apasavya' movement. Readers are invited to take a look at the power point presentation I prepared.
One can see that Mars crossed the Ecliptic twice and also underwent the normal Retrograde-prograde movement at Chitra -Swati. Mars however did not cross Ecliptic at Magha or Jyeshtha as mentioned in Mahabharat but at other locations on the ecliptic.
Sunday, April 23, 2017
According to Shri. Oak, Mahabharata war began on 16th Oct. 5561 BCE. This was an Amavasya day. On 30th Sept. and 30th Oct.there was a Full moon day.
From Voyager, I find that
1. On Sept 30, at 4 pm, sun and moon had Eclipital Longitudes of 144deg. -57’ and 324 deg. 57’ resp., exactly 180 degrees apart. So this was the correct full moon time.
2. On 16th Oct. at 2 PM Sun and moon both had Ecliptical Longitude of 164 degrees 21’. So it was correct Amavasya time.
3. On 30th Oct. at 2 PM, Ecliptical Longites of Sun and moon were 178 – 31’ and 358 -35’ 180 degrees apart so this was full moon time.
The fortnight from Sept 30 to Oct 16 was 15 days and 22 hrs. , almost 16 days! A LONG fortnight!
The fortnight from Oct 16 to Oct 30 14 full days, again not a short one!
Where is Vyasa’s short fortnight of 13 days?
A lot has already been written by me on the subject, on this blog and in my critical comments on the book of Shr. Oak Translation of ‘अभिजित स्पर्धमाना ...’ was correctly done by Dr. Vartak in ‘svayaambhu’ and he interpreted वन as water, which was very unusual but appropriate in this case.
Shri. Oak , for some reason or other, completely ignored this correct translation and made a mess of his interpretation of the four shlokas in his book.
I have given my interpretation of the following items, viz.
1.Why Abhijit was counted no. 1 and 27 other normal nakshatras followed, with Dhanishtha at no. two, to begin with, when Brahma started year system. 2. What happened later for Indra to say ‘abhijit has fallen off from the sky’. 3. Who was ‘Rohinee’s younger sister, Krittika or Anuradha as an alternative and 4. What finally happened – start of year was shifted from summer solstice to winter solstice and as it was now at Krittika, they got first rank or went to heaven and were brightly shining and abhijit was no longer counted along with the 27 nakshatras.
Upto now, I have also been interpreting इच्छंती ज्येष्ठतां देवी तपस्तप्तुं वनं गता on the lines of Dr. Vartak. i. e. ‘Devi went to water heated by तपः or sunshine. If this was to be interpreted to mean that ‘Summer solstice had shifted to Devi i. e. Krittika’, there was a complete time mismatch! Summer Solstice was much earlier –in 20000 BCE – at Krittika! I therefore proposed an alternative that Devi was the younger sister of Jyeshtha (also called Rohini) i. e. Anuradha and Summer Solstice had shifted to Anuradha from Dhanishtha. That did not shift Winter Solstice to Krittika.
Though Summer Solstice moving to Anuradha helped to judge the time of Indra-Skanda dialogue as 7500 BCE, question remained as to what made Krittika go to heaven ( be happy) and glow brightly.
I now propose a new interpretation of the line.
The word used in the shloka is ‘तप्तुम्’ and not ‘तप्तम्’ So, Devi 'went to water to heat it’ and not ‘went to water heated by sunshine’ would be a more appropriate translation.
So did Devi, younger sister of Rohini, i. e. Krittika go to Winter Solstice, so that water will be heated from the time sun came to Krittika for next six months?
She also wanted to become no. 1 (इच्छन्ती ज्येष्ठताम्), which she would achieve, if start of year was shifted to winter solstice. She was competing with Abhijit for no. 1. She was bound to win, as Abhijit had moved too far from North Pole, had no more relevance and was dropping to or below horizon in every orbit around CNP and so Indra called him गगनात् च्युतं नक्षत्रम्.
That is my interpretation now - ‘वनं तपस्तप्तुम् गता’ not ‘तपस्तप्तम् वनम् गता’
If this is accepted as correct interpretation, the Indra-Skanda dialogue took place when winter solstice had actually shifted to Krittika. From Voyager, I find that the time was 9000 BCE.
The time of the Indra-Skanda dialogue quoted by Markandeya to Yudhishthira was thus around 9000BCE.
Saturday, April 22, 2017
Markandeya had a long dialogue with Yudhishthira when Pandavas were in Vanavasa.
In this dialogue Markandeya told Yudhishthira about the Indra-Skanda dialogue, the subject of ‘Fall of Abhijit.’ At the end of the four shlokas, markandeya said that Krittikas rose to heaven and brightened with pleasure.
Krittikas did that because after Indra explained to Skanda his problem of Nakshatara (Abhijit) ‘falling from sky’ and ‘Rohini’s younger sister going to vana तपस्तप्तुम् ‘and asked him to discuss it with Brhama, start of year was shifted from summer solstice to winter solstice which had shifted to Kritttika by then. So Krittika became the first nakshatra. When summer solstice was at Dhanishtha in 145000 BCE, winter solstice was near Magha. It would take about 7000 years to shift to Krittika. So the time must be around 7000-7500BCE.
Since Markandeya tells this story to Yudhishthira as a long past event, the time of Mahabharata events would definitely be later than 7000 BCE! (Of course it does not positively fix a narrow range of years).
According to Shri. Oak’s finding, the epoch of Arundhati runs from 11000BCE onwards. up to 4500 BCE and technically, mahabharat war could have happened in any year in this range.I have always contended that the initial part of the epoch is only mathematically true in that A was ahead of V but could anyone notice it or be positive about it with naked eye?
Well, we can safely ignore the years from 11000BCE to 7000BCE! Do the readers and Shri. Oak in particular, agree?
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Similar questions arise for Ketu too. Ketu is the other NODE of moon, the point on Ecliptic where moon crosses it from north to south. It will not be diametrically opposite to previous Rahu position but a little away. ketu is also only a position and at Ketu there is nothing. Like rahu, ketu also moves backwards in successive moon orbits. It can hardly be described as motion of Ketu as it is not a continuous motion like planets but a series of spots.
As in case of Rahu, I wonder whether our ancient Astronomers had the same concept of Ketu as the current one. With visual observation, how can one decide where the moon crosses the Ecliptic? As Ketu is supposed to cause Lunar Eclipse, did they understand Ketu as Earth's shadow? It is known that Lunar Eclipse is caused by Moon passing through Earth's shadow (Umbra and Penumbra). How do the old astronomers describe the movement of Ketu and specify its position at any given time?
Moon will pass through Ketu in every orbit. Only if it happens to be a Full moon night, there will be a Lunar Eclipse. Even if Sun and Moon are not exactly 180 degrees apart but + - 6 degrees, a partial Lunar Eclipse is possible when mMoon is at Ketu. This is probably the explanation why Lunar Eclipses are more frequent compared to Solar Eclipses. For Solar Eclipse to occur, Sun must be at Rahu Node, (which itself does not happen frequently. Does it happen once in each Year?) and moon too must be at the same place on Ecliptic, not too much above or below.
I am interested in knowing what exactly our ancestors understood by Rahu and Ketu. I am not convinced that they understood them as Nodes of Moon on Ecliptic. I invite readers to share their information on these points.
Friday, March 17, 2017
Rahu, I understand, is the NODE or point of intersection between Sun’s and Moons paths, where moon crosses the Ecliptic from South to North. So it is just a SPOT. There is nothing at the spot! I further understand that the position of Rahu in each consecutive Lunar orbit changes slightly, moving retrograde along the Ecliptic. This is the so-called motion of Rahu. Does the change in position move equally in each Orbit on Moon? I dont know.
I further understand that the location of Rahu goes around the Ecliptic , moving retrograde and takes about 18.6 years for one orbit of its own. I take it that these are Solar years. They equal how many Lunar months? 18.6 x 12 = 223 plus Adhik masas at 1 per 29 months or plus about 8 or total 231 lunar months or thereabout. If Rahu moves at a uniform rate, then each time it moves about 360/231 or 1.5 degrees approximately. After going round the Ecliptic does Rahu come back to the exact spot it started from? I dont think so but would like to know.
I am not sure of these calculations and would like to hear about them from readers.
My main question is different. Did our ancestors have the same concept about Rahu?
It is difficult to believe that thousands of years back, when there were no telescopes, anyone could identify a NODE of moon, leave aside its changing position per orbit of moon! So what did they understand by Rahu? Their concept was it was something which caused Solar Eclipse. We know that Solar Eclipse is caused by the moon coming between Sun and Earth. So was the old concept of Rahu, ‘something’ directly behind the moon as seen from earth? How do the ancestors describe motion of Rahu? How do they designate ‘location’ of Rahu at various times of the day month or year? I invite readers to throw some light on this issue.
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!)