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!

Last Seven Days

माझी थोडी ओळख

My photo
San Ramon and Mumbai, California and Maharashtra, United States
ज्येष्ठ नागरिक. साहित्य व संगीत प्रेमी. Senior Citizen

Thursday, February 2, 2017

Short Krishnapaksha Once Again.


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!)

12 comments:

Nilesh Oak said...

I have not checked what Shri Phadnis has asked me to and this is because my plate is full and much more.

What Shri Phadnis is exploring is very useful and it will certainly have value in determining and/or validating the chronology of Mahabharata war.

Therefore I have no reason to discourage Shri Phadnis from what he is doing and every reason to encourage.

Having said that, he is barking at the wrong tree. Unless he is clear on broader time interval (including its upper and lower limits) for the timing of Mahabharata war (based on AV observation, Bhishma Nirvana, Sharad rutu and month of Margashirsha, and Amawasya as the first day of war, Margashirsha as the month of the war, on and on.. ) we will never ever come to discuss the short fortnight.

So while it is great for Shri Phadnis to explore these critical, albeit 'near earth phenomenon', he will do well to also spend time and fight out other issues he has for my timeline... Bhishma Nirvana duration, season of the war, etc.....since we will not come to discuss short fortnight before the above issues mentioned. This is because logic of science demands it.

In layperson's language, we can fight about the time of the day or day of the month or month of the year or year of the century or century of the millennium.. unless we are in agreement on Millennium, century, year, month, day etc. in that order...

Warm regards,

Nilesh Oak

Nilesh Oak said...

I meant (last paragraph).. we can NOT fight....

प्रभाकर फडणीस P.K. Phadnis said...

I have readily accepted 'Epoch of Arundhati' as the period where to look for the year. In fact, in my view, the period + - 200 years when Arundhati was ahead of Vasishtha is the most probable period, considering the limits of visual observation for taking note of Arundhati being ahead.
I have no resources for research and have no preferred year or date.
However, I have already specified in this blog earlier, which specific minimum conditions any proposed year or date must meet. One of the tests in the short krishnapaksha just prior to war. Earlier, it was being dismissed as 'highly improbable' which I have debunked.
I, of course do not agree that the war began before end of monsoon, or that Bhishma spent 93 days on deathbed. Bhishma died on start of Uttarayan and war began 68 days before that. The Mahabharat text cannot be twisted to fit any non-matching astronomical observation.

प्रभाकर फडणीस P.K. Phadnis said...

I meant 'Arundhati was 'MAXIMUM' ahead of Visishtha.

Lean Jedi said...

All right. A was ahead of V with max separation around 6000 BCE. So let's take this date plus minus 1000 years. BTW , I am ok for any other time period too. Next step to narrow down is using saturn position and then Jupiter and then combined positions of Saturn/Jupiter.

Btw, I have done this myself more than 7 years ago.

Moving on...so tell me where do you want your saturn to be and also jupiter to be ...so that they can explain 3 descriptions each as stated in Mahabharata text?

Lean Jedi said...

Considering saturn takes about 30 years for one orbital cycle..means we have 2000 years/ 30 , I.e. about 70 instances. Jupiter has 12 years as orbital period ...and thus 170 instances...however, together around 2000/60 I.e. about 35 instances of saturn/jupiter combination. .

All we need is your requirements for positions of Saturn and also Jupiter.

Lean Jedi said...

After this would come descriptions of Mars (5 specific observations) then Venus (2 observations)...then one may be ready to get into near earth phenomenon of lunar month, tithi, short paksha, eclipses and so on...

प्रभाकर फडणीस P.K. Phadnis said...

A was Maximum ahead of V around 5800BCE according to diagram given in Shri. Oak's book. So I consider 6000BCE to 5600BCE as the most probable period during which the war occurred. I have written previously as to what conditions a proposed year should fulfill. One of them is a short Krishnapaksha of 13 days just prior to war.

Lean Jedi said...

No issue with range proposed by you. As to jumping to short paksha and searching for one...without narrowing down further based on scheme proposed by me (saturn, Jupiter, mars, Venus)...all the best. Godspeed.

प्रभाकर फडणीस P.K. Phadnis said...

With multiple positions for Saturn, Jupiter and Mars mentioned in the Text, there are many combinations possible. But if one combination is satisfied other positions for them remain unmatched. If I have to make a choice, I would prefer Jupiter at Shravan,Saturn at Rohini and Mars at Anuradha or further down the path at the time of commencement of war. (Mars going 'Vakra' at Magha remains unresolved as your attempt to define Vakra as 'crossing of ecliptic' is not bourne out by your own video.)
I have not said anywhere that 'Short Krishnapaksha of 13 days' is the First or Prime requirement but it cannot be wished away or ignored as 'flight of fancy' as I have shown it to be very much feasible.
Regarding positions of planets you have examined and recorded what you found and claimed that they satisfy all the references in the Text. I dont find it to be tru and have written in detail.

Nilesh Oak said...

I am good with your choice of Jupiter and ok with Mars too.

My explanation of Mars varka motion remains the best, to this day, but I have no reason to force it on anyone. Of course, I ask that others provide their own. No point simply stating mine is not acceptable.
--
No idea why you keep on harping on some imaginary researcher WISHING AWAY OR IGNORING specific Mahabharata evidence. No need for imagination. With the exception of Vartak and Oak, all other researchers have done it, no exception.

And while Vartak have tried to explain each of the piece of evidence, and thus have introduced inconsistencies, Oak has tabulated conflicting observations (against his theory and proposal) with un-paralleled clarity in his books or on blogs (e.g. start and stop of Balarama Tirthayatra, description of Krishna leaving at the end of Sharad and beginning of Hemant, etc.)

Nilesh Oak said...

I am glad your realize the issues of "But if one combination is satisfied other positions for them remain unmatched".

It is then interesting that Vartak solved such tough problems, although he went against his own arguments by invoking multiple theories.. .a NO NO for a scientific proposal.

--

Positions of Saturn and Jupiter for 5561 BCE fit best for entire time interval of 11091 BCE through 4508 BCE. This is my assertion and I would love to be proved wrong. But that would take efforts on other's part to check every possible combinations about (6500/60 ~ 110).

I have done it and that is why I can assert 5561 BCE to be the best.

Iti Lekhanseema.