Thank you, it is sad that when one tries to explain the true history of one's country is continuously questioned rather than celebrated. your efforts are appreciated.
@@NileshOak What do you mean by well said? Shouldn't you be questioned about your theories as a form of rigorous testing? Is non-questioning something to celebrate?
They're colonised and sold out. If they toe the line of thinking of indology researchers from Oxford, Harvard and these other western universities which study indology, they get good grants, recognition, international travel, etc. They're sold out.
Nilesh ji 🙏.... You explain things in a very lucid n simple way.... However you perhaps have to make it even simpler so that even a certain CHAI-walla can understand it... 😉😉😉
Namaskar I never had trouble explaining things to Chaiwala, on the other hand most degree holders, snobs and academics either struggle or are incompetent to comprehend Adhyatmic and Vaijnanic mysteries.
@@NileshOak pranam 🙏....I was referring not to CHAI-waalas in general who are very smart n have a lot of shraddha BUT a certain CHAI-walla who takes pride in "NOT CHANGING EVEN A SINGLE LINE IN OUR HISTORY 📖 BOOKS 📚"....😉😉😉....please 🙏 keep up the saadhana n tapasya...
@@Sanatan_Rishika Thank you. That Chai-wala is super smart and will bring the changes when lazy folks wake up in large numbers, shed their tamas and take to Swadharma. CHAI-wala is doing his swadharma, it is time Hindus do theirs.
I don't see maturity, integrity in many intellectual folks and phd's. Don't know why they do leg pulling. They just wanna establish or prove themselves. That's why bhakti is required only intelact does nothing.
I am watching and learning from your researches on the Antiquity of Bharat 🇮🇳 (Aryavrat) maybe for last 5 years now. And I don’t think all the names which are taken above who speak in criticism have done even 1% of that thorough research which you have done and which is available in vast recordings of hundreds of videos for last so many years on CZcams for public. 🙏🙏🙏
Dear Dr. Oak, Namaskar 1. The word used by Veda Vyasa is Kaumude and not Kaumudi as seen in the dictionary reference. Both words would have different meaning. 2. 'Shardante Himagame' must be taken together. If the first word is considered separately and its meaning taken as mid-Sharad, then what is the role of second word must be explained. Sharad season lasts for 2 months. Therefore, mid Sharad would imply the end of the first month of sharad season. Interpreting it as mid of the second month of sharad will be ?. This interpretation will clash with the second word Himagame in the MB text. Once it is decided, the subsequent examination becomes infructuous. 3. Prof. Achar's/Dr. Pandit's claim of the year 3067 BCE is based exclusively on the day of Bhishma Nirvana as mentioned in MB text. Therefore, the rest of the exercise is to fit the claim. For their claim the remining text of Mahabharata is unnecessary. They explain: "Bhisma Moksha at Magha masa data indicates vernal equinox at Rohini... Mahabharata war can’t go beyond 3200 BCE." The astronomy simulator exhibits so. This explanation prohibits the total day count of ~104 days between the first day of the war and the day of Bhishma Nirvana. Dr. Pandit, "My counts for 58 day TL are perfect. (56 day TL if Dr Achar TL is taken). This counts 27/30 days on Ganga Teerth also." Best
Namaskar 1. Please elaborate on the meanings of kaumude vs. Kaumudi. 2. Who are these researchers who are claiming Sharadante to mean the middle of Sharad? What is the significance of that assumption and interpretation? 3. Have you read Prof KS Raghavan who proposed 3067 BCE in 1969? Do you know the basis he used to claim 3067 BCE? Do you know that this leads to Krishna being 45 years old at the time of the Mahabharat war and a total life span of 82 years? And Bhishma on the bed of arrows for only 43 days?
Namaskar The translation of Udyoga 81.7 is by Prof Achar and Dr. Ashok Bhatnagar (also by Gita Press and others). If you don't agree with their translation, suggest alternate translation and it's implications. I am asserting that no matter what gymnastics one does with this Shlok, one will not be able use this Shlok in support of one's claim anywhere from 7000 BCE through 1000 BCE.
Dr. @@NileshOak Namaskar, Thank you for your responses. I did post a reply but that got lost in some digital glitch. I will summarize what I wrote. Any reinterpretation of current usage will open up new inconsistencies and questions. These will have to be addressed on a case-to-case basis appropriately. Regarding your comment about Udyoga 8.17, I tend to agree with your assertion. In theory, this shloka is not critical for ascertaining the year of the war in case one uses precession. Thank you once again.
@@Atul.Kumar.Kuthiala Namaskar 1. What is the interpretation per the 'current usage' of Udyoga 81:7? 2. Udyoga 81:7 being not critical is one issue. The fact it is an astronomy description and thus any researcher of MB dating (astronomy basis or otherwise) still must take into account and must clearly state if it agrees with his/her claim or NOT. The third issue is if MB dating researchers (and their ability) recognize the problematic nature of Udyoga 81:7 for any claim (including theirs) that falls between 7000 BCE through 1000 BCE ...BUT frankly for any claim that falls anywhere in the last 20,000 years. 3. And since this description of Udyoga 81:7 goes against the rest of the 300+ astronomy descriptions of Mahabharata, it is important to know the 'critical' nature of this evidence and each researcher must state his/her position, clearly, regarding this reference. Warm regards, Nilesh Oak
Namaskar Dr. @@NileshOak 81.7 can't be interpreted in isolation. All scholars must first fix the meaning of 81.6, second line: "maitre muhūrte". I suggest that Veda Vyasa implies maitre muhūrte to be when the moon resides in Anuradha Nakshtra. This is different from the current understanding of treating it to be a muhurta of 48 minutes of the clock. Had the word been simply muhūrta, then this meaning is correct but not in the context of expression in 81.6. Once settled then we can proceed with the correct interpretation of 81.7. Hope this helps.
Whoever could not fix arundhati vashistha event in their dating of Mahabharata is mostly 99% wrong. These so called scolars are cherry picking anything that might suit their personal dating and are ignoring everything else.
This is indeed true. However not relevant for current discussion. These researchers refuse to look at better answers even when they are aware of them. Worse, they continue to stick to their unscientific and illogical claims even after their mistakes are pointed out.
Why did you respond to Jaysree's comment on Twitter in a similar way that Nityanand did in the Insta message above, i.e I don't want to reply? Though I know you gave a response to Jaysree in a blog post, don't you think it is portrays you as slightly hypocritical to some?
Thank you, it is sad that when one tries to explain the true history of one's country is continuously questioned rather than celebrated. your efforts are appreciated.
Well said
@@NileshOak What do you mean by well said? Shouldn't you be questioned about your theories as a form of rigorous testing? Is non-questioning something to celebrate?
I was looking out for this. आप का अभिनंदन।
🙏🙏
Excellent Stuff.... 🙏🙏
Thank you 🙌
❤ very informative session.
So glad!
🙏🙏
Thanks
🙏🙏
people like you and Graham Hancock, people are waking up and actually questioning traditional narrative … And that's good for sattya-ankur ..
They're colonised and sold out. If they toe the line of thinking of indology researchers from Oxford, Harvard and these other western universities which study indology, they get good grants, recognition, international travel, etc. They're sold out.
What is your date does Udyoga 81:7 point towards according to your translation of this passage? Is it closer to 5561 BCE?
Nilesh ji 🙏.... You explain things in a very lucid n simple way.... However you perhaps have to make it even simpler so that even a certain CHAI-walla can understand it... 😉😉😉
Namaskar
I never had trouble explaining things to Chaiwala, on the other hand most degree holders, snobs and academics either struggle or are incompetent to comprehend Adhyatmic and Vaijnanic mysteries.
@@NileshOak pranam 🙏....I was referring not to CHAI-waalas in general who are very smart n have a lot of shraddha BUT a certain CHAI-walla who takes pride in "NOT CHANGING EVEN A SINGLE LINE IN OUR HISTORY 📖 BOOKS 📚"....😉😉😉....please 🙏 keep up the saadhana n tapasya...
@@Sanatan_Rishika
Thank you.
That Chai-wala is super smart and will bring the changes when lazy folks wake up in large numbers, shed their tamas and take to Swadharma. CHAI-wala is doing his swadharma, it is time Hindus do theirs.
I don't see maturity, integrity in many intellectual folks and phd's. Don't know why they do leg pulling. They just wanna establish or prove themselves. That's why bhakti is required only intelact does nothing.
I am watching and learning from your researches on the Antiquity of Bharat 🇮🇳 (Aryavrat) maybe for last 5 years now. And I don’t think all the names which are taken above who speak in criticism have done even 1% of that thorough research which you have done and which is available in vast recordings of hundreds of videos for last so many years on CZcams for public.
🙏🙏🙏
Yours is a truly revolutionary claim that exposes too many facets, hence the unbelievable resistance.
🙏🙏
Sir you have mentioned stàrt of mahabharat 16 oct 5561
Which centuary 1500 or 1600 in modern age plz let me know
16 October 5561 BCE.
Before common Era
I think they're still victims of colonization... Not that Cristobal Colon had anything to do with it. Namaskar
U said it,sir
Dear Dr. Oak,
Namaskar
1. The word used by Veda Vyasa is Kaumude and not Kaumudi as seen in the dictionary reference. Both words would have different meaning.
2. 'Shardante Himagame' must be taken together.
If the first word is considered separately and its meaning taken as mid-Sharad, then what is the role of second word must be explained. Sharad season lasts for 2 months. Therefore, mid Sharad would imply the end of the first month of sharad season. Interpreting it as mid of the second month of sharad will be ?. This interpretation will clash with the second word Himagame in the MB text.
Once it is decided, the subsequent examination becomes infructuous.
3. Prof. Achar's/Dr. Pandit's claim of the year 3067 BCE is based exclusively on the day of Bhishma Nirvana as mentioned in MB text. Therefore, the rest of the exercise is to fit the claim. For their claim the remining text of Mahabharata is unnecessary. They explain:
"Bhisma Moksha at Magha masa data indicates vernal equinox at Rohini... Mahabharata war can’t go beyond 3200 BCE."
The astronomy simulator exhibits so.
This explanation prohibits the total day count of ~104 days between the first day of the war and the day of Bhishma Nirvana.
Dr. Pandit, "My counts for 58 day TL are perfect. (56 day TL if Dr Achar TL is taken). This counts 27/30 days on Ganga Teerth also."
Best
Namaskar
1. Please elaborate on the meanings of kaumude vs. Kaumudi.
2. Who are these researchers who are claiming Sharadante to mean the middle of Sharad? What is the significance of that assumption and interpretation?
3. Have you read Prof KS Raghavan who proposed 3067 BCE in 1969? Do you know the basis he used to claim 3067 BCE? Do you know that this leads to Krishna being 45 years old at the time of the Mahabharat war and a total life span of 82 years? And Bhishma on the bed of arrows for only 43 days?
Namaskar
The translation of Udyoga 81.7 is by Prof Achar and Dr. Ashok Bhatnagar (also by Gita Press and others). If you don't agree with their translation, suggest alternate translation and it's implications.
I am asserting that no matter what gymnastics one does with this Shlok, one will not be able use this Shlok in support of one's claim anywhere from 7000 BCE through 1000 BCE.
Dr. @@NileshOak
Namaskar,
Thank you for your responses.
I did post a reply but that got lost in some digital glitch.
I will summarize what I wrote.
Any reinterpretation of current usage will open up new inconsistencies and questions. These will have to be addressed on a case-to-case basis appropriately.
Regarding your comment about Udyoga 8.17, I tend to agree with your assertion. In theory, this shloka is not critical for ascertaining the year of the war in case one uses precession.
Thank you once again.
@@Atul.Kumar.Kuthiala
Namaskar
1. What is the interpretation per the 'current usage' of Udyoga 81:7?
2. Udyoga 81:7 being not critical is one issue. The fact it is an astronomy description and thus any researcher of MB dating (astronomy basis or otherwise) still must take into account and must clearly state if it agrees with his/her claim or NOT. The third issue is if MB dating researchers (and their ability) recognize the problematic nature of Udyoga 81:7 for any claim (including theirs) that falls between 7000 BCE through 1000 BCE ...BUT frankly for any claim that falls anywhere in the last 20,000 years.
3. And since this description of Udyoga 81:7 goes against the rest of the 300+ astronomy descriptions of Mahabharata, it is important to know the 'critical' nature of this evidence and each researcher must state his/her position, clearly, regarding this reference.
Warm regards,
Nilesh Oak
Namaskar Dr. @@NileshOak
81.7 can't be interpreted in isolation.
All scholars must first fix the meaning of 81.6, second line: "maitre muhūrte".
I suggest that Veda Vyasa implies maitre muhūrte to be when the moon resides in Anuradha Nakshtra. This is different from the current understanding of treating it to be a muhurta of 48 minutes of the clock. Had the word been simply muhūrta, then this meaning is correct but not in the context of expression in 81.6.
Once settled then we can proceed with the correct interpretation of 81.7.
Hope this helps.
Whoever could not fix arundhati vashistha event in their dating of Mahabharata is mostly 99% wrong.
These so called scolars are cherry picking anything that might suit their personal dating and are ignoring everything else.
🙏🙏
Science by it's very nature is a series of corrected mistakes.
This is indeed true.
However not relevant for current discussion. These researchers refuse to look at better answers even when they are aware of them. Worse, they continue to stick to their unscientific and illogical claims even after their mistakes are pointed out.
@@NileshOak I believe it is relevant as it illustrates this these researchers are not being scientific themselves. As your comment pointed out.
Why did you respond to Jaysree's comment on Twitter in a similar way that Nityanand did in the Insta message above, i.e I don't want to reply? Though I know you gave a response to Jaysree in a blog post, don't you think it is portrays you as slightly hypocritical to some?