Refutation of Nilesh Oak’s dating of Sushruta to earlier than 5,561 BCE

[Raja Roy]

Respected members,

I am pleased to share my next blog refuting Nilesh Oak's dating of Sushruta to earlier than 5,561 BCE.

Sushruta Sanhita was NOT written over 7,500 years ago | by Dr. Raja Ram Mohan Roy | Apr, 2021 | Medium

Next Saturday 24 April, 2021: Refutation of Nilesh Oak’s astronomical dating of Ramayana to 12,209 BCE: Part 1 of 10 - Understanding Vartak-Oak hypothesis

Best regards,

Raja

[Nityanand Misra]

A well-written article, Dr. Raja Ram Mohan Roy. It is cogent and convincing. While I have not had the time to check the Suśruta-Saṃhitā passages, the citation from Tilak’s work strongly supports your view. 

Somewhat besides the point: I believe no scientific dating of a passage/text (or an event) can be done purely on astronomical grounds and that too based on select verses. Archaeological, climatological, linguistic factors, to speak of a few, are extremely important. When it comes to belief, we can believe anything. But when it comes to scientific dating, we have to keep in mind the language of Suśruta-Saṃhitā (Laukika and not Vedic) also. 

Nevertheless, I would like to hear the views/counter-views of Pandit Kaul and Sh Oak on your article. 

[Nilesh Oak]

Namaskar Shri Nityanand JI

A brief note.

1. I am glad this Manthan is happening.
2.  RRMY has already created a strawman (rather Strawmen) with every single claim of mine or my co-researchers he is claiming to refute.  He has created a strawman fallacy and that is enough reason for rebuke.  Yet, since very few comprehend Nyayadarshan and still fewer dare to point out, this may be lost of many.
3. I read his above blog on Sushruta and supposedly refutation of my claim.  I assert it is not a refutation of my claim and I could not find anything that closely resembles scientific acumen, logical reasoning, or common sense.
4. I am glad that you found his writing 'COGENT and CONVINCING'.  This is 180 degrees opposite of what I have said.  Thus you and me discussing can be very educational for both of us and those who would get to listen to this.  If you are a  game, we can discuss this via forums such as Sangam Talks, Jaipur Dialogues, Sattology, or on my own YouTube channel.
5.  My works on Sushruta and specific claims  (and corresponding evidence) are available via Sangam Talks + 10 part series in Marathi and English at Tejomayabharat YouTube channel.

Warm regards,
Nilesh Oak

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/9aa40d8d-46ca-4cb7-adc9-c7ac9d736257n%40googlegroups.com.

[Raja Roy]

Dear Nityanand ji,

Thanks for your comments. As you have rightly observed astronomical dating needs to be used in conjunction with other pieces of information. From my research, I have not found any astronomical observation in any Indian text that goes beyond 4th millennium BCE. The ones that supposedly go beyond that date are based on interpretation of words in the evidence, and are subjective. So I have the opinion that astronomical dating can be reconciled with archaeological, climatological, linguistic and other pieces of evidence. Thanks again for carefully reading my article.

Best regards,

Raja

On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 10:29 AM Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[Ramesh Rao]

Dear Nilesh,

You say the following...

2.  RRMY (sic) has already created a strawman (rather Strawmen) with every single claim of mine or my co-researchers he is claiming to refute.  He has created a strawman fallacy and that is enough reason for rebuke.  Yet, since very few comprehend Nyayadarshan and still fewer dare to point out, this may be lost of many.

3. I read his above blog on Sushruta and supposedly refutation of my claim.  I assert it is not a refutation of my claim and I could not find anything that closely resembles scientific acumen, logical reasoning, or common sense.

...but you do not offer any contradictory evidence or a careful argument to show how RRMR (not RRMY) has built a strawman and destroyed it or that he is bereft of logical reasoning and common sense! Gosh, go easy, sir... 

You say your work on Susrutha is available elsewhere in your talks, but you do not refute what RRMR cites in his article about what you claim about the antiquity/dates of Susrutha.

You also assume that "few" people on this list are able to "comprehend Nyayadarshan". Dare I say that this is an "interesting assumption", uncalled for, unless you have read all our horoscopes and decided that we were born retards :-)

Are we talking past each other here?

I think this issue could be really interesting if investigators carefully unpack evidence, highlight contradictions/conflicting data, and offer new ways of interpreting the data. Yes, you may believe that you have offered clarification elsewhere, evidence somewhere else, and countered a similar argument in yet another place. But those clarifications and refutations are not made available here, or you have not summarized them here. I remember Michael Witzel using similar red herring fallacies on another discussion list, some two decades and more ago, and people telling him to stop dropping citations but get to the simple data or  piece of evidence to refute the argument that he was seeking to counter.  

When you say -- "I could not find anything that closely resembles scientific acumen, logical reasoning, or common sense" -- it is nothing more than abuse, and this cannot and should not be the language or the tactics used for discussions on this scholarly list.

We need to get past ad hominems, non sequiturs, red herrings, and grandiose assertions if we are interested in pursuing the truth, and therefore if anyone points out weaknesses in your methodology or in your collection and analyses of data s/he should be welcomed as adding to the good pursuit of the truth, or whatever comes closest to it, or s/he should be refuted carefully, thoroughly, and not dismissed with abuse. 

Be invested in the process, sir, not the outcome, as you, who keep asserting about your scientific rigor, scientific temper, and scientific methodology, should very well know. 

Best wishes,

Ramesh Rao

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJSSQ5tUfwO1Zm9ZYxE4SH%2Bkfz%3Ds3knm-W3OHsNJ5_3ZiyFq4g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear Nilesh Ji

My comments.

On Sunday, 18 April, 2021 at 10:17:00 pm UTC+5:30 drno.5561bce wrote:

2.  RRMY has already created a strawman (rather Strawmen) with every single claim of mine or my co-researchers he is claiming to refute.  He has created a strawman fallacy and that is enough reason for rebuke.  Yet, since very few comprehend Nyayadarshan and still fewer dare to point out, this may be lost of many.

I think it is not sufficient to merely say that somebody has created a strawman fallacy. It is also important to show why you think it is a strawman fallacy. So coming to Dr. Raja Ram Mohan Roy's well-written article, could you please show with context why you think it is a strawman fallacy? I did not know you were a scholar of Nyāyadarśana (are you?). If you are, it would be great if you could answer some specific questions I have on Śābdabodha by Naiyāyikas and some interpretations in the Padakṛtya commentary by Candraja Siṃha on the Tarka-saṅgraha. Please let me know.

 

3. I read his above blog on Sushruta and supposedly refutation of my claim.  I assert it is not a refutation of my claim and I could not find anything that closely resembles scientific acumen, logical reasoning, or common sense.

On the contrary, I find that he has argued well. To be fair to Dr. Roy, it is fairly scientific and logical: specific points are raised and addressed. In contrast, I did not find any specific contradiction or counter-argument to the points he has raised in your email. 

Dr. Roy has shown exactly where two different lists of seasons and their corresponding month-pairs occur in the same chapter of the same text. Anybody would agree that this needs to be addressed if we are dating a text on the basis of one of these. The way Dr. Roy addresses it is to argue that the second mapping is a later insertion/interpolation and cites Tilak in his support: again a fairly scientific and logical approach. If one reads the Ayurveda-Rahasya-Dipika commentary, it discusses this differently including the possibility of geographical differences and also that the first mapping is in the adhikāra of rasa-bala while the second is in the adhikāra of saṃśodhana. This is also a possibility, but Āyurveda scholars are best qualified to comment here. From a linguistic perspective, the words ‘iha tu’ introducing the second mapping need to be explained. The word ‘tu’ often connotes a difference of opinion/context or contradiction with what has been said/cited earlier. Why does the text give one set of seasons and their mappings earlier and a second later which begins with ‘iha tu’? Does ‘iha’ specify the location in time (at this time) or place (in this place) or context (in this śāstra or adhikāra)? What are your views on this?

 

4. I am glad that you found his writing 'COGENT and CONVINCING'.  This is 180 degrees opposite of what I have said.  Thus you and me discussing can be very educational for both of us and those who would get to listen to this.  If you are a  game, we can discuss this via forums such as Sangam Talks, Jaipur Dialogues, Sattology, or on my own YouTube channel.

I am happy to discuss, but since this is originally a debate/disagreement between Dr. Roy and you, I think it is only fair if you invite him to the discussion first. I will be happy to join and moderate. A three-way discussion would be even more educational, though I would first like to see your specific counter-views to the point that is raised by Dr. Roy. If you ever visit Mumbai, you are welcome to meet me and we can do this vide face-to-face (even more educational).

 

5.  My works on Sushruta and specific claims  (and corresponding evidence) are available via Sangam Talks + 10 part series in Marathi and English at Tejomayabharat YouTube channel.

Since not everybody has the time and patience to go through all the talks to search for a specific counter-view, can you please answer the following 

(1)  have you addressed the issue raised by Dr. Roy of two different lists of seasons and 

(2) if you have, can you please point out where

Thanks, Nityananda

 

[Nilesh Oak]

Dear Nityananda Ji

As you stated correctly, everyone's time is precious, let me repeat the title of his blog:

Sushruta Sanhita was NOT written over 7,500 years ago

Sushruta Sanhita was NOT written over 7,500 years ago

[Sushruta Samhita was NOT written over 7500 years ago
Refutation of Nilesh Oak's dating of Sushruta to earlier than 5,561 BCE]
--
Why these are strawmen?

Sushruta Sanhita was NOT written over 7,500 years ago

Sushruta Sanhita was NOT written over 7,500 years ago

Sushruta Sanhita was NOT written over 7,500 years ago

1. I have nowhere claimed that the timing of Sushruta Samhita (based on internal evidence of Sushruta Samhita or otherwise) is over 7500 years ago.
thus RRMR claiming he is refuting such a claim is a Strawman.

2. I have indeed asserted that based on the triangulation of genealogy evidence from Sushruta Samhita, Garuda Purana, and Mahabharata, the timing of Sushruta indeed goes back to before the Mahabharata times (5561 BCE).

This evidence does not require any astronomy/seasons/months evidence from Sushruta Samhita. 

Yet what RRMR is discussing is evidence of seasons/months/lunar months from Sushruta Samhita, ad nauseam.

This has no relevance to my inference of Sushruta before 5561 BCE based on genealogy evidence of Sushruta Samhita, Garuda Purana, and Mahabharata.  

Hence Strawman, again.

Your comments?

Warm regards,
Nilesh Oak

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/5d05f6c9-cf66-4670-ae6f-5fff11456ad4n%40googlegroups.com.

[Raja Roy]

Dear Mr. Oak,

If you have not used the evidence of seasons/months, then what is the discussion of Suśruta Saṃhitā 1.6.10 about in 

1.      Fascinating Validation Of Sushruta Samhita | Nilesh Oak | #SangamTalks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIuKuYZ-bd8.

2.      Sushruta & his Samhita - P9 - Sushruta graced Bharat 7500 years ago!. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvHqPKyfLyg.

3. Sushruta and his Saṃhitā — Part 9— Sushruta graced Bharat atleast 5561 BCE!. https://medium.com/@mitra/sushruta-before-5561bce-34b7155a93bb.

You should listen to what you have said in Sangam Talks at 15:50. Why did you do that knowing fully well that Suśruta Saṃhitā 1.6.10 contains conflicting information?

Further, you say the following in a medium article:

"Per this arrangement, the timing of Sushruta Samhita can be considered to be that of our times or may be about 2000 years ago. This then remains the limitation of dating effort based on internal evidence of Sushruta Samhita."

But this limitation is because you did not quote Suśruta Saṃhitā 1.6.6-7, which gives the standard list of seasons and months. The combination took place according to your own scheme of things between 1500 BCE to 500 CE.

This invalidates your dating of Sushruta in your own scheme of things, which I have stated. I have made no misrepresentation.

Raja

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAK3%2B%3DOry4AJj180Z2xKpcJ7BPV7A%3Dn17UJTNtLZNyZe3%3D7uGaA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear Nilesh Ji

Is there an issue with the title of the article (I am not sure why you wrote it six times in your email)? If so, then we may just ignore the title. The title or any part of it is not ascribed to you. Anyway, the title is the prerogative of the author. 

As I see there are two different issues 

1) Dating of Sushruta-Samhita (SS): In your talk, you first date the SS between 4,000 BCE and 3,000 BCE based on SS 1.6.10 and using the logic that lunar months shift by one with respect to seasons every 2,00 years. A slide in your talk then shows the range as 5,000 BCE to 2,000 BCE (which apparently is due to some sensitivity analysis whose details I did not find in the linked talks and articles). Dr. Roy argues that this date range of 4,000 BCE to 3,000 BCE for the Samhita cannot be reached if we use the same logic on the passage SS 1.6.6-7 which has a different list of seasons and season-month mapping. What if SS 1.6.10 was indeed a later interpolation as Tilak suggests (even you have proposed an update for SS around 2,000 BCE here). I think this objection by Dr. Roy need to be addressed. If you have addressed it somewhere, I would like to read it.  

2) Dating of Sushruta himself: You place Sushruta much before 5561 BCE (as you do in the talk) and Sushruta-Samhita to around 4,000 BCE (as you have done here). I think what Dr. Roy has assumed (I may be corrected here) that it was Sushruta indeed who composed the [initial version of] SS. Your dating of SS, MBh, and Sushruta himself implies a time gap of at least (in fact many more than) 1,500 years between Sushruta and SS. If we use SS 1.6.6-7 and arrive at a much later date for SS than 4,000 BCE, that would imply even a larger time gap between Sushruta and the text famous in his name. This does seem like an issue. Could you please address this? 

Look forward to your specific responses. 

On Monday, 19 April, 2021 at 9:16:50 am UTC+5:30 drno.5561bce wrote:

[Nilesh N Oak]

See my specific responses below.

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 9:47:43 AM UTC-4 Nityanand Misra wrote:

Dear Nilesh Ji

Is there an issue with the title of the article (I am not sure why you wrote it six times in your email)? If so, then we may just ignore the title. The title or any part of it is not ascribed to you. Anyway, the title is the prerogative of the author. 

I don't know what happened and why the title of the blog got posted multiple times. My apologies. 

The entire blog is about refuting my claim of Sushruta before 5561 BCE and strawman claim of Sushruta Samhita before  7500 years ago!  If you re-read the blog, you will see my name in the title, too, assuming you don't deny sub-title is part of the title. (see attached)

This is a strawman fallacy. 

Why just title, the entire content of the blog is the prerogative of the author. The point is it is a misrepresentation of my position/assertion.  Many ranters and emotional creatures don't go beyond the title anyways. They would rather rant than read/watch the stuff (both sides), in the original. 

In addition, nowhere RRMR clearly states what is his assertion/claim for the timing of Sushruta and/or Sushruta Samhita.  Nyaya speak, that is Vitanda.  I don't need to explain this to a knowledgeable individual like you. For the benefit of others, e.g. Nyayadarshana 1:2:3. Folks may also refer to Charaka Vimanasthan 8.

You have avoided the issue of Strawman.  I will wait for your response.

As I see there are two different issues 

1) Dating of Sushruta-Samhita (SS): In your talk, you first date the SS between 4,000 BCE and 3,000 BCE based on SS 1.6.10 and using the logic that lunar months shift by one with respect to seasons every 2,00 years. A slide in your talk then shows the range as 5,000 BCE to 2,000 BCE (which apparently is due to some sensitivity analysis whose details I did not find in the linked talks and articles). Dr. Roy argues that this date range of 4,000 BCE to 3,000 BCE for the Samhita cannot be reached if we use the same logic on the passage SS 1.6.6-7 which has a different list of seasons and season-month mapping. What if SS 1.6.10 was indeed a later interpolation as Tilak suggests (even you have proposed an update for SS around 2,000 BCE here). I think this objection by Dr. Roy need to be addressed. If you have addressed it somewhere, I would like to read it.  

 One may watch the entire presentation but specifically from 13:34 min through 16:43 min.

https://youtu.be/AIuKuYZ-bd8

This explores the possible timing of these seasons/lunar month references, internal to Sushruta Samhita (SS), and possible timing of their updates and insertions.  Introduction of Pravrutta and removal of Shishir throws a curveball and hence my sensitivity analysis.  Notice, SS or Charak Samhita (CS) commentators have shown compulsion to carry out such sensitivity analysis (your attachments) precisely for this reason.  It has confused many and this includes commentaries you quoted (individual trying to reconcile/comprehend and make sense of seasons and corresponding lunar months or solar months and thus the timing of the updates).

Thank you for quoting Sharangadhar's list of seasons and corresponding Zodiac.  I wonder if you have truly comprehended the plausible implications of the Sharangdhar list in the context of astronomy. This may explain the confusion of all SS (or even Charaka Samhita) commentators and/or may provide plausible timing that would make folks fall from their chairs.  I will leave this to you as your homework! 

2) Dating of Sushruta himself: You place Sushruta much before 5561 BCE (as you do in the talk) and Sushruta-Samhita to around 4,000 BCE (as you have done here). I think what Dr. Roy has assumed (I may be corrected here) that it was Sushruta indeed who composed the [initial version of] SS. Your dating of SS, MBh, and Sushruta himself implies a time gap of at least (in fact many more than) 1,500 years between Sushruta and SS. If we use SS 1.6.6-7 and arrive at a much later date for SS than 4,000 BCE, that would imply even a larger time gap between Sushruta and the text famous in his name. This does seem like an issue. Could you please address this? 

My claim for the timing of Sushruta has to do with genealogy, consistency of genealogy, and triangulation of it via Sushruta Samhita, Garuda Purana, and Mahabharata and nothing (Nada) to do with any internal months/season references of Sushruta Samhita.

Most of the confusion in this question/comment [SS around 4000 BCE, 5000 BCE, 3000 BCE, 2000 BCE down to our times] is due to confusion between my claim vs Strawman +  poor understanding of astronomy on the part of RRMR.

Any elementary student of Indian astronomy and modern astronomy ought to know the shift of the lunar month of about one month, with respect to the season, every ~2000 years.

Yet, RRMR calls it, in his words:

" I am going to call this hypothesis as “Vartak-Oak hypothesis”. According to Vartak-Oak hypothesis, seasons consist of different pairs of luni-solar months as time changes." 

Even here, he creates another 'Strawman' viz. Luni-solar months.  The reality is that the shift in the season with respect to the month every 2000 years (due to the precession of the Earth's axis, of course) is with respect to lunar months and not the solar months (unless of course the solar months are identified with zodiac names rather than season names based on cardinal points and tropical year...as opposed to sidereal solar year)

And in case you think he is simply acknowledging this trivially true, albeit with insertion of his strawman and confusing the matter further, yet very important and significant phenomenon, especially for Indian antiquity research and maybe praising Vartak and Oak for educating him on it, think again.

He concludes his blog, with the following words:

"I have referred to Oak’s scheme of things in this article and named it “Vartak-Oak hypothesis”. What is it? What is its basis? What is its validity? Is there evidence for it? Are Oak’s highly touted astronomy poison pills really poison pills? I will answer all these questions and refute each astronomy poison pill pertaining to Rāmāyaṇa in my next series of articles on the refutation of Nilesh Oak’s astronomical dating of Rāmāyaṇa to 12,209 BCE."

I have asked RRMR to add refutation of my assertion of Mahabharata in 5561 BCE to his list of refutations.

If an individual exhibits such poor knowledge of astronomy, yet remains cocky, does he deserve a detailed response?

[Nityanand Misra]

Dear Nilesh Ji

Firstly, your response has is high on ad-hominem, hot air, and unwarranted comments which do not add any value to the discussion and are not suited for a scholarly list like this. Let us savour some examples: “ranters”, “emotional creatures”, “rant”, “it has confused many”, “I wonder if you have truly comprehended”, “confusion of all commentators”, “will make folks fall from chair”, “I will leave this to you as your homework”, “confusing the matter”,  “educating him”,  “poor knowledge of astronomy”, “remains cocky”. May I know what purpose do such expressions and comments serve on a scholarly list? Somebody can bring up your “poor knowledge of Sanskrit” (quoting your own words on this list that your “Sanskrit knowledge is, at best, rudimentary”) and leave some basic Sanskrit learning “as your homework”. Would that add anything of value? So let us avoid ad-hominem comments, unwarranted remarks, and have a civil discussion.

On Monday, 19 April, 2021 at 8:39:07 pm UTC+5:30 Nilesh N Oak wrote:

The entire blog is about refuting my claim of Sushruta before 5561 BCE and strawman claim of Sushruta Samhita before  7500 years ago!  If you re-read the blog, you will see my name in the title, too, assuming you don't deny sub-title is part of the title. (see attached)
 

This is a strawman fallacy. 

I stated in my previous response “I think what Dr. Roy has assumed (I may be corrected here) that it was Sushruta indeed who composed the [initial version of] SS.” If one assumes/believes that it was Sushruta himself who composed the first version of Sushruta-Samhita, then there is no strawman fallacy; for then the date of Sushruta-Samhita would have to match the date of Sushruta. If one assumes/believes that Sushruta had nothing to do with the current available text of Sushruta-Samhita, then it is a different matter. You may clarify your assumptions/beliefs and the reasons for them and Dr. Roy may clarify his.

 

As I see there are two different issues 

1) Dating of Sushruta-Samhita (SS): In your talk, you first date the SS between 4,000 BCE and 3,000 BCE based on SS 1.6.10 and using the logic that lunar months shift by one with respect to seasons every 2,00 years. A slide in your talk then shows the range as 5,000 BCE to 2,000 BCE (which apparently is due to some sensitivity analysis whose details I did not find in the linked talks and articles). Dr. Roy argues that this date range of 4,000 BCE to 3,000 BCE for the Samhita cannot be reached if we use the same logic on the passage SS 1.6.6-7 which has a different list of seasons and season-month mapping. What if SS 1.6.10 was indeed a later interpolation as Tilak suggests (even you have proposed an update for SS around 2,000 BCE here). I think this objection by Dr. Roy need to be addressed. If you have addressed it somewhere, I would like to read it.  

 One may watch the entire presentation but specifically from 13:34 min through 16:43 min.

https://youtu.be/AIuKuYZ-bd8

You have not even mentioned, let alone addressed, the first (original?) list of seasons and season-month mapping in SS 1.6.6-7 either in your video from 13:34 to 16:43 or in your below response. So this is certainly not a specific response. Your video only mentions SS 1.6.10 where we have a second and different list of seasons and a second and different season-month mapping. That is precisely the objection raised by Dr. Roy which you have still not addressed on this thread.  

 

Introduction of Pravrutta and removal of Shishir throws a curveball and hence my sensitivity analysis. 

Please that is is not pravṛtta but prāvṛṭ. Once again, the details of your sensitivity analysis are missing from your response. I am interested in knowing how you went from an initial range of 4,000–3,000 BCE to a post-sensitivity-analysis range of 5,000–2,000 BCE. If you could please share the precise math of his analysis, please do. Being fairly well-versed in Simplex Method, Statistics, Optimization, etc. I have used sensitivity analysis many a time myself, hence my interest in your precise technique and approach.

 

Thank you for quoting Sharangadhar's list of seasons and corresponding Zodiac.  I wonder if you have truly comprehended the plausible implications of the Sharangdhar list in the context of astronomy. This may explain the confusion of all SS (or even Charaka Samhita) commentators and/or may provide plausible timing that would make folks fall from their chairs.  I will leave this to you as your homework! 

In spite of all that you say, you still have not given any answer to the two lists of seasons and season-month mappings. In any way, rather than speaking in riddles, why do you not list all the plausible implications yourself and show how that explains confusion of all commentators (a tall claim) and make people fall from chairs (another tall claim). 

 

2) Dating of Sushruta himself: You place Sushruta much before 5561 BCE (as you do in the talk) and Sushruta-Samhita to around 4,000 BCE (as you have done here). I think what Dr. Roy has assumed (I may be corrected here) that it was Sushruta indeed who composed the [initial version of] SS. Your dating of SS, MBh, and Sushruta himself implies a time gap of at least (in fact many more than) 1,500 years between Sushruta and SS. If we use SS 1.6.6-7 and arrive at a much later date for SS than 4,000 BCE, that would imply even a larger time gap between Sushruta and the text famous in his name. This does seem like an issue. Could you please address this? 

My claim for the timing of Sushruta has to do with genealogy, consistency of genealogy, and triangulation of it via Sushruta Samhita, Garuda Purana, and Mahabharata and nothing (Nada) to do with any internal months/season references of Sushruta Samhita.

Actually, not. As I gather from your presentation, your claim is solely based your date of 5561 BCE for the Mahābhārata war. You yourself say Garuḍa Purāṇa is not dated in your presentation. You yourself claim a date for Suśruta-Saṃhitā whic his much later than your date for Mahābhārata in your presentation. So why do you even need Garuḍa Purāṇa or Suśruta-Saṃhitā to date (as opposed to confirming/establishing the genealogy of) Suśruta? In the presentation, the only date you use to date Suśruta to much earlier than 5561 BCE is your own date of the Mahābhārata war. 

How about some of your favourite sensitivity analysis here? Let us ask a question: What would be your date for Suśruta if you did not use the information from Garuḍa Purāṇa or Suśruta-Saṃhitā that you did? Would it be any different from your current date of much earlier than 5561 BCE? If so, how and why? If not, then you actually do not need the other two texts for your date for Suśruta. 

Even here, he creates another 'Strawman' viz. Luni-solar months.  The reality is that the shift in the season with respect to the month every 2000 years (due to the precession of the Earth's axis, of course) is with respect to lunar months and not the solar months (unless of course the solar months are identified with zodiac names rather than season names based on cardinal points and tropical year...as opposed to sidereal solar year)

 

Dr. Roy says something about luni-solar months and you contradict him saying something does not apply to solar months. I do not think Dr. Roy means the solar months when he says luni-solar months. Several publications and books refer to months of Hindu calendar as luni-solar months. Anyway, I will leave it to him to clarify what he meant by the term luni-solar months.

If an individual exhibits such poor knowledge of astronomy, yet remains cocky, does he deserve a detailed response?

This above sentence, Nilesh Ji, speaks more about you than about Dr. Roy in my opinion.

Thanks, Nityānanda

[Nilesh Oak]

Dear Nityananda Ji

What you are doing is rhetorical GIGO.  I presume this term is considered acceptable on this scholarly list (since no one objected to it last time it was stated by someone in response to my write-up, even though it was enumerated with clear and crisp logic).

If you are convinced of RRMR work, good for you.  You mentioned my name and since I respect your work I decided to respond.  Otherwise, unless specifically asked by someone, I do not feel the need to respond to criticism of my work by the likes of RRMR or Jayasree Saranathan.  They have their motivations and I consider it a good part of Manthan.

Best wishes.

Nilesh Oak

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/833d6d4e-65e3-4199-9648-39d9ca0a90f7n%40googlegroups.com.

[Ramesh Rao]

Dear Nilesh,

These responses from you, despite Nityanand ji's careful attempts to engage you, are not only giving us observers no insight, information, or leads but feel more like authoritarian commands to us to go down with you into a rabbit hole. These flailings, this casting of aspersions, the lack of rigor in your responses, the disrespect you are showing those who seek to engage you, is really unfortunate. 

If indeed you do not care to respond to criticism of your work, then maybe we should all worry about the consequences of your work, similar to the work by a namesake of yours. 

Nityanand ji graciously offered to moderate the discussion between you and RRMR. Instead of accepting it as a great opportunity to validate your work, you have turned on him now. 

I look forward to reading RRMR's promised series of articles refuting your other claims.  

Regards,

Ramesh Rao

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAK3%2B%3DOqeHSzbjFYw%3D2q0hggzdVaGS4Xj0GPWYueYGbLmRho8CA%40mail.gmail.com.