Part 6 of 10: 12209 BCE date of Ramayana is based on software generated illusion

[Raja Roy]

Respected members,

I am pleased to share Part 6 of 10 of my blog refuting Nilesh Oak's dating of Ramayana to 12209 BCE. In this article I show that the trajectory and brightness of comets cannot be predicted even for 100 years, forget about 14000 years. Oak's 12209 BCE date of Ramayana is based on software generated illusion. It has no basis in reality.

Refutation of Nilesh Oak’s Astronomical Dating of Ramayana to 12209 BCE | by Dr. Raja Ram Mohan Roy | May, 2021 | Medium

Best regards,

Raja

[Bijoy Misra]

Dr Raja,

I admire your efforts.

But I think it is not necessary.  The false stories have their natural death.

Sri Oak is neither a student of astronomy nor of literature.

Touting arbitrary "findings" in social media is no research.

You should probably dig in more tangible research like dating Valmiki,

or dating Sri Krishna or help out to remove some of the controversies

still going on in dating the Buddha.   Each of these would be useful if

comprehensively done.

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

--
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/CAJSSQ5sBqkn2xW2iVBJOogomkYWMX5b942QU%3DAXnsV%3DKo%2B6Bmw%40mail.gmail.com.

[BVK Sastry (G-S-Pop)]

Namaste

 

May be  areas that need strategic attention (seriously ! sincerely!!  ) for ‘future / remote / imagined  beneficiaries’   are:

 

      1) Misra ji:  Who-  How to REVIEW-AUDIT- FUND RESEARCH for  < dig in more tangible research or help out to remove some of the controversies still going on …...  Each of these would be useful if comprehensively done.>

 

      2) Raja   ji :    How to address   < software generated illusions. It has no basis in reality>.   Too much dependency on   use of  ‘Given- Free – Tools ’  without caring for the deep defects in-built.  

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

[R. N. iyengar]

I also admire Dr.Roy's activism in dissecting and debunking wrong narrations about Indic Chronology supposedly deciphered from ancient Sanskrit texts. 

I like to express my opinion on a fundamental issue:

The problems in the broad area of History of Science& Technology as can be understood from Sanskrit texts are manifold: 

1) Majority of Bhaaratiyas interested in investigating ancient texts for cultural/scientific history are not well versed in Sanskrit. They quickly fall back on translations (mainly in English). The nightmare here is about technical words coined and used contextually by our ancient S&T scholars and great poets who used Sanskrit as a near mother tongue language not always bound  by grammatical niceties. 

2) Reading and understanding original Sanskrit texts is not easy. It is taxing and time consuming. One may read commentaries to get some idea of what the author may mean but one can not be sure. Then there are differences of opinion among the commentators: see the different interpretations for Brahmaraashi in the RaamayaNa, 

https://groups.google.com/g/bvparishat/c/cmkVuykdBMM/m/gbuKGjHSAgAJ

(courtesy: David Reigle, 23rd March)

Traditional scholars would go only by grammar and break the words in different ways leading to different meanings for technical words, which the original author in a sky observation would have meant for a unique celestial object. 

If you accept  [Vaṃśīdhara Śivasahāya] understands the word brahmarāśiḥ as a bahuvrīhi, referring to Dhruva, in the sense of “that in which there is a collection of the stars known as the Seven Seers (brahmaṇāṃ saptarṣīṇāṃ rāśiḥ samuho yatra saḥ).” Ck [Mādhava Yogīndra] and Ct [Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa] understand, similarly, “that which has for its tail the Seven Seers (pucchabhāgo yasmin sa tathā—so Ck],   you are already lead on a slippery ground. 

The reasons for this type of Vyaakhyaanas on scientific topics and/or sky pictures are due to Vaakhyaartha-jnaana-pradarshana taking precedence over Padaartha-jnaana. 

The Saptarshi constellation (U.Major) could look like a tail to the North Pole Star (Polaris of U.Minor as Dhruva) only from 17-18 th century AD onwards.  Probably Nagesha Bhatta had the padaartha jnaana of his times, but not being able to know what Padaartha (object) Vaalmiiki meant by the Abhidhaana (name) Dhruva. 

[As an aside: In the 8th Century AD, the famous poet Maagha in his Shishupaalavadham saw a sky picture of the Saptarshi-ShakaTa being disturbed by the foot of the alpa-muurti (small looking) child Dhruva as VishNu.]

3) It is well known that Sanskrit words can have multiple meanings and the same object can be indicated by different names. Deriving words with the help of 'dhaatu' may indicate some shades of meaning that may not always fit with the context, when the author has taken a "ruuDhyartha". The reverse is also possible, when we take the "current meaning" while the ancient author might have coined a technical word from the basic root.  

4) Unless the correct data is assembled after manuscript editing, textual comparison. and criticism feeding some imaginary event to planetarium software makes no sense.

5) A common feature of ancient texts and statements on astral sciences (of the non-horoscope type) is, the roots of the technical word formations go to the Vedas. 

This is a serious but more important topic raised by Prof. Pandurangi about the deities of the Vedas; may be for another day....

regards

RNI

[Raja Roy]

Dear Sastry ji,

This problem is very serious. I was taught to do due diligence before using any tool during my Ph.D. I was told that I will have to defend what I write. Software maker is not going to come to my defence. I was taught to verify every reference myself. Somebody quoting it will not come to my defence. These are important lessons that come only by getting rigorous training.

Best regards,

Raja

--

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/001e01d7550c%24093d2690%241bb773b0%24%40gmail.com.

[Bijoy Misra]

Friends,

Software calculation with inbuilt database is the most fallacious work in the modern

amateur work.  Some such dating of the vedas was attempted here at Harvard thirty

years ago by some who were fascinated with computer software.  It took efforts to

convince people that such "detection" is bogus, Software "discovers" what had been

fed in.  Astrology may work, since one does not determine but wants to make guesses.

People must escape the software fallacy of "prediction.". Let India develop more analysis

and first principle grounded research.

Regards,

Bijoy Misra

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJSSQ5sk7Ai%2Be%3DCyhz-5tOYWxOkXPgPkjW7-3-e95DTGsD_7hg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Raja Roy]

Greetings,

Now that the claim of Brahmarashi being Abhijit has been thoroughly debunked as Mars can never be near Abhijit, members should recall the claims of hundreds of corroborations by Oak. What do you think of those claims now? 

Best regards,

Raja

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALw-kjW77Z%2Bmb_P5bd1UEYj%2Bi5VaCWtd5CFpYAxsN4_pSjaT5Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[BVK Sastry (G-S-Pop)]

Namaste

 

1.  Raja ji:  Heed to Misra ji’s  advise and words of wisdom  and experience, reading: < People must escape the software fallacy of "prediction.". Let India develop more analysis and first principle grounded research.>.

 

Now the question is  who and where are the INVESTORS and RESEARCHERS of HOME TEAM ?  to take the poorvapaksha: Software fallacy and ‘SI Team’ to ‘ Decode What is Vednaga Jyotirganita- Vedanga Jyotisha’ as a part of ‘Consciousness studies’- Cognitive Linguistics: The Vak-yoga-vijnana of Panini-Patanjali tradition ??

 These studies are NOT ‘ ROI ( Return on Investment Motivated studies/ projects). But failure to do the right kind of INVESTMENT- RESEARCH can permanently damage  and derail the  ‘ IDENTITY’,  And at Worst, the SI Team will just end up in cacophonies for having failed to keep up the clarity on source text-exposition. Yes, it is a difficult issue,  if any one cares for it beyond the ‘ Identity by Citizen ship of Nation’ issues and Tax shelter-benefits.. Sorry if that hurts any one.

 

2.  Misra Ji:  Thank you for vocing a sane and timely advise.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJSSQ5t4Sc8jNzLU3cBZWp7Vkty%2BoCSZm%3D840UTRYzBx4sZfVw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear BVK and friends,

To create "research" papers to satisfy dogma is a western creation.

It has been called theological research, hence dates come into play.

India discovered the phrase "I donot know".  There has been never

an effort to create a closure.  India also discovered that man is

capable of knowing his/her own limitations.  So we acknowledge

and doi not pretend.  Pretension is a facade to manipulate with a

motive to fool.  Imperialism was built in with the manipulation of

knowledge or suppression of it.  It continues in many parts of the

world and occasionally goes in the guise of "books".

First principle research is slow and isnot well funded since it may not

have immediate political gain.  But it goes in the direction of building

the nation and creating new original thinkers.  World science is filled

with long gaps in knowledge and India itself has its own Knowledge

System.   While exposing and narrating the System is helpful, setting

up challenges to the youth would engage them.  Challenges would only

come when we avoid complacency and refuse to declare closure.

Taking an analytic approach to all problems would bring freshness and

engage the youth.

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/00a701d75562%24afec1680%240fc44380%24%40gmail.com.

[Raja Roy]

Dear Prof. Misra,

Coming back to your earlier comment, I beg to differ from your assessment. It is not going to go away on its own. I have not seen anyone do so much damage to our intellectual traditions in so little time. Left unchecked, the damage will become permanent. Already, so many people believe that Lord Rama was born in Sharad, in 12209 BCE, MB happened in 5561 BCE, Rama Setu is not the one made by Lord Rama. He has coined another date for  Gita Jayanti, another date for Bhishma Nirvana. The list goes on. All of this is based on manipulated/manufactured evidence. 

BVP needs to take this seriously. My efforts are very well needed and I will continue. 

Best regards,

Raja

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CALw-kjW4fZV0BYbMYVw1GBE6%3Dbj%3DAuCsabN%3DKX%2BjSs1G3hUheQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[उज्ज्वल राजपूत]

Friends,

Software calculation with inbuilt database is the most fallacious work in the modern

amateur work.  Some such dating of the vedas was attempted here at Harvard thirty

years ago by some who were fascinated with computer software.  It took efforts to

convince people that such "detection" is bogus,

या॒न्त्रि॒क॒स॒ङ्ग॒ण॒नं न खल्वा॒त्मना॑ दु॒ष्टम्। न च॒ तस्य॑ श॒क्त्या व्याकृ॑ष्टो॒ जनो॑ निन्द॒नीयः॑।

Software calculation is not fallacious by itself. Also, there is nothing wrong in being fascinated by the power of computing using a machine.

Software "discovers" what had been fed in.

न केव॑लं॒ यन् निवि॑ष्टम्। यन् मानु॑षो॒ जनो॑ स्वप्रति॒भया॑ वर्षसह॒स्रैरपि॒ न प्रति॑पत्तुं श॒क्नोति॒, तद् यन्त्रे॑ण स॒द्यः प्रति॑पादयितुं शक्यते।

Of course it discovers more than what had been fed in. What man can't know by his own mental capacity in thousands of years can be known using a machine in an instant.

कुत्र॒ तर्हि॑ स्खलन्ति? यद् यन्त्रं॑ प्रयुञ्जा॒नैः प्रति॑पादितं॒ तत् स॒त्यम् इत्य॑व॒धार॑णे। तथै॒व ब॒हूनां॑ म॒तिर् ग॑णितोपकर॒णानि॒ प्रत्यपि॑ वर्तते। वि॒ज्ञा॒नो॒प॒क॒र॒णानि॒ प्रत्यपि॑।

Where, then, do people err? In assuming that whatever has been obtained using software must be true. A similar mindset is seen in people towards mathematical tools, too. Towards scientific tools, too.

[Pradyumna Achar]

Respected Sri Roy,

From your articles, I understand that Sri. Oak has theorised a date of around 12209 BCE and that it can't be earlier than 10,000 BCE.

You suggest that during that time, the sea levels would be about a 100m lower because of which such date does not corroborate with other evidence such as the need for Rama Setu.

However, since Ramayana happened at the end of Treta, which is almost 9 lakh years ago according to the same historical accounts from which the astronomical observations and events are being used to calculate the date of the Ramayana, there seems to be a svavachanavirodha.

Regards

Pradyumna

[Raja Roy]

Respected Pradyumna ji,

My problem with Oak's date is about methodology. He has created the so-called "Astronomy Poison Pills" by misinterpreting the Ramayana texts. Then he has claimed a unique date, which is again based on misinterpretation. Further he claims 600 corroborations, which are either mere assertions or counting analogies/poetic expressions as astronomy observations.

Regards,

Raja

--

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/1614d75f-4b25-47d7-af79-f536f7049b5bn%40googlegroups.com.

[Nilesh Oak]

Thank you so much for the above creations in Sanskrit.   I plan on making use of these (with due credit to you. Would you please kindly state how you should be credited (name, designation, etc.)?

Thank you.
Nilesh Oak

[Nilesh Oak]

My comment was to Ujwaal JI

--

या॒न्त्रि॒क॒स॒ङ्ग॒ण॒नं न खल्वा॒त्मना॑ दु॒ष्टम्। न च॒ तस्य॑ श॒क्त्या व्याकृ॑ष्टो॒ जनो॑ निन्द॒नीयः॑।

Software calculation is not fallacious by itself. Also, there is nothing wrong in being fascinated by the power of computing using a machine.

Software "discovers" what had been fed in.

न केव॑लं॒ यन् निवि॑ष्टम्। यन् मानु॑षो॒ जनो॑ स्वप्रति॒भया॑ वर्षसह॒स्रैरपि॒ न प्रति॑पत्तुं श॒क्नोति॒, तद् यन्त्रे॑ण स॒द्यः प्रति॑पादयितुं शक्यते।

Of course it discovers more than what had been fed in. What man can't know by his own mental capacity in thousands of years can be known using a machine in an instant.

कुत्र॒ तर्हि॑ स्खलन्ति? यद् यन्त्रं॑ प्रयुञ्जा॒नैः प्रति॑पादितं॒ तत् स॒त्यम् इत्य॑व॒धार॑णे। तथै॒व ब॒हूनां॑ म॒तिर् ग॑णितोपकर॒णानि॒ प्रत्यपि॑ वर्तते। वि॒ज्ञा॒नो॒प॒क॒र॒णानि॒ प्रत्यपि॑।

Where, then, do people err? In assuming that whatever has been obtained using software must be true. A similar mindset is seen in people towards mathematical tools, too. Towards scientific tools, too.

[Ramesh Rao]

Learned Folks,

Nilesh Oak does not have the temperament of a scholar as he has mocked, jeered, and cast aspersions on Dr. Roy and me in response to my posting on Facebook the sixth part of Dr. Roy's ten-part series of articles.

He refers to Dr. Roy as my "mentee"! I am not a scholar in these matters to mentor anyone, let alone a scientist and an engineer of the caliber like Dr. Roy.

Nilesh could have done something that is expected of any scholar: respond to the criticism of his work with necessary evidence, show where his critic has read his work wrong, or offer additional evidence to buttress his argument. He has not posted one specific, careful response to Dr. Roy's articles dissecting his thesis about the dating of the Ramayana. Instead he has simply posted links to his videos, offered vague asides, called his critics names, invoked Dr. Popper, mentioned sundry others as if name-dropping and name-calling constitutes scholarship! Alas, he has built a "following" who will march to his beat and respond like members of a cult. 

After posting a jeering response on Facebook he has both deleted his response and unfriended me. 

So much for the pursuit of knowledge!

Why am I bringing this to your notice here? Simply because without holding his feet to the fire, he will continue to beguile and fool readers, and as Dr. Roy argues, do major harm to the pursuit of careful, scholarly, and scientific inquiry into these matters of our past.

With regards,

Ramesh Rao

--

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/76b40e94-1db9-41e6-bdfd-c52b41c71c05n%40googlegroups.com.

[Raja Roy]

Thanks Prof. Rao. Since I started refuting Oak's claims, Oak has not refuted a single point raised by me. Instead he has abused me on Twitter. Here are some examples:

He has not provided any proof that a comet's trajectory and magnitude can be predicted for 14000 years back, which I have asked. Hence, 12209 BCE date of Ramayana is debunked.

As learned members will recall, I had asked Oak to provide following information in this forum:

Oak has not responded. Do you see the magnitude of the problem? Oak does not have a single direct proof of his hypothesis of decoupling of months and seasons from either Ramayana or Mahabharata. Still, he claims hundreds of corroborations and he has not made this data public for scrutiny. All his work on Ramayana and Mahabharata rests on bogus unverified assertions. What is this learned forum going to do about this? 

What is AICTE going to do about it which has given him validation by hosting him?

Best regards,

Raja

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAOn3Y2TdSgZTr8YMbjOLy6VqWJ3BYtWdRwMVM4RDDkaq7_wocw%40mail.gmail.com.