Oak Mahabharata and 7 continuous days of full moon

[Raja Roy]

Respected members,

Having finished my refutation of the 12209 BCE dating of Ramayana, I have started looking at 5561 BCE dating of Mahabharata. Mr. Nilesh Oak is now writing his own Mahabharata which he has named "Oak Mahabharata". He recently posted a verse from Oak Mahabharata as shown below:

From this I see that Mr. Oak is saying that Mahabharata describes seven days of continuous full moon during the last seven days of Mahabharata. I gathered the same from one of his videos recently. 

I would like to check with Dr. Saranathana if this is indeed Mr. Oak's position and from the members if this is possible, seven days of continuous full moon?

I understand that this conclusion is based on the comparison of faces of fallen warriors with the full moon by Vyasa ji. If the face is not severed, i.e. intact, of the fallen warriors, what choice does Vayasa ji have if he has to compare face to moon, which is so common in Indian literature? 

He has used these analogies to claim that war started on Amavasya instead of ekadashi. He has thus changed Gita Jayanti from Ekadashi to Amavasya. This kind of blatant distortion of our scriptures is bothering me deeply. Should Indic Academy be funding this kind of distortion (Indic Academy has funded Prachyam to make 10 movies, Oak's Mahabharata is one of them, total 3 are based on Oak's work out of 10.)

Best regards,

Raja

[Jayasree Saranathan]

Dear Dr. Raja Roy, 

In response to your mail, I have attached two pages from Mr. Oak's book on the date of the Mahabharata war (2011 edition), 

coming under the title, "The moon appearing like the full moon Last 7 days of the war".

He does conclude in that section that he has presented those "Mahabharata observations and their comparison with that of the full moon, during the last 7 days of the war as corroborative evidence in support of 'Amawasya' as the first day of the war."

You have raised your concern about Gita Jayanti day. 

According to Mr.Oak, it is a traditional belief and he considers 'traditional belief worthless, as primary evidence in support of any theory' however he is willing to allow it as corroborative evidence for an established theory. Attached that page too (p.98).

Later in the SM, I found him corroborating the Gita Jayanti day on the 11th day of the war in his timeline (waxing phase), under the pretext that Gita was delivered by Sanjaya to Dhritarashtra only after he returned from the war field on the 10th day following the fall of Bhishma and perhaps that was treated as the day of Gitopadesa on Shukla Ekadashi. 

In my video I have listed down the analogies corroborated by him in his simulator.

Analogies corroborated by Mr Nilesh Oak as astronomy observations (Part 7) - YouTube

He has corroborated 25 analogies in support of solar eclipse on the first day,

28 analogies in support of sharad season, most of them describing the face of the fallen warriors as the full moon. 

In the first 10 days of the war no big hero had fallen.

Only after the fall of Bhishma on the 10th day, do we find the notable heroes falling one by one.

That is the reason for the repeated comparison found in the last 7 to 8 days.

Overall, Mr.Oak has corroborated only 75 Mahabharata references.

21 planetary references + 25 analogies of solar eclipse + 28 analogies of sharad season + Arundhati observation.

Regards, 

Jayasree 

 

--
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/CAJSSQ5sysb28wSiWReMJ-wf0U63%3D%2Bmaz2RUr7LWUPnJo-YeN2A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Raja Roy]

Dear Dr. Saranathan,

Thanks for your detailed reply and confirming that Mr. Oak indeed insists on 7 days of continuous full moon. This is very absurd and if accepted, means that Vyasa ji could not tell the difference between full moon and waxing/waning moon. In fact, Vedic texts are very clear that a full moon can span a maximum of two nights called Anumati and Raakaa. Here is the text of Aitareya Brahmana 32.11 to this effect.

Keith has it as Aitareya Brahmana 32.10 and given the following translation:

I think a great farce is being played to fool people into believing that Mahabharata took place in 5561 BCE using absurd arguments and catchy infographics that has not been verified by anyone. It is sad to see so many educated people fall for this absurdity. It is especially concerning since Mr. Oak has not bothered to present the list of 575+ corroborations for 12209 BCE that I have repeatedly requested for scrutiny.

Best regards,

Raja 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJp7CVQ%2BacN3_gfZVg%3DR5q4eUbyFdzN5JcRqc8n50vN19UuPzA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Dr Raja Roy,

You said at the end of the first post in the present thread as follows :

Should Indic Academy be funding this kind of distortion (Indic Academy has funded Prachyam to make 10 movies, Oak's Mahabharata is one of them, total 3 are based on Oak's work out of 10.

Yesterday I shared Indic Academy's announcement of its grant through its Indica Pictures wing to Prachyam. 

https://indica.org.in/production-grant-to-prachyam-by-indica-pictures/

Can you please share link to the IA's announcement of IA's funding Prachyam to make 10 movies, Oak's Mahabharata being one of them, total 3 being based on Oak's work out of 10 ?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJSSQ5sfGa2Sz7Q4nQT8pqdvY3fydJCV%3DqZvq4x1Xekt%3DcfmDg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

Director, Indic Academy

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS Kavikulaguru Kalidasa Sanskrit University, Ramtek, Maharashtra

BoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.

Member, Advisory Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthanam, Bengaluru

BoS Rashtram School of Public Leadership

Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Studies in Public Leadership

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies, 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education, 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

 

 

[Raja Roy]

Dear Prof. Nagaraj,

The announcement says the following:

It clearly says that the two films are part of a larger effort to produce 10 Indic documentaries. When the money goes into a pot, there is no way to distinguish one from another. Further, If Indic Academy had not funded and put its name behind the effort, Prachyam would not have been able to raise the money they raised for the effort to make 10 films. After Indic Academy announced their support, people started donating to this effort. So I see Indic academy partly funding all of the films instead of just two films behind which it put its name.

Best regards,

Raja

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eaHcFwv5s%2B6Kbd1q7_P_sFsse_Q%3D6Dn_6_wce2_RDp1MA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Dr Raja Roy,

This message of you has the same feature that I see in many of your efforts to call anything connected directly or indirectly to what you think bad as bad. 

Your logic starts with Sri Nilesh Oak. Then it goes to wherever some favor is found to his chronology work. 

The big or small institute that mentions his name as regular or adjunct faculty , some IKS body that organizes his talk, some film making group that makes films that include films connected to his work, the followers on twitter for his twitter account  etc., etc., 

An organization that funds the non Nilesh Oak films by a film making group that makes films including the ones connected to Sri Nilesh Oak is asked by you to stop funding even the non Nilesh Oak films. Logic ? If you don't fund this group, they will not be able to have the pool of funds for making Nilesh Oak connected films among others. If you don't fund, others will not be encouraged to fund them. The film making group should not have funds for making any films at all. Because any fund with them will be included in the funds that go into making Nilesh Oak connected 3/10 films also. So ultimately the only way the film making group should be allowed to make even the 7/10 non Nilesh Oak connected films is by relinquishing the 3/10 Nilesh Oak related films. If your activity includes any direct or indirect encouragent to Sri Nilesh Oak, I will not allow you to perform any of your activities. Any activity of an individual or organization that is connected directly or indirectly to the work of an individual or organization that is directly or indirectly connected to the chronology work of Sri Nilesh Oak should be stopped because that is the way the work of Sri Nilesh Oak can be discouraged and deplatformed and ultimately destroyed. 

Are you able to see to what extent you are stretching your logic of cutting the sources of encouragement for the chronology work of Sri Nilesh Oak ?    

Dear Dr Roy, may I suggest that you please take a step back and see where all this is leading you to. 

Be that as it may, organizations like ours can not, do not and will not think with such unrealistic and unhealthy logic while taking our funding decisions. Nor did we tell you that we want to participate in your Mission Destroy (the chronology work of ) Nilesh Oak, to prove our credentials in that aspect by not being connected to anything that is directly or indirectly connected to him or his work. If you or anyone would like to interpret our disinterest in participating in this mission as our interest in promoting the work of Sri Nilesh Oak, we are aware that no wise observer of us would buy that black and while, binary, my or high way interpretation.  

Before I sign off ,  let me add, just as an observer of human culture,  that you may realize that your attempts to dislodge Sri Nilesh Oak from the platforms that are hosting him will bring down the amount of following he has on SM and among general public do not work because it is not any of these platforms that brought him and bring him the followers, it is the uncritical attraction for chronologies that affirm/attest the sacred attitude of the devout towards the very ancient dates of the sacred events in their sacred narratives that is behind these numbers of followers. 

It is the critically academic audience including myself which is ever going to remain very small, that will appreciate the critically academic work like yours and similarly critically academic responses if there are any from the likes of Sri Nilesh Oak to the works like yours and the beauty of rigor in the methodological and theoretical aspects in those debates. 

Warm regards,

Nagaraj

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJSSQ5sgKMs-WPfxVw2vpfnJCCVptcObcaHsR_TwVnds%2B%3Dc91g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear friends,

While all creative pursuits should be encouraged, the trouble comes when we attach historical dates to apparent legendary

astronomical observations.  We must come out from this medieval association which still plagues the bible research.

Bible may be traced to have a historical date, like Ramayana may be traced to a historical date.  The difficulty comes when

the Bible research tries to track Bible characters.  We can make people fly or create divinity through special effects, but they won't

have any analytic value. 

What I am suggesting is we have to distinguish between art production and knowledge production.  New India has a role

in the world to define a state of rule of law or the peaceful coexistence of diverse opinions.  By insisting to find the date for

Rama's birth is a disservice to millions of us who believe in Rama and Rama's enunciation of Dharma in the world. 

Not that historical research is not possible, but it needs rigor and multi-layered analysis.  Throwing sensational numbers

through social media is a crude method which must be avoided from an academic point of view.

I am not following Raja Rammohan Roy's research either, since I don't see sufficient knowledge value in interpreting

sky maps for dates.     

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eZ9EK19p80s6DPs8A6-awBHQB6vn-RQtK6MLmQJk0nRsw%40mail.gmail.com.

[R. N. iyengar]

Dear List,

The shlokas Dr.Roy has pasted from Twitter, as from MB (Yuddha parvan 5 & 6), are quite intriguing. Are they traceable in any MB versions of yore? In the versions I am having I could not locate them anywhere in the Epic. Hence this question. Perhaps members on the list more familiar with the different versions of MB text can help. I know MAHE, Manipal has a  Centre devoted to MB studies. It would be helpful if some one from Manipal could indicate the source of the two verses. 

RN Iyengar

[Raja Roy]

Dear Prof. Iyengar,

In one of the tweets about "Oak Mahabharata" two people are tagged as shown below:

First one is a Sanskrit expert as shown below:

I believe that these verses are being created by him based on input from Mr. Oak. These verses are not from Mahabharata but from "Oak Mahabharata" as it says in the tweet.

Other person, I believe, creates the graphics shown in the tweet.

Mr. Oak has graduated from dating Mahabharata to writing Mahabharata. 

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/1115e71e-dd45-440d-a0bc-ea857add5391n%40googlegroups.com.

[Raja Roy]

I wonder why.

On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 1:00 AM Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eaHcFwv5s%2B6Kbd1q7_P_sFsse_Q%3D6Dn_6_wce2_RDp1MA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Dr Roy,

In behalf of BVP,

Some of the messages have a direct mention of your name. 

Some others are in an anyaapadEs'a style. In anyaapadEs'a, it is not easy to pinpoint the target and confront the user.  Even if the use of such indirect reference is to the learned senior scholars on BVP, twitteratti is not worth responding for the venerable scholars. 

Sri Nilesh did not respond on BVP, where a written response could have been read at leisure, discussed with care by the learned scholars. 

There is a big scope for interpreting this from the BVP side,  as shivering on the part of the one who does not respond. But it does not behove well on our part to respond that way. 

But I request you on your part not to drag such SM stuff to BVP and vice versa from your side.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJSSQ5uK8LJEPJFCxkk%3DPym4%2BiL9Jkym2kjiNvdhAPZrNqZCLA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I should have said 

In my role as the moderator of BVP, 

not 

In behalf of BVP. 

It was intended to distinguish it from my role in my earlier two posts to the thread. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Earlier, in the post 

https://groups.google.com/g/bvparishat/c/_X0MmvBDt8Q/m/WVeag28zAgAJ

Dr Ramesh Rao too brought to the notice of the forum how Sri Nilesh Oak was responding on Twitter to the posts on BVP: 

Learned folks,

I was sent a link to Nilesh Oak's tweet on this matter. Seems he is more comfortable tweeting than engaging in careful conversations here. 

But then, he does not mind posting about other matters here, and so it seems as if he is abusing the trust of this group to present himself as a concerned scholar. If he ignores posts here but uses the information posted here to mock Nityananand Misra and Raja Roy on Twitter is BVP's plank being misused?

Nilesh was very fond of invoking Karl Popper and the theory of "falsifiability" for a while, and now when scholars are pointing out that his 12209 Ramayana hypothesis does not have support, and is therefore false, it seems like he has also distanced himself from Popper! Pandering to his 31,500 followers must be an interesting vocation. 

I don't know what he means by "skin in the game" in this context -- a term popularized by Nassim Taleb over the past 15 years in a very different context, but list members here should be urged to be ethical and professional in these matters of straddling different media platforms and leveraging the information posted here to mock and dismiss people there.

This is what Nilesh says on Twitter:

Enjoy! I am lovin it.

Well, the good thing is these are folks with real names and now they have 'skin in the game'.

Ramesh Rao 

We thought that if a member of BVP does not consider the forum not worthy of being used for his responses and chooses to respond to the same posts elsewhere ridiculing or mocking at the BVP members who considered BVP as worthy of their posts, such a member can be given the previlige of not being a member of the forum that he considers not worthy of his responses. 

Sri Nilesh Oak is no longer a member of BVP. 

[विश्वासो वासुकेयः]

ओक-भारतम् एतत्तु  

प्यूक-भारतताम् उत।  

जोक-भारततां वापि  

प्रैति पश्यत भारताः॥

(आदितस् त्रिषु पादेष्व् आदाव् आङ्ग्लशब्दा ऊह्याः।)

[Swapnil Belapurkar]

Jai SitaRam Nagaraj garu,

I disagree that SM counters cannot be on BVP. Shri Roy is mentioning how this Oak is indulging in scoot and shoot in social media. 

Oak is promoted by likes of Sangam Talks which have wide reach and hence has substantial SM following etc.

I am not sure if Shri Roy has the same reach on SM.

I think Shri Roy should be allowed to post in BVP and highlight scoot and shoot indulged by other parties on other more popular SM.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9ebFmLKSUGDNABd70MJFCG-ZuaJqLC9VHDx1f6ObC1M2%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 11:23 AM Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Dr Roy,

In behalf of BVP,

But I request you on your part not to drag such SM stuff to BVP and vice versa from your side.

Confusing - Are you speaking on behalf of BVP or in a personal capacity?

 

Some of the messages have a direct mention of your name. 

Some others are in an anyaapadEs'a style. In anyaapadEs'a, it is not easy to pinpoint the target and confront the user.  Even if the use of such indirect reference is to the learned senior scholars on BVP, twitteratti is not worth responding for the venerable scholars. 

 

If "venerable scholars" don't find it worth their time to respond, let them not. Further, if they don't want to read this thread, let them mute it.

I find shrI RR Roy's compilation valuable. Meta-Oakism, like meta-indology provides valuable information about the health (and systemic defects) of overall hindu scholarship.

Sri Nilesh did not respond on BVP, where a written response could have been read at leisure, discussed with care by the learned scholars. 

There is a big scope for interpreting this from the BVP side,  as shivering on the part of the one who does not respond. But it does not behove well on our part to respond that way. 

 

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 5:05 AM Raja Roy <rajarammo...@gmail.com> wrote:

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/rGbg3NWwqxk/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9ebFmLKSUGDNABd70MJFCG-ZuaJqLC9VHDx1f6ObC1M2%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 5:39 PM Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

We thought that if a member of BVP does not consider the forum not worthy of being used for his responses and chooses to respond to the same posts elsewhere ridiculing or mocking at the BVP members who considered BVP as worthy of their posts, such a member can be given the previlige of not being a member of the forum that he considers not worthy of his responses. 

Sri Nilesh Oak is no longer a member of BVP. 

FWIW, the moderator is wrong to have removed N. Oak from BVP. (PS: I am anti-[W]Oakism.)

Logical error: ridiculing or mocking at the BVP members or preferring to Tweet (or write articles) rather than writing emails is not same as ridiculing BVP or considering it unworthy of writing his responses (anyway, if that latter were a reasonable metric, plenty of quiescent people would need to be removed).

By the moderator's own admission elsewhere, BVP is more a Q&A forum, and not some exalted club (though I see people presenting it as if it were such - https://twitter.com/MisraNityanand/status/1441219144494444552 ) - and it is quite ok to the mail-stream more to receive info, rather than add (mis)information.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

1. This is not a case of preferring not to post to BVP, while being a member of BVP, if that is what is meant by quiescent members. 

2. Here is a case of having a choice of responding on different forums and preferring to respond on other forums and not to respond on BVP. 

3. Members quiescent on BVP could be of two types: those who don't post on any forum. Those who post on other forums but do not post here. If these posts on other forums are not related to or not in response to posts on BVP, then BVP need not be concerned with it. 

4. If there are members who are quiescent on BVP respond on other forums  to the posts on BVP, BVP members would certainly be interested in those posts on other forums. If the BVP posts to which those posts are responses do not involve the responding member, it can be viewed as taking BVP discussions to other forums by a member who is not connected to the discussion. Still , if these posts that take BVP discussions to other forums have a mocking at  the members of BVP or BVP itself, BVP can be concerned with such responses on other forums. BVP as a group may not like to have a member who does not like it and more , hates it. 

5. But if a member of BVP is asked to respond to a post by a BVP member in a post on BVP and the member asked to respond to the posts does not respond anywhere, BVP is not concerned with such a lack of response. But if a member of BVP is asked to respond to a post by a BVP member in a post on BVP and the member asked to respond to the posts prefers to respond elsewhere not on BVP, BVP is certainly concerned with such a preference. To infer from such preference that BVP is treated as a forum not worthy of the responses from the member choosing other forums in preference to BVP.  BVP is justified in treating such preference as either no respect for the judiciousness of BVP and as such a humiliation to BVP. 

--

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/CAFY6qgFDg4vNH%3Dc9sLYnXcAgN465LzdSyX5bpjq3XaQbPQ2krg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Correction:

To infer from such preference that BVP is treated as a forum not worthy of the responses from the member choosing other forums in preference to BVPis justifiable..  BVP is justified in treating such preference as either no respect for the judiciousness of BVP or as a humiliation to BVP. 

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 7:11 PM Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Correction:

To infer from such preference that BVP is treated as a forum not worthy of the responses from the member choosing other forums in preference to BVPis justifiable.. 

Not really. A good test to see if such inference is valid would be to look for plausible alternative explanations of the observed behavior ("He did not respond in BVP"). Example: "He does not have the time or energy for email exchanges", "He's still considering the arguments presented if any", "He doesn't actually have responses worthy of being presented in BVP", "He's being engaged by the same people outside BVP" etc..

5. But if a member of BVP is asked to respond to a post by a BVP member in a post on BVP and the member asked to respond to the posts does not respond anywhere, BVP is not concerned with such a lack of response. But if a member of BVP is asked to respond to a post by a BVP member in a post on BVP and the member asked to respond to the posts prefers to respond elsewhere not on BVP, BVP is certainly concerned with such a preference.

Also, the above (conveniently) omits the fact that Nilesh Oak is being engaged outside BVP by NM and RRR as well.

To be honest, I wouldn't mind NNO being ejected because of some honest reason like "We want to do our bit to reduce popularity of flat-earth-level counter-scientific theories" (if BVP mods had such conviction). But doing so on such fraught psycho-analytic pretext doesn't do "BVP" (or it's figurative "mental health") credit  (मानित्व++).

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/rGbg3NWwqxk/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eY%2BSesjFnWb_nLYm5vpRVzGdNo1mB%3DtqNbXSRMHfrtd0Q%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

 "We want to do our bit to reduce popularity of flat-earth-level counter-scientific theories" (if BVP mods had such conviction).

The academic and theoretical conviction of an individual playing the role of moderator not affecting the neutrality that the moderator's role upholds is what ensures healthy moderation. 

BVP members engaging a member of BVP on other forums alongside their posts on BVP can not be considered as the same as or responsible for a member's not including BVP among the forums of the member's response. 

Members including BVP among the forums that they prefer for engaging a scholar shows that such members do not suspect the judiciousness of BVP. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAFY6qgGC83g-rxX0Qm0KOJnd2v47ZdPOutxLi-QSrwPExOOoOQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramesh Rao]

Vishvas, the simple reason, at least in my evaluation of the NNO affair here is NNO's use of this platform to mine/scrape for snippets of information/commentary here to mock, shame, challenge and abuse people elsewhere, and be a lurker on this platform for such scraping/mining activity. 

That is simply unethical, and may I say, vulgar abuse of the platform BVP had provided him?

Ramesh Rao

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAFY6qgGC83g-rxX0Qm0KOJnd2v47ZdPOutxLi-QSrwPExOOoOQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I request members not to post in future, messages on BVP that expect or need response from Sri Nilesh Oak.  

That helps BVP to keep out of the whole debate involving  his conclusions or methodology of chronology. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAOn3Y2SQes1XMJy_FBQ-qN16tUis7w8i3hBfk6emf2HPgaQ3AQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

shrI rAja - I am curious if you agree with NNO being ejected hence?

On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 8:47 PM Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

That helps BVP to keep out of the whole debate involving  his conclusions or methodology of chronology. 

This intention is not good either. (As I pointed out prior to Swapnil in an email moderated away by the moderator: "I find shrI RR Roy's compilation valuable. Meta-Oakism, like meta-indology provides valuable information about the health (and systemic defects) of overall hindu scholarship.")

On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 8:23 PM Ramesh Rao <ramesh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Vishvas, the simple reason, at least in my evaluation of the NNO affair here is NNO's use of this platform to mine/scrape for snippets of information/commentary here to mock, shame, challenge and abuse people elsewhere, and be a lurker on this platform for such scraping/mining activity. 

That is simply unethical, and may I say, vulgar abuse of the platform BVP had provided him?

1. That "mining" activity is not the reason given by the moderator. It is not even the case (and reasonably so) that the mod seeks to weild daNDa on him for being a "bad boy" elsewhere. Moderator says he is motivated by - of all things - NNO's "regard" or lack of it for BVP. Why would BVP (or those that are appointed to represent it) project such a fragile ego?

2. He can still do it (except he won't get email notifications - not that I know if his membership settings were configured such that he did anyway).

3. Lurking and scraping info from a public forum is not evil - I occasionally do so on the indology mailing list precisely for the kind of critical reasons you list. It is part of being a public forum (the positive aspect being making available useful topical answers to search engines).

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9ean9PkmEbjQOj%2Bm%3DRcQn73he2pT17_36e7COAv8UnO%2Bgg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Mining, lurking, scraping are not my words. This is not my view. 

We do not want to continue this 

posting of one side of the debate on BVP, no response from the other side on BVP, no response on BVP in spite of the other side being inside BVP,  the other side asking this side to come to some other forum to debate, the other side responding on some other SM , that being brought to BVP , this cycle going round and round. 

That is the reason behind all these decisions. 

Please abide by this decision. 

We have allowed criticism of our decision to be expressed here. We patiently explained reasoning behind our decision. 

This should be the end of all this. 

No further discussion will be allowed. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAFY6qgH7%2Bs_GEdzknDD19KGrOMCNwBkn0E-G0oQ8ke%2BzLawTpQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramesh Rao]

There has to be a moderator on any discussion group, and Dr. Paturi is fulfilling that role.

Even with his attempts at bringing some semblance of order there are deliberate attempts to undermine his work.

I would suggest that the "irritable ones" can find other ways (writing to Dr. Paturi back channel) and other channels (social media, blogs, etc) to pursue their interests, grind their axes, etc.

Being deliberately disrespectful and provocative is not recommended in any forum, in any philosophical tract on communication, and not surely in ordinary life.

Basic rules of etiquette and decorum are a must for any group to function.

Thank you.

Ramesh Rao

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 12:25 PM sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Vasukiji,

You have done the right thing, and I will also like to add that such conscientious writings don't get support from the two owners of BVP nor from the several advisers, whose names have been included by the owners, with the fond hope that it would just boost the prestige of BVP. You may not be aware that  the practical undisputed authority in BVP is the moderator Nagaraj Paturi and not the two owners nor the decorative advisers can subdue this almighty moderator;  and one bite of Nagaraj may cost you your membership of the BVP.

However permit me to add, that I have not agreed with Shri Oak's dates of Ramayana and Mahabharata. The dating of the Mahabharata is still in a mess, as late Prof. Raghavan, late Prof. Narahari Achar, and Dr. Manish M. Pandit have been obstinately pursuing that the Mahabharata war took place in the Kali Yuga, and it is a pity that they have powerful / influential  supporters too.

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

 

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 4:27 AM विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 3:13 PM Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

We have allowed criticism of our decision to be expressed here. We patiently explained reasoning behind our decision. 

"We"? Is this the decision of one person or many? (As far as I see, the decision as well as the explanation came only from you.)

 

This should be the end of all this. 

No further discussion will be allowed. 

Why not? It is not like the initial topic of this thread is being obfuscated - given that itself has been proscribed.

If you are not interested in pursuing this further, you shouldn't - why force your disinterest on others? No one forcing you to write responses. Who are you serving with this prohibition beyond yourself (that too being doubtful)? 

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eaQD16zC6b%2B%2BD2_WacrMOCV9qOtLnOmPca7bNY1t8fRFg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ramesh Rao]

Raking up some past grievances to score points and abuse the moderator should be cause for dismissal from a group, Sunil ji.

Please, if we are keen on keeping this group vibrant, useful, and productive then, as adults, we better maintain decorum, follow netiquette rules, and desist from undermining the group ethos.

I speak from my experience of teaching communication courses for 35 years, including group communication. I am aghast at the attitude of some, who are otherwise experts in matters relevant to this group, who seem keen on disruption, showing disrespect, and playing spoilsport.

What are we going to teach our children, grandchildren, and our students about public discourse if we cannot maintain simple decorum here?

Regards,

Ramesh Rao

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 12:44 PM sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Rameshji,

If you have read well Vasukiji's  and my mail, you would have seen that haughty and egoistic mails of Nagaraj Paturi. I am sure there are gentleman in BVP, who can moderate the groups properly without egoism and vindictiveness. You may be a new member of bVP, so you have not seen what has been happening in BVP through the years.

Thank you

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Sunilji,

I did not see your mail before.  To accuse Nagaraji with adjectives is totally unfair.

I have been a member of the list for about ten years now.  I have observed the previous moderator

Sri Ajit Gargeshvari and the current one Prof Nagaraj Paturi both to be balanced, academic and accommodating.

Both have served with dignity and objectivity.  Certain kinds of language and improper etiquette must be banned

from an academically oriented group. A dose of disruption has infected lately and it can only go with collective peer

counseling.  Let me take the opportunity to  beg all not to reduce BVP to another social group with arbitrary opinions,

sarcasm and foul language. We have the responsibility to build new India and a new world scholarship.

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAOn3Y2TPLpfz-Gm8tSV9zYO19i0_Wmodv_RNxXQ%3DfoeLRAnmoA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Bijoy Misra]

Let me confess that I am strictly against philological reconstruction of history.

Any reconstruction must be done from the first principles.  Assuming the

arbitrary base information is itself the flaw in logic. 

I have some idea what the western method of philology is and I detest.

But the copycat dating through philology in India is more troublesome. 

To me it's unscientific idle research. All history must have archeological evidence.

I wish people spent time in locating Valmiki's location and schooling

which would be a significant contribution.

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 2:12 PM sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Bijoyji,

I fully agree with you that unparliamentary words must not be used, but it can very well happen in a debate that someone gets somewhat perturbed when her or his  opponents, instead of pointing out the errors and suggesting the corrections, attributes bad motives to the errors. I think Nilesh Oak deserves to be told where he went wrong, without saying that he is lying or fooling his readers.

If you permit me to raise the topic, which sometime back you wanted to know as to what was the one sentence in the Mahabharata that is baffling some of the scholars trying to date the Mahabharata war. That sentence contains the word "tribhAgashesha", and I sent you that promptly. If you like you can share that with the readers of this august group, inviting if anyone would like to give her or his opinion on it.

Best regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Sunilji

There are many competent scholars here who can associate with you in your research.

You may apprise them with any interpretation you might have made.

Understanding is one thing, dating is another.

This understanding is terribly distorted in modern day translated literature.

On the other hand, I am stuck in the Ramayana for a few more years. 

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 2:40 PM sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Nobody wants philological reconstruction of that sentence. Different people tried to give different meanings to tribhagashesha, but failed to find the date of the Mahabharata war.  So there is an opportunity for the authentic scholarship to come out with the true meaning of the sentence. That is all, Bijoyji.

[Ramesh Rao]

I don't know why this separate list was created to share people's angst about BVP. Please remember words and attitudes have consequences.

I hope we can wrap up this complaint session and go on to good work.

Thank you and dhanyavada.

Ramesh Rao

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 11:01 PM विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 8:26 AM sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Vasukiji,

you wrote :

3.

Members quiescent on BVP could be of two types: those who don't post on any forum. Those who post on other forums but do not post here. If these posts on other forums are not related to or not in response to posts on BVP, then BVP need not be concerned with it.

I can only say "well said".

Sorry - the quoted text was by the moderator NP, and not by me.

 

Only a person with a healthy mind can understand what you said. If the moderator becomes immoderate, what can you do? Poor owners of the BVP. They appear to be helpless. 

Best wishes,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 4:27 AM विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 3:13 PM Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

We have allowed criticism of our decision to be expressed here. We patiently explained reasoning behind our decision. 

"We"? Is this the decision of one person or many? (As far as I see, the decision as well as the explanation came only from you.)

 

This should be the end of all this. 

No further discussion will be allowed. 

Why not? It is not like the initial topic of this thread is being obfuscated - given that itself has been proscribed.

If you are not interested in pursuing this further, you shouldn't - why force your disinterest on others? No one forcing you to write responses. Who are you serving with this prohibition beyond yourself (that too being doubtful)? 

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bvparishat/CAJGj9eaQD16zC6b%2B%2BD2_WacrMOCV9qOtLnOmPca7bNY1t8fRFg%40mail.gmail.com.

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I would like to announce that Vidvan Sri Vishvas Vasuki has been put under disallowance from posting to BVP for a month's period.  

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I would like to announce that Vidvan Sri Vishvas Vasuki is now allowed to post to BVP .