A professor (IITian, engineer, business professional, and admirer of my works) from Europe writes,
“I had a minor remark with regards to your work on the dating of the Mahabharata war: One issue that critics of your work often seem to highlight is “how could the AV observation be an omen if it was visible as such in the night sky for the preceding thousands of years?”.
A piece of concrete evidence in this regard would be a record of a VA observation in one of the earlier texts (Rig Veda, Surya Siddhanta, Ramayana..). Perhaps, you have considered this already, but I did not come across you taking this line of reasoning in your response to the issue, so I thought of mentioning it. (Or maybe, you deliberately did not take this line of reasoning because it leads to further questions?).
—
My response:
Yes, Arundhati is to be found in older texts – Ramayana, Jyotisha, Upanishads, and more.
The reason I do not take the route suggested by you is that then it would be falling into the hands of my critiques who are dogmatic and foolish to the core.
It is a joy to have a criticism, brutal one, that leads to modifications of theory or giving up of one’s theories. I am/was fortunate to receive such critique/criticism over the last 10+ years and that led to the refinement of my theories and claims. Unfortunately, those don’t make the news. What makes the news is the most idiotic and ugly, juvenile, and stupid criticism.
The raising of the ‘Omen’ aspect by my visible critiques is the strawman. And Strawman is always selected in such a way that is familiar to the masses and thus can be used to confuse the masses. Politicians use it all the time and it works on masses and this strawman of omen is not an exception.
[BTW, I have used what you suggested in responding to Shri Shrikant Talageri (you may see my blogs with Talageri as a keyword). The problem is, the subtle nuances are lost on masses.]
Yet scientific acumen + Nyaya (logic) speak, it is important to emphasize what my theory is (astronomy observations and thus objectively testable) and how that is 180 degree opposite of Nimitta (signs, but translated by them as Omens, and worse – some time to mean only bad/ill omens) which are a mix of astronomy and non-astronomy descriptions and per Nimitta theory (whatever that is, they have yet to produce a universal and generic statement of their theory), none of them are objectively testable for timelines claimed by these critiques (their own claims).
In fact, I am asking all these ‘Nimitta aka Omen’ enthusiasts what is their theory of Omens. I have not heard a response. This is because these folks are utterly ignorant of the fact that it is their theory (Nimitta theory) and they have a responsibility to demonstrate how it leads to the dating of Mahabharata.
A short blog article by Prof. SN Balagangadhara of Ghent University, not far from where you are, is worth reading (repeatedly).
http://www.hipkapi.com/2011/04/23/arguments-vs-theories/
Hope this helps
.jpg)
