Another well known and decorated, Indic researcher (considered pro-India) has this to say about my research of 30+ years based on astronomy evidence (300+) from the Mahabharata text:
(1) He has a deep disagreement with the manner in which I (NO) handles the evidence.
(But never bothers to explain what that exactly means, never cites any illustrations and refuses to elaborate even when requested)
(2) He thinks that if one claims Mahabharata occurring before 2000 BCE, one has to claim ’embellishment’ of the Mahabharata text to explain it. Alternately, in his opinion, we might as well explain it as ‘fiction’
(But he can not articulate why one has to seek shelter in the hypothesis of ’embellishment’ or ‘fiction’. He can neither articulate nor sees the need to explain it, as if it is self-evident!)
(3) His evidence for Mahabharata being a ‘fiction’ or why one may be forced to think of it as ‘fiction’, is due to one opinion of, in his words, “highly competent and nationalistic’ archaeologist who thinks Mahabharata is ‘fiction’!
(4) He states that since all such opinions are possible, we can not determine the timing of Mahabharata. (or for that matter, other epics or ancient Indian events)
(5) He further adds by way of evidence that geat epigraphist Shri D C Sircar thinks that epics are fictions. It appears that he confuses opinions with evidence.
(This is the common theme one will notice among Indic researchers. Many are prone to go beyond their expertise and make comments on things that they do not understand. Most of it is driven by incompetence in scientific acumen and logical reasoning and ignorance of Shad-Darshanas)
(6) In his opinion, insisting on a date for the epic (or epics) is doing injustice.
(He does not specify ‘injustice to who’. In any case, more fun ahead).
(7) He says this is so (i.e. insisting on a date is doing injustice) because, in his opinion, the epics were never intended as ‘history’ books.
(8) He opines that ‘core events’ of the epics (Mahabharata or Ramayana) need not have a date at all.
(Again, in his characteristic style, does not bother to explain the rationale behind it).
(9) He thinks (not unlike Bibek Debroy) that astronomy references are not internally consistent. In support of his thinking, he speculates interesting evidence…
According to him, this is based on the fact that Prof. R N Iyengar reaches different conclusions than Prof. Narahari Achar.
(It never occurs to him, that this could be due to lack of scientific acumen and logical reasoning on the part of both professors and his own self!)
(10) He wishes that all Archaeoastronomers had done a sound survey of the field.
(Thus he insinuates that no Archaeoastronomer has done a sound survey of the field. Interestingly, he refuses to read my books or critique them to show what is wrong. As you will see below, he claims/pretends that he has read them.)
(11) He states that Prof. TS Kuppanna Sastry provides a demonstration of the unreliability of astronomy evidence.
(He will thus send folks on tangent but will not bother to explain the details of how Prof. TS Kuppanna Sastry demonstrated unreliability of astronomy evidence and if his demonstration is valid)
[My original work carried out over 30+ years (portions of it published as 3 books as of April 2019) decisively falsify claim of this Indic researcher and the claim of Prof. TS Kuppanna Sastry.]
(I would encourage you to read the paper by Prof. TS Kuppanna Sastry [Determination of the date of the Mahabharata: The possibility thereof] and make your own mind. It will tell you a lot about the depth (or rather the lack of it) of Indic research, in general, and the specific judgement of this researcher.)
(12) After all this handwaving and accusations, he does not forget to state that he seeks ‘no clash’ with anyone!
(How nice, Pal!)
—
At this point, he begins his specific claims about Archaeoastronomy and Archaeoastronomer (s) and their claims:
(13) Archaeoastronomers make several underlying but generally untested assumptions.
(Interestingly, after such grave accusation, he is empty on details)
(14) According to him, Archaeoastronomers assume attributing dates to epics is of great importance. And adds that this (that attributing dates to epics is of great importance?!) is not established.
(I could not understand the objective of this blabbering)
(15) According to him, Archaeoastronomers think that the older the dates, the better.
(This takes the cake, but let’s wait, since more fun is in store! He makes a claim, does not bother to provide the evidence and then makes further accusations based on his baseless claims!)
(16) According to him, Archaeoastronomers assume the historicity of the epics and that at least the chief plots of the epics are facts.
(This is correct. It would be foolish on the part of Archaeoastronomers to research for the date of something that never happened),
However, it gets interesting…
He (this researcher) now gets into a self-generated nightmare. Pay attention:
(17) He claims this ( the historicity of the epics and that at least the chief plots of the epics are facts) is neither proved nor provable.
(Apparently, he has something else other than science in mind. This is because, in science, nothing is proved or provable. Either a claim/theory is corroborated or falsified, of course the additional scenario being that the claim could be metaphysical)
(18) He states that these texts are not historical. He quotes a dictionary definition – historical means something happened in the past (this would mean, according to him, these did not happen in the past).
(Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I would have considered this as his subjective opinion).
But a surprise is waiting for us with his next statement:
(19) According to him, this does not mean the epics don’t contain history.
(What!)
And he thinks that this point is grossly misunderstood and essential.
(Wow!)
(He contradicted himself within two consecutive statements, yet has a ready defense in place, in case someone is confused about what he is saying)
(I am at the end of my wits, but I will continue.)
(20) According to him, Archaeoastronomers assume that Archaeoastronomy offers a strong line of evidence.
(This is indeed true and the outcome is there for anyone to see, test, validate, critique.)
(21) On the other hand, He states that this (that Archaeoastronomy offers a strong line of evidence) is by no means established
(Of course, he refuses to read, analyze, test, validate and/or critique existing works of mine.)
(22) According to him, Archaeoastronomy is the weakest evidence available.
He makes this claims based on the fact that those claiming dates for the epics (Ramayana and Mahabharata) show wide divergence between their claims. According to him, if this was not the case, we should have reached the broad consensus after 200+ years of Archaeoastronomy research.
(It never occurs to this individual that this could be simply because 99.99% of researchers in this area begin with an answer in mind and then use a selective set of evidence that supports their claim while blatantly ignoring rest of the evidence.)
(23) According to him, Archaeoastronomers assume that epic astronomy evidence is a coherent body of evidence.
(This is correct, at least according to me, and is indeed been shown to be the case, at least by me, based on 800+ astronomy pieces of evidence from Mahabharata & Ramayana. 300+ evidence of Mahabharata coherently leads to 5561 BCE as the year of Mahabharata war. 575+ evidence of Valmiki Ramayana leads to 12209 BCE as the year of Rama-Ravana Yuddha.)
(24) On the other hand, according to this researcher, this (epic astronomy evidence is a coherent body of evidence) is not true. In his words, “No matter who says what!”
(No comment)
(25) According to him, “the reason why every scholar picks and chooses is that the astronomy evidence is not a coherent body of evidence”
(I have shown this claim of his to be decisively false, however, now comes the ringer…)
(26) He thinks that such ‘picking and choosing’ may be necessary and justified! However, adds the caveat, that “the choice must be established based on thorough discussions”
( First of all, he is wrong in stating that such an approach is necessary or justified. Worse, he offers a handwaving suggestion of doing it ‘based on thorough discussions’.
It never occurs to him that such an approach would only make the process subjective with no resolution possible, ever! But then may be that is exactly what he might desire, not unlike Prof. Romila Thapar or Irfan Habib)
(27) He thinks that Archaeoastronomers ignore multidisciplinarity of the problem. In his opinion, even if Archaeoastronomers agree among themselves on a year (e.g. 5561 BCE), the claim must agree with (a) archaeological (b) technological (c) literary (d) cultural (e) ethnographic and (f) sociopolitical evidence. He quotes name of K S Singh in the context of ethnographic evidence.
(Interestingly, when presented with multidisciplinary evidence, this researcher goes on mute (i.e. no comments mode)For example:
(28) He claims that recent scholars have ignored this aspect of ‘multidisciplinary evidence’.
(29) He claims that these recent scholars resort to cherry picking of evidence.
(When asked for a demonstratoin in support of his claim, there is total silence).
(30) All this, per his individual, results in a ‘yawning gap’ between a proposed date (e.g. 5561 BCE or 12209 BCE) and ‘landscape of the epics’
(Here, he becomes stuck in ‘absence of evidence = evidence of absence’. However, my limited efforts to make this point understood has not met with any success)
Here is another ringer…
(31) According to him, the landscape of the epic (?) can not go beyond 500 BCE!
(32) According to him, the landscape in case of Mahabharata, can not go beyond 400 BCE (!)
(Does that mean the number of 500 BCE refers to Ramayana landscape? BTW, no details are offered on how he went about knowing this landscape of epics either for 400 BCE or 500 BCE. When asked for his evidence, no response is given. One wonders if this researcher also takes the ‘self-evident’ path of Sheldon Pollock or Robert Goldman or Hopkins.)
(33) He complains that on intelligent discussion is offered to bridge the gap due to embellishments or interpolations.
(Of course, he refuses to read my book and/or critique them, while claiming, at times, as if he has read them.)
(34) He claims that Archaeoastronomers consider the text (e.g. Mahabharata, Valmiki Ramayana) to be monolithic.)
(I assert that the Mahabharata text we have is a product of at least 4 recensions (Vyasa-Vaishampayana-Sauti-Naimisharanya recitation). In addition, the text does have transmission, translation, transposition, transliteration, interpolation, commentary becoming part of the text and other such errors. I assert that in spite of these errors, the cohesive evidence of the entire Mahabharata text and its objective testing leads to 5561 BCE as the year of Mahabharata war. It is worth iterating that my work is open to criticism. I have encouraged all researchers to critiue it – brutally and rationally. I encouage all researchers to have an open debate, on camera, uncut, moderated or non-moderated. With the exception of Dr. Koenraad Elst, not a single researcher has dared to particiapte in a debate)
(35) Per this researchers the epic texts are layered in conception and in authorship.
(Assuming this is true, if astronomy evidence of entire text leads to single year of 5561 BCE, then not only my work is more remarkable but also the very act falsifies this claim of our researcher + his faulty inferences he makes in the next point.)
(36) Based on his claim made in (35), he asserts that astronomy refernces can not be taken to be of same value and this means, according to him, no serious study can be undertaken before careful study of text structure, compostion and decision on its original part(!).
( I would encourage readers to read works of Prof. Romila Thapar or Prof. Irfan Habib to hear echos of this utter illogical nonsense. At least, likes of Thapar and Habib have/had well defined agenda! What is the agenda of this researcher? It only shows how ignorant are our researchers when it comes to scientific acumen and logical reasoning)
(37) This researcher states that he can go on but he will not. In summary, he does not see the value of astronomy evidence or efforts to date the epics unless “above problems are seriously addressed.”
(And while he explicitly does not state it, he will not support such efforts (which is very much ok), he will indeed oppose them (not stated by him, but this is how I understand it.) And certainly if actions speak then his opinions have had effect on few strategic thinkers & activists and therefore to few strategic Indic initiatives.)
(38) In his opinion, the message of the epics is all that mattes and the impact of the epics and not the antiquity.
(39) According to him, Itithasa is not history but a historical tradition and that the texts themselves make no pretence of narrating the history (i.e. as it happened). He continues, the epics are concerned with dharma and not with historical accuracy.
(40) According to him, dyanastic lists do matter and they have been extensively discussed but conclusions depend on scholar’s initial choices. This happens, because the lists are, expectantly, non uniform and non coherent. He says, otherwise, Parigiter and such would have reached the consensus by now.
(This is a trivially true stuff)
(41) Lastly, he defines the rigor desired in a historical method. It is not western historiography. It is being scrupulous in weighing and discussing arguments and counter arguments. It is not avoiding objections. It is in not avoiding serious stumbling blocks and in recognizing the claims of all relevant disciplines.
(I agree 100%. I can add lot more but I am ok with what he has defined).
(42) He states othewise any theory/claim will not gain traction beyond a small group and he quotes example of Shri Kota Venkatachalam (his works and claims) as an illustration.
(I agree 100%.)
इति लेखन सीमा
.jpg)
